• 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!

The Local Church - Baptist theology's weakest link?

L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I in no way think that the Scriptures speak with an uncertain sound; nor do I disbelieve the Scriptures. I happen to believe that God is the author of Scripture and that if He had meant episkopos and presbuteros to mean the same thing, He would have used the same term. I do not believe that He is the author of confusion. I could equally accuse you guys of 'not believing the Scriptures', because you seem to think that the two different titles are the same and that that implies that God was double-minded or that you don't believe that God inspired the Scriptures,

Matt
Click to expand...
There is more than one time where the Bible
uses different words for the same term. God and His Word does have synonyms. For example, Matthew has "the evil one" (ho poneros--13:19),
Mark has "Satan" (Satanas--4:15), and Luke has the devil (ho diabolos--8:12). Are you claiming that this difference in words for these parallel passages in the Gospels makes God "double-minded"
or causes confusion? Your claim is the one that does not hold up and that will harm the correct interpretation of the Scriptures.

God made it plenty clear enough when He called the same group of men in Acts 20 both names:
"elders of the church" (Acts 20:17) and
"overseers or bishops" (Acts 20:28).

How many different groups of officers in a local church are referred to in Philippians 1:1
[only two: bishops and deacons]? Do you think that God would have ignored the elders of the church at Philippi if their office was not the same office as that of the bishops?
 
L

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
Matt,

You said,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />On what basis do you say that the offices were 'interchangeable'? If they were the same, why does Scripture not say so?
Click to expand...
The Scriptures do say so.

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Another clear confirmation that the words "bishop" and "elder" was used for the same office comes from the old Peshitta Syriac. The Peshitta translated the Greek word translated "bishop" with the Syriac word that
would be translated "elder" at Phil. 1:1 and
1 Timothy 3:1-2.
 
M

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
OK, maybe I'll concede the interchangeability of 'presbuteros' and 'episkopos'
, based in particular on Acts 20:28. But that then leaves the other offices mentioned in Eph 4:11, including the not-much-used title of pastor, plus the much longer list on I Cor 12:28. Now, unless you're (conveniently) a cessationist, then that presents a problem for Baptist ecclesiology. Even if you are a cessationist, it still leaves at the very least the problem of the Eph 4:11 evangelist...

Yours in Christ

Matt
 
P

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
Matt,

Acts 20:28 makes the point about pastor as it does about the other two. The elder is to pastor and oversee. If that verse shows the interchangeability of presbuteros and episkopos, then it has to do for poimen as well. 1 Peter 5:1-2 makes the same point.

Howevewr, I would not use the word "interchangeable" since they are not. They are different functions all given to the same office.

As for 1 Cor 12:28, that is a list of spiritual gifts, not offices in the church.

As for Eph 4:11, again, those are gifts in the church, not necessarily offices, though one of them happens to be. You have to make the distinction between church offices and spiritual gifts. The church offices are pastor/elder/overseer (one office) and deacon (one office).
 
M

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
But is there such a distinction? In the Acts period, it would appear that 'prophets' were 'people who prophesied' (regularly) eg: Agabus, Philip's daughters. Eph 4:11 in any even reads more like a list of offices rather than gifts.

Yours in Christ

Matt
 
P

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
Yes, there is such a distinction. A prophet certainly prophesied, but prophesying (whether ceased or not) was not an office. It was a gift. Pastor-teacher involves a gift, but is an office. I think Eph 4:11 reads like a list of gifts that Christ gave to his church. In the epistles, the only offices you see are pastors and deacons. That is what Paul instructed to be appoitned by teh churches, that is what he gave qualifications for, and that is who he wrote letters to in Philippi.
 
P

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
HMMM ... NOt sure what you mean by that. The term ministry is usually the translation of diakonia (or a related word). It means "service" and can take a variety of connotations in the NT. Everybody in the church is supposed to be involved in the ministry, and one of hte key responsibilities of hte pastor is to train the saints for the work of the ministry (Eph 4:11-13).

What kind of compromise did you have in mind?
 
M

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Between the terms 'office' and 'gift', with reference eg: to the prophetic. For instance, there are one or two people in our church who have what they term a 'prophetic ministry'; when they preach, there is that quite clear 'directional edge' to their preaching. This is quite a bit beyond the usual, occasional 'gift of prophecy' or insight that most of us at our church have had at one time or another. They do not however occupy the 'office' of prophet, because we don't have such an animal; we have the minister, elders and deacons. Sometimes someone with a prophetic ministry will be elected elder and thus to 'office' but not as prophet per se

Yours in Christ

Matt
 
P

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
Since the gift of prophecy is no longer here, then no one in your church has that gift. Sounds to me like they may have the gift of exhortation ... taking the word and exhorting people to follow it. All pastors should have that gift.

The offices in view here are the offices of the church, not the spiritual gifts that reside in teh church body. EVery believer has a spiritual gift with which they should (must) be ministering to the body. Only limited people will have one of the two offices.
 
M

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Ah, but you see we are not cessationist, by and large, although we would take issue with some of the excesses of the charismatic movement. But call it what you will, prophecy or exhortation or preaching, it's still a ministry.

Yours in Christ

Matt
 
P

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
we are not cessationist, by and large,
Click to expand...
Well then, that would be a problem wouldn't it??? :D ... SEriously, I don't mean to disrespect you so please don't take it that way. I think the case for cessationism is very clear in Scripture.

But even at that, it doesn't really have bearing on the subject of church offices. The fact taht there were prophets then or now (who received revelation supernaturally) does not mean that they were added to the roll of church officers. Even in the first century, with apostles and prophets, there were still only two church offices: pastor and deacon.

I agree that preaching or exhortation is a ministry. It is not however a church office.
 
M

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Interesting article. It does however rather vaguely skirt around the use of 'ekklesia' in the LXX somewhat, which is noteworthy since the first use of the term in the NT is not to the Greeks but to the (Jewish) disciples.

Yours in Christ

Matt
 
P

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
I think the case for cessationism is very clear in Scripture.
Click to expand...
Without Scottish realism and German rationalism give it to us. </font>[/QUOTE]Don't need either. Just need to know the purpose of gifts (confirmation of the message, cf. Heb 2:4) and the completion of the word (cf. 2 Tim 3:16-17). Those two things mean that confirmatory gifts have passed. There is no longer a need for them. God's word is now sufficient.

It doesn't take any kind of rationalism in teh least. It simply takes revelation.
 
R

rufus

New Member
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Interesting article. It does however rather vaguely skirt around the use of 'ekklesia' in the LXX somewhat, which is noteworthy since the first use of the term in the NT is not to the Greeks but to the (Jewish) disciples.

Yours in Christ

Matt
Click to expand...
To use terms like "vaguely skirt around" is to use a term of "discernment."

The article does a good job explaining why "local" is the true nature of the "church."

God bless.
 
M

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It doesn't tackle the issue adequately. And, yes, that's my opinion; that's what this board is all about, exchanging our opinions. It also skips the issue referred to by Manchester on his/her thread in this forum: what is the 'church' referred to in I Tim 3:15-16? Surely not the Ephesian church pastored by Timothy, since that church had been inflitrated by the Gnostic heresy and a mere generation later was condemned by the Lord Himself in Rev 2 as having abandoned its first love. Quite clearly, such a 'local church' cannot be the 'pillar and foundation of truth'. So what does Paul mean?

Yours in Christ

Matt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top