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:
I agree TCG, that is why I have requested and am still waiting on those scriptures which instruct us or command us (whether explict or implied) to have a plurality of elders in each and every Church.
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.
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)
Ummm.. Peter isn't speaking to 'a' church brother but to them all (1 Peter 1:1) Thus he states in 5:1 to them all in a plural sense.
WHich is why I posted this in connection with it:
You can not show by context that he is refering to one particular church but is addressing all the churches and all the elders but not necessarily a plurality of elders in on single or specific church body.
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact he was an elder with them to whom he was writting to. An apostle and an elder are not the same things though they might have similar functions.
Great, and your scriptural basis for this is found where?
Great, and your scriptural basis for this is where?
I ask this because you are making a diffinitive statement but you are also saying you lack scriptural support.
You are seeming to be dogmatic about something you can't even prove according to you own words/posting.
Let's back up then.
You say you can't find a text that forbids a single elder. Ok. Fair enough.
Please show the text that explictly or implicty states that a church must have a plurality of elders - (editted in) at any given time. (IOW - from start to finish)
You have not shown this to be true brother. At least not yet anyway.
I'm still open to discussing this as it is not something I have really ever delved
much into beyond what I have thus far given.
Amen.
And I agree some churches did have a plurality but nothing in scripture that states 'all' did, and I do agree that depending on the size or needs a plurality is necessary in order to 'properly' grow and mature any church when it gets to a certain point.
However what we don't see in scripture is a 'must' in order to be a 'proper' NT Church regarding a plurality of elders.
THAT is my only point here.
Not that it shouldn't but that it is not a 'must'.
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)