Must a NT Church have a plurality of Elders??

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.

 

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:

 

Pastors are elders, bishops, in the biblical text.

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

 

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:

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

Ktn4eg,

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

 

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

Two Offices: Pastors/Bishops/elders and Deacons.

 

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.

 

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

Cheers,

Bishop Jim

 

Aren't you a Landmarkist? Well...

 

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)

 

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

Cheers,

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)