Bishops and Elders—Are they the same?

The Church
Post Reply
User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Bishops and Elders—Are they the same?

Post by Paidion » Sat Dec 14, 2013 6:49 pm

On the Evangelical Universalist site, Stefcui started a thread with this title as a result of a private discussion I was having with him. We continued the discussion on the thread he started. Stefcui believes that overseers in the church (later called "bishops") and elders (presbyters) were not the same people in the church described in the book of Acts and throughout all centuries of the church. I believe they were the same people until nearly the end of the second century.

Our views and justifications may be followed by clicking the following link:

http://www.evangelicaluniversalist.com/ ... 771#p68771

If you hold any firm view on the matter and if you would like to express your thoughts, I would appreciate it. Or even if you don't hold any firm view, but would like to express your thought, that would be good too.
Paidion

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 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Candlepower
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:26 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: Bishops and Elders—Are they the same?

Post by Candlepower » Sat Dec 14, 2013 9:53 pm

Paidion wrote:I believe they were the same people until nearly the end of the second century.
In October of 2010 (I can't believe it was that long ago!), I posted on The Forum the following comments on the same subject. You agreed with me then, Paidion, and I agree with you now.

"A shepherd of sheep watches for predators that threaten the flock. He also watches for noxious plants and water that may poison them. When dangers arise, he warns the flock. Then he either guides them away from the danger or repels it.

Similarly, the special function of some men in a congregation is to watch for and respond to threats against the flock of God. Pastor, elder, presbyter, and bishop, are interchangeable designations of this office. These terms do not describe an organizational hierarchy of leadership levels, but portray the various aspects of the one office. A pastor (shepherd) is to be an elder/presbyter (older man) who works as a bishop (overseer) of God’s local flock. Or, it could be as accurately stated that a shepherd is an older man who oversees a congregation. Though there is one office, the early congregations are often said to have had several men serving that role.

God has given such men several responsibilities that revolve around the task of tending to God’s flock. First, they must spiritually feed the flock (teach God’s Word faithfully and accurately). Second, they must watch for members entering danger (error) and help guide them away from it. Third, they must watch for wolves (false teachers), warn the flock when they appear, and remove the threats when they attack the flock.

God has not assigned congregation leaders the task of micromanaging His flock as CEO's run corporations. A business corporation is a body of workers seeking monetary profit. That is not necessarily a bad endeavor, but it is not a pattern for Jesus’ congregations, which are the body of Christ laying up heavenly treasure. Congregation leaders are not to exploit God’s flock for their own aggrandizement. They are to declare truth, defend it from attackers, and deter lies. The flock is God’s."

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Bishops and Elders—Are they the same?

Post by Paidion » Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:34 pm

Yes, I still agree with you, CP!

But did you checkout the link? Stefcui seems rather informed on some of the early Fathers' writings. Do you think his arguments for Overseers (later called "bishops") and elders being two different groups of people have any validity? Also, he believes that there was a single overseer (or bishop) in every church right from the beginning. He thinks that James was that one "bishop" in the church at Jerusalem.
Paidion

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 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Candlepower
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 3:26 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: Bishops and Elders—Are they the same?

Post by Candlepower » Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:05 pm

Paidion wrote:But did you checkout the link?
Well, actually, I hadn't followed the link before I posted my comment, but now I have read the discussion between you and Stefcui. Your position is clear, accurate and Biblical, in my opinion.

Stefcui's contention, apparently, is that the opinions of some churchmen in the 2nd & 3rd centuries trumped the doctrine of the Apostles, and paved the way to “New & Improved” doctrine. That reasoning, I think, is wrong on the face of it. It is from such reverse reasoning that the traditions of men are born, which Jesus rebuked (Mark 7:1-13). All that Stefcui has actually shown is that it didn't take many decades before some church leaders/thinkers began to deviate from Apostolic teachings...but we already knew that. His apparent contention that such deviation was an improvement is, I think, wrong.

It seems to me a no-brainer that when non-apostolic teaching differs from Apostolic teaching, we ought to side with the Apostles and with the practices of the early church under their supervision. Thank you for your clear-headed defense of Biblical doctrine, Paidion.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Bishops and Elders—Are they the same?

Post by steve » Sun Dec 15, 2013 6:29 pm

I agree that the two names belong to the same people, in scripture. They are clearly used interchangeably by both Peter and Paul. People get confused by the traditional term "Pastoral Epistles" that came to be applied to Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus. Commentators often assume that Timothy and Titus were individual "pastors" or "bishops" in their respective regions. Likewise with James in Jerusalem.

However, these people were actually apostles. Apostles appointed church leaders (elders/bishops). In most cases, the apostles (e.g., Paul, Titus, Barnabas) were not permanent, settled members of the local congregation—though they could be (e.g., James, Timothy). Most local churches did not have a resident apostle, and were simply led by apostolically-appoionted elders/bishops. I believe that those churches fortunate enough to have a resident apostle still had elders (e.g., Acts 15:6), but the presence of an apostle would add another (superior) layer of authority in the church at that location.

Probably, with the passing of the apostles, one of the revered elders in a local church would tend to fill the vacuum left by their disappearance. Because of the office that this elder would be assuming, he would be treated with deference by the other leaders. It is my speculation merely, but I think this is how the (unscriptural) office of the monarchial bishop originated. The Roman Catholics also envisage this scenario, with the difference that they think this "apostolic succession" was legitimate.

Post Reply

Return to “Ecclesiology”