Must a NT Church have a plurality of Elders??

Peter is not addressing a group of church officers, but the more spiritually mature Christians. Keep reading through verse 5, where he contrasts younger Christians with their elders.

 

I concur. I should have made that point as well.

 

Typically for a thread that is doing decently you have ten times the number views vs posts. We are 300 some-odd views behind guys - come on - Read more :tongue3:

 

One thing to be commended of all, these posts have remained civil throughout by all despite differences of opinion.

Cheers to you all,

Jim

 

Certainly this is a minority view.

 

And even if we were to adopt this view, Are you willing to include "spiritually mature Christians" who are women?

 

Yes, women (gasp!) can be spiritually mature Christians.

 

Two basic rules:

1) ALLWAYS be in total submission to your wife!! :thumbs:


2) See #1 above. :smilewinkgrin:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to that, keep posting on BB!! Guaraannteeed: There's plenty of 'em out there who are more than willing to point out the many errors of your ways!! :tonofbricks:

 

Okay, I read all 9 pages and am waiting for a commendation or something! :smilewinkgrin:

My church (Baptist) has several pastors (with one main pastor), and deacons. But the deacons function as both elders and deacons.

Several years ago, there was a vote to have the people functioning as elders called "elders," and then have deacons as separate. The vote failed. It has not been brought up again - I think they are waiting for time to pass.

It was pretty a intense issue.

(Before this church, I was briefly in another church - not Baptist but I was baptized by immersion there - that had no pastor but had elders. As far as I know, no deacons, but it was a tiny, tiny congregation).

 

I am about to tally the numbers later tonight or tomarrow.

Marcia - are you giving a yes or no to the OP question regarding
Must a church have a plurality of elders in order to be a proper NT Church?

 

I'm not giving a firm answer since I haven't had Ecclesiology in seminary yet. :smilewinkgrin:

Yeah, it's a cop-out! But I will say that at this point, it seems to me that scripturally the answer would be "yes," even if there are deacons serving as elders.

 

I pastored a church where the deacons wanted to be called elders but they were only spiritual enough to be babes.

 

Then spiritually mature Christian women are required to do and not do the following in a local church:

"To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ's sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away." (1 Pet 5:1-4, TNIV)

Right?

 

It seems that is there are plural elders, and they are acting as sharing sheperding of the flock, then a greater degree of spiritual maturity would be required than if the elders are merely acting as a board to take the place of congregational votes.

 

Of course, elder believers have a duty to disciple younger ones.

 

1 Pet 5:1-4 is not about discipleship but church leadership within the office of the eldership.

 

You have hit what I was taught in school. Back then one church might meet in a larger number of homes due to they didn't have one place that would seat them all. That would add to the number of elders.

It is like when I was in seminary, it was said it would be best if a church when it got up to 300 to 500 at its services each week, the church would build another building and split their church. Today as a friend of mine said, it looks like a lot of pastors are trying to build an empire.

I don't know if either or both are taught today or not.

 

Brother Allan, let's consider the description of the church in Jerusalem as described in Acts 2.

Acts 2:41-47 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

When we start at verse 41 and follow this through to the end of the chapter, I don't understand how we can come up with churches plural? 3000 were added to the 120. They all continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine, etc. They all had all things common, etc. This is not to say that every time they met all the 3000 were always present. But it is to note that the entire group as a group is called the church, and there is no specific mention or implication of churches plural. Part of the members of one church at Jerusalem could have met at different times in different homes without us having to consider them churches plural. I don't see how we can get from the text to where we have "many churches being called one church body". It seems to be one church being called one church body.

 

So they were actaully one local church which quite logically never or at best very seldom ever met together at the same time due to the lack of facilities to accomodate their gatherings.

But it appears to me that you are suggesting they were all actually one church body that met in seperate smaller churches. (if they are not churches and very seldom ever comes together, then what are they)
I'm not sure where you're coming from here - Are you advocating heirarchy? Elders in and over these smaller churches who report to a head elder/Bishop over the larger church body? In order for your suggestion to be a true statement this is the only logical conclusion I can fathom without more information.

I guess I might need for you to define your understanding of what constitutes or makes a church a church. (this and the above will help me more in answering your question)