I have a question about titles ( Pastors ext. )

Jerome, for some unknown reason, the calling of someone as "Pastor", "Pastor 'Joe'" or "Pastor 'Jones'", as opposed to the personal name, 'title' of "'Rev.' 'Smith'" , or "Dr. 'Brown'" appears fairly common in the Chicago area, when I visited there, and with some from that region.
Contrast that with usual practice in Central KY where the usual address is more like "Bro. 'Bob'" or "Bro. 'John'", or sometimes Bro. 'Brown'", or something like that.
Again, no particular reason I can think of.

Ed

 

In modern times, many ministers preferred to be called "pastor" because they objected to being called "Reverend", which was the most common term used. This terminology us used quite aside from biblical terminology.

My personal view is that bishop, elder and pastor are essentially the same thing....referring to the overseer of the local congregation.

I don't really get up tight about what people call me, or called me, whilst I am serving as the pastor of a local church.

I have a doctorate, but don't care to be called "Dr." Whilst teaching, I asked the students to call me Jim...that is my name!
Respect does not come with a title, it comes from behaviour behind that title.

In every biblical reference to these titles, there is a context and local understanding. We best search this out when reading those particular scriptures, rather than try to fit them into modernity.

The use of the word "apostle" in some New Testament books have nothing to do with the traditional apostles recognized in scripture as a special office of those who actually had seen Jesus....Paul being the one exception, but accepted by Christ as such....In this sense, it may go beyond the gifts expressed by the title, and signify a special office appointed by the Lord. Rev 21: 14 seems to recognize the 12 apostles, which seem to align with the 12 tribes of Israel. These apostles were foundational, suggesting they were the foundation of the local churches.

We can enter into all kinds of debate over such titles, but I think that misses the point. There is so much more edifiable material to get excited about.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Jerome writes"
"Look in Matthew 23 to see what Jesus thought of religious leaders who loved "greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi." (v.7)"

In Matt. 23:8-10, Jesus tells us not to address other christians by any elevated titles because we are all brothers. Yet, many ministers actually encourage christians to call them Pastor. In light of Matt. 23:8-10, christians should not address anyone by an elevated title. Ministers should discourage or forbid christians from addressing them as Reverend or Pastor.

 

Good point, Dr Fuss. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Could be Judas, if you believed in OSAS.

Paul is definitely out of the question.

Unless the twelve mentioned are the ones that were martyred, then John is dropped and Paul takes his place.

Judas, Matthius, Paul.

But you noticed that John did not list the names. So can you draw from that bit of information? Maybe he did not list the names because his(John's) name was not there? Or maybe the 12th name was Judas? There is a very good reason for not listing them, but what is it?

 

Maybe the reason is: It should be clear from scripture who the twelve are? As I stated before, "I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time"

 

I believe this refers to the 11 and Matthias. I Corinthians 15 shows us that Paul was not one of the 12.

There were other apostles besides the twelve, Paul, Barnabas, and likely, Timothy and Silas. The

 

I believe this refers to the 11 and Matthias. I Corinthians 15 shows us that Paul was not one of the 12.

There were other apostles besides the twelve, Paul, Barnabas, and likely, Timothy and Silas. The requirements Peter laid out in Acts 2 were for the 12, not for being an apostle.

 

I believe this refers to the 11 and Matthias. I Corinthians 15 shows us that Paul was not one of the 12.

There were other apostles besides the twelve, Paul, Barnabas, and likely, Timothy and Silas. The requirements Peter laid out in Acts 2 were for the 12, not for being an apostle.

 

Thank you, Link, I think you're right.

Acts 1:21-26 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

I knew about this scripture, but, (because of the line I put in bold), I always thought Matthias was not the legitimate replacement. I really believed Paul was the twelfth apostle. Furthermore, I didn't believe there were any apostles outside of the twelve. Thanks to you pointing me to 1 Cor 15, it cleared up these two errors in my thinking. How many times have I read Acts and 1 Corinthians, and totally missed it?

Thanks again.