The Pastor

Pinoy,
Since this discussion seems to be using the "wisdom of men". I have noticed a lack of scripture in our responses of late ...I will jump in using mine....scary... Where does that stop? Why should this logic not follow to the natural extension that Roman Catholics make and have a head of the church...the Pope? If we need a earthly final one person authority as many seem to be arguing...why would that not extend out to all reaches of christendom?
BrianH

 

I understand what you are saying, but it doesn't make scriptural sense. An elder is told to "pastor." That means all elders (whether 1 or 100) are required to pastor. Thus, there is no elder who is not a pastor. You could possibly make the opposite argument ... that all pastors are not elders. But I don't think that is consistent either.

What is teh difference between "ordained elders" and "the person they called to pastor"? I don't see that distinction anywhere in Scripture. Secondly, you seem to be saying that a church only needs a pastor if they are obedient to him. But again, the Bible makes no such case.

They need the pastor to call her to repentance, to lead, to have charge over, to oversee, to feed, etc. All churches need pastors.

If they won't listen to their pastor, then by biblical definition they are not listening to the elders. There is no distinction between them.

 

I gave Scripture and have referenced numerous scriptural principles. There is no "wisdom of men" in what I have said.

Several reasons. First, the heirarchical system of the Catholic church is unbiblical. In the NT, the local church is independent and autonomous, ruled by her own body, led by her own pastor(s). Second, the Catholics have a much different view of hte church which does not recognize the necessity of biblical regeneration for church membership. Third, the Catholic system mistakenly believes that the pope is pope by reason of succession from Peter. Yet such an idea cannot be demonstrated, and in fact, can be easily refuted. So there is a whole passal of problems.

The NT gives the elder the responsibility to oversee, to manage, to have charge over the church.

 

Well what should we do when a given local church has to make a collective decision, toss a coin? Cast lots like the apostles in choosing Matthias?

If we eliminated every decision making method that folks don't like in this thread we would be stonewalled.

That's why local church "autonomy" is a Baptist distinctive and almost every Baptist Church has "By-laws" written by the church planter(s) in the interpretation and definition of these Scriptural functionaries, and offices.

HankD

 

Who decides when a decision needs to be collective? Do we vote on it? The church has to have direction, it can't steer itself. If you take the case of Moses leaving the Israelites while God delivered the ten commandments, they voted themselves back into idolotry. Someone has to be in charge. Thats not to say that there cannot be a plurality of elders, if this is how your church functions best, so be it. But there is no mandate for church rule by bureaucracy.

 

Pastor Larry:
Let me try this. What are the scriptures that say a church should have one pastor? I really would like to seem them because I earnestly believe scripture is clear on this BUT I WOULD NEED SCRIPTURE...not logic for me to see the error of my thinking. When I see a plural instead of a singular use of a word..I think that God had a reason for that. Im sure you would agree.
Im not much into "principles".

Once you are done, I will list just the scriptures that talk of elders or pastors. If you wish of course!

I will be in and out myself...lots of school work tonight and 5 kids.....

I am sure you believe, and perhaps you have, that you have defended this view. Here are some snippets(that seem contradictory to me) of what you have said and one reason I am not convinced of what you are saying:

"God prescribed that the church be led and taught by a pastor."

"On the other hand, arguments for a senior or lead pastor are clear."

"Leadership, by nature, is singular. There is a head, even if you pretend that there are more than one. IN a church with multiple elders, one of them is "more equal" than the rest. It is simply a fact of life. "

"Actually ACts 20:17, 28 and 1 Peter 5:1-2 tell the elders to oversee and shepherd."

"Paul is saying that elders are supposed to rule well, especially in preaching and teaching. "

thanks
Very respectfully
BrianH

 

Take a secular example: The US federal government. 3 branches that are checks and balances. The president is the "head", but he operates within the guidelines of his office. (He does, however, have the ability to make unilateral decisions, and if they're made in violation of the law, he will answer for them.)

The legislative and judicial branches are there to balance it out.

I guess you could say that Bush is the shepherd, congress is the group of elders, and the SCOTUS would be the overseers.

 

The qualifications of 1 tim 3 are given for a singular overseer, compared to plural deacons. If plural overseers had been assumed, it would seem to have been worded just like the deacons. The messenger of hte churches in Revelation which I take currently to be the pastor is singular, not plural. YOu have the main issue of hte definition of leadership. It is singular. Someone is the head. Even in a theoretical plurality of elders, you know that one voice speaks louder than the others. On the "board of elders" (something you never find in Scripture) there is a chairman who is "in charge." That is because everyone recognizes that even among plural elders, there has to be a head.

The references to plural elders are no problem for me. I don't have a problem wiht plural elders, and when our church is big enough to support more, we will have more. But when you read those passages in teh NT, ask what they are talking about. For instance, they talk about "the elders of the church at Ephesus." Do you think that in all of Ephesus there was only one church? Of course not. There were many churches meeting across the city. Yet in Christ, they are "one church." Each church would have at least one elder. If, in Ephesus, there were five churches, the "church at Ephesus" would have five elders.

No need to lay our your position for my sake. I know it. In fact, I could lay it out for you. I simply don't find it convincing. If others do, that is fine with me. It doesn't matter to me. This is an area on which good men can differ.

 

This is just the problem. The church is not secular. God has given us the instructions on the church. We need to follow His instructions. And his instructions reveal to us that the elder/overseer/pastor (shepherd) are all the same office. The elder (who he is) is to oversee and shepherd (what he does). You don't "elder." You are an "elder." As a responsibility of that office, you are to oversee and shepherd.

Your secular example is not biblical.

 

Every word and office cited above is secular: Overseer, elder, shepherd. The church adopted secular words and offices. That's easily provable in the ancient writings.

But, that's not the point. The point is that it is an example of leadership that exemplifies a leadership by plurality as well as a leadership by head, both at the same time.

One person can most certainly be a shepherd, an overseer, and an elder. However, these different offices, can be held by different people as well.

If the pastor starts preaching some New Age mumbo jumbo, to whom is he responsible? He's responsible to God, but the elders are responsible to make sure that he doesn't do that.

There is one overseer. There are multiple elders.

 

Not according to Scripture.

Nope, the congregation.

Based on what? Again, based on teh NT, every elder is told to be an overseer.

Your distinctions are not supported in Scripture.

 

That's why I posted the list with every reference for all to see. I don't want anyone to simply take my word for it.

 

I won't keep beating this up, but simply put, your distinctions are not found in Scripture. You list "every reference for all to see." Yet in your listing, you in fact do not list "every reference for all to see," (you omit some) and furthermore, you do not distinguish the references that deal with the church and those that do not. That is one fallacy of word studies by concordance. It doesn't make these necessary distinctions and can lead to faulty conclusions.

For instance, you list 17 uses of poimen. Yet you do not note that only one of those listed references have relevance to the church (Eph 4:11). You also do not note the uses of the verb, poimaino, which means "to shepherd." When you include those uses, you find that the elders are instructed to "pastor" (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:1-2). Those are significant omissions. You omit 2/3s of the references to pastoring in the church. How can you have a complete understanding of the pastoral office when you omit 2/3s or the references to the "poimen" in the church?

Similarly, your references to the episkopos is lacking in that you include a reference that has nothing to do with the church (1 Peter 2:25) and omit the verb form of 1 Peter 5:2.

What is significant about these omissions? They directly refute your position. In Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 5:1-2, the elders are instructed to "episkopeo" and "poimaino," to oversee and to pastor. To the elders alone is this responsibility given. We must note that it is not given to "some elders" or "select elders," but to "elders." There are no elders excluded from the responsibilities of overseeing and shepherding.

In similar fashion, the vast majority of your list of references to elder have nothing to do with the church. They deal with Jewish elders.

In short, to develop a biblical theology of the pastorate, you must eliminate all references that do not deal with teh church, include all references that do deal with the church, and then see what the text says.

When you do this, you will find that the elder is the pastor and overseer. Pastoring and overseeing are the responsibility of the elder or elders in the church.

 

I have omitted none (using the NA) of the words listed. The titles. I included them all. We are instructed to compare scripture to scripture. By omitting some and editing the list, I would then be projecting my ideas upon the list. By including them all, I permit others to see them and compare them, by comparing scripture to scripture instead of projecting the teachings of man and opinions that are not based upon the Bible upon the words.

Here's a link to a list of every use of the verb of "shepherding", including the parsing of every verse: Shepherding

I don't use a concordance per se, but it is a handy tool for listing every instance of the use of a word.

But, once again, here's the list of verses, with no commentary and no personal opinion or preference thrown in. Only the Bible.

 

But remember, you didn't list every occurrence because you omitted the verbs. They are just as important. Secondly including every occurrence is not helpful since all occurrences do not refer to the same thing.

Why don't you deal with the issues presented in Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 5:1-2? Why not deal wiht Titus 1:6-7 where the elder is called the overseer?

I don't understand why you are avoiding this issue?

 

I would submit that by entitling your pdf "Church Offices" that you are projecting your ideas upon the list, though perhaps without intention. I suggest a name change for the document; something which would more clearly identify what you are doing - listing all the NT uses of the noun forms of these words, rather than listing all verses related to church offices.

 

Therefore, I posted the second list for you, that is only the verb form of shepherding.

Titus 1:6-7 simply says to appoint from among the elders a supervisor. There's nothing contradictory in there.

1 Peter 5:2: The word in that verse is omitted by most texts, and seems to be an addition by someone trying to put a meaning into it that is not present, either intentionally or unintentionally.

As far as Acts 20:28 goes, I have to admit that it's not something that I've studied indepth.

As to why I included every incident of the word, it's because we're told to compare scripture to scripture and not scripture to the teachings of men. I don't think the Holy Spirit said, "I'm incapable of using an appropriate analogy, so I'll take this word that means one thing and use it for something completely different." He's consistent. If it's used one way in one place, it will be used similarly in another. (Most words used to describe terms used within the church originate in a similar secular office.)

RL, I tried to edit the posted name for you, but the board informed me that the time limit to edit had expired. The contents are the same, and the title of the downloaded document is pastor,episkopo,presbuteros.pdf

 

Vv. 5-6 establish that elders are to be blameless. V. 7 says "For the overseer is to be above reproach." The gar makes it clear that the overseer is the one described in vv. 5-6 as teh elder who is above reproach. This passage clearly identifies the elder as the overseer.

Actually the opposite. It is included in most texts, and omitted by a few (Aleph* and B).

You have just injected your opinion into the matter, something you said you didn't want to do. Do you know of any major text or translation that omits it? Is your eagerness to omit it due to your conclusion?

Even if 1 Peter 5:2 were not authentic, this verse says the same thing. I am convinced it doesn't take "indepth study" to see what it says.

Well, several issues here. First, every occurrence of a word is not similar. Words have meaning in context, and some words mean very different things in different contexts. So to compare similar contexts is not using the "teaching of men" but the teaching of God. For instance, you can study the word "elohim." It means very different things in the OT. Sometimes it means God. Sometimes it means angels. Sometimes it means false gods. Sometimes it means mighty men or great men. To make a theological point using the same definition for all uses would lead to some very bad theology. You can consider the word "barak." It means to bless ... It also means to curse. To insist on an identical meaning for all occurrences leads to bad teaching about God.

Second, your method ignores the context of Scripture. An "elder" in teh context of the home is different than an "elder" in the context of hte church, which is different still from an "elder" in the context of Jewish culture. The context of Scripture is what determines meaning.

 

The major texts (Aleph and B are manuscripts) that omit it are the Tischedndorf, Alford (which includes it in the margin, Westcott-Hort, and the Nestles'-Aland, that I am aware of, right off hand.

Exactly. So, see the words used in the different contexts. Compare scripture to scripture, not scripture to the teachings of men.

Yep.

 

Not all of scripture has the same context. For example Mt. 8:28, Mk. 5:2, and Lk. 8:27.

So using your method how would you interpret those verses?