Paul Chappell - 12 Myths Of Pastoral Leadership

[HappyChristian]

I did read your post - yet anther wrong accusation.  I merely pointed out that you were pointing the finger at yourself. You very coyly made a statement that you are a liar, too, to try and justify your calling someone else a liar simply because they don't agree with you. And, yes, you are rude.  Your posts in this thread have shown that.  I know you don't care, but it is a disappointment.

 

Believe me, your attitude is not perceived. It is obvious.  To more than just me.  But then, I'm sure you don't care about that, either. Typical of rude people.

 

The fact remains that scripture does not specify the number of pastors - or elders, or whatever - and so one or five is up to the individual church.  As to presbytery, it could very well be likeminded pastors, not just in that particular church.  But then, you are the Bible scholar to end all Bible scholars, so I'm sure you'll point out where I'm wrong.  I'm sure you'll give scripture to show where it says there has to be more than one pastor.  Starting a church with a committee...what could go wrong there? 

[swathdiver]

If I walked up to my pastor and told him I had a message to preach tonight (prophesy), I'm pretty sure he'd tell me to start my own church!

 

In the Scriptures and all through history we have examples of biblical New Testament Churches with Christ as head and shepherded by a Pastor.  The level of authority and control a pastor assumes would be a more profitable discussion I believe.

[prophet1]

If I walked up to my pastor and told him I had a message to preach tonight (prophesy), I'm pretty sure he'd tell me to start my own church!

In the Scriptures and all through history we have examples of biblical New Testament Churches with Christ as head and shepherded by a Pastor. The level of authority and control a pastor assumes would be a more profitable discussion I believe.

Show me "a pastor" as in one guy, "In the Scriptures".

This is all.

The reason that I am called "rude", is because the truth has devolved into
"what we've always practiced".

But "what we've always practiced" got interfered with by the Protestants for the last 500 years.



Anishinaabe

[AVBibleBeliever]

I was looking for where Paul appointed pastors in every church?

 

Or where he told timothy and Titus to appoint pastors in every church?

 

And I looked for where Paul gave instructions and requirements to be a Pastor but I found none.

 

 

Paul did appoint elders in every church.

 

Paul commanded Timothy and Titus to appoint elders in every church

 

And there is instruction and requirements given for any man that wants to be an elder, a bishop and a deacon.

 

But not one on Pastor.

 

 

Because Pastor is an appointment, ability and an office is given by Jesus Christ via the Holy Ghost and not by any man.

[HappyChristian]

No. The reason you were called rude is because you were rude. But let's move on...

Still waiting on scripture that commands plurality and condemns singular...

[swathdiver]

Show me "a pastor" as in one guy, "In the Scriptures".

This is all.

The reason that I am called "rude", is because the truth has devolved into
"what we've always practiced".

But "what we've always practiced" got interfered with by the Protestants for the last 500 years.



Anishinaabe

 

I don't care if you're rude or not.  I went farther back then the protestants, back to the first baptist churches.

 

You fellas sure believe in some strange doctrines...

[prophet1]

No. The reason you were called rude is because you were rude. But let's move on... Still waiting on scripture that commands plurality and condemns singular...

You keep missing the point. Every example, given in the NT, is of a presbytery. In one verse, the word is even used. The burden of proof then lies with the ones who teach otherwise. If we allow the Scriptures to actually be our Final Authority in all Matters of Faith and Practice, then we would know what this means: Rev 2:6 6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. Rev 2:15 15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. As opposed to this: 1Ti 4:14 14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. And this: Act 20:17,28 17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church. 28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. And this: Phi 1:1 1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons: Anishinaabe

[HappyChristian]

I'm not missing the point...you seem to keep missing mine.  Where is the command?  Where is the condemnation?

 

As to presbytery, who's to say that it can't be a group of likeminded pastors?  

 

To say that a church that has a pastor in contrast to an elder-run church is holding the doctrine of the Nicolaitans is assumption on your part.  There is nothing - nothing - in scripture to indicate that.  

 

Yes, we need to give heed to examples in scripture.  I totally agree with you at that.  But there are a lot of examples in scripture that are not necessarily intended for us to do, but to learn lessons from.  Like when Jesus washed His disciples feet - it's okay to do that, but it isn't necessary.

 

In 1 Timothy 4, Paul is addressing one man.  Not a group...

 

In Acts 20, we see them up all night; we see Paul talking about going from house to house...and they ate together as well.  Do all elder run churches do that?  Nope.  So, that means they are Nicolaitans because they don't follow example...

 

I'm also wondering - it's referred to as church, singular.  But is there any possibility that it's speaking of more than one group?  After all, if he went from house to house, what's to say there weren't people meeting in houses as well. KWIM?

 

"all the saints..." could very well mean more than one group meeting in different parts of Phillipi.  

Deacons were appointed to help serve in the church. They also preached.  But they weren't in charge...

 

Again, there is no command for multiple elders to run a church. Nor is there a condemnation of having just one pastor. 

[Ukulelemike]

And here's the thing. My old church, Lighthouse in San Diego, is a large church. There is a 'Pastor", Doug Fisher, and there are multiple Associate pastors, each one with a specific area of responsibility. And while they DO answer to the pastor, Brother Fisher admits that he rarely knows what is going on in thier areas of responsibility, because he trusts that they are doing things correctly. He doesn't make them give a weekly accounting of each and every decision made, doesn't make them run everything through him-they are each a pastor. They could be considered a group of elders, perhaps. And there are layers of leadership under them, as well. And of course, they are all accountable to the church as a whole.

 

This is not a nicolaitan issue here-they have not conquored the people, which is what the word means. This is what the Catholic church does-they have a heirarchy that determines all truth, a central government that makes all decisions, chooses even the lessons that each church will teach and when, the authorized official prayers-everything. And they rule the people, absolutely. When someone has to pay a person to pray for them, that is a conquorer of the people. They spent centuries conquoring, choosing wh would be king, and who would not. When one rules the king, they conquor the people.

[prophet1]

I'm not missing the point...you seem to keep missing mine. Where is the command? Where is the condemnation?

As to presbytery, who's to say that it can't be a group of likeminded pastors?

To say that a church that has a pastor in contrast to an elder-run church is holding the doctrine of the Nicolaitans is assumption on your part. There is nothing - nothing - in scripture to indicate that.

Yes, we need to give heed to examples in scripture. I totally agree with you at that. But there are a lot of examples in scripture that are not necessarily intended for us to do, but to learn lessons from. Like when Jesus washed His disciples feet - it's okay to do that, but it isn't necessary.

In 1 Timothy 4, Paul is addressing one man. Not a group...

In Acts 20, we see them up all night; we see Paul talking about going from house to house...and they ate together as well. Do all elder run churches do that? Nope. So, that means they are Nicolaitans because they don't follow example...

I'm also wondering - it's referred to as church, singular. But is there any possibility that it's speaking of more than one group? After all, if he went from house to house, what's to say there weren't people meeting in houses as well. KWIM?

"all the saints..." could very well mean more than one group meeting in different parts of Phillipi.
Deacons were appointed to help serve in the church. They also preached. But they weren't in charge...

Again, there is no command for multiple elders to run a church. Nor is there a condemnation of having just one pastor.

About Ephesus:

Act 20:16-18
16 For Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in Asia:for he hasted, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost.
17 And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.
18 And when they were come to him, he said unto them, Ye know, from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons,

Act 20:36-38
36 And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down, and prayed with them all.
37 And they all wept sore, and fell on Paul's neck, and kissed him,
38 Sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake, that they should see his face no more. And they accompanied him unto the ship.

Paul the APOSTLE (different Office), called the presbytery from a church, to have a meeting with him, because he couldnt make it to Ephesus and still get to Penecost.

In the meeting he said this:
Act 20:28
28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Notice the plural Word, overseers.

Ball's in your court.


Anishinaabe

[HappyChristian]

Still not seeing a command for plurality or a condemnation of singular....sorry.

 

FWIW - I have no problem with an elder-led church (as long as it's a church where the congregation also has a voice - an oligarchy is as wrong as a dictatorship).  Nor do I have a problem with a single pastor and deacons - as long as said pastor is not a dictator.  

 

I see what you're saying with the verses, but there is no command there.  There are many things the church today does that the NT did not - and there is no sin in it (although there are things that are....).

[AVBibleBeliever]

Still not seeing a command for plurality or a condemnation of singular....sorry.

 

FWIW - I have no problem with an elder-led church (as long as it's a church where the congregation also has a voice - an oligarchy is as wrong as a dictatorship).  Nor do I have a problem with a single pastor and deacons - as long as said pastor is not a dictator.  

 

I see what you're saying with the verses, but there is no command there.  There are many things the church today does that the NT did not - and there is no sin in it (although there are things that are....).

That is true. The final step is the congregation whether it is elder lead or pastoral led, the church is the people not the meeting place.

[prophet1]

Still not seeing a command for plurality or a condemnation of singular....sorry. FWIW - I have no problem with an elder-led church (as long as it's a church where the congregation also has a voice - an oligarchy is as wrong as a dictatorship). Nor do I have a problem with a single pastor and deacons - as long as said pastor is not a dictator. I see what you're saying with the verses, but there is no command there. There are many things the church today does that the NT did not - and there is no sin in it (although there are things that are....).

If we are to establish the Scripture as our final authority, then we have no right to claim that we are following a Biblical directive, to annoint a senior pastor. Agreed? Anishinaabe

[HappyChristian]

If we are to establish the Scripture as our final authority, then we have no right to claim that we are following a Biblical directive, to annoint a senior pastor. Agreed? Anishinaabe

I'm not sure if I agree with that.  Because, again, there is no directive either way.  SWIM? I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative, nor am I trying to play semantics.  But in something as serious as this, I believe that we have to be careful of saying that it is the only way when plurality is not commanded and singluarity is not condemned.

[prophet1]

I'm not sure if I agree with that. Because, again, there is no directive either way. SWIM? I'm honestly not trying to be argumentative, nor am I trying to play semantics. But in something as serious as this, I believe that we have to be careful of saying that it is the only way when plurality is not commanded and singluarity is not condemned.

I understand, and appreciate your diligence.

Anishinaabe