Home › Articles › Apostolic Tradition: Obsolete?

Apostolic Tradition: Obsolete?

by Steve Atkerson

Apostolic tradition, also called apostolic custom, apostolic patterns, New Testament patterns, or New Testament practice, means imitating the practices of the apostles. When scripture does not specifically command us to imitate a certain practice of the apostles, should we still follow it?

Suppose a newly planted, first century congregation in Alexandria , Egypt , wrote a letter to the Twelve apostles in Jerusalem . Imagine that this church consisted of Jewish believers who had heard the gospel on a visit to Jerusalem . Now that they were back home in Egypt , they didn’t quite know what to do next about organizing as a new church. So, in their letter to the apostles was a series of questions about church life:

"Dear Apostles . . .
Why is it that we meet together as God’s people?
What should we do in our meetings?
How often should we meet?
Does it matter where we meet?
Should we build a temple like in Jerusalem or at least a synagogue building?
What type of church government should we have?
What should we look for in church leaders?
Do we even need leaders?
What is the purpose of the Lord’s Supper?
How often should we eat it? Annually, like Passover?
Should we eat the Lord’s Supper as a true meal or a token ritual?"

How do you suppose the twelve apostles would have answered their letter? Would they have written that each church was free to do whatever it wanted to do? That each fellowship should just pray and follow the Holy Spirit’s leading? That each congregation should be unique and different, free from outside influence? Conversely, might the apostles have answered with very specific instructions for church life? With a particular way of doing things? With a definite agenda? With unmistakable guidelines?

This issue has been faced by believers for the past two thousand years. How, exactly, should the church view New Testament apostolic patterns for church practice? Is the practice of the early church merely optional, or is it imperative for us? Are the traditions of the apostles just interesting history or should they constitute some kind of normative church practice?

The church’s problem is compounded because the New Testament has almost nothing to say by way of direct command concerning church matters. Consequently, has been common for believers to dismiss New Testament patterns for church practice as optional. Fee and Stuart, in their book, How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth, state: “Our assumption, along with many others, is that unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something, what is merely narrated or described can never function in a normative way” (p. 97, first edition). No one, for instance, would advocate following Jephthah’s tragic example in Judges 11:29ff. The question for us is whether or not Scripture explicitly tells us that we must copy the patterns for church practice described in the New Testament.

Suppose we accepted the notion that New Testament church patterns are not to be normative. Into what might this lead us?

We could construct a massive, opulent cathedral.
We could meet on Tuesday rather than on Sunday, the Lord’s Day.
We could meet monthly, rather than weekly.
We might also opt to have no leaders at all (no pastors, no elders, no deacons) since no where in Scripture are we directly commanded to have any.
We could have absolutely no form of church government whatsoever, since no particular form of government is commanded in Scripture. Ours will be rule by anarchy! Every man can just do what is right in his own eyes in fulfillment of Judges 21:25.
The Lord’s Supper can be celebrated every ten years or so (we wouldn’t want it to become too common and lose its significance).
Since the New Testament does not specifically prohibit it, we can swell our membership ranks by baptizing infants, or maybe even the deceased (1Co 15:29 ).
New believers could be organized into loose confederations of Bible studies, not official churches, since the New Testament never states we must form churches.

Obviously, this hypothetical church would be quite absurd. Yet, arguably, it would violate no positive command of Scripture. What it would be missing is at least a partial adherence to New Testament traditions for church practice. Most churches do follow some of the patterns of the New Testament, but not all of the patterns. Our question is: Why not?

This book argues for consistency. We propose that the apostles had a definite and very particular way in which they organized churches. We are convinced that they intended for all congregations to follow these same apostolic traditions, for as long as the church exists.

Holding to Apostolic Tradition is Logical

In 1 Corinthians 4:14-17, we read that Paul planned to send Timothy to Corinth . Paul wanted Timothy to remind the Corinthians of his way of life so that they could imitate him. The immediate context concerns Paul’s faithfulness in service and his humility as an apostle. Paul wrote, “I urge you to imitate me. For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.”

Notice the obvious uniformity of practice that is reflected by Paul’s words. His way of life in Christ was consistent with what he taught everywhere, in every church. There was integrity. There was a uniformity of practice that grew out of Paul’s teachings. His belief determined his behavior. His doctrine naturally determined his duty. In similar fashion, the apostles’ beliefs about the function of the church would surely have affected the way they organized churches (form follows function). Though the direct import of 1 Corinthians 4 is far afield from church practice, to also imitate the apostles’ ways regarding church life would be a wise choice for any fellowship.

If anyone truly understood the purpose of the church, surely the original apostles did. They were hand picked and hand trained by Jesus over a three year period. Then, our Lord appeared to them over a forty day period after His resurrection (Ac 1:3). Jesus also sent the Holy Spirit to teach them things He had not taught them before (Jn 14-16). Thus, whatever Jesus taught His apostles about the church was naturally reflected in the way they subsequently set up and organized churches.

In Titus 1:5, a passage that does deal directly with church practice, Paul wrote, “The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished.” Titus 1 concerns the appointment of qualified elders in every city. It is evident from this Scriptural passage that the apostles did indeed have a definite way they wanted certain things done regarding church. It was not left up to each individual assembly to find its own way of doing things. There was obviously some kind of order, pattern, or tradition that was followed in organizing the churches. Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 11:34 (a passage about the practice of the Lord’s Supper, another church life topic), Paul wrote, “The rest I will set in order when I come” (KJV, italics mine).

Southern Baptist theologian J. L. Dagg astutely wrote in 1858 that the apostles “have taught us by example how to organize and govern churches. We have no right to reject their instruction and captiously insist that nothing but positive command shall bind us. Instead of choosing to walk in a way of our own devising, we should take pleasure to walk in the footsteps of those holy men from whom we have received the word of life . . . respect for the Spirit by which they were led should induce us to prefer their modes of organization and government to such as our inferior wisdom might suggest” (Manual of Church Order, p. 84-86).

Holding to Apostolic Tradition is Praiseworthy

In 1 Corinthians 10:31-11:1, Paul again urged the Corinthians, “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.” The immediate context concerned seeking the good of others so as to glorify God and bring them to salvation ( 10:31 - 11:1). The word “follow” (1Co 11:1) is from mimatai, the basis for “mimic.” Paul wanted the Corinthian believers imitate him in that regard. Apparently they were already doing well in imitating him in other matters, since Paul stated in the very next verse, “I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you” (11:2, NASV).

What is a tradition? The regular Greek word for “teaching” is didaskalia (the basis for “didactic”), but significantly that is not the word used here. Instead, paradosis (tradition) is used. In his commentary on 1 Corinthians, Gordon Fee pointed out that although the Greek word for tradition, paradosis, was a technical term in Judaism for oral transmission of religious instruction, in this context in almost certainly does not refer to teaching, but rather to religious traditions regarding worship (New International Commentary on the New Testament, p. 499). A tradition is usually thought of as a custom or a certain way of doing things. It is an inherited pattern of thought or action. A popular definition might be, “things people do on a regular basis.” This same Greek word (in verb from) is used in 1 Corinthians 11:23 in regard to the practice of the Lord’s Supper (that it was passed on) . The point of a tradition is that it is something (usually a practice, such as the Lord’s Supper) that is passed on. Here in 1 Corinthians we see an apostle praising a church for holding to his traditions.

Consider the word “everything” as Paul used it in 1 Corinthians 11:2. It means “all that exists,” or at least, “all that pertains to the subject.” When Paul wrote “everything” (1Co 11:2), what subjects did he have in mind? His use of the word “everything” certainly suggests that Paul’s intended application was larger than just the exhortation found in 1 Corinthians 10:31-11:1 (evangelism). Might “everything” also include church order? Indeed it did. Paul’s praise in 11:2 signals the beginning of a new topic:: head coverings (11:3-16). This new subject is clearly in the realm of church order (propriety in worship).

What do the words “just as” (11:2) indicate about the extent of Corinthian compliance with Paul’s traditions? They obviously adhered to every iota; it was sort of a photocopy effect! They were not willy-nilly about it. Paul praised them for holding to his traditions “just as” he passed them on to them. The apostles evidently designed for the churches to precisely mimic at least some of the traditions they established (here, head coverings). Yet since the word “traditions” (11:2) occurs in the plural, Paul apparently had in mind more than the one tradition of head coverings (Fee, p. 500). Should we shut up our observance to this one tradition only, or should we follow all the patterns for church organization that can be observed exclusively on the pages of the New Testament?

Mosaic legislation was paradigmatic in nature. It was case law. Only a few, sample, legal examples were recorded by Moses. The believer was expected to apply those case studies to other areas of life not specifically mentioned. For instance, the corners of fields were to be left unharvested for the poor to gather and eat. Nothing was said about olive groves. Does this mean that a wheat farmer alone was burdened with feeding the poor, but that the man with an olive grove could harvest every last olive? Certainly not. Every farmer, regardless of the crop, was to leave a similar portion of his harvest to meet the needs of the poor. Similarly, we argue that adherence to apostolic tradition is paradigmatic in nature. If we observe that the apostles were pleased when churches followed specific traditions (such as regarding head coverings), then we are expected to apply that example to other patterns we see modeled by the apostles in their establishment of churches.

An interesting paradox can be observed about tradition. The same word (paradosis) used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:2 was also used by Jesus in Matthew 15:1-3. Jesus said to the Pharisees, “Why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?” Jesus blasted the tradition of the Pharisees, but Paul blessed the Corinthians for following the tradition of an apostle. Pharisaic tradition broke the command of God. Apostolic tradition, however, is consistent with the commands of Jesus. Holding to the tradition of the apostles is thus praiseworthy, as proven by Paul’s praise for the Corinthians. We must be careful not to develop our own traditions that might actually inhibit our ability to obey the commands of Christ.

Holding to Apostolic Tradition is to be Universal

Paul quieted those inclined to be contentious about head coverings by making an appeal to the universal practice of all the other churches: “If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice — nor do the churches of God” (1Co 11:16 ).This final statement was designed to win over the contentious people and settle any argument. Head coverings are beyond the scope of this chapter. The point is that Paul expected all the churches to be doing the same thing. Just to realize that one was different was argument enough to silence opposition. Obviously, prior emphasis had been given to certain practices that were supposed to be done the same way, everywhere. Thus, 1 Corinthians 11:16 indicates a uniformity of practice in all New Testament churches.

In 1 Corinthians 14:33b-34, Paul mentioned something else that was to be true universally:“As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches.”Regardless of the correct application of this verse, notice how Paul again appealed to a universal pattern that existed in all the churches as a basis for obedience.

Finally, note how Paul chided the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 14:36, “Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?” The obvious answer to both questions is no. This further indicates a uniformity of practice among New Testament churches. In some respect the Corinthians were doing something differently from what all the other churches were doing. Evidently all the churches were expected to follow the same patterns in their church meetings. These two questions were designed to pull the Corinthians back into line. Holding to apostolic tradition (New Testament church patterns) was to be universal in the first century and, we argue, today as well.

Jim Elliot, missionary martyr, wrote, “The pivot point hangs on whether or not God has revealed a universal pattern for the church in the New Testament. If He has not, then anything will do so long as it works. But I am convinced that nothing so dear to the heart of Christ as His Bride should be left without explicit instructions as to her corporate conduct. I am further convinced that the 20th century has in no way simulated this pattern in its method of ‘churching’ a community . . . it is incumbent upon me, if God has a pattern for the church, to find and establish that pattern, at all costs” (Shadow of The Almighty: Life and Testimony of Jim Elliot).

Holding to Apostolic Tradition brings God’s Peaceful Presence

“Rejoice in the Lord always, I will say it again: Rejoice! Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (Phlp 4:4-7). The main point of Philippians 4:4-7 is that we are to rejoice in the Lord and gain God’s peace, regardless of circumstances.

In the very next paragraph (Php 4:8-9), the church at Philippi was given the recipe for how to have the God of Peace be with them. By extension, this can be true for our churches as well. Paul wrote, “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable - if anything is excellent or praiseworthy - think about such things. Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me - put into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.”

In Philippians 4:9, the Philippians were instructed to put into practice whatever they learned, received, heard from Paul, or saw in Paul. The primary application in context concerned imitating Christ’s humility, putting others first, and rejoicing in the Lord. But by extension could this whatever not also include the way we see in the New Testament that Paul organized churches? It is clear from Scripture how the apostles set up the early church. To neglect apostolic tradition in this area also may be to bypass God’s blessing. We believe that fellowships which follow the New Testament pattern for church life will enjoy much more of God’s peaceful presence!

Watchman Nee, in The Church And The Work: Rethinking The Work, wrote, “Acts is the ‘genesis’ of the church’s history, and the Church in the time of Paul is the ‘genesis’ of the Spirit’s work . . . We must return to ‘the beginning.’ Only what God has set forth as our example in the beginning is the eternal Will of God. It is the Divine standard and our pattern for all time . . . God has revealed His Will, not only by giving orders, but by having certain things done in His church, so that in the ages to come others might simply look at the pattern and know His will” (p. 8-9).

Holding to Apostolic Tradition is Commanded

In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, the Thessalonian church was instructed to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” Here, the Thessalonians were specifically commanded to hold to the traditions of the apostles, whether received orally or in writing. The Twelve are not here today to tell us in person, by word of mouth, what to do. However, we do have their written traditions (The New Testament). The overall context of 2 Thessalonians 2 refers to end-time events, and not specifically to church practice. Yet would it not also apply in principle to their traditions regarding church order, as patterned in the New Testament? The word “traditions” is in the plural; the author had more in view that merely the tradition about the Second Coming.

Interestingly, rather than “traditions,” the NIV renders this “teachings.” This may be because a tradition (paradosis, the word in 2:15 ) can include a teaching (didaskalia), and the immediate context concerned the apostles’ oral traditions about end-times (2Th 2:1-12). However, the KJV, ASV, RSV, and NASV all translate it as “traditions,” which is also a valid translation of paradosis. The import of the various “traditions” passages such as this must be grappled with. Many believers think that while apostolic tradition may be interesting, following it is never commanded. But what does 2 Thessalonians 2:15 indicate? Is adherence to apostolic tradition commanded or suggested? Significantly, it is clearly commanded. The point to be observed is that it is not just apostolic teaching to which we are to adhere, but also apostolic tradition (as found on the pages of Scripture). We are to follow the apostles, not only in their theology, but also in their practice.

A similar attitude toward tradition is expressed in 2 Thessalonians 3:6-7a, “Keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the traditions you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example.” The specific context here refers to gainful employment versus being idle and lazy, yet the underlying principle holds true here also. In context, this tradition refers to a practice more so than a doctrine. The apostles clearly wanted the churches to follow their traditions. Should we limit those Biblical traditions we follow only to eschatology and idleness?

Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island and of the first Baptist church in the Americas (1600s), is another example of a Christian leader who believed that churches should strive to follow as near as possible New Testament church forms and ordinances (Liberty of Conscience, p. 106). This belief led Williams to found Rhode Island on the New Testament pattern of a separation between church and state.

Consistency

What can be concluded about God’s interest in our own churches adhering to New Testament patterns for church practice? It seems to us that whatever was normative church practice for all the churches in the New Testament should be normative practice for churches today. Perhaps these patterns of church practice are part of what gave the early church the dynamic that today’s church has been missing for so long!

If the Bible directly commands something, then we obviously ought to follow that command. The fact is, the Bible commands adherence to the traditions of the apostles. The real question thus is not, “Do we have to do things the way they were done in the New Testament?” Rather, the question is: “Why would we want to do things any other way?!”

If the Bible is silent about something, i.e., there is neither command nor pattern to follow, then we have the freedom to do whatever suits us (following the leading of the Holy Spirit). Note carefully that we do not advocate a negative hermeneutic, insisting that if a practice is not found in the Bible, then we can’t do it. Rather, we promote a normative hermeneutic, insisting that we should hold to those practices that clearly were normative for the early church. Matters of silence are matters of freedom.

The Roman world is gone forever. There is a big difference between holding to apostolic tradition versus mindlessly copying everything seen in the New Testament (wearing sandals, writing on parchment, studying by oil lamps, wearing togas, etc.). The key is to focus in on New Testament church practice. Of course we must also beware of making patterns out of things that are not patterns in the New Testament. For instance, the Christian communalism of Acts 4 was a one time event for a single church. It is an option for believers of any age, but it is neither a command nor a Scriptural pattern.

What are some obvious, biblical, apostolic traditions for church practice that should still be followed by the church today?

The Lord’s Supper celebrated as a full fellowship meal (1Co 11:17 -34).
The Lord’s Supper partaken of weekly (1Co 11:17 -22).
The Lord’s Supper eaten as the main reason for meeting each week (Ac 20:7, 1Co 11:33 ).
Interactive, participatory, open church meetings (1Co 14:26 , 37).
Mutual edification, encouragement and fellowship as the goals of church meetings (Ac 2:42 , 1Co 14:3-5, 12, 26, Heb 10:24 -25).
Church government by consensus: elder-led rather than elder-ruled churches (Lk 22:24 -27, 1Pe 5:1-4).
Locally trained leaders (2Ti 2:2).
Church eldership that is male, plural, non-hierarchial, homegrown, servant leadership (1Ti 3:1-7).
Home-sized churches: i.e., smaller congregations (Ro 16:5, Col 4:15 , Phlm 2).
Meeting regularly on the Lord’s Day (Mt 28:1-7, Ac 20:7, 1Co 16:1-4, Re 1:9-11).
The baptism of believers only (Mt 28:19-20).
The separation of church and state (Phlp 3:20 ).
A regenerate church body. (Mt 18:15-20).
Children present in the church meeting (Mt 19:13 -15, Lk 2:41 -50, Ac 21:5, Ep 6:1-3, Col 4:16 ). Church should strengthen and unite families, not further divide them.
A community based church that can easily experience daily fellowship (Ac 2:42 -47).
Church reproduction and equipping through the ministry of itinerant church workers such as apostles and evangelists (Ep 4:11 -13)

What we argue for here is consistency. Most churches already follow some of these patterns, but not all. Again we wonder why not? The burden of explanation ought to fall on those who deviate from the New Testament pattern, not on those who follow it. This consistency is especially important since the apostles evidently expected for all churches to follow their traditions just as they were handed down.

Are there ever justified exceptions to following New Testament patterns? Yes. In qualifying these exceptions, London pastor Beresford Job comments:

“We must make sure that we don't let biblically permitted deviations from the norm, done because of extenuating circumstances, actually become the norm. Let me illustrate this from baptism. Biblical baptism, like apostolic tradition for the way a church functions, is a command from the Lord. And although its actual mode isn't anywhere commanded, we know from the way the early church did it (apostolic tradition again) that it was to be done upon conversion, with no time lapse, and in water. (The immersion bit I take for granted as that's what the actual word baptism means as a transliteration from the Greek baptizo.) Now we would be justly concerned at the notion that we are free to make changes to this, whether concerning who is to actually be baptized, its mode, or indeed its timing; and we are painfully aware it has been massacred in each of these ways by believers for far too long. So our position would be that, in order for it to be based on the teaching of the Word of God, a person should be baptized upon profession of faith in Jesus, as soon as possible, and by full immersion in water. But let us now address the scenario whereby a bedridden quadriplegic comes to the Lord. Baptism, as biblically commanded and exampled in the New Testament for us, is clearly out of the question in such an instance, yet it is quite clear too that to come up with another more appropriate mode of baptism for such a one would not only be okay, it would be positively incumbent upon us. And in such a circumstance one could technically be out of step with the teaching of Scripture, yet be fully submitted to its intention and spirit. But here is the point: none of what I have just said could possibly apply to the baptism of an able bodied person - the normal mode would have to be employed in order for things to be as the Lord wants. And neither could anyone argue for the baptism of someone who hadn't responded to Jesus by faith, because that would attack the very nature of baptism, even though its external mode was still in accordance with the Scriptures.”

Church renewal advocate Darryl Erkel has appropriately pointed out the “danger of making distinctive New Testament patterns a form of legalism wherein we begin to look down or distance ourselves from our fellow brothers because they don't quite do it the way that we think it should be done. We should always be careful to not give the impression to others that their church is false or that God can't use their church because they're not following apostolic patterns as closely as we are. That is nothing but sheer pride. On the other hand, we ought to look for opportunities to respectfully and tactfully demonstrate that there is a better way — one which is more conducive to the spiritual growth of God's people — for the function of the New Testament church is best carried out by the New Testament form of the church!”

There are certain the basics that all true churches focus on, regardless of whether Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Pentecostal, Anglican or whatever. These basics include the making of disciples (Mt 28:18-20), the maturing and equipping of the saints (Ep 4:11 -16), fostering the supremacy of love through the exercise of spiritual gifts (1Co 11-14), and observing the Lord’s Supper (1Co 11). Our contention is that the apostles knew the best context in which to achieve these objectives, and purposely patterned such in the churches they established.

Remember the earlier quote by Professors Fee and Stuart that what is merely narrated or described can never function in a normative way? In the second edition of their book, they changed their statement somewhat. It now reads, “Unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something, what is only narrated or described does not function in a normative way — unless it can be demonstrated on other grounds that the author intended it to function in this way” (p. 106, second edition). I have attempted to demonstrate that the apostles did indeed design for churches to follow the patterns they laid down for church order.

Apostolic Tradition and Historic Theology

Amid so much emphasis on the importance of holding to apostolic tradition, as revealed exclusively on the pages of the New Testament, it is fitting also to emphasize the importance of devoting ourselves to apostolic teaching, also as found in its entirety on the pages of the New Testament. The authors of this book advocate historic Christian orthodoxy poured into the wineskin of New Testament patterns for church life. In calling for an adoption of the ways of the apostles in our church practice, we are not suggesting that the theology of the historic church universal needs reforming! We believe that the essential doctrines of the historic Christian faith are correct. Jesus said that it was to our advantage that He went away, for in His place He sent His Holy Spirit to live in us and to guide us. Confidence in the Spirit’s ability to teach and direct God’s people makes us conclude that on the essentials of theology, the church of history has gotten it right.

Faddish theological ideas will continue to sprout like weeds in a garden. Devilish doctrinal winds will always blow and toss the ungrounded to and fro. These challenges must be put into perspective. Which would you rather throw out the window, a recent novel theological position of very few people or the theological convictions of the universal Christian church of all ages? The choice is between the tried and proven faith of the collective body of God’s people and the private judgement of a few individual objectors. We would broadly define false teaching as anything which falls outside of the historic orthodox faith as upheld by the general consensus of the Christian Church for the last two millennia.

Since they are not inspired, we acknowledge that the creeds and confessions of the historic church are liable to error. That this is so is obvious from the fact that they occasionally differ from one another. However, what should get our attention all the more is when the creeds and confessions do line up in agreement at various points.

It is somewhat naive, and even arrogant, to think that a new truth has been discovered that 99% of all others who have ever studied the Bible failed to see. We must cultivate an historical humility and a spirit of mutual submission with the church at large and with the church of ages past. Pastors, teachers, laymen, historians, catechists, and theologians all coming to the same conclusion regarding a basic theology is significant.

Some, but not all, of the nonnegotiable fundamentals of the faith are a belief in the Trinity — that God exists in the form of Father, Son and Holy Spirit; that forgiveness of sins is received by grace through faith in Jesus alone, as a free gift, because of what He accomplished for us on the cross through His substitutionary death; in the future bodily return of Jesus to earth; in the future tomb-emptying resurrection of the dead; and that the sixty-six books of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, comprise the inspired, inerrant and infallible Word of God, constituting our final authority in all matters, whether of doctrine, church practice, family life or personal holiness.

Summary

God directs by biblical pattern (tradition) as well as by biblical precept (teaching).
The patterns for church found in the New Testament are to be generally followed by the church of all ages and places.
Apostolic tradition (as found in the Bible) is equal in authority to, and consistent with, apostolic teaching.
The most important patterns for New Testament life church are the celebration of the Lord’s Supper weekly as a full meal, regular interactive church meetings, church government by consensus (elder leading more-so than elder rule), and home-based (home-sized) churches.
Without Christ at the center of things, these patterns become legalism and death, a hollow form, an empty shell. We need the proper wine skin, but more importantly we need the wine. Both have their place. Either one without the other is problematic.
Following New Testament patterns does not mean blindly attempting to recreate Roman culture (like wearing togas, writing on parchment, lighting by oil lamps, etc.). The issue here is church practice. There should be obvious reasons behind the practices being followed.
Following New Testament patterns does not mean every church will be exactly alike. Certainly there will be similarity in the basics (see summary # 4 above), but there is also freedom within the boundaries of the form.
Biblical house churches are not nearly so program and building oriented as many modern churches are. Because of this, some have mistakenly concluded that house churches are unorganized. Faithfulness to our Lord and His Word necessarily results in a biblical house church that follows God’s complete pattern for His church. Home churches may not be institutional, but they are to be organized. Following the traditions laid down by the apostles means that house churches are to have definite leaders, regular and orderly meetings, active church discipline, and weekly Lord’s Supper celebrations.
Apostolic teaching is faithfully reflected in the essential doctrines of the historic orthodox faith as upheld by the general consensus of the Christian Church for the last two millennia. This belief is reflected, for instance, in the Nicene Creed.

Many churches today are firmly entrenched in practical church traditions developed after the close of the apostolic era. Although sympathetic with apostolic tradition, the preference is usually given to more recently developed traditions. In such cases, there is danger of nullifying the inspired tradition of the apostles for the sake of more modern tradition (Mt 15).

Want help teaching this topic? To aid you in leading others to the truths of New Testament church life, teaching notes have been prepared for this subject. They will give you ideas on how to lead an interactive (Socratic) group discussion. The idea is to guide people to discover for themselves what the New Testament says about this topic. At the end of the guide there are study questions to pass (or e-mail) out in advance.

Just click here!

Steve Atkerson

Steve lives in Georgia with his wife, Sandra, and their three home-schooled children. Steve graduated from Georgia Tech and worked in industrial electronics before heading off to seminary. After receiving a Master of Divinity degree from Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary in Memphis, served on the pastoral staff of a Southern Baptist Church. After seven years in the traditional pastorate, he resigned to begin working with churches that desire to follow apostolic traditions in their church practice. Since 1990 he travels and teaches as the Lord opens doors of opportunity. Steve is an elder at a local house church, is president of NTRF, edited Toward A House Church Theology, authored both The Practice of the Early Church: A Theological Workbook and The Equipping Manual, and is editor of and a contributing author to Ekklesia: To The Roots of Biblical House Church Life.

«back