Church polity #1-plurality of elders

First, my focus was to show two things, that primarily a democratic (not a congregational) approach to church government is fairly recent. I do grant there were some exceptions, but to call this type of government "Presbyterian" is not accurate. Within the doctrinal statements of The Philadelphia Baptist Association and Charleston, as well as the London Baptist Confession and various other entities, it seems clear that all the major movements in Baptist history were Elders. Some were elders with congregationalism, but congregationalism does not equal democracy historically. The movement to a democratic rule within the congregation mostly began in the 19th Century (there was a cadry of churches after 1750 who did too and there may have been a couple of instances prior, but this was the exception). Thus, this is not Presbyterian.

This is a part of my point. If every church recorded in the New Testament had plural elders (which seems to be the case), and the majority of the churches were small, then the issue is not size but qualifications. A church of any size with two qualified elders, should have two qualified elders.

The problem is that the grammatical structure is king. Let me give you my interpretation of Matthew 16, I get to the local church but I get to it differently than you do.

Premise 1: Since grammatically the keys of the kingdom must be Peter, we have to understand and unpack this significance.

Premise 2: Grammatically, it cannot be the ekklesia in Matthew 16. As you will see, I don't doubt this pertains to the church, but I get there differently.

Premise 3: I believe Peter does represent another entity. The question is whether he represents the Apostles, the Bishop of Rome, or the Church. For sake of argument, we both agree he does not represent the Bishop of Rome.

Premise 4: The apostle's teaching were considered the foundation of the church (along with the prophets) in Ephesians 2:19. This was what built up the church and I contend, what helped it advance.

Premise 5: Commands to the Apostles were applied to the church as a whole. I think you can agree with this one as you seemed to argue in another post that Matthew 28:19-20 was given to the church through the apostles (this may not be an accurate representation of your view, but I think it is close).

Conclusion: The keys were not necessarily the church itself, but the foundational teachings of the church given to it by the Apostles along with the Prophets. This is, say, the Old and New Testament (apostles and prophets). The church is built upon this foundation and thus no gates will overcome it.

How this applies in this situation: The Elders' job is to uphold that doctrine and to protect the congregation from error. This verse is not teaching democracy, but teaching the importance of doctrine and the Old and New Testament.

Answering the binding question: The church as a whole has a responsibility to make definitive statements on someone's salvation based upon doctrine and liefestyle. However, this is based upon the Apostle's teaching and under the direction of those who are charged with ensuring right doctrine.

I don't doubt Matthew 18 is dealing with a local congregation nor that Matthew 16 can be applied to a local congregation.

I disagree, but as you see in my explanation, I believe this is applied to all the apostles. Grammatically, this was referring to only one person, Peter. However, I believe it applies to the whole.

I agree with you except where you say this must deal directly to the church. This is a common disagreement among scholars, but I hold as noted before that this is referring to the Apostles. I think the rock is the teaching of the Apostles and Prophets that are the foundation, by which the entire church will be built.

THis is where I may be misunderstanding your point. So, I am going to reiterate some issues and probably misrepresent you slightly, but not on purpose but I am hoping to get clarification of your believe.

You believe that generally, a church can have a single elder there are times it is appropriate to have more than one.

I believe that generally, a church should have more than one elder though there are times it is necessary to have more than one.

You believe that generally, the elders are staff members (you have never stated this, so please correct this).

I believe that generally, a church's elders are made up of staff and non-staff members.

You believe the sole dictate on how many elders should be size.

I believe the sole dictate on how many elders are how many are qualified within the church.

You believe there can be heirarchy in among the Pastors/Elders (my speculation)

I believe there cannot be a hierarchy among Pastors/Elders.

You believe that the authority of church rests in the congregation alone (conceding we both believe the authority is derived from Scripture)

I believe that the authority of the church rests in the congregation and through their appointed representatives, the Elders.

___

This may help me clarify what you are arguing against and for. Please correct any misconceptions. However, you do not seem to deny a multitude of Pastors/Elders, so I am trying to understand the key differences.

This is another statement that I am not certain we disagree or agree. Let me explain my viewpoint and you can decide.

I believe in congregationalism. As noted before, congregationalism does not equal democracy. So, what does the congregation do?

1. Affirms decisions by the Elders (Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem). This was not necessarily a vote, as much as a mutual affirmation of the decisions of the Elders and Pastors.

2. Submitting men for added responsibility within the church (Acts 6). It seems the Elders gave the final approval from the text, but this is a proper role of the congregation.

3. To rise up against abusive authority. You mentioned Revelation 2-3 but I would also add III John.

4. The final step of Church Discipline in Matthew 18. Now, I would say this does involve the Elders prior to that final stage as he is the protector of the flock and should be relied upon through this process. Afterall, it is his job description to protect people from wolves, and that could be either the accuser or the defender of the accusation. However, this is a proper role for the church. When I have done church discipline, I was involved in this situation for months before bringing to the congregation, which we did.

However, this is not democratic. The church does not vote on everything nor should it. They are not a veto committee. Their role is limited

 

This is not correct. Your idea that Peter is being directly addrssed is not correct. The question Jesus asked that began this discussion was NOT addressed specifically to Peter but to ALL his disciples:

"He asked his DISCIPLES (plural)....He said unto THEM (plural)...whom say YE (plural) YOU...And Simon Peter said.....

Thus these questions were not directed toward Peter by Christ but toward ALL the disciples. Peter merely responded in the behalf of ALL the disciples.

Second, Neither is it grammatically correct that the keys must be Peter as they are something to be used by a person, they are not a person. Just look at Gill or Edersheim and the prevous PERSONS who USED these keys.

So your first premise is entirely wrong and the grammar proves it is wrong.

The keys have nothing to do with the person of Peter or the church but are ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS that are spelled out individually elsewhere in the scriptures. Here those functions are described as "bind" and "loose."

This premise is based upon your first premise which has been proven to be wrong grammatically. It has been proven that Peter answered in behalf of those whom Christ asked and Christ did not ask these question specifically to Peter. Hence, Peter was answering in behalf of the rest. All the rest had already previously confessed Jesus as the Christ and Son of God (Mt. 15). All the rest had this revealed to them by the Father not from natural sources (v. 17). All the rest had been prepared by John the Baptist through repentance and faith in Christ and baptism. Each represented the kind of material that God uses characteristically to build the local church (Acts 2:41).

Although I agree the apostles and prophets form the metaphorical foundation of the church in regard to the finished scriptures containing their teaching furnished to the church. However, this is not the meaning in this context. The nearest antecedent for "this" (third person singular) in verse 18 is "this" in verse 17 which in turn modifies "thou art the Christ the Son of the Living God" in verse 16. It is Christ as ones confession of faith that is grammatically identified in verse 18.

Jesus spoke to his churches through the SINGULAR "angel" or messenger in Revelation 2-3. This singular "angel" was human as you cannot write letters to spirit creatures. So yes, it is normal procedure that officers act as authorized representatives of a larger body/organization/institution and therefore Christ would naturally work through the representative offices he established.

I beleive that I have overturned every premise by either grammatical evidence that states the contrary or contextual based evidence that teaches the contrary. Hence, if your premises are wrong so is your conclusion built upon those premises.

I agree that the church is congregational in its form of government which is inclusive of the elders rather than a pure democracy that determines all decisions by shear weight of numbers. Moreover, I believe the Word of God is the basis for all decisions in doctrine and practice (2 Tim. 3:15) and that it is the responsibility of the officers to teach and lead the congregation into following the scriptures BUT it is the congregation who ultimately has the authority not only to qualify and present those who are to be ordained but to disqualify and remove those they feel are no longer qualified. Hence, the office is ultimately subject to the authority of the congregation and can be installed or removed by majority vote. The church's decision will be ultimately approved or condemned by Christ.

Matthew 18:15-18 demonstrates that there is no lessor body of church members qualified to examine, pass judgement and discipline any member (v. 16) and therefore a clear denial of eldership rule. When any smaller body of members examine a member they must defer all authority - the use of the keys in binding or loosing (approval/disapproval) to the "church" not to the elders.

No, I believe there is a NECESSITY for a plurality of elders during the apostolic period when no written revelation existed to direct the churches. Leaders were those with revelatory gifts (Acts 13:1-2) and it was NECESSARY to have a plurality so that each revelation was confirmed by at least two or three other elders with revelatory gifts (1 Cor. 14:26-29).

However, nearer to the close of the Apostloic age when the churches were supplied with written revelation we see the rise of SINGLE Pastors (Rev. 2-3 "to THE ANGEL") and more advanced qualifications (1 Tim. 3; Tit. 1) than formerly in the constitution of new churches and new born members (Acts 14:22-23). The selecting of Pastors in such new churches with newborn members was by direct apostolic appointment under the leadership of the Spirit and intentional laying on of apostolic hands to convey the revelatory gifts essential for them to lead the congregation by means of check and balance provided by revelatory gifts among the leaders.

 

I believe it is intended to be a benevolent monarchy, modeled after our Benevolent Monarch.

 

18 Verily I say unto you, what things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19 Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father who is in heaven.
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Mt 18

I see this passage as referring to the authority that Christ had given to His apostles in setting up the Church, NOT a description of what constitutes a Church. See Acts 15:19,20 for example, or 1 Cor 5:3-5. Christ gave these men great authority.

 

Plurality of elders in my church with elder rule. Been part of congregational and elder rule and I believe the biblical model to be the latter.

Having said that I'm not a fan of the modern church model. We run our churches more as corporations with CEO's, COO's and BoD's than churches.

Now, if the elders are equal and submit to one another as was mentioned in this thread...why is it ok for 2 to be salaried and the other 2 to be voluntary? I never understood this concept. Either all should be paid or none, IMO. I think we have problems when the majority of monies received go to a couple salaries and the cost to maintain a facility.

 

This has nothing to do with "settng up the church" but are instructions for a church already set up and existing with members to deal with internal membership problems that may arise in the future.

The instruction is given to more than his apostles as the apostles were chosen out of a larger congregation of disciples that habitually assembled with him from the time of John the Baptist to his ascension into heaven (Acts 1:21-22). We know that because if that were not so there would have been no qualified persons for the congregation to select a replacement for Judas.

Jesus does not tell the congregation to "tell the elders" or any smaller body (v. 16) but rather this is a "church" decision inclusive of all the members including its leadership (v. 17). The nearest antecedent for "you" in verse 18 is "church" in verse 17 which is a singular noun inclusive of a plurality of members. The plural pronoun "you" routinely is used to refer to a local "church" in the Pauline epistles when addressing a specific church.

Matthew 18:15-18 refers to a local visible congregation as it is impossible to administer this kind of discipline to christians scattered all over the world or to those who are not members of the specific congregation disciplining them.

Matthew 18:20 is addressed to the same local congregation. To be a congregation there must be at the very minimum of two or more as one person is not a congregation. Jesus is simply assuring them that no matter how small the congregation may be, two or three being the minimum number possible, that if they obey his instructions, act in "in my name" he will back up their use of the keys for discipline. The word "and again" in verse 19 demonstrates that verse 20 is a continuation of the discussion in verses 15-18.

 

The question does go out to all the disciples, but the question is individualized by Peter and made specific by one person. This is especially noted in verses 17 and 18 with the radical use of the singular modifying a singular person. In the grammatical structure, if you make the singular to modify a plural, you are violating basic Greek (and even English) grammar. Thus, the blessings in 17 and 18 are not to the disciples directly, it can’t be or else we are violating Greek Grammar.

Jesus moves towards the singular in verse 17 when he blesses Simon, “Blessed are you (singular).” He further emphasizes the singular by saying, “For flesh and blood did not reveal this to you (singular).” So, I grant that verse 15 is in the plural and have never disputed this. However, this makes my point more poignant, Jesus switches from the plural to the singular in blessing Simon. By the time of verse 17 and 18, he is talking directly to Simon Peter. When Peter responded, Jesus acknowledged this was not from all the disciples, but this was specifically from Simon Peter and Simon Peter was blessed specifically for his confession. This is grammar 101, and is impossible to get around. The fact that Jesus transitioned from the plural in verse 15 to the singular in verses 17 and 18 makes my point even harder to dispute.

I disagree these are administrative functions, but this is really beyond the scope of the discussion. I do believe they are really a spiritual function.

Your problem is that you must break the simple laws of greek grammar in order for you to make your point. You cannot change the modifier “this” from plural to singular. Verse 17 is plural in Greek, not singular. Thus, “this” (taute) in verse 18 cannot modify “these” (tois) in verse 17. That would break the simple rules of Greek Grammar. Rather, taute must modify a nearby singular noun which is “rock”. Granted, this rock is referring to something. Since we are dealing with a sentence structure, you have to look within the sentence itself. The best candidate is Peter. This is a singular noun within the confines of the sentence structure and it makes perfect grammatical sense, otherwise you are crossing over into another sentence to make your point. Peter is in the nominative case, therefore most logically who they are referring to within the sentence structure. Thus, there must be overwhelming evidence to break the simple laws of grammar, which I find there are none.



Jesus spoke to his churches through the SINGULAR "angel" or messenger in Revelation 2-3. This singular "angel" was human as you cannot write letters to spirit creatures. So yes, it is normal procedure that officers act as authorized representatives of a larger body/organization/institution and therefore Christ would naturally work through the representative offices he established.

I have no problem with saying that a Congregation can remove an Elder. That is a part of the Church Discipline process. However, they cannot install a Pastor. Titus was told to “appoint” pastors. Thus, Pastors are appointed by other Pastors, not a congregation. The congregation, like in Acts 15, support the decision, but the ultimate criteria of installing Pastor is by other Pastors/Elders who appoint the Pastor/Elder. The word appoint is a vital word in this discussion, but it appears this is not a congregational term and is paramount to appointing an ambassador.

Wow, where to begin. Let me note that you are arguing from silence of Scripture, which is very difficult to do. As well, let me note that for the first few Centuries, the early church did not recognize a single Elder situation, but still practiced a plurality of Elders. Thus, the early church did not see it your way. Elders are continued to be mentioned throughout the Revelation of John. As well, II and III John both begin with the famous “The Elder.” Finally, throughout all of history in the Old and New Testament, there have been a plurality of Elders. The Old Testament Elders and the New Testament Elders are both in the plural.

The use of the “angel” as in the singular does not prove anything. There are 55 references to “angel” in Revelation, almost all of them are in the singular even when around the “Elders”. Thus, making a point about Elders in this situation from “angel” is truly grasping at straws.

As well, the argument for of the end of the apostolic age proves nothing. Elders were not special apostolic offices that espoused Revelation. We all acknowledge that the Prophets of the Old Testament and the Apostles of the New Testament were both special offices, who laid down the foundation of the church. This is not in the same category as Divine Revelation or the Apostolic office, who wrote Scripture. Elders were offices in the Old and New Testament. In both situations, there were a plurality of offices. This has never changed and thus, to say it has changed would require proof as we are referring to Elders back to Moses’ day that continued as a plurality through Jesus’ day and through the writings of Paul. There is NEVER an instance where a church is seen to have one Elder and the early church practiced more than one Elder (even when they stopped practicing the Apostolic practice).

Thus, I see no argument you have made that mounts up to that evidence. You have given circumstantial evidence, but that is really a presuppostional based argument.

 

That's a great question that I don't think there is a clear answer for in Scripture. On one hand there is an order in the Godhead (1 Corinthians 11) that could be used to support one elder being "in charge", but on the other hand Christ is the head of the church and He has placed the church to be under the elders (plural). What has transpired is the one who is being paid is the one "in charge" and has the final say on decisions, and I cringe at that.

What I do disagree with is the fact you have one Sr. pastor and family being supported fully by the church, an associate pastor and his family being supported to a lesser extent and then a couple more elders who are strictly volunteers. This doesn't sit right with me.

This is not just an elder issue. You might have a couple of people who serve being paid a part time salary as well while the rest of those in the church who serve (and may even do more for the church) do so on a volunteer basis. The church seems to have become a business.

 

There truly is nothing new under the sun.

Andrew Fuller, “On Church Government and Discipline”:

Baptists have been rightly rejecting these presbyterial schemes for centuries.


More:

Crosby's History of the English Baptists:

John Gill, A Body of Practical Divinity:

Andrew Fuller, “On Church Government and Discipline”:

Charles Spurgeon, "The Call to the Ministry":

 

A couple of notes. Not all Elders in Spurgeon's nor Gill's church were paid. He is making a distinction between paid Elders and non-paid elders. This is the same distinction with the 1689. If they were going to call people for full time vocational ministry, they should pay them well.

However, in the second case, the calling for the larger a church the more Elders needed is true. However, he is not discounting the need for them to be qualified. there is a pastoral concern that the more a church has the more shepherds are needed, but they will not appoint people who are unqualified nor would they deny someone to appoint them who was qualified.

 

Can you elaborate? Baptists have created their own "schemes", that being masking the plurality of elders by calling them deacons while denying the plurality of elders stance. If they serve as elders and you call them deacons, what are they?

Fully agreed.

Hyperbole.

An elder needs to know how to teach, not preach a sermon.

Mere man's opinion not supported by Scripture. What is small, or "too small"? Why assume idleness and not freedom to pursue further evangelism and works? Painting with way too broad a brush.

I believe Spurgeon is reading something into Scripture that is not there. There is nothing in Scripture to support an elder must "separate from every secular calling". Paul was a tent maker and probably more spiritually busy than any elder today.

 

This needs explaining. To say Baptists reject Presbyterianism, is true. To say that we reject Elders is false. Rather, the predominant view until the last Century has been to have Elders. Look at 99% of the churches in 1700's who were Baptists, they had Elders. Most still held to either the Philadelphia or Charleston Confessions. In the church that I Pastored that was founded in the 18th Century, we hosted a conference of Elders at the church in the early 1800's. This church minutes noted that those who attended had Elders from various churches in such a way that it appears most likely he was referring to a multiplicity of Elders in every church. Our church, at that time, had a multiplicity of Elders in our church.

I will give a more details when I get home from a meeting, giving an historic overview and I will cite actual sources in this assessment. It may be very late tonight or tomorrow, as I have three meetings today, but I will give the survey.

 

Acts 20:28 tells us that elders, bishops (overseers) pastors (shepherds) are the same people. Those titles describe the various jobs they have as elders. My church calls him pastor, but we could just as easily (and accurately) call him bishop or elder.

It seems to me that the scriptures provide no magic number for elders (pastors). One view is that there should be at least two since Paul ordained elders wherever he went, not just an elder.

My take is that you have as many elders (pastors, bishops) as you need. For instance, the fact that most early churches met in homes suggests that each one needed at least one elder (pastor) per home. There may have been one church in each city, but several preaching stations, since it is unlikely you could have gathered them all in one home.

The number of pastors (elders, bishops) depended on the size of the congregation, and that holds true even today. Some churches call them preaching pastor, worship pastor, youth pastor, executive pastor; or, minister of music, minister of education, minister of youth, minister to geezers and the like.

One thing I don't see in scripture is a "board" of elders. I don't see a "board" of deacons there, either.

 

This does not change the fact that Peter answered in behalf of the rest. No one else disputed Peter's response because that response characterized what they all had formerly confessed. No one else supplied a different response because Peter expressed the view of all of them. Furthermore, what Jesus said of Peter in verse 17 equally applied to all the rest as they all received their conviction from the very same source.

What you are failing to see is that Jesus is the one who specially gave this name to Simon (Jn. 1:42) for a specific purpose and this is the only place in scripture where that purpose comes into view.

What you also fail to see is that Jesus turns this discussion into a BUILDING context:

1. There is a builder - "I"
2. There is something to be built - "my church"
3. There is something to build upon - "upon this rock"

But there is nothing supplied in this building context to describe the kind of material to build with EXCEPT the intentional play upon Simon's new name "Petros." What makes this point especially powerful is that later when Peter chooses to describe the materials used in building the church applies the very same metaphor "lively stones BUILT UP a spiritual house" (1 Pet. 2:5) and describes Christ as the "petra" or foundation for that spiritual house (1 Pet. 2:8). Where did Peter get that analogy from if not from this very discussion by Christ??? In addition, when Christ uses the "keys" analogy the second time he does not direct it to singular "Peter" but to PLURAL "you" (Mt. 18:17-18) previously identified as "the church" exactly as it is used in connection with a church context in Mt. 16:18-19. These are forceful facts.

In addition your following responses to avoid my position that Peter is intentionallly separated by Christ to characterize the building materials used in construction of His church are based upon errors which I will point out.

.

The term "key" is used in scripture and in cultures as a symbol of authority given to someone to exercise actions rather than a spiritual ability. It is the final authority exercised in the ultimate disciplinary process in Matthew 18:15-17 which shows it is an exercise of authority not spiritual ability.

No laws of grammar are violated. Your grammatical conclusions are in error on several counts. It is the third person SINGULAR pronoun "it" [apekalupsen] in verse 17 that is the nearest antecedent of the "this rock" in verse 18. Check your Greet text again. Sure "this" modifies "rock" but as you admit "granted, this rock is referring to something" and it cannot grammatically refer to "Peter" because grammatically Christ uses the singular SECOND person pronoun for Peter [soi] but the THIRD person singular ("taute") to identify the "rock" which is the very same third person singular for "it" in verse 17 and for "this" in verse 16 that modifies Peter's response in verse 15.

I have explicit precepts that demand the ultimate authority in the process of the disciplinary exercise of the Keys upon an erring member resides in "the church" (Mt. 18:17) showing there is NO HIGHER court of appeals.

There is equally explicit scriptural evidence to show that the elders cannot select or qualify men for that office but that belongs to the congregational body (Acts 1:15-25; 6:3-7).

Hence, final authority for appointment rests in the congregation not the presbytery as they only SERVE the will of the congregation.

Since "traditions" provided by Rome mean nothing to me - no comment. However, in regard to the singular "angel" you have now moved from being an exegete to a politician in this regard. True, the term "angel" proves nothing at all as an isolated term. However, it is not grasping at straws due to the context it is found in. Letters are not written to spirit beings and each letter is addressed specifically to "the angel" in a geographically located church. Who would deliver this letter to a spirit being and how would he deliver it to an spirit being? What would be his proper mailing address? Why would a spirit be responsible for these commendations and rebuke? Jesus did not address PLURAL ELDERS at all and when he does address the "angel" it is not for the "messenger" to effect the changes but for individual church members to act together as a majority to effect the changes ("he that hath ears to hear let HIM hear what the Spirit saith unto THE CHURCHES").

Furthermore, the term "angel" means "messanger" and that is the precise function of the "pastor" is it not??? He is a "messanger" boy who receives his messages from Christ and delivers them to the church he pastors.

I have shown you SEVEN instances in the book of Revelation WITHOUT ONE mention of plurality of elders! This period of time is at the end of written revelation and thus the end of revelatory gifts and the necessity to confirm revelation by two or more witnesses.

Don't you think it very strange that the head of the churches would address the churches without ANY MENTION of its leadership if they were responsible for LEADING the Church to do Christ's revealed will???? This supports the singular "messanger" as the Pastor even more in each church.

 

The History of a Multitude of Elders among Baptists

Up till the 20th Century, the vast majority of Baptists believed in Elder Rule. The first major theological attack on a multitude of Elders came at the hands of A.H. Strong in his theology book written in 1912 (Allison, Gregg. Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine). While there were some churches who began the practice prior to 1912, Strong gave the foundation by which all arguments in the Baptist realm have tended to resemble. Most of the arguments for a single Pastor can be directly or indirectly traced to A.H. Strong.

In examining history, it is difficult to get a theological statement for Baptist belief prior to Smyth and Helwys. Both Smyth and Helwys agreed in a multiplicity of Elders and the latter brought this viewpoint from Amsterdam to London when he established the first Baptist Church in England. Many Baptist historians call their church in Amsterdam the first Baptist Church ever, as they formulated theology that distinguished themselves from AnaBaptists and were distinctly Baptistic and Orthodox.

In Smyth’s short confession of faith (1609), he described the two offices of the local church, the Bishops/Pastors and Deacons. In both cases he refers to a multitude of them. In other words, he saw a plurality of Bishops/Elders and Deacons.

Helwys’s Declaration of Faith (1611) reaffirmed this viewpoint and their churches (in Amsterdam and England) practiced a multiplicity of Elders and Deacons. Helwys noted, “these officers are to be chosen when they are persons qualified according to the rules in Christ’s Testament by election and approbation of that church or congregation which they are members” (Thomas Helwys, A Declaration of Faith of English People Remaining at Amsterdam in Holland. 1611). He denies that size is the determining factor and that churches vote in a democratic sense. Rather, he believed that qualifications were the primary means for appointing elders. He also notes that a person appointed to the eldership should be a current member of the congregation (a belief I happen to hold).

Founding the first Baptist Church in England, Helwys expanded his influence in London and incorporated his viewpoint of Elders in that area. The vast majority of “Baptist” churches founded during that era, if not all, included a multitude of elders in each church whether they were General or Particular Baptists.

Baptists grew exponentially and many Elders united in London twice to formulate a more precise and thorough doctrinal statement. In 1644, the First London Confession of Faith was formed and in 1689 the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith was created. No one doubts that the attendees and the thrust of both of these groups espoused a plurality of Elders for each church. The Second London Baptist Confession does change the wording of Helwys in the selection of Elders, choosing for a more congregational form of government by the common vote of the people. I think the difference may be a matter of mere semantics, but this will further be eroded, especially into the 1800’s, where we will see a democratization of the roles of the church.

Benjamin Keach, the famous Baptist of the 17th Century, wrote on Elders and believed in a plurality. He believed they should be appointed based upon qualifications and not numbers in the church. He best distinguished the Baptist position of Elders up and against that of Presbyterianism (Bishops, Overseers, and Elders).

Benjamin Griffith broke away from Keach’s model in calling for a more Presbyterian form of Baptist government. He held, like Keach, to a multitude of Elders, but he advanced the idea of two different offices, the Pastor and the Elders. This began the practice of calling a single Pastor but with a church ruled by a multiplicity of Elders. (Benjamin Griffith, A Short Treatise)

Griffith is unique in that his view transcended throughout the 18th Century and seemed to be the predominant view of the Philadelphia Baptist Association, which affirmed a multitude of Elders ruling the local church. The Charleston Baptist Association seemed to ignore any separation of the Pastor and Elder, but clearly advances a multitude of Elders for each local church (Summary of Church Discipline, 1774). While both groups believed in a multitude of Elders, they disagreed in the number of offices. For the record, I agree with the Charleston Baptist Association on this point.

We begin to see the first major rumblings of the dispute in the 1800’s but most of them were centered on whether there were two offices or three. Several people weighed in on the issue including the first President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. J.L. Reynolds of 2nd Baptist Richmond also acknowledged the mostly agreed upon conclusion that there were a multitude of Elders in each church. Some quotes people pull from leaders in the 1800’s to support their case for a single Pastor, they pull from people who held to three offices who were supporting a single Pastor but who agreed to a multitude of Elders. Thus, they usually quote a person who is not helpful in supporting their cause. Spurgeon, for instance, did not hold to three offices but used the language of Pastor and Elders similar to those who held to three offices.

While some churches did practice a single eldership prior to 1912, the first major theological support of this practice came in the writings of A.H. Strong. Now, Strong may not be the stalwart of this viewpoint some wish to make him as noted in this quote, “In certain of the New Testament churches, there appears to have been a plurality of elders (Acts 2:17; Phil 1:1; Titus 1:5)” (A.H. Strong, Systematic Theology, 1912).

He seemed very unsympathetic for the Episcopal, Catholic, and state church viewpoints. It is when he addresses the multiple eldership does he exhibit a softer tone as seen in the above quote. However, he further stated, “There is however, no evidence that the number of elders was uniform, or that the plurality which frequently existed was due to any other cause than the size of the churches for which these elders cared. The NT example, while it permits the multiplication of assistant pastors according to need, does not require a plural eldership in every case.”

The most fascinating notation by Strong, in my opinion, was his observation that the majority of Baptist Churches in America at the writing of his book, 1912, held to a plurality of Elders. He is not alone, just 30 years earlier one of the founders of the faculty of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary wrote, “In most, if not all the apostolic churches, there was a plurality of Elders” (William Williams, Apostolical Church Polity). Most agree that Baptists were predominantly Elder rule.

From here, Strong advanced several “evidences” for a single pastor, much of which we have seen advanced on this board. They include the use of “angel” in the singular in the book of Revelation and the citation of James in Acts 15.

I believe his viewpoint was overly Democratized. Even in his explanation of elders, he uses terms like “democratic” and “president” when referring to the elders, a uniquely American argument. To me, this is a post American culture inclusion which is completely unbiblical. Most arguments advanced today either directly or indirectly relate to Strong’s major theological work in 1912. Not much has changed in 100 years. To me, there still is an over emphasis of the democratization of the pastoral role and an uplifting of the Pastor as a pseudo “president”. However, unlike Strong, those in opposition have become more hostile. Some state this is the greatest threat to the modern church. In my opinion, this is just plan ignorant.

Thus, I conclude that the vast majority of Baptist history has held to a plurality of eldership. While there have been various debates on whether there are two or three offices, it seems clear that up to 1912, Baptists who held to a plurality of eldership were in the majority. Some estimates I have seen said that we were still in the majority until the 1950’s. I do not doubt this belief but cannot substantiate it.

 

Secular History is not inspired. History never is comprehensive in providing all evidence; History is often wrong, biased and is therefore not the basis for either doctrine or practice.

Tradition (secular history) also gives support for other officers than elders and deacons (Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, Arch Bishops, Pastors, Preists, deacons, etc.)

I am a Baptist and Baptists do not base their doctrine or practice on tradition but on the Word of God. I gave you God's Word you give me tradition.

 

To believe what they say just because they said it is foolish, but to reject what they said merely because they were from the past or disagrees with you is just as foolish. Get their books and writings and study them well. You still may not agree with them, but you will not deny that they were men of the Word of God. Many, like Bunyan, when people met and talked to him said that if you pricked him, he would bleed Bibline. I think many of the people I quoted the same could be said.

We do not base it upon tradition, but to take a tough stand for a theology that is very new, against one that has been tested and tried should force one to become more humble in their theology. If you are the only ones upholding a doctrine in all of church history, you probably are wrong. If we reject modernism, who says that we are learning more and getting better as time progresses, we then must look back for wisdom from the ages not in antagonism of the ages. This is not traditionalism, but seeking wisdom from Godly people. These Baptists in history preached the word of God, some were willing to die for the cause. They were proven faithful in standing for right doctrine. While I still may disagree with them on issues, I honor these men as being in a world that was not worthy of them.

As well, this is not secular history but church history. I do not think I quoted one secular historian or secular person. These were men of God.

I am a Baptist, and being a Baptist means I uphold Baptist distinctives. These are not the distinctives derived in the 1800's, but distintives from our entire history. Saying you believe in a doctrine that was not even written much about until the 20th Century is conceding to the modernists that our beliefs do actually change to fit our culture.

 

You changed horses in midstream from Bible to tradition! Why?

 

Dr. Walter,

I addressed the issue of traditionalism, but the focus is upon the Bible.

I have a question, do you believe in the perspicuity of the Bible?