Must a NT Church have a plurality of Elders??

[Tom Butler]

To ktn4eg,

Brother, you have not said one thing I disagree with. You may have mistakenly thought that some of my comments, responding to someone else, were directed at your view. I can't remember who it was, but one poster did say any other structure besides elder-led was unscriptural.

One correction: I am not the pastor of my church. I am a deacon.

 

[ktn4eg]

ktn4eg
Sometimes a man is called to a troubled church that needs a combination of iron hand and gentle heart. He is there to resolve certain issues which have played havoc with that church. Growth in membership doesn't always happen before that man moves along and the evangelist type pastor takes over.

Cheers,

Jim

Forgive me if I gave you the impression that church growth [both numerically and in maturity] must necessarily be instant, continuous, and progressively greater in all circumstatnces....Be that in a one-man eldership/pastorship or where there is a plurality [i.e., "more than one"] of elders/pastors.

We here at my church have had periods of time in which this has not apparently occurred, and the man whom God led to found this local assembly has often been asked to intervene and/or arbitrate in other autonomus churches where there were "significant issues" which were leading these bodies to appear at the verge of splitting or disbanding completely.

I tend to compare this sort of situtation to that of the flow of the waters of the MS River. There are places along its lengthy shores where its waters are actually flowing northward. However, its eventual end into the Gulf of Mexico continues to exist.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not really certain what your post on this particular matter has to do with the issues of elder(s)/pastor(s), but since you directed it specifically to me, I've tried to reply to it in the best way I know how.

Hopefully this may help clarify my views on this matter.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Whew!!! I'm sure having to do a whole lot of clarifying here today! :smilewinkgrin:

Oh, well, it does boost my "Number of Posts" count!! :applause:

 

[TCGreek]

Why not stick with just pastors and deacons? It worked well for centuries.

Cheers,

Jim

Pastors are elders, bishops, in the biblical text.

Why not allow Scripture to inform our church polity instead of some traditional practice?

 

[ktn4eg]

To ktn4eg,

Brother, you have not said one thing I disagree with. You may have mistakenly thought that some of my comments, responding to someone else, were directed at your view. I can't remember who it was, but one poster did say any other structure besides elder-led was unscriptural.[Bolding mine---ktn4eg]

One correction: I am not the pastor of my church. I am a deacon.

Brother Tom,

HO BOY!! Here it is, 2009 is not even quite 3 days old yet, and I've already broken my New Year's Resolution to become inerrant & infallible!! :tear:

 

[ktn4eg]

Double Post Again!!! See What I Mean!!!

 

[Allan]

Pastors are elders, bishops, in the biblical text.

Why not allow Scripture to inform our church polity instead of some traditional practice?

I agree TCG, that is why I have requested and am still waiting on those scriptures which instruct us or command us (whether explict or implied) to have a plurality of elders in each and every Church.

Please see my previous post in regarding the statement of plurality of elders and not always meaning a specific local church.

 

[Allan]

Brother Tom,

HO BOY!! Here it is, 2009 is not even quite 3 days old yet, and I've already broken my New Year's Resolution to become inerrant & infallible!! :tear:

When you figure it, PLEAASSSE tell me!!
I want to be that way to

 

[Jim1999]

elders, bishops just designations of the pastoral role...........By the way, why don't we have Bishops in Baptist Churches?

Everyone is gung ho on this elder thing. I want to be the Bishop!

And later the Archbishop.

Or even the big Poppa of the Baptist hierarchy!

Cheers, just a lowly tired pastor,

Jim

 

[TCGreek]

I agree TCG, that is why I have requested and am still waiting on those scriptures which instruct us or command us (whether explict or implied) to have a plurality of elders in each and every Church.

Please see my previous post in regarding the statement of plurality of elders and not always meaning a specific local church.

In 1 Peter 5:1 we have a plurality of elders. The very thing we are saying is the case in Scripture.

Don't forget that Peter was an apostle as well. He was uniquely appointed by the Lord.

If a church doesn't have a plurality of elders, then it should wait until it is able to have such. That is the genius of Scripture. Why are we fighting it?

I may not be able to show you a text that forbids a single elder. I'm fine with that. You know Why? Because a local church was never meant to have a single elder.

A plurality of elders is the import of the biblical text.

 

[Tom Butler]

Ktn4eg,

Don't sweat it. It's entirely possibly that you could be wrong about being mistaken.

 

[TCGreek]

elders, bishops just designations of the pastoral role...........By the way, why don't we have Bishops in Baptist Churches?

Everyone is gung ho on this elder thing. I want to be the Bishop!

And later the Archbishop.

Or even the big Poppa of the Baptist hierarchy!

Cheers, just a lowly tired pastor,

Jim

Then you won't be a Baptist. :tongue3:

Two Offices: Pastors/Bishops/elders and Deacons.

 

[Tom Butler]

elders, bishops just designations of the pastoral role...........By the way, why don't we have Bishops in Baptist Churches?

Everyone is gung ho on this elder thing. I want to be the Bishop!

And later the Archbishop.

Or even the big Poppa of the Baptist hierarchy!

Cheers, just a lowly tired pastor,

Jim

Any Baptist church is entitled to call its pastor by the title Bishop. I call my pastor Bishop all the time.

Unfortunately, you're out of luck about being an archbishop. You'd make a good one if there were such a thing.

 

[Jim1999]

OK, when I become Bishop can I claim apostolic succession?

Cheers,

Bishop Jim

 

[TCGreek]

OK, when I become Bishop can I claim apostolic succession?

Cheers,

Bishop Jim

Aren't you a Landmarkist? Well...

 

[Tom Butler]

In 1 Peter 5:1 we have a plurality of elders. The very thing we are saying is the case in Scripture.
------snip--------
A plurality of elders is the import of the biblical text.

I Peter is not a good proof text for a plurality of elders, since it was a general letter written to saints in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bythinia--not to a single congregation.

That said, there's no question that some congregations had more than one elder. We know the church at Ephesus did (Acts 20)

 

[Allan]

In 1 Peter 5:1 we have a plurality of elders. The very thing we are saying is the case in Scripture.

Ummm.. Peter isn't speaking to 'a' church brother but to them all (1 Peter 1:1) Thus he states in 5:1 to them all in a plural sense. WHich is why I posted this in connection with it:

NOW - was Peter writing to just one church since he states himself to an elder among them. No it was not to just one church as shown at the beginning of the Letter..

1Pe 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

He tells in chapter 5 the elders that are among them (of whom he is one) to rule well. The eldership here is to the many and he includes himself in this body of elders. So the plurality here of elders is not concerning a single church body but mutlitiple ones of which Peter includes himself.

These above are just examples where by a plurality can not necessarily be derived as being from or in one particular church but to them many being spoken to/of as a whole or one.

You can not show by context that he is refering to one particular church but is addressing all the churches and all the elders but not necessarily a plurality of elders in on single or specific church body.

Don't forget that Peter was an apostle as well. He was uniquely appointed by the Lord.

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact he was an elder with them to whom he was writting to. An apostle and an elder are not the same things though they might have similar functions.

If a church doesn't have a plurality of elders, then it should wait until it is able to have such. That is the genius of Scripture. Why are we fighting it?

Great, and your scriptural basis for this is found where?

I may not be able to show you a text that forbids a single elder. I'm fine with that. You know Why? Because a local church was never meant to have a single elder.

Great, and your scriptural basis for this is where?

I ask this because you are making a diffinitive statement but you are also saying you lack scriptural support. You are seeming to be dogmatic about something you can't even prove according to you own words/posting.

Let's back up then. You say you can't find a text that forbids a single elder. Ok. Fair enough. Please show the text that explictly or implicty states that a church must have a plurality of elders - (editted in) at any given time. (IOW - from start to finish)

A plurality of elders is the import of the biblical text.

You have not shown this to be true brother. At least not yet anyway. I'm still open to discussing this as it is not something I have really ever delved much into beyond what I have thus far given.

 

[Jim1999]

Oh right, landmarkism....Beware of my shotgun all ye who dare go awry.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Allan]

I Peter is not a good proof text for a plurality of elders, since it was a general letter written to saints in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bythinia--not to a single congregation.

That said, there's no question that some congregations had more than one elder. We know the church at Ephesus did (Acts 20)

Amen. And I agree some churches did have a plurality but nothing in scripture that states 'all' did, and I do agree that depending on the size or needs a plurality is necessary in order to 'properly' grow and mature any church when it gets to a certain point. However what we don't see in scripture is a 'must' in order to be a 'proper' NT Church regarding a plurality of elders. THAT is my only point here. Not that it shouldn't but that it is not a 'must'.

 

[Allan]

Oh right, landmarkism....Beware of my shotgun all ye who dare go awry.

Cheers,

Jim

Ok, that just made me laugh. :applause:

 

[Tom Butler]

OK, when I become Bishop can I claim apostolic succession?

Cheers,

Bishop Jim

Well, let's see. When you became pastor (bishop) of a church, did you succeed the previous pastor (bishop), who succeeded the previous pastor (bishop)?

Maybe not apostolic succession, but certainly bishopric succession. I will say that you are not apostolic enough, but from what you have revealed before about your age, you are certainly elder enough. Didn't you say that Peter and you were big buddies?

(Shhh. let's see if anybody actually thinks this is serious stuff)