Historically, the post-apostolic Christians adopted this pyramid rule into their lives by shifting toward the organizational patterns of their culture. Ignatius was the first figure instrumental toward this shift and toward the elevation of one elder (called “Bishop”) who had ultimate power like Jesus, while the others stood in the position of the apostles under the authority of one figure. We must emphasize that he took charge of an organization. You have to establish such an organization to which the people become members to effect any control over them. Of course, Ignatius claimed his motivation was to present a united front in the face of so much chaos and error. To have unity, there must be someone who makes the final decision. Therefore, he insisted that the unity of the church (church organization) was based on submission to the local bishop.
The presbyters and bishops became two separate offices of the church instead of them referring to the same work in the Scriptures. Clement had not yet made that shift by the time he wrote 1 Clement. Polycarp did not insist on monarchical bishops like Ignatius nor does there appear to be any real evidence that they existed at that time. While there is evidence that the ideas were propagated, it wasn’t until the 170s that there is clear proof that they were established. Irenaeus favors the concept of Roman succession because he claimed that the apostolic tradition was preserved in Rome. By the middle of the second century, the primacy of Rome was established as Justin refers to a single “president.” By the third century, we find references to the “Petrine promise” (Matthew 16:19-20). Soon, another comparison was made between the presbyter and priests while the bishop was compared to the high priest. It was first used by Tertullian and Hippolytus until more frequent references were made by Origen and Cyprian.
These developments did not take place overnight but the thought of the church forming itself into an organization with power located in church officials was the starting point of the digression. Rather than allowing every doctrine equal presence, especially during the Gnostic claim to revelation, the authority had to be placed in the church organization just as it had been in the apostles. The practice of synods of bishops arose around the latter half of the second century in Asia. They appear to be occasioned by the philosophy known as the Montanist. With the power of succession, these synods found justification in the Jerusalem conference recorded in Acts 15, even though there is little comparison between it and conferences of that time.
The Bible knows nothing of such succession and power, nor the presence of a special priestly office. Instead, the body is built up as each supply a needed service toward its growth (Eph. 4:16). Neither apostles, prophets, evangelists nor elders can do all the ministering that needs done nor does such accomplish the will of God. The habit of gathering together where such “gifts” were present provides the occasion for the necessary teaching. They were all involved in the same work; one is just an extension of the other. Whether it’s an apostle, a shepherd (Heb. 13:7, 17), or evangelist like Timothy that commits the things he had learned from Paul to “faithful men,” they share the work of teaching to equip others to teach, also. Wherever brethren gathered together for such teaching, one would expect to find at least one of these gifts.
Unfortunately, some have a very different narrow vision in applying the pattern of leadership. Some see that God gave the gifts (of men) to a local church organization through which the individual Christian functions. With such an arrangement, individuals may physically come to the institution and receive a blessing and the sanction of the organization. Such an arrangement would defeat the entire purpose of individual service. Just as the elder’s qualification to be “apt to teach” implies teaching as their function, so “equipping each for the work of service” implies that the ekklesia (called-out class of people) are to function as servants. Thus, a working membership with each member of the body contributing to every other member supplies the needs of the body. A city of saints that depends upon just a few members of a body would be as dysfunctional as a human body depending upon just a few members of its body. Not only does every member function toward the edifying of the body, but every member has the potential to harm the body. Every member is subject to disciplinary action when sin is practiced. We see an example of this teaching when a man who was living with his father’s wife had a negative influence on the people of God in Corinth like leaven in a lump of bread. Paul writes, “Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out, therefore, the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened…” (1 Cor. 5:6-7). This “wicked person” (verse 13) was to be “put away from them.” He is to be “delivered over to Satan “when you are gathered together” (1 Cor. 5:4). Elders are not exempt from this withdrawal of fellowship. Paul told Timothy, “Them that sin, rebuke before all, that others may also fear” (1 Tim. 5:20). All men are subject to sin, error, and poor judgment, etc. But, those who are headstrong and refuse divine counsel are not to be fellowshipped.
It will be assumed among the evangelists that the “laying on of the apostles’ hands” (2 Tim. 1:6, 1 Tim. 4:14) gave Timothy and others, no doubt, some advantage over evangelist today, making training altogether unnecessary and circumventing the time required to complete it. Paul regarded the parousia as so near, and conceived of the χαρίσματα as continuing till then (see 1 Cor. 13:8), and therefore the thought that teachers had to be trained was remote from his mind.
Equipping the saints involved the dispersion of the Holy Spirit in the use of the gifts., including the gifted men who were the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors/teachers. The ability to perform was immediately conferred. Since the Catholic Church regarded itself as the successor of Christ, they claimed the power of the Holy Spirit to enable the Church. However, this claim brings with it a practice that is ignored. If they were the successors and merely continued the same guidance and spiritual leadership that existed in the first century, then the spiritual gifts would be dispensed “to each one” ( ) in the body so that there would be one body, but many members. Each member functioned for the good of the body (Ephesians 4:). The priesthood was a blessing shared by all the members, unlike the special class of “priesthood” in Roman Catholicism. Fee writes,
“The Catholic Church regarded itself as the successor of Christ, and the presence and power of the Holy Spirit were seen as gifts from the Spirit of Christ to enable the Church. Because in this way Church and Spirit by definition coincided, the idea that the Holy Spirit utilizing the (external) gospel teaching could speak to a possibly errant Church did not exist. As a result, the role of the Holy Spirit in Roman homiletics was very limited. The sermon was not regarded as a means of the Holy Spirit with direct soteriological relevance but as a matter of instruction and information for the baptized.” This illustrates the shift away from the “called out” body of all the saved to this special class that began to define the concept of a church. Without apostles and therefore no special gifts through the laying on of their hands, a class of educated elders eventually arose among the people of God whose motivation shifted away from teaching and admonishing saints in the word of God to drawing away disciples after them (cf. Acts 20:28). By contrast, Luther and Calvin emphasized the preached Word, which they believed became effective through the Spirit, placing the hearer in a condition of faith. The close connection between Word and Spirit was captured in the first confessional writings of the reformation: the Augsburg Confession (1530), the Belgic Confession (1561) and the Second Helvetic Confession (1562-1564).129 in the first confessional writings of the reformation: the Augsburg Confession (1530), the Belgic Confession (1561) and the Second Helvetic Confession (1562-1564).129”