Paul Chappell - Are You A Servant Leader Or Simply A Ministry Manager?

[prophet1]

I have wanted to ask this question for a long time, prophet1. I am thinking that you consider yourself to be a prophet, as your screen name indicates?

Yes....Scripturally we all are supposed to be:

1Co 14:29-31
29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.


Anishinaabe

[prophet1]

You posted a passage that has nothing to do with telling Timothy not to elevate one leader above another.

Let's have a look at it shall we?

1Ti 5:21 I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou OBserve these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.

The phrase “without preferring one before another” has nothing to do with leadership numbers, but in fact “... that thou OBserve these things without preferring one before another.”
What things? Not Elders...... Elders are not “things”.
Whether the things before or the things after this statement, it is the commands, not “preferring one elder over another”.
That is just not in any way shape or form a right understanding of the grammar and phrasing used.

This is where you use scripture amiss.

You have said I have lied about you, but I have not - I never said what you accuse me of.

You are simply trying to smokescreen so that you do not answer any of the passages that I put up that suggest an individual pastor of a church.

The fact is that you can not provide any definitive verses that absolutely preclude a single Pastor or leader of a church.
There is no such verse, nor passage.

You resort to twisting a verse (1 Timothy 5:21 above) to say what you want it to, but it just doesn't.

You throw the accusation of "Nicolaitan" and add your own definition of this in, but you have no reason to support your assertion that this was the "sin of individual leadership".
You have provided no proof of this understanding because there is none.
The Bible certainly doesn't define it as such.

I can give you 19 separate passages from the epistles alone that indicate an individual man in a leadership position over a church - I have not posted them here because it runs to 10 pages in my word processor.

And there are other passages that show the folly of your argument that I can add to these 19.

But there is no point posting them, because you simply ignore the passages I have pointed to already.

Now keep in mind that a church with multiple Leaders is not in dispute here - There are at least two OBvious examples that are indisputable.

But ONE SINGLE example of an individual in leadership of a church simply blows apart your assertion that a single leader church is unbiblical.

The Biblical position is that there is no designated maximum nor minimum number of men to lead any church.
A church with one pastor can be a biblical church, just as a church with several pastors can be a biblical church.

Your position of being absolutely against an individually led church is not a biblical position.

Both are acceptable.

English grammar isn't your strong suit.

1Ti 5:17-21
17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
21 I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou OBserve these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.

"OBserve these things" means "keep these rules".

Don't quit your day jOB.

Anishinaabe

[DaveW]

You still continue to be rude, and you still continue to use this scripture amiss.

It does not speak against a lone church leader, regardless of how much you try to belittle me.

How about refuting any of the examples I have shown.
Then I will give you another to refute.

Quite simply, no matter what you want to push, you can show no command against a lone leadership church - because there is no such command.

You have mare it up.

[prophet1]

You still continue to be rude, and you still continue to use this scripture amiss. It does not speak against a lone church leader, regardless of how much you try to belittle me. How about refuting any of the examples I have shown. Then I will give you another to refute. Quite simply, no matter what you want to push, you can show no command against a lone leadership church - because there is no such command. You have mare it up.

Earth to Dave... The post that you are responding to, refutes your last point. Your point was..."people aren't things" I pointed out that "things wasnt referring to people, but , rather, instructions. Do you really think that "partiality" applies to the instructions? Well, it doesn't, it refers to the treatment of people. We are not to prefer one elder above the others. So, can we go from there, or are we hung up here? Anishinaabe

[DaveW]

I know what it means, and it doesn't mean what you suggest. Yes it is talking about instructions, as I pointed out, but the instruction has nothinng to do with preferring one person over another.

But I don't care if you ignore this point.
How about addressing anything else I have said.

And maybe even trying it without being rude - or are you incapable of civil discussion?

[DaveW]

How much rudeness is a person allowed to throw in this place before someone tells him off?

He can not substantiate his false teaching, so he turns to trying to belittle me instead of answering the examples I have posted so far.

And he is allowed to continue it.

How is someone supposed to stand up against a false teacher when he is allowed to continually ignore arguments and attack people?

[prophet1]

Dave, honestly, you are biased.

You think you are right, so that makes any suggestion that you are wrong, to be rude.

Telling you this isn't "rude".

Here is reason:
(God uses reason)

If something cannot be proved,
But can be disproved,
It isn't truth.

Plurality of church leadership can be proved, and you've.admitted that, so it remains to be studied.

Singularity of church leadership cannot be proved, only inserted as "possible".
Since we have multiple examples of churches without it, given in Scripture, it can be disproved.

We can legitimately declare a presbytery to be a proper church leadership, because we find it plainly stated.

We cannot declare a human head of the church, because we can't find 1 plain example of it.

Having an epistle addressed to you, doesn't make you the head bishop of a church...again possible, but not provable.

If we drop the preconceived idea that we (IFB ) are right in all of our practices, and hold to the distinctive that the Scripture is the final authority, then we can actually study, rightly dividing.


You show me where we are commanded, instructed, or admonished to choose a single brother to be the human church head, and we can talk. But we both know it isn't there.
In light of this, Nicolaitan, among other words, becomes clearer.

1 Timothy 5 is instructions to a man, at a church with a presbytery leadership (Ephesus), who we know full well was addressed by God as such, from Acts 20.
This same church was commended for hating a thing God hates, in Rev. 2.
The definition of Nicolaitan, is plain, "conquer the people".
We even use the term : "layman", to describe the church members who are not in leadership, so we know what this term means.
We can define the term, Nicolaitan, but we need Scripture to give us the reason it is there.

I believe that it is OBvious that Ephesus had the model church leadership system, and Ephesus is the one Church that we have the most available Scripture on hand, for studying about.

We have Acts, Ephesians, Timothy's 2, and Revelation 2, all there for us to see how to hate the thing which God hates.

Anishinaabe

[DaveW]

No I think you are rude because you say things like:

"But, you can't see that, trying to look cool, reading with sunglasses on."

 

"English grammar isn't your strong suit."

 

"Don't quit your day jOB."

 

And similar things that you say whenever you don't agree with something.

 

As to your explanations - The passage in Timothy is not regarding plurality of leadership.

The language does not say that, nor does it allow it to be applied that way.

 

Nicolaitan has nothing like that definition in Scripture - I wonder where you got it from?

 

Rev 2:1  Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks; 

Rev 2:2  I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: 

Rev 2:3  And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted. 

Rev 2:4  Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. 

Rev 2:5  Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. 

Rev 2:6  But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. 

Rev 2:7  He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. 

 

Where exactly does this passage talk about church leadership?

 

 

 

 

And there are about 19 passages in the epistles that indicate individuals sent to pastor.

 

Even the Church at Jerusalem is indicated to have James as the head of that church (earthly speaking).

 

The point is that it only takes ONE example to destroy your whole premise - and they are there.

 

A biblical church can have one pastor, or many - the number is not important.

 

1Co 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

 

He starts by saying that he has laid the foundation – not we but “I”. Now lest some try to suggest that Paul was not a Pastor (with which I have no argument for the purposes of this study), he then goes on to say “another buildeth thereon”.

It does not say “others” but “another” - this is a singular reference.

Paul expected that an individual man would continue the work of this building.

He does then say “let every man”, but this does not remove the first reference. The expectation of Paul is that another individual man would continue the building, and that there would be more men after that to continue that work – this could easily be multiple at one time, or a succession of men to follow through time. Either understanding of “every man” is entirely acceptable. And Paul again refers in the singular to the building that this man does.

 

2Co 12:18 I desired Titus, and with him I sent a brother. Did Titus make a gain of you? walked we not in the same spirit? walked we not in the same steps?

Paul sent two men, but in naming one and not naming the other, it implies that Titus was the senior, the leader of the two. Paul certainly did not consider them equals or he would have named both of them. This indicates a senior "Partner" which would most certainly be "preferring one" by your faulty definition.

 

Colossians

Col 1:7 As ye also learned of Epaphras our dear fellowservant, who is for you a faithful minister of Christ;

 

This certainly indicates that Epaphras is the Pastor of this church “...for you a faithful minister of Christ;”

It certainly looks like the Colossian church had a man named Epaphras who is the Pastor.

 

 

And to show the folly of your argument that since only plurals are mentioned there must be only plural leaders of churches:

Col 4:1 Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.

Note that in this case, we have multiple masters mentioned for multiple servants, but not one person would ever suggest that this insists on each servant having more than one master.

Compare this to:

Act_14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. 

 

How about you start with those, without being rude and calling names.

 

Remember, I have no prOBlem with multiple leaders of any church.

 

I have a serious prOBlem with your false teaching of absolutely no individual leader churches.

 

You have to make up connections between verses that simply are not there because the Bible does not say what you want it to say.

 

The point is that there is no command either way because it is a non-issue.

But it is not a non-issue to promote a doctrine that is not Biblically supportable.

 

YOU are the one arguing for the exclusion of individual led churches - the burden of proof lies with you.

Not to prove that multiple led churches are acceptable, for that is not in dispute.

 

You MUST prove that individual led churches are not acceptable for that is what you are claiming.

 

But you can't. There is no command to that effect, and there are example suggesting that individual have led churches in the NT.

 

You construct a meaning for Nicolaitan, and then falsely apply it to a verse in Timothy that has nothing to do with numbers of leaders, and this is the basis for your whole argument.

 

 

 

 

 

And by the way, there is no "presbyterian church" that does not have a ruling elder who hold the reins. They may claim they don't but they do.

Someone is always in charge - MacArthur is a prime example - He promotes this idea, but who do people refer to when speaking about the church he attends?

That's right - it's MacArthur's church........

 

So even in a practical sense those who promote this do not hold to it anyway.

They might teach it, but they don't practice it.

 

I have never been involved with any organisation, whereby the committee isn't led by one. Run by committee, committee led by one.

[swathdiver]

It's clear this fellow is walking in the flesh and has shunned the Spirit during this diatribe.

 

Just for fun I have my 12 year old daughter diagram the verses they put forth and curiously, these fellows usually come to wrong conclusions about what they mean. 

[HappyChristian]

Why is there need for rudeness?  Stop it, prophet.  It gains nothing, but it surely loses a lot.  Jabs at people simply because they don't see things your way (and this is for anyone...) are immature, and unChristian.  They need to stop, now.

[prophet1]

You love to put up this false argument.

An argument from silence is no argument..

There is NO SCRIPTURE WHICH DESIGNATES THE NUMBER OF PASTORS THAT A CHURCH MUST HAVE TO BE A SCRIPTURAL CHURCH.

In places of leadership, God has often used a single man to lead, so the precedent is set in God's leadership plan.

And your continual harping on about the plural use of the words is not absolute - some of those uses are speaking of multiple churches.

The ONLY way you can push your line with authority is if you present a verse that says that a single Pastor is not acceptable.

ANY half decent student of language will simply not accept your twisting of this issue.

There are plenty of examples of multiple pastors, but there is no restriction stated, nor even implied on single pastors.

And there are indications that Timothy pastored alone, Titus also, and also Epaphras, as indicated by:
Col 1:7 As ye also learned of Epaphras our dear fellowservant, who is for you a faithful minister of Christ;

These are INDICATIONS of single pastors, not statements - BECAUSE THERE ARE NO STATEMENTS as to how many Pastors a church should have.

And I have studied this out - in depth., before you go accusing me of not knowing or not studying.

Your absolute exclusion of the possibility of a single pastor for a church is biblically unsupportable.

You are studying with a preconceived bias, blinded to the Truth in front of you.


1Ti 5:17-22
17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
21 I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou OBserve these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality. 22 Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins:keep thyself pure.

If you read this passsage, without the Nicolaitan bias, you will understand why God said this (to this church):

Rev 2:6
6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.


"with out preferring one before another"

Sounds like:

1Co 14:29-31
29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

Churches that elevate one elder to headship, cut off the true head, Christ.

Timothy was "charged" not to do this.
There is not one shred of a hint of evidence that any church prior to this had a "lead pastor".
Timothy's church was commended by God for keeping this charge, in Rev. 2.

But, you can't see that, trying to look cool, reading with sunglasses on.

Anishinaabe

I addressed Dave the way he addressed me.

He said I love false arguments, and that I'm a false teacher,
So I told him he is biased and blind, and not the English grammarian he fancies himself to be. Of course, this was after he claimed that my Grammar skills were lacking....

Dave is a coward. He wants to dish out, what he can't take in return, and then hide behind his big brother, when the fight shows up.

Read the whole thread, before you come after me.




Anishinaabe

[prophet1]

No I think you are rude because you say things like:
"But, you can't see that, trying to look cool, reading with sunglasses on."

"English grammar isn't your strong suit."

"Don't quit your day jOB."

And similar things that you say whenever you don't agree with something.

As to your explanations - The passage in Timothy is not regarding plurality of leadership.
The language does not say that, nor does it allow it to be applied that way.

Nicolaitan has nothing like that definition in Scripture - I wonder where you got it from?

Rev 2:1 Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
Rev 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:
Rev 2:3 And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted.
Rev 2:4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
Rev 2:6 But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
Rev 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Where exactly does this passage talk about church leadership?




And there are about 19 passages in the epistles that indicate individuals sent to pastor.

Even the Church at Jerusalem is indicated to have James as the head of that church (earthly speaking).

The point is that it only takes ONE example to destroy your whole premise - and they are there.

A biblical church can have one pastor, or many - the number is not important.

1Co 3:10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

He starts by saying that he has laid the foundation – not we but “I”. Now lest some try to suggest that Paul was not a Pastor (with which I have no argument for the purposes of this study), he then goes on to say “another buildeth thereon”.
It does not say “others” but “another” - this is a singular reference.
Paul expected that an individual man would continue the work of this building.
He does then say “let every man”, but this does not remove the first reference. The expectation of Paul is that another individual man would continue the building, and that there would be more men after that to continue that work – this could easily be multiple at one time, or a succession of men to follow through time. Either understanding of “every man” is entirely acceptable. And Paul again refers in the singular to the building that this man does.

2Co 12:18 I desired Titus, and with him I sent a brother. Did Titus make a gain of you? walked we not in the same spirit? walked we not in the same steps?
Paul sent two men, but in naming one and not naming the other, it implies that Titus was the senior, the leader of the two. Paul certainly did not consider them equals or he would have named both of them. This indicates a senior "Partner" which would most certainly be "preferring one" by your faulty definition.

Colossians
Col 1:7 As ye also learned of Epaphras our dear fellowservant, who is for you a faithful minister of Christ;

This certainly indicates that Epaphras is the Pastor of this church “...for you a faithful minister of Christ;”
It certainly looks like the Colossian church had a man named Epaphras who is the Pastor.


And to show the folly of your argument that since only plurals are mentioned there must be only plural leaders of churches:
Col 4:1 Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.
Note that in this case, we have multiple masters mentioned for multiple servants, but not one person would ever suggest that this insists on each servant having more than one master.
Compare this to:
Act_14:23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.

How about you start with those, without being rude and calling names.

Remember, I have no prOBlem with multiple leaders of any church.

I have a serious prOBlem with your false teaching of absolutely no individual leader churches.

You have to make up connections between verses that simply are not there because the Bible does not say what you want it to say.

The point is that there is no command either way because it is a non-issue.
But it is not a non-issue to promote a doctrine that is not Biblically supportable.

YOU are the one arguing for the exclusion of individual led churches - the burden of proof lies with you.
Not to prove that multiple led churches are acceptable, for that is not in dispute.

You MUST prove that individual led churches are not acceptable for that is what you are claiming.

But you can't. There is no command to that effect, and there are example suggesting that individual have led churches in the NT.

You construct a meaning for Nicolaitan, and then falsely apply it to a verse in Timothy that has nothing to do with numbers of leaders, and this is the basis for your whole argument.





And by the way, there is no "presbyterian church" that does not have a ruling elder who hold the reins. They may claim they don't but they do.
Someone is always in charge - MacArthur is a prime example - He promotes this idea, but who do people refer to when speaking about the church he attends?
That's right - it's MacArthur's church........

So even in a practical sense those who promote this do not hold to it anyway.
They might teach it, but they don't practice it.

I have never been involved with any organisation, whereby the committee isn't led by one. Run by committee, committee led by one.

Thanks for posting the Scripture that prove the point.

Not one of them can be plainly shown to endorse a singular Bishop.
It can be implied either way, to you, because you are looking for it to.

But.....we do have places where the Scriptures plainly show a plurality of leadership.

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.

This is plain, words easy to be understood.


Act 6:2-6
2 Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.
3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude:and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:
6 Whom they set before the apostles:and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.

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:

Phi 4:15
15 Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only.
(For context)

We would do well to follow God's ringing endorsement of the leadership at the church of Ephesus,
Rather than to try to find a possible alternative, that seemingly isnt banned.

Anishinaabe

[DaveW]

I addressed Dave the way he addressed me.

He said I love false arguments, and that I'm a false teacher,
So I told him he is biased and blind, and not the English grammarian he fancies himself to be. Of course, this was after he claimed that my Grammar skills were lacking....

Dave is a coward. He wants to dish out, what he can't take in return, and then hide behind his big brother, when the fight shows up.

Read the whole thread, before you come after me.




Anishinaabe

 

 

I am officially illiterate...... So there. But you have more typing errors than me in this thread........

 

I don't think I am a coward - so far when I have been tested I have stood up - but I haven't been tested in every way, so I can't say definitively.

 

I can say however that you are rude. You have proven that time after time after time.

 

 

 

I attack what you preach - it is false.

 

You attack me......

 

......Again and again - because you can not support your exclusion of individual church leadership.

 

I have never said plural leadership is unbiblical.

 

I gave examples of it - so I am not against it.

 

But you can not prove individual leadership is unbiblical by showing again and again that there are examples of plural leadership.

 

However, ONE example of individual church leadership renders your exclusion of the same unbiblical.

 

I have given you several already and I can give you many more. You made fun of me instead of answering the examples. What does that say?

 

You still haven't explained where your definition of Nicolaitan came from either.

 

Edit to add: it is not cowardice to point out to people when a bully is bullying - or at least trying to.

[HappyChristian]

I addressed Dave the way he addressed me.

He said I love false arguments, and that I'm a false teacher,
So I told him he is biased and blind, and not the English grammarian he fancies himself to be. Of course, this was after he claimed that my Grammar skills were lacking....

Dave is a coward. He wants to dish out, what he can't take in return, and then hide behind his big brother, when the fight shows up.

Read the whole thread, before you come after me.




Anishinaabe

I don't need to read the whole thread. It is a pattern, prophet.  Heed reproof rather than justifying...

[prophet1]

I am officially illiterate...... So there. But you have more typing errors than me in this thread........

I don't think I am a coward - so far when I have been tested I have stood up - but I haven't been tested in every way, so I can't say definitively.

I can say however that you are rude. You have proven that time after time after time.



I attack what you preach - it is false.

You attack me......

......Again and again - because you can not support your exclusion of individual church leadership.

I have never said plural leadership is unbiblical.

I gave examples of it - so I am not against it.

But you can not prove individual leadership is unbiblical by showing again and again that there are examples of plural leadership.

However, ONE example of individual church leadership renders your exclusion of the same unbiblical.

I have given you several already and I can give you many more. You made fun of me instead of answering the examples. What does that say?

You still haven't explained where your definition of Nicolaitan came from either.

Edit to add: it is not cowardice to point out to people when a bully is bullying - or at least trying to.

So give one example, where the Scripture plainly shows that a NT church has only one leader.

You haven't, yet.

Anishinaabe