• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Holding all things in common

Cap said:
Which raises a question, how do you feel about the elders here?
Click to expand...
I think of it as, we already have leaders, by default. Who gets up to speak at retreats? Who sets the agenda? It's not by appointment, mind you, so much as it is, these people have been around the longest time period, so they got in early, if you will. Now, if we grow regionally to where there are clusters of like-minded people, some of us will be held in responsible positions of leadership, and I would think the existing leaders would have the responsibility of appointing those leaders, much like Paul instructed Titus and Timothy to do so.
 
I think the idea of elders for a group has given way to the democratic process and the vote of the majority. Not saying its right, it's just the default, particularly for Christian thought.
 
Cap said:
I think the idea of elders for a group has given way to the democratic process and the vote of the majority. Not saying its right, it's just the default, particularly for Christian thought.
Click to expand...
That may be a result of living in a society that somewhat believes in Democratic processes.
 
Daniel DeLuca said:
That may be a result of living in a society that somewhat believes in Democratic processes.
Click to expand...
True, but we fail to acknowledge that the Democratic process is inherently flawed. Choosing leadership requires self-interestless righteousness. Mankind is sinful and, even when we recognize and adjust for that, it affects the choices.

This is why we often see God's choice of a person is not our choice... difficulty that requires His direction and input.

I'm reminded of other conversations on here regarding accumulated genetic mutation. In leadership, often the first generation or two get it right, but over time the ugly slowly moves in... witness founding fathers v current polity, or denominational trajectories over time...
 
Cap said:
They lied to the Holy Spirit about participating in a community like others were doing. The others were trusting God when it came to community living, they did not and they lied about it. God don't kill them because they lied, many people lied, but because of their lack of faith.
Click to expand...

Maybe this has been addressed and I have not gotten to it, but...

God did kill them for their lie. Ananias was told that they did not lie to man but to God...and then fell dead. He was not rebuked for his lack of faith and then fell dead. Be careful of the wisdom of men as we do not need to defend God to anyone... Especially the unbeliever which is why many professing Christians attempt to explain away God's holiness, why He does kill/has killed and that He in fact does hate individuals. See Esau(Romans 9:13 , Malachi 1:3).

Acts 5 King James Version (KJV)
5 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,

2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.

7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.

8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.

9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.

10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

12 And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.

13 And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them.

To the above point... Christ or God and Saviour has no issue with killing people.

God is full of Grace but also He is also Holy and is not mocked. Someone said that when a person lies they are most like the devil. Among other things, all liars will have their place in the Lake of Fire(Rev. 21:8), which is the second death. Also not everyone who calls Christ Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Cap... I'm not calling you out and I love you dear brother. But the evangelical world at large holds to a sloppy view of God's grace that some call, "sloppy agape". Be free from that and from them:)

God bless!

John 4: 23-24
 
Last edited:
Maverick said:
Maybe this has been addressed and I have not gotten to it, but...

God did kill them for their lie. Ananias was told that they did not lie to man but to God...and then fell dead. He was not rebuked for his lack of faith and then fell dead. Be careful of the wisdom of men as we do not need to defend God to anyone... Especially the unbeliever which is why many professing Christians attempt to explain away God's holiness, why He does kill/has killed and that He in fact does hate individuals. See Esau(Romans 9:13 , Malachi 1:3).

Acts 5 King James Version (KJV)
5 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,

2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.

7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.

8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.

9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.

10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

12 And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.

13 And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them.

To the above point... Christ or God and Saviour has no issue with killing people.

God is full of Grace but also He is also Holy and is not mocked. Someone said that when a person lies they are most like the devil. Among other things, all liars will have their place in the Lake of Fire(Rev. 21:8), which is the second death. Also not everyone who calls Christ Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Cap... I'm not calling you out and I love you dear brother. But the evangelical world at large holds to a sloppy view of God's grace that some call, "sloppy agape". Be free from that and from them:)

God bless!

John 4: 23-24
Click to expand...


Hey no problem, read further in the thread and you well see the subject was talked about more.
 
PeteR said:
True, but we fail to acknowledge that the Democratic process is inherently flawed. Choosing leadership requires self-interestless righteousness. Mankind is sinful and, even when we recognize and adjust for that, it affects the choices.

This is why we often see God's choice of a person is not our choice... difficulty that requires His direction and input.

I'm reminded of other conversations on here regarding accumulated genetic mutation. In leadership, often the first generation or two get it right, but over time the ugly slowly moves in... witness founding fathers v current polity, or denominational trajectories over time...
Click to expand...

So scripture defines what kind of elder to choose, but it seems to be that the end selection is done by democratic selection. The added component would be cast of lots. I wonder if that's the way we should be choosing leaders?
 
In a functioning church, the wisest patriarchs do become the elders, naturally. So the two concepts are not in contradiction.

But the elders are appointed by others, not themselves. They aren't automatically elders when they reach a certain age or personally think they reach a certain level of wisdom, for instance. Paul appointed elders, and the most sensible way to follow that example is for the present eldership in a church to appoint their successors. Naturally, all going well, they will be appointing the wisest patriarchs in the next generation as their successors.

Of course, in many churches today this is not how things work at all. Our local Baptist church has an elected 'eldership' including both men and women, who serve for a limited term, before there is a re-election when all 'members' vote on who the elders will be for the next few years. That is completely unscriptural for a whole raft of reasons, I only say it to point out how the concept of eldership gets twisted by the church.

Democracy (or 'demonocracy' as some have called it) has no place in church governance, it is a system of Satan. It is the tool he uses to subvert and upend God's heirarchichal system, by placing those who should be under authority in charge. We all know more women attend church than men, so in practice this means the women select the leadership. No wonder patriarchy is dying.

Every church officer should be appointed by their superiors or predecessors.
 
What of the idea of casting lots? If you have a panel of qualifying candidates, based on the required criteria, then leave the choice to God (some will read chance) for the selection.
 
We place too much power in the words appoint or ordain.
It is simply an acknowledgement of who the go-to people in the community are.

Paul appointed elders for the churches that he started. He owned those fellowships and pointed out who he expected the others to give respect to.
 
FollowingHim said:
In a functioning church, the wisest patriarchs do become the elders, naturally. So the two concepts are not in contradiction.

But the elders are appointed by others, not themselves. They aren't automatically elders when they reach a certain age or personally think they reach a certain level of wisdom, for instance. Paul appointed elders, and the most sensible way to follow that example is for the present eldership in a church to appoint their successors. Naturally, all going well, they will be appointing the wisest patriarchs in the next generation as their successors.

Of course, in many churches today this is not how things work at all. Our local Baptist church has an elected 'eldership' including both men and women, who serve for a limited term, before there is a re-election when all 'members' vote on who the elders will be for the next few years. That is completely unscriptural for a whole raft of reasons, I only say it to point out how the concept of eldership gets twisted by the church.

Democracy (or 'demonocracy' as some have called it) has no place in church governance, it is a system of Satan. It is the tool he uses to subvert and upend God's heirarchichal system, by placing those who should be under authority in charge. We all know more women attend church than men, so in practice this means the women select the leadership. No wonder patriarchy is dying.

Every church officer should be appointed by their superiors or predecessors.
Click to expand...
This is why I love the example of the church at Antioch. It has none of the Apostolic Succession or blessing or hierarchal bs that comes with a hierarchy. Its an organic assembly of brothers operating in unity according to their individual gifts.

Trigger alert: I have major issues with the premise of Apostolic Succession as utilized by the RCC and unwittingly continued by Protestants and recent Primitives alike today. This idea has been perpetuated historically by the Protestants (particularly Luther) who understood the Priesthood of the Believer enough to reject the authority of the Papacy, but not the Bishop-acy.

My initial question would be, from where or whom does this elected/appointed elder gain his authority to appoint a successor?
Which begs the question, from where or whom does this elected/appointed elder get his election/appointment to begin with? From what I gather, it is always from the assembly. But this appointment is to represent/serve/MC the assembly, not to appoint another to represent the assembly. That is a redundant authority. The same assembly that appointed their current shepherd, is still perfectly capable of terminating that appointment (by scriptural process, decently and in order) and appointing another.

The problem that I’ve seen in churches here in the states is that when the elders appoint their successors by a fiat succession instead of by unified confirmation by the assembly of Paters, it becomes a game of politics and (physical or spiritual) nepotism for the reigning elder. Usually resulting in splitting the church, or driving off the ones who wont support their man.

Another issue I’ve witnessed (and experienced), is that the reigning pastor/pope has driven off anyone who thinks or studies scripture for themselves and would dare to question a particular doctrine. There is a time and place for these actions, but every instance that I’ve heard of or been made aware of, has been done with only a modicum of lip service to the Scriptural process. The pastor/pope is usually Judge and Jury and the assembly are at best witnesses to the kangaroo court, if its even brought before the assembly.

The other big issue (that may be connected in a subconscious preemptive move) is the practice of sending off to Bible Cemetary any man who is studying to show themselves approved and wants to serve in his assembly. Thus, when its time for him to step off, often there’s no one even remotely studied to replace him from the assembly themselves, which results in a grand search to find the next king of the assembly from an outside source which violates the injunction to lay hands on no man suddenly. The new king is anointed, and will immediately move to begin placing his supporters in key positions to help protect his throne. I’ve literally watched these men drive off any man/families who wont submit to his rule/authority/theology/personal convictions etc.

To my knowledge, I’m not aware of a biblical New Testament example of an assembly elder appointing his successor or even deacons. Paul and Barnabas (and later thru Timothy and Titus) taught the believers qualifications for choosing? Or recognizing the elders, and most likely confirmed/established them once chosen, but I’m not finding where Timothy or Titus appointed them or chose them. In Acts 14:21-23 is the closest mention that I’ve found, but the “ordained” there is all about lifting up the hand (voting) to select the elders, followed by Paul and Barnabas confirming them just as the deacons were “ordained” in Acts 6:3. Chosen by the assembly, then that choice confirmed by the apostle, evangelist or visiting minister. If it was a vote, and Paul and Barnabas were the only two voting, why would they then need to confirm their vote? Thus, it must have been a vote by the assembly for the elders (plural) followed by Paul and Barnabas confirming their qualifications for the honor. (no doubt based upon the same qualifications given to Timothy and Titus and the assembly at Jerusalem)

2 Corinthians 12:20 is a good example of the results of men like 2 Corinthians 11:13 who rule the assembly after the manner of 2 Corinthians 11:20. (Same conversation, just condensed to The Who, How and the Effects)

In Numbers 27:15-23, even Moses did not presume to appoint his successor, but asked God to appoint a man, and confirmed it in the presence of the assembly by the Urim and Thummim. It probably didn’t hurt that Joshua was already operating in the position of assistant leadership and would have been one of the two oldest men in Israel.
 
Paul, Timothy, Titus, etc appointed elders. Who were they? They were missionaries. Every church operating under a scriptural paradigm will have missionaries, either because they were founded by one or because they sent out from their number such men.

And no I don't mean the traveling beggars and missionary org men who frequent church circles.
 
rockfox said:
Paul, Timothy, Titus, etc appointed elders. Who were they? They were missionaries. Every church operating under a scriptural paradigm will have missionaries, either because they were founded by one or because they sent out from their number such men.

And no I don't mean the traveling beggars and missionary org men who frequent church circles.
Click to expand...
What proof do you go by?
 
Verifyveritas76 said:
This is why I love the example of the church at Antioch. It has none of the Apostolic Succession or blessing or hierarchal bs that comes with a hierarchy. Its an organic assembly of brothers operating in unity according to their individual gifts.

Trigger alert: I have major issues with the premise of Apostolic Succession as utilized by the RCC and unwittingly continued by Protestants and recent Primitives alike today. This idea has been perpetuated historically by the Protestants (particularly Luther) who understood the Priesthood of the Believer enough to reject the authority of the Papacy, but not the Bishop-acy.

My initial question would be, from where or whom does this elected/appointed elder gain his authority to appoint a successor?
Which begs the question, from where or whom does this elected/appointed elder get his election/appointment to begin with? From what I gather, it is always from the assembly. But this appointment is to represent/serve/MC the assembly, not to appoint another to represent the assembly. That is a redundant authority. The same assembly that appointed their current shepherd, is still perfectly capable of terminating that appointment (by scriptural process, decently and in order) and appointing another.

The problem that I’ve seen in churches here in the states is that when the elders appoint their successors by a fiat succession instead of by unified confirmation by the assembly of Paters, it becomes a game of politics and (physical or spiritual) nepotism for the reigning elder. Usually resulting in splitting the church, or driving off the ones who wont support their man.

Another issue I’ve witnessed (and experienced), is that the reigning pastor/pope has driven off anyone who thinks or studies scripture for themselves and would dare to question a particular doctrine. There is a time and place for these actions, but every instance that I’ve heard of or been made aware of, has been done with only a modicum of lip service to the Scriptural process. The pastor/pope is usually Judge and Jury and the assembly are at best witnesses to the kangaroo court, if its even brought before the assembly.

The other big issue (that may be connected in a subconscious preemptive move) is the practice of sending off to Bible Cemetary any man who is studying to show themselves approved and wants to serve in his assembly. Thus, when its time for him to step off, often there’s no one even remotely studied to replace him from the assembly themselves, which results in a grand search to find the next king of the assembly from an outside source which violates the injunction to lay hands on no man suddenly. The new king is anointed, and will immediately move to begin placing his supporters in key positions to help protect his throne. I’ve literally watched these men drive off any man/families who wont submit to his rule/authority/theology/personal convictions etc.

To my knowledge, I’m not aware of a biblical New Testament example of an assembly elder appointing his successor or even deacons. Paul and Barnabas (and later thru Timothy and Titus) taught the believers qualifications for choosing? Or recognizing the elders, and most likely confirmed/established them once chosen, but I’m not finding where Timothy or Titus appointed them or chose them. In Acts 14:21-23 is the closest mention that I’ve found, but the “ordained” there is all about lifting up the hand (voting) to select the elders, followed by Paul and Barnabas confirming them just as the deacons were “ordained” in Acts 6:3. Chosen by the assembly, then that choice confirmed by the apostle, evangelist or visiting minister. If it was a vote, and Paul and Barnabas were the only two voting, why would they then need to confirm their vote? Thus, it must have been a vote by the assembly for the elders (plural) followed by Paul and Barnabas confirming their qualifications for the honor. (no doubt based upon the same qualifications given to Timothy and Titus and the assembly at Jerusalem)

2 Corinthians 12:20 is a good example of the results of men like 2 Corinthians 11:13 who rule the assembly after the manner of 2 Corinthians 11:20. (Same conversation, just condensed to The Who, How and the Effects)

In Numbers 27:15-23, even Moses did not presume to appoint his successor, but asked God to appoint a man, and confirmed it in the presence of the assembly by the Urim and Thummim. It probably didn’t hurt that Joshua was already operating in the position of assistant leadership and would have been one of the two oldest men in Israel.
Click to expand...
I think we're picturing two different things when we talk about church and about appointment of elders. I get the feeling you're picturing a massive church heirarchical structure that appoints their ongoing successors and claims authority over scripture (e.g. RCC). I'd oppose that just as much as you would.

I am picturing the local church - a small assembly of a small number of families, who work and worship together. The most respected, mature and qualified patriarchs are the natural leaders - but they're also representing much of the congregation (most people have a father / grandfather / father-in-law or such in the eldership). Over time, successors must be chosen, and it is these already-respected men who identify who those successors are, and raise them into the eldership too.

There is no direct democracy - so it is difficult for a new faction to manipulate the impressionable minds of certain sectors of the congregation to change the leadership. This is a good protection against the ways of the world. However, it is democratic, as the church is being led by leaders of the families and everybody has some connection to somebody in the eldership, who can represent their concerns.

There is also no single person in charge - even if they do employ a pastor, he is not the driving force, the elders are - and this too provides protection against the church being taken in dangerous directions.

There is the disadvantage that such a system may be too resistant to change - but I think, in most circumstances, being firm in the faith delivered to us by our ancestors is a safer position than being blown by every wind of doctrine.
 
FollowingHim said:
The most respected, mature and qualified patriarchs are the natural leaders
Click to expand...
Yes, they are elders - already spiritually mature men - who are appointed to oversee and shepherd the assembly. It is erroneous to say men should be appointed to be elders. No man becomes spiritually mature (an elder) by appointment; the spiritually mature are appointed to oversee and shepherd. Read Titus 1:5- 9 very carefully and you will see it is elders who are being appointed, not men appointed to be elders .
 
Good discussion. This began as a discussion about holding all in common and the relation was to community. We morphed to discussing elders as they are the leaders of the community. Then the elder discussion further morphed toward function and guiding the church...

I wanted to adjust the lens slightly with a reminder that most readers hear 'church' and think 'building' or 'small body therein.' The latter is more correct, but in the larger context of this discussion, no building is necessary, or even in view in Scripture. 'Church' comes from the Greek 'ekklesia' which comes from the Hebrew 'qahal.' Both mean 'assembly' or 'congregation' but that doesn't even really fit the bill because our western Christianized mind immediately reverts to a sect or denominational minfset, neither really present in the Tanak/OT uses, mildly present in the NT uses based on Paul's declaration that 'they call us a sect.' (Not sure the early believers considered themselves a sect... but, I digress)

The point is, in a larger town, or community, the elders may not have all been in the same synagogue or home fellowship, etc, but the 'elders of the community' could be found in the city/town gates. I assume this is alot like the old codgers my granddad would have breakfast with most mornings at the Colonial Drug Store when I was a kid... (the grits and eggs and coffee.... Mmmmm.) But the point is, the men were a recognized cross section of wise old, in this case, businessmen, consulting, discussing, and steering the community at large.

For our purposes, they are solid proven men of the faith who understand and rightly apply the Scriptures and are heads of families that represent large sections of the community/congregation.

They then, with fingers on pulse of many things (families, needs, economic pressures, current events, etc) can put their heads together and discuss toward the end of provinding wise leadership (not necessarily enforced control) for the community/congregation.

In a sense, there are many elders on this forum. Part of the reason I love it here... learn, grow, gain insight/wisdom/perspective....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top