posted
Hi there brother, thanks for checkin in and making your first post. Easy, huh?
Do you happen to know Dan and Brenda Beaty of Columbus. Link Hudson? They used to be quite active here and, of course, are still our friends. I need to contact them.
posted
Hey there, Thanks for the mail.Would like to start my own group at home though i have no illusions about my qualifications to be an elder just want to start something that is real.I and many others i'm sure have real issues with the traditional institutionalized church.I attend one now mostly because of my wife who takes comfort in it though she comes from a house church backround so she is ok to a degree with me wanting to step out. The subject of why i'm discontent is too big for me at my present energy level right now to be willing to get into,suffice to say though that most of my reasons are probably well known to many who come to this sight.
posted
D.Anderson, Thank you for the kind words. Below are the notes of a study i've been doing on church leadership. As i read the NT there is in fact "office" of bishop/elder, and age is not the qualification.We need to be careful not to reject clear NT teaching in our zeal to 'throw off' institution.
CHURCH LEADERSHIP PASSAGES
“Then came he (Paul) to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father [was] a Greek: Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek. And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees (Greek word ‘dogma’) for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders ( presbuteros) which were at Jerusalem. And so were the churches established (made firm)in the faith, and increased in number daily.” Acts 16:1-5
The so –called ‘elders’ refrered to here must be more than simply older men because being older is not, in and of itself, enough of a qualification to be responsible for decrees which were used to establish the early churches and the apostles would not have trusted the firming up of the churches to men simply because of advanced age.
“This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop (episcope, ‘overseeing officer’), he desireth a good work.” 1 Tim. 3:1 Clearly there are Christian church officers called ‘bishops’.
“The elders (presuteros) which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight (episkopeo)[thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;” 1 Pet. 5:1-2 Peter entrusts the ‘feeding of the flock’ to the elders and the oversight of them to the same. Would God allow this only because they were older? Of course not. An ‘elder’ must be mature in Christ-likeness for God to entrust these duties to him, whether or not he must be older in age as well I do not know.
Note also that the Greek word for “oversight” is a variation of the Greek word for the phrase “office of a bishop” in 1 Tim.3:1. ‘Bishops’ + ‘elders’ are synonymous Acts 2O:17-28 make that clear when Paul says that the “elders” (presbuteros) are “overseers” (episkopos) of “the flock’. Verse 28 is also noteworthy for pointing out that the role of oversight, bishop/elder,comes by the “Holy Spirit”.
The role of the ‘bishop/elder’ is to “Feed the flock” and oversee it. Feeding I take as a reference to providing the spiritual sustenance to the general assembly, primarily the teaching of God’s word. One aspect of oversight is revealed in Acts 20:28-31 when the issue of guarding the ‘flock’ against ‘wolves’ is addressed to elders by Paul.
Acts 15:5-6+22-29 show one of the roles that the “elders”, as well as the apostles played, was, thinking over and coming to conclusions on matters of faith and practice among believers. In this case writing out decrees for believers to follow (see 16:4 + 21:25 of Acts).
Peter goes on in his instruction to the ‘elders’ in 1Pet.5 (vs.3-4)… “Neither as being lords over [God's] heritage (kleros, from which we get the word ‘Clergy’), but being ensamples(examples) to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.” It is interesting that the people whom the ‘elders’ oversee are the ‘clergy’. If I am correct it is also noteworthy that Peter refers to Jesus as the “chief Shepherd” in the context of speaking to overseers/elders as though they are earthly shepherds, thus the distinct role of leadership that the elders have over God’s people.
2
“And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and [to] Iconium, and Antioch, Confirming the souls of the disciples, [and] exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. And when they had ordained them elders in every church (ekklesia, ‘assembly’), and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.” Acts 14:21-23 Each church (or, ‘assembly’ of believers) had officially appointed leaders ‘elders’.
There is no reason to blanch at the thought of official church leaders nor to deny it. The poor aspects of traditional institutionalized church leadership shouldn’t lead us to react too sharply the other way and try to distort Scripture by saying in effect that there is no true official church leadership because there is. 2Tim. 4:22 reveals that Timothy was “ordained the first bishop of the church of the Ephesians” and that Titus was … “ordained the first bishop of the church of the Cretians” Titus 3:15 as well as the above referenced Scripture in 1Tim. (3:1). Titus was told by Paul to “ordain elders in every city” Titus 1:5. This is not to say that today there are apostles who are to ‘ordain’ elders, but assemblies should maybe choose out men to take oversight over the assembly from those who ‘desire the office’ and who are NT qualified. Acts 20:28 says that God’s Spirit makes men overseers/elders, Paul told Titus to ordain elders, so how do we reconcile these two? The following are some ideas. 1) The Spirit gifts men to be elders and through his sovereignty working within the realm of free human will brings about their placing as elders within assemblies. 2) As men pray about the subject of who should have oversight amongst them God’s Spirit reveals it to them. (which could be the method of # 1.) Any thoughts how else this could happen ?
The wording is a bit tricky to define for me perfectly it could be that “elders (plural ) in every church”(singular) means multiplicity of eldership in each ‘assembly’ not a 1 pastor system, though it could refer to all the elders appointed, just not sure. One thing seems true though that a multiplicity of leadership is better for each assembly in case the elder appointed is a wolf, deceived, out of God’s will, or some other issue that makes his leadership dangerous for the people whom he has oversight of.
Acts 15 verses 4+ 22 (read 1-22) shows the distinction in roles within the church. Obviously “apostles” and “elders” are part of the body of Christ so when the verses refer to “the church” in vs. 4 and “whole church” in verse 22 it is speaking of the ‘assembly’ of all non-leader believers. Thus the official status of leaders within the church is evident. Verse 23 makes the distinction as well.
I have questions pertaining to 1Pet. 5 as to whether or not what Peter is referring to when he says in verse 5… “Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder “ is ‘younger’ believers being subordinate to more mature (‘elder’) believers not younger in terms of age being submitted to those older in age. The context of verse 5 is that of the spiritual oversight role of who Peter refers to as “elders” and to me God would not base spiritual oversight responsibilities on age nor tell younger people to be subordinate to ‘elders’ just because of their age. I think a case can be made for the ‘younger’ as being required to be subordinate to the leadership (spiritually) of elder believers in 1Pet. 5.
In 1Tim. 1:3-7 the qualifications for a bishop / elder are given. No where in the list is physical age mentioned. The only place where age is referred to is in a spiritual sense in verse 6 where a bishop is not to be a “novice”, or, ‘new convert’. Physical age appears nowhere. Likewise, in
3
Titus chapter 1 where bishop qualifications are given and physical age appears nowhere nor, as in the previous passage (1Pet. 5), the synonym ‘elder’ is not used. Spiritual leadership obviously requires spiritual maturity not physical age. Is it fair to say that since God is no respecter of persons that he is no respecter of age in terms of leadership qualifications.
posted
D.Anderson, Here is another point…If an ‘elder’ refers to someone who is aged,how old does he have to be ? When will we know he is old enough ? Where in the NT is an appropriate age referred to ? Qualifications which reflect spiritual maturity are given. The shackles, if you will permit the over the top language, that we as non-institutionalized Christians should be throwing off should not include the sound NT doctrine of the offices of leadership.
posted
Hi Joe, You see that this topic was moved into the eldership section where it will more likely be found by others interested in reading it.
You keep using the word "qualifications." Is such a word used in scripture with reference to "becoming an elder?"
Were elders appointed to the task of shepherding (oversight) OR were certain men appointed to an office of elder? That's the question.
Is eldership ever called an office? Are all overseers (bishops) elders?
Tomorrow night at Boy Scouts these words will be recited: "A Boy Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, clean, brave and reverent." Does this mean therefore that an unthrifty young man cannot be a Scout?
I certainly agree that age is not always a gage of spirituality and that young men can and should be overseers, too, if they so desire - and they should.
Other than the 1 Peter 5 text, do you know of any other passages which contrast younger ones to elders?
Can you cite any functions which an elder may perform but not another non-elder?
How true that we should not cast off sound doctrine.
I'll attempt to reply further when I am able. You touched on many good things, brother.
posted
D.Anderson, I want to respond to your thoughts one by one here if i may. First,when i use the word "qualification(s)" it is a semantic issue,what i'm referring to are character and lifestyle qualities layed out in the NT. Secondly,to ask whether the word "qualifications" is used in Scripture in relation to NT leadership is an argument that i'm not making,and is not much different from trying to assert that since the word "trinity" doesn't appear in the NT that it is therefore not a revealed teaching of the NT. In my view, the NT teaching of leadership shows that 'bishops' and 'elders' are synonymous terms both referring to those who have 'oversight' responsibilities amongst local Christian assemblies. In 1Tim.3:1 "the office of a bishop" spells it out pretty clearly that what is in view is an 'oversight office'.The reason that we shouldn't be bothered by this is because it's Scripture.We don't have to throw off the NT teaching on 'offices' of leadership because we see ourselves as part of a new revolution and therefore need to tear it all down. To carry out the duties of oversight is in fact to carry out the duties of the 'oversight office' so to say.Much of this is semantic differences. As to your question... "Is eldership ever called an office?" the answer is yes,"bishop" and "elder" in terms of leadership are synonymous terms, so when Paul speaks to Timothy about the "office of a bishop" he is ,in essence, saying[the office of an elder]. In terms of the Boy Scouts,that seems a very large apples vs. oranges line of reasoning.However,if the Scouts choose to let young men join who do not live up to there standards that means nothing in regards to Scriptural matters.With all due respect,a pretty weak argument.The character qualities Paul lays out for one to be an 'elder/bishop'are to be on display or one is not fit for the position. "A bishop then MUST BE blameless,the husband of one wife,etc,etc..."1 Tim.3:2 As to your question..."Can you sight any functions which an elder may perform but not another non-elder?" Yes i can,1 Pet. 5:2 says that it is elders who are to take oversight and be respoinsible for the feeding of the flock, as well as to be examples to the flock (see vs. 3-4).this is not to say that those in the non-leader roles are not to have any like responsibilities but that elders/bishops are specifically called upon for these tasks.Peter is very specific who he is talking to and what their role is. In conclusion, i wonder if it is just human nature that so often leads us all to swing from extreme to extreme,meaning,we go from too much institution to too little regard for genuine NT leadership. God Bless
quote:Originally posted by Joseph: *snip* In my view, the NT teaching of leadership shows that 'bishops' and 'elders' are synonymous terms both referring to those who have 'oversight' responsibilities amongst local Christian assemblies. *snip* As to your question... "Is eldership ever called an office?" the answer is yes,"bishop" and "elder" in terms of leadership are synonymous terms, so when Paul speaks to Timothy about the "office of a bishop" he is ,in essence, saying[the office of an elder]. *snip* 1 Pet. 5:2 says that it is elders who are to take oversight and be respoinsible for the feeding of the flock, as well as to be examples to the flock (see vs. 3-4).this is not to say that those in the non-leader roles are not to have any like responsibilities but that elders/bishops are specifically called upon for these tasks.Peter is very specific who he is talking to and what their role is. In conclusion, i wonder if it is just human nature that so often leads us all to swing from extreme to extreme,meaning,we go from too much institution to too little regard for genuine NT leadership.
Hey Joseph. First let me say that you believe exactly the same way I did ...until I went back to the Greek and actually looked all of this stuff up. There were several delineations as to one's duty, if you will. First there were the apostles, simply called "commissioners" then there were the disciples or "learners". From that group were chosen deacons or simply "table servers." Chosen from that group were the bishops or "supervisors." Guess who they apparently supervised?
This was never meant to be their title, just there duties within The Body of Christ. It is very clear that Stephen, a "table server" operated in The Gifts and was full of the Holy Spirit. The apostles (commissioners) fasted and prayed together just to appoint table servers!!! That's how serious this was.
What you believe, and I used to believe, is an apparent perversion coming from the IC needing to be run like a business. As far as "elders" go, they were ALWAYS talking about age. The Greek word is "presbuteros" and simply means senior in age. It's just that simple!!! Just compare the word in Luke 15:25 to any other place where it is used in The New Testament. Same word.
We think we are free from the IC, but the King James is used to support bondage to the IC. Ever wander what the word "pastor" means? No, because you know what one is. Ever look it up for yourself? It is a perversion of the word "shepherd" and is only interpreted "pastor" in one place in The New Testament!!! A shepherd's job was clearly defined by Jesus in the book of John if you are interested.
By the way, what did the "commissioners" do? They appointed (commissioned) others and sent them out. Who did they send? Servers, evangelist, and supervisors. (Prophets seemed to do as directed only by The LORD.) As far as shepherds-teachers go, no one was ever called this [directly] but Jesus Himself in The New Testament, and He alone commissioned the commissioners! You see, Ephesians 4:11 is not a hierarchy, but a function [or job] list list if you will.
In conclusion, I wonder if it is just human nature that so often leads us all to believe what "important" people have told us to believe. We never quite go from too much institution to the real leadership that is so desperately needed in The Body today.
posted
Matthew, Clearly there are official NT leaders (now not in the sense that they have been perverted by the IC), to deny that is to deny Scripture. Secondly, to be old doesn't make someone fit to be a leader. Finally,if elder means older in chronological terms (in regard to the leadership role of elder/overseer/bishop)how old does one have to be? Where is the number even hinted at in the NT? As far as the KJV is concerned it is based on the most reliable manuscript family,the Textus Receptus. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Joe Swartz
posted
Matthew, When you emphaticaly expressed that "elder" (presbuteros) only refers to chronological age you were mistaken.Thayer's Lexicon says that it can mean either 1.)chronological age or 2.)a term of rank or office. Concerning the word "apostles" the Greek word apostolos means 1.)a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders a.) specifically applied to the twelve apostles of Christ b.) b) in a broader sense applied to other eminent Christian teachers. So i don't know where 'commissioners' came from. If there were never meant to be titles why were they used ? Why didn't Peter say "You who are responsible for oversight" instead he calls them 'elders'he uses a title.Paul speaks of "The office of a bishop",etc..Now some of this may amount to just semantic differences between us.It's hard to discern whether or not that is the case using this form of communication.
posted
Matthew, I want to be clear,i don't think of 'office' as meaning a paid position in some big church building. I'm refering to 'roles'..."He is a teacher,he is an overseer,etc..." General titles make communication easier. In my view to say "Bill is one of our teachers" (thus using a title) is no different from saying "Bill teaches us because he has that gift." Semantics.
posted
Matthew, There are to be leaders in our assemblies. They are those who are charged with oversight and the feeding of the flock (in part) and they are bihops/elders (1 Pet. 5). Joe S.
quote:Originally posted by Joseph: Matthew, When you emphaticaly expressed that "elder" (presbuteros) only refers to chronological age you were mistaken.Thayer's Lexicon says that it can mean either 1.)chronological age or 2.)a term of rank or office. Concerning the word "apostles" the Greek word apostolos means 1.)a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders a.) specifically applied to the twelve apostles of Christ b.) b) in a broader sense applied to other eminent Christian teachers. So i don't know where 'commissioners' came from. If there were never meant to be titles why were they used ? Why didn't Peter say "You who are responsible for oversight" instead he calls them 'elders'he uses a title.Paul speaks of "The office of a bishop",etc..Now some of this may amount to just semantic differences between us.It's hard to discern whether or not that is the case using this form of communication.
Joe Swartz
No argument there "can" is the key word. Hey, this isn't hard.
Got commissioners from reading The Greek Interlinear Bible, you should try it.
quote:Originally posted by Joseph: Matthew, Clearly there are official NT leaders (now not in the sense that they have been perverted by the IC), to deny that is to deny Scripture. Secondly, to be old doesn't make someone fit to be a leader. Finally,if elder means older in chronological terms (in regard to the leadership role of elder/overseer/bishop)how old does one have to be? Where is the number even hinted at in the NT? As far as the KJV is concerned it is based on the most reliable manuscript family,the Textus Receptus. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Joe Swartz
Clearly true.
Secondly true. They were NOT always leaders.
Finally, I suppose you have trouble telling the old wise ones in your church? I bet the first Church didn't either. :^)
quote:Originally posted by Joseph: Matthew, There are to be leaders in our assemblies. They are those who are charged with oversight and the feeding of the flock (in part) and they are bihops/elders (1 Pet. 5). Joe S.
Feeding the flock? A sheep can't eat on its own? Let's go to school.
Jesus never said to "feed" the sheep. He said "be grazing" the lambs "be shepherding" the sheep, and "be grazing" the sheep.
Here it is important to find out what a shepherd's job is supposed to be. I thought about doing all kinds of current and historical research on this topic, then a thought occurred to me. "Why not see what The One Man , Who was and is Himself "The Good Shepherd," expected of a shepherd! Here is what I found in the King James. It is interesting to note here that Jesus was talking to the religious leaders of his time! How wonderfully perfect of Him to do so!!! This is in John 10:1-16. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that enters not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But He that enters in by the door is The Shepherd of the sheep. To Him the porter opens; and the sheep hear His voice: and He calls His own sheep by name, and leads them out. And when He [takes his sheep out], He goes before them, and the sheep follow Him: for they know His voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from Him: for they know not the voice of strangers. This parable spoke Jesus unto [the pharmacies]: but they understood not what things they were which he spoke unto them. Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I Am The Door of the sheep. All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. I Am the door: by Me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. I am The Good Shepherd: The Good Shepherd gives His life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not The Shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep, and flees: and the wolf catches them, and scatters the sheep. The hireling flees, because he is an hireling, and cares not for the sheep. I am The Good Shepherd, and know My sheep, and I Am known of Mine. As The Father knows Me, even so know I The Father: and I lay down My life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear My voice; and there shall be one fold, and One Shepherd." Looking this up in Greek, I found one thing defiantly more than worth mentioning. The Greek translates "Shepherd The Ideal" or, The Prefect Shepherd, not "Good Shepherd" like the King Jame. How is that for a wonderful fit for Jesus!!! So what is this "Perfect Shepherd," the One Who we are to be like, actually like? 1.) He enters properly, not by deception. 2.) His sheep belong to Him and they know what He (in the Greek "sounds like"). 3.) When He takes his sheep out to eat, he leads them, [but doesn't "feed" them] 4.) He is not hired to look after them. 5.) He knows their names 6.) He gives his life for His sheep. 7.) He does not abandon His sheep to the wolves, but protects them from being (in the Greek "snatched") by the wolf and scattered. 8.) He was appointed by God. 9.) He was not appointed by men. My conclusions? The word "pastor" was used, but never should have been, and is quite out of place. According to Jesus Himself, a shepherd is to know his sheep, and they will trust in Jesus. A shepherd is to lead the sheep keeping them orderly. A shepherd is not to feed them, but show [teach] them where they can eat. (For example, by reading The Bible for themselves, instead of going to a weekly lecture). A shepherd is also to give his life defending his sheep if need be, and protect them from any wolves [or heretics] as the case may be. ;^)
NOTE: I find it quite interesting that Jesus used an animal for an example that feeds itself. Ever wonder why Jesus didn't say something like "I am the mature bird, and I feed my baby birds."
Just a thought on why we have been fed so many worms...
posted
Matthew, Jesus said...[MY SHEEP hear my voice]the sheep are HIS not the other way around. This whole idea you have of 'taking me to school' is quite proud. When you speak of the word "good" as it is used in the KJ to descibe Jesus as shepherd the Greek word kalos is defined as follows...1) beautiful, handsome, excellent, eminent, choice, surpassing, precious, useful, suitable, commendable, admirable a) beautiful to look at, shapely, magnificent b) GOOD, excellent in its nature and characteristics, and therefore well adapted to its ends Good is a perfectly accurate rendering. What do you do with Peter's statement to "feed the flock" ? Again,the sheep belong to Jesus not Jesus to the sheep. "MY SHEEP hear my voice" John 10:27 Joe S.
quote:Originally posted by Joseph: Matthew, Jesus said...[MY SHEEP hear my voice]the sheep are HIS not the other way around. This whole idea you have of 'taking me to school' is quite proud. When you speak of the word "good" as it is used in the KJ to descibe Jesus as shepherd the Greek word kalos is defined as follows...1) beautiful, handsome, excellent, eminent, choice, surpassing, precious, useful, suitable, commendable, admirable a) beautiful to look at, shapely, magnificent b) GOOD, excellent in its nature and characteristics, and therefore well adapted to its ends Good is a perfectly accurate rendering. What do you do with Peter's statement to "feed the flock" ? Again,the sheep belong to Jesus not Jesus to the sheep. "MY SHEEP hear my voice" John 10:27 Joe S.
Here we go again. :^) You do not know me. True. You continually judge me. True. You judge what you do not know. True. Those who judge what they do not know lack wisdom. True. You therefore must lack wisdom. Obviously True.
And as for as looking something up goes, "good" does not mean today what you quote from. It simply means; 1. of a favorable character or tendency. Please click on the Merriam Webster links for all of the stuff you posted (AND THE STUFF YOU LEFT OUT THAT YOU DIDN'T THINK FIT!!! ROTFLMHO!!!) to see their definitions. This is not even logical debate! This is religion!!! How can you espouse the most simplistic of arguments as truth?
posted
Open, To me the whole concept of 'elders' refering to those in oversight roles as having to be older men begs two questions. First,how old must one be to be considered an elder ? Particularly interesting if in fact lifespans were shorter in NT than they are now. Secondly, where in the NT is a particular age requirement refered to(if you will)for becoming an overseer/bishop/elder ,because clearly there are a list of 'requirements' given in the NT and chronologic age is not one of them (though spiritual age is-"not a novice")? Peter says that 'elders' are charged with 'feeding the flock' and oversight so how does a man's chronologic aga have any bearing on his giftings or level, so to say, of Christ-likeness and thus his 'ability' to attain to the "office of a bishop"('bishop' and 'elder' being,in the case of assembly leadership,synonyms)? I want to be totally in step with Biblical teaching so i welcome an exchange on this. Matthew i wonder however if we have come to the end of our present discussion. I'm not sure that it is bearing any real fruit. Thanks all Joe S.
posted
Open, When we allow our pet doctrinal stances to serve as that which defines us,or put another way,when we personalize our pet doctrines so much that they serve as a way for us to identity ourselves when they are brought into question we may feel as though we ourselves,not the issue,is in question and the potential for sharp reaction is there because we've almost melded ourselves and the position as one. For example,you have a conversation with a Calvinist and express another point of view and he lashes out at you as though you have attacked him because the issue has become part of how the man identifies himself so offense is taken. We all need to find our identity based on who we are to God not by the issue positions we take. If we all want to live this life according to God's word then we shouldn't be offended when a different Biblical point of view is raised.Though this is not always easy. Our responses when our positions are challenged speak to the quality of our character.To be honest i've failed that 'test' many times,as maybe many of us have.Do we see it though? Do we see our failings in truth? That's a fundamental issue because if we don't it could make growth in that area impossible. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Joe S.
posted
This topic has deteriorated so that I am not sure it is worth responding. But in case there is any value left here. . . I would have to agree that the phrase "Good Shepherd" is very accurate. Jesus asked the rich young ruler, "Why do you call me good. Only God is good."
This is true. Only God is good. We may speak of men as being good or bad but that is in relation to each other. There is only one source of all good and that is God. A person may do a kind deed and we may consider them a good person but God considers all our works of goodness to be as filthy rags. This is because we are naturally motivated by selfish desires and we do things for personal gain only. Only when the goodness of God flows through us, only when we are connected to Jesus as the Vine, only then can we bring forth anything truly good.
Good is not inherent in man. We are by nature the bad [corrupt] tree which cannot bear good fruit. Only when we are grafted into Christ as branches of the True Vine can we bear anything good.
Also, Peter spoke of new Christians a babes in Christ and admonished them to desire the sincere milk of the word that they might grow. (1Peter 2:2). I don't think he was speaking of growing either in physical stature or age. He was clearly referring to growing up spiritually to become a perfect man. Milk belongs to babes but strong meat belong to those that are mature. (Heb 5:13,14). This clearly has a spiritual meaning here and refers to spiritual maturity. I would think that would mean someone who demonstrates all of the fruits of the spirit and is also able to disciple others by virtue of their experience in the Word as well as their knowledge of the word.
Again, we shouldn't fear the word office, as in the office of a deacon. The word simply means position, a charge, or duty. It does not need to suggest authority, superiority, or any such thing. A deacon fills the office [position] of one who is appointed to serve others.
Let's not allow bad connotations we have attached to this word interfere with our usage of it in the home church environment. Rather, let's define it as it should be defined and use it according to scripture. If we don't take charge of these little things then we will remain captive to them.
quote:Originally posted by jqlogan: I would have to agree that the phrase "Good Shepherd" is very accurate. Jesus asked the rich young ruler, "Why do you call me good. Only God is good."
Actually what was being said there were three linked words. "The Good One" which is one of The Lord's titles. He was not saying that God was simply good, but that He is "The Good One." This is why I capitalize certain words like The Lord, The Bible, The Church, The Body etc. There are only one true example of each of these, and I consider the word "The" a part of Their titles.
Also, the Greek words are different. The word used for "The Good One" was agathos. Standing alone, it is interpreted simply as "good." However, the word was not alone. Just as the words used to describe "The Prefect Shepherd" was not alone. That word is kalos. There is a huge difference between simply saying that "God is good" compared to saying God is "The Good One." There is a huge difference between good and perfect. Jesus was not "The Good Shepherd," He called Himself "The Prefect Shepherd."
Finally, in The Garden, Adam and Eve tasted of the fruit of both "good and evil." It was not simply the fruit of evil. Because of this fact, we all have the capacity to do both good and evil. However, Jesus didn't come for our "good," He came for our righteousness sake.
posted
I would like to slightly change the course of this topic by asking a question. It would appear that the current discussion has quieted down.
I haven't sufficient evidence to understand what it means when scripture says that church leaders should be "the husband of one wife."
Is this teaching that they:
1. should not have multiple wives 2. should be married and not single 3. should not be gay 4. should be married and never divorced 5. or, all of the above
I am leaning toward number 5.
Regarding the tree of good and evil. Scripture teaches repeatedly that there is nothing inherently good in man. So I have to disagree with Matthew's thoughts on this.
quote: Rom 3:10,12 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: . . . They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
2Co 13:5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
It was by tasting of the fruit of the Tree of Good and Evil that Adam and Eve began to understand the differences between the two. Man is not defiled by what enter his mouth but by what proceeds out of it. If we cannot be defiled then can we be purified by what we eat? Some would think so in partaking of the wine and bread. But we are the bad tree that cannot produce good fruit. We are the well that brings forth foul water. Unless we are grafted into the Good Vine then we can never produce anything truly good. I say 'truly good' because only God is Good. We must judge ourselves by God's standard of good and not our own. My thoughts!
quote:Originally posted by jqlogan: I haven't sufficient evidence to understand what it means when scripture says that church leaders should be "the husband of one wife."
Is this teaching that they:
1. should not have multiple wives 2. should be married and not single 3. should not be gay 4. should be married and never divorced 5. or, all of the above
I am leaning toward number 5.
I have heard this, but I have never looked into this. (Number 4. I always heard as "divorced and re-married.")
Why have I never looked? Because I'm married, and I have never been divorced, (fact is, I have only ever even kissed one person, my wife) and I am not a homosexual. Can you build a Biblical case to support you belief? I would love to see what you come up with as you do!!! I'm still working on the "jobs within The Church verses offices within the church" stuff. I still feel a need to settle that in my heart and mind. You go jqlogan!!!
Learning something new every day, A heretic for Christ, Matthew
There has been discussion about the Greek vs. Hebrew vs. God's Kingdom dimension of church leadership and marriage.
Greeks were strictly monogamous, and horrified by the polygamy practiced by Hebrews. Hebrews, on the other hand, were horrified by the homosexuality and promiscuity of the Greeks!
Paul, then, in his letters was saying, "The Elders of the church should be completely above reproach among both communities under their leadership." He would not have excluded polygamists or homosexuals from participation as believers ("and that is what you once were") but rather said that they wouldn't be in leadership, because it would be a stumbling block for the believers from the other community. Homosexuals had to give up their sin, but polygamists couldn't really give up their multiple wives- it wouldn't be godly for a man who had several wives to abandon some of them to starve.
Both bigamy and homosexuality then were phased out as God's full purpose for marriage became more clear.
Both spoiled the archetype of God the Faithful Husband.
Our cultural problems have the other variation of "divorced and remarried". My guess on the biblical view of that, is that a man is responsible for the support of all previous wives, unless they have abandoned the husband and found someone else to support them. Here, the Biblical worldview must be considered. Is this a person with a moral failure in their past covered by redemption? Or is this person a spiritual leader who has shown contempt for God's standards?
As there are more and more messed up families (Among 10 or so families in our believing community, more than half are blended families in some way) the Big Picture of "A man whose family is in order" should be the highest priority. I think we are better off to evaluate each man according to the state of his family and repentance rather than, like the Army, trying to make rules to apply to every situation.
That's my considered but open-to-change opinion : )
Laurie Ann
-------------------- You & Me and Jesus. We are enough!
quote:Originally posted by Laurie Ann: As there are more and more messed up families (Among 10 or so families in our believing community, more than half are blended families in some way) the Big Picture of "A man whose family is in order" should be the highest priority. I think we are better off to evaluate each man according to the state of his family and repentance rather than, like the Army, trying to make rules to apply to every situation.
That's my considered but open-to-change opinion
Laurie Ann
Very fascinating Laurie Ann! All excellent, excellent, excellent points! There is the whole "Divorce is the unpardonable sin in the Church" thing. That was what I was raised to believe, and I would tend to agree with, except for ONE FACT. There is the curious matter of why Jesus said in John 4:17-18, "Thou hast well [ideally] said, I have no husband. For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: In that you said the truth!"
Ever wonder why Jesus didn't just say, "You are lying, you have had five..." That would fit much better with the "unpardonable sin of Divorce" theory.
Also, there is the point that "husband of one wife" was dealing with polygamy. A point you yourself made. This is all very complex.
It is amazing that you would post on this today. I worked all morming on this topic, going from the King James (just what I'm used to, not "The Only Version") to the Greek Interlinear. I even had to hit the dictionary!
I'm trying to build a case here for something... anything. I have heard everything from; "If you divorce, you can no longer hold any position in a church!", to "Oh, don't worry, if at first you don't succeed in marriage, just try, and try again!"
In my search this morning, I got as far as looking up every variant of the word divorce. Then I tackled the word fornication [always "prostitution" in one Greek Interlinear, "illicit sex" in another]. I then got all of the variants of the word adultery looked up as well, but I had to stop with the word adultery itself. It is used 23 times in 18 verses in The New Testament, and my brain was simply fried.
I hope to have my findings up here soon, but I doubt it. I haven't even got everything defined yet!!!
I think I may find no "rules" (so to speak) on the topic, but I may be wrong. I think examples are going to be the best thing I will come up with. Here is the difference; The [apostles] had the [disciples] pick men of certain qualities to become [deacons] or table servers, but they never said, "The Lord told us to ONLY pick men with those qualities EVERY time." There is a huge difference. Having looked through the Greek, I can state the fact that no one is ever told to "feed" another. Therefore, I can refute the statement that we are to go to church to be "fed." It's just not in there. That's all I'm trying to do, figure out what I can and cannot say.
I will tell you this, I was shocked at what I have found so far. This is a very complex topic, (not like trying to find out if we should be fed).
Very wise thoughts. I tend to agree that there must be a practical and moderm application of scripture where there is no direct commandment.
The only obstacle for me is that we cannot judge the heart. So how do we go about determining a person's "current" qualifications without investigating the past or becoming too personal? What would be the fruits worthy of repentance in the case of a divorced person? With a thief he repays what he has taken with interest and then works so he can GIVE to those in need. He exchanges good behavior for bad. A funny parallel to the example of the thief would be that a divorced man repents of putting away his wife (the bad work) and then marries every woman who will have him (the good? work). Chuckle! (Now, how would that be opposed to God's will? Pretty obvious, I think.)
But seriously, John the baptists told the Jewish leaders to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance.
Personally, I have always been an advocate of searching out a person's standing in the community before bestoying the honor of elder upon them. Needless to say I stood alone. But truly, if a church "elects" officers of the church to represent both that church, that denomination, and mostly the Lord Jesus Christ, then shouldn't they be very careful in their selection? I have said in my church that we should speak to his neighbors, his children, his wife, his boss and tell them that we intend to set him apart for the work of elder in the church. Then ask them how they feel about it.
The selection process is a noble and sacred work. And our counsel should be the Lord. However, we are to pray for wisdom and God will grant it according to our prayers. And, we are to judge matters in the church. We will even judge angels. So why can't we responsibly judge in matters such as selection regarding gifts of the spirit? Personally, I think the problem is apathy. Most simply don't care to invest the time to do the job properly. They do not appreciate the sacred trust that has been placed upon them.
But, our current divorce rate may make it difficult to select servants if we disqualified the divorced.
Anyway, this detour just sets up the background for my original question. How do we go about determining a person's "current" qualifications unless we investigate their past? What would be the fruits worthy of repentance in the case of a divorced person?
Thanks for your labors here.
(BTW, I'm married some 25 years this year to my first and only wife. Nor am I contemplating divorce. So don't be gentle for my sake.)
PS. The thought just struck me about what you said regarding Jesus being a faithful husband. He has one bride. So much for all those denominations. They will either have to join each other our pick who will be the bride. (Joke). Reminds me of the joke on those churches who regard membership in their church as the only means of salvation. It goes like this, and perhaps you remember it. The servant tells the Pope, "St. Peter is on the phone." Then he whispers softly, "He's calling from Salt Lake City."
posted
I agree, jq, that thorough investigation of someone's life, integrity, history and even their treatment of their family in their own home is "fair game" if they are being looked up to in the community.
Perhaps the first disqualifier would be that anyone who objected to having their past or credentials or family life questioned would be set aside. One of the travesties of church life has been the tendency of men to pull the "I'm a clergyman, though shalt not touch the Lord's anointed!" trick to defer questions.
I know of a pastor who is serving in the pulpit while he is known to be in an adulterous affair, because there is a fresh group of people coming in all the time, and as people find out, confront and leave, they are commanded not to gossip. The wife lives as a virtual prisoner in her home. Incredible.
There are always people who know these things about a person. Another good reason Paul warned us not to be hasty in laying on of hands. Just because a guy has a slick haircut and a good delivery style doesn't mean he is regenerate!
-------------------- You & Me and Jesus. We are enough!
Email this page to someone.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)