Homer wrote:
But there were additional elders appointed by Titus:
Titus 1:5 (New King James Version)
5. For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you—
So here we have, if not a succession of elders, a succession of elder appointer! To me, this is strong support for the idea that elders are to be the norm in the church. In Acts 6 the first deacons were appointed after being selected by the church. The very same word, kathistemi, was used by Luke that Paul used in commanding Titus to appoint elders, and was also used by Jesus in regard to making rulers.
I don’t see here the succession that you are seeing. Titus was not a second-generation elder-appointer. He was an apostolic legate, acting under direct orders of a living apostle. As an emissary of Paul to Crete, he was an extension of Paul himself. He did not succeed Paul. They worked simultaneously. The same was true of Timothy. These younger men were themselves “apostolic” by virtue of their being part of Paul’s team. They acted on Paul’s behalf.
W.E. Vine said of the word kathistemi, “Not a formal ecclesiastical ordination is in view, but the ‘appointment,’ for the recognition of the churches, of those who had already been raised up and qualified by the Holy Spirit…” Sound pretty close to what Paidion and I said earlier, although this comment may simply reflect Vine’s Plymouth Brethren biases.
Homer wrote:
I should say something about "ordained". I was much impressed by the book "The Social Gospel" by James Haldane, the Scotch reformer, pub. 1805, where he argued against an ordained person being stamped with an indelible mark, and being permanently of another class of persons. Ordained simply means being appointed to an office, and when you leave the position you were appointed to you are no longer ordained.
That’s the way I would see it also. I was “ordained” at Calvary Chapel, Santa Cruz, in 1981. This was obviously for ministry at Calvary Chapel. When I moved to Oregon, in 1983, I was never part of a Calvary again. They never “revoked” my ordination, but I consider myself “unordained” in that movement.
Paidion wrote:
I don't want to nitpick by detracting from the main theme, but I was wondering why you think there was only one congregation. My understanding is that there were several "home churches" in the city (all part of the One Church, of course), and that Paul's letter "to the Corinthians" was meant for all of those house churches as a whole.
I would agree with this, if we were talking about the church in Rome, which apparently consisted of multiple “households” or “house churches” in various parts of the city (so, Romans 16). Corinth, however, apparently had a meeting place—the house of Gaius—which was large enough to accommodate “the whole church” in “one place” (Rom.16:23/ 1 Cor.14:23).
Thomas wrote:
Don't hold back , tell me what you really think.
Sorry if I seemed vehement. However, it is hard to read the history of the church, its adulterous popes, its inhuman inquisitions, its broken oaths (e.g., to Jan Hus), its pompous and blasphemous claims, its exploitation of the poor (e.g., selling indulgences), and all of its other atrocities, and to speak as if this group should be regarded as in any sense representing Christ on earth. Paul said, if anyone preached any other gospel, they should be anathematized, and he wished for the “cutting off” of those who corrupted the faith. I think my words, by comparison are relatively tame.
I have never been against Roman Catholics. I am against the Roman Catholic ecclesiology, which has for so long been used as an excuse to trap gullible people (I am not including you among the gullible) in bondage to what seems so obviously a false church.
It is not enough to say, “None of us is perfect, so the clergy can’t be expected to be.” What I am talking about is an organization in which the main leadership exhibited no evidence of even being regenerated at all. I cannot believe that the Jesus whom the apostles followed, and whom I follow, had anything to do with the establishment of such a farce.
I can't help wondering how many millions of souls, which might otherwise have come to know God, now lie in their graves lost, principally because the false shepherds were so intent on “feeding themselves” rather than “feeding the flock” (Ezek.34)?
I guess that’s what I really think. ☺