Video: The Question of Bishopric

· Afanasy Bidash, Valentin Kiz, Video, Ivan Levchuk, Vestibule, Council of Churches in Exile, Church

Bishop of the Council of Underground Churches of the USSR in American Exile Valentin Kiz speaks of the Pharisee heresy that has crept into the church in the form of the concept or institution of bishops—the creation of a false hierarchy. A return to the God-inspired teaching of the Bible is necessary. He also examines the question of how the rank of bishop arose among the unregistered Pentecostals from the Reichskommissar of Ukraine, the party Gauleiter, SA-Obergruppenführer Erich Koch, who received, recognized, and “blessed” the bishopric of presbyter Gavrilo Ponurko and Panomarchuk. Preparing for the meeting with Obergruppenführer Erich Koch, the presbyters—Ponurko and Panomarchuk—decided, for greater impressiveness, to present themselves to him in the rank of bishops, and thus the succession of the episcopate went on—from the Gauleiter to this very day!(?)

The well-known story from 1 Samuel, chapter 8, from verse 4 about the appointment of a king in Israel reminds us of what has happened in today’s adulterous church. People seek powerful, sometimes brazen, sometimes even criminal individuals who could become leaders over them instead of God. The reason for this is, as stated in the story of King Saul’s appointment, “for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them.”
We see that the introduction of the office of bishop as a rank distinct from and above the presbyters led to the establishment of the papacy. When the pope of Rome is already considered an infallible man and the vicar of the Son of God on earth. Such a mistake was made in the second century by Ignatius the God-Bearer, who placed a distinction between a bishop and an elder.

From the example of the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to Titus, we see from the context that by using interchangeably the titles of bishop, elder (presbyter), and pastor, Paul is speaking of one and the same Christian—the leader of the community.

The “infallibility” of bishops or pastors is before God. But this infallibility is before ordinary Christians, so as to have unquestionable authority and to carry out deeds without accountability according to the Scriptures and before the Christians.

The people have been led away from God, led far away. Now “bishops” are leading people away from the true Gospel towards the creation of a universal religion. Here Orthodoxy also raises its head. They are striving for power over the people.

The episcopate has greatly expanded. The people are very carried away by the ranks of ministry, especially the bishop’s rank. But Christ did not establish ranks. He taught His disciples to call themselves “worthless slaves.” Today’s “great” bishops pasture the sheep in their offices by appointment, and only on matters of particular importance. Daily life does not interest these shepherds at all.

Shepherds like Alexander Mednik and Diotrephes do not permit things to be set in order in such assemblies, because the shepherds would then be directed to serve their Master and the Master of the sheep. The sheep cannot keep up with the “shepherds” in their Mercedeses. The sheep cannot enter the rich houses of the “shepherds,” as once a sheep could come near the shepherd’s hut, where he would gladly stroke it and calm it. The personal concerns of the sheep do not trouble the “shepherds,” who are preoccupied with the affairs of the “brotherhood” and the “bishops.”

The hour has come, friends, to abolish the rank of bishop as a rank separate from that of pastor. Reject it explicitly. Because through these ranks the people have gone far from the Lord, so far that they have become inaccessible to God. God told Samuel: they have not rejected you, but Me, because they wanted a king like all the other nations.

During the war, under plausible pretexts, Gavriil Ponurko, with the blessing of the Reichskommissar of Ukraine, the party Gauleiter, SA-Obergruppenführer Erich Koch, became the founder of the rank of bishop. After this he ordained into bishop—that is, he transmitted the “blessing” and established succession—from the Gauleiter to Ponomarchuk, But, and Bidash. The next step of the “bishops” Ponurko, Ponomarchuk, and But was that they went into collusion with the Soviet authorities and led the people away from the Truth into the AUCECB, and while already in the AUCECB they renounced the rank of bishop. (Yet the episcopacy continued and received succession to this day.) But after the double betrayal of Ponurko and Ponomarchuk, Opanas Bidash led the withdrawal of Pentecostal Christians from the atheist-controlled “union” with the registered Baptists.

Opanas Bidash ordained into the rank of bishop in Chernovtsy Viktor Belykh from Zolotonosha in the Cherkasy region and Ivan Levchuk from Kyiv. Viktor Belykh went into cooperation with the authorities. This is testified to by Viktor Walter, to whom Viktor Belykh was allowed access in the zone and who urged him to recant. When Walter asked how Viktor Belykh had come to him, Viktor Ivanovich replied that he had been sent by a KGB captain with the mission of persuading Viktor Walter.

Church rank: presiding bishop

When Opanas Bidash was dying, Viktor Ivanovich Belykh was there with him, along with several other bishops. He went into his room alone and, upon coming out, reported that Bidash had handed everything over to him and, on his last minute, appointed him Presiding bishop. When the bishops entered Bidash’s bedroom, he was already dead. Whether Bidash actually introduced such a rank or this was an invention of Viktor Belykh we cannot know. But what we do know is how the KGB exploited this rank for control over the followers of Bidash, who effectively revived or began a new spiritual movement.

The work of Viktor Belykh in anti-emigration propaganda among the unregistered Pentecostals, and later, together with his assistants—bishops Georgy Babiy and Nikolai Kotyakov—. Viktor Belykh openly declared in the churches that on the issue of emigration their views coincide with the policy of the Soviet government. From Nikolai Kotyakov descend the bishops of the Bondarenko brotherhood in the USA.

Another interesting fact about control over the unregistered brotherhood in Ukraine. After Ukraine gained independence, Opanas Bidash’s disciple, Bishop Ivan Levchuk, died. After 1991, the question arose about control over the Ukrainian registered Pentecostals—the Bidashevites. Viktor Belykh, living in Transnistria, Moldova, immediately lost the status of a Ukrainian bishop, and it automatically passed to Ivan Levchuk. Levchuk’s place was then taken by Viktor Belykh’s appointees from the Kryvyi Rih religious grouping: Viktor Belykh’s personal false prophet—Nikolai Kotyakov, and the visionary Zhora Babiy. And here are the successes of their work: in 20 years of freedom, these pastors increased the church’s numbers from 40,000 to 50,000. This despite the fact that unregistered Pentecostal families have many children. Not only do people not come from the world, but their own children leave for the world or other churches, and unwelcome witnesses of Jesus Christ are pushed out and excommunicated.

The homosexual bishop Nikolai Kotyakov was Viktor Ivanovich Belykh’s personal false prophet. He used him whenever some church needed a decision enforced: Kotyakov would prophesy falsely in the name of God, and Belykh, by the bishop’s “authority,” would carry out the “prophecy.”

Many people know about Belykh’s betrayal, including Ivan Fedotov.
How many people suffer from this pharisaism. They ask God: where can we go, what should we do? I appeal to you not to follow what leads away from God. Let us extend a hand of fellowship to one another. Let us walk the path recorded in Holy Scripture, the Gospel.

In due time I too was ordained as a bishop. After examining Scripture, I came to the conclusion that these offices act very harmfully on the people. I do not want any delusions, any confusion among God’s people. I want God’s people to live freely and breathe in the Truth—that beautiful air of truth which God created, and not what is imposed and exalted at every turn and at every time.

Where have we ever seen a fat shepherd driving ahead of the sheep in a Mercedes, wearing a little tie? Walking on foot with the sheep gives him much to consider about the sheep. He can see every sheep, talk with them.

May the Lord help us all, and lead us by His hand. Once again I appeal: pay attention to all this, so that we may walk in step with our Lord Jesus Christ.

For example
————————

Explanation on the Bishop and Deacon from the commentary of the Protestant Dallas Theological Seminary:

1 Timothy 3:1–13

B. Instructions concerning Bishops and Deacons (3:1–13)

3:1. In continuing his instructions about conduct in the church, Paul turns to the important question of fitness for its leadership. His intention was to foster respectful attitude on the part of church members toward their leaders; to this end he confirms in 3:1 a truth well known to believers: to aspire to church leadership is a noble work.

The term bishop is only one of several used in the New Testament to designate a person who leads the church. Most frequently the term “elder” (presbyteroi) appears. In Rom. 12:8 the word “leader” (proistamenoi) is used; in Heb. 13:17 — “guides” (hegoumenois). The Greek poimenas in Heb. 4:11 is rendered as “shepherds,” and in Acts 20:28 — as “overseers.” Each of these terms emphasized one or another aspect of the leader’s activity, but all of them, apparently, were used interchangeably to designate the same leadership office in the church, which differed from the other — that held by deacons (see commentary on 1 Tim. 3:8).
1 Tim. 3:2. More was required of the “bishop” than merely a desire to serve. In verses 2–7 Paul sets forth 15 requirements that a church leader must meet; he must be:

blameless (the Greek word anepilēmpton is found only in this epistle; v. 2; 5:7). That is, nothing in his conduct should give any ground for accusation against him; the concept expressed by this word is somewhat different from what is meant by it (the Greek original uses a synonym) in verse 10.
the husband of one wife. Several interpretations are proposed for this not entirely clear phrase. It all depends on how strict the rules Paul established for church leaders were. Most commentators agree that “bishops” were prohibited both polygamy and laxity in intimate relationships. Many theologians understand the words “husband of one wife” to mean that the church leader’s affection must be focused exclusively on his wife. Some understand this phrase as a prohibition against divorced persons and those who have remarried from holding the office of bishop. Those who hold this view proceed from the fact that divorce indicates a person’s inability to manage his own household, and even if his sin may be forgiven him, he is simply not suited to lead a Christian congregation (see verses 4–5; 1 Cor. 9:24–27). The strictest interpretation of this verse, which was shared by almost all interpreters of Holy Scripture living in the 2nd–3rd centuries, includes all of the above but asserts even more: a prohibition for a bishop to remarry even in the case of widowhood. The explanation for this view is found in the fact that in the first century remarriage was regarded as a sign of indulging one’s own desires and weaknesses. Although the Apostle Paul honored the marriage bond, he also highly extolled the spiritual advantages of celibacy (1 Cor. 7:37–38), encouraging its observance in the event of losing a spouse (see 1 Tim. 5:3–14). Thus he viewed celibacy as a worthy testimony of a person’s ability to control his feelings and needs; the apostle adhered to the same strict principle when defining “true widows” (5:9). Bishops were required to be
temperate (this same word—nēphalion—occurs in 3:11), in the sense of “moderate” “self-controlled”;
self-controlled (sōphrona; the same word is used in Titus 1:8; 2:5)
respectable or honorable and
hospitable (given to hospitality)
able to teach. The word implies the leader’s ability to interpret Holy Scripture (in other words, to understand it and to convey the truth contained in it to his hearers), while at the same time being able to refute those who interpret it incorrectly (see Titus 1:9). Teaching is not necessarily only public; it can also be done privately and informally.
1 Tim. 3:3.

Further, regarding the bishop, several definitions follow with the negative “not”—

not a drunkard (compare Titus 1:7) and
not violent (not a brawler, not quarrelsome). Here, too, his ability to control himself reveals his “blamelessness” (3:2).
On the contrary, he must be gentle, peaceable (the Greek word epieikēs translated thus is found in various forms in Phil. 4:5; Titus 3:2; James 3:17; 1 Pet. 2:18).
Unlike false teachers, a worthy church leader must not be greedy for gain, nor a lover of money (cf. 6:5; Titus 1:11). A true bishop takes no pleasure in quarrels with others and does not serve for the sake of selfish gain (cf. 1 Pet. 5:2).
1 Tim. 3:4. He must manage his own household well. And here Paul seems to emphasize that he must do so first of all with his own children. (A child’s conduct, more than anything else, perhaps, bears witness—though a “misfire” is not ruled out here either—to their father’s ability to be a leader.) Do they respect him enough to remain obedient to him? The expression “with all honesty” is literally read as “with all strictness.”
3:5. Verse 5 is formed as a rhetorical question underscoring what was said above. The apostle draws an analogy between managing one’s own household and the household of God (see 1 Tim. 3:15). For not a few of the same character traits and abilities are required of a person in both cases.
1 Tim. 3:6. A bishop must not be appointed from among new converts, lest rapid advancement to leadership (to authority) fill him with pride and conceit—for the one guilty of these falls under the same condemnation as the devil, because through him the sin of pride entered the world.
1 Tim. 3:7. The bishop must also have a good testimony (that is, a good reputation) from outsiders (cf. Col. 4:5; 1 Thess. 4:12). Paul, it seems, was thinking here that church leaders, as representatives of the Church as a whole, are more at risk than others of falling into the snare of the devil (compare 2 Tim. 2:26). And when they become the objects of reproach, they give enormous pleasure to Satan; for when they fall into his trap in full view of the “world,” the work of God is called into question, and a stain falls upon all of God’s people. That is why it is so important for church leaders to attain a good reputation among unbelievers and to be able to maintain it.

1 Tim. 3:8. Like bishops, deacons (compare Phil. 1:1) should be worthy people, although their functions in the community are entirely different. The word translated as “deacon” (diakonos) literally means “humble servant.” Deacons, who were subordinate to bishops, were required to perform some less significant tasks related to church life, including practical matters, in order to allow bishops to focus on more important affairs. (Acts 6:1-6 provides a kind of “prototype” of what later characterized the deacon’s service in the church.) However, deacons were also “in the public eye,” which is partly why requirements for them were almost as strict as for bishops. They were to be mature and devout; honest (here meaning “worthy of respect”; the same Greek word is used for women in 1 Tim. 3:11); not double-tongued, that is, sincere, unhypocritical. And like bishops (verse 3)—not addicted to wine, not greedy for gain.
3:9. And most importantly, deacons must be deeply spiritual people (cf. Acts 6:3), understanding and holding the wonderful mystery of the faith (its profound truths), incomprehensible to the non-Christian mind, holding it with a pure conscience (compare with “a good conscience” in 1 Tim. 1:5). This last point (which follows also from what is said in verse 8) meant: nothing in the deacons’ conduct should contradict their faith; in other words, what they professed was to correspond with their daily practical life.
3:10. Moreover, like bishops, who, before taking up this responsible office, had to demonstrate their maturity (verse 6), deacons were also subject to preliminary testing. Not a formal one, of course. But by their whole conduct and service over time they had to prove their “suitability.” Only after showing their “blamelessness” could they be admitted to the deaconate. Here the word blameless (in contrast to “blameless” in 3:2) renders two Greek words аnenkletоi ontes, lit. “not subject to any charge.” Аnenkletos (1 Cor. 1:8; Col. 1:22; 1 Tim. 3:10, Titus 1:6-7), as well as its synonym аnepilēmpton in 1 Tim. 3:2, occur in the New Testament only in Paul’s letters.
3:11. Likewise, wives (the word “their” is absent in the Greek original) must be honorable, that is, worthy of respect (the same word—semnas—is used for deacons in verse 8), not slanderers (in Greek diabolous, from diaballō—to slander; it is to this verb that the word diabolos, meaning the chief slanderer, owes its origin). These wives were to be temperate, that is, moderate and self-controlled (compare verse 2), and faithful (worthy of trust in everything). However, who were these wives Paul had in mind? Most likely not all those who belonged to the community. Since the word “their” is absent from the Greek text, one can only conjecture that he was referring to the wives of deacons, or to deaconesses (such as Phoebe; see Rom. 16:1), who independently held that office.
3:12. Like bishops, deacons were to be what is defined as the husband of one wife (cf. v. 2), able to manage their own household—for the same reason the apostle gives in verse 5.
3:13. This verse is read differently in the Russian and English translations of the Bible. In Russian—“a high (judging by the Greek original, rather “good”) standing,” in English—“a good standing.” There are also various interpretations of 1 Tim. 3:13. Closer to the Russian text is the view that men who have served well as deacons attain the higher—episcopal—“standing” (office); and accordingly experience great satisfaction from the consciousness of faithful fulfillment of the service (they gain… great boldness in the faith…) entrusted to them by Christ. The verse is interpreted differently in the form it is given in English: although the post of deacon is less conspicuous and attractive than that of bishop (from a worldly point of view), Christ’s followers perceive this differently, based on what the Lord Himself said (see John 13:11-17; Mark 10:42-45). Those who faithfully and humbly carry out their supporting role (as deacon) gain:

a good reputation in the eyes of their fellow believers, and
great confidence (“boldness”) in their faith, because, having no earthly rewards for their service, they demonstrate the unselfishness and sincerity of their motives in ministry (cf. Eph. 3:12; Heb. 10:19).

Print, save, letter .pdf