My Deleted YouTube Comments

Allow me to be more specific. Sure, I hold to leadership in the church. But is it the sort which equips the saints to become ministers themselves, according to Ephesian 4 12 or is it akin to Milton's "New presbyter is but old priest writ large?" That is: leaders who practice priestcraft. After the manner of the old covenant priest or the Roman Catholic parish system.

Historically, the latter view has been born again in the Reformed churches via "teaching and ruling" elders, supposedly based on 1 Tim 5 17. The real ministers are teaching elders. The ruling elders are "lay elders" or just layman according to this scheme. Or scam, to put it blountly. Even Calvin could not cook it up until his third edition of the Institutes.

But wait. All elders are required to teach... 1 Tim 3 2. Consider the following quote from a by-gone day.

"Nay, by this theory, the very existence of ruling elders at any time, or anywhere, either in apostolic or subsequent times, is seriously endangered. The evidence for a divinely instituted presbyter, that is not by office and ordination qualified to preach and administer sacraments has been called in question on critical and historical grounds by many of our own ablest judges, and best friends. Dr. Miller admits that many of his brethren rejected it. Principal Hill regards the evidence for it as very slender. Dr. Wilson of Philadelphia seached in vain to find such mute presbyters during the first three centuries. Professor Jamieson of Scotland, one of the ablest and most learned champions of presbytery, after having published in favour of such presbyters, renounced it. He quotes Blondel as of the same opinion, and many Presbyterians. 

The Westminster Assembly rejected the name ruling elder, which had evenly voted upon 1 Tim. v.17, as a proof-text for any such presbyter. Baxter says this was the prevalent opinion among Presbyterians in his day. It was also, as we have seen, among the French Presbyterian churches and those of the Remonstrants. Mr. Boyce, in his very able work on the Ancient Episcopacy, (p. 208, ) affirms (and quotes Blondel as believing) that "the primitive presbyters were all ordained to the sacred office of the ministry." Gieseler rejects the distinction made by this theory. Mosheim does the same.

Dr. Coleman and Riddle, in their "Antiquities of the Christian Church," founded upon Augusti and others, declare against this theory. Selden and Lightfoot, the greatest Hebraists of modern times, were against it in the Westminster Assembly . 

Vitringa, to whom all our knowledge of the synagogue is now chiefly referred, expresses himself in the most unqualified manner . "I am not," he says, "opposed to lay elders but contrariwise greatly like them. I will not, however, offend against the brotherhood, of which I form a part, if I openly declare that I am able to find no such elders in the apostolical church of the first age; none such in the church of the age following ; none in the writings of the apostles, or in the records ofthe age following, as far as they have been examined by me or others. This opinion, in which I have long been fully confirmed, I consider it no fault freely to divulge, though contrary to that of others, and which no other reason or presumption than the force of truth has compelled me to embrace."

Professor Jamieson, as referred to above, uses similar language: "I can't find," says he, "during the first three centuries express mention of these seniors or ruling elders ; for I freely pass from (i.e. abandon) some words of Tertullian and Origen, which I elsewhere mentioned as containing them, and so also from what I said of the Ignatian presbyters being ruling or non-preaching elders." The very learned non-conformist writer, Clarkson, of whom Baxter says he was a man of "extraordinary worth for solid judgment and acquaintance with the Fathers," coincides in this judgment and so do many others.

Finally, Rothe, the most learned living antiquarian of Germany, has found, upon elaborate investigation, that the supposed ruling presbyters of the North African churches, the seniores plebis of Tertullian, Augustine, and Hilary, were...

We ask, is it expedient to rest the office of ruling elders upon a text and a distinction so plainly repudiated by our greatest authorities and acknowledged standards and by claiming that they are and must be presbyters, imperil their Divine warrant, and weaken their authority and influence?" End quotation by Thomas Smyth DD, Volume 4, Works, 268f

The great Smyth authored the church history textbooks used in the early days of Princeton, by the way. Not to mention that he self-financed the publication of his massive Works which were donated to libraries around the world. This is a far cry from today where Christian merchandizing and marketing has gotten so bad, we are expected to pay every time we sing a particular song together. 

In fairness to Smyth's views, he did not fully accept eldership parity (equality) in spite of showing "ruling eldership" to be a phantom... He simply could not envision a church without a Minister. Technically a deacon, as the word the same. He thus dismissed ruling elders as deacons.

To be continued below... due, I suppose to size constraints.

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

Even the stalwart Iain Murray - more responsible than anyone else in modern times for republishing Reformation-minded authors - conceded in his later years that the subject of eldership parity had previously been lost on him. In an essay published in the Banner of Truth magazine: "The Problem of the Eldership and its Wider Implications" he relates his "considerable shock" upon reading The Theory of Ruling Eldership, by Peter Colin Campbell, Principal of the University of Aberdeen. 

Regarding this book, TF Torrance, a beloved Scottish :) Protestant theologian and Presbyterian minister, who served for 27 years as a professor of Christian dogmatics at New College, at the University of Edinburgh stated: "In the U.S.A. this theory of the eldership was demolished by Smyth of Charleston and Hodge of Princeton with immense learning. But the same thing was done much more lucidly and succinctly by Peter Colin Campbell of Aberdeen, to name only one of those who entered the debate."

This is not an academic matter, folks. Thousands of reformed churches have shut their doors due, in great measure, to the inablity to support a "teaching elder". Who alone has hands capable of "administering the sacraments, taking charge, and dominating the role of teaching despite the simple liturgical formula of 1 Cor 14. Or the open mic synagogue arrangement which Jesus and the apostles took advantage of.

Not to mention billionS of misappropriated dollars by churches, Reformed and otherwise, who use 1 Tim 5 17 to justify clergyism. But. The passage clearly states that it is the "ruling elders" who also partake of the double honor. The same word for the honor and respect owed by slaves to masters and for distressed widows, whom Paul had just addressed using the same term. 

Do we really beleive that Paul was directing these young churches, mostly meeting in homes, to fully support the lowly, muted "ruling elders" with permanent salaries? I think not. These payouts, as all others, were needs based - not permanent. Lemme break this down a little further: Parents are to be honored at all times but children do not pay them a weekly salary. When parents have needs - family members should leap into action or else be regarded as having left the faith.

Paul, writing to Timothy and Titus, do not suddenly switch the topic from young and old men - young and old women - to a new office and new doctrine about church structure. He is reminding Timothy that older men as well as older women will sometimes need assistance from the church. Where are the churches today which participate in such an arrangement? Instead, it is the almighty State which possesses the real "compassion". The early Christians did indeed capture the attention and respect of the world due to their charity. In the modern world - most churches are charities unto themselves.

In his monumental work on The Chucch and the Ministry in the Early Centuries Thomas Lindsay, DD, yet another famed Scottish Theologian :) and Principal of the Glasgow College, observed: "In the earliest times NONE of the office-bearers, and for many centuries few of them, depended upon the Church as a whole to provide them with the necessaries of life. 'p 204. Perfectly in accord with Paul directing the Ephesian elders to follow his example of laboring with their own hands. So that they, the pastors, could support others. Likewise to the Thessalonians, he reminded the disorderly, sluggish ones to remember AND to follow his example as he worked night and day. 2 Thess 3.

About now, someone chimes in about those preaching the gospel should live by it. This is true enough is your are an apostle or travelling evangelist, as those 70 in Luke 10. To whom were told to take no money and that the laborer was worthy or reward. Before you chime in with that line of argumentation, read from Scottish Presbyterian George Campbell's Annotations on the Gospels, where, in Matthew, he spends about 20 pages demonstrating that the modern usage of the word "preach" is erroneous. Thus Paul preaching till midnight and dude falling out the window is a gross fabrication of the event. The original word merely means to talk with or dialogued. Nor are elders commanded to preach. Anyone could. Thus those "scattered abroad" did. 

With yet another beloved Scottish theologian Patrick Fairbairn, DD in his commentary on the Pastoral epistles, regarding 1 Tim 5 17, we would concur: "That elders alone are mentioned in connection with the government or presidency of the churches, is again a clear proof that they were the only spiritual overseers known to the apostle. But whether the passage is available to prove that there was in the apostle's days a formal distinction among those who bore the common name of presbyter as that some were set apart to the work of both teaching and ruling, and others to that simply of ruling is certainly NOT expressly said, and has often been disputed, as well by Presbyterian and Independent writers as by Roman Catholics and Episcopalians. Vitringa has discussed the matter at considerable length in his work on the Synagogue (L. ii. c. 3) ; and though on other grounds favourable to the existence of a body of ruling elders in congregations, and deeming them capable of doing much good service, he yet holds this passage to be INCAPABLE of rendering support to such a view..."

Which brings us to a yet unsolved problem with Calvinism: The actual identity of elders. But before you reply, don't overlook about half a dozen times in which the English translators added the word "office" in the crucial texts concerning elders and the so-called office of deacon. So, were the NT elders the same persons which they had been for thousands of years? The honored seniors and natural community leaders? Yes, the elders were appointed to the task of oversight - not (ordained) to an "office of elder." Thus young Timothy was advised not to let his youth be despised. Seniors ruled. As they should, not only by age but by seniority in the faith.

Please observe in 1 Peter 5 that the elders AMONG YOU, who were to be shepherds, are immediately contrasted with "likewise you younger ones." The recognition of the age-governance of these passages represents the current direction of conservative scholarship, btw.

Again, this is not a mere academic exercise but an ongoing tragedy. Remember John Owen, Vice Chancellor of Oxford and Prince of the Puritans? Look at his 8 volume Commentary on Hebrews. Look carefully at the phrase "looking diligently", (12 15). You will see that the true meaning - overseeing diligently - in the English Bibles was obscured. It's the same Greek word group which describes the elders role of oversight in 1 Peter 5. Owen goes on to write that this widespread neglect of oversight (bishoping) is evil, disgusting, and represents the "ruin of Christianity."

Should this surprise us? Not at all. We - not the leadership only - are our brother's keeper. All of us are to look upon the things of others - not just our own affairs. Some have counted about 60 "one another's" in the NT. So why, pray tell, is the "Senior Pastor" or "Lead Pastor" considered as THE PASTOR or THE MINISTER in the modern church? Is this not priestcraft? And where is the NT example of any church with a single leader of any kind???

The modern pastor is burning out at a faster rate than ever before. Pastoring was never intended for one but for a team. Meanwhile, good men are essentially not in the game at all. Not only are pastors overloaded but the "laity" are also at fault for giving up their own responsibilities.

Would not masculinity, so often spoken of here, look different if it finally occurred to every Christian man that he should one day become (if not unqualified) a shepherd and overseer in the church of God? 

A mystical "inward call" is certainly not required to minister (following the logic of our cessationalist friends...).

Have we not heard sermons concerning that the qualifications of leadership are good... for all men? True, they are. Do you sincerely believe that if parity of eldership was recognised that there would be far fewer scandals among preachers? Instead of one after another? And would not the landscape be much different today if the elders AMONG US had been given the freedom, training, and encouragement to speak up and to question everything. Instead of outsiders from (regretably mostly Godless) seminaries being sent to us from afar?

Regardless of where we meet - we wish one another God's richest blessings and success. Upon His terms, of course. That said, I still maintain that our own church government needs major adjustments as we contemplate fixing civil government.

Always reforming, we say. And working toward a more perfect union. Until every thought is brought captive to our Lord and Christ. There is only one true church. We are in it or out of it. All Christians should be everywhere welcome, except in the most unusual circumstances. 

Around the world, let every legitimate form of church be employed in the days to come! And let the Name of the Almighty be praised at every hour and in every location - even in the halls of civil government.