Agreement #2: Christ is, in the words of the Westminster Confession, the Sole King of the Church. With this, we can assert with many, many mighty men of the Church that have professed the same thing. No one denies this. It is, however, the contention of Edwards that if this is true, then there cannot be any that “rule well” (to use Paul’s terms) within the Church. If Christ is “sole king,” then no one, absolutely no one, has the right to tell you what the Bible says. You, and you alone, as acting member, with Christ and Christ alone, do not need any other member of the Body to teach, preach, proclaim, tell, speak, or encourage you. It is here that Edwards derails, however, as we shall see. For, in practical matters, this question must be answered: If the Body is present today, and the Body is many members of Christ, then how can the arm of the Body say to the Leg of the Body, “I have no NEED of you?” In other words, one individual member does not constitute the ENTIRE Body of Christ. Rather, the ENTIRE Body of Christ constitutes the Body of Christ! Rugged American Individualism, rooted in anti-biblical thinking and philosophy, destroys any corporeal dimension of the Church. The individual Christian believer is only defined as such because he is a member of the larger Body of believers. This fact alone makes fellowship a necessary part to an overall healthy, vital, and dominion oriented way of life. Two are better than one (Ecclesiastes 4.9-12). This principle is true today as it was then, unless, of course, this principle was fulfilled and no longer useful after A.D. 70!

Agreement #3: I agree with the first proposition of Edwards in that the Apostles lived during a unique “transitional” era from “old” to “new.” James Bannerman, esteemed teacher of Edinburgh in the nineteenth century, states the same case, and he was not a Preterist.

Perhaps due to an oversight on Edwards’ part, he stated that the “Apostles were the foundation” which is partially true. “Apostles and Prophets” were the foundation, according to Ephesians 2.20; 3.5. There is no indication that all “elders” were Apostles or Prophets. Peter was an “elder” (I Peter 5.1), but also was “an eyewitness” of Jesus, which marked his calling as an Apostle (5.1, cited). This is an important distinction that Edwards fails to make.

Agreement #4: God’s word is completed and consummated. Edwards wrote, “There is no longer need for Apostles, since the foundation is laid only once.” With this, I say, “amen.” But, then he makes a curious statement, “There is no longer any need for elders since we have the completed Bible the “guides” no longer guide in a revelatory sense.” He clarifies this further, “Such “gifts” as men my espouse, like having the apparent ability to relate the Scriptures is not the same sense of the first century “elders/shepherds” that were directly appointed by Apostles” (italics mine). Edwards’ reasoning here is straight out of Presbyterinism, which I endorse. As I have written before, Presbyterians have ALWAYS maintained the distinction between “ordinary calling/teaching” and “supra-ordinary calling/teaching,” the latter being no longer applicable. Edwards asserts, without any Scriptural datum, that every single elder we find in the NT was directly appointed by the Apostles. I would like to see on explicit verse that proves this, when, for example, we know of no apostles in Rome, yet, we find a thriving church in Rome (same for Ephesus). Secondly, as my series on this issue has shown, no one appointed the “elders of the people” in Exodus 3.16, which is where they first appear. The logic of the Bible is that while some elders were appointed, others were simply recognized as such by their peers, without any revelatory functions accompanying their performance as a leader.

I have pointed this matter out time and time again to no response. It appears that Paul has this very definition in mind in vTimothy and Titus, in that, while listing their qualifications and functions, not one single statement can be made that any function or qualification listed by Paul is revelatory in any sense. Thus, it has been my understanding that Paul is envisioning a non-revelatory teaching/leadership ministry, and this he biblically titles, “elders and deacons.”

Now, Edwards appears to agree on the same contention. He wrote, “Ultimately, except for in a common sense, men and women do not bring anymore to the table than any other and therefore cannot claim any sort of special distinction in the Lord.” To Mr. Edwards I would say, “amen.” That is Presbyterianism. Let us look at the logic of his sentence. “Ultimately, except for in a common sense” no one can claim any sort of special distinction. I never have. In our By-laws, written well before I ever knew Edwards, we never did. But, notice what he says here, folks. “Except for in a common sense.” This “exception” is that some CAN claim a DISTINCTION in a “common sense.” What this means is that while we are all EQUAL in Christ, having the SAME ACCESS, and need no MAN to gain this ACCESS, there are some that have abilities that are more skilled, more sharpened, more educated, more able to teach, more able to guide, and more able to manage than others. That is the logical deduction of this sentence, and to this, I say, “amen.” This is all that I have ever claimed. The distinction “in the Lord” and “in a common sense” are Presbyterian qualities and distinctions. While no distinction can be made between Paul and myself “in the Lord” (Paul is not any more “in the Lord” than I am), clearly, Paul, in spirit, is still functioning as an Apostle, and I highly value his words. This is just common sense. And, if Paul is still our apostle, the foundation of the present day church, does giving his letters any more credence than, say, Edwards’ make Paul “over me” and I “lesser?” Hardly. I mean, we are to submit to the words of the biblical authors, are we not? Does that make you ‘lesser’ “in the Lord” because Isaiah overrides Pope Gregory I? Hardly.

Edwards is more plain as he continues: “With this being said, it is NOT that no one can be taught (‘Know the Lord’), therefore no one should teach – including those ‘teaching’ that no one should teach. But that there is no more revelatory teaching even in a peripheral sense as the first century would teach their flocks.” Amen, Mr. Edwards. Welcome to Presbyterian doctrine. No one in this debate ever claimed revelatory abilities, or a divine revelatory calling from God the way Moses received his in a burning bush. In fact, Paul, in dealing with “elders” specifically states, “if ANY MAN DESIRES in his heart to be an overseer, he DESIRES a noble task.” He does not say, “If those whom God has specifically called with a divine vision to rule well in the Church, and to speak the words of revelation to his church, then he is called to a noble task.” The desire to function as a manager, an overseer in God’s House in a non-revelatory, common, and ordinary way, just as it was in the OT. My articles proved that the OT “elders of the people” (clearly non-revelatory, and never divinely appointed) is the model for Paul’s “elders of the people.” That is, simple, common, ordinary Christians that function in “oversight” of members, of which he also is EQUAL MEMBER, in terms of Church matters, accountability, managing funds to help charitable works, gaining a much more deeper education in biblical studies (“labors in the Scriptures” – why would he have to ‘labor in the Scriptures’ if he had REVELATION?!!!), and directing ALL that ALL are EQUAL and that ALL are to walk with their only Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. That ALL have EQUAL ACCESS, and that ALL, apart from ANY MAN, have a personal relationship with God. However, this ALL is the BODY, and the BODY necessitates FELLOWSHIP, and FELLOWSHIP means gathering together, eating together, meeting together, encouraging one another, singing with one another, pooling resources together, being good stewards, helping one another and the like. Some of us, like myself, seek to do this while devoting my entire work week to such an enterprise. The members of our fellowship asked me to do this. We followed Paul’s instructions. We sin not, and not one member of our fellowship thinks that they are “lesser” than I am, or that I am somehow their lifeline to Jesus. That has never been preached nor asserted by myself. Perhaps Edwards was laboring under this impression.

Edwards wants to discourage the “clergy/laity” distinction. Amen. I never advocated it, and it is not in our By-laws or Constitution. He stated that he does “NOT encourage the personal destruction of people who remain within the model of the first century,” nor does he advocate those of us that do this to be abused. This means that Edwards, in seeking not to destroy Preterist congregations with “elders” (what he calls, in his opinion, a “first century model”), is stating quite plainly that I, as an “elder,” am not sinning by using this title. If it were a “sin” then it would be quite the opposite. You can’t say, “we allow for pornographers and child molesters to thrive.” It’s a sin. But, here, it’s not. This must mean that maybe we are not “shielding Christ” from believers as he first claimed, or that I am a “mini-Pope,” clearly, a derogatory term. While I label Edwards’ view as socialism in a nutshell, I have not sought to break fellowship with him. Secondly, when I first read Edwards’ materials, I did, in fact, call him several names, like “heretic.” I have since apologized (though he still brings it up), and have come to see his view as just another theory of Ecclesiology, take it or leave it. I merely assert on the basis of the Second Appearance of Christ that the “everything ceased” view is absurd, logically confusing, and leads to spiritual anarchy. I still assert this. But, it is plain that Edwards does not endorse the “everything has ceased” view. In a “common sense,” God’s people can be distinguished one from another without dissolving equality in Christ.

Conclusion: As it has been seen, Edwards is actually more closer to my position than first imagined. He plainly dismisses anyone claiming revelatory gifts, as do I. But, he plainly does not state that, “in a common sense” way, believers can have distinctions among themselves without dissolving the equality we all have in Christ. Just because one brother is a cop, and I am not, does not mean that the authority he has in his area of expertise dissolves our equality in Christ, even though I am told to submit to him as a law-officer. The logic holds no water. This is a major agreement on what I have been asserting all along. The difference is that Edwards thinks that “elders” functioned solely as revelatory, even though he cannot produce any Scriptures that would assert this for every single “elder” in a leadership position in the whole Bible (not just the NT, but the OT as well). If, then, a “doctor” in theology claims no “revelation” but clearly is “distinguished” by his “labor” in the field that most plumbers could not do, does his being a “doctor” mean that “plumber John Christian” is “lesser” than he? Hardly. Does it mean that the “doctor” can explain what an irregular verb is, or the effects of Lyotardian post-modernism has on current world thought and politics to this plumber so that the plumber can say, “yes, I see your point?” Does that make the “doctor” any more “important” “in the Lord?” No. Does it make him more able to help the plumber understand the things of the Lord as the plumber, in his own mind and agreeable to his own mind, comes to accept? Yes. I call them “elders.” Call them “leaders.” Call them “doctors,” call them whatever. But, you cannot deny, and even Edwards cannot deny, that “in a common sense” they can “teach.” This makes them “teachers” (that’s what teacher do). Teachers today are non-revelatory and only in a common sense do they have a distinction, but this in no wise is a spiritual distinction in terms of your salvation and equal standing and footing with the Sole King, Jesus Christ. This has been my point all along, and I thank Edwards for finally writing in such a way that shows that we are indeed, heading towards an agreement on these matters.