Featured Bible Study = "going to Church" aka Corporate Worship

Folks... just take a look at who the "they" is referring to... Paul and Barnabas. Then figure out how just 2 men could constitute the vote. The word here simply means "appoint" as in "they appointed" not "they voted [amongst themselves???]".

 

Takes one to know one

 

Worship is worship, but not all worship is church worship. Church worship is done decently and in order as a baptized body of believers who meet together regularly for public worship as an administrative body of the keys of the kingdom (Mt. 18:15-20) and have authority to administer those keys. A church may at some periods be without ordained officers but that is not the true character of the New Testament church institution.

So no Sunday school class replaces church worship as no sunday school class has church authority.

 

Yet another repeat of the same absurd argument, Paul and Barnabus selected Elders by a show of hands. They took the action to select, by holding an election. Thus the verb does not limit the number of participants in the Election. Good grief.

 

To recap, Acts 14:23 teaches Elders were selected by a show of hands. Now Greektim has questions whether the word at the time Paul used it, meant select by vote. I referenced Strong's and Thayer's lexicons, but Greektim said they were out of date. I pointed out Robertson agreed. Then another poster cited John Calvin, as also agreeing. And finally another poster cited early Baptist writings indicating leaders were to be selected by vote.

All this to say, when believers meet to study, fellowship and pray, that constitutes a church meeting of sorts.

 

Only the subject carries out the action of the verb. Either Paul and Barnabas did the appointing, or they did the voting. Either way, it doesn't say the church voted. The only subjects are Paul and Barnabas. This isn't absurd; it's grammar! It is the same when the verb is used of God. God doesn't vote w/in himself. He just appoints. Paul & Barnabas didn't vote. That is absurd. They simply appointed. The subjects carry out the action of the verb.

BTW... I can show you from Calvin's institutes that he has the election of church officers done a different way.

Also... what is the point of a church vote if they are just installed by Paul and Barnabas??? That is essentially what you are saying.

 

It could simply mean they initiated and oversaw the process. The President appoints supreme court judges, but the appointments have to be approved.

Paul told Titus the time would come when a congregation would "heap to themselves" those who teach only what they want to hear. The sin in that isn't their power to choose teachers, but the departure from sound teaching.

 

I think that would be stretching the meaning of the word and defining a word based on a theological position rather its semantic range.

 

Not a whole lot of detail about the process in the account.

 

And the beat goes on...
The action, making a selection by holding an election, so there was no appointing, just a selection by vote. The incredible lengths some go to to justify the absurd is absolutely amazing. Did someone say Paul and Barnabas were not the subjects? Nope. So more misdirection, flumery, and smoke.

Is it the same verb (selection by vote) used by God? No reference was cited. The verb appears, in Acts 14:32, and 2 Corinthians 8:19 only.

John Calvin agrees with Robertson and against your mistaken view as to the meaning of the word. There is not enough smoke to cloak that truth.

 

Apparently you haven't been reading my posts. I cited other sources that used the word for God appointing. If you had done your due diligence and actually researched this, you'd know w/out me telling you.

You may not by word reject that Paul and Barnabas are the subjects, but your definitions deny it. If the subjects carry out the action of the verb, and the verb is to appoint even w/ hands, then Paul and Barnabas selected w/ their hands. That is grammar. In other words, the word simply means to appoint.

You talk a lot about my posts as smoke... but your posts smell more like σκυβαλον.

And as I showed, in Calvin's Institutes, he used this passage to say that elders appointed elders. You must not have read that either. Convenient you'll use Calvin and deride those that follow his theology. More σκυβαλον.

 

From the pulpit commentary... not deeply technical so all of us can understand it:

 

JFB commentary

The embolden part is what I have been arguing against Van if we push his meaning too far.

 

Acts 10:41 uses the word plus a compound w/ a preposition for God choosing (προκεχειροτονημένοις).

"not to all the people but to us who had been chosen by God as witnesses, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead."

And I was referring to outside sources of God choosing w/ this word. But this works too.

Shall I continue?

 

3 MONTHS as a hospice volunteer would do nicely

 

I had earlier attributed the above to Calvin's Commentary. It is indeed JFB; I must have toggled to that by mistake. Sorry.

Calvin's Commentary:

 

Apparently you are referring to this post:

Where did you get that snippet?

 

Institutes IV, 4, 2. I came across it while reading Dever's booklet on elder led congregational ruled churches called By Whose Authority? Elders in Baptist Life.