Church polity #1-plurality of elders

Yet, your statements do not fit with the Greek grammar at all. You may try to excuse the Greek Grammar, but the Greek Grammar cannot be changed. There does not appear to be any textual variants that could help you say what you are saying either.

Again, the "this" must have an antecedent that is in the nominative case. Basic Greek grammar logically must refer to Peter. If you can show me grammatically how it can refer to another sentence and another nominative case word in another sentence that overlooks a very close in proximity nominative case word, I may listen. Yet, I think you are on very thin ice in the Greek Grammar. While this refers to the rock, the rock must refer to something within that sentence and that seems clear it is Peter.

You said the word "you" referring to when Jesus said he will give "you the keys" to the kingdom is in the plural. I triple checked this and it appears you are wrong. The Greek words are dwsw soi, which both the dwsw and soi are in the 2nd person singular. I checked a couple of commentaries wondering if people saw a textual variant or there is an abnormal use of these words or if there could be a compound singular involved. I could find nothing to substantiate such a translation. One commentary clearly stated that it must refer to Peter because of the grammar. I tend to agree.

I don’t really avoid it because the question is Greek Grammar which should lead to interpretation. Thus, if I am correct in my grammar, the rest works out as well.

Apekalupsen is not the nearest antecedent. Petros in verse 18 is the nearest antecedent and verse 17 is a different sentence. The sentence states, “kagw de soi legw oti su ei Petros, kai epii tautn tn petra….” You can see that Petros is just a couple of words away from tautn tn petra. Petros is the nearest noun as you don’t have to jump over another sentence nor over other words to get to that antecedent. Petros is in the nominative case, thus is the most logical selection. Why you skip over Petros is not based upon grammar.
Yes, Jesus uses the second person pronoun for Jesus, but that is commonly done. The second person singular but emphasizes the subject of Peter by using the Nominative case, which is the most important portion of this scenario. I went on to consult several commentaries and grammars last night. No one I could find would say that Peter could not be the one it was referring to based upon grammar. Yes, some people had other explanations. I even went so far as to try to diagram this section. This makes logical and grammatical sense that this “this” could modify rock which is dealing with the nominative Peter. It also does not make sense to go to another sentence as you propose.

I have never argued for Presbyterianism. If you look at my historic analysis and other posts, I not advocate any type of Presbyterianism. Having mentioned my position several times, this again borders on either your ignorance of Presbyterianism, ignorance of my position, or just stereotyping. I do not even hold to Griffith’s version of Elders, which is not completely Presbyterian but closer than my own position.

As well, the Pastoral position is not to only serve the will of the people but to actually have authority.

Sample of Authority of Elders.

They made a decisive doctrinal statement in Acts 15, the congregations affirmed it, but never voted upon it.

Titus was told to preach various things and rebuke those with all authority who opposed (Titus 2:15). If he had no authority as a Pastor, he would have been told to take it to the congregation.

In III John, there are interesting statements. First, the author of III John, who is traditionally named as the apostle, refers to himself as “Elder” (v. 1). However, when Diotrophese refuses to listen, the Elder says, Diotrophese, “does not acknowledge our authority.” Once again, the appeal is not to the congregation, but an Elder.

The qualifications of an Elder states he must be able to rule/manage his own household. The Greek word here could be translated a number of ways, but it is used of a ruler ruling over his kingdom to a father ruling in his home. Thus, there is authority in the Eldership.

Hebrews 13:17 clearly states, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

Therefore, there is solid authority in the Eldership. We are told to submit to them, there seems to be authority applied to them, and even Titus was told (not the congregation) to appoint other Elders, a job not delegated to the church. There is authority. We can discuss the limits of that authority which is a good discussion, but you cannot deny a real authority in the Eldership.

see more in the next post

 

The singular angel means nothing. You borrow that from Strong as noted in a previous post. As well, Strong’s support for that is at best speculative and at worse an applying of Americanism to the pastoral role (I noted two examples of Americanism in my historic analysis). The Angel in Revelation is mentioned many times, even in contrast to other elders that are mentioned in the book. To build an entire doctrine on this verse is at best speculative theology. For this reason, the vast majority of scholarship have condemned Strong’s argument.

However, the word “angel” in the previous chapter is used of an angel ministering to John. It is later used along with the lampstand in building up to this. In Revelation, the angel is used 55 times throughout the book. This angel is seen as declaring who is worthy to open the scroll (Rev. 5:2), ascending and rising to the sun (Rev 7:2), is used in contrast to the saints (Rev 8:3), the angel threw the prayers to earth from heaven (8:5), various other angels doing angelic things (8:7-8:12), there is the angel that keeps the bottomless pit (9:11), so on and so forth. NEVER is an angel in these verses in the entire rest of Revelation is translated as a real person. NEVER! This is why Strong’s viewpoint is entirely wrong. You bring about objections, but the objections show that you are the one inconsistent. Your objections are not real objections, as they make light of the grammatical structure to try to prove your point. You are making a case on a situation where you are extremely weak.

There are plenty of mentions of “Elders” in the book of Revelation where Elders are in the plural (Rev. 4:4, 4:10, 5:5 (it mentions “one of the elders” assuming there are more), 5:6 (among the elders), 5:8, 5:11, 5:14, 7:11, 7:13, 11:16, 14:3, 19:4). In fact, every time the word “Elder” is used in Revelation it is in the plural. You wish to make this about the use of an angel, but every instance of angel used is of an angelic being in Revelation and there is no reason to suggest this changes in chapter 2 and 3 to the entire book of Revelation. As well, when the word “elders” is used, it is in the plural and shows a plurality of people. For you to ignore the word “elder” and to retranslate “angel” is really with an agenda, to Americanize the text.

Finally, you attack my historical analysis without so much as giving one substantial critique of it. Rather, you attack it for being Romanish. That is a clear straw man attack and is ridiculous. There is NOTHING Romanish about my statements and the insinuation without any evidence is bordering on defamation, it is an outright stupid attack. You seem to point to it as being traditionalism. You have your doctorate, so you know that a part of any Ph.D. program in theology or related discipline, you must give an historic analysis of your research topic. The sources I use are either primary sources, or Christian sources, not Roman sources.

You failed to answer the question on perspicuity of Scripture as I am sure you know my next statement will be, “If you believe perspicuity, then why did it take till 1912 to derive your theology on this issue?” I believe that you are either attacking the perspicuity of Scripture in your stance, or you owe the world an historic theological analysis of this situation.

 

IMO, the doc makes a pertinent point here in post #35:

“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???.....”

I'm not saying you are wrong but the above is along the lines of what I've been taught all my Baptist life pertaining to the rock on which the Church is built. If you were to translate this passage yourself, would it differ any from Young's Literal Translation here?:

17 And Jesus answering said to him, `Happy art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to thee, but my Father who is in the heavens.
18 `And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it;
19 and I will give to thee the keys of the reign of the heavens, and whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth shall be having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth shall be having been loosed in the heavens.` Mt 16

....or would you mind to paraphrase it in your own words?

[edited] to remove reference to Mt 18 from post #35

 

ASV:
18 And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

YLT:
18 `And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it;

 

I am not certain the exact point you are getting at but let me address what I think you are asking.

Peter's name was changed before this event occurred (Mark 3:16). I believe this was a theological statement long before Matthew 16 but culminated/climaxed in Matthew 16. In other words, God was demonstrating his Sovereignty and control by displaying in Peter to be the recipient of "upon this rock" long before the statement was said.

Thus, I believe the name change was purposeful on Jesus' part. We fail to understand the name change until Matthew 16, where Jesus gives insight into why he changed the name Simon to Peter. This was abnormal, as not everyone of the 12 had a name change and there seems to be no explanation at all if you discount Matthew 16.

This further fits in that Peter would be the first to preach in Acts. He would be the first to lay down the foundation of the Apostles and prophets after Pentecost. He, then, was fulfilling the role God appointed to him, and later other disciples, in Matthew 16.

 

You clarified, I think; if I correctly understand your statement, "He [Peter] would be the first to lay down the foundation of the Apostles and prophets after Pentecost", to be referring to Rev 21:14.

Off topic, but I'm curious, you have any idea why He surnamed James and John "Sons of thunder"?

Thanks.