Demystifying Darby

Earlier this year,  Crawford Gribben published his new book J.N. Darby and the Roots of Dispensationalism. I had pre-ordered a copy, so I was reading mine as soon as it could be delivered to the homestead. I wanted to talk about the book, but I have found it difficult to articulate what I want to say. So over the couple weeks, I found myself reading it for a second time: highlighter, pencil and sticky notes at hand. I think I might be ready to talk about it now.

 

Everyone should read Darby. I don't mean everyone should read everything Darby wrote – I haven't done that myself.  I mean reading Darby was a life-changing experience for me, and I would like to see everyone have that same experience. If every Christian would read Collected Writings, Volume 12, we'd be in much better shape. 

 

Everyone who reads Darby should read J.N. Darby and the Roots of Dispensationalism. This is the book I have needed to read for some time now. I hesitate to reuse the term "life-changing," but I think it might just be correct.

One might ask why I'd consider a book like this to be life-changing. I asked myself that question many times. It took me a while to understand that putting Darby into historical doctrinal context had the effect of demystifying "J. N. D."

Like it or not (and I think he would not like it), J. N. Darby has become a larger-than-life figure. A myth has built up around him. Spend enough time in or around "brethren" groups, and you'll hear someone talk about "truths recovered in the 19th Century" or "truths recovered by J. N. Darby."  While the people making these statements mean well, they have the effect of creating a mythic figure. It's only a short step for that figure to become an idol.

The problem with Darby in particular is that he's a good idol. I don't mean he's good at being an idol, but that he was genuinely used by God. William R. Newell wrote:

We know what debt under God all those who have the truth today owe to Darby, through whom God recovered more truth belonging to the Church of God, than through any other man since Paul, and whose writings are today the greatest treasure of truth and safeguard against error known to instructed believers. (Romans, Verse-by-verse,  p. 464)

Newell was not in fellowship among "brethren," which makes his statement much more powerful. This isn't simple sectarianism. But there is a real danger of hero worship here.

What Gribben's book does – like nothing else I have read on Darby quite does – is put Darby into context. It shows that he stood in the tradition of early 19th Century high church Calvinism (see pp. 35ff). It shows that he stood on the shoulders of giants like John Owen. It shows that he didn't spring up out of nowhere like John the Baptist, but was a product of his time.

At the same time, it shows that he wasn't merely parroting some party line. He really did make strides in understanding Scripture. He really did all that tough work and scholarship. He really did recover some truths that were largely ignored until then. His books really are worth reading.

Reading this book was a Nehushtan moment for me. It led me to a place where I could see and appreciate Darby's strengths, gifts, and work; while at the same time allowing me to see him as a man. A godly man, but a man for all that. 

J.N. Darby and the Roots of Dispensationalism is a dense book. It's 256 pages (including the Preface), but the Conclusion ends at page 154, meaning more than a third of the book is in notes, index, and bibliography. The 140 (-ish) pages of the book proper are packed. I felt like I had read a book at least three times as long.

The book is broken into four main chapters: "Soteriology", "Ecclesiology", "Pneumatology", and "Eschatology."  They examine Darby's views on each topic in turn, placing them in context both within contemporaneous "brethren" writings and the wider 19th Century Protestantism. Darby's views are shown to have been "Calvinistic, catholic, charismatic, and catastrophic" (pp. 32–33).

That summary aligns very closely with what I had observed reading Darby. Where the book added value for me was in tracing Darby's views back before his time. If you'll forgive a lengthy quote from the Conclusion:

[Croskery] might have discovered in the works of Johannes Piscator Darby's argument that believers were not justified through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ; he might have learned from John Owen Darby's argument that believers should meet for Bible study without clerical oversight and for the weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper; he might have found in the works of Johannes Cocceius the idea that redemptive history progressed through a sequence of ages, as a consequence of which believers were not bound to keep the Lord's Day as the Christian Sabbath; and he might have located the idea that Jewish people would be converted to Christianity and restored to the Promised Land in the Geneva Bible and many English puritans. (pp. 146–147)

In other words, Darby was in good company when it came to his more radical views. That also means he didn't spring out of nowhere as a larger-than-life figure, some modern John the Baptist. And this is the point I needed to see clearly.

I've said before that whenever I think Darby was wrong on a particular point, it's only a matter of time until I come around to his point of view. There are very few questions on which I think Darby was actually wrong. I might not see completely eye-to-eye with him on sealing, but I think he's generally correct. I'm reluctant to describe myself as paedo-baptist, but I think that's not too far off the truth. So while my views might differ from his in minutiae, I have come around to his way of thinking on almost every question.

The one area where I have real trouble is in his conception of Christian fellowship at the present time. The fact is that we have seen his ecclesiastical ideas work themselves out over the last 150+ years, and they have been disastrous. By "disastrous" I don't mean, "they just don't work." I mean, "they have led into positive sin." My experience among "brethren" has led me to the view that whatever they meant to accomplish by "leaving the systems," what they really did was just set up their own system that is an almost perfect imitation of the systems they claim to have left. Every sin I have heard "brethren" attribute to Christians "in system," I have seen them practice themselves.

Since 2007, I have been asking the question, "how can I live out the truth brethren hold, without falling into the same snares they have fallen into?"  Over time, I've come to some conclusions on that topic that would shock and horrify some. I've shared some of those conclusions here; I've kept others to myself.

To put it another way, the struggle for me has been to know how to tell when walking with the Lord means walking in Darby's footprints, and when walking with the Lord means avoiding pitfalls that Darby fell into. I have spent the majority of my life in gatherings where even suggesting Darby fell into pitfalls would be seen as  dangerous.

It has been helpful to me to read a book that acknowledges Darby's contributions, innovations, and godliness, while at the same time acknowledging where he was one more in a long line of believers who saw the same things in Scripture.

So I still think everyone should read at least some Darby. But I think it might be helpful to read Gribben's new book first. And at the risk of sounding like I'm self-promoting, I posted an "essential Darby reading list" on this blog. In case anyone wants help getting started.

Caricatures Abound

Somehow I missed John MacArthur's series, "Why Every Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist" when it came out. I found a reference to it on the testing 5-2-1 blog, and thought it would be a worthwhile listen. Was it ever! It was a remarkably good sermon series. I've listened to it twice now.

But...

In the first message, he talks about J. N. Darby (the transcript is available here), and it wasn't the most flattering. He didn't hit too hard on Darby, but his tone toward dispensationalists was more than a little dismissive.

Now, it's fair to point out that dispensationalism became (or maybe "has become") a nesting place for some of the unclean birds he mentions: newspaper exegesis, and Revelation 9 helicopters are two examples he gives. And I'll agree with him that those are wrong. It seems obvious to me that a lot of credibility was lost by some of that.

At the same time, to accuse dispensationalists of teaching "two ways of salvation" is a caricature at best, slander at the worst. And to be clear: MacArthur's not the only one I've heard make that accusation in the last year. 

I don't own a Scofield Bible, so I'm not going to attempt to defend it. I don't go in for Scofield-ism myself, I think it's a little brittle. But I've read a whole lot of Darby's writing, and he absolutely did not teach two ways of salvation. In fact, I'm pretty sure he didn't teach seven dispensations either.

I've mentioned before that the first big effect reading Darby had on me was to push me away from Scofield's dispensationalism.

For whatever reason (and I can think of a few), people love to beat on Darby. Oddly enough, it's hard to find someone with strong opinions on Darby who has read more than a snippet in a pull quote. I suppose he's in good company: people like to expound scripture without apparently reading it too.

So no, much as I think MacArthur makes some excellent points, his caricature of Darby seems to have nothing but the name in common with the man himself.

It's self-evident from his writings (especially his letters) that Darby didn't always think too hard before he acted. "Brethren" love to talk about how he never married, thinking he would be more effective as a single man. Twenty-five years after I first started reading him seriously, I've come to the conclusion that marriage would have been an improvement: it might have taught him to think first.

But even while I lament he acted terribly at times, I have to say he is one of my heroes. Why? Because I have never read, or heard from, or spoken to another person who bowed to Scripture and treated it like God's actual words like J. N. Darby did. 

Maybe Martin Luther. Maybe.

What I learn from J. N. Darby's writings is that Scripture is not only infallible, but it's also sufficient. The latter is what I see so lacking amongst all Christians. We all agree that Scripture is infallible, but very few seem to think it's sufficient. We all long to go back to Rome and have co-authorities with God's words. But Darby held tenaciously to Romans 3:4, "let God be true and every man false."  Darby recognized what others simply cannot accept: that the Word of God doesn't need help.

I've mentioned Kelly before, he was one of the campus chaplains when I was a student. Kelly once told me a story he'd heard from someone else: 

Imagine you're lying in bed at night and someone kicks in your door. You grab your pistol from the nightstand and point it at the housebreaker, who tells you he doesn't believe that gun can stop him. Guns don't actually work, he says, they're just a myth. What do you do? Do you try to explain ballistics to him? or do you just squeeze the trigger?

That's a pretty telling scenario. I'm afraid Christians as a whole have been trying to explain ballistics my whole life, when they should just have been squeezing the trigger.

Darby understood that in a way perhaps even someone like William Kelly didn't.

If people really heeded the word of God, and took simply from Scripture what Scripture states, such things would never be said.

Nor do I talk about private judgment on such things; between man and man that is all very well, reasonable enough, but do you think if God has spoken to me, I am to talk of private judgment on what He has said?

Why, it is blasphemy.

I can understand an unbeliever not knowing what is God's mind, and reasoning about what is written; but man by reasoning never got faith at all; and man's reason is perfectly incompetent to judge about God and His words.

If my mind could judge about God, then God is the subject matter, and my mind is the master of the subject matter.

It is a mistake altogether. You want a word from God to reach conscience, that is the first thing. I grant you man's mind is the measure of all the truth he can have, but the first thing I want is a hammer upon conscience.

Suppose I knock you down, does it not make an impression upon you? You are acted upon. This is what conscience needs. But people think it must be the activity of their own minds.

I do not take a candle out to see if the sun is shining!

("Detached Memoranda from a Reading Meeting")

 

So while I hope I act with more prudence than Johnny D., I aspire to his view of Scripture, his knowledge of it, and his earnest zeal in searching it.

Yet without sin

Several years ago, I read "Review of R. Pearsall Smith on 'Holiness through Faith'" by J. N. Darby (Collected Writings, Volume 23, pp. 184–211). Odd as it sounds to say, it was a major turning point for me.

I was struck by Darby's insistence that temptation is sin:

Temptation is used in two senses in scripture. We are tempted when we are drawn away of our own lusts and enticed, and we are tempted from without by the enemy. The latter the Lord underwent, the former of course never. All this is confounded by Mr. S. He says temptation is not sin. In the sense used by James, it is sin. In the other sense of testing or trying, it is not. (p. 190)

I had grown up believing the old evangelical idea that "it's not sin to be tempted, it's only sin if you give in." After examining James 1:13–14, I had to admit Darby was correct. It is sin to be tempted. We are tempted when we are drawn away of our own lusts and enticed.

Of course it's not transgression when we're tempted: there is a difference between being enticed to sin and actually sinning. But it's still sin. If we hadn't lusts to draw us away, we'd never be enticed. The very fact that evil things entice us indicates there is something wrong.

The problem is that we are so careless and fail to distinguish between sins and sin. The former are specific transgressions: they are acts of sin. The latter is the principle that lives in us (Romans 7:17). Having the former means we're guilty, having the latter means we're lost.

"By law is knowledge of sin" (Romans 3:20). Not "sins", but "sin." Law does reveal specific sins, but the point of law is not to make us understand that certain things are sins, it's to make us understand that there is a principle of sin within us. It's to reveal that we are lost. The heathen understood their guilt (Romans 2:15), it doesn't take law to prove that. Law was brought in to show we're not merely guilty, but lost as well.

Temptation addresses not merely guilt, but also lostness. If we find ourselves tempted to sin, then James tells us we've already been drawn away of our own lusts. The believer who is tempted is the believer who has allowed his own lusts to draw him away (James 1:13–15).

And of course this touches on the person of Christ. There is an idea out there that Christ was tempted exactly like we are, by every sin that tempts us. The idea is based on Hebrews 4:15, but it's completely wrong. Christ was never tempted to sin in the sense that we are tempted to sin: He had no lusts to draw Him away. God cannot be tempted by evil things (James 1:13), and it makes Christ less than God to say He could be tempted by them.

What Hebrews 4:15 actually says is, Christ was "tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin" (NASB). The error here is in thinking "yet without sin" means "yet without sinning." It does not. It means there was no sin in Him to respond. "The ruler of the world comes, and in me he has nothing" (John 14:30). In tempting Christ, Satan proved that there were no lusts there to draw Him away. The temptation of Christ proved not that He didn't succumb to temptation, but that He was not capable of being tempted by evil things.

This is really the point of Colossians 3:5–7, isn't it? We're not to walk through this wicked world constantly struggling not to succumb to temptation. We're to walk through this wicked world like Christ did, unaffected by the sin around us. That's why we're told to put to death our members on the earth. If we find ourselves tempted by evil things, it proves that there is un-mortified flesh acting in us. It proves we have failed of the calling of Colossians 3:5–7. If we find ourselves drawn away of our own lusts and enticed, it means we haven't been putting to death the deeds of the body (Romans 8:12–13).

So let's not fall into those subtle errors. Christ was tempted in all things like we are, but not by all things like we are. He was (and is) without sin, there were no lusts to draw Him away and entice Him. Let's not lower Him to the level of a sinner, saying He was tempted by evil things. And don't let's give ourselves a pass when we are tempted and think, "it's OK to be tempted, as long as I don't actually give in to that temptation." It's not: we are tempted when we are drawn away of our own lusts and enticed. When we find ourselves tempted by evil things, let's treat that like what it is – our flesh acting in its own lusts – and judge that before God.

We don't have to die

We are to reckon ourselves dead, instead of having to die. You may ask the flesh to die, but it never will. We talk of having to die to the flesh, because we have not got the consciousness of the positive distinctness of the two natures. The old man will take good care not to die. But being alive in Christ, I have the privilege and title to treat the other nature, the old one, as dead, because He died. It is never said that we have to die, but that as Christians we are entitled to, and do, hold ourselves for dead; because we have this new life. The person who talks of dying to sin, actually holds himself to be alive to sin.

J. N. Darby, "Dead and Risen with Christ" (emphasis added)

The Christian Life

Rodger has suggested it would be interesting to put together a sort of a "J. N. Darby Reading List" that would lead through some papers by J. N. Darby in a logical sequence. I've been thinking about it, and I think this might be a good first whack at "The Christian Life", by J. N. Darby.

We should start at the beginning. As Rogers and Hammerstein wrote, that's a very good place to start. The first paper is, "Connection of the cross with the entire development of God's ways with man." It's a big title, and a big topic, but well worth the read.

The gist of the paper is that God's purpose has always been to replace the first man with the Second. In Genesis 3:15, God begins the story of redemption with the statement that Someone Else is coming, and it would be He who crushes the serpent's head.

I was most struck by the discussion of the promises to Abraham in Genesis 12:1–3 with the promises in Genesis 22:15–18. In the former, there is no mention of "thy seed", only of Abraham himself. Following the offering of Isaac, the promise is to Abraham and to his seed. Hebrews 11:17–19 tell us about the transition, Isaac had ("in figure", Hebrews 11:19) been raised from the dead. And so we see that Resurrection is the key to the promises of God.

This is not the easiest paper to read, but it is well worth the effort.

Next we turn to 1 John, with Darby's excellent paper, "Cleansing by Water: and what it is to walk in the light." I find this among the most compelling articles Darby wrote. What I find particularly interesting is his claim that the standard evangelical interpretation of 1 John 1:7–10 is a denial of Christianity. Frankly, my experience among so-called brethren indicates we have been thoroughly leavened with the same low view of the high calling.

The main difference between the Old Testament and the New is the presence of the Holy Spirit on earth. This is clearly developed in "Christ in Heaven, and the Holy Spirit sent down". I can't recommend this paper highly enough.

Among Darby's more controversial papers is, "On Sealing with the Holy Ghost." I consider this the most important paper he wrote. Although it took me many years, I've come around to his point of view on the whole issue of sealing. That being said, I'm not sure the biggest pay-off in this paper is the discussion of sealing. This paper might be the most complete description of practical Christianity that I have read outside of the Bible.

I have read this paper at least two dozen times, and I don't feel like I've really even scratched the surface yet.

Finally, there are three papers on Deliverance that I would consider "must read":

• "Deliverance from the Law of Sin"
• "Deliverance"
• "Deliverance from under the Law, as stated in the Holy Scriptures"

If you only have time to read one, read the first; but all three are excellent and extremely important. Most of what we discuss on this blog centers on Deliverance. I really believe it's the one thing most lacking among Christians today.

To me the saddest thing about the "brethren movement" was that it began with insistence on practical Christian living as a Divine manifestation of the life of Jesus in mortal flesh (2 Corinthians 4:7–12), and descended into a series of checklists about church order. Of course church order matters, but if the individual walk is not scriptural, then even the most correct church order is godliness without power.

Links worth sharing

Several people have emailed me with links and quotations over the last few weeks that seem appropriate to share.

S. sent several links related to Election. The first is a letter by J. N. Darby:

This fresh breaking out of the doctrine of free-will helps on the doctrine of the natural man's pretension not to be entirely lost, for that is really what it amounts to. All men who have never been deeply convinced of sin, all persons with whom this conviction is based upon gross and outward sins, believe more or less in free-will. You know that it is the dogma of the Wesleyans, of all reasoners, of all philosophers. But this idea completely changes all the idea of Christianity and entirely perverts it.

The entire letter is on the STEM website.

Another from S. was this gem: an article entitled "Early Brethren Leaders and the Question of Calvinism" by Mark R. Stevenson. It's very interesting. The article considers current teaching among "open brethren" in comparison with "early brethren" when it comes to the question of Calvinism. It's more academic than I'd normally read, but it definitely grabbed my attention.

Rodger sent a link to an article on "New" and "Old" in Scripture:

It may be helpful to point out that there are four new things in Christianity — the new covenant, the new man, the new birth and new creation. In contrast to the new covenant we read of the old covenant, and in contrast to the new man we read of the old man. Yet we do not read of old birth in contrast to new birth, nor old creation in contrast to new creation. The reason being that when God styles a thing old He has done with it. In the cross of Christ both the old covenant and the old man were brought to an end judicially in view of the bringing in of the new covenant and the new man, but God has not yet done with the first birth or the first creation. We sometimes use the expression "old creation," but this term is not found in Scripture. The nearest approach to it is in Hebrews 1:11, "they shall wax old," but the actual term "old creation" is not used. We are thus still connected with the first birth and can glorify God in it; and He will yet fill the first creation with His glory as the waters cover the sea. Habakkuk 2:14.

Again, the whole article is on the STEM website. This one caught my attention because I frequently use terms like "old creation".

I've been meaning to post this quote about J. N. Darby by William R. Newell from Romans Verse-by-Verse:

We know what debt under God all those who have the truth today owe to Darby, through whom God recovered more truth belonging to the Church of God, than through any other man since Paul, and whose writings are today the greatest treasure of truth and safeguard against error known to instructed believers.

Romans Verse-by-Verse, Chapter 12 (last checked 2016-10-28).

I wrote a blog post for my friend Scott's Digital Sojourner about reading Collected Writings of J. N. Darby. I should have included that quote, although it's likely I hadn't found it yet. Romans Verse-by-Verse is an incredible book, but it took me several years to read it through. In fact, I was given the book in 1996 and didn't finish reading it until 2015 or so...

Setting aside

R. A. Huebner says

There is a fact to be observed with attention in the book of Genesis the special blessing is not given to the firstborn son. This setting begins with Cain and is seen in every case where there is sufficient information given so that this phenomenon in Genesis may be observed. We should see in this a foreshadow that God’s purpose is to set aside the firstborn. (God’s Sovereignty and Glory in the Election and Salvation of Lost Men, p. 31, downloaded 2016-09-05)

Galatians 4:21–24 supports his view that there is an allegorical truth here.

1 Corinthians 15:42–49 give two descriptions of Christ in contrast to Adam: there is the "last Adam" (v. 45) and the "second man" (v. 47). The "last Adam" carries the idea that Christ is the end of Adam's race, the "second man" carries the idea that Christ is the start of something new.

We see the same pattern in Matthew 27:15–23. Pilate presents Barabbas and Jesus in that order. Of course the crowd chose the first man over the second Man.

Their choice of the first over the second carries on the pattern from Genesis. When Joseph saw that Israel's right hand was on Ephraim's head, it was "evil in his eyes" (Genesis 48:17). Joseph wanted his older son to get the older son's blessing (quite naturally!). Jacob chose the second over the first (v. 20)

When God told Abraham that He would give him a second son (Genesis 17:15–21), Abraham's response was "Oh that Ishmael would live before You" (v. 18). This is remarkable: God is telling Abraham that He would provide the "son of promise" (Galatians 4:28), but Abraham wants the "son according to flesh" (Galatians 4:23) to please God. God certainly promised to bless Ishmael, but He insisted it was Isaac with whom He would establish a permanent covenant (vv. 20–21).

Let's pause and say that it was good and right for Abraham to long for Ishmael to please God. And we don't want to downplay the blessing of God on Ishmael. But we want to see the truth of Galatians 4 here: these things have an allegorical sense, and the Spirit of God is teaching us something in this story.

By the time we come to Genesis 22:2, we have God referring to Isaac as Abraham's "only son". God is no longer acknowledging the first man, only the second.

I fall into the trap of Abraham again and again, as I suspect most of us do. I long to see the "first man" walk with God. What I fail to see is that God is no longer acknowledging that man: He only acknowledges the "second Man." I, like Abraham, have to see that God is now dealing with the son of promise, not the son of flesh.

If you look at Facebook, or listen to so much so-called Christian ministry, you'll see people say things like, "we have two natures within us, the one we feed is the one that grows." I suppose there's a grain of truth there, but it's not at all what Scripture actually teaches. Scripture teaches that in God's sight, there is only the second Man. When we start down the path of thinking we have a choice between "two natures", we leave the teaching of Scripture behind. We aren't to choose between two natures, we are to consider ourselves to have died (Romans 6:11), and to be entirely new creatures (2 Corinthians 5:17). Of course I'm not denying that we have "the flesh" in us, but we are to consider that as a dead thing (Galatians 5:24). To think of ourselves as some sort of umpire between two warring sides is to give a place to "the flesh" that Scripture doesn't give it. J. N. Darby wrote,

Other differences have disappeared: there remains but the old man, which we only acknowledge as dead, and the new man. [emphasis added] (J. N. Darby, Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, Volume 5, last checked 2016-09-05)

So this is a challenge to me: don't fall into the trap of Genesis 17:18. Don't think the "first man" will walk before God. He won't. Don't think God will acknowledge anyone except the "second Man". God has found in Christ what He was looking for, and He's stopped looking. My only place before God is "in Christ", which means I've given up on myself (Philippians 3:9), and – by extension – on Adam's race.

Cessationism

Just when I thought JND couldn't get any cooler, it turns out he wasn't a cessationist. From Notes and Jottings, pp 28 - 29:

People have forgotten that the Holy Ghost is come. All recognition of Him is so utterly gone. To my mind, the very principle of "the clergy" involves that; and if you look at 2 Corinthians 11:13-15, you will find you have now to watch that you do not mistake a demon for the Holy Ghost. (p 28)

The doctrine of Irvingism was that the Holy Ghost had come back again. But the Lord said, "that he may abide with you for ever." None of their apostles ever got the gifts. Gifts of healing I think nothing of, because if we had the faith, they would be seen now. I have seen them at Plymouth. (p 29)

Johnny D. on Free Will

I've read this little article many times over the last twenty years or so. I think it's well worth sharing: "Letter on Free-will". I think his first paragraph is striking:

This fresh breaking out of the doctrine of free-will helps on the doctrine of the natural man's pretension not to be entirely lost, for that is really what it amounts to. All men who have never been deeply convinced of sin, all persons with whom this conviction is based upon gross and outward sins, believe more or less in free-will. You know that it is the dogma of the Wesleyans, of all reasoners, of all philosophers. But this idea completely changes all the idea of Christianity and entirely perverts it.

In the flesh

What is it to be in the flesh? It is to be in relationship with God on the ground of our natural responsibility as men, as children of fallen Adam. It is, as to our moral state — which in itself is true — making the disposition of God towards us to depend on what we are towards Him. Of this the law is the perfect rule. It says, if conscience is awakened, I am such and such: God will be so and so towards me. Grace is on the opposite ground: God has been, and is, through Christ such and such, and I shall be so and so, as the fruit of it. But this changes everything.

"On Sealing with the Holy Ghost", Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Volume 31, p. 260

The key to the transition from Romans 7 to Romans 8 is "in the flesh" vs. "in the spirit" (Romans 8:5–8). This is probably the most succinct description of what it means to be "in the flesh" I have ever found.

And of course, virtually all "christian" teaching I come across is nothing more than treating believers as "in the flesh". It's like trying to build a house without a foundation (as the Evanescent Free Man has pointed out). Biblical Christianity is entirely based on the idea that Christ has taken our place so that we could take His. When we think like we're just men and women "in the flesh", when we think of ourselves as on probation before God, then we've completely abdicated the place that Christ has prepared for us.

Is that the whole story? Of course it isn't! There are all sorts of things God is doing in us, but it's all based on this one fact: we don't stand before God as responsible creatures. We stand before God "in Christ".

Sovereignty (Reprise)

I finished reading God's Sovereignty and Glory in the Election and Salvation of Lost Men by R. A. Huebner (from Present Truth Publishers and available as a free PDF download). It is a good book, but not a perfect book. I thought I'd write down some of my impressions here.

There are very few topics so divisive as the question of God's sovereignty in salvation. People throw around terms like 'calvinist' and 'arminian', which I'd prefer to avoid. But the first question everyone is going to ask is, 'Calvinist or Arminian?' So let's briefly answer that question and get it out of the way: RAH's view definitely tends to the 'calvinist' side of things. He thoroughly condemns the notion that man has freewill, insists that men are entirely lost, defends the notion of 'unconditional election', and clearly teaches that it is only through God's effectual (i.e. compelling) call to the elect that any are saved. Interestingly, he doesn't really address the question of 'Limited Atonement', although he does spend just a small amount of time discussing 'Eternal Security'. The book does address the question of the 'Doctrine of Reprobation' and condemns it as non-scriptural. In other words, RAH presents a view we might describe as 'single predestination', or perhaps 'moderate Calvinism'.

So now that's out of the way, let's look at some of my impressions.

The Good

To start, RAH has a necessary ministry in reminding us of man lost-ness. This is one of the most important teachings of Scripture, because it touches every single facet of the Christian life. As RAH points out– as JND and WK pointed out before him– Christianity starts with man entirely lost. "[T]he mind of the flesh is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God; for neither indeed can it be: and they that are in flesh cannot please God" (Romans 8:7–8). The Christian life isn't the life of the forgiven sinner, it's the life of someone who has realized he cannot please God, and so he accepts Christ as his life (1 Corinthians 1:30–31; Galatians 2:20; Philippians 3:8–11). The Christian is "in Christ" where he has no righteousness of his own.

Of course the majority of Christendom doesn't accept that man is totally lost. So they spend a lot of time and effort trying to improve what God has already condemned (Romans 8:1–4). Ask me how I know… I've spent an awful lot of time down that path.

The single best thing about this book, in my opinion, is showing that man is completely lost.

Again, I don't want to use sectarian language, but many of the self-described 'calvinists' I have known seem to have a pretty mild view of man's lost-ness that doesn't quite seem to measure up to Scripture. Ephesians presents men as 'dead in trespasses and sins', from which some of my Calvinist friends conclude that unregenerate men and women are somehow in a passive state. They are not: consider Romans 1–3, where fallen men and women are very much alive in sins. The problem with fallen man isn't that he hasn't a will, it's that he is self-willed. And so some have concluded that God actively prevents the non-elect from repentance, as though a fallen man might actually be in danger of repenting without God's active intervention! But now I rant.

God's Sovereignty and Glory in the Election and Salvation of Lost Men is valuable solely on the basis that it sums up so well the teaching of Scripture that fallen man has absolutely nothing to offer God: neither before nor after God forgives us of our sins. And it points out some subtleties, including that Scripture doesn't view man as lost until Christ is rejected. God has put man on trial (not because God didn't know what fallen man is, but because He wanted to demonstrate it), and the trial wasn't over until the Son of God came here to be rejected. RAH points out that if Christ had come and hadn't been rejected, that would have proven that man wasn't entirely lost: that there is still something there God can work with.

The Bad

All of RAH's books suffer from two characteristic faults: they are repetitive and hyper-focused. Honestly, this is nothing that couldn't be fixed with a good editor. I think if RAH's books were cut down in length, they'd be better books. Don't get me wrong: I appreciate that he is zealous for the truth, but at some point it gets hard to keep my attention. Doubtless he repeats himself to make a point, but there comes a point where the constant repetition actually gets in the way.

Hyper-focus isn't quite as big a problem in this book as in some of his others, but RAH has a strong tendency to tunnel-vision. That is, he tends to see everything as somehow a symptom of whatever he's addressing. This can make it easy to dismiss his writing at times. Again, this could easily be fixed by an editor. Simply reducing the length of these books would have the effect of removing some of the words and clarifying his message.

The Ugly

Roy Huebner's books tend to be more like scrapbooks than actual books. That is, he has a tendency to cut and paste huge quotations from J. N. Darby, William Kelly, F. G. Patterson, W. T. Turpin, A. P. Cecil, and H. H. Snell into his books. Some of those quotations occupy more than a single page! He's not trying to plagiarize, he's not trying to be dishonest, he's just recognizing that someone else has already said something so well there's no point in trying to restate it. The problem with this is that the books are choppy and long. It would have been better in, in my opinion, to try and reduce the quotes to a sentence or two and cite liberally. There comes a point where the extensive quotations actually make it hard to read.

That brings up another 'ugly' aspect of this book: the language isn't the most consistent. Huebner sometimes writes like a 19th Century writer, probably because he invested so much of his time reading them. I think it might have been a good investment of effort to rework his language and try to bring it up to the 20th or 21st Century.

In the end, there's nothing here that a decent editor couldn't fix. It would require some deep surgery of the text, perhaps; but I'm afraid there is some very valuable truth in this book that will be lost on people who might've read it, but for the awkward wording and [far too] extensive quotations.

Should I read it?

I found this a helpful book. Of course, with a title like God's Sovereignty and Glory in the Election and Salvation of Lost Men, some of my more 'freewill' friends won't even bother picking it up. More's the pity: there is a lot of truth in here that's been lost or forgotten. I would definitely recommend this book to a friend (and, in fact, I have), but I would caution them to read it slowly and try not to miss the forest for the trees.

Honestly, I think RAH has put together a good outline of what Scripture teaches when it comes to election. He addresses common objections from the 'freewill' point of view, while at the same time standing firm against ideas like a 'decree of reprobation' that Scripture simply doesn't teach.

One more thing I'd notice: I can't recall any discussion of the whole question of 'Limited Atonement' in this book. RAH is now asleep in Christ, so he can't comment on it. But I suspect I know what he'd say: Darby has answered that question quite ably in his little paper "Propitiation and Substitution". I'd definitely encourage reading this short article: well worth the time.

Worthy reads

From time to time I get email from someone who's read my blog. A surprising percentage seems to come from people who've read Miles Stanford's books. Perhaps that shouldn't surprise: Stanford liked to quote J. N. Darby, and I'd imagine searches for J. N. Darby online would eventually include this blog.

I was once a much bigger fan of Stanford's than I am now: I think someone could do a lot worse than reading Stanford's books, but someone could do a lot better too. So without picking too much on Stanford, there are some resources that I think are very worthwhile for the believer.

When it comes to the Christian life, Scripture presents both positive and negative truth. Very little "ministry" addresses both the negative and positive aspects of the truth: on the negative side, I am crucified with Christ. I am thus free from sin (in the sense that I am no longer under its power, Romans 6:7). I am no longer under its dominion (Romans 6:14). There is a human responsibility: I must reckon on the truth of my death with Him (Romans 6:10–11). Note that I don't become dead to sin by reckoning: I am dead to sin, the reckoning is merely bringing my thoughts into line with God's.

The positive truth is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It's necessary because the believer who has been freed from sin (by his death with Christ) is not empowered to live the Christian life by that same death. My having died with Christ doesn't give me power to walk godly in this world. Dying doesn't imply life. The positive truth is that I have been indwellt by the Spirit of God. I am free from sin because I have been crucified with Christ (Romans 6:6–11), but I am only able to walk the Christian life because I have the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:2).

Romans doesn't stop in chapter 6. The believer who has learned that he has died with Christ still needs to learn the truth of Romans 7 & 8. Even a man who has died with Christ has the flesh in him. There is still the "law of sin in my members" (Romans 7:21–23). There is only one answer to the "law of sin" in our members, the "law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1–2).

What Scripture teaches is a two-part solution to the problem. First, the believer has died with Christ. This is absolutely necessary to accept. It is not that the believer must die with Christ, but that the believer has died with Him. The Scripture does not even hint that we must die with Christ: it teaches very clearly that we have died with Him. Our responsibility is not to die, but to reckon on the truth that we have died.

But there is a second part: the man who has died with Christ still needs to active and constant intervention of the Spirit of God. Galatians 2:20 connects both these truths in a single verse, Romans spends three chapters explaining them in detail.

If you're wanting some books that cover more or less the same material in a little more depth (and accuracy), I'll recommend a few titles here:

1. From New Birth to New Creation by R. A. Huebner. This is probably the most complete book on the subject I've ever read. It's not perfect by any means, but it's really an excellent book. I've written a little about it before.
2. The Gospel of Our Salvation by H. F. Witherby. This isn't nearly so meaty as Huebner's book, but it's still very good. I wrote about this one too. I ended up giving away my copy before I finished it. Yes, it's that good.
3. The Normal Christian Life by Watchman Nee. People start to tune you out when you bring this one up, but it really is an amazing book. It's not without fault, but it's an absolutely excellent book. If you haven't read this one, you need to read it right away.
4. Finally, there are a few papers by J. N. Darby that must be mentioned in this category. I've listed them last, because they're Darby – they're not the easiest reading:
   1. Forgiveness and liberty
   2. Deliverance
   3. On sealing with the Holy Ghost
   4. Deliverance from the Law of Sin
   5. Cleansing and Deliverance
   6. Cleansing by Water: and what it is to walk in the light.

Deliverance from the Law

I've been reading everything I can find by J. N. Darby on deliverance. I've been reading, re-reading, highlighting, and taking notes. There's a story there, but I haven't time to tell it tonight.

But I wanted to take a break and share something that I feel really must be shared: "Deliverance from under the Law, as stated in the Holy Scriptures" (Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Volume 7, pp. 127–138), of course available from STEM Publishing. This is a really excellent article, and you should read it.

Here are some quotes to tantalize you:

All hope of deliverance is shewn, in chapter 5, to flow out of justification. But this is not man's thought. He would wish to deliver himself actually from the law of sin by his own effort, and thus be without fault before God; but God will not have it so, and it never could be according to His truth, because that, on the one hand, the work of Christ would have been in vain, and, on the other, man would not have known what is the true nature and sinfulness of sin. If by efforts in the conscience we could find deliverance before God, the work of justification, though it might not be by strength of man, would at least be by the work of the Holy Spirit, and not by the work of Christ. But God will not; and for man it is impossible to have it so; because the work of the Spirit of God is to shew him how intolerable sin is to God, and that the nature of man is not changed. Now his very nature is sin. Man must submit himself to the righteousness of God. Convinced of sin, condemned by the law, he must find his righteousness in another — in Christ, who died for him, and is now risen and in the presence of God. This is the reason why chapters 3 and 5 come before chapters 6 and 7, and verse 1 of chapter 8 before verses 2 and 3. (p. 133)

And another paragraph on the next page:

[I]t ought to be remarked, before going farther, that there are some who make a law of Christ Himself. They acknowledge His love; they see in His work on the cross, how great is His love. They find in it a reason why they should love Christ perfectly, with their whole hearts; but they cannot find this love in themselves. They ought to love Christ with their whole heart, but they do not love Him thus. Now it is precisely the law which commands that we should love God with all our heart. We have found in Christ a new motive, we have perhaps given a new form to the law, but we find ourselves still under the law, though we have clothed it with the name of Christ. (p. 134)

All of J. N. Darby's teaching on practical Christian living can be summed up with one verse:

"I am crucified with Christ, and no longer live, *I*, but Christ lives in me; but [in] that I now live in flesh, I live by faith, the [faith] of the Son of God, who has loved me and given himself for me" (Galatians 2:20, Darby Translation)

The more I read Scripture, the more I recognize Darby is right. The striking character of the Christian life (as taught in the Epistles) is that I have died with Christ. God is not dealing with me as such: my place is in Christ (Philippians 3:9).

and Further Reading

A friend sent me some books via drop-shipment from Bible Truth Publishers, including:

• Lectures on the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit by William Kelly (also available on STEM Publishing)
• From New Birth to New Creation by R. A. Huebner
• The Gospel of Our Salvation by H. F. Witherby
• The Old Nature and the New Birth: The New Convert and His Difficulties by George Cutting

I've read the first two titles, I plan to start the third tomorrow morning.

My friend sent these books after a brief talk or two we had on deliverance. I wrote a lot about this already this year ("Walking" and "in Christ), but there's a lot more to talk about. Still, I don't want to discuss the topic itself so much as I want to discuss the specific books my friend sent me.

From New Birth to New Creation by R. A. Huebner is a book I'd highly recommend to anyone, with a caveat or two. If you've never read RAH, I'll warn first that his work isn't terribly original: his books are almost more like scrap-books of recommended ministry others have written. This book is no exception: it's largely quotations and summaries of writings by J. N. Darby, A. P. Cecil, W. Kelly, F. G. Patterson, and H. H. Snell. But don't let that put you off! It's a worthwhile read. In fact, it's extremely helpful.

There are two caveats I'll make while recommending this [really very good] book. The first is that RAH is susceptible to tunnel vision. There's an old saying that "when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail". Similarly, Huebner's books can become somewhat repetitive, and literally everything becomes evidence of whatever point he's trying to make.

In this book in particular, the main point is that the sealing with the Holy Spirit is a distinct event and experience from the new birth. Of course this was what J. N. Darby taught, and it was the question that eventually led to F. W. Grant being put out of fellowship. But because that is a central doctrine of the book, Huebner brings it into every discussion, sometimes (in my opinion) when it's not really the point.

The book is divided into four parts:

1. "New Birth, Forgiveness of Sins, and Sealing with the Spirit"
2. "Eternal Life in the Son"
3. "Deliverance from the Law of Sin and Death"
4. "New Creation"

It follows the general pattern that each section establishes doctrine, and then explores how that applies to the Christian life. I found the first section particularly excellent, with its careful distinction of language. Huebner takes great care to differentiate between redemption, salvation, quickening, new birth, and so forth.

Now, I have read Darby extensively: there is very little this book says that I haven't already read from Darby. But I have to say that this book does an excellent job of laying it out in a very understandable and organized manner. And Huebner answers some of the questions Darby doesn't seem even to notice. There's not much Huebner says that Darby doesn't say, but Huebner has a real knack of putting the pieces together clearly.

But Huebner does have a tendency to hyper-focus, and I noticed this especially in the context of the sealing with the Holy Spirit. He is so careful to point out that new birth and sealing are distinct that he seems to say that every problem in a Christian's life is evidence that he (or she) has not [yet] been sealed. I found myself growing somewhat introspective when reading this book, wondering "have I been sealed?"

J. N. Darby wrote, "Faith never looks at itself or at its effect in us, but at Christ in Himself." ('Review of R. Pearsall Smith on "Holiness through Faith."', Collected Writings of J. N. Darby, Volume 23, p. 193). It's worth remembering this when we consider the Christian life: it's tempting for our focus to turn inward, especially when there is some question of the Lord's work in us. But we do well to remember that we're called to look up to Christ, not in to self.

Along that vein, I'd caution anyone reading this book to read two chapters out of order. Section 3 ("Deliverance from the Law of Sin and Flesh") ends with chapters 3.6 and 3.7; read those before you read the rest of Section 3. Then read the whole section in order, re-reading those last two chapters in the order they're in the book. Here's why: Huebner points out [correctly] that Romans 7 isn't really about a man who has been sealed with the Holy Spirit; it's about a man who is regenerated and born again, but not yet sealed. That man has not been set free from the law of sin and death, and he finds himself wanting to please God, but being unable to do so. This is exactly J. N. Darby's and William Kelly's teaching on Romans 7, it's not some strange new doctrine. But every Christian – even those indwelt by the Spirit of God and sealed with the Holy Ghost – find themselves helpless in the face of sin in the flesh. The sealing of the Holy Spirit doesn't free us from the presence of sin, nor does it mean the flesh is somehow done away with. It doesn't mean we're confirmed into some state of sinless perfection! What it means is that we have been set free from the law of sin and death.

There is no question that the Corinthians were sealed with the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 6:19), but there were still serious issues in Corinth, including such fornication that even the Gentiles found it shocking (1 Corinthians 5:1). And the Galatians certainly had the Holy Spirit (Galatians 3:2), but they had fallen into legalism, which is really a denial of the Gospel (Galatians 2:15–21). They had begun in the Spirit, but wanted to be perfected in the flesh (Galatians 3:3). So the epistles make it abundantly clear that an imperfect – or even immoral – walk is not proof that the Holy Spirit is not present.

Chapters 3.6 and 3.7 of this book really make this case very clearly. It's entirely possible for a true believer, who has been sealed with the Holy Spirit, to walk immorally, worldly, and even in a practical denial of the faith.

With that one caveat, I would highly recommend this book to anyone. Read it carefully, but read the end of Section 3 before you start into it.

The William Kelly book was written by William Kelly. I don't really need to add much: anything by William Kelly is worth reading. And you can read it free online (Lectures on the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit on STEM Publishing).

Salvation and Separation

A friend sent me this excellent article by Johnny D., entitled "Salvation and Separation". It's available on STEM Publishing: http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/darby/NOTESJOT/40010E.html.

Here's a small sample:

Before God, can you mend the first Adam? Will you educate him, and get any good out of him? You will not. God tried it, and it ended in the death of His Son. The very world we are living in is the world that had God in it, but it turned Him out. The flesh that I have got in me has had that Christ presented to it, and it rejected Him - morally, that is. We cannot now, of course, kill Him outwardly.

But people put this flesh under law, and they fancy they can school it. Do you think they would insist so upon law, if they were sure and certain that the only thing it can do is to damn them?

It's in Notes and Jottings, starting on page 46.

Above the path

We must look above our path to be able to walk in it. A Jew, who had the secret of Jehovah and who waited for the Messiah, was pious and faithful according to the law. A Jew, who had only the law, assuredly did not keep it. A Christian, who has heaven before him and a Saviour in glory as the object of his affections, will walk well upon the earth; he who has only the earthly path for his rule will fail in the intelligence and motives needed to walk in it; he will become a prey to worldliness, and his christian walk in the world will be more or less on a level with the world in which he walks. The eyes upward on Jesus will keep the heart and the steps in a path conformable to Jesus, and which consequently will glorify Him and make Him known in the world. Seeing what we are, we must have a motive above our path to be able to walk in it.

J. N. Darby, Synposis of the Books of the Bible, Volume 1. Comments on 1 Kings 3.

Forgiveness and Deliverance

A friend asked me what I found helpful in terms of "practical ministry". I was desperately trying to remember the title of a paper by JND I'd read fairly recently, but I just couldn't remember it. So when I got home, I found the paper. It's in Collected Writings, Volume 29, and it's called "Forgiveness and Liberty". It's on the STEM Publishing site.

I must say, this paper might be the most complete and "perfect" presentation of Darby's understanding of sanctification that I've read. But in the end, it's Darby. So I thought I'd spend some time tonight to highlight some of the really great bits. It might be helpful to some.

I would, for a few moments, draw the attention of brethren in Christ to a point, as to which I think there has been a good deal of misapprehension in practice, and which, while the joy of known forgiveness seemed to make all plain for a time, has left souls subsequently in distress and difficulty, even when not doubting of their acceptance, though it has sometimes come to that. Forgiveness is not deliverance, and they have been a good deal confounded.

This is the opening of the paper, and it lays out a very real problem for many, many people. There is a difference between forgiveness and deliverance. God looks on me and refuses to see my sins: He has forgiven my sins. My sins cannot ever appear in God's sight, they are gone forever. But as blessed as this is, it's not enough.

"Not enough?" How is that not enough? Quite simply, a man or woman with the Holy Spirit in residence isn't going to be satisfied with a freedom from sin's guilt: we want freedom from sin's power. This is not now forgiveness, but deliverance. A sinner might be content simply to be forgiven, but a child of God will be discontent with anything less than deliverance from sin's power, as well as forgiveness for sin's guilt.

So it is quite normal for a believer to go gradually from overflowing joy at the assurance of forgiveness to deep depression over sin's presence and power.

It is a very common experience, when a person has found peace through the blood of Christ, that the pardoned and justified soul, filled with joy and gladness to find its sins gone, the conscience purged, the sense of divine goodness filling it, thinks that it has done with sin because it is at the time full of joy, and the Lord's goodness and favour; but this is not deliverance.

Deliverance has a double character; perfect freedom with God in love in my place before Him; and freedom from the power of sin in myself. We are in Christ for the former; Christ is in us for the latter.

This is really the question of Romans 5–7. Romans 5 starts with the remarkable statement that "we have peace with God" (Romans 5:1). But having peace with God isn't the end of the story, or Romans would end there. After guilt is dealt with, Romans turns to the question of indwelling sin: not what we have done, but what we are. So Romans 6 declares that we are free from sin (Romans 6:7), because we have died with Christ. And so sin is not our master: we've died and have thus been freed from that master. But Romans 7 takes it even further, even a man who has died to sin lives in a body where sin lives. And so we find there is "sin that dwells in me" (Romans 7:17). We can't get rid of it, and no amount of forgiveness can help us with it. The believer soon finds that however grateful he is that all his sins are forgiven him, he dreads the certainty that he'll sin again. How do we deal with that? Do we just give up? Do we learn to live with it? This is why we need deliverance.

Forgiveness of sins was found in Christ. There's nowhere else to look for a solution to sins' guilt. Deliverance, too, is found in Christ. There's nothing God has for us that's not in and through Christ.

I do not now say simply, He bore my sins, and cleared me for ever from them, but, I am in Christ before God, accepted in the Beloved, not in the flesh, but in the Spirit. I am not in the condition of a child of Adam, responsible before God, and thinking of my condition in His sight in connection with my conscious state; I have died to that as wholly and hopelessly evil, and know by the Holy Ghost that I am in a new standing altogether, in Christ, accepted in the Beloved. I am not in the flesh but in the Spirit. Christ has died to sin, and I have died in Him, and He is my life; I am alive to God in this new life in Christ before Him, and reckon myself so by the Holy Ghost.

I think it's safe to say there are many Christians who understand the truth of Christ's dying for us, but who haven't learned that we have died with Him. Forgiveness for sins is based entirely in the death of Christ for me. But the Christian life isn't the life of a forgiven sinner, it's the life of a crucified man. It's the life that flows from my history ending in Christ on the cross. I died with Him there.

If I understand that my life has ended at the Cross, then I shall live in a very different way. See, it's not just that what I have done is forgiven, it's now that God has done away with the "I" that did those terrible things. I haven't just got a clean slate, I've got a whole new life to live with it.

Thus for faith I am delivered from sin in the flesh, as having died in Christ, in that Christ has, who is my life. It is not resurrection with Him — that carries us further — but death in Him on the cross as to the old man and state, and He now at the right hand of God, my life. Such is the doctrine and effect. Christ, who died, my life, and I in Him, in the power of the Holy Ghost, and through that dead to sin altogether, He having thus died, and the sin in my flesh condemned there, but for faith I died to it, for I died in Him.

It is very difficult for us to accept what God declares to be true: not only that I have done wrong, but that I am wrong. It's not just that I have sinned, but that I am a sinner. And I didn't become a sinner by sinning, I sinned because I was a sinner. This is the plain teaching of Romans 5:19–21. But God hasn't been content to deal with the symptoms (my sins), He's also dealt with the root problem: the sinner. How do you deal with a sinner? There's only one way: the sinner has to be put to death. And so the Biblical solution to the problem of what I am is that I have died in Christ.

So what do I do now? Do I cease to exist? No, because it's not simply that I have died, it's the I have died in Christ. Christ is my life: and now that I've died, He lives in me (Galatians 2:20). Now I have a life that's entirely beyond sin, death, and the grave. It's a life of God's resurrected Man, the life of the Son of God. And it's not mine to earn or develop or achieve. It's mine by grace, it's mine because it was given to me freely.

But there's a catch, isn't there? It's one thing to understand what I've been given, but it's another actually to experience it.

The delivering work was done on the cross, so that our state, by faith in Christ, is dead to sin, and morally, as to the life this side the cross, in which He, sinless, had to be made it, wholly closed, and alive now wholly beyond it all, with nothing but God to live to; and this, not by our efforts, but by faith through grace; yet, as conviction of guilt goes before known forgiveness, so the experimental knowledge of self before deliverance. No effort clears the guilt; no effort effects the deliverance; but there is the knowledge of self, and that we cannot get free by improvement or victory, as there is the knowledge of the guilt which is pardoned; only here it is self-knowledge and present experience.

Here's the catch: we can't achieve deliverance, it's not ours to earn. But we learn our need of it through our efforts. How? Because the harder we try to be good, the more certain we become that we're not. It's not an issue of doubting our forgiveness, it's not a matter of questioning our acceptance before God. It's learning that no matter how hard we try, we can't live the Christian life. It's not that we don't want to. It's not that we don't have new life in Christ. It's that God's way is for us to find what we need in His Son, and our efforts at self-improvement all prove vain precisely so we can give up on self and rest in Him.

Here is something very, very important for us to learn: whenever we compare ourselves with what we ought to be, we find we're not. This is the essence of Law.

Of this the law is ever the instrument; if we have learnt forgiveness already, the form is modified, takes the shape of hoping we have not deceived ourselves, and the like; but it is always a comparison of our state, and what God requires, and that is law; very useful for the discovery of our state, but bondage. I repeat, as it is important, wherever we reason from our state to what God's acceptance of us may be, that is, in principle, law just as the prodigal son between his conversion and meeting his father. It calls itself holiness, will insist that without holiness no man shall see the Lord, which is necessarily and eternally true, but mixes it with God's acceptance of us, connecting this and our state, so that it is really righteousness, not holiness, that the mind is occupied with: for in holiness we hate evil because it is unholy, not because we are out of divine favour by it; but, whatever shape it takes, it is always really law, a question of evil that makes us unacceptable to God.

What is legalism? It is confusing holiness with righteousness. It's confusing our standing with our state.

Our righteousness is in Christ. God only ever deals with me on the basis of what Christ is, of what He has done, and of what He is doing. There is nothing for me but Christ. God's not interested in what I can and cannot do, but in what Christ has done. But because I am born of God, because I have the Holy Spirit, I can't help but notice that I don't measure up. And as soon as I try to fix myself, I have moved outside of that Christ has done for me. There's a tremendous danger in doing this: it's facing off with sin in the flesh, which God never intended me to do.

So what's the solution? The solution is when we give up trying to improve ourselves.

Here I learn that in me (it is not what I have done) dwells no good thing; the flesh is simply and always bad. Secondly; it is not myself, being born of God, for I hate it, it is not therefore I. This is often a great relief, though it be not deliverance; but thirdly, though it be not I, it is too strong for me: I am captive to it. All my efforts only prove this to me. As effort and conflict, I give it up as hopeless, and look for another to come in and deliver me. I have learned that I have no strength (not that I am guilty), and that is what I had to learn, the lesson God was teaching me; and when brought there I find it is all done.

The solution is that I cannot be better. I can't improve myself, I can only look for Christ to deliver me. I don't need self-improvement, I need a Deliverer.

It's so hard for us to accept what God calmly tells us in His word: we are to walk as we received. We received Christ by grace through faith, we did nothing to earn His favour, we accepted based on faith in what God says. In the same way, we cannot improve ourselves, we cannot make our walk what it ought to be, we must simply accept what God has said.

"As therefore ye have received the Christ, Jesus the Lord, walk in him, rooted and built up in him, and assured in the faith, even as ye have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving." (Colossians 2:6–7)

Blessing

The Lord does not need us to bless Him, but He is pleased to bless us: what He asks of us is to sit at Jesus' feet and receive the abundant grace He bestows on us.

J. N. Darby, "Notes on 1 Chronicles 13-17" (Collected Writings, Volume 30, p. 13).

Presbuterion

Introduction

I was at a Labour Day conference a couple weeks ago (you know... on Labour Day). I met some lovely new people there, which is always a joy. One of the gentlemen I met is a brother with whom I chatted for several hours. I think I freaked him out a little when I mentioned that elders aren't for today.

I wasn't trying to freak him out.

So I thought I'd write something about that. Not to prove to you, my one reader, that I'm right; but so that I can refer to this in the future. Now, here's the problem: this is a really big subject. It's a big subject, and it deserves careful consideration.

What Scripture commands

The first consideration whenever we think about an issue of church order is, "What does Scripture command?" Now, a lack of a Scriptural command isn't the same as Scriptural prohibition. We can't say, for example, that since Scripture doesn't command potluck dinners, they're forbidden. Similarly, if Scripture doesn't command us to appoint elders, it doesn't follow that it's a sin to do so. On the other hand, if Scripture positively commands something, then the question is settled.

So we ask, what does Scripture command concerning elders? The answer is simple: there is no command in Scripture for any church, assembly, or gathering to choose elders.

Don't let's forget that a lack of command is not the same thing as prohibition. We can't say that it's forbidden for an assembly to choose elders, but we can say positively that it's not commanded.

But it does raise a very important question: when Scripture doesn't command something, should we do it? Or, put another way, if Scripture is silent on something, why would we think we ought to do it? This is a question we'll try and answer in more detail. Let's leave that as an open question for the moment.

The gentleman with whom I spoke at the conference doesn't believe an assembly ought to appoint a pastor. (I mean here, not "pastor" in the sense of "shepherd", but "pastor" in the sense of a clergyman.) So I asked him, why not? Scripture doesn't actually forbid appointing a pastor, just like it doesn't actually forbid appointing elders. What is the difference? Why do you think one is acceptable but the other isn't?

Because, he said, it doesn't fit the New Testament pattern.

So let's discuss the "New Testament Pattern".

The "New Testament Pattern"

There are a great many Christians who talk about the "New Testament Pattern". By that they mean there is a pattern in Scripture for how the church was to function. So they search through Scripture, looking for how the church operated. We commend them for searching the Scriptures, but they make a dangerous assumption: they assume what Scripture describes about the early church is a de facto command for us today. They confuse the descriptive with the prescriptive.

This is essentially an appeal to precedent. If they see the New Testament church doing something, then they see a precedent for us to do the same thing. In fact, I've actually heard one preacher talk about "the mandate in Acts 2:42". Let's consider that for a minute: what's the mandate in Acts 2:42?

And they persevered in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles, in breaking of bread and prayers. Acts 2:42

Simple answer: there is no mandate in Acts 2:42. There is no command given in this verse, it's simply a statement of what the early church did. But this preacher has taken the statement of what the early church did as a command for what churches today ought to do. Obviously there are some pretty huge hermeneutical problems with this approach.

What is the precedent?

But for the sake of argument, let's assume we can treat the early church as a precedent. Let's examine what Scripture has to tell us about the appointment of elders in the early church.

We see the appointment of elders exactly once in Scripture:

21 And having announced the glad tidings to that city, and having made many disciples, they returned to Lystra, and Iconium, and Antioch, 22 establishing the souls of the disciples, exhorting them to abide in the faith, and that through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God. 23 And having chosen them elders in each assembly, having prayed with fastings, they committed them to the Lord, on whom they had believed Acts 14:21–23

In this case, it was Paul and Barnabas who chose elders "in each assembly."

There is also the case of Titus in Crete. Scripture doesn't record that he chose elders, but clearly he was told to do so:

5 For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou mightest go on to set right what remained [unordered], and establish elders in each city, as *I* had ordered thee: 6 if any one be free from all charge [against him], husband of one wife, having believing children not accused of excess or unruly. Titus 1:4–5

We might notice a difference here from the events recorded in Acts 14. Titus was told to appoint elders "in each city", Paul and Barnabas appointed elders "in each assembly". This isn't a contradiction: Scripture uniformly presents only one gathering in each city. I don't take that to mean there was only one place the Christians gathered, but that all the Christians in a city were seen as one gathering, regardless of how many places they gathered.

What we don't see in Scripture is that any gathering chose their own elders. Either the Apostles appointed them, or they sent someone to appoint them. The idea that a gathering would choose elders for itself is entirely foreign to Scripture.

So the "pattern" isn't that assemblies chose elders for themselves: the "pattern" is that outsiders came along and appointed elders in each assembly. In every single case in Scripture elders are appointed by outsiders to an assembly. It's difficult to argue that we're following "the New Testament Pattern" in having elders unless we have Apostles coming through town, appointing them, and leaving. That's the New Testament pattern.

Choosing and recognizing

"But wait!" someone says, "we don't choose elders, we recognize the elders the Lord has chosen! That's what Acts 20:28 teaches!"

Let's consider that:

28 Take heed therefore to yourselves, and to all the flock, wherein the Holy Spirit has set you as overseers, to shepherd the assembly of God, which he has purchased with the blood of his own. Acts 20:28

At first glance that seems like there might be something to that claim. If the Holy Spirit put the elders in the assembly, then maybe Paul and Barnabas didn't actually choose them: maybe Paul and Barnabas just pointed out the elders the Holy Spirit had already put into the assembly.

There is a compelling reason to reject this view: the Word of God explicitly says that Paul and Barnabas chose the elders (Acts 14:23). It doesn't say they "recognized" elders, it says they "chose" them. The fact is that "recognizing" elders has absolutely no Scriptural basis. There isn't a single place where Scripture says anyone "recognized" elders. Paul and Barnabas "chose" elders, Titus "established" elders.

So no, Acts 20:28 doesn't teach that God put elders in the assembly and Paul and Barnabas just "recognized" them. Acts 14:23 explicitly contradicts this interpretation. And it sure doesn't imply that God put elders anywhere else, just waiting to be recognized.

To whom is Acts 20 written?

I've noticed people who talk about the "New Testament Pattern" like to talk a lot about Acts 20:17–38. That makes a certain amount of sense: Paul's discourse to the Ephesian elders gives us a lot of insight into his relationship to them, their relationship to the assembly in Ephesus, and their responsibilities to the Lord. But in the end, Acts 20 isn't a discourse on proper church order. Acts 20:17–38 is Paul's farewell address to the elders at Ephesus. It's not Paul's address to the elders in Philippi, or the elders in Lystra, or the elders in Chicago.

In Acts 20:28, Paul states "the Holy Spirit has set you as overseers" in the assembly. There are many who'd try and apply that verse to elders in an assembly today, but that's nonsense, and demonstrably so. Let's consider the verse in context. Paul begins his talk with the Ephesian elders by reminding them of their relationship:

18 And when they were come to him, he said to them, *Ye* know how I was with you all the time from the first day that I arrived in Asia, 19 serving the Lord with all lowliness, and tears, and temptations, which happened to me through the plots of the Jews; 20 how I held back nothing of what is profitable, so as not to announce [it] to you, and to teach you publicly and in every house, 21 testifying to both Jews and Greeks repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ. Acts 20:18–21

Now, can we honestly say that applies to any elders in any assembly, church, or congregation in America? Of course not! And yet the "you" in these verses is exactly the same as the "you" in v. 28. If we can't apply the "you" in these verses to elders in a gathering today, then we can't apply the "you" in v. 28 to them either.

What about the verses after v. 28?

31 Wherefore watch, remembering that for three years, night and day, I ceased not admonishing each one [of you] with tears. Acts 20:31

Do we really think Paul spent three years, night and day, with the elders of any assembly today? Of course not!

Paul was speaking specifically to the elders from Ephesus, whom he called to Miletus to see him off. Whatever he said about the Ephesian elders, there's no reason to believe it's true of any other group of men. This is obvious if we consider v. 31, where Paul says he spent three years among them. If v. 31 isn't true of the elders in my city, why should I think v. 28 is?

Now, let me make an important point: if we were to say that Paul's commands to the elders in Ephesus apply to elders today, that might be arguable. But to say his statements about elders in Ephesus apply to someone today is a stretch.

There's no reason at all to believe that Paul's words about the Ephesian elders are applicable to anyone other than the Ephesian elders. He was specifically addressing a group of men that he knew personally. There is a lot we can learn from Acts 20, but to imagine that verse 28 (or any other verse) applies to anyone other than the elders in Ephesus is ridiculous.

1 Timothy 3

"But what about 1 Timothy 3?" someone might interrupt, "Doesn't that give us criteria for appointing elders?"

That's a good question. Before we consider 1 Timothy 3, let's remember to look at the context of the chapter. How does 1 Timothy start?

3 Even as I begged thee to remain in Ephesus, [when I was] going to Macedonia, that thou mightest enjoin some not to teach other doctrines, 4 nor to turn their minds to fables and interminable genealogies, which bring questionings rather than [further] God's dispensation, which [is] in faith. 1 Timothy 1:3–4

So Paul is writing to Timothy, and Timothy is in Ephesus. Ephesus... didn't we just read about Ephesus in Acts 20? Didn't we just learn that Paul had spoken to the elders in Ephesus? Yes he did... so why does 1 Timothy contain "qualifications" for elders, if there were already elders in Ephesus?

This isn't a trivial question. This is a really, really important question. This is a question that I've never heard anyone, anywhere ask. If there were already elders in Ephesus, why does Paul send Timothy the criteria for elders?

The general assumption seems to be that he was telling Timothy how to choose elders. But there were already elders in Ephesus! So if we take 1 Timothy 3 as being written so that Timothy could choose elders, then we have to conclude that even where there were existing elders, there was a need for an outsider to appoint their replacements. Even though there were elders in Ephesus who were appointed by the Apostle, it was Timothy who was given the criteria to choose elders in Ephesus.

But I suspect the general assumption is wrong. I suspect that 1 Timothy 3 wasn't written to tell Timothy how to choose [more] elders: I think it was written so that Timothy would know how to exhort the elders in Ephesus. Timothy was left in Ephesus to "enjoin some not to teach other doctrines" (v. 3). He was left there to make sure the Ephesians didn't depart from the Apostolic teachings. I think chapter 3 was given so that he'd be able to correct the elders in Ephesus.

No matter how you look at it, it's a really long stretch to think that 1 Timothy 3 gives us the green light to appoint elders. Timothy, an Apostolic appointment to Ephesus, was sent to an assembly where there were already elders, and given the qualifications (or "characteristics", if you prefer) of an elder. It's difficult to imagine how this might give us the authority to appoint elders today.

The New Testament pattern, revisited

We've considered several passages about elders. What is interesting, though, is what those passages tell us about the practices of the New Testament church.

I mentioned earlier that I was speaking with someone who said it's all right to appoint elders, but not clergymen, because of the "New Testament Pattern." That's an increasingly difficult point to argue... let's consider it. 1 Timothy, Titus, and 1 Corinthians present three very different "patterns" to us.

1 Timothy 1:3–4 tells us Paul left Timothy in Ephesus (where there were already elders) to ensure they didn't veer from Apostolic doctrine. So what does that pattern look like? The pattern in 1 Timothy is something like this: there is one person (an outsider) and the elders of the assembly report to him. His job is to make sure the locals don't depart from the Apostolic teaching, and he is (individually) given the criteria for elders. Maybe he appointed more elders, maybe he didn't. But that's the pattern we can deduce from 1 Timothy.

The situation in Titus is a little different: like Timothy, he was an outsider sent to take care of problems in the assemblies. But unlike Timothy, he was sent not to a single city, but to an island with several cities. So the pattern we might deduce from Titus is that there ought to be a single person over several assemblies.

Corinth is an interesting case study: there are two Epistles written to Corinth, and neither one mentions elders at all. There were some real problems at Corinth: there were problems of church order, there were moral problems, there were personal problems. But there's not one mention of elders. They are completely silent on the subject. They talk about a lot of things: they address the Lord's Supper and excommunication and who can talk in the meetings. But they don't mention elders.

So we might find a third pattern in the Corinthian epistles: there the pattern is an assembly without elders. Perhaps there were elders in Corinth and the epistles simply don't address them. We really don't know for sure, but if we're looking for a pattern, 1 Corinthians entirely omits elders.

Now, I don't point this out simply to be contentious. There are at least three "patterns" in Scripture, and there are genuine, sincere Christians who have attempted to model churches after all of them. We might say that Titus provides the pattern for episcopalianism, where a bishop is over the clergymen in several cities in a region. We might consider 1 Timothy as a pattern for presbyterianism, where there are many elders in an assembly, but one takes the lead over the others as the "teaching elder".

But of course there is a problem with these approaches: they each look in Scripture to find a pattern, and they attempt to follow them. But they find different patterns. I'm suggesting this is because the Lord never intended us to find a pattern. Scripture contains ample instruction in its explicit commands: there's no need to look for a pattern. There's no need to look to implication and inference when we've explicit instruction.

So what about elders, then?

When we look in Scripture, we don't see a very consistent pattern. The assembly in Jerusalem had elders, but we have no record where they came from. We can assume they were men of stature and renown in the Jewish community before they converted to Christianity, but we just don't know for sure. We're sure there were elders in Ephesus (Acts 20 makes this very clear), and we're sure Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in Iconium, Lystra, and Antioch. Titus was sent to appoint elders in every city in Crete, but Scripture doesn't say he actually did it (I assume he did). But there are other assemblies with no mention of elders at all, like Corinth.

I don't think it was ever intended that elders should be a fixture in the assembly. Elders were a temporary provision for the church until the canon of Scripture was completed. There aren't Apostles anymore: the Apostles were strictly a transitional feature of the church. Elders are exactly the same, a transitional provision for the church in its infancy.

I oppose appointing elders in the assembly for the same reason I oppose appointing clergy. Scripture doesn't actually condemn appointing clergy, just like it doesn't actually condemn appointing elders. But it was an Apostolic function to set up authority in the assembly: it wasn't a democratic process. We ought not take to ourselves the right to appoint authorities in the House of God.

The Apostles didn't follow a very consistent pattern, because they were following the Spirit of God. We notice Paul paid a lot of attention to Ephesus in particular: he spent three years there himself, then he gave the elders there severe warnings when he left, and then he sent Timothy to take care of that assembly. Interestingly, Ephesus is also the first assembly that's addressed in Revelation 2. It's one assembly (along with Laodicea) we know for sure received epistles from both Paul (Ephesians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy) and John (Revelation 2). Ephesus seems to have been the center of the church on earth, in a way. It's significant that Paul predicted apostasy would arise among the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:29). And it's in Ephesus that the judgment of the House of God begins (Revelation 2–3).

We observed already that 1 Corinthians makes no mention of elders. This is interesting insofar as 1 Corinthians deals with an assembly with very serious problems. But at no point is there the suggestion that the solution to the problem is leadership. If there were elders in Corinth, the epistle doesn't tell them to demonstrate leadership in the assembly. If there weren't, it doesn't suggest the Corinthians appoint (or even "recognize") elders to help them solve their problems. There seems to be a lot of people who are prescribing "strong leadership" as a solution to assembly problems, but at least the epistles to the Corinthians do not.

What should we take from this? Very simply, there is no reason to believe that elders are a necessity in an assembly. In fact, there is no reason to believe that elders are the solution to assembly problems. Let's consider that Paul told the elders in Ephesus:

32 And now I commit you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build [you] up and give [to you] an inheritance among all the sanctified Acts 20:32

When elders were being appointed in the New Testament, the canon wasn't complete. But even then, it was to "God and the word of His grace" that Paul committed the Ephesian elders.

Now we have the completed Scriptures: we have what the Ephesian elders didn't have. But we have what Paul said was the appropriate resource for believers in the face of trouble.

What do others think?

It's obvious that the vast majority of Christians don't take this view on elders. The majority of churches practice some form of clergy or another, and even those that don't generally practice some form of appointed eldership. The gentleman I spoke with the other week thought it would be wrong to have a "pastor", but was convinced an assembly should have elders. I think this is a common take on the subject.

But let me point out that I am in good company. William Kelly, C. H. Mackintosh, and J. N. Darby all held the same view on elders I've laid out here. That doesn't mean I'm right, but it does mean what I'm about to say was held and argued by careful and respected students of the Word of God.

William Kelly argued the case persuasively in his comments on Acts 14:

It is vain to deny or parry the importance of this decision of scripture on the subject of presbyters. Not infrequently there is an attack made on those who really desire to follow the word of God, by men who ask, "Where are your elders? You profess to follow scripture faithfully: how is it that you have not elders?" To such I would answer, "When you provide apostles to choose elders for us, we shall be exceedingly obliged for both." How can we have elders appointed according to scripture unless we have apostles or their delegates? Where are the men now who stand in the same position before God and the assembly as Paul and Barnabas? You must either have apostles, or at the very least apostolic men such as Timothy and Titus; for it is quite evident that merely to call people elders does not make them such. Nothing would be easier than to bestow the title of elders within a sect, or for the law of the land to sanction it. Any of us could set ourselves up, and do the work in name, no doubt; but whether there would be any value in the assumption, or whether it would not be really great sin, presumption, and folly, I must leave to the consciences of all to judge.

Thus we know with divine certainty that the elders were chosen for the disciples by the apostles in every church. Such is the doctrine of scripture, and the fact as here described. It is evident therefore, that unless there be duly qualified persons whom the Lord has authorised for the purpose, and in virtue of their most singular relation to the assembly, — unless there be such persons as apostles, or persons representing apostles in this particular, there is no authority for such appointment: it is mere imitation. And in questions of authority it must be evident that imitation is just as foolish as where it is a question of power. You cannot imitate the energy of the Spirit except by sin, neither can you arrogate the authority of the Lord without rebellion against Him. Notwithstanding, I do not doubt that this is often done with comparatively good — let us conceive the best — intentions on the part of many, but with very great rashness and inattention to the word of God. Hence those are really wrong, not to say inexcusable, who assume to do the work that apostles or their delegates alone could do, not such as content themselves with doing their own duty, and refuse a delicate and authoritative task to which they are not called of the Lord.

What, then, is the right thing? All that we can say is, that God has not been pleased, in the present broken state of the church, to provide all that is desirable and requisite for perpetuating everything in due order. Is this ever His way when things are morally ruined? Does He make provision to continue what dishonoured Him? So far from contrariety in this to the analogy of His dealings, it seems to me quite according to them. There was no such state of things in Israel in the days of the returned captives, as in the days of the Exodus, but Nehemiah was just as truly raised up of God for the return from Babylon, as Moses was for the march out of Egypt. Still the two conditions were quite different, and the mere doing by Nehemiah what Moses did would have been ignorance of his own proper place. Such imitation would have possessed no power, and would have secured no blessing.

(William Kelly, Introductory Lectures on the Acts, available at STEM Publishing)

And Kelly points out what really is at stake here: we don't want to play church. We want to gather as closely as we can to what we see in Scripture. The problem is, imitating the historical record of Acts is not really gathering according to Scripture. It has a good appearance, that's true. But there is a world of difference between having a "correct" form and having godly power. Scripture warns against having form without power (2 Timothy 3:5), but that is what modern appointment of elders amounts to.

J. N. Darby's rejection of the appointment of elders is much more difficult to read, but is very similar (although not identical) to Kelly's. I'd recommend starting with "On Gifts and Offices in the Church", if you're interested. His rejection of the idea that we have elders today is more fully developed in "Examination of a few passages of Scripture, etc.", but I'll caution you that it's a lot harder reading:

Whence comes the authority you pretend to in the house of God? How would you exercise it towards any one who might dispute it? When such men as Paul, Timothy (if it was so in his case), and Titus had with apostolical authority established elders in the churches, if the authority of these elders were disputed, it was disputing the apostolical authority that had placed them there. But as regards you, who made you elders? Except it be with revolutionists, authority flows from authority. Thus it was in the Church. Christ named apostles. The apostles named elders. Who is it that named you? Who is it that communicated to you your authority? You know, and you cannot deny, that the apostles and their special delegates established elders at the beginning. You ask for proof "that this was forbidden to any others." Is it thus that one can assume authority? If the right of naming public functionaries was exercised by the king in a state of which he was the sovereign, could each one name as he chose, over a small portion of the citizens, because there was nothing in the laws declaring that none else had a right to make them? Who would listen to such nonsense? Well! it is much more serious and much worse to do so in the things of God. One would not dare to say or to do such things in human society. Alas! one dares everything in the Church of God.

(J. N. Darby, "Examination of a few passages of Scripture, etc.", available at STEM Publishing).

Now, I don't in any way wish to give the impression that Kelly, Darby, or anyone else is the test of truth. Scripture is the test of truth. But I want to illustrate that I'm in very good company when I say that elders aren't for today.

Conclusion

The subject of elders isn't a simple one. There is some disagreement about what the correct practice is for us today. I am convinced the practice of appointing elders today is based on faulty exposition of Scripture. I'm convinced when we look at Scripture in context, it doesn't at all teach we have the authority– or the need– to appoint elders.

But I would hasten to add this caution: the path of the Christian is a path of submission. There is a tendency for us to want to throw off all authority, and no doubt the idea that we ought not to have elders today appeals to the flesh for this reason. We might like the idea that there's no authority in the assembly. But that's a wrong idea: there is a divine Head over the church, and we are to submit to Him.

Elders or not, we are "legitimately subject to Christ" (1 Corinthians 9:21). We're not called to lawlessly go about, not bowing to anyone. We're called to be subject to Christ. We're called to submit to one another. It would be much, much better for a believer to submit to elders– or even clergymen– than to adopt a high-handed attitude that "you're not the boss of me!"

Self-will is sin.

The problem with the appointment of elders is that it's effectively usurping authority in the House of God. If we reject the one usurpation only to replace it with another (our own self-will), we're worse off in every way.