Oh, men, please don't turn this great conversation into a Calvinist vs. Arminian debate. 
There are plenty of those already.
There are plenty of those already.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Do You Know the Baptist Distinctives?
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
Nope, sorry, "elders" are not another office in the church in addition to pastors and deacons. Note:
1. "Elders" in the book of Acts are simply the leaders of the churches. The word always appears in a general sense, never with "pastor" or "deacon" in the same passage.
2. Peter uses "elder" as a synonym for "pastor" (1 Peter 5:1-4).
3. There is no office of "elder" in Paul's list of God's leadership gifts (Eph. 4:11-12).
4. No Baptist church ever, until the late 20th century, even pretended to have a third office of "elder" beyond the pastor and deacons. (I've read a lot of Baptist history and ecclesiology, and it isn't there: Hiscox, MacBeth, Vedder, Strong, Erickson, etc. It's just not Baptistic. My own uncle went that route, and then took his church completely out of the Baptist name and position to make it a generic evangelical contemporary church.
Note, this poster addresses me, avoids Matthew 23:13 as if it didn't demonstrate supernatural enablement is a fiction.You crack me up!
atpollard
Well-Known Member
I have some issues with defining local church government. First, there seems to be a LOT of fuss over "semantics" (which smacks of the same sort of nonsense as fighting over the CORRECT Bible Translation. [The correct translation is the one you read rather than the one covered in dust on a shelf.]
In the BIBLE, there are TWO groups performing TWO different tasks:
Group 1: Teaches and corrects ... responsible for the spiritual growth of the "flock".
Group 2: Administers to the physical needs of the "flock" ... especially "widows and orphans".
In some Churches, Group 1 is "The Pastor" (all alone) and in others it is an "Elder Board" or a "Deacon Board" (where the Pastor may or may not be the "head Elder/Deacon"). Whatever the semantics, there IS a "Group 1". Both the "SINGLE LEADER" and the "COUNCIL of LEADERS" have strengths and weaknesses. I am old enough to have survived churches destroyed by bad leadership of both types and churches that survived scandal because of good leadership (both types). So I see the flaw not in the TYPE of government, but in the need for PEOPLE to serve as government. Even as Christians, we are still the weak link.
Every church has two options: Either they have a Group 2 or Group 1 does EVERYTHING and burns out. So call Group 2 "Deacons" in an Elder/Deacon model or "ushers" in a Deacon led church, but they exist.
The idea that there is only one correct "Baptist" government seems to run contrary to "Local Autonomy", which is a more important "distinctive" (in my opinion).
In the BIBLE, there are TWO groups performing TWO different tasks:
Group 1: Teaches and corrects ... responsible for the spiritual growth of the "flock".
Group 2: Administers to the physical needs of the "flock" ... especially "widows and orphans".
In some Churches, Group 1 is "The Pastor" (all alone) and in others it is an "Elder Board" or a "Deacon Board" (where the Pastor may or may not be the "head Elder/Deacon"). Whatever the semantics, there IS a "Group 1". Both the "SINGLE LEADER" and the "COUNCIL of LEADERS" have strengths and weaknesses. I am old enough to have survived churches destroyed by bad leadership of both types and churches that survived scandal because of good leadership (both types). So I see the flaw not in the TYPE of government, but in the need for PEOPLE to serve as government. Even as Christians, we are still the weak link.
Every church has two options: Either they have a Group 2 or Group 1 does EVERYTHING and burns out. So call Group 2 "Deacons" in an Elder/Deacon model or "ushers" in a Deacon led church, but they exist.
The idea that there is only one correct "Baptist" government seems to run contrary to "Local Autonomy", which is a more important "distinctive" (in my opinion).
Correct!
No!
Why would you leave off verse 5?
1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.
4 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
5 Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.
You are presenting a false dichotomy.
How about Biblical congregationalism rather than a monarchial Pastor or an oligarchic Eldership?
Yes, as expressed over and over by Baptists:
William Rider (first pastor of what came to be Metropolitan Tabernacle Baptist Church, London) in 1656:
"in the word Elders is comprehended all officers in the Church, with the Ministerial work also, . . . and so Elders is distinguished into several offices in the Church, as Bishops and Deacons . . . . Philip. 1.1 vers. where the Apostle writeth to the Saints, with the Bishops and Deacons: so Paul to Timothy writes of the qualifications of the Bishops and Deacons ; not Elders and Deacons ; you shall never in all the Scripture find Elders and Deacons expressed."
Benjamin Keach (prominent signer of the 1689 LBC) in 1701:
"Deacons are to be helps in Government...Paul calls the Deacons Elders, when he speaks of Elders that rule well [I Tim. 5:17]"
SBTS's Greg Wills, "The Church: Baptists and Their Churches in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries":
"Most churches agreed with Georgia’s Powelton Baptist Church, whose members concluded in 1811 that lay elders were "unnecessary and not sufficiently warranted in scripture." Many of these held that the pastor and deacons jointly constituted the eldership. South Carolina’s Tyger River Baptist Association, for example, judged in 1835 that "the eldership of the church" consisted of "the ministers and deacons."
Shaftsbury Baptist Association, 1804 Circular Letter:
"It appears to us that Bishops, or teaching Elders and Deacons, are the only standing officers to be ordained in the Church. These are both called Elders, 1 Timothy 5:17. . . .By these Elders, we understand Bishops and Deacons; and we have not learned from the scriptures, but that these two are the only officers to be ordained in the Christian Church."
American Baptist Magazine, 1829:
"The term elder was, probably, a general term equivalent to our word officer; and thus it could be applied to a pastor, or to a deacon ; and the elders of a church included the pastor or pastors and the deacons."
The Sword and Trowel, 1866:
"the term elder is applied both to bishops and deacons. This might be supposed to prove too much, as though there had been no separate offices in the Church. It goes, in fact, just to the extent we require, that distinct officers were recognized by the Church, but they were lovingly blended together. There was no contention about a name as expressive of an authority, which it would have been sacrilege for others to invade."
Augustine
It’s too easy to forget which thread you are in when you’re talking to the same people in both. I will work on it.Oh, men, please don't turn this great conversation into a Calvinist vs. Arminian debate.
Hebrews 13:7
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
I do believe that there is a time to receive an accusation against church leaders. There are instructions for that.
The job of the church is to be more noble and search Scripture. If leaders in the church are going wrong the members should be already considering it.
We have a board of Elders, while The Senior Pastor is chief Elder
atpollard
Well-Known Member
Hypothetically: It is Sunday morning and the Church (body of believers) faces two important issues:
1. somebody should probably offer a teaching/sermon to exhort and encourage the flock.
2. Elmer got drunk (again) and gave his wife a black eye (again).
I know "WHO" would be expected to deal with #1 and #2 in a "monarchical Pastor" and in a "oligarchic Eldership", but I am a little fuzzy how you propose "Church Government" to function in "Biblical congregationalism". Who deals with #1 and #2?
PS: What makes it "Biblical"?
My Bible goes from direct Theocracy to Judges to Kings (to slaves) to Apostles ("feed my sheep") to appointing elders in every city where Paul planted a church ... to a Theocratic King (reading ahead to the end).
Vv. 2 and 4 prove that "elder" and "pastor" are synonyms. To "feed the flock of God" points out that a pastor is metaphorically a shepherd and thus must feed the flock. The word "elder" is not a metaphor but has a definite literal meaning, going along with "not a novice" in 1 Tim. 3:6)
The Greek for "Shepherd" here, as you may know, is poimen (ποιμήν) the same word translated "pastor" in Eph. 4:11. If Jesus is the "Chief Shepherd," then the elder/pastor is also a shepherd.
The word "elder" here means the same in v. 1: an older, wiser man who leads or pastors the church. Young people are to show proper respect and honor to the older members and leadership.
I don't object to a church having "elders" as long as they are not "ruling elders." You can't run a church or any other group with multiple leaders. One will lead naturally. I heard of a man who visited John Mac's church and talked to him and an "elder." When John left he told the elder, "Take care of that for me." Then the visitor said, "I thought all the elders here were equal."
A Baptist church has congregational polity, and the pastor is the leader. That's how it always has been. Until the late 20th century, churches calling themselves Baptist had no "elders" except as pastors and deacons. That's a fact of Baptist history. There was no "elder rule."
Excellent post. Thank you!
The "wealth of knowledge" Calvin drew from was Roman Catholicism. Calvin kept a lot of RCC doctrine, reformed a few RCC doctrines, applied his philosophy and nurtured what grew.
There is no Baptist (under any name) in Christian history prior to the Refornation that a theology even remotely related to Calvinism.
As far as Calvinism goes we know how and where he got his ideas. One was Luther. But in what makes Calvinism distinct it was Thomas Aquinas and what he thought to be a mistake in that RCC doctrine (a focus on merit rather than justice). Calvin simply refined Aquinas by replacing merit with his judicial philosophy. Beza systematized Calvin's works, placing sovereignty under soteriology. From there his doctrine grows as a natural necessity. It isn't a mystery (we have a good picture of how theologies developed during this time).
Yea....but if they are not ruling they're just old guys.
Righto!