Roles and Responsibilities in New Testament Assemblies

Who is responsible for certain roles and activities within a local congregation? Is one man central and indispensable to the congregation? Is one man's ministry more important than all the others? What do the Scriptures, Yahweh God's Holy Word, have to say on the subject? The following table summarizes 27 roles and activities mentioned in the New Testament concerning local Christian assemblies.

Role or Activity	Responsible Individual or Group	Relevant Scriptures and Comments
Serving as a priest	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	1 Peter 2:5, 9
Ministering in the main weekly and other settings	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	1 Cor. 14:26-33; Heb. 10:24-25; Col. 3:16; 1 Peter 4:10-11
Deciding who does what ministry	Yahweh God	Eph. 2:10; 1 Peter 4:10; Col. 4:17
Making ekklesia discipline decisions	Whole ekklesia assembly	Matt. 18:15-17; 1 Cor. 5:1-13
Testing revelatory words	Whole ekklesia assembly	1 Cor. 14:29; 1 Thess. 5:19-22; 1 John 4:1
Loving and caring for one another	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	Matt. 22:39; Gal. 6:9-10 (about 60 verses total)
Teaching	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	All: Col. 3:16; Rom. 15:14; Heb. 5:12; James 3:1 Elders: 1 Tim. 3:2; 5:17; Titus 1:9
Admonishing	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	Col. 3:16; 1 Thess. 5:14; 2 Thess. 3:15; Heb. 10:24
Challenging an individual about his/her sin	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	James 5:19-20; Gal. 6:1
Rebuking an individual about his/her sin	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	All: Luke 17:3-4 Elders: Titus 1:9 Also: Gal. 6:1; Eph. 4:29
Hearing a confession of sin	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	James 5:16
Assisting with conflict resolution and lawsuits among believers	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	Matt. 18:15-17; 1 Cor. 4:3; 6:1-6
Protecting ekklesia unity	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	Eph. 4:3; Rom. 14; 1 Cor. 10:15-11:1
Reaching out with the Gospel	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	Jude 1:23; 1 Peter 3:15; Matt. 5:14-16; 22:39; Acts 8:4
Preaching	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	Acts 8:1-4; 11:19-21; 15:35; Mark 1:45; 5:20; 7:36; Luke 8:39. New Testament preaching is evangelistic.
Baptizing	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	Acts 8:12; 9:18; 10:48; Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 1:10-17
Serving the Lord's Supper	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	1 Cor. 11:17-34
Praying publicly	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	All: 1 Cor. 11:1-16; 14:6-20; James 5:16 Elders: James 5:14; 1 Tim. 4:14
Praying for healing	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	Mark 16:18; 1 Cor. 12:9, 28; James 5:14-16
Praying for deliverance	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	Mark 16:17; 1 Cor. 12:10
Prophesying, Languages ("Tongues")	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	Acts 18:6; 1 Cor. 12:10, 28-30; 14:1-5, 39
Living as an example	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	All: Hebrews 6:12 Elders: 1 Peter 5:3
Overseeing	Any/Everyone as led by Holy Spirit	All: Hebrews 12:15 Elders: 1 Peter 5:2
Building the Ekklesia	Jesus	Matt. 16:16; Eph. 5:23-32; Psalm 127:1
Deciding who is a local or traveling leader	Holy Spirit working through existing leaders and whole ekklesia	Luke 6:12-13; Acts 6:1-6; 9:15; 13:1-4; 14:23; 16:2; 20:28; 1 Tim. 4:14; Titus 1:5
Shepherding/"Pastoring"	New Testament only mentions elders	Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2; Hebrews 13:17. Unlikely that non-elders were excluded.
Protecting sound doctrine	New Testament only mentions elders	Titus 1:9. Unlikely that non-elders were excluded.

The New Testament knows nothing about, and simply does not speak in terms of, two classes of Christians—“minister” or “clergy” and “laymen” or “laity.” In the New Testament, the terms “clergy” (Greek: kleros; meaning ‘inheritance’) and “laity” (Greek: laos; meaning ‘people’) both apply to the same group—all of God’s people (men, women, and children) without distinctions! In other words, all saints are "clergy" and all saints are "laity." The New Testament distinguishes between ‘elders’ (an adjective—not a noun [the title, position, or "office" that we have made it]) and people (Phil. 1:1), but this distinction assumes the ‘priesthood of all believers’ (1 Pet. 2:5, 9) and does not swallow it up as the “clergy/laity” practice of the past and today.

As you can obviously and clearly see from this table, elders did not have the authority to govern a local congregation. Most decisions in the life of New Testament congregations were made by the whole congregation using voting consensus. In what ways did elders provide leadership within local congregations? They were influencers, encouragers, and facilitators—not organizers and decision-makers. Teaching was a shared responsibility of the community—not a "role" reserved for elders. As elders did the things that all believers are free to do (e.g., teach, read scripture, admonish), they had a highly influential role in the life of the congregation. One of the most important leadership roles is to watch over the souls of other members of the community. As elders do this, they are positioned to pray for and influence others, perhaps with a word of encouragement, an admonishment, a teaching or by giving advice.

A second important dimension of shepherding by influence, which is sometimes needed in congregations, is facilitating the meetings:

• Encouraging quieter members to contribute,
• Encouraging individuals who contribute a great deal to contribute slightly less,
• Stepping in when an inappropriate contribution may result in someone feeling disrespected or hurt, and
• Facilitating consensus-based decision-making.

The shepherding provided by elders is in many ways similar to good parenting, especially of older children.

There is absolutely zero evidence in the New Testament to support the "pastor," the "sermon," and the "pulpit" as being central and indispensable to the local congregation. It has to be imposed upon the text. We have 'read' the modern practice of "the pastor" into the New Testament, which is known as eisegesis. The New Testament does not teach that one man's ministry is more important than the ministry of everyone else; it teaches mutual ministry through the 50+ "one another" statements. According to God’s Word in 1 Corinthians 12:22-24, Paul taught that "the parts that seem to be weaker are necessary, and the ones we think to be less honorable should have more abundant honor bestowed on them." In other words, “pastors” (if they were the least bit biblical) should have the least honour! (see Matt. 23:8-10) How have we maintained a system and structure that is anti-Christ, reducing the Body to one mouth and many ears? How have we let one man give a monologue week after week after week, when it is universally agreed by communication experts that a monologue is the worst possible way to learn? Our systems and structures are not conducive to real spiritual transformation!

Ever-pagan Emperor Constantine (who never actually converted to Christianity, but merely added another God to his pantheon of gods) flipped the Congregation upside down in the 4th century and we have never recovered! What would evolve into the Catholic Church became more and more pagan in their practice of the mystery religions by absorbing every pagan ritual and practice under the lie of "making it easier for the people to transition." Interestingly enough, when Paul planted congregations, some of the new believers came from Judaism and others from other religions. Paul would have introduced all of these new believers not only to Jesus but also to the New Testament pattern of congregational life, which was different to their previous religious experiences. In other words, all their old religious practices were to be left behind.

*Adapted from Anthony Jacomb-Hood's Rediscovering the New Testament Church.

The Marian Idolatry

Marian devotion is idolatry. Mary was a sinner like the rest of us who found salvation in Christ Jesus (Luke 1:47). Mary is not the “Queen of Heaven”. Mary is not a “co-mediator” (1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 9:15; 8:6; 12:24). Mary is not a “co-redeemer” (Eph. 1:7). Mary was not a perpetual virgin (Matt 1:25; 13:55-56; 12:46; Mark 3:31-34; Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12; Acts 1:14).

The first ever mention of Mary's supposed "perpetual virginity" was in the 4th century by Jerome. The idea of Mary being without sin can likewise be traced back to the 4th century. However, certain 4th century theologians like John Chrysostom, Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, and Hilary of Poitiers denied the sinlessness of Mary and believed she had imperfections. In the 3rd century, Origen and Tertullian also denied any such sinlessness. The first four centuries are completely silent about Mary's supposed "assumption" (and an assumption it is), but in the latter part of the fourth century Epiphanius of Salamis wrote this:

"The holy virgin may have died and been buried … or she may have been put to death—as the scripture says, “And a sword shall pierce through her soul” … or she may have remained alive, for God is not incapable of doing whatever he wills. No one knows her end."

In A.D. 431, when the Council of Ephesus was held, it caused an unhealthy interest in the mother of Jesus. From this point on, Catholics began to idolize Mary and create fantastical fairy tales surrounding her. In the 5th century, dozens of writings began to emerge that claimed Mary had never died. The worship of Mary had begun, giving her traits of Jesus and making her co-equal with Jesus. Augustine had given his blessing upon all these heretical teachings.

Catholics try to play fast and loose with the term "saved" with regard to Mary because quite obviously they do not understand salvation. They think that Mary was "saved" from being able to sin. Their arguments make for a great fairy tale, but there is zero truth behind it. Catholics argue that in order for Mary to give birth to the Saviour, she needed to be without sin. So if Mary had to be without sin in order to birth Jesus, then so too did her mother need to be without sin in order to birth Mary; and her mother had to be without sin in order to birth her; and so on and so forth all the way back to Eve. Catholics really need to learn how logic works instead of blindly believing complete and utter nonsense.

Catholics need to learn to read Scripture (and early Christian history) instead of blindly following false religious tradition that opposes it.

The Lord's Supper and Baptism are NOT "Sacraments"!

The Lord's Supper, also referred to as Communion (a unity of the Body and the Head, as well as between member and member), and baptism are NOT "sacraments"! Once we educate ourselves on where this terminology came from and just exactly what it entailed, we should no longer use it.

"It will be recalled that in the days of Decius every householder had been instructed to fill out a formulary reading as follows: "I, N.N., have always sacrificed to the gods, and now in your presence I have, in keeping with the directive, sacrificed . . . and have tasted of the sacrificial victim; and I request that you, a public servant, certify the same." This formulary was intended to do two things. On the one hand it was part of a frantic effort to infuse new life into the dying religion of ancient Rome; on the other hand it was a device whereby each individual Christian could be located and taken in hand.
It would be most gratifying if we could know more about the evolution of the rite which is here described, the item about "tasting the sacrificial victim." That it was a feature of the practices associated with the cult of the so-called "mystery religions" is quite apparent. In these mystery religions (the only religious forms that had any vitality in those final days of pagan Rome), one partook of deity by ingesting a morsel of a sacrificial victim. By such ingesting, something of the élan of the god was said to be infused into the devotee, in a transaction known as a mysterion — the word that has given us the expression "mystery religion." This word mysterion was by the Latins rendered sacramentum — the direct antecedent of our word "sacrament."
...
It did not require a great deal of ingenuity for the fashioners of "Christian sacralism" to realize that with a few adroit alterations the Agape [meal] could be put in the place of the sacramentum and then serve the function which Decius had in mind, namely, the function of providing the monolithic society. A few alterations, a gather here and a tuck there, and the love-feast was all ready, ready to perform the function in the new sacralism which the pagan sacramentum had performed in the old.
The first thing that had to be done was to appropriate the pagan word sacramentum (recall that it occurs nowhere in the Scriptures) and to let it replace the word Agape of the authentic tradition. This was a clever stroke; every Roman citizen knew what a sacramentum was, and what it was supposed to do and achieve; he needed only to hear the word to know the theology, that of "tasting the sacrificial victim," a transaction signifying the participants' solidarity with the society of which he was a part.
A second thing that had to be done was to move the table out and the altar in. This would automatically make of the officiating minister a sacrificateur, a sacrificer, a priest; and this would as automatically change the viands, the bread and the wine that had stood on the table of the Agape, into the flesh and the blood of "the sacrificial victim."
A third thing that needed to be done was to eliminate as much as possible the "Take, eat" of the original ritual. This "Take, eat" was far too reminiscent of the voluntaryism that was so much a part of the authentic Christian vision; it portrayed too manifestly that in regard to the good things of the Christian faith there is always the take it or leave it. The determinative act of taking had to be eliminated and in its place had to come an act of imparting. ...
With these changes the love-feast was suitable to the role in the new sacralism which the pagan sacramentum had played in the old sacralism.
It is not at all surprising that all trough medieval times and into Reformation times, and beyond them, Corpus Christianum was thought of as a thing held together by "sacrament." [It was the Anabaptists' assault upon the sacraments as binders of society that made them so odious in the sight of the Reformers.]
—Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, pp. 136-142.

As you can clearly see, ever-pagan Emperor Constantine flipped the Congregation of the Lord upon her head when he helped Christianity absorb pagan rituals and practices, which eventually evolved into the Catholic Church. The description above is very obviously the practice of Catholicism, and every Catholic who genuinely loves the Lord Jesus will recognize this fact and repudiate it. Otherwise, they are participating in pagan rituals associated with mystery religions in the worship of false gods. Slapping the face of Christianity on top of it does not change what it is in reality. Every Catholic who participates in such practice is practicing pagan mystery religion acts.

The fact that Protestant Reformers, including Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, maintained the terminology "sacraments" demonstrates perfectly how unwise they were and how little they knew of ecclesiastical history (the first three centuries) and Scripture (especially with regard to the cross as the dividing line of human history and context). That does not mean they were not godly or spiritual or had anything good to say, but it is to acknowledge that they embraced, believed, taught, and reproduced their many grave errors.

For any Christian to refer to the Lord's Supper and baptism as "sacraments" is heresy, and any Christian who practices the "sacraments" as described above is guilty of idolatry by participation in mystery religions to false gods. To my Catholic brothers and sisters who genuinely love the Lord Jesus, STOP participating in this godless anti-Christ ceremony and start holding communion in your own homes with other genuine believers. You do NOT require a "priest" or "pastor" in order to administer either of these as ALL Christians—men, women, and children—are priests under the New Covenant.

By calling the Lord’s Supper and baptism “sacraments,” you are associating them with demonic pagan practices!