Do Our churches Have Traditions?

The Church
Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Do Our churches Have Traditions?

Post by Singalphile » Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:38 pm

dwight92070 wrote:
Singalphile wrote:Deacons also must be good managers of their children and home (1 Tim 3:12).
Dwight wrote: Yes, so what's your point? ....
I think you were making a point of the fact that overseers were expected to be good managers of their homes and children. To be consistent, that same point would have to be made about deacons, since deacons were likewise expected to be good managers of their homes and children.

Also, by the way, it seems like a similar case could be made about the "man of one woman" instruction for overseers. A deacon was also expected to be the man of one wife (1 Tim 3:12), and yet most everybody agrees that female deacons are acceptable.
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Do Our churches Have Traditions?

Post by dwight92070 » Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:51 pm

Singalphile wrote:
dwight92070 wrote:
Singalphile wrote:Deacons also must be good managers of their children and home (1 Tim 3:12).
Dwight wrote: Yes, so what's your point? ....
I think you were making a point of the fact that overseers were expected to be good managers of their homes and children. To be consistent, that same point would have to be made about deacons, since deacons were likewise expected to be good managers of their homes and children.

Dwight: You'll get no argument from me on that point I just don't see what that has to do with the topic at hand, which is why I asked for your point.

Also, by the way, it seems like a similar case could be made about the "man of one woman" instruction for overseers. A deacon was also expected to be the man of one wife (1 Tim 3:12), and yet most everybody agrees that female deacons are acceptable.
Dwight: Again, I agree, but don't see the relevance to the topic.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Do Our churches Have Traditions?

Post by Homer » Tue Nov 14, 2017 11:08 pm

Dwight,

In the same letter, 1 Timothy, which has been cited regarding qualifications for elder, Paul wrote the following:

1 Timothy 4:14 (NASB)
14 Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.


The word in the Greek is presbuterion and can be translated "elder" as it is in the NIV and NKJV. The word Paul used here is neuter singular, referring to a body of elders, rather than individuals. If you take the time to consult lexicons you will find it refers to a body of elders, or presbytery, the body of elders of any Christian assembly.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Do Our churches Have Traditions?

Post by dwight92070 » Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:49 am

Homer wrote:Dwight,

In the same letter, 1 Timothy, which has been cited regarding qualifications for elder, Paul wrote the following:

1 Timothy 4:14 (NASB)
14 Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.


The word in the Greek is presbuterion and can be translated "elder" as it is in the NIV and NKJV. The word Paul used here is neuter singular, referring to a body of elders, rather than individuals. If you take the time to consult lexicons you will find it refers to a body of elders, or presbytery, the body of elders of any Christian assembly.
Dwight: So, you are assuming two things here and we don't have evidence of either one. First, you are assuming that the various elders from the different individual churches never got together for any kind of meetings, such as the laying on of hands of new elders and ordination. Second, you are assuming what you already want to believe, that this body of elders came from one individual Christian assembly.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Do Our churches Have Traditions?

Post by dwight92070 » Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:04 am

Luke 22:31 Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.
Why would the Lord tell Peter to strengthen his brothers after he had repented of denying Jesus three times? They should be strengthening Peter, since he denied Jesus, not them. Isn't it obvious that the answer is that Peter was their leader, that that was his calling, to strengthen those under his charge?
Why did the Lord specifically point out that Satan wanted to go after Peter? Of course Satan wanted all of them, but the Lord only mentioned Peter here, not the others. Again, Peter was their leader and Satan knew that if he could defeat Peter, he would also confuse and weaken the other apostles.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Do Our churches Have Traditions?

Post by dwight92070 » Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:51 am

John 21:3 (Jesus has risen from the dead and is about to appear to the apostles at the Sea of Galilee.) Simon Peter said to them, "I am going fishing." They said to him, "We will also come with you." They went out and got into the boat ...

They had just gone through 3 1/2 years walking with Jesus, saw Him crucified, and He appeared to them after His resurrection and what do they do next? Peter takes the lead and says "I'm going fishing". What do the others do? They follow Peter! Okay, we're coming too. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see who is the leader here. They don't take a vote on it, they simply follow Peter, and of course, that is where the Lord met them, when they were following Peter. Did they still love Jesus and want to follow Him? Of course they did. But the only thing they knew to do at the time was to follow Peter's lead, and God used that to speak to all of them and to US, since we still can read this recorded story.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Do Our churches Have Traditions?

Post by dwight92070 » Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:41 am

In Acts 1:13 when the disciples and apostle went into the upper room, whose name does Luke list first? Peter's. Who stood up to address the crowd? Peter.Who suggested that it was necessary to replace Judas? Peter. Did the other apostles object and say, "Wait a minute, we have equal authority with you, we need to discuss this."? No, they all knew that God had placed Peter as their leader. Who addressed the crowd in Jerusalem after the Holy Spirit fell on all of them? Peter
Yes, we know later that James appears to be the leader of the church in Jerusalem, but Peter appears to be the leader of the apostles and the movement that created the church through their many converts. So, from the very beginning, the church was not a plurality of elders led by nobody except Jesus. Jesus commissioned one man, Peter,to lead them. It is still the same today. How much more Biblical proof do you need? To say that I'm going way beyond scripture is incorrect.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Do Our churches Have Traditions?

Post by Homer » Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:44 pm

Dwight,

Your last three posts could have written by a Catholic:

You wrote:
So, from the very beginning, the church was not a plurality of elders led by nobody except Jesus. Jesus commissioned one man, Peter,to lead them. It is still the same today. How much more Biblical proof do you need? To say that I'm going way beyond scripture is incorrect.
So if the Church (universal, as the case you cite), was led by one man and this must be so today, we have a pope!

You also wrote:
So, you are assuming two things here and we don't have evidence of either one. First, you are assuming that the various elders from the different individual churches never got together for any kind of meetings, such as the laying on of hands of new elders and ordination. Second, you are assuming what you already want to believe, that this body of elders came from one individual Christian assembly.
1. (Your first) Never said that. You are reading that into what I wrote:
The word Paul used here is neuter singular, referring to a body of elders, rather than individuals.

I am saying that the local church in any city was overseen by a body of elders, presbuterion. Please explain why this group of men was referred to in the neuter/singular. Have you done any study at all on the word as I suggested?

2. (Your second) Never said that either. I am saying that the various groups that met in homes (if that is the case) were overseen by a body of elders, not a "lone ranger". The single pastor, ruling one church, is a tradition, just what this thread is about. One local church in our small town has a female pastor who is in authority over their elders.

Take note of one of Paul's letters, 1 Corinthians for example. Paul addresses the church at Corinth as one assembly:

1 Corinthians 1:1-2 (NASB)
1. Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2. To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours

1 Corinthians 11:18 (NASB)
18. For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it.

1 Corinthians 14:23 (NASB)
23. Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: Do Our churches Have Traditions?

Post by dwight92070 » Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:20 am

Homer wrote:Dwight,

Your last three posts could have written by a Catholic:

Dwight: That's a slick diversion to avoid refuting what I actually said in those 3 posts, all of which were scriptural references showing that Peter was the leader of the apostles and the new-born church. There was no body of elders, or plurality of elders with equal authority. Using your words, Peter was the "Lone Ranger", like it or not. That's what the Bible is clearly indicating, that's not my private interpretation. Look at those references. Do you see any other conclusion?

Dwight: By the way, I am not Catholic, never was Catholic, and never will be Catholic. I reached my conclusion from the Bible itself.

You wrote:
So, from the very beginning, the church was not a plurality of elders led by nobody except Jesus. Jesus commissioned one man, Peter,to lead them. It is still the same today. How much more Biblical proof do you need? To say that I'm going way beyond scripture is incorrect.
So if the Church (universal, as the case you cite), was led by one man and this must be so today, we have a pope!

Dwight: That's not at all what I was saying (and I think you know that). When I said it is still the same today, I was simply saying that today, if we follow the Biblical pattern, each church will have it's own leader, called an elder.

Dwight: My wife and I attend a home church and have since 2001, where there is one pastor. When we first started there, our 4 children went with us, but they have grown and moved on. But we all greatly benefited from home church (and hopefully have benefited them) and my wife and I continue to fellowship there.

Dwight: What is your church like? I assume you have a plurality of elders? How long have you attended?

The word Paul used here is neuter singular, referring to a body of elders, rather than individuals.

I am saying that the local church in any city was overseen by a body of elders, presbuterion. Please explain why this group of men was referred to in the neuter/singular.

Dwight: I am not denying it is neuter/singular. So what point are you making from that? You ask for my explanation. I believe I already gave it, but I will do it again. The elders from the different individual churches apparently met together (as one body) for certain purposes, such as the laying on of hands of new elders and ordination. Apparently, at these meetings, there was prayer and sometimes even prophetic utterances. But nowhere in the Bible do we see that this body of elders, in itself, was in charge of one or more churches. That was left up to each individual elder, to be in charge of his own little flock.

2. (Your second) Never said that either. I am saying that the various groups that met in homes (if that is the case) were overseen by a body of elders, not a "lone ranger". The single pastor, ruling one church, is a tradition, just what this thread is about. One local church in our small town has a female pastor who is in authority over their elders.

Dwight: The single pastor, managing one church, in my opinion, is what the Bible teaches, not a plurality of elders. I assume you are bringing up the local church in your town with a female pastor to show how a single pastor scenario can be abused (because Biblically, women are not to be pastors). Just because there is abuse of the single pastor scenario, that does not invalidate the truth of it. I would contend that there is just as much abuse of the plurality of elders scenario. But I don't a single pastor scenario as a tradition of man.
Dwight: By the way, not all of man's traditions were bad, only those that contradicted the Bible. Paul even mentions keeping traditions that are good.

Take note of one of Paul's letters, 1 Corinthians for example. Paul addresses the church at Corinth as one assembly:

Dwight: Why wouldn't he? We know from the Bible that the word "church" can refer to all the Christians in the whole city (which was comprised of all the individual house churches) or it can refer to an individual house church. Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 16:19

Dwight: There may have been times when all the churches from the entire city met together, but the usual meetings, apparently, were in the homes.


[colo

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Do Our churches Have Traditions?

Post by Homer » Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:30 pm

Dwight,
There was no body of elders, or plurality of elders with equal authority. Using your words, Peter was the "Lone Ranger", like it or not. That's what the Bible is clearly indicating, that's not my private interpretation. Look at those references. Do you see any other conclusion?
Yes, I see no reason to believe Peter was anything more than a leader, much as a chairman of any group. If Peter was in an authority position over the rest of the apostles, how is it that Paul took Peter to task and rebuked him for Peter's behavior toward Gentile Christians? Arguing for a one man "manager" over each local church, as you call it, has no relevance to the Apostles. Elders (plural) have authority over local churches. I'm sure you are aware of the qualifications for an elder. Many small assemblies have no one qualified and do quite well without a "manager".
So, from the very beginning, the church was not a plurality of elders led by nobody except Jesus. Jesus commissioned one man, Peter,to lead them. It is still the same today.
The Catholics would agree with this, but I do not believe the apostles had any successors. None of the early church "fathers" claimed to be equal to the apostles. The apostles are irrelevant to the issue of elders/pastors.
Dwight: That's not at all what I was saying (and I think you know that). When I said it is still the same today, I was simply saying that today, if we follow the Biblical pattern, each church will have it's own leader, called an elder.


Nothing in the scriptures supports this. Paul, in his travels, appointed elders in churches that were in existence prior to his doing so.
Dwight: My wife and I attend a home church and have since 2001, where there is one pastor. When we first started there, our 4 children went with us, but they have grown and moved on. But we all greatly benefited from home church (and hopefully have benefited them) and my wife and I continue to fellowship there.
That's good and explains why you so doggedly argue as you do. I have no quarrel with one elder if he is qualified and no there are no others qualified..
Dwight: What is your church like? I assume you have a plurality of elders? How long have you attended?
Eight or nine years. We have five elders who are definitely in authority over the four pastors. These pastors were merely called minister when we first began attending there. It is my belief that the elders are the pastors.
(me)The word Paul used here is neuter singular, referring to a body of elders, rather than individuals.
I am saying that the local church in any city was overseen by a body of elders, presbuterion. Please explain why this group of men was referred to in the neuter/singular.
Dwight: I am not denying it is neuter/singular. So what point are you making from that?
If you would consult the many lexicons regarding the meaning of prebuterion, you might see the point, but probably not. That was left up to each individual elder, to be in charge of his own little flock.
That was left up to each individual elder, to be in charge of his own little flock.
Please show an example of this from scripture.
(me) 2. (Your second) Never said that either. I am saying that the various groups that met in homes (if that is the case) were overseen by a body of elders, not a "lone ranger". The single pastor, ruling one church, is a tradition, just what this thread is about. One local church in our small town has a female pastor who is in authority over their elders.
Just because there is abuse of the single pastor scenario, that does not invalidate the truth of it. I would contend that there is just as much abuse of the plurality of elders scenario.


When you have a plurality of elders they can serve as a check on each other. Who can correct your single pastor?

Post Reply

Return to “Ecclesiology”