pastor - teacher - evangelist

The word itself is used 188 times. Of those times, 32 uses are "Elders of Israel" and in all of those passages, it is clear that the discussion is not of age, but of officership.

The same word is used for "Elders of Gilead" and other cities too.

The word itself, used in this context, does not speak to age, rather it speaks to function.

The writers of the New Testament understood context. When the context of the Hebrew required the translation of zaqen as elder as officer they used the Greek word presbuteros and the New Testament writers applied that word to an office just as the Old Testament writers did. The word presbuteros does have, roughly, the same semantic range as zaqen. And, as is the case with any language, context is king.

But, we're not discussing age of the elder. The age of one chosen to be an elder is not in view, either in the New Testament or the Old Testament.

It is a complete and total misunderstanding of the language to insist that zaqen mean or connotate "old" in ever instance. There is a semantic range to the word...that range does include "old." However, that is not the only meaning.

By the way, I'm not disagreeing with you, per se. I'm trying to educate you. You have a presupposition based on false information. I'm trying to show you where you have made mistakes in understanding the language, context, etc. and then your presuppositions will, hopefully, correct yourself.

If I were to simply "disagree" with you, that would imply that your position was in some sense tenable, which it isn't.

The Archangel

 

So? Even Presbyterian polity allows for such:

PCA Book of Church Order:

 

So? Right back atcha...

You seem to think that you have discovered some new fount of information or something.

What you should have said is that the Presbyterian polity also elects another level above elders who go on to dictate policy back to the congregation via a counsel.

This explanation from wikipedia is succinct and to the point:

The big difference is that once elders are elected and sent up the ladder, the congregation has no recourse to their action, save to appeal to a higher yet authority.

There is NO similar polity in Baptist circles, yes, even the malighned SBC.

Point is, elders are a biblical office, largely ignored because many Baptist congregations began following the American system of government rather than the Bible. Congregational church polity does not mean that the congregation has to "vote" on every issue. Nor does it eliminate the need to be scriptural. Rather, it is, as early Baptists saw, THE single best way to fulfill the mandates of Scripture, with God as the Head, elders as His leaders of the flock, deacons as those who minister alongside the leaders, and a complete congregational system built on a relational regenerated membership.

 

Sigh.

The point is that even presbyterian polity allows for limited congregational participation in its governance.

Refreshing forthrightness:

 

Yes... At least the ones I've been affiliated with.

Often, the congregational phase of such an action is a voting card that is handed out to members. These choices are typical:

1. I am prayerfully in agreement with the actions (budget, calling of a new elder, taking of a mortgage, etc.) of the Elders.

2. I am prayerfully in disagreement with the actions of the Elders and would like the chance to further discuss the issue with the Elders.

3. I have not prayerfully considered this issue and so I have no vote on the issue.

 

Good explanation from the Puritan Board:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f47/voting-congregational-meeting-58107/

As Fred illustrated, the saints' participation is severly limited, usually just an affirmation vote for what the "ruling elders" have already decided is to be done.

 

With one essential difference in Baptist congregations...

The PEOPLE can always over rule the elders if that is what they wish. The deal, however, is that seldom do the people wish to do that in elder led congregations. And that largely because a good many of the people came from churches where everything was a battleground and they tend to relish the opportunity to conduct the business of the church in fellowship and love, moving forward with every step instead of backward while wounds heal.

People are literally waiting in line to join Sojourn. We have close to 1000 visitors or persons awaiting completion of their covenant for membership at any given time. And that is not because we are a "Joel Olsteen" sort of church. Far from it. We have strict church discipline, a covenant agreement, giving, working in the church, marital and dating fidelity, abstinence from gossip and bickering, and no real programatic content that is typically blamed for rapid growth (the feel good stuff), required home group involvement where ministry, fellowship, outreach, and counseling occur, and a strict adherence to the Scriptures OT and NT. We have very few bells and whistles, just worship of Almighty God, and the people are being drawn, lives are changed, and communities transformed! Weird, huh? :saint: