Leadership Structure

[Amanah]

Elder Esaias

You've created posts on leadership structure in the past.
Please provide that information again, when you have a minute, if you don't mind.
How reliable is Ignatius of Antioch for providing guidance on Church Structure and sacraments.

This may end up on Facebook also

[Esaias]

Re: the word pastor -

First, the word means 'shepherd'. It is not a title of rank or position since Jesus forbad His followers from receiving, giving, or recognising religious titles amongst themselves. A shepherd's job is to take care of sheep - to feed them and guide them into 'green pastures' so they can be nourished.

Second, there is no 'single pastor of a church' position in Scripture, unless we count Jesus, the 'Chief Pastor', who alone is Head of the church. There are several terms in Scripture used interchangeably - elder, bishop, etc. Every church is to have elderS (plural) - that is the goal of apostolic church planting, to establish a body of believers (mostly new converts) through evangelistic preaching of the word, to teach them the fundamentals of the doctrine of Christ, to encourage them in the faith, etc - in other words, to parent them until they are mature. The local church is mature when elders can be ordained to carry on the work of the apostolic church planter who then (following Paul's example) moves on to the next mission field. The church planter (apostle) does not then 'cut the ties that bind' of the established church, but takes less and less direct oversight of it, that duty belonging to the elders ('bishops' or overseers).

That duty includes being examples to the rest of the believers in godliness, faith, purity of doctrine, purity of lifestyle, righteous deeds, etc. They are responsible for teaching the faithful, both corporately (the whole church) and one-on-one (as Paul did, teaching 'from house to house', always ready to teach anyone and everyone who desired to learn). Thus, visitation is a duty of the elders/bishops of the church. They are accountable for the spiritual condition of the members of the Body, therefore they must take measures to KNOW that condition.

Paul's instructions to timothy are a good starting point for the duties of a pastor/bishop/elder/overseer in the church.

It should be noted that 'apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor/teacher' seem to be descriptive of functions, not offices, whereas elder/bishop and deacon seem to be more along the lines of offices.

God ordains apostles. God ordains prophets. It stands to reason God ordains evangelists and pastor/teachers as well, whereas bishops/overseers/elders are ordained by the church, either via the apostle or his delegate during the time of initial oversight, or by the elders (presbytery) once the church is fully functioning.

And just as a church may have several apostles (a church planting missionary team, for example), several prophets, etc - it may also have several pastors (those who teach and 'feed' the church, elders who have the service of teaching the Body, ie 'teaching elders').

All of this can be seen from Jesus' examples, His commands and teachings to the original Twelve, the book of Acts, and Paul's letters. We also see some of this in Hebrews and John's letters as well.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Re: the word pastor -

First, the word means 'shepherd'. It is not a title of rank or position since Jesus forbad His followers from receiving, giving, or recognising religious titles amongst themselves. A shepherd's job is to take care of sheep - to feed them and guide them into 'green pastures' so they can be nourished.

Second, there is no 'single pastor of a church' position in Scripture, unless we count Jesus, the 'Chief Pastor', who alone is Head of the church. There are several terms in Scripture used interchangeably - elder, bishop, etc. Every church is to have elderS (plural) - that is the goal of apostolic church planting, to establish a body of believers (mostly new converts) through evangelistic preaching of the word, to teach them the fundamentals of the doctrine of Christ, to encourage them in the faith, etc - in other words, to parent them until they are mature. The local church is mature when elders can be ordained to carry on the work of the apostolic church planter who then (following Paul's example) moves on to the next mission field. The church planter (apostle) does not then 'cut the ties that bind' of the established church, but takes less and less direct oversight of it, that duty belonging to the elders ('bishops' or overseers).

That duty includes being examples to the rest of the believers in godliness, faith, purity of doctrine, purity of lifestyle, righteous deeds, etc. They are responsible for teaching the faithful, both corporately (the whole church) and one-on-one (as Paul did, teaching 'from house to house', always ready to teach anyone and everyone who desired to learn). Thus, visitation is a duty of the elders/bishops of the church. They are accountable for the spiritual condition of the members of the Body, therefore they must take measures to KNOW that condition.

Paul's instructions to timothy are a good starting point for the duties of a pastor/bishop/elder/overseer in the church.

It should be noted that 'apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor/teacher' seem to be descriptive of functions, not offices, whereas elder/bishop and deacon seem to be more along the lines of offices.

God ordains apostles. God ordains prophets. It stands to reason God ordains evangelists and pastor/teachers as well, whereas bishops/overseers/elders are ordained by the church, either via the apostle or his delegate during the time of initial oversight, or by the elders (presbytery) once the church is fully functioning.

And just as a church may have several apostles (a church planting missionary team, for example), several prophets, etc - it may also have several pastors (those who teach and 'feed' the church, elders who have the service of teaching the Body, ie 'teaching elders').

All of this can be seen from Jesus' examples, His commands and teachings to the original Twelve, the book of Acts, and Paul's letters. We also see some of this in Hebrews and John's letters as well.

[Amanah]

Thanks Elder

I attempted to work through it on my own. We are being taught that communion is for remission of sins, and only leadership ordained ministry can administer it.

So this is what I came up with:

The apostles, following Jesus' instructions (Matthew 28:18-20), established churches and appointed elders (also known as overseers or presbyteroi) to lead and care for the believers (Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5-9). These elders were assisted by deacons (diakonoi), who managed practical matters and served the church (1 Timothy 3:8-13).

The apostles wrote letters (epistles) to the churches, providing guidance and encouragement. They also revisited the churches to maintain unity, correct errors, and strengthen the faith of the believers (Acts 15:36, 2 Timothy 4:2).

Communion, or the Lord's Supper, was a regular fellowship meal eaten in remembrance of Jesus' sacrifice (1 Corinthians 10:16-17, 11:23-26). This practice was rooted in Jesus' Last Supper with His disciples (Luke 22:19-20).

Apostles were chosen based on specific criteria, including being eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry, death, and resurrection (Acts 1:21-22, 1 Corinthians 9:1). After the original apostles' death, their unique ministry ceased (Revelation 21:14).

However, individuals like Ignatius of Antioch emerged, attempting to manage the church in a more authoritarian manner. They assumed apostolic authority, adopting the title "Bishop" (episkopos) to lead the churches. They introduced novel doctrines, such as the remission of sins through communion, in addition to baptism. This marked a shift towards using communion as a means of controlling the church.

So, if a Bishop who assumes Apostolic authority to appoint elders, who then are the only ones who can break the bread and bless the cup of communion, it seems that the Bishop has excessive authority.

Excerpts from Ignatius' letters:

"Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8:1)

“I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible” (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).

[coksiw]

Those Ignatius manuscripts have evidence that point to corruption. Ignatius was strangely too “advanced” for his time regarding church governance.
There are scholars that think so as well.

[Amanah]

David K Bernard said this on Facebook and it's close to what Jesse White teaches on communion:

Communion isn’t merely symbolic, for Christ truly comes to us in a personal, spiritual way when we participate. It’s an important opportunity to apply the benefits of Christ’s atonement by focusing our faith to receive forgiveness, blessing, healing, and deliverance.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

David K Bernard said this on Facebook and it's close to what Jesse White teaches on communion:

Communion isn’t merely symbolic, for Christ truly comes to us in a personal, spiritual way when we participate. It’s an important opportunity to apply the benefits of Christ’s atonement by focusing our faith to receive forgiveness, blessing, healing, and deliverance.

Bernard is head of the UPC, and in the UPC "communion" is generally celebrated once a year (on the pagan "new year's day" for some reason), in a manner borrowed from the Protestants who borrowed their method from the Roman Catholics. That is, they use a cracker of unleavened bread and a thimble of grape juice/wine. The ceremony is conducted in a "solemn" manner, with much "reflection upon the death of Christ, remorse for sins, diligent examination of oneself to make sure one is currently sanctified and thus not guilty of taking the communion in an unworthy condition", etc.

Whereas, in the Bible, the communion was a meal, that had as its central feature a single loaf of bread and a single cup of wine shared by the members, as a fellowship meal in remembrance of how Jesus died to save us and make us one Body, and apparently was eaten often. In fact, there is some evidence that whenever Christians had a meal together including bread and wine (which back then would have been practically every meal) it was considered "the Lord's Supper". Footwashing is also commanded, and while it may not happen at EVERY Lord's Supper it certainly should not be altogether neglected. A church that observes the Paschal feast would definitely be doing the footwashing with the Lord's Supper at that time, at least.

Regarding White... doesn't he have some kind of background or connection with some Antiochene Orthodox Church? Or am I getting him confused with someone else?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

Those Ignatius manuscripts have evidence that point to corruption. Ignatius was strangely too “advanced” for his time regarding church governance.
There are scholars that think so as well.

Yeah, a lot of "Ignatius" seems to be reverse engineered to suit the RCC's claims of ancient legitimacy.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I attempted to work through it on my own. We are being taught that communion is for remission of sins, and only leadership ordained ministry can administer it.

I have heard the teaching that healing is provided for in communion (Dr Gene Scott used to teach that) but I have never heard about remission of sins being in communion except by the Roman Catholic Church and its offshoots.

The initial remission of sins is applied to the individual in baptism. After that, if they sin, they need to repent, at which point they are forgiven. I cannot find anything in scripture to indicate that the Lord's supper is designed for the remission of sins, the way baptism or confession and forsaking sin is. The only way I can see communion being associated with remission of sins would be to argue thus: Saints partake of the Lord's Supper as an act of communion with Christ and his Body, failing to do so indicates a lack of communion with Christ and his Body, which in turn means one is simply outside the faith and still in their sins. But to claim the Lord's Supper is itself a means for providing remission of sins to Christians who sin after baptism is not found in Scripture, at least it hasn't been found by me.

The RCC claims the requirement to "eat My flesh and drink My blood, or else you have no life in you" as the basis for "the sacrament of communion which provides remission of sins". They take eating His flesh literally, since they believe the words of the priest literally changes the bread into the actual flesh of Christ. What's weird is they refuse to give the cup to the faithful, so it seems as if none of the faithful catholics "have any life in them" per their own doctrine. At least the Eastern Orthodox give the faithful both bread and wine.

[Tithesmeister]

Well done Esaias.