The Pastoral Office

[elysian]

"The office of preaching is a ministry which proceeds from Christ, not to Christ; and it comes to us, not from us".- Martin Luther

The idea of the "priesthood of all believers" should not be translated into a doctrine that supposes Christians do not need spiritual authority. The idea that "each man is his own Pope" leads to apostasy and anarchy. Lutherans do not refer to clergy as priests for this very reason- for all followers of Christ are His priests. Our clergy are generally called pastors (those ministers who are called and ordained to lead a local congregation) though we also have diaconal ministers (called and consecrated to ministry) and deaconesses. Our pastors have been given authority by Christ's virtue through their call in matters of spiritual leadership but not in matters of temporal government. (see the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms (http://www.issuesetc.org/resource/archives/veith2.htm))

The word "pastor" means "shepherd." He is called to lead his congregation like a shepherd leads sheep. (this does not mean we follow blindly however...) The authority a pastor holds is not his own authority, but God's authority is carried out through the office he is called to hold. The pastor is not inherently "holier" than you or I, he is simply the one who God has called to that office. The pastor is called as an instrument through which God intercedes in Christ for us. The pastor only can do his work as God empowers him to do, not because the pastor is "holier" than the rest of us, but because God has called him and God gives him that authority and God speaks and works through him.

"The concept of the universal priesthood of believers does not preclude the position that the ministry is ordained of God. When this view which is so inseparable from the evangelical concept of the church is formulated by Luther, it is directed particularly against the Roman Catholic view that ordination of the priest confers upon the man certain special religious qualifications which are indelible in character. Against this Luther insists that priest and layman are basically alike in judgment or in grace. The spiritual priesthood belongs to every Christian. It is conferred through baptism and faith. It is constituted by the fact that "we are all priests with Christ, that is to say, we are the children of Christ, the great High Priest." http://users.aol.com/SemperRef/office.html

Here's a good article on the difference between "each one for himself" and balanced perspective on authority and the pastoral office:
Every Sheep a Shepherd? (http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086|CHID560796|CIID1413546,00.html)

[truthman]

I disagree with the priesthood of the believer altogether. It was for Jewish believers of a different time. As members of the Body of Christ, we are seen as righteous, and do not need a priest.

Secondly, I'm having a hard time with this statementThe pastor is called as an instrument through which God intercedes in Christ for us.Please elaborate.

truthman

[Solly]

I disagree with the priesthood of the believer altogether. It was for Jewish believers of a different time. As members of the Body of Christ, we are seen as righteous, and do not need a priest.

Secondly, I'm having a hard time with this statementPlease elaborate.

truthmanPriesthood of the believer does not refer to our mediation, but our service to God.

you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

A different time? Are you dispensational TM?

[truthman]

Hmmm, I thought you knew Solly.

Are we still friends?

truthman

[Solly]

Hmmm, I thought you knew Solly.

Are we still friends?

truthman
Sure, some of my best friends... :teeth:

So, fancy a debate in the gym about it? I'll hold your coat. :poke:

slly

[truthman]

I'd be honored to meet you at dawn with Bibles. But only after bagels and peanut butter.

BTW, the whole "priesthood of the Jewish believer" bit that Peter was talking about was in fulfillment of Exodus 19:6 "And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation"

truthman

[elysian]

(truthman):we are seen as righteous, and do not need a priest.

True, we have one Mediator, Who is Jesus Christ. His sacrifice was good for the salvation of all. This is why we call our clergy pastors- they are more rightly referred to as shepherds or leaders.

Lutherans believe that God works through people- if anything good comes from a person it is because God is working through that person. We don't do anything good of our own merit but because God gives us the grace and power to do so.

For those called to the pastoral office, God grants that person the authority to carry out the duties of that office, primarily of being a shepherd or leader- of preaching the Word, teaching, and administering the Sacraments (Baptism and Communion.) The authority comes from God, not because the pastor is "holier" or "better" than the rest of the congregation (you almost have to be an ex-Catholic to appreciate this thought...in Catholic teaching the priest himself -not just the office- is literally "Jesus-by-proxy" and you bet the priest is considered a lot holier and better than the lowly peons in the pews....)

Each Christian believer does have the obligation to live a life as a disciple: to witness in our behavior and conduct as we go about our lives.

[Solly]

I'd be honored to meet you at dawn with Bibles. But only after bagels and peanut butter.

BTW, the whole "priesthood of the Jewish believer" bit that Peter was talking about was in fulfillment of Exodus 19:6 "And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation"

truthman
:hehe: Let's not get Elysians thread off topic, it's pastors she wants to talk about, Pastor Truthman.

Pastor slly

[Solly]

True, we have one Mediator, Who is Jesus Christ. This is why we call our clergy pastors- they are more rightly referred to as shepherds or leaders.

Lutherans believe that God works through people- if anything good comes from a person it is because God is working through that person. We don't do anything good of our own merit but because God gives us the grace and power to do so.
Yes; it's a fine distinction, but one worth making. pastors and teachers are spiritual gifts to the church, through whom the spirit ministers grace. but it doesn't make us anything special. Clericalism is often the outcome of that error, and it's a good church that doesn't fall into that error.

For those called to the pastoral office, God grants that person the authority to carry out the duties of that office, primarily of being a shepherd or leader- of preaching the Word, teaching, and administering the Sacraments (Baptism and Communion.) The authority comes from God, not because the pastor is "holier" or "better" than the rest of the congregation (you almost have to be an ex-Catholic to appreciate this thought...in Catholic teaching the priest himself -not just the office- is literally "Jesus-by-proxy" and you bet the priest is considered a lot holier and better than the lowly peons in the pews....)
Hence all the arguments about the moral state of the priest when concelebrating Mass. And i do appreciate the thought Elys, though not having been RCC.

Each Christian believer does have the obligation to live a life as a disciple: to witness in our behavior and conduct as we go about our lives.
:thumb:

[gooner]

For those called to the pastoral office, God grants that person the authority to carry out the duties of that office, primarily of being a shepherd or leader- of preaching the Word, teaching, and administering the Sacraments (Baptism and Communion.) The authority comes from God, not because the pastor is "holier" or "better" than the rest of the congregation (you almost have to be an ex-Catholic to appreciate this thought...in Catholic teaching the priest himself -not just the office- is literally "Jesus-by-proxy" and you bet the priest is considered a lot holier and better than the lowly peons in the pews....)



I do not believe that there is a pastoral office.I agree that duties of an Elder are to shepherd(pastor) the flock and that there IS an office of Elder but pastor is a gift which operates under the authority of Elders and leadership is PLURAL....that is there should be at least two Elders in any church fellowship.I appreciate that this is not always possible.My point is that the office is that of Elder not pastor.An Elder is a "pastor" in terms of his gifts because he must be able to teach but in most churches I know the Elders are under the authority of a "Pastor".The "pastor" then ofton becomes head honcho and the Elders are his yes men.Actually this is all wrong.Even the Apostles seem to have gone out in two's....eg Paul/Silas.I believe the NT teachers a plurality of Elders with the full ministry gifts operating under their authority.....these gifts include the pastoral....a healthy church will have many "pastors".

[AV1611]

The idea of the "priesthood of all believers" should not be translated into a doctrine that supposes Christians do not need spiritual authority.
Elders are biblical clergy is not: http://www.newble.co.uk/writers/Darby/clergyman.html (http://www.newble.co.uk/writers/Darby/clergyman.html)

[AV1611]

BTW, the whole "priesthood of the Jewish believer" bit that Peter was talking about was in fulfillment of Exodus 19:6 "And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation"

truthman
Hi truthman,

So are you and Acts 28er? I am a 'Darbyite' dispensationalist and see the 'priesthood of the believer' as God expanding his blessing to the church. :smile:

[AV1611]

See also: http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.asp?ViewCommentary=1+Peter+2&Version=DRBY

[Amazing Rando]

Elders are biblical clergy is not: http://www.newble.co.uk/writers/Darby/clergyman.html (http://www.newble.co.uk/writers/Darby/clergyman.html)

The word translated "elder" in Greek is presbuteroV- the word from which we obviously get the English word presbyter (e.g Presbyterian Church!). The same word is used in more places than in the Pastoral letters describing the church offices. It is also used to refer to the Jewish religious leaders as well as to simply refer to an "old man" (e.g. Acts 2:17) or "old woman" (yes- women are referred to as using the same word "presbyter" - 1 Tim 5:2).

[rmwilliamsjr]

the link above to
Every Sheep a Shepherd?


by Rick Ritchie
Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (http://home.christianity.com/ministries/ace/detail.html)
didn't work for me. so here is the last few sentences and the link again. a worthwhile essay to read. thanks for the link above.

The evangelical world needs to recover something it has lost. The doctrine of the Holy Ministry is as sorely needed in the evangelical church as the Priesthood of All Believers was needed by the medieval church. May God raise up for us true shepherds. And may God raise up smart sheep who will go out and find them. http://home.christianity.com/local/48495.html

[elysian]

the link above to
Every Sheep a Shepherd?


by Rick Ritchie
Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals (http://home.christianity.com/ministries/ace/detail.html)
didn't work for me. so here is the last few sentences and the link again. a worthwhile essay to read. thanks for the link above.
http://home.christianity.com/local/48495.html

This thread's kind of old, apparently they archived this article, but it is still a very worthwhile read. I especially appreciate the final paragraph:

In the Lutheran church, the Holy Ministry exists alongside of the Priesthood of All Believers. We do not pit these doctrines against each other. It is a wonderful thing to enter a church where my rights and privileges as a royal priest are recognized, but I also have a true pastor. I hope that readers who have heard of the Priesthood of All Believers might study it for themselves and discover what it does and does not mean. The evangelical world needs to recover something it has lost. The doctrine of the Holy Ministry is as sorely needed in the evangelical church as the Priesthood of All Believers was needed by the medieval church. May God raise up for us true shepherds. And may God raise up smart sheep who will go out and find them.

[AV1611]

The word translated "elder" in Greek is presbuteroV- the word from which we obviously get the English word presbyter
As I said...elders are biblical but clergy is not.

[Amazing Rando]

As I said...elders are biblical but clergy is not.

:rock: Well if that's your criteria then you're just going to have to accept the offices of bishop and deacon as biblical too because they're from those same letters of Paul as is the elder or presbyter.

[AV1611]

:rock: Well if that's your criteria then you're just going to have to accept the offices of bishop and deacon as biblical too because they're from those same letters of Paul as is the elder or presbyter.
Well no. The office of bishop as we have today is man made wherein they have powers that scripture affords them not. Secondly, nowhere in scripture is deacon an office.

[rmwilliamsjr]

AFAIK the widest number of offices anyone has tried to support Scripturally is:
teachers, pastors, ruling elders, bishops, deacons, evangelists

although i don't know personally of any denominations that have all 6.

[Amazing Rando]

Well no. The office of bishop as we have today is man made wherein they have powers that scripture affords them not.
Our English word bishop comes from a greek word meaning "overseer." The "overseer" or bishop was in charge of all the congregations in a particular region. You apparently know next to nothing of the history of the early church. Paul and the other apostles appointed bishops to oversee the churches of particular areas. They were greater in authority and rank than the presbyters or "elders" described in the pastoral letters. Paul sets out a whole list of qualifications that a bishop must meet in 1 Tim 3:1-7 and Titus 1:7-9.

Secondly, nowhere in scripture is deacon an office.

:yes: Even in your cherished king jimmy version Paul lays out the qualifications for a deacon to meet. 1 Tim 3:8-13. The english word deacon comes from diakonoV- diakonos which means "servant" or "minister." They were generally the teachers of the church. Another of their primary functions was to administer the sacraments- as in Acts 6:1-6.

[spiritmech]

"Even in your cherished king jimmy version Paul lays out the qualifications for a deacon to meet. 1 Tim 3:8-13. The english word deacon comes from διακονος- diakonos which means "servant" or "minister." They were generally the teachers of the church. Another of their primary functions was to administer the sacraments- as in Acts 6:1-6."

<nod> This is a very important passage for anyone considering leadership in a ministry. I,for one, do not qualify to be a deacon of any sort.

[Amazing Rando]

<nod> This is a very important passage for anyone considering leadership in a ministry. I,for one, do not qualify to be a deacon of any sort.

I'm in seminary right now- I've got a long way to go before I live up to those standards!

[spiritmech]

Well, my point is that you have to be qualified for it, in a moral sense. You can't be divorced, etc. I could go to seminary, but I'd still have to play a support role and couldn't be a deacon. That is fine with me.

Steve

[AV1611]

AFAIK the widest number of offices anyone has tried to support Scripturally is:
teachers, pastors, ruling elders, bishops, deacons, evangelists

although i don't know personally of any denominations that have all 6.You have confused gifts with offices. There are many gifts but the only office is that of an elder.


Should We Recognize and Appoint Elders?
The question sometimes arises, "Should we recognize and appoint elders in each local church." Some believers argue that in Scripture, elders were only appointed by Apostles or their delegates, and so today, we should not appoint or recognize elders each local church. How do we answer these arguments?

We will start by admitting that in the examples we see in Scripture, it would seem that elders were only appointed by Apostles or their delegates. We read about the Apostolic appointment in Acts 14:23 and the appointment by a delegate in Titus 1:5. However, as we examine the Scriptures more closely, we see a couple of interesting facts. First, the two passages we have mentioned are in fact the only places where we see elders or overseers being appointed. In most places in Scripture, elders are simply mentioned in the text without any reference to how they became elders. It is not as if we have dozens of examples of elders being appointed and they all occur through an apostle or a delegate. In fact, there is no explicit instruction as to who may appoint elders.

The second fact concerning Apostolic appointment is that the appointment in Acts 14:23 was by Paul and Barnabas. While Barnabas is described as an "apostle" in Acts 14:14, it would seem from the distinction made in Acts 9:27 that in Barnabas’ case the word "apostle" might carry it’s normal meaning of "messenger" rather than the special ecclesiastical meaning. So we see that it is quite possible that one of the men making the appointment of an elder was not really an "Apostle" in the ecclesiastical sense of the word, but simply a messenger.

We must also acknowledge that the Holy Spirit has given us a considerable amount of Scripture describing the qualities of character found in an elder. Of course, we could say that 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 explain the qualities of character that every Christian man should have. This is true. Every Christian man should have these qualities. However, the text was obviously given so that those men who were elders could be identified. These passages gave instruction to Timothy and Titus how they could recognize who was an elder and who was not. If we believe we should not recognize elders anymore, we remove the primary purpose for which these two passages are found in the Bible. I believe these passages are in Scripture for a reason, and that reason is so we can identify the elders within our meetings.

The passages we have just mentioned are interesting for an additional reason. While Titus was given a clear charge to by Paul to appoint elders, Timothy was not. And yet instruction is given to Timothy on how to identify elders. Like Timothy, I believe we have been given the instructions on how to recognize an elder without the need of an Apostolic charge. I believe we must stand on the Scripture alone. When the Holy Spirit makes a man into an elder then we will be able to identify him based on the qualifications given in Holy Scripture.

If there are no elders in the local church, who will lead it? Some will give the obvious answer, "The Lord Jesus Christ, who is the head of the Church." Of course, we recognize that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the Church. There is no question that He is the Head! But if the Head of the Church saw the need to have under-shepherds appointed in each local church two thousand years ago, why would He not need them today? Based upon Hebrews 13:17, "Obey your leaders, and submit to them; for they keep watch over your souls, as those who will give an account" someone will identify himself as a leader, take charge of the church and demand obedience. This is what has happened with the "Pastor" system, where one man is given rule over a church. If we recognize elders, we will guarantee that our leaders must possess the qualities of character given in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. If we do not recognize elders, we will still have leaders of some sort, and yet these could be men who fall short of the Biblical standard.
What will we be missing if we do not appoint elders? We will be missing those who are given the charge to shepherd the sheep (1 Peter 5:1,2) and protect them from the savage wolves (Acts 20:28,29). We also miss out on the presence of men who are given the specific charge to pray for the sick and anoint them with oil (James 5:14). This would leave quite a gap in the church! The early church needed men like this, and I believe we need them today! Another point to remember is that we place ourselves on slippery ground if we reject some of the teaching in 1 Timothy and Titus "because they were Apostolic delegates." The simple fact of the matter is, once we start rejecting some parts of 1 Timothy and Titus for this reason, we run the risk that other portions may be rejected.

We must acknowledge that many churches that do not officially recognize elders, in fact appoint men to a position that is that of "elder" in everything but name. Whether we call these men "responsible brothers" or "pastors", they still occupy the place, role and function of an elder, and in many cases command the obedience that must be shown to a true elder. The only real difference between these men and true elders is that these men do not need to have all the qualities of character that a real elder must have.

So if we do believe that elders should be appointed or recognized, how do we do it? I have two suggestions along these lines. First, consider the pattern given in Acts 14:21-23. "And after they had preached the gospel to that city and had made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and to Iconium and to Antioch, strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, "Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God." And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed." If some would suggest that it is the Biblical pattern that only Apostles or their delegates appointed elders, we can just as easily suggest that it is the Biblical pattern that having planted new churches, it is the pioneering evangelists that later return to appoint elders. I have heard of pioneering evangelists doing just this, and I take no exception to it because I find this in Scripture.

But what about an existing congregation that has become convinced about New Testament Church truth, and wishes to appoint elders? What about a small group of Christians who wish to establish a new church without the efforts of a pioneering evangelist? How might they recognize and appoint elders? I believe we can recognize who should be an elder by the same standard Timothy and Titus used! If a man has the qualities of character described in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, and if he is willing to serve in the role of shepherd, then I believe he already is an elder, and we need only recognize publicly what the Holy Spirit has already done within that man.

I know this is a topic that will stir up considerable debate within some. I maintain a deep love for many who do not believe that elders should not be appointed or recognized today. And yet, I believe it is the teaching of Scripture that we should have elders, and I believe we are robbing ourselves of great blessing if we do not recognize those brothers whom God has given us to be elders.

Shawn Abigail
July 1998

[Amazing Rando]

You have confused gifts with offices. There are many gifts but the only office is that of an elder.



Dude- do you even read the pastoral letters? Read 1 Timothy 3: 1-12 for starters. bishops (overseers) and deacons are explicitly talked about at length. What Bible are you reading?

[rmwilliamsjr]

You have confused gifts with offices. There are many gifts but the only office is that of an elder.



no i have not confused anything.
this is the widest list for offices in church history:
offices: teachers, pastors, ruling elders, bishops, deacons, evangelists
gifts: teaching Prophecy Healing preaching exhortation etc

if you are interested i wrote more at:
http://www.dakotacom.net/%7Ermwillia/lesson14_essay.html
on Calvins view of offices

[AV1611]

no i have not confused anything.

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

Prophet is not an office but someone with the gift of prophesy.
Evangelist is not an office but someone with the gift of evangelism. etc.

Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers: apostles and prophets laying, or rather being laid, as the foundations of the heavenly building, and acting as coming directly from the Lord in an extraordinary manner; the two other classes (the last being sub-divided into two gifts, connected in their nature) belonging to ordinary ministry in all ages. When Paul speaks of the apostles and prophets, the latter are to him those exclusively of the New Testament, and those who have been made such by Christ after His ascension. Apostles and prophets were the foundation, and in that sense they were, when the foundation was laid, no longer in exercise.

on Calvin's view of officesCalvin is wrong on pretty much everything :smile:

[Amazing Rando]

[/size][/size][/size]
Calvin is wrong on pretty much everything :smile:

Not nearly as wrong as Darby! :rofl:

[rmwilliamsjr]

You have confused gifts with offices. There are many gifts but the only office is that of an elder.


[/size][/size]

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

Prophet is not an office but someone with the gift of prophesy.
Evangelist is not an office but someone with the gift of evangelism. etc.

Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers: apostles and prophets laying, or rather being laid, as the foundations of the heavenly building, and acting as coming directly from the Lord in an extraordinary manner; the two other classes (the last being sub-divided into two gifts, connected in their nature) belonging to ordinary ministry in all ages. When Paul speaks of the apostles and prophets, the latter are to him those exclusively of the New Testament, and those who have been made such by Christ after His ascension. Apostles and prophets were the foundation, and in that sense they were, when the foundation was laid, no longer in exercise.

snip---uncalled for ad homenium remark i have never seen anyone misinterpret these offices as gifts.
i would be curious to see where this uniquely wrong idea comes from. so i would follow up on any links you could offer to others doing this.


He returns to explain the distribution of gifts, and illustrates at greater length what he had slightly hinted, that out of this variety arises unity in the church, as the various tones in music produce sweet melody. The meaning may be thus summed up. "The external ministry of the word is also commended, on account of the advantages which it yields. Certain men appointed to that office, are employed in preaching the gospel. This is the arrangement by which the Lord is pleased to govern his church, to maintain its existence, and ultimately to secure its highest perfection."

It may excite surprise, that, when the gifts of the Holy Spirit form the subject of discussion, Paul should enumerate offices instead of gifts. I reply, when men are called by God, gifts are necessarily connected with offices. God does not confer on men the mere name of Apostles or Pastors, but also endows them with gifts, without which they cannot properly discharge their office. He whom God has appointed to be an apostle does not bear an empty and useless title; for the divine command, and the ability to perform it, go together. Let us now examine the words in detail.
from: http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol41/htm/iv.v.iii.htm


consistently this list:


Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers

has been seen as offices in the church not the gifts given. the burden of proof that it is otherwise rests on anyone who proposes something different. Until then i contend that the church has at the widest proposed these offices:
teachers, pastors, ruling elders, bishops, deacons, evangelists......

[AV1611]

I have never seen anyone misinterpret these offices as gifts.
They are gifts not offices as I said before:

a) Prophet is not an office but someone with the gift of prophesy.
b) Evangelist is not an office but someone with the gift of evangelism.

Apostles and prophets were the foundation and when the foundation was laid they are no longer in exercise. The foundation has been laid and so now we no longer have apostles nor prophets.