Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. Verse Tool: show

Do Our churches Have Traditions?

The Church

Re: Do Our churches Have Traditions?

Postby dwight92070 » Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:41 am

Homer wrote:Dwight,

There was no body of elders, or plurality of elders with equal authority. Using your words, Peter was the "Lone Ranger", like it or not. That's what the Bible is clearly indicating, that's not my private interpretation. Look at those references. Do you see any other conclusion?

Yes, I see no reason to believe Peter was anything more than a leader, much as a chairman of any group. If Peter was in an authority position over the rest of the apostles, how is it that Paul took Peter to task and rebuked him for Peter's behavior toward Gentile Chris
Arguing for a one man "manager" over each local church, as you call it, has no relevance to the Apostles. Elders (plural) have authority over local churches. I'm sure you are aware of the qualifications for an elder. Many small assemblies have no one qualified and do quite well without a "manager".

So, from the very beginning, the church was not a plurality of elders led by nobody except Jesus. Jesus commissioned one man, Peter,to lead them. It is still the same today.

The Catholics would agree with this, but I do not believe the apostles had any successors. None of the early church "fathers" claimed to be equal to the apostles. The apostles are irrelevant to the issue of elders/pastors.

Dwight: That's not at all what I was saying (and I think you know that). When I said it is still the same today, I was simply saying that today, if we follow the Biblical pattern, each church will have it's own leader, called an elder.

Nothing in the scriptures supports this. Paul, in his travels, appointed elders in churches that were in existence prior to his doing so.

Dwight: My wife and I attend a home church and have since 2001, where there is one pastor. When we first started there, our 4 children went with us, but they have grown and moved on. But we all greatly benefited from home church (and hopefully have benefited them) and my wife and I continue to fellowship there.

That's good and explains why you so doggedly argue as you do. I have no quarrel with one elder if he is qualified and no there are no others qualified..

Dwight: What is your church like? I assume you have a plurality of elders? How long have you attended?

Eight or nine years. We have five elders who are definitely in authority over the four pastors. These pastors were merely called minister when we first began attending there. It is my belief that the elders are the pastors.

(me)The word Paul used here is neuter singular, referring to a body of elders, rather than individuals.
I am saying that the local church in any city was overseen by a body of elders, presbuterion. Please explain why this group of men was referred to in the neuter/singular.

Dwight: I am not denying it is neuter/singular. So what point are you making from that?

If you would consult the many lexicons regarding the meaning of prebuterion, you might see the point, but probably not. That was left up to each individual elder, to be in charge of his own little flock.

That was left up to each individual elder, to be in charge of his own little flock.

Please show an example of this from scripture.
Dwight: Aquila-Romans 16:5 and 1 Corinthians 16:19; Aristobulus-Romans 16:10; Narcissus-Roman 16:11; Philemon-Philemon 1-2; Nympha also had a church in her house-Colossians 4:15 but obviously, she was not the elder there. I know it could be argued that the others I have mentioned were not necessarily the elders either, even though they met in their homes, but the language of Romans 16 seems to imply that they were the leader in each case.

(me) 2. (Your second) Never said that either. I am saying that the various groups that met in homes (if that is the case) were overseen by a body of elders, not a "lone ranger". The single pastor, ruling one church, is a tradition, just what this thread is about. One local church in our small town has a female pastor who is in authority over their elders.

Just because there is abuse of the single pastor scenario, that does not invalidate the truth of it. I would contend that there is just as much abuse of the plurality of elders scenario.

When you have a plurality of elders they can serve as a check on each other. Who can correct your single pastor?

Three of us brothers in our church had some issues with our pastor and we met privately with him and confronted those issues. Like Peter, our pastor was humble and teachable and made the necessary changes in his actions. It's just like a good father. Is he willing to receive correction from his wife and children? Hopefully he is, and yet he still maintains his rightful place as the God-given authority in the family. In fact, with that humble attitude he actually "earns" greater respect.
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Do Our churches Have Traditions?

Postby Paidion » Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:19 pm

I think, as Homer stated, the NT indicates that in the first Christian assemblies, the apostles appointed several elders in each assembly.

However, Homer, in modern churches that have a single pastor, there is still someone to correct the pastor. Many such churches have a "board of deacons" who have the authority to hire or fire the pastor. Also, some denominations have a "moderator" who oversees all the local churches in his denomination. I have known of cases in which the moderator stepped in and fired a pastor who had been involved in adultery.

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years old. I am now 80.
User avatar
Posts: 4746
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario


Return to Ecclesiology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests