I so appreciate your perspective on pastoral leadership. I’m seeing many pastors who seem to feel that they alone know the direction for the church and anyone who disagrees or opposes is wrong, led by Satan, or being disruptive.
Pastors are Not perfect as they are human. One pastor, especially a new pastor can ruin a congregation/church. I have witnessed churches being fractured and divided beyond repair. It is sad when a weak leader causes division...
I once heard a pastor say he believed the Holy Spirit spoke to the preacher, and then the preacher would tell the congregation what the Holy Spirit said. Are protestants trading one pope for another? Are all New Covenant believers a member of the "priesthood" in 1 Peter 2:4-10? Who is the "chief cornerstone" in that temple? =================== Which of the Two Baptisms is required for salvation? Water baptism was a part of the Old Covenant system of ritual washing. The Old Covenant priests had to wash before beginning their service in the temple. When Christ was water baptized by His cousin John in the Jordan River, He was under the Old Covenant system. He also only ate certain foods, and wore certain clothes, as prescribed by the 613 Old Covenant laws. Christ was water baptized by John and then received the Holy Spirit from heaven. The order is reversed in the New Covenant. A person receives the Holy Spirit upon conversion, and then believers often declare their conversion to their friends and family through a New Covenant water baptism ceremony. The conversion process is described below. Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, (A person must “hear” the Gospel, and “believe” the Gospel, and will then be “sealed” with the Holy Spirit.) Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (See Jer. 31:34 for the New Covenant promise, and 1 John 2:27 for the fulfillment) ============ Which baptism is a part of the salvation process, based on what the Bible says? What did Peter say below? Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water when they read the word "baptize" in the text. Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage? Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (See 1 Cor. 12:13) “baptize” KJV Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Mar_1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Water or Holy Spirit?, See Eph. 1-13.) Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Joh_1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; Joh_1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 1Co_1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (See Eph. 4:1-5) Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Old Covenant ----> New Covenant) How many people have been saved by the Old Covenant water baptism of John the Baptist? Who did John the Baptist say is the greatest Baptist that ever lived in Luke 3:16? What kind of New Covenant baptism comes from Christ? New Covenant water baptism is a beautiful ceremony which allows new believers to declare their conversion to the whole world.
@@SpotterVideo One of the best posts ever! I actually grow very tired of the short/flippant posts on YT. You simply cannot get quality without some juxtaposition/exposition. THIS is great stuff right here my man. There is a lady named Marianne Manley who has done a 4-part video on Philippians and in one of them (episode 2, I think) she points out that Paul recognized that water baptism had introduced problems and she quotes the verse above ("Christ did not send me to baptize ..."). I've been water baptized and made that public confession. However, that did not save me. I was saved well before that. There are churches using water baptism to pump up their numbers and make it look like they are more productive than they really are (although, it's not about being "productive" it's about QUALITY. Also, regarding the potential of Marianne Manley being a woman preaching: She's doing a YT video. She is not taking authority over any man or leading a congregation or any such thing. I do have a problem with women preaching in a church context. I don't have a problem with a woman making a quality YT video. :)
The best treatment of this topic is a book entitled "Biblical Eldership" by Alexander Strauch. The author makes a very compelling case for a plurality of elders.
And you should read the many other authors that speak of a plurality of pastors/elders yet, and still appreciating that needs to be a lead. As Dr. Rogers would say anything with multiple heads is a freak and anything with no head is dead.
Question: where I’m from plurality of pastors is no where to be found! I have noticed when one brings to accountability a pastor, afterwards you are looked like the bad guy. What shall one do?
I knew, and very much respected Dr. Rogers immensely, however on this subject, I believe his illustration is not applicable to this situation. How would he explain his good friends church, FBC Jacksonville, which had two senior pastors for many years, Dr. Vines and Dr. LIndsay.
@@TheReader6 What he says is not scriptural. The question is not whats the best way (for the pastor) but what is biblical and teh early churches were never led by one pastor but by a group of elders and you can't twist teh scripture for convenience sake or your own benefit - Timothy and Titus (were not teh leader of teh churches) but brought teh letters from Paul and they had teh apostolic anointing given by Paul to choose elders and he always appointed not one but a group of elders (thats teh way it shoudl be, one Apostel who appoints elders and teh elders have to give account to him or at least oen Apostel should be there if teh concregation has any complaints against one elder-1 tim 5 ). If all elders are spirit filled and all hear from God you do not need one leader but you are all in one accord but there is still too much egoistic and self-serving motives . Why should there be multiple voices as mentioned in teh video if all have teh same spirit? Pastors consider chucrhes too often as their personal kingdom and do not want to give up their power and recognition
I find Hershael York's points about Timothy and Titus to be very weak. These men were in the special situation of being set a task by Paul, an apostle, to appoint multiple elders in each of the churches. Their situation can't legitimately be used to say that there is a place for single-leader churches today. The standard pattern in the New Testament is of multiple leaders in each church. This is exactly what we would expect to find anyway. Every church leader has gaps in his understanding and makes mistakes in his judgment, and having multiple leaders makes it easier for the mistakes of one man to be corrected by the others.
I agree with Hershael York that in the New Testament the terms poimen ('shepherd'), episkopos ('overseer') and presbuteros ('elder') are referring to the same office.
@@tnowandthen-t8t OK, a few points. First, I prefer the label 'shepherd' rather than 'pastor', since the Greek noun poimen, found in Eph 4:11 with reference to church leaders, was the standard word for a shepherd in the first century. We can lose sight of the metaphorical nature of this Greek word by translating as 'pastor'. This is admittedly a minor point. Second, you are certainly right that being a shepherd is a gift. Eph 4:7-11 makes that clear. Third, there are biblical passages that connect overseers/elders with the verb poimainein, which means 'to shepherd' (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:1-2). So, given that overseers/elders shepherd their flocks, it is certainly fine to say that they are shepherds. And this noun is found in Eph 4:11 anyway. Fourth, there is an issue here of semantics. It depends on exactly what we mean by the word 'office'. But if we take 'office' to mean a role that someone performs in the church (as I think most people would take it), then some Christians have the role of shepherd. So under that definition, we can say that there is the office of shepherd. So I think it is fine to say that 'shepherd' (or 'pastor', if you insist on using that term) can be described as both a gift and an office. And this office is the same as the office of overseer/elder.
@@maxaplin4204 "Third, there are biblical passages that connect overseers/elders with the verb poimainein, which means 'to shepherd' (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:1-2). So, given that overseers/elders shepherd their flocks, it is certainly fine to say that they are shepherds. " Yes, these are the offices that are told to do the work of shepherding. That does not make shepherd an office. "And this noun is found in Eph 4:11 anyway." Yes, in a list of gifts to the Church by her ascended Head. There is nothing here about offices or even about church government.
@@tnowandthen-t8t I think the heart of the issue here is a matter of semantics. If we define 'office' as a role that a person in a church performs, then I would see gift and office as two sides of the same coin. And I think it is natural to understand the word 'office' in that way. How are you defining 'office'?
You can have a plurality of elders with one of the elders serving as the Senior Pastor who handles the lion share of the teaching and preaching. He is the defacto "Leader" of the church but when seated at the table with the rest of the elders, he may be "First among Equals" but is an equal just the same with an equal voice, equal vote, and mutual accountability. As a Baptist, I believe that Pastors and Elders are synonymous although each may fill differing roles (elders that rule, elders that teach, Etc.) but the qualifications are the same and anyone filling the office of an elder should have adequate theological training and not just someone who is a businessman and a faithful Christian. One of the big pluses of such a model is that the elders will have Senior Pastor's back as well as looking out for the best interest of the congregation. Also, whenever a "Policy" needs to be enacted which may not be popular among some, the Senior pastor can say that "This is coming from the elders" of which he is one. Our church is elder-led but it is also clear who fills the role of the senior pastor.
I've seen too many churches get shipwrecked by Pastor-alone rule. Technically they're "congregation-led", but the body just rubber stamps the Pastor's wishes. There's no restraint, no counsel, no wisdom. The longer such a pastor is left alone, the more he will be tempted to see himself as the lone ranger and any resistance to his will as rebellion against God. I've seen it happen to very good men. It got so bad with one that he eventually tried to evict the congregation from the church building! Another one was so frustrated with his people that he began skimming money and when confronted simply skipped town. Pastor-alone-led churches place ministers into impossible temptations and into dire spiritual distress. Good ministers need good elders to work alongside and push back wisely. Benevolent dictatorships are great until the benevolent one passes on.
Good teaching! Pastor lead and elder lead are both found in Scripture. The main thing is for Christ to always be the head of His church in any type of hierarchy in the church.
Most of the NT books that were written to churches were written to the elders, plural. Timothy and Titus were Paul's missionary helpers that he left behind to finish the work of appointing a group of elders to run the church. We have run into all kinds of accountability and serious sin problems with a 1 man at the top model. The elders need to hold any other elders or pastors accountable for their personal walks with the Lord and their teachings and decisions. I attended an elder led church, and it was the safest I have been in. I grew up in the Congregational model, and have spent a lot of my life in the Episcopal (1 man at the top) model. But I far prefer the Presbyterian (elder led) model. The elders should have the authority to override the pastor and to make him step down if he is in sin. However my particular pastor has lived a very transparent life in front of us. But my experience with the Episcopal model hasn't always been that way. In multiple cases, churches split over abusive tactics coming from men who had been taught in cultish groups.
The big weakness in Churches these days is when a church congregation regards their pastor as a “hired employee” rather than a fellow member and an integral part of the church! Pastors therefore come and go and see the smaller congregations as “stepping stones” as they progress in their career to bigger and better things. This is where so many congregations with a single lead pastor becomes a (unbiblical) “deacon led” church because the deacons (who may be reluctant to fill such a role) are the only semblance of stability in a local church. When you have a plurality of elders, this puts the leadership back into the right place and the elders are integral to this leadership and are not going anywhere! I believe there are elders who rule and elders that teach. They have different roles but fill the same office and together, provide oversight of the flock. One of these elders may be the key spokesman or “leader” of the congregation, but among the elders, they are “first among equals” and in an elder meeting, he is one of the elders whose vote and voice is the same as the others sitting around the table. Among those sitting on the elder board who meet the proper qualifications but have secular professions. The elder board shouldn’t be comprised primarily of “paid staff” who, like the senior pastor, are “Professional Christians” who have ecclesiastical “career aspirations!”
I appreciate the topic, I am leaning toward pastor led because many pastors have a great vision from god for their churches and an elder led congregation sometimes makes it difficult to accomplish the god given goal.
Shepherds/pastors is refering to Old Covenant but with the same goal, to take care for people of God, Ezekiel 34. When apostle Paul is writting to Timothy, he didnt say go there and there and apoint apostles, pastors, prophets, evangelists. He say: elders! Plurality of not only elders but the all Church, because everyone have gifts and talents to build the Body to maturity in and of Jesus Christ. This is missing today big way. Greets from Croatia
I personally prefer a church led by a group of no-salary elders. If the church is not growing, we have no one to blame but ourselves. One question: Are the church leaders in the Bible got paid a monthly salary? Or they all had to live on faith as everyone else?
@@RockyTopSplash Getting paid a wage is not a problem, its the interpretation. If the average wage of the congregation is $25,000 a year, should the pastor be making $100k. If Steven in the book of Acts was getting paid $1/hour than I guess you can give the Apostles $2 an hour. Double portion, not wealthy portion. It will all be subjective but I've been to several mega churches and know people in the administrative offices and its insane. Lead Pastor is making about $300,000k plus bonuses, 401k, health insurance, etc. Worship Pastors which is a joke, are making $150,000 plus all the worship team get a little something. $7 million dollar budgets and 70% is for staff and other expenses. Does anyone really think that if any of the apostles were alive today, they would except the economic structure of today's churches. No way. It's a business. Go to cemetery school, graduate and start applying for jobs and then keep trying to work your way up bouncing from church to church. That is the worldly model. Should pastors get paid, YES. Are most churches run as businesses, YES. Thats why the best model is several elders that all have jobs. If any is hurting financially and the church can provide, it should.
A problem with the final say belonging to a single man [the lead pastor], is that if a lead pastor becomes really old [or sick mentally], and starts to not make sense, or be confused in his teaching, the other pastors/board can ask him to retire, but if he holds the power in the final decision, then he can refuse them while thinking he is fine, and it's the others who have the problem, then he can go on to confuse people while thinking he is doing right. For this reason I think the final say should be held by a board/pastors, and not with a single lead pastor.
I think a lot would depend on how a church set up its by-laws. I belong to a very small church where practically everyone is either an elder or deacon. Our pastor retired facing health issues, though is still a part of the church. We're attempting the elders model, but none have any knowledge of what an elder does. Most people think elders handle the budget and remodels and monthly bills. But in scripture, I read that elders are supposed to devote time to the word, prayer and fasting b/c they are supposed to concern themselves with the SPIRITUAL growth and direction of the church...and to discipline if need be, provide godly counsel and to be on the lookout for younger men God is raising up to help the church. As it stands, they will argue over what color to paint the fellowship hall.
@@kristenspencer9751 there should be a handful of elder leaders and each will one of the gifts from Ephesians. Pastor/teacher, prophet, evangelist etc. Elders should be mature in the faith and should be able to hear from God and lead by the spirit. They should submit to one another. Any disciples coming under them will see this structure and they will learn from them and also be able to replicate. The disciples will voluntary submit to the elder that they are naturally inclined to while the elder will simultaneously pour into the disciple. This submission can be withdrawn at any time. Each elder should have proper relationships with each of their disciples for their learning to be effective. I mean everyone has their way but singular Pastors are not scriptural whatsoever. This falls more on line with the old covenant whereas in the new covenant we all share in the same spirit no one above another
Also, referring to Timothy and Titus as pastors/elders of churches, is in my opinion a reach as they are apostles (apostellos) sent as apostolic representatives of Paul' and his apostolic ministry to the churches.
It's really simple - take money out of the church and 90% of the problems go away. Just tell the members of the body to give whatever the Holy Spirit tells them and/ or where they see a need as they go about their lives. Who wants to be in charge of something that isn't "making" money - that is when the you'll see the true heart of Christ shine thru an individual.
sir this is dangerous. i serve under a dictatorship (one man with all the power) and it hasnt gone good out of every pastor ive sat under even though im young in the Lord. to say there is one person with the final say is essentially a recipe that says it doesnt matter what the flock or other leaders are saying. who will sit the man down when he is in error?
I will have to come back to listen to this as I don't have time presently. However, I've been active in both pastor/elder led assemblies. BOTH have the problems and advantages. It really depends on the individuals in charge. I prefer elder led who are elected by the congregation. I was in such a church for 15+ yrs until a new pastor came in and began to push out the old and put in his own elders (yes men). Eventually the church died. The best head elder I've ever known and served with was sent via registered mail that he was being evicted. I truly fear some pastors ( and some elders) when they stand before the Lord. To whom much is given, much is expected.
Pastors should be amongst wise counsellors they cannot lead alone, however that can be selective to whom they listen to so long as they do not disrupt the vision.
I was part of the Calvary Chapel movement. I was an assistant pastor for 12 years. Pastor led makes the pastor into the dictator. Elder led churches are biblical. There needs to be a balance of power. Absolute power is not good for any church. Calvary chapel elders and the church board are just yes men to the pastor. The pastor I served either was very paranoid and always worried someone else would receive recognition. Narcissism is definitely prevalent in this type of ministry.
From Calvary Chapel too. Was a youth pastor. Can agree 💯 my pastor was very paranoid of being up seated. Most people that were kicked out was because of minor differences and were elders.
Whew, I added another positive "thumbs-up" to remove the "666" designation. I might not be worth much but I can say that I moved the article into the good range! 😀 When I was a young pastor, I met another pastor who led a group of elders who met with him monthly and discussed major church matters, advising him. All were biblically qualified, as this pastor encouraged elders to be, but each of them, in order to remain as elders in that church, had to display in print with their fellows a list of people they had presented the gospel to, how much money they gave to the church, and other matters important to show that they were faithful in their roles as elders. Those items are not exclusive, of course, but they are a good start in determining whether an elder is serious about serving the Lord and his church or whether he's just an empty vessel who wants to dominate someone.
I always will bring up the question of "What does the Holy Spirit do then", and I am serious. We need to rely on H.S.Totally! Check out 'Christian Origins' by Christopher Rowland. good insight to this. But Amen too for Christ led people
There Are Many . The True Church Of Christ will never stop moving forward until Christ's Return.The Traditions of a particular body ,subject to scripture,Influence How this is Fleshed Out. Churches Need Leaders ,Led By Jesus Christ ,Informed By the Holy Bible,Inspired By the Holy Spirit
Thank you for this video Dr. York. I know it will help people think about biblical leadership models. I'm a proponent of plural elder leadership in the church. However, I found your statement that failure rates are similar between one pastor vs. plural elder bodies to be very compelling. Investigating the reasons for this would be fascinating. I would hypothesize that in many churches today with plural elder leadership, the lead pastor is still considered "first among equals," and therefore still has too much power. Couple this with the fact that the lay elders frequently have little or no training to serve in that capacity, and you have a formula for failure. Thanks again for the content you put on this channel and blessings to you.
Another way to look at the problems in churches is that their problems are not their structure of leadership, but who they chose to fill those positions within their structure.
Looking about in today's churches, one will find a weakness created by multiple voices directing in different directions. Quickly it is obvious something is not correct. Whether titles include, but not limited to, pastor, deacon and/or elder . Southern Baptist generally congregations include a deacon board. In "some" of these situations it is apparent that the deacons govern the church direction in decisions of importance. Truck drivers, businessmen, factory workers and others take their role to become an equal to what should be the role of pastor. How many shepherds are there in a flock? Who has the over all responsibility to the congregation? If anyone has a problem with "one" then my thoughts are that those with that problem are having a struggle when Jesus is proclaimed the Head of the Church also. And, that needs immediate addressing! Either there is one head or the church is struggling within chaos. A man called of God, moves along a path enriched with prayer, and studies to become, in God's eyes, the Shepard. thank you for your video pastor. Rev JDH
Hello, just came across your video. Seen it in my scroll a few times. Decided to take a listen, looking forward to hear more and grow more in humility and enlighten to understand the church life.
I agree with much of what Dr. York says. However, having worked overseas, I know many communities of faith that have been harmed by taking this model too far. I can't even count the number of times I've heard Psalm 105:15 (Do not touch God's anointed) preached as a command not to criticize the pastor. All systems need both accountability and strong singular leadership. The vagueness of these structures in the book of Acts is perhaps God's allowance that there is some room to adapt to different culturally appropriate models in different contexts.
I prefer a to worship where there is a group of evangelists as the elders of the church. I've been to church where there is a supposed "lead pastor" and it was almost nauseating how some members practically worshipped the ground the ground they walked on. *I find it interesting that **9:07* he's explaining how he never does anything autocraticly, yet proceeded to "I don't think I have". Well, which is it?
James gave a summary after the apostles discussed extensively what should be done. Claiming James as the dominant leader at Jerusalem church had no proof from the scripture. It’s true that Paul wrote to Timothy alone and to Titus alone, but they were NOT elders in a local church but traveling evangelists. So this doesn’t support the model of a single dominant pastor leading a local church. In fact, the Jerusalem church was governed by a group of leaders, especially the apostles even though James was also a leader.
I have have seen pastors being the sole head of the church escape accountability too often. My previous church in Japan for example. He cheated on his wife, and sold his body to strangers for money. He confessed to one person about it but refused to confess. His wife didn’t want to be disgraced and left jobless so she covered for him. And they both lied to the congregation and are currently still “the head of the church” it’s disgusting and wrong. There should never be one single head but multiple equal heads of the church.
100% agreed. Where is the scriptural basis for one man leading a church even with support leaders? The early churches were planted with co-leaders. One submitting to another. Disciples can come in and learn from the structure and this can be replicated many times over. One guy falls the others can raise him up again. It’s too dangerous for there to be one leader. I actually think this is one of the biggest travesties to do with the faith for too many years
So, in an elder council with a lead-pastor, or in a plural elder council, how does the congregation make decision? Do they finalize with a vote all that the elder council (regardless of whether a lead pastor exists or not) agrees on or only certain things?
There is no biblical authority for anything less than a plurality of elders. As for the title pastor led church vs an elder led church, pastor and elder are the same thing. It’s too bad that so many people lack biblical knowledge.
Context is also a little different considering in the early church they were apostles. And Timothy and Titus I like missionaries going around planting Churches.......
The problem with pastor-led churches is that even though the intention is not for one single pastor making all the decisions, the reality is that it ends up that way. Pastor-led churches lead to celebrity culture in the church and the lead pastor being a "one man show".
I don't understand York's reasoning in this video. He says towards the end "it has to be biblical" and "what do we actually see in the Bible" but then seems to follow a model based on an interpretation of ONE verse (Revelation 1:16) guessing as to what the "7 stars in the hand represent" while ignoring (in the sense of valuing the ONE verse) multiple PASSAGES that talk about a multiple elder-led model. This looks like an attempt to support his preferred model (and what he's always known) rather than the biblical model supported by multiple scriptures in the New Testament. Just because something seems to work better in the eyes of man does not mean it's correct or biblical and it does not mean it's a better model than the one given to us in scripture. As a fellow "pastor/elder/overseer" I am one of 8 Elders although I serve in the role of "the key leader" (1 Timothy 5:17) but unlike MacArthur there are times I think we should do something but the majority of the Eldership is not in agreement and then we don't move forward because I am but 1 of 8 in the leadership and I must humble myself (very valuable exercise for all "key leaders" to learn and continually practice) and submit to the Elderships authority (again key to being a spiritually healthy leader) believing that God is moving through us as a combined group and that the group's wisdom is greater than my individual wisdom. So I don't think a biblical model is being promoted in this video and I believe it's a model open to much more temptation for "the key leader". P.S. (personal opinion based on current cultural climate) - Simply considering modern-day ministry staff in the American church pastors/elders simply because they meet the qualifications of Elder I also believe is dangerous because it has become a profession in many ways. A vast majority of ministers have the desire to move ministries to pursue (perceived) greater opportunities if they arise and don't plan to be lifelong shepherds of that flock. So the mindset of the individual minister makes a big difference in rather they should be considered an Elder. So 1 Timothy 3:1 comes into play when it references "if someone aspires to be". Just my personal thoughts.
I completely agree! Let us not give place to the enemy who can easily overcome the "one" elder for he knows how to tempt us. I have read all the comments and have not seen it raised, so I will. Did not Christ choose 12? Train them up? Set them over the church? When one reads Acts the language is clearly showing the one submitting to the group of equivalent leaders. Look at Paul's return to Jerusalem and his report to the other Apostles, not one, but many. Does not church history show us the danger of such thinking. The church in Rome making itself over all the other churches. No, he is clearly wrong...
So here is a question. My church has fewer members than most churches have staff. Nearly everyone is related and the leadership has very little interest in accountability. As a result we have an extremely high turn over of pastors and many of of members have disconnected (ie we cannot find Sunday school teachers, small group leaders, or volunteers for programs). On top of that elders are voted on by popularity and familial history. Those of us who have joined the church but do not have a history here are kept from holding office and silenced when we wish to speak at meetings. There is a great deal of hurt in this church but it is ignored and the hurt is perpetuated. We have maybe four years left before we are bankrupt but it seems like the desire for real change and biblical discipline among the leadership is unlikely to ever happen. I'm a PK who has seen this before and I hate to see what is happening here. I love the church of God but I'm frustrated with the apathy here. I don’t want to be a church hopper because I believe that is just as cancerous to the family of God as what I am seeing right now. I don't disagree with this video and I've seen both methods of leadership be powerfully used as well as abused. So what are my options? Our conference seems to be supporting the abusive and fractured leadership we are under and our pastor was fired only a few months ago for challenging the leadership on this very point.
Yes this is correct as the organization or group of Christians in that area . That organizational concept didn’t start in the New Testament. Go back some years. To when Moses was leading the children of Israel out of Egypt. Remember the discussion, that he and his father-in- law had in reference, to his leadership of the whole group?. And remember all they are writing to and knowledge being passed on is not of their own valuation !
This is a critical topic with many erroneous problems. It starts with the fact that the word "pastor" is not a clear distinct definition in Scripture. Man has made it up and likely by Pastors. The word in Eph 4 is 'pastor-teacher'. It seems many in that role seem to think they live under a chrome dome of untouchableness. But that attitude is also prevalent with Elders. It carries with it huge job description errors by pastors and by the sheep or congregants. If we collectively removed the word PASTOR from our vocabulary and replaced it with SHEPHERD, it would clear up a lot of expectations.
Totally disagree I’m afraid. Leadership in the early church was always plural. The reason why the pastorals were written to individuals was because they were apostolic assistants. That was a temporary, transitional phase towards eldership.
I feel the missing piece in all of this the Holy Spirit. A modern issue, relevant to topic is, with churches now, the ever present covert narcissist. When they end up being the pastor, who personally head up every out-reach, ministry, worship, & groups, all leaders with a voice are women, no mens group, no salvation gospel just love, one elder (an overly busy, preoccupied man), likes to talk about how much work they are doing during the week, money mismanagement, gossip & flying monkeys ... you get the picture, i was reliving it for a minute there
His argument is the ends justify the means. God’s word is clear on a plurality of elders. His comment that was the most revealing is that a pastor led system is “more pragmatic”. That doesn’t justify it biblically.
Advice on the biblical word in comparison to the Southern Baptist Creed against alcohol and tobacco. I believe in the Word, so if a verse states that alcohol and tobacco are forbidden, I am seeking these verses. The stance on deacons also, knowing the SBC stance would eliminate Jesus and Saul. Thanks for considering a discerning question.
I was surprised to hear that John MacArthur was defending a plurality of elders leadership model. I don't follow him closely, but he seems to be the one making decisions at his church. I'm not saying he doesn't have other clergy in his church who advise him and hold him accountable. I certainly hope he does. But, from what I can see, he seems to be the one making the final decisions.
I believe John MacArthur is the "face" of those decisions ,but has Men of God Around Him that he consults,polls, prays and searches the scriptures with.
@@tonkatruck1968 Obviously, he has people around him. I already acknowledged that. That is not the same as a plurality of elders. Is he not the one ultimately making the decisions? Or is the authority and responsibility spread out?
I appreciate many of the things brought out in this video. I don't agree with the "one man at the center" approach (right around the 6 : 50 - 7 : 10 point). If that man gets compromised, he can ruin the whole congregation. It's a death trap. I've watched many a "the one man" guy slowly turn church into his personal little cash-cow playground and all of the idolatry that goes with that. In fact, this is a huge problem in American church today. There is safety in numbers and in a multitude of counselors. The "one man" you see in Scripture as the point for church (and specifically for the Gentiles) is the Apostle Paul, a man with deep sufferings in the Gospel. Any situation where there is "one man" that doesn't involve deep sufferings in the Gospel is a DEATH WISH and a setup for the enemy. Now his work load is reduced to one man, not many. He can use this to make his game more time-efficient. He can use that man's old nature in Adam to spoil and shipwreck a congregation. Yes, now he can work on the "Saul" (of the Old Testament) (a picture of the "old man" Eph 4) in that man and get him building monuments to himself rather than God. The express proof and evidence that Paul the Apostle was building monuments to God was his deep sufferings in the Gospel. This was also the express proof of a man shining on a stage of God's design and ordainment (by the mediation of the indwelling Christ), not sinning on a stage of his own making and ordainment. I've heard that "angel of the church" thing before being equated with a pastor and I don't necessarily see that as the pastor. If it were pastor, I think the text would simply say so. I have heard people quote Acts 20 interpreting the "elders" as the pastors. That's another stretch. The text there says presbuteros (elders, not pastors). In fact, in Acts 20 when Paul calls the Ephesian presbuteros and has his dutch-uncle talk with them, it shows the wisdom of safety in numbers. If he had called one man to himself, that one could completely distort the conversation and put all kinds of words in Paul's mouth and come back with a story of the transaction that fit his own agenda. What is said in the sight of many is far safer than what is said one on one. In fact, part of Paul's talk with the elders indicates that even among the believers, men would rise up speaking perverse (or twisted) things to draw disciples after themselves. Interesting side note, Paul opens that whole conversation with the Ephesian elders by reminding them of ... drum roll ... his sufferings in the Gospel. See the pattern?
I think York's interpretation of the angels (Greek: angelos) of the churches in Rev 1-3 is very problematic. Firstly, we do much better to take the word to mean angels than messengers. Elsewhere in Revelation, this Greek word always refers to heavenly beings, and that seems the most natural interpretation in chs. 1-3 also. Furthermore, it looks quite strange to speak about messengers of churches without any context being given of messengers being sent. Secondly, if we take the angels to be symbolic of church leaders, the parallelism with the lampstands looks very strange. In Rev 1:20 Jesus interprets the stars and lampstands as angels and churches. So the lampstands are simply symbolic of the churches, with a single step of interpretation. However, if the stars are the angels, which in turn are the church leaders, there is a second step of interpretation, which looks very strange in combination with the lampstands simply having a single step of interpretation.
Jesus named Peter as the head of the Church (Mt 16:16-18), and Protestant scholars confirm that yes, Peter is the rock in that context. Paul named Timothy as the first Bishop of Ephesus. Onesimus succeeded him. Titus was the first bishop of Crete. And Tertullian tells us: "[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]). The structure of the one Church built by Jesus has been Bishop > Priest > Deacon from the very beginning.
Most of our churches are not pastor led or elder led. Most of them are deacon rule churches. In older churches, there's no way to change this other than being a successful pastor for a decade or more. Even then, it's hard to convert a church from being deacon ruled.
Start over. Toss out what you think you know on the subject. Go see what Scripture says. Just that. You will have to work hard to not allow your preconceptions into the text. Let the text teach you. Pay attention to that word, "pastor", and see of whom it is said, in what context it is said, and whether it is used as a noun or a verb. Pay attention to WHERE is used as a noun or a verb. If you do that, you will never come up with the idea of a "pastor as CEO" that has ruled the church for centuries. It's not in the text. It gets read INTO the text.
Dear Southern Seminary/Pastor Well, Why does there seem to be one leader (James) in the case of the Jerusalem counsel ? Well, when there is a group/committee making the decision, there should be one that leads the group in a process to effectively, efficiently make a decision in a orderly manner. The name we call this leader is not really important (some call him a chairman, or facilitator, lead elder etc.). it is the role he has in leading to the decision. His "vote" is no more or less than the others, but he does have a role in drawing the decision to a conclusion. In Acts 15:19 James says "Therefore my judgment ...." - he expresses his perspective which after hearing the evidence, the others are also probably in agreement. Later we hear about the decision in Acts 15:28: "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us ..." There is no mention of James, or of James as making the decision - it was the Holy Spirit and "us" (which would include James and all the others). There is one person that leads the group in making the decision, but the decision is made by the leaders (plural). Yes, it is clear ! Paul (note: an Apostle of Jesus Christ to an elder of a local church) writes to Timothy and Titus. Where does it say that Paul has invested sole authority as an elder in either Timothy or Titus ?? I would suspect that your conclusion on this issue is interpreted in the context of your presuppositions. Paul obviously knew Timothy and Titus and there is nothing wrong with an Apostle of Jesus Christ to give guidance and information to some elders he specifically and personally knows to relate to the other elders in these churches. This would not imply that Paul considered them to have more authority than other elders. Nothing of that idea is stated or even implied ! My Experience of Church Leadership I grew up in a church that was lead by a singular pastor, but as I read the Scriptures, I began to see problems with this idea and could see that it was not a practical, effective or, efficient thing to do, from a logical or Scriptural perspective. I moved to another city to go to seminary, and attended an independent, evangelical church which was elder lead. There I saw an incredibly, wonderfully organized body of leadership. There were two full time Elders/Pastors 1. One was the Teaching Elder who often did the teaching on Sunday and on some other times. He also lead the Elders in the process of making decisions. With extensive seminary training, he was well versed in theology and ministry. 2. The other full time Pastor was the Elder of the Youth Program and Family Ministry. He also had seminary training. The other elders were either part time or volunteer (Volunteer were usually retired). 3. We had an Elder of counseling, in which he had training in Counseling and Guidance. He and the full time pastor, did most of the in house counseling of the body. 4. We had and Elder in Christian Education. He was very well on top of educational processes and educational curriculum issues (retired military with education background). He headed up the educational and training programs of the church, including training of teachers. 5. We had an Elder of Evangelism and Missions. He supervised the evangelistic programs and trained people in various forms of evangelism. He was also responsible for missions programs, education and the representative of the church to the missionaries. Missions was a significant interest of the church. (he received part time pay). 6. We had an Elder of Worship. He was responsible for the church music program and special worship events. He was also a seminary professor of music and worship. 7. We had an Elder of Finances and Facilities. He was the overseer of the deacons (deacons who attended to the practical matters of the church, so the elders could attend to the spiritual matters - a scriptural perspective) , which had responsibilities over the facilities, the bookkeeping, assuring that these practical matters supported the ministries of the church. Each elder took their responsibilities as if it was their occupational career, with great dedication. Each elder was also the leader of a shepherding group, of which all the members of the church was assigned to one of the groups. These elders also trained apprentices, so others could be experienced to take their place if needed, and when the time comes to have new elders. Each elder realized the strength of having elders who were were well trained in each of their areas of supervision, so no one person was expected to be a superman. The load of leadership was spread out in a very effective way. The interaction and coordination between the various elders and their responsibilities was really the strength of this organization. After observing this wonderful (and Scriptural) leadership model (and participating in a internship there) I cannot imagine any leadership model as being more effective or more Scripturally based as this one, lead by these godly men of God. Be Well, DZ
With all respect, I feel like there was a sloppy approach here with words. What is the difference between "Elder Lead" and "Elder Rule"? And as some have said, a plurality of men, regardless of "title" is necessary.
Where do you get that Timothy was a 'pastor'? It all rests on tradition. In the 1800's, letters to Timothy and Titus came to be called 'pastorals', but they aren't called pastors. There is a church tradition that Timothy was the bishop in Ephesus, but is that an anachronistic practice of calling an early apostle in the city an elder? Was Peter the first bishop in Rome? The scriptures themselves, if we don't accept the KJV titles of books, do not call Timothy a pastor, bishop, or elder. In fact, He was to appoint such leaders. Titus, also, is not called a pastor or bishop in scripture. He was told to appoint elders in every city then given bishop requirements. I Timothy 1:1 and 2:6-7 indicate that Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy were apostles of Christ. Apostles appointed elders... more than one of them. Interpreting James comment and the fact that the letter reflected it as James being the pastor and the boss may also be a bit of eisegesis. The letter indicates this is what they believed that this is what seemed good to all of them and the Holy Spirit.
The lampstand being your argument for 1 leader when no scholar I can think of agrees with you and that statement being in contradiction to the rest of scripture especially since at that time there were no single leaders in the church is astonishing. People if you can not see this is unbiblical you will miss much more, the safeguard for church leadership is unity in christ as christ is the head, chirst should be leading. if that is not the case is it the church of jesus christ or the southern baptist church? The safegaurd for prophecy is unity it christ the phrophecies are to be tested, and prophets are appointed by God in the church second after apostles, where are your prophets? The southern baptist movement was birthed in pride and self seeking the branch being slavery in opposition to Gods word and still continues to this day to rebel against the word of God which is God, if you reject his word you reject him, if you receive his word you receive him. You must judge for yourselves what you are following the teachings of man or the teachings of God. Remember how isreal wanted one man over them and God was displeased with them as he wanted to lead them. hence why prophets are put in greater importance over overseers. Is it the church of Jesus Christ or is it the Southern Baptist Church? I chose to only participate in the church of Jesus Christ where he is leading. I will not compromise, I will not follow man! I will submit myself under the leadership in the church of Jesus Christ who as a group seek Gods governance and not their own. Wake up out of your sleep and slumber as these leaders telling you peace peace! when their is no peace as you are still in rebellion against God you are still committing the fundamental sin of going your own way! Go Gods way! Go Gods way! leave all behind and follow him, your life is found in him, your provision is found in him, your future is found in him, look nowhere else but to him, set your eyes stead upon him and look not to the right or to the left, look to him and find all that you need and abundantly more!!
Respectfully, You show scriptural favoritism towards one model vs the other. The prime example is you gave Historic background information on 1 Peter which created a scenario for single led pastoral congregations while neglecting the historical background of Timothy, where he was appointing elders in young congregations. to say Timothy is the "single elder" is to reveal a preferential bias as Timothy was to do the work of an Evangelist, a teacher, etc.
What you said in your opening introduction has always perplexed me about southern Baptists you basically stayed that southern Baptists are congregation only led churches, but the Bible clearly teaches an elder led Church. Some Baptist churches also give their Deacons elder types of positions and authority while I have seen others that are more of a pastor led Church. Wouldn't it be better just to have the simple New testament government of, Christ is the head, the elders are the shepherds which includes the pastor, deacons and deaconesses take care of different needs in the church and you have the rest of the congregation, we are all subject to one another and to serve one another.
"A significant amount of authority but not autocratic authority". Let's see how this lines up with Jesus's words. In Matt 20 two disciples ask for positions of authority, sitting at the right and left hand of Jesus himself. The other disciples were not happy about this. How does Jesus respond? Let's see... 25But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26“Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27“And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave- 28“just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” The word authority in verse 25 is only used 2 times in the bible (both are describing the same event) and we see from the Greek Lexicon the following: κατεξουσιάζω; not found in secular authors; to exercise authority, wield power (see κατά, III. 3): τίνος, over one, Matthew 20:25; Mark 10:42. What does Jesus say about exercising authority or wielding power? This shall not be so among you - pretty straight forward. No one in the body has authority over any one else in the body, it's cut and dry.
The Church Must gets back to its roots of (plural) leadership ELDERS, BISHOPS, and DEACONS and abandon the error senior head pastor deception. Which has been in place since the second century and enforce through the Catholic Church concept of priest, Pastor over his Parish/ congregation. Acts 14:23, 20:17 1Peter 5:2
Elder lead Church governance appears to be laid out clearly in scripture. Not clearly laid out were the inferences presented in the video for congregational governance. Pragmatically speaking, "one pastor led churches" disproportionately seem to run into trouble, which would seem to support the straightforward guidance given in scripture for church leadership to be a plurality of men. If making inferences, and while not directly related to Pastors specifically, Christ sent the disciples out in pairs. There are also numerous Biblical examples of early church leaders who labored as pairs. There might be a reason for this that could logically apply to present day church leadership as well. Considering pragmatism again, Timothy wasn't operating on his own, Paul was still instructing him. Further, biblical instruction for elders, implying multiple men, are given in multiple books of the New Testament. There are no instructions related to single pastor led churches. Assuming one pastor led governance to be equally valid, such an omission seems curious. Believers are called within the body for accountability and to help hold brothers and sisters accountable, elders as well. But there is no guidance given for the one scenario most likely to run into issues with a lack of accountability yet has no instruction from the Lord? My view, this topic might be one of the most clearly instructed, yet contested disagreements within the body of Christ today. Considering this, which interpretation would make more sense to be given by a divine creator who is intimately aware of the fallen and still sin prone nature of those he might allow to shepherd his flock? A system which allows a single man to lead with little or no accountability (or support) or a method in which accountability and mutual support would be likely to occur?
@@kristenspencer9751 I heard him speak at the southern baptist convention, our was full of me me me me and what he had done ! He has built a falty tower !
Pastor is mentioned only once in the. Ew testament. Jesus is the head of the church which is His body. We all should hear from God through the Holy Spirit and be a living part of His body/church. In the New Testament the letters are addressed to 'the church' not a pastor. The angels in Revelation are angels not pastors.
All this comes about in the ministry of Paul and Peter's differences of christianity, We are following Peter's paradigm, not Paul's. Do study. Christian Origins by Christopher Rowland.
Are all New Covenant believers equal at the foot of the cross, or are we going to put one man up on a pedestal as our high priest instead of Christ? Is this the model found in the Roman Catholic Church? Is the Holy Spirit the leader of all true "born-again" believers? (John 14:26, 1 John 2:27) Nobody can completely understand the Bible and the New Testament Church of Jesus Christ, unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: New Covenant Whole Gospel: Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him. He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth. Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD: Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis? Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart. Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36) We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24. Watch the TH-cam videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Which of the Two Baptisms is required for salvation? Water baptism was a part of the Old Covenant system of ritual washing. The Old Covenant priests had to wash before beginning their service in the temple. When Christ was water baptized by His cousin John in the Jordan River, He was under the Old Covenant system. He also only ate certain foods, and wore certain clothes, as prescribed by the 613 Old Covenant laws. Christ was water baptized by John and then received the Holy Spirit from heaven. The order is reversed in the New Covenant. A person receives the Holy Spirit upon conversion, and then believers often declare their conversion to their friends and family through a New Covenant water baptism ceremony. The conversion process is described below. Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, (A person must “hear” the Gospel, and “believe” the Gospel, and will then be “sealed” with the Holy Spirit.) Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (See Jer. 31:34 for the New Covenant promise, and 1 John 2:27 for the fulfillment) ============ Which baptism is a part of the salvation process, based on what the Bible says? What did Peter say below? Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water when they read the word "baptize" in the text. Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage? Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (See 1 Cor. 12:13) “baptize” KJV Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Mar_1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Water or Holy Spirit?, See Eph. 1-13.) Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Joh_1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; Joh_1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 1Co_1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (See Eph. 4:1-5) Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Old Covenant ----> New Covenant) How many people have been saved by the Old Covenant water baptism of John the Baptist? Who did John the Baptist say is the greatest Baptist that ever lived in Luke 3:16? What kind of New Covenant baptism comes from Christ? New Covenant water baptism is a beautiful ceremony which allows new believers to declare their conversion to the whole world.
You hesitated with episkopos but then said Bishop You omitted Deacon altogether And then there was almost a fearful hesitancy when you had to explain presbyter- which not only means elder but more directly means priest. Because the word Presbyter becomes prestor Which then becomes priest. You do not have priests You do sometimes refer to people as Deacons And depending on congregation you might have what you call Bishop You cannot pick and choose what is commanded and inherently correct in the hierarchy of the church. Bishop Priest and Deacon There is no Reverend, no doctor, Pastor and Shepherd is merely descriptive. But these titles of authority are what separate those who must listen and those who must lead. St James conferred all matters to Saint Peter who was clearly the leader of all the apostles because Christ said so! Not only because he named him The Rock in The Gospel according to St Matthew But because Christ said to him lead my flock Shepherd my sheep, three times! Who else would Christ mean? There were three nearest and dearest to Christ who were men Peter James and John Three women closest to Christ all named Mary. Your congregation has no power to elect anyone because it has no apostolic authority and it goes by a hollowness of Scripture does it ignores the hallowed nature of the one true church. The Catholic Church.
Scripture is the best guide, Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12, and Ephesians 4 which list the gifts that the Holy Spirit divides up severally to all believers. I am disappointed at the misrepresentation of Ephesians 4; the gift of pastor is different from teacher (don't worry, I know the Greek on this). I've known pastors who, in spite of their biblical knowledge couldn't teach a lick, and teachers of the Word who did not have a pastor's heart. I've also known pastors who were wolves in sheep's clothing they were cult leader manipulators.
Like any other Gift a Christian may have multiple. I have had Pastors that were Preachers,Some were Teachers ,Occasionally (but rarely) some were both, I think the healthiest Churches have Both represented in leadership
@@tonkatruck1968 I whole heartedly agree that both the gift of pastor and teacher should be represented in leadership, and that all of the gifts should be present in each congregation. Unfortunately, such is not the case in most congregations. Even among Charismatics the "leadership" suppresses any gift that might take attention away from them.
Truly disappointing but at least clear. The divergence, blind spot, possibly heresy is the conflating the 3 offices mentioned into one. The 5 gifts of The Sovereign to the church: Messengers Prophets Evangelist, Pastors and Teachers are gifts that have no qualifications. Single, married, fisherman or killer. These gifts are to the church universal, exercised in multiple congregations and are inescapable to the one called. Elders and Deacons for that matter are local in their scope and attained by good conduct and the meeting of God's requirements, ie. marriage and multiple children. If we believe in a verbal and plenary inspiration we might rather exercise extreme caution before we homogenize three words into one, particularly if the choice of the words was made by the Master Architect of the Universe. As has been said, "God hath NOT mumbled."
Neither type of church has any true authority, and both teach doctrines invented by mankind with some scripture sprinkled in for effect!! They come down to one man's opinion or a committee making decisions, both doing the best they can as men (and women)!!
The bible clearly supports a plurality of elders in a local church. And this man's arguments for a pastor are so weak. De facto arguments. If a pastor stands in front of a church with a bible in hand then the congregation will trust that man. That was his argument. De facto.
you should take a backseat and leave the leading of the church to christ. christ is the head of the church. not some pontiff not a pastor and not a group of elders
Scripture also calls for human leadership. Christ is to be the Head, but that doesn't mean He didn't use men to lead and protect his flock. There were prophets and judges in the Old Testament and apostles in the New Testament. This is a model God has used at least since Moses.
@@juanitadudley4788 All Christians are Priests Revelations 1:5-6. Donot claim that False theology trained False teachers should be leaders. Main issue of Christianity is the False theology False teachers claiming to be Pastors and destroying so many Christian lives. Start your home church. Donot go after many False teachers and destroy your life.
Pastor isn't a greek or an english word. Should not appear at all in english bibles. It only occurs once in most bible Eph 4:15 but the correct translation is shepherd which is one of the two jobs of an elder to shepherd and oversee 1 Peter 5:1-4 and also Acts 20:17-28. ESV of 2015 corrected this mistake. I've seen executive pastors acting as CEO's for the church but that is not God's model in the bible. I tim 3, Titus 1. Elders in every church. It is not one man rule. Pastors and priest tend to act as one man rule instead of the way the apostles set it up with a plurality of elders.
stars being the angelos (messenger) - pastor is a case of eisegesis or bad exegesis - nowhere in the bible is a leader in a church referred to as angelos or a messenger and to use this scripture as proof that there is a singular pastor responsible for the leading of a church, is in my opinion and with respect to my learned brother, not very good biblical exposition. a plain interpretation is that the angelos refers to a messenger or an angel.
I so appreciate your perspective on pastoral leadership. I’m seeing many pastors who seem to feel that they alone know the direction for the church and anyone who disagrees or opposes is wrong, led by Satan, or being disruptive.
Pastors are Not perfect as they are human. One pastor, especially a new pastor can ruin a congregation/church. I have witnessed churches being fractured and divided beyond repair. It is sad when a weak leader causes division...
@@poppadan4270 our local congregation is going through that exact circumstance currently. It truly is sad to witness and experience.
I once heard a pastor say he believed the Holy Spirit spoke to the preacher, and then the preacher would tell the congregation what the Holy Spirit said. Are protestants trading one pope for another? Are all New Covenant believers a member of the "priesthood" in 1 Peter 2:4-10? Who is the "chief cornerstone" in that temple?
===================
Which of the Two Baptisms is required for salvation?
Water baptism was a part of the Old Covenant system of ritual washing. The Old Covenant priests had to wash before beginning their service in the temple. When Christ was water baptized by His cousin John in the Jordan River, He was under the Old Covenant system. He also only ate certain foods, and wore certain clothes, as prescribed by the 613 Old Covenant laws. Christ was water baptized by John and then received the Holy Spirit from heaven. The order is reversed in the New Covenant. A person receives the Holy Spirit upon conversion, and then believers often declare their conversion to their friends and family through a New Covenant water baptism ceremony.
The conversion process is described below.
Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
(A person must “hear” the Gospel, and “believe” the Gospel, and will then be “sealed” with the Holy Spirit.)
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
(See Jer. 31:34 for the New Covenant promise, and 1 John 2:27 for the fulfillment)
============
Which baptism is a part of the salvation process, based on what the Bible says?
What did Peter say below?
Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water when they read the word "baptize" in the text.
Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage?
Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (See 1 Cor. 12:13)
“baptize” KJV
Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mar_1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Water or Holy Spirit?, See Eph. 1-13.)
Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
Joh_1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
Joh_1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
1Co_1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (See Eph. 4:1-5)
Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Old Covenant ----> New Covenant)
How many people have been saved by the Old Covenant water baptism of John the Baptist?
Who did John the Baptist say is the greatest Baptist that ever lived in Luke 3:16? What kind of New Covenant baptism comes from Christ?
New Covenant water baptism is a beautiful ceremony which allows new believers to declare their conversion to the whole world.
@@SpotterVideo One of the best posts ever! I actually grow very tired of the short/flippant posts on YT. You simply cannot get quality without some juxtaposition/exposition. THIS is great stuff right here my man. There is a lady named Marianne Manley who has done a 4-part video on Philippians and in one of them (episode 2, I think) she points out that Paul recognized that water baptism had introduced problems and she quotes the verse above ("Christ did not send me to baptize ..."). I've been water baptized and made that public confession. However, that did not save me. I was saved well before that. There are churches using water baptism to pump up their numbers and make it look like they are more productive than they really are (although, it's not about being "productive" it's about QUALITY.
Also, regarding the potential of Marianne Manley being a woman preaching: She's doing a YT video. She is not taking authority over any man or leading a congregation or any such thing. I do have a problem with women preaching in a church context. I don't have a problem with a woman making a quality YT video. :)
@@guardianmeister6650 Thank you for the kind words. They are rare these days. Have a Blessed Day my new friend!
The best treatment of this topic is a book entitled "Biblical Eldership" by Alexander Strauch. The author makes a very compelling case for a plurality of elders.
And you should read the many other authors that speak of a plurality of pastors/elders yet, and still appreciating that needs to be a lead. As Dr. Rogers would say anything with multiple heads is a freak and anything with no head is dead.
Question: where I’m from plurality of pastors is no where to be found!
I have noticed when one brings to accountability a pastor, afterwards you are looked like the bad guy. What shall one do?
I knew, and very much respected Dr. Rogers immensely, however on this subject, I believe his illustration is not applicable to this situation. How would he explain his good friends church, FBC Jacksonville, which had two senior pastors for many years, Dr. Vines and Dr. LIndsay.
AS the guy earlier mentioned, Alexander Strauch, reacd what he says about the "first among equals."@@FactsNC300
I thought the book was redundant and twice as long as needed to make the point. But he nailed it 💯%
That was great thank you .with 45 years in Christ I'm looking more to be talked with rather than talked to
My biblical opinion is there should never be one single man leading a church.
Amen! Its a cult
His argument for a single elder is weak.
@@TheReader6 What he says is not scriptural. The question is not whats the best way (for the pastor) but what is biblical and teh early churches were never led by one pastor but by a group of elders and you can't twist teh scripture for convenience sake or your own benefit - Timothy and Titus (were not teh leader of teh churches) but brought teh letters from Paul and they had teh apostolic anointing given by Paul to choose elders and he always appointed not one but a group of elders (thats teh way it shoudl be, one Apostel who appoints elders and teh elders have to give account to him or at least oen Apostel should be there if teh concregation has any complaints against one elder-1 tim 5 ). If all elders are spirit filled and all hear from God you do not need one leader but you are all in one accord but there is still too much egoistic and self-serving motives . Why should there be multiple voices as mentioned in teh video if all have teh same spirit? Pastors consider chucrhes too often as their personal kingdom and do not want to give up their power and recognition
I find Hershael York's points about Timothy and Titus to be very weak. These men were in the special situation of being set a task by Paul, an apostle, to appoint multiple elders in each of the churches. Their situation can't legitimately be used to say that there is a place for single-leader churches today.
The standard pattern in the New Testament is of multiple leaders in each church. This is exactly what we would expect to find anyway. Every church leader has gaps in his understanding and makes mistakes in his judgment, and having multiple leaders makes it easier for the mistakes of one man to be corrected by the others.
I agree with Hershael York that in the New Testament the terms poimen ('shepherd'), episkopos ('overseer') and presbuteros ('elder') are referring to the same office.
Nope. "Pastor" is never an office in Scripture. It is a GIFT.
@@tnowandthen-t8t OK, a few points.
First, I prefer the label 'shepherd' rather than 'pastor', since the Greek noun poimen, found in Eph 4:11 with reference to church leaders, was the standard word for a shepherd in the first century. We can lose sight of the metaphorical nature of this Greek word by translating as 'pastor'. This is admittedly a minor point.
Second, you are certainly right that being a shepherd is a gift. Eph 4:7-11 makes that clear.
Third, there are biblical passages that connect overseers/elders with the verb poimainein, which means 'to shepherd' (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:1-2). So, given that overseers/elders shepherd their flocks, it is certainly fine to say that they are shepherds. And this noun is found in Eph 4:11 anyway.
Fourth, there is an issue here of semantics. It depends on exactly what we mean by the word 'office'. But if we take 'office' to mean a role that someone performs in the church (as I think most people would take it), then some Christians have the role of shepherd. So under that definition, we can say that there is the office of shepherd.
So I think it is fine to say that 'shepherd' (or 'pastor', if you insist on using that term) can be described as both a gift and an office. And this office is the same as the office of overseer/elder.
@@maxaplin4204 "Third, there are biblical passages that connect overseers/elders with the verb poimainein, which means 'to shepherd' (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:1-2). So, given that overseers/elders shepherd their flocks, it is certainly fine to say that they are shepherds. "
Yes, these are the offices that are told to do the work of shepherding. That does not make shepherd an office.
"And this noun is found in Eph 4:11 anyway."
Yes, in a list of gifts to the Church by her ascended Head. There is nothing here about offices or even about church government.
@@tnowandthen-t8t I think the heart of the issue here is a matter of semantics. If we define 'office' as a role that a person in a church performs, then I would see gift and office as two sides of the same coin. And I think it is natural to understand the word 'office' in that way.
How are you defining 'office'?
You can have a plurality of elders with one of the elders serving as the Senior Pastor who handles the lion share of the teaching and preaching. He is the defacto "Leader" of the church but when seated at the table with the rest of the elders, he may be "First among Equals" but is an equal just the same with an equal voice, equal vote, and mutual accountability. As a Baptist, I believe that Pastors and Elders are synonymous although each may fill differing roles (elders that rule, elders that teach, Etc.) but the qualifications are the same and anyone filling the office of an elder should have adequate theological training and not just someone who is a businessman and a faithful Christian. One of the big pluses of such a model is that the elders will have Senior Pastor's back as well as looking out for the best interest of the congregation. Also, whenever a "Policy" needs to be enacted which may not be popular among some, the Senior pastor can say that "This is coming from the elders" of which he is one. Our church is elder-led but it is also clear who fills the role of the senior pastor.
Completely agree with you mentioned
I've seen too many churches get shipwrecked by Pastor-alone rule. Technically they're "congregation-led", but the body just rubber stamps the Pastor's wishes. There's no restraint, no counsel, no wisdom. The longer such a pastor is left alone, the more he will be tempted to see himself as the lone ranger and any resistance to his will as rebellion against God. I've seen it happen to very good men. It got so bad with one that he eventually tried to evict the congregation from the church building! Another one was so frustrated with his people that he began skimming money and when confronted simply skipped town.
Pastor-alone-led churches place ministers into impossible temptations and into dire spiritual distress.
Good ministers need good elders to work alongside and push back wisely.
Benevolent dictatorships are great until the benevolent one passes on.
Good teaching! Pastor lead and elder lead are both found in Scripture. The main thing is for Christ to always be the head of His church in any type of hierarchy in the church.
Most of the NT books that were written to churches were written to the elders, plural.
Timothy and Titus were Paul's missionary helpers that he left behind to finish the work of appointing a group of elders to run the church.
We have run into all kinds of accountability and serious sin problems with a 1 man at the top model. The elders need to hold any other elders or pastors accountable for their personal walks with the Lord and their teachings and decisions.
I attended an elder led church, and it was the safest I have been in. I grew up in the Congregational model, and have spent a lot of my life in the Episcopal (1 man at the top) model. But I far prefer the Presbyterian (elder led) model.
The elders should have the authority to override the pastor and to make him step down if he is in sin.
However my particular pastor has lived a very transparent life in front of us. But my experience with the Episcopal model hasn't always been that way. In multiple cases, churches split over abusive tactics coming from men who had been taught in cultish groups.
The big weakness in Churches these days is when a church congregation regards their pastor as a “hired employee” rather than a fellow member and an integral part of the church! Pastors therefore come and go and see the smaller congregations as “stepping stones” as they progress in their career to bigger and better things. This is where so many congregations with a single lead pastor becomes a (unbiblical) “deacon led” church because the deacons (who may be reluctant to fill such a role) are the only semblance of stability in a local church. When you have a plurality of elders, this puts the leadership back into the right place and the elders are integral to this leadership and are not going anywhere! I believe there are elders who rule and elders that teach. They have different roles but fill the same office and together, provide oversight of the flock. One of these elders may be the key spokesman or “leader” of the congregation, but among the elders, they are “first among equals” and in an elder meeting, he is one of the elders whose vote and voice is the same as the others sitting around the table. Among those sitting on the elder board who meet the proper qualifications but have secular professions. The elder board shouldn’t be comprised primarily of “paid staff” who, like the senior pastor, are “Professional Christians” who have ecclesiastical “career aspirations!”
I appreciate the topic, I am leaning toward pastor led because many pastors have a great vision from god for their churches and an elder led congregation sometimes makes it difficult to accomplish the god given goal.
Shepherds/pastors is refering to Old Covenant but with the same goal, to take care for people of God, Ezekiel 34. When apostle Paul is writting to Timothy, he didnt say go there and there and apoint apostles, pastors, prophets, evangelists. He say: elders! Plurality of not only elders but the all Church, because everyone have gifts and talents to build the Body to maturity in and of Jesus Christ. This is missing today big way. Greets from Croatia
I personally prefer a church led by a group of no-salary elders. If the church is not growing, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
One question: Are the church leaders in the Bible got paid a monthly salary? Or they all had to live on faith as everyone else?
Double honor... you know the scriptures... it applies
@@RockyTopSplash Getting paid a wage is not a problem, its the interpretation. If the average wage of the congregation is $25,000 a year, should the pastor be making $100k. If Steven in the book of Acts was getting paid $1/hour than I guess you can give the Apostles $2 an hour. Double portion, not wealthy portion. It will all be subjective but I've been to several mega churches and know people in the administrative offices and its insane. Lead Pastor is making about $300,000k plus bonuses, 401k, health insurance, etc. Worship Pastors which is a joke, are making $150,000 plus all the worship team get a little something. $7 million dollar budgets and 70% is for staff and other expenses. Does anyone really think that if any of the apostles were alive today, they would except the economic structure of today's churches. No way. It's a business. Go to cemetery school, graduate and start applying for jobs and then keep trying to work your way up bouncing from church to church. That is the worldly model. Should pastors get paid, YES. Are most churches run as businesses, YES. Thats why the best model is several elders that all have jobs. If any is hurting financially and the church can provide, it should.
A problem with the final say belonging to a single man [the lead pastor], is that if a lead pastor becomes really old [or sick mentally], and starts to not make sense, or be confused in his teaching, the other pastors/board can ask him to retire, but if he holds the power in the final decision, then he can refuse them while thinking he is fine, and it's the others who have the problem, then he can go on to confuse people while thinking he is doing right.
For this reason I think the final say should be held by a board/pastors, and not with a single lead pastor.
I think a lot would depend on how a church set up its by-laws. I belong to a very small church where practically everyone is either an elder or deacon. Our pastor retired facing health issues, though is still a part of the church. We're attempting the elders model, but none have any knowledge of what an elder does. Most people think elders handle the budget and remodels and monthly bills. But in scripture, I read that elders are supposed to devote time to the word, prayer and fasting b/c they are supposed to concern themselves with the SPIRITUAL growth and direction of the church...and to discipline if need be, provide godly counsel and to be on the lookout for younger men God is raising up to help the church. As it stands, they will argue over what color to paint the fellowship hall.
@@kristenspencer9751 there should be a handful of elder leaders and each will one of the gifts from Ephesians. Pastor/teacher, prophet, evangelist etc. Elders should be mature in the faith and should be able to hear from God and lead by the spirit. They should submit to one another. Any disciples coming under them will see this structure and they will learn from them and also be able to replicate. The disciples will voluntary submit to the elder that they are naturally inclined to while the elder will simultaneously pour into the disciple. This submission can be withdrawn at any time. Each elder should have proper relationships with each of their disciples for their learning to be effective. I mean everyone has their way but singular Pastors are not scriptural whatsoever. This falls more on line with the old covenant whereas in the new covenant we all share in the same spirit no one above another
Also, referring to Timothy and Titus as pastors/elders of churches, is in my opinion a reach as they are apostles (apostellos) sent as apostolic representatives of Paul' and his apostolic ministry to the churches.
It's really simple - take money out of the church and 90% of the problems go away. Just tell the members of the body to give whatever the Holy Spirit tells them and/ or where they see a need as they go about their lives. Who wants to be in charge of something that isn't "making" money - that is when the you'll see the true heart of Christ shine thru an individual.
sir this is dangerous. i serve under a dictatorship (one man with all the power) and it hasnt gone good out of every pastor ive sat under even though im young in the Lord. to say there is one person with the final say is essentially a recipe that says it doesnt matter what the flock or other leaders are saying. who will sit the man down when he is in error?
I will have to come back to listen to this as I don't have time presently. However, I've been active in both pastor/elder led assemblies. BOTH have the problems and advantages. It really depends on the individuals in charge. I prefer elder led who are elected by the congregation. I was in such a church for 15+ yrs until a new pastor came in and began to push out the old and put in his own elders (yes men). Eventually the church died. The best head elder I've ever known and served with was sent via registered mail that he was being evicted. I truly fear some pastors ( and some elders) when they stand before the Lord. To whom much is given, much is expected.
1:13 the best way to lead a congregationally governed church is by changing the church to an elder governed church.
Pastors should be amongst wise counsellors they cannot lead alone, however that can be selective to whom they listen to so long as they do not disrupt the vision.
I was part of the Calvary Chapel movement. I was an assistant pastor for 12 years. Pastor led makes the pastor into the dictator. Elder led churches are biblical. There needs to be a balance of power. Absolute power is not good for any church. Calvary chapel elders and the church board are just yes men to the pastor.
The pastor I served either was very paranoid and always worried someone else would receive recognition. Narcissism is definitely prevalent in this type of ministry.
From Calvary Chapel too. Was a youth pastor. Can agree 💯 my pastor was very paranoid of being up seated. Most people that were kicked out was because of minor differences and were elders.
Thank you for sharing. Hallelujah! Glory be to God!
Whew, I added another positive "thumbs-up" to remove the "666" designation. I might not be worth much but I can say that I moved the article into the good range! 😀
When I was a young pastor, I met another pastor who led a group of elders who met with him monthly and discussed major church matters, advising him. All were biblically qualified, as this pastor encouraged elders to be, but each of them, in order to remain as elders in that church, had to display in print with their fellows a list of people they had presented the gospel to, how much money they gave to the church, and other matters important to show that they were faithful in their roles as elders. Those items are not exclusive, of course, but they are a good start in determining whether an elder is serious about serving the Lord and his church or whether he's just an empty vessel who wants to dominate someone.
At this point, I'd settle for a Christ-led assembly.
I always will bring up the question of "What does the Holy Spirit do then", and I am serious. We need to rely on H.S.Totally! Check out 'Christian Origins' by Christopher Rowland. good insight to this. But Amen too for Christ led people
There Are Many . The True Church Of Christ will never stop moving forward until Christ's Return.The Traditions of a particular body ,subject to scripture,Influence How this is Fleshed Out. Churches Need Leaders ,Led By Jesus Christ ,Informed By the Holy Bible,Inspired By the Holy Spirit
And character of Christ
Thank you for this video Dr. York. I know it will help people think about biblical leadership models. I'm a proponent of plural elder leadership in the church. However, I found your statement that failure rates are similar between one pastor vs. plural elder bodies to be very compelling. Investigating the reasons for this would be fascinating. I would hypothesize that in many churches today with plural elder leadership, the lead pastor is still considered "first among equals," and therefore still has too much power. Couple this with the fact that the lay elders frequently have little or no training to serve in that capacity, and you have a formula for failure.
Thanks again for the content you put on this channel and blessings to you.
Another way to look at the problems in churches is that their problems are not their structure of leadership, but who they chose to fill those positions within their structure.
Totally agree that this is a huge factor. @@irvbanjore2973
Exactly, it makes no difference because in both cases character and humility is lacking.
Looking about in today's churches, one will find a weakness created by multiple voices directing in different directions. Quickly it is obvious something is not correct. Whether titles include, but not limited to, pastor, deacon and/or elder . Southern Baptist generally congregations include a deacon board. In "some" of these situations it is apparent that the deacons govern the church direction in decisions of importance. Truck drivers, businessmen, factory workers and others take their role to become an equal to what should be the role of pastor. How many shepherds are there in a flock? Who has the over all responsibility to the congregation? If anyone has a problem with "one" then my thoughts are that those with that problem are having a struggle when Jesus is proclaimed the Head of the Church also. And, that needs immediate addressing! Either there is one head or the church is struggling within chaos. A man called of God, moves along a path enriched with prayer, and studies to become, in God's eyes, the Shepard. thank you for your video pastor.
Rev JDH
Hello, just came across your video. Seen it in my scroll a few times. Decided to take a listen, looking forward to hear more and grow more in humility and enlighten to understand the church life.
I agree with much of what Dr. York says. However, having worked overseas, I know many communities of faith that have been harmed by taking this model too far. I can't even count the number of times I've heard Psalm 105:15 (Do not touch God's anointed) preached as a command not to criticize the pastor. All systems need both accountability and strong singular leadership. The vagueness of these structures in the book of Acts is perhaps God's allowance that there is some room to adapt to different culturally appropriate models in different contexts.
I prefer a to worship where there is a group of evangelists as the elders of the church. I've been to church where there is a supposed "lead pastor" and it was almost nauseating how some members practically worshipped the ground the ground they walked on.
*I find it interesting that **9:07* he's explaining how he never does anything autocraticly, yet proceeded to "I don't think I have". Well, which is it?
James gave a summary after the apostles discussed extensively what should be done. Claiming James as the dominant leader at Jerusalem church had no proof from the scripture. It’s true that Paul wrote to Timothy alone and to Titus alone, but they were NOT elders in a local church but traveling evangelists. So this doesn’t support the model of a single dominant pastor leading a local church. In fact, the Jerusalem church was governed by a group of leaders, especially the apostles even though James was also a leader.
I have have seen pastors being the sole head of the church escape accountability too often. My previous church in Japan for example. He cheated on his wife, and sold his body to strangers for money. He confessed to one person about it but refused to confess. His wife didn’t want to be disgraced and left jobless so she covered for him. And they both lied to the congregation and are currently still “the head of the church” it’s disgusting and wrong. There should never be one single head but multiple equal heads of the church.
100% agreed. Where is the scriptural basis for one man leading a church even with support leaders? The early churches were planted with co-leaders. One submitting to another. Disciples can come in and learn from the structure and this can be replicated many times over. One guy falls the others can raise him up again. It’s too dangerous for there to be one leader. I actually think this is one of the biggest travesties to do with the faith for too many years
Both models have shortcomings
So, in an elder council with a lead-pastor, or in a plural elder council, how does the congregation make decision? Do they finalize with a vote all that the elder council (regardless of whether a lead pastor exists or not) agrees on or only certain things?
The greatest in the Kingdom is the servant of all. Pastors are paid and therefore are not servants.
There is no biblical authority for anything less than a plurality of elders. As for the title pastor led church vs an elder led church, pastor and elder are the same thing. It’s too bad that so many people lack biblical knowledge.
Context is also a little different considering in the early church they were apostles. And Timothy and Titus I like missionaries going around planting Churches.......
The problem with pastor-led churches is that even though the intention is not for one single pastor making all the decisions, the reality is that it ends up that way. Pastor-led churches lead to celebrity culture in the church and the lead pastor being a "one man show".
I don't understand York's reasoning in this video. He says towards the end "it has to be biblical" and "what do we actually see in the Bible" but then seems to follow a model based on an interpretation of ONE verse (Revelation 1:16) guessing as to what the "7 stars in the hand represent" while ignoring (in the sense of valuing the ONE verse) multiple PASSAGES that talk about a multiple elder-led model. This looks like an attempt to support his preferred model (and what he's always known) rather than the biblical model supported by multiple scriptures in the New Testament. Just because something seems to work better in the eyes of man does not mean it's correct or biblical and it does not mean it's a better model than the one given to us in scripture. As a fellow "pastor/elder/overseer" I am one of 8 Elders although I serve in the role of "the key leader" (1 Timothy 5:17) but unlike MacArthur there are times I think we should do something but the majority of the Eldership is not in agreement and then we don't move forward because I am but 1 of 8 in the leadership and I must humble myself (very valuable exercise for all "key leaders" to learn and continually practice) and submit to the Elderships authority (again key to being a spiritually healthy leader) believing that God is moving through us as a combined group and that the group's wisdom is greater than my individual wisdom. So I don't think a biblical model is being promoted in this video and I believe it's a model open to much more temptation for "the key leader".
P.S. (personal opinion based on current cultural climate) - Simply considering modern-day ministry staff in the American church pastors/elders simply because they meet the qualifications of Elder I also believe is dangerous because it has become a profession in many ways. A vast majority of ministers have the desire to move ministries to pursue (perceived) greater opportunities if they arise and don't plan to be lifelong shepherds of that flock. So the mindset of the individual minister makes a big difference in rather they should be considered an Elder. So 1 Timothy 3:1 comes into play when it references "if someone aspires to be". Just my personal thoughts.
I so agree with what you have said!
Excellent answer Scott!
I completely agree! Let us not give place to the enemy who can easily overcome the "one" elder for he knows how to tempt us.
I have read all the comments and have not seen it raised, so I will. Did not Christ choose 12? Train them up? Set them over the church? When one reads Acts the language is clearly showing the one submitting to the group of equivalent leaders. Look at Paul's return to Jerusalem and his report to the other Apostles, not one, but many.
Does not church history show us the danger of such thinking. The church in Rome making itself over all the other churches. No, he is clearly wrong...
So here is a question. My church has fewer members than most churches have staff. Nearly everyone is related and the leadership has very little interest in accountability. As a result we have an extremely high turn over of pastors and many of of members have disconnected (ie we cannot find Sunday school teachers, small group leaders, or volunteers for programs). On top of that elders are voted on by popularity and familial history. Those of us who have joined the church but do not have a history here are kept from holding office and silenced when we wish to speak at meetings.
There is a great deal of hurt in this church but it is ignored and the hurt is perpetuated. We have maybe four years left before we are bankrupt but it seems like the desire for real change and biblical discipline among the leadership is unlikely to ever happen. I'm a PK who has seen this before and I hate to see what is happening here. I love the church of God but I'm frustrated with the apathy here. I don’t want to be a church hopper because I believe that is just as cancerous to the family of God as what I am seeing right now.
I don't disagree with this video and I've seen both methods of leadership be powerfully used as well as abused. So what are my options? Our conference seems to be supporting the abusive and fractured leadership we are under and our pastor was fired only a few months ago for challenging the leadership on this very point.
Yes this is correct as the organization or group of Christians in that area . That organizational concept didn’t start in the New Testament. Go back some years. To when Moses was leading the children of Israel out of Egypt. Remember the discussion, that he and his father-in- law had in reference, to his leadership of the whole group?.
And remember all they are writing to and knowledge being passed on is not of their own valuation !
This is a critical topic with many erroneous problems. It starts with the fact that the word "pastor" is not a clear distinct definition in Scripture. Man has made it up and likely by Pastors. The word in Eph 4 is 'pastor-teacher'. It seems many in that role seem to think they live under a chrome dome of untouchableness. But that attitude is also prevalent with Elders. It carries with it huge job description errors by pastors and by the sheep or congregants. If we collectively removed the word PASTOR from our vocabulary and replaced it with SHEPHERD, it would clear up a lot of expectations.
Totally disagree I’m afraid. Leadership in the early church was always plural. The reason why the pastorals were written to individuals was because they were apostolic assistants. That was a temporary, transitional phase towards eldership.
Pastor York, how do you stand on women pastors/apostles/senior leaders??!!
I feel the missing piece in all of this the Holy Spirit. A modern issue, relevant to topic is, with churches now, the ever present covert narcissist. When they end up being the pastor, who personally head up every out-reach, ministry, worship, & groups, all leaders with a voice are women, no mens group, no salvation gospel just love, one elder (an overly busy, preoccupied man), likes to talk about how much work they are doing during the week, money mismanagement, gossip & flying monkeys ... you get the picture, i was reliving it for a minute there
His argument is the ends justify the means. God’s word is clear on a plurality of elders. His comment that was the most revealing is that a pastor led system is “more pragmatic”. That doesn’t justify it biblically.
Advice on the biblical word in comparison to the Southern Baptist Creed against alcohol and tobacco. I believe in the Word, so if a verse states that alcohol and tobacco are forbidden, I am seeking these verses.
The stance on deacons also, knowing the SBC stance would eliminate Jesus and Saul.
Thanks for considering a discerning question.
"Whoever destroys his temple, God will destroy him." "Do not look at wine when it is red"
I was surprised to hear that John MacArthur was defending a plurality of elders leadership model. I don't follow him closely, but he seems to be the one making decisions at his church. I'm not saying he doesn't have other clergy in his church who advise him and hold him accountable. I certainly hope he does. But, from what I can see, he seems to be the one making the final decisions.
I believe John MacArthur is the "face" of those decisions ,but has Men of God Around Him that he consults,polls, prays and searches the scriptures with.
@@tonkatruck1968 Obviously, he has people around him. I already acknowledged that. That is not the same as a plurality of elders. Is he not the one ultimately making the decisions? Or is the authority and responsibility spread out?
Authority and responsibility is spread out.
@@juanitadudley4788
Is the pay equally distributed In your Church between all the Pastorial staff?
They shouldn't be paid, not biblical at all. Jesus set the model - "as you have freely received, freely give".
I appreciate many of the things brought out in this video. I don't agree with the "one man at the center" approach (right around the 6 : 50 - 7 : 10 point). If that man gets compromised, he can ruin the whole congregation. It's a death trap. I've watched many a "the one man" guy slowly turn church into his personal little cash-cow playground and all of the idolatry that goes with that. In fact, this is a huge problem in American church today.
There is safety in numbers and in a multitude of counselors. The "one man" you see in Scripture as the point for church (and specifically for the Gentiles) is the Apostle Paul, a man with deep sufferings in the Gospel. Any situation where there is "one man" that doesn't involve deep sufferings in the Gospel is a DEATH WISH and a setup for the enemy. Now his work load is reduced to one man, not many. He can use this to make his game more time-efficient. He can use that man's old nature in Adam to spoil and shipwreck a congregation. Yes, now he can work on the "Saul" (of the Old Testament) (a picture of the "old man" Eph 4) in that man and get him building monuments to himself rather than God. The express proof and evidence that Paul the Apostle was building monuments to God was his deep sufferings in the Gospel. This was also the express proof of a man shining on a stage of God's design and ordainment (by the mediation of the indwelling Christ), not sinning on a stage of his own making and ordainment.
I've heard that "angel of the church" thing before being equated with a pastor and I don't necessarily see that as the pastor. If it were pastor, I think the text would simply say so. I have heard people quote Acts 20 interpreting the "elders" as the pastors. That's another stretch. The text there says presbuteros (elders, not pastors). In fact, in Acts 20 when Paul calls the Ephesian presbuteros and has his dutch-uncle talk with them, it shows the wisdom of safety in numbers. If he had called one man to himself, that one could completely distort the conversation and put all kinds of words in Paul's mouth and come back with a story of the transaction that fit his own agenda. What is said in the sight of many is far safer than what is said one on one. In fact, part of Paul's talk with the elders indicates that even among the believers, men would rise up speaking perverse (or twisted) things to draw disciples after themselves. Interesting side note, Paul opens that whole conversation with the Ephesian elders by reminding them of ... drum roll ... his sufferings in the Gospel. See the pattern?
Would you say this is akin to the "Moses model" of the Calvary Chapel churches?
I think York's interpretation of the angels (Greek: angelos) of the churches in Rev 1-3 is very problematic.
Firstly, we do much better to take the word to mean angels than messengers.
Elsewhere in Revelation, this Greek word always refers to heavenly beings, and that seems the most natural interpretation in chs. 1-3 also.
Furthermore, it looks quite strange to speak about messengers of churches without any context being given of messengers being sent.
Secondly, if we take the angels to be symbolic of church leaders, the parallelism with the lampstands looks very strange.
In Rev 1:20 Jesus interprets the stars and lampstands as angels and churches.
So the lampstands are simply symbolic of the churches, with a single step of interpretation.
However, if the stars are the angels, which in turn are the church leaders, there is a second step of interpretation, which looks very strange in combination with the lampstands simply having a single step of interpretation.
Is it too much to ask for a Jesus lead church in which, as Paul states, we all are one?
Jesus named Peter as the head of the Church (Mt 16:16-18), and Protestant scholars confirm that yes, Peter is the rock in that context. Paul named Timothy as the first Bishop of Ephesus. Onesimus succeeded him. Titus was the first bishop of Crete. And Tertullian tells us:
"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).
The structure of the one Church built by Jesus has been Bishop > Priest > Deacon from the very beginning.
Most of our churches are not pastor led or elder led. Most of them are deacon rule churches. In older churches, there's no way to change this other than being a successful pastor for a decade or more. Even then, it's hard to convert a church from being deacon ruled.
A good word Professor! Thanks!
Start over. Toss out what you think you know on the subject. Go see what Scripture says. Just that.
You will have to work hard to not allow your preconceptions into the text. Let the text teach you. Pay attention to that word, "pastor", and see of whom it is said, in what context it is said, and whether it is used as a noun or a verb. Pay attention to WHERE is used as a noun or a verb.
If you do that, you will never come up with the idea of a "pastor as CEO" that has ruled the church for centuries. It's not in the text. It gets read INTO the text.
Dear Southern Seminary/Pastor Well,
Why does there seem to be one leader (James) in the case of the Jerusalem counsel ?
Well, when there is a group/committee making the decision, there should be one that leads the group in a process to effectively, efficiently make a decision in a orderly manner. The name we call this leader is not really important (some call him a chairman, or facilitator, lead elder etc.). it is the role he has in leading to the decision. His "vote" is no more or less than the others, but he does have a role in drawing the decision to a conclusion.
In Acts 15:19 James says "Therefore my judgment ...." - he expresses his perspective which after hearing the evidence, the others are also probably in agreement. Later we hear about the decision in Acts 15:28: "For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us ..." There is no mention of James, or of James as making the decision - it was the Holy Spirit and "us" (which would include James and all the others). There is one person that leads the group in making the decision, but the decision is made by the leaders (plural). Yes, it is clear !
Paul (note: an Apostle of Jesus Christ to an elder of a local church) writes to Timothy and Titus. Where does it say that Paul has invested sole authority as an elder in either Timothy or Titus ?? I would suspect that your conclusion on this issue is interpreted in the context of your presuppositions. Paul obviously knew Timothy and Titus and there is nothing wrong with an Apostle of Jesus Christ to give guidance and information to some elders he specifically and personally knows to relate to the other elders in these churches. This would not imply that Paul considered them to have more authority than other elders. Nothing of that idea is stated or even implied !
My Experience of Church Leadership
I grew up in a church that was lead by a singular pastor, but as I read the Scriptures, I began to see problems with this idea and could see that it was not a practical, effective or, efficient thing to do, from a logical or Scriptural perspective. I moved to another city to go to seminary, and attended an independent, evangelical church which was elder lead. There I saw an incredibly, wonderfully organized body of leadership.
There were two full time Elders/Pastors
1. One was the Teaching Elder who often did the teaching on Sunday and on some other times. He also lead the Elders in the process of making decisions. With extensive seminary training, he was well versed in theology and ministry.
2. The other full time Pastor was the Elder of the Youth Program and Family Ministry. He also had seminary training.
The other elders were either part time or volunteer (Volunteer were usually retired).
3. We had an Elder of counseling, in which he had training in Counseling and Guidance. He and the full time pastor, did most of the in house counseling of the body.
4. We had and Elder in Christian Education. He was very well on top of educational processes and educational curriculum issues (retired military with education background). He headed up the educational and training programs of the church, including training of teachers.
5. We had an Elder of Evangelism and Missions. He supervised the evangelistic programs and trained people in various forms of evangelism. He was also responsible for missions programs, education and the representative of the church to the missionaries. Missions was a significant interest of the church. (he received part time pay).
6. We had an Elder of Worship. He was responsible for the church music program and special worship events. He was also a seminary professor of music and worship.
7. We had an Elder of Finances and Facilities. He was the overseer of the deacons (deacons who attended to the practical matters of the church, so the elders could attend to the spiritual matters - a scriptural perspective) , which had responsibilities over the facilities, the bookkeeping, assuring that these practical matters supported the ministries of the church.
Each elder took their responsibilities as if it was their occupational career, with great dedication. Each elder was also the leader of a shepherding group, of which all the members of the church was assigned to one of the groups. These elders also trained apprentices, so others could be experienced to take their place if needed, and when the time comes to have new elders.
Each elder realized the strength of having elders who were were well trained in each of their areas of supervision, so no one person was expected to be a superman. The load of leadership was spread out in a very effective way. The interaction and coordination between the various elders and their responsibilities was really the strength of this organization.
After observing this wonderful (and Scriptural) leadership model (and participating in a internship there) I cannot imagine any leadership model as being more effective or more Scripturally based as this one, lead by these godly men of God.
Be Well,
DZ
With all respect, I feel like there was a sloppy approach here with words. What is the difference between "Elder Lead" and "Elder Rule"? And as some have said, a plurality of men, regardless of "title" is necessary.
How's this guy going to make an inference of St James is the leader when the Bible declares they went up to meet the elders in Jerusalem
What is your opinion of the defer bible please let me know
This video is illustrative of the downgrade in what was once the most sound SBC seminaries, and the SBC as a whole. May God have mercy.
Great video! I have a question though. What Bible is that? It's looks SHARP!
Where do you get that Timothy was a 'pastor'? It all rests on tradition. In the 1800's, letters to Timothy and Titus came to be called 'pastorals', but they aren't called pastors. There is a church tradition that Timothy was the bishop in Ephesus, but is that an anachronistic practice of calling an early apostle in the city an elder? Was Peter the first bishop in Rome?
The scriptures themselves, if we don't accept the KJV titles of books, do not call Timothy a pastor, bishop, or elder. In fact, He was to appoint such leaders. Titus, also, is not called a pastor or bishop in scripture. He was told to appoint elders in every city then given bishop requirements.
I Timothy 1:1 and 2:6-7 indicate that Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy were apostles of Christ. Apostles appointed elders... more than one of them.
Interpreting James comment and the fact that the letter reflected it as James being the pastor and the boss may also be a bit of eisegesis. The letter indicates this is what they believed that this is what seemed good to all of them and the Holy Spirit.
The lampstand being your argument for 1 leader when no scholar I can think of agrees with you and that statement being in contradiction to the rest of scripture especially since at that time there were no single leaders in the church is astonishing. People if you can not see this is unbiblical you will miss much more, the safeguard for church leadership is unity in christ as christ is the head, chirst should be leading. if that is not the case is it the church of jesus christ or the southern baptist church? The safegaurd for prophecy is unity it christ the phrophecies are to be tested, and prophets are appointed by God in the church second after apostles, where are your prophets? The southern baptist movement was birthed in pride and self seeking the branch being slavery in opposition to Gods word and still continues to this day to rebel against the word of God which is God, if you reject his word you reject him, if you receive his word you receive him. You must judge for yourselves what you are following the teachings of man or the teachings of God.
Remember how isreal wanted one man over them and God was displeased with them as he wanted to lead them. hence why prophets are put in greater importance over overseers. Is it the church of Jesus Christ or is it the Southern Baptist Church? I chose to only participate in the church of Jesus Christ where he is leading. I will not compromise, I will not follow man! I will submit myself under the leadership in the church of Jesus Christ who as a group seek Gods governance and not their own. Wake up out of your sleep and slumber as these leaders telling you peace peace! when their is no peace as you are still in rebellion against God you are still committing the fundamental sin of going your own way! Go Gods way! Go Gods way! leave all behind and follow him, your life is found in him, your provision is found in him, your future is found in him, look nowhere else but to him, set your eyes stead upon him and look not to the right or to the left, look to him and find all that you need and abundantly more!!
What Bible is he using? Very curious, and would love a Thinline like this.
Respectfully, You show scriptural favoritism towards one model vs the other. The prime example is you gave Historic background information on 1 Peter which created a scenario for single led pastoral congregations while neglecting the historical background of Timothy, where he was appointing elders in young congregations. to say Timothy is the "single elder" is to reveal a preferential bias as Timothy was to do the work of an Evangelist, a teacher, etc.
There is a lot of conflating in this video.
I’ve been struggling with this topic and found this very helpful, thanks!
What you said in your opening introduction has always perplexed me about southern Baptists you basically stayed that southern Baptists are congregation only led churches, but the Bible clearly teaches an elder led Church. Some Baptist churches also give their Deacons elder types of positions and authority while I have seen others that are more of a pastor led Church. Wouldn't it be better just to have the simple New testament government of, Christ is the head, the elders are the shepherds which includes the pastor, deacons and deaconesses take care of different needs in the church and you have the rest of the congregation, we are all subject to one another and to serve one another.
"A significant amount of authority but not autocratic authority". Let's see how this lines up with Jesus's words. In Matt 20 two disciples ask for positions of authority, sitting at the right and left hand of Jesus himself. The other disciples were not happy about this. How does Jesus respond? Let's see... 25But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26“Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27“And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave- 28“just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”
The word authority in verse 25 is only used 2 times in the bible (both are describing the same event) and we see from the Greek Lexicon the following: κατεξουσιάζω; not found in secular authors; to exercise authority, wield power (see κατά, III. 3): τίνος, over one, Matthew 20:25; Mark 10:42.
What does Jesus say about exercising authority or wielding power? This shall not be so among you - pretty straight forward. No one in the body has authority over any one else in the body, it's cut and dry.
Pastor is a gift not a title. Title is a brother or unworthy servant.
The Church Must gets back to its roots of (plural) leadership ELDERS, BISHOPS, and DEACONS and abandon the error senior head pastor deception. Which has been in place since the second century and enforce through the Catholic Church concept of priest, Pastor over his Parish/ congregation. Acts 14:23, 20:17 1Peter 5:2
Elder lead Church governance appears to be laid out clearly in scripture. Not clearly laid out were the inferences presented in the video for congregational governance.
Pragmatically speaking, "one pastor led churches" disproportionately seem to run into trouble, which would seem to support the straightforward guidance given in scripture for church leadership to be a plurality of men.
If making inferences, and while not directly related to Pastors specifically, Christ sent the disciples out in pairs. There are also numerous Biblical examples of early church leaders who labored as pairs. There might be a reason for this that could logically apply to present day church leadership as well.
Considering pragmatism again, Timothy wasn't operating on his own, Paul was still instructing him. Further, biblical instruction for elders, implying multiple men, are given in multiple books of the New Testament. There are no instructions related to single pastor led churches. Assuming one pastor led governance to be equally valid, such an omission seems curious. Believers are called within the body for accountability and to help hold brothers and sisters accountable, elders as well. But there is no guidance given for the one scenario most likely to run into issues with a lack of accountability yet has no instruction from the Lord?
My view, this topic might be one of the most clearly instructed, yet contested disagreements within the body of Christ today. Considering this, which interpretation would make more sense to be given by a divine creator who is intimately aware of the fallen and still sin prone nature of those he might allow to shepherd his flock? A system which allows a single man to lead with little or no accountability (or support) or a method in which accountability and mutual support would be likely to occur?
The worst thing a church can do is to let deacons or worse yet women run the show!!!
Rick Warren and JD GREER have presented teachings that don't line up with scripture....are they not listening to their elders ?
Elders???? Rick Warren???? no way! He may have "advisors" but Warren seems pretty independent
@@kristenspencer9751 So he is in a Baptist Church with no elders ?
@@Anthony-ix3rp Elders Aside, Rick Warren is pretty much a free agent. Doubt anyone has much success speaking into his life.
@@kristenspencer9751 I heard him speak at the southern baptist convention, our was full of me me me me and what he had done ! He has built a falty tower !
Pastor is mentioned only once in the. Ew testament. Jesus is the head of the church which is His body. We all should hear from God through the Holy Spirit and be a living part of His body/church. In the New Testament the letters are addressed to 'the church' not a pastor. The angels in Revelation are angels not pastors.
All this comes about in the ministry of Paul and Peter's differences of christianity, We are following Peter's paradigm, not Paul's. Do study. Christian Origins by Christopher Rowland.
I miss Adrian Rogers
Totally disagree with you. The pastor is the servant and if everyone disagrees with him but God says do , I’m doing.
Are all New Covenant believers equal at the foot of the cross, or are we going to put one man up on a pedestal as our high priest instead of Christ? Is this the model found in the Roman Catholic Church? Is the Holy Spirit the leader of all true "born-again" believers? (John 14:26, 1 John 2:27) Nobody can completely understand the Bible and the New Testament Church of Jesus Christ, unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
New Covenant Whole Gospel:
Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him.
He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by
husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis?
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart.
Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36)
We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24.
Watch the TH-cam videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Which of the Two Baptisms is required for salvation?
Water baptism was a part of the Old Covenant system of ritual washing. The Old Covenant priests had to wash before beginning their service in the temple. When Christ was water baptized by His cousin John in the Jordan River, He was under the Old Covenant system. He also only ate certain foods, and wore certain clothes, as prescribed by the 613 Old Covenant laws. Christ was water baptized by John and then received the Holy Spirit from heaven. The order is reversed in the New Covenant. A person receives the Holy Spirit upon conversion, and then believers often declare their conversion to their friends and family through a New Covenant water baptism ceremony.
The conversion process is described below.
Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
(A person must “hear” the Gospel, and “believe” the Gospel, and will then be “sealed” with the Holy Spirit.)
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
(See Jer. 31:34 for the New Covenant promise, and 1 John 2:27 for the fulfillment)
============
Which baptism is a part of the salvation process, based on what the Bible says?
What did Peter say below?
Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water when they read the word "baptize" in the text.
Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage?
Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (See 1 Cor. 12:13)
“baptize” KJV
Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mar_1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Water or Holy Spirit?, See Eph. 1-13.)
Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
Joh_1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
Joh_1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
1Co_1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (See Eph. 4:1-5)
Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Old Covenant ----> New Covenant)
How many people have been saved by the Old Covenant water baptism of John the Baptist?
Who did John the Baptist say is the greatest Baptist that ever lived in Luke 3:16? What kind of New Covenant baptism comes from Christ?
New Covenant water baptism is a beautiful ceremony which allows new believers to declare their conversion to the whole world.
You hesitated with episkopos but then said Bishop
You omitted Deacon altogether
And then there was almost a fearful hesitancy when you had to explain presbyter- which not only means elder but more directly means priest.
Because the word Presbyter becomes prestor
Which then becomes priest.
You do not have priests
You do sometimes refer to people as Deacons
And depending on congregation you might have what you call Bishop
You cannot pick and choose what is commanded and inherently correct in the hierarchy of the church.
Bishop Priest and Deacon
There is no Reverend, no doctor, Pastor and Shepherd is merely descriptive.
But these titles of authority are what separate those who must listen and those who must lead.
St James conferred all matters to Saint Peter who was clearly the leader of all the apostles because Christ said so!
Not only because he named him The Rock in The Gospel according to St Matthew
But because Christ said to him lead my flock Shepherd my sheep, three times!
Who else would Christ mean?
There were three nearest and dearest to Christ who were men Peter James and John
Three women closest to Christ all named Mary.
Your congregation has no power to elect anyone because it has no apostolic authority and it goes by a hollowness of Scripture does it ignores the hallowed nature of the one true church.
The Catholic Church.
I wouldn’t sit under him. A bit light on on scripture to justify his postition. Just a heap of talk.
Scripture is the best guide, Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12, and Ephesians 4 which list the gifts that the Holy Spirit divides up severally to all believers. I am disappointed at the misrepresentation of Ephesians 4; the gift of pastor is different from teacher (don't worry, I know the Greek on this). I've known pastors who, in spite of their biblical knowledge couldn't teach a lick, and teachers of the Word who did not have a pastor's heart. I've also known pastors who were wolves in sheep's clothing they were cult leader manipulators.
Like any other Gift a Christian may have multiple. I have had Pastors that were Preachers,Some were Teachers ,Occasionally (but rarely) some were both, I think the healthiest Churches have Both represented in leadership
@@tonkatruck1968 I whole heartedly agree that both the gift of pastor and teacher should be represented in leadership, and that all of the gifts should be present in each congregation. Unfortunately, such is not the case in most congregations. Even among Charismatics the "leadership" suppresses any gift that might take attention away from them.
Truly disappointing but at least clear. The divergence, blind spot, possibly heresy is the conflating the 3 offices mentioned into one. The 5 gifts of The Sovereign to the church: Messengers Prophets Evangelist, Pastors and Teachers are gifts that have no qualifications. Single, married, fisherman or killer. These gifts are to the church universal, exercised in multiple congregations and are inescapable to the one called. Elders and Deacons for that matter are local in their scope and attained by good conduct and the meeting of God's requirements, ie. marriage and multiple children. If we believe in a verbal and plenary inspiration we might rather exercise extreme caution before we homogenize three words into one, particularly if the choice of the words was made by the Master Architect of the Universe. As has been said, "God hath NOT mumbled."
Diaprax?
FYI, your mic is pointed the wrong way. You're supposed to speak into the side of it, not the top.
This is correct, but they did manage to get a pretty good sound regardless, I assume with some post editing.
Bro I had the same thought 😂 still sounded good
Neither type of church has any true authority, and both teach doctrines invented by mankind with some scripture sprinkled in for effect!! They come down to one man's opinion or a committee making decisions, both doing the best they can as men (and women)!!
Skip to 3:30 for beginning of answer.
False points. I keep hearing "I believe"
Mcarthur “grinned”
Autocratic leader.
All other Excuses are a mute point.
I’m losing my interest in involvement
In church
“Leeway”
Wonder when lawlessness is in the conversation?
The bible clearly supports a plurality of elders in a local church. And this man's arguments for a pastor are so weak. De facto arguments. If a pastor stands in front of a church with a bible in hand then the congregation will trust that man. That was his argument. De facto.
you should take a backseat and leave the leading of the church to christ. christ is the head of the church. not some pontiff not a pastor and not a group of elders
Scripture also calls for human leadership. Christ is to be the Head, but that doesn't mean He didn't use men to lead and protect his flock. There were prophets and judges in the Old Testament and apostles in the New Testament. This is a model God has used at least since Moses.
@@juanitadudley4788 All Christians are Priests Revelations 1:5-6. Donot claim that False theology trained False teachers should be leaders. Main issue of Christianity is the False theology False teachers claiming to be Pastors and destroying so many Christian lives.
Start your home church. Donot go after many False teachers and destroy your life.
Pastor isn't a greek or an english word. Should not appear at all in english bibles. It only occurs once in most bible Eph 4:15 but the correct translation is shepherd which is one of the two jobs of an elder to shepherd and oversee 1 Peter 5:1-4 and also Acts 20:17-28. ESV of 2015 corrected this mistake. I've seen executive pastors acting as CEO's for the church but that is not God's model in the bible. I tim 3, Titus 1. Elders in every church. It is not one man rule. Pastors and priest tend to act as one man rule instead of the way the apostles set it up with a plurality of elders.
Elders are normal Christians (not False theology trained False teachers who are doing Christian work for money).
stars being the angelos (messenger)
- pastor is a case of eisegesis or bad exegesis - nowhere in the bible is a leader in a church referred to as angelos or a messenger and to use this scripture as proof that there is a singular pastor responsible for the leading of a church, is in my opinion and with respect to my learned brother, not very good biblical exposition. a plain interpretation is that the angelos refers to a messenger or an angel.
Too many heads, too many ideas, too many problems