Audio and Video Resources: 2025 Presbyterion (Reformed Baptist Fellowship of Virginia Spring Pastors' Fraternal)

 

Session 1 (X post version): On The Civil Magistrate:

Session 2 (X post version): The Case for Christian Nationalism: A 1689 Reaction:

Session 3 (X post version): "Communion" Among Churches:

JTR

Theology in Particular: The Administration and Administrator of Baptism

 

JTR

WM 319: A Response to Mark Ward's Offer to "Translate" the 1689 Confession

 

Self-identified recovering KJVO-ist, freelance youtuber, and now ardent critic of the King James Version, Mark Ward recently issued a call on his youtube channel for a new “translation” of the 1689 Confession (as well as the Savoy Declaration and WCF) into modern English.

Ward begins this call by noting, “In 2021 in preparation for my ordination I translated the 1689 LBC into modern English.”

Ward, somewhat unsurprisingly, notes that he found “dead words” and “false friends” in the Confession, terms those familiar with his dogged attacks on the “intelligibility” of the KJV will quickly recognize.

Ward says he dealt with such terms in his “translation” of the Confession using modern language as he prepared for his ordination to pastoral ministry at the now defunct Cornerstone BC of Anacortes, Washington.

We’ll return to this statement later to examine Ward’s RB ministerial credentials.

Ward gives five examples of supposedly outdated words in the Confession that, he insists, need to be “translated.”

I found no merit in any of the five examples that would justify this. More importantly, I found that two of Ward’s examples are theologically problematic.

The first of these is “circumstances” from 1:6. Ward says this term is “obsolete” in the modern context. He makes no mention of the fact, however, that “circumstances” has long been a technical term among Reformed theologians in discussions especially over the Regulative Principle of Worship.

He does not draw attention to a classic distinction between “substantial” (essential) elements and “circumstantial” parts of worship.

Michael Bushel in his book Songs of Zion, explains:

Circumstances are defined by [James Henley] Thornwell as “those concomitants of an action without which it either cannot be done at all or cannot be done with decency and decorum.”

Bushel continues:

The time and place of worship, for instance, may be seen as a circumstance of worship, because one cannot worship God without doing so at a specific time, and yet the aspect of time does not, and need not, be considered in a definition of what constitutes an act of worship (29).

In Ward’s so-called  “translation” of the Confession, he says he rendered the word “circumstances” as “extraneous details.” This does not, however, accurately convey what the framers of the Confession meant by the term “circumstances.” The time when the church meets for worship is not an “extraneous detail,” but a part of worship which is not “substantial” or “essential.”

The second example is Ward’s handling of the word “authentical” in 1:8. According to Ward this word has nothing to do with the contemporary word “authentic,” meaning genuine or matching with the originals, despite the fact that in context the framers refer to the text as immediately inspired and “kept pure” in all ages (i.e., the true text is consistent with the originals).

Here Ward’s bias towards the “reconstruction” method of textual criticism shines through. “Authentical,” for Ward, can’t mean that the text kept pure in all ages by God’s singular care and providence matches the original, because, according to Ward, they did not have the originals. So, it can only more vaguely mean something like an approximation of the text which is, nonetheless, still “authoritative.”

New Zealand Reformed theologian Garnet Howard Milne, however, in his book Has the Bible been kept pure?, a monograph dedicated to WCF 1:8 cites the 17^th century definition of “authentical” by the English divine Edward Leigh (1602-1671). Leigh said:

The question betwixt us and the Papists, now cometh to be considered, which of these Editions is authentical, that is, which of it self hath credit and authority, being sufficient of it self to prove and commend it self, without the help of any other Edition, because it is the first exemplar or Copy of divine truth delivered from God by the Prophets and Apostles (133).

Milne concludes, “In other words, the authentical edition is the correct copy of an author’s work” (133). Such a definition does not fit with Ward’s “translation.”

The other three examples Ward offered [“private spirits” in 1:10; “opposite to all good” in 6:4; and “necessities” in 27:2], as noted, IMHO do not warrant any adjustment in the text, but can be more than adequately understood by the mature reader.

Ward’s approach to the Confession recalls some of the problems evident in his approach to the AV, as pointed out by James Snapp, Jr. in an October 29, 2024 blog post, which Ward, has, thus far, completely ignored. Snapp, BTW, is hardly a proponent for either the traditional text or traditional Protestant translations.

Snapp’s article is titled, “Mark Ward and his Ridiculous Claim About the KJV,” and was written to respond to a now rather infamous statement made by Ward that it would be sinful to give the KJV to a child. Here, in part, is what Snapp wrote:

Mark Ward seems to have missed a fundamental point about the intelligibility of Scripture.  No Scripture was ever written with the understanding that its readers would be in a literary and educational vacuum.  Christians are instructed to worship together.  Christians should consider the Scriptures together…

We are expected to mature.  With maturity comes new understanding of what was once unintelligible.  We are expected to fellowship together.  We are expected to learn…. The fact that children can read as children and misunderstand things does not render the King James Version full of shortcomings.  The shortcoming is in the individual's level of comprehension - which is constantly changing.   

 Dr. Ward seems to think that the Bible should be translated so plainly that it is incapable of being misunderstood.  Unfortunately such a translation has never existed and never will exist on earth….

 I encourage Mark Ward:  come out of your fantasyland in which children never grow up and are incapable of learning new things.

Snapp makes the valid point that Ward advocates for an impossible goal of “absolute intelligibility” in a Bible translation, for any reader, of any age or maturity.

Snapp’s critique of Ward’s views on English Bible translations is also applicable to his newly expressed views on the Confession. No substantial and significant written document will ever be “incapable of being misunderstood.”

What is more, the case can be made that the historical Confession in its original form is not unintelligible to modern readers, who approach it with humility in the context of Christian community, instructed by teaching elders, and informed by a tradition of classic Protestant interpretation.

Oddly enough, after covering his five examples of supposedly “outdated” terms in the confession, Ward proceeds to justify revision of the Confession based on how the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1662) was updated after WW2. The Anglicans did it, so why shouldn’t we?

This seems to be a peculiar argument, because it was, in fact, the liberal mainline factions of the Episcopal denomination that embraced revision to the prayer book on their way to liberalizing church practices relating to issues like ordination of women.

It has been the conservative and orthodox Anglicans who broke away from the liberal mainline that have held fast to the 1662 prayer book.

I can tell you that if there ever comes a time, in my lifetime, when a group of Reformed Baptists reject the original text of the 1689 Confession in favor of a modern “translation” of it, I and my church will be among many that will be forced to separate from them.

I have no doubt that if any church were to accept even the few changes Ward suggested in his video, they would be at risk of departing, at the least, from the classic confessional view of the regulative principle of worship and from the classic confessional view of the immediately inspired and providentially preserved Scriptures as “authentical.”

Eventually, Ward proposes that a set of recognized experts should get together, and, according to Ward, they should invite “a red-headed word nerd” to join them and help them with all his vast knowledge and expertise.

He adds, “it will take big names and institutions.”

Ward proceeds to say that he offers this counsel “from my tiny little spot on the Reformed spectrum as an independent—and I’ve been independent since I was born.” That last statement, oddly enough, does not seem very Baptistic.

So Ward sees himself a “Reformed” independent. But what exactly does that mean?

He continues, “I’m issuing this call. I think Reformed denominations should hold a sort of ecumenical council and translate the confession—not revise it.”

By using the word “translation” Ward thinks he can head off conservative opposition to any efforts to “update” or “revise” the Confession. But by “translation” Ward, of course, means “interpretation” and “change” (see the examples of “circumstances” and “authentical”).

Ward insists he only wants to make the confession more accessible to the ordinary reader. He adds that this would especially fit with the concept of the “priesthood of the believer,” a phrase more familiar to twentieth century SBC moderates than to 17^th century Particular Baptists.

As I listened to Ward’s unsolicited call to change the Confession I began to wonder about his confessional convictions, his ministerial standing, and his ecclesiastical commitments. Until recently I did not know that he even claimed to be a “Reformed Baptist” of some sort.

As a guest on the podcast of Covenant Baptist Seminary (an RB seminary) on October 21, 2024, Ward said (c. 17:56 mark), “I was ordained according to a lightly edited (by myself) [edition] of the 1689 Confession…” He adds, “I also took some minor exceptions, but we can get into that in another interview…”

The podcast host did not follow up on this statement, and did not ask Ward to explain in what areas he does not fully subscribe to the confession, or what these so-called “minor exceptions” might be.

Ward was a guest again on the Covenant Baptist Seminary podcast on December 17, 2024. In this episode, Ward said (c. 18:43 mark), “I am sort of a Reformed Baptist, because in God’s providence I’ve never been near enough to a 1689 congregation for it to be a reasonable option for me…”

So, by Ward’s own admission, he has never actually been a member of a confessional RB church.

What is more, he gives further explanation in this episode about his inability fully to subscribe the 1689 Confession. He states,

“I’m probably just a little bit different on eschatology than the standard 1689 guy.” Yet, he adds, “I’m a confessional guy.”

Neither of the podcast hosts expressed any curiosity about what Ward meant by this statement. What is his position on eschatology? Where does his view on eschatology depart from the 1689 Confession to which he cannot fully subscribe and to which he takes exception? Is he a dispensationalist? If so, can he fairly be said to be a “confessional guy”?

This conversation sparked my curiosity about Ward’s ministerial and ecclesiastical standing.

So, I took a look at the “About Me” page on Ward’s blog (By Faith We Understand) where I read the following:

I attended Mount Calvary Baptist Church for 18 years while in Greenville, SC, and I “pastored” an outreach congregation there Sunday mornings for the last (almost) six of those years.

MCBC is a well-known Independent Baptist Church but certainly not a confessional RB church. Notice Ward only says he “attended” this church but not that he was a member of it. Notice also the nuanced language. Ward does not say he served on the staff or as a recognized pastor in this church. In fact, he puts the word “pastored” in quotes, indicating his role was not officially pastoral. He continues:

After moving to Washington, I was something of an assistant pastor for six years—though ordained for only the last 9 months of that time—at Cornerstone Baptist Church of Anacortes. The church voted to close toward the end of the COVID era.

Presumably Cornerstone BC of Anacortes was also an independent Baptist church and not a confessional church. Again, Ward’s language here is unclear, He does not say he served as elder in this church or as an assistant pastor, but that he was “something of an assistant pastor” for nearly six years and was ordained nine months before the church dissolved. Was he ever installed as an officer in this church? He concludes:

My family now attends Emmanuel Baptist Church of Mount Vernon, WA, where we serve in various capacities.

This church is also an independent Baptist congregation. I find it interesting that Ward only says he “attends” this church and does not say he is a “member” of this church. The church’s leadership page lists seven elders and six deacons. Ward is not listed as a church officer. I did not locate any sermons or teaching by Ward that were posted on this church’s youtube page (but, admittedly, my search was not exhaustive). What are the “various capacities” in which he has served in this church?

The church’s belief page lists twelve brief doctrinal points, but it offers no mention of any classic Christian creeds or Protestant confessions. The statement on “The Last Things” reads, “We believe in the personal and visible return of the Lord Jesus Christ to earth and the establishment of His kingdom. We believe in the resurrection of the body, the final judgment, the eternal felicity of the righteous, and the endless suffering of the wicked.” Though vague, it might indicate belief in dispensational premillennialism and a millennial kingdom, and I did run across one sermon preached by the lead pastor titled “The Rapture of the Church.”

So, at this point I am unsure of Ward’s confessional, ministerial, and ecclesiastical standing.

Confessionally, he does not fully subscribe to the 1689 Confession.

Ministerially, he was ordained to the gospel ministry by an independent Baptist church within nine months of its closing but does not say he served as an elder in this church.

Ecclesiastically, he states that he has never been a member of a confessional RB church and only says he presently  “attends” an independent Baptist church (that apparently holds to some form of dispensationalism).

I want to be clear, I am not criticizing Ward for the convictions which he holds. I do not believe that the kingdom of God begins and ends with confessional RBs. I have many friends who are not confessional RBS.

I am concerned, however, by the fact that Ward is suggesting not only that the 1689 confession be “translated” (i.e., changed) but also that he would offer himself up as a candidate to be on a committee to do this work.

I’m also concerned that he claims to be a “confessional guy” even though he does not fully subscribe to the 1689 confession, has never been a member of a confessional RB church, has never served in the office of elder in a confessional RB church, and he may be only “attending” a church at present.

I also wonder what Ward would make of Confession 26 on each Christian’s duty to give “up themselves to the Lord, and to one another” in particular churches (26:6), where the bishops or elders are given “the peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of power or duty” (26:8), it being “incumbent on the bishops or pastors of the churches, to be instant in preaching the Word, by way of office,” while others “also gifted” might also preach only if they are “approved and called by the church” (26:11). I wonder how Confession 26 reads in Ward’s “translation” of the Confession.

Has any church at present approved him as a public preacher and teacher, or is any church giving oversight to the teaching he now offers in various venues, including on his youtube channel and especially behind the paywall in the courses he now offers and charges his patrons to access? I wonder also whether this teaching adheres to any confession that might be examined.

I also wonder about the fact that at least one Reformed Baptist Seminary has welcomed Ward as a lecturer and lists him on its faculty page. I even wonder that an RB seminary would welcome him as a podcast guest to speak to areas of interest to confessional Baptists.

In the end, I want to give my answer to Mark Ward’s call to “translate” the confession and his offer to serve on a committee which would take up such a work. My response, quite simply is, No.

The better option, IMHO, for one who considers himself to be confessional (and Baptistic) would be to join a confessional RB church and to sit under the teaching and instruction of that church to grow in one’s knowledge of Scripture, as well as in his understanding of corresponding confessional RB beliefs and practices. If one aspires to teach and interpret doctrine, including that found in the confession, he should express these desires to the elders of his church so that he might be examined as a candidate to become an elder or sanctioned as a “gifted brother,” and only then to exercise his ministry not independently but under the authority of a particular church.

JTR

2024 Keach Conference Audio & Images (September 28, 2024)

Image: Pastors Davidson, Clevenger, Chiciudean, Meadows, Loomis, and Riddle.

The Reformed Baptist Fellowship of Virginia's 2024 Keach Conference was held on Saturday, September 28, 2024 at Grace Baptist Chapel in Hampton, Virginia. The theme was from Chapter 17 of the 1689 Confession: "Of the Perseverance of the Saints." Speakers: D. Scott Meadows, Calvary Baptist Church, Reformed, Exeter, New Hampshire & Miklos Chiciudean, Soli Deo Gloria Baptist Church, Budapest, Hungary. Messages:

Scenes from the day:

JTR

Renihan Review: Riddle, Davidson, Clevenger, & Loomis

 

Here are my notes from the Presbyterion meeting (4.14.23):

Welcome to the 2023 Presbyterion

Welcome to the 2023 Presbyterion, the Spring Pastors’ Fraternal of the Reformed Baptist Fellowship of Virginia.

For our program today we decided to offer a selective review of James M. Renihan’s work, To the Judicious and Impartial Reader: A Contextual-Historical Exposition of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, Baptist Symbolics, Volume II (Cape Coral, Florida: Founders Press, 2022).

This work has already been welcomed and acknowledged as a landmark exposition of the Confession which will likely serve as an interpretive standard for decades to come among Reformed or Confessional Baptists.

Dr. Renihan serves as President of the International Reformed Baptist Seminary in Mansfield, Texas and previously directed the IRBS at Westminster Seminary in California.

Rather than attempt to review the entire book, four of us will today offer a brief review (c. 15 minutes, or as I like to call it, the time it takes to do a short introduction to the sermon!) of four different sections of the book, covering the exposition of five chapters in the Confession.

Jeff Riddle, Christ RBC: Confession ch. 1 on Scripture

 

Ryan Davidson, Grace Baptist Chapel: Confession ch. 22 on Worship and the Sabbath

 

Steve Clevenger, Covenant RBC: Confession 26 on Church Officers

 

Van Loomis, Redeeming Grace BC: Confession chs. 28-29 on Baptism

 

Introduction

 

Before, we move to look at the exposition of chapter one, let me make a couple of observations on the Introduction (1-20):

 

Renihan begins by noting that though we call this the 1689 Confession, “there is no extant evidence that the Confession was published in 1689. It seems to have acquired this designation because it was subscribed at the 1689 London General Assembly” (2).

 

He declares that locating this confession “as a species within the genus of Reformed theology is straightforward” (4). So, Reformed Baptists are reformed.

 

Further on he states, “The aim of this book is not primarily polemic but rather explanatory.” For Renihan the “key question is what did the Confession mean to its readers in its own context” (7).

 

He also tells us, “There are times when I must express my enthusiasm” (7).

 

Finally, he suggests the confession bears an “internal structure” and can be divided into “four main units” (11). It is a “woven document” which must be read “back and forth” (11).

 

Renihan’s outline:

 

Unit 1: First Principles (chs. 1-6).

 

Unit 2: The Covenant (chs. 7-20).

 

Unit 3: God-Centered Living: Freedom and Boundaries (chs. 21-30).

 

Unit 4: The World to Come (chs. 31-32).

 

Finally, at the end of each chapter Renihan incorporates devotional material. So, there is an emphasis on piety and doxology in this exposition.

 

Chapter 1: Of the Holy Scriptures

 

After an explanation and presentation of the Epistle or Preface to the Confession whose beginning supplies the book’s title (“To the Judicious and Impartial Reader”) (21-26), Renihan begins his exposition of chapter one (Unit One) (29-78).

 

Time will not allow today for a thorough review of the chapter, so I will just offer seven observations about or highlights from the exposition in this opening chapter.

 

First: Renihan acknowledges that by addressing Scripture in this opening chapter the confession follows “the traditional method of expressing theological loci” in Puritan confessions by beginning with Scripture as “the principium cognoscendi, the principle of knowing” (epistemology) (29).

 

Second: Renihan notes that the opening sentence in paragraph one “is not found in the WCF or Savoy and had been added by Baptists” (30). That sentence reads: “The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience….” He gives three reasons why it was added: () polemics against Quakers; (2) polemics against RCC; and (3) polemics against paedobaptists.

 

Third: Renihan insists that the framers of the confession held a high view of the Scriptures as inerrant and infallible, contrary to interpretations of their Bibliology given by moderate SBC scholars of the past like William Lumpkin and James Leo Garrett, Jr. He even offers a quote from Keach in which Keach “advocates a dictation theory of inspiration,” as opposed to “the better concursive theory” (37).

 

Fourth: In his discussion of the confession’s emphasis on the insufficiency of natural (general) revelation in 1:1, Renihan notes that “this was a disputed point among seventeenth century Baptists” and offers an extended contrasting citation from the General Baptist Thomas Grantham’s work St. Paul’s Catechism (39-41). The wording of the Confession “refutes the doctrine of religious sincerity and the virtuous heathen. According to the Confession, there is no salvation apart from the grace of faith in Christ” (42).

 

Fifth: Renihan addresses the change of the wording in 1:6 from the WCF and the Savoy’s which affirms that the whole counsel of God is “either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequences may be deduced from Scripture” to the Baptist Confession’s wording that this counsel “is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture.” Renihan argues that the Particular Baptists did not explicitly deny the general concept of “good and necessary consequences” being deduced from Scripture. He even cites  a quotation from Nehemiah Coxe’s (in Vindiciae Veritatis) that appears explicitly to affirm it (55). The reason for the change, according to Renihan, was the Baptist framers' “logic in interpretation” as they made a distinction between necessary consequences and merely good consequences (55). He concludes, “They could accept necessary consequences as binding, but not good consequences” (56). So, they were trying to ground their theology more closely to Scripture and not to human reason alone (57).

 

Sixth: Also in his discussion of 1:6 Renihan draws on the distinctions made by Heiko Oberman between Tradition 1 (Scripture and its truths) and Tradition 2 (Scripture supplemented by church tradition) to suggests that the framers of the confession warmly affirmed sola Scriptura, and yet they were not “biblicists.” He writes, “They were not biblicists who required an explicit text for every doctrine; they were churchmen who viewed themselves as part of that long line of believers stretching back through the millennia” (60).

 

Seventh: Perhaps the most refreshing and insightful exposition of this chapter comes in Renihan’s treatment of 1:8. Under the influence of Richard Muller, he notes the distinction made by the framers between the autographs and the apographs. He approvingly cites Richard Brash’s observation that the framers saw a “‘practical univocity’ between the immediately inspired autographa and the providentially preserved apographa” (67). He paraphrases the view of William Bridge, a member of both the Westminster Assembly and the Savoy Synod, as saying, “We have the word of God in our texts. God has always preserved it” (69). With respect to translations, Renihan also draws upon Muller’s discussion of the Authoritas Divina Duplex, noting that the originals are authoritative in both matter (content) and form, while translations are authoritative only in matter (content) and not in form.

 

In closing, I think Renihan has provided our generation and ones to come an outstanding survey, analysis, and framework for understanding the Confession’s affirmation of Scripture as the preeminent authority for our doctrine and practice.

 

JTR

The Vision (2.24.23): The Ordinary Means of Grace

 

Image: With Pastor Paul Wang, one of the lead translators for the new Trinitarian Bible Society Chinese NT at a Thanksgiving Service in Herndon, Virginia (2.23.23).

Note: Devotion taken from last Sunday afternoon’s sermon, “Revivals or the Ordinary Means of Grace?” Look here for the full manuscript for the message.

The Reformed (Biblical) theological tradition, teaches that God has provided for his people “ordinary means” of grace.

This is taught in our Confession in 14:1. The ordinary means the Lord has provided for the saving of sinners and then increasing and strengthening them in the faith, as noted in Confession 4:1 are:

First: The ministry of the Word. That means the reading of the Word, privately and publicly, and it especially means the preaching and teaching of the Word (see Romans 10:14, 17; 1 Corinthians 1:21-24; 2 Timothy 4:2).

Second: Alongside the ministry of the Word we also have the ordinances or sacraments of baptism (the public confession of one’s faith before men, and the symbolic identification with his life, death, and resurrection by immersing the whole body in water—in obedience to his command) and the Lord’s Supper (taking bread and cup in that spiritual meal instituted by Christ and commanded for perpetual obedience till he comes again) (see Matthew 28:19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26).

Third: To these the confession adds prayer. Paul urged believers to pray without ceasing (1 Thessalonians 5:17). In Acts we have description of the church often meeting to pray, as when the apostle Peter was imprisoned and they gathered in the house of Mary the mother of John (Acts 12).

Fourth: And it mentions “other means appointed by God.” This might include fasting, meditation on the Word, the assemblies of the saints, but these must have scriptural warrant (see, e.g., Matthew 6:16-18; Acts 2:42).

May the Lord continue to use these means to draw men to himself and to increase and strengthen them in “the most holy faith” (Jude 20-21).

Grace and peace, Pastor Jeff Riddle

Invitation: 2022 Keach Conference (September 24)

2022 Keach Conference is coming! The Keach Conference is an annual theology and ministry conference hosted by the Reformed Baptist Fellowship of Virginia.

This year's meeting will be held on Saturday, September 24, 2022 at Grace Baptist Chapel in Hampton, Virginia, 9:30 am-3:30 pm.

The theme will be "Of Repentance Unto Life and Salvation" (chapter 15 of the 2LBCF-1689).

Four speakers will present one message each addressing the theme:

Timothy Decker, Trinity RBC, Roanoke

Luke Peterson, Emmanuel BC, Verona

Andy Rice, Providence BC, Harrisonburg

Josh Henson, Grace Covenant Church, Virginia Beach

There is no cost to attend, but registration is required and the attendance number is limited. So, if you plan to attend please register here as soon as possible to reserve your place:

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/rbf-va-keach-conference-2022-tickets-377904792407

Look forward to seeing you in September!

Reformed Baptist Fellowship of Virginia

Four Biblical Bases for Communion Among Churches

 

Image: Scene from the 2021 Keach Conference, hosted by the Reformed Baptist Fellowship of Virginia, at Redeeming Grace Baptist Church, Gloucester, Virginia.

The 2LBCF-1689 teaches the necessity and benefits of “communion” among churches (see 26:14-15). Particular Baptist churches have historically realized this through formal associations and assemblies. Last Sunday pm I preached on “The Biblical Basis for Communion Among Churches” and covered these four points (bases):

First: The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:1-4):

For the background for the church at Antioch, see Acts 11:19-26. Notice that the church at Jerusalem was involved from the very beginning in the planting of the church at Antioch, providing leadership in the form of Barnabas the great son of encouragement.

The church at Antioch then sent out Paul and Barnabas on what we call Paul’s first missionary journey (Acts 13:2-3), and at the end of their journey they returned to Antioch (14:25-28).

Then, there arose a dispute at Antioch over circumcision (Acts 15:1), and the decision was made to send Paul and Barnabas as representatives of the Antioch church to the church at Jerusalem (v. 2). Not only were there living apostles in that church but also elders: “unto the apostles and elders” (v. 6).

This leads to what we call the Jerusalem Council (see vv. 4-6), which resulted in a letter or decree being issued by the council or assembly to the church at Antioch declaring that circumcision was not required. This was delivered not only by Paul and Barnabas but also by Judas and Silas, “chief men among the brethren” (see vv. 22-31).

So, here is perhaps the chief prooftext for the practice of communion among churches.

Second: The tendency of the apostles at times not only to address individual churches, but also to address groups of churches, especially those in the same geographical area.

See the introduction to Galatians (Gal 1:1-2; contrast with Phil 1:1 written to a single church).

See also Paul’s instruction to the church at Colosse and the mention of sister churches in nearby Laodicea and Hierapolis (Col 4:10-16).

See also Peter’s address to the “strangers” (Christians in local churches) in various regions (1 Peter 1:1-2).

And notice the beginning of Revelation as Christ addresses the seven churches of Asia Minor (Rev 1:4, 10-11).

Third: The tendency of the apostles and early churches to commend brethren from one church unto those at another.

See the church at Ephesus’s commendation of Apollos to the church at Corinth (Acts 18:24-28).

See Paul’s commendation of Phoebe in Romans 16:1-2.

There are many more examples of this. See the commendation of Timothy and the affirmation of Epaphroditus in Philippians 2:19-30 (the latter called a “messenger” or apostolos in v. 25).

Fourth, the apostolic assumption of some degree of uniformity of practice among the churches.

See Paul’s comments in 1 Corinthians 4:17; 7:17b; 11:16; 14:33.

This assumes that the early churches strove for unity in faith and practice.

How did they do that? By having communion with one another.

How can we know if we share in this unity of faith and practice unless we have fellowship with other churches? It is the tendency of cults to be isolated and idiosyncratic, but of Biblical churches to be open and accountable unto other churches

JTR