Baptist Elders

In the year 1728, the Association met the sixth day of the week.

1. Query from Hopewell: What course to take in choosing a ruling elder in the church? We answer, that a church wanting ruling elders or deacons, as in other cases, should set a day apart, and by fasting and prayer, seek the guidance and direction of God, and then unanimously pitch upon one or more of their brethren to act upon trial in the office of ruling elder or deacon; and our judgment is, that persons called upon trial in the said offices, may act by authority of the church, with as full power as if completely qualified; but not so teaching elders or ministers of the word and ordinances.

Click to expand...

SECTION IV.--CHURCH OFFICERS​

BISHOPS​

The churches should choose, from among the ministers of the word, bishops or pastors to teach and rule them.


Numerous passages of Scripture speak of persons who bore rule in the churches. "Obey them that have the rule over you."(30) "The elders that rule well."(31) The term bishop signifies overseer, and implies authority to rule. Among the qualifications necessary for a bishop, one was, that he ruleth well his own house; and the reason assigned is, "If a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?"(32) It is clear, from this passage, that the bishops were invested with an authority bearing some analogy to the authority which the head of a family exercises over his household.


The question has been much discussed, whether the authority of a bishop is restricted to a single local church. Episcopalians maintain that it extends to the churches of a large district called a diocese; and that the Scriptural title for the ruler of a single church, is presbyter or elder. Against this opinion, the following arguments appear conclusive. The single church at Philippi contained more bishops than one.(33) The elders of the church at Ephesus are styled overseers or bishops.(34) Peter addresses elders as persons having the oversight(35) of the flock, that is, the authority of overseers or bishops. In Paul's epistle to Titus, after the ordination of elders is mentioned, the qualifications of a bishop(36) are enumerated; and the connection plainly indicates that elder and bishop were titles of the same office.


The bishops were the pastors or shepherds of the flock committed to their charge. The bishops or elders of the church at Ephesus were required to "feed the flock." The elders whom Peter addressed were commanded to "feed the flock;" and their office as shepherds is presented to view as subordinate to that of Christ, "the chief shepherd." Since the churches are to be fed, not with literal food, but with knowledge and understanding, the office of teaching is included in that of pastor. Hence a bishop was required to be "apt to teach." In enumerating church officers, Paul mentions both pastors and teachers. It appears from this that there were teachers in the primitive churches, who were not invested with pastoral authority. These were ministers of the word, authorized by the commission to teach the observance of all Christ's commands, but not authorized to rule. The ministers of the word are officers of the universal church, but, as such, they have no authority to rule in the local churches. This authority belongs to the pastors or bishops.


The ruling authority of a pastor is peculiar in its kind. Though bearing some analogy to that of a father in his family, or of a governor in civil society, it differs from these. Christ distinguished His rule from that of earthly kings by the absence of coercion: "If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight."(37) So the spiritual rulers under Christ have no coercive power over the persons or property of those under their authority. A well marked distinction between their authority and that which is exercised by civil rulers, is drawn in these words of Christ: "Ye know that the princes of the gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant."(38) Another peculiarity of their rule is that they cannot govern at their own will. This would be to act as lords over God's heritage. Such power, if exercised by them, is a usurpation, and does not legitimately belong to their office. The only rule which they have a right to apply is that of God's word; and the only obedience which they have a right to exact, is voluntary. The civil ruler is armed with the sword, and coerces obedience. Zion's King has put no carnal weapons into the hands of church rulers, and all coercion is inconsistent with the nature of the authority intrusted to them. No submission to the Lord is acceptable but that which is voluntary; and the same kind of submission which the ancient Christians rendered to the Lord, they rendered to their spiritual rulers:--"They first gave their own selves unto the Lord and unto us by the will of God."(39)


The surrender of their property was voluntary. Peter's address to Ananias and Sapphira proves, that this was true, even in the general surrender which was made by the first church; and it is clear that the contributions afterwards made by the churches, were made not of constraint but willingly. They who claim or indirectly exercise a coercive power over the property of church-members, are taking the oversight for filthy lucre's sake, and have no sanction from the authority of Christ, or the example of his apostles.


Since the obedience of churches cannot be coerced, no one can begin or continue the exercise of spiritual rule over them, but at their will. Hence their bishops must be persons of their own choice. The apostles, though all collected at Jerusalem, and invested with full power from on high to do all that appertained to their office, did not appoint even the inferior officers of the church until after they had been chosen by the whole multitude of the disciples. In this procedure they recognised and established the right of the churches to elect their own officers. Even the appointment of an apostle to take the place of Judas appears to have been made by popular vote: and much more ought that of bishops over the several churches. The Greek word rendered ordain in Acts xiii. 48, signifies to stretch out the hand, and is supposed to refer to the mode of popular election by the lifting up of the hand; but, whether this criticism be just or not, the proof that church officers were so elected is sufficient without the aid of this passage.

Because the bishops must labor in word and doctrine, as well as rule, the churches should elect them from the ministers of the word. As they have no right to coerce the churches, so the churches have no right to coerce their acceptance of office. The relation must be voluntarily entered into by both parties. This voluntariness on the part of ministers is necessary to the proper exercise of their office: "Not of constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind."(40) The minister cannot coerce a support from the church, but God has ordained that they who preach the gospel should live of the gospel.(41) The duty of a church to support its pastor is clearly taught in the word of God; and without the performance of this duty on their part, they have no right to expect his services; and they, in a manner, put it out of his power to render them.



30. Heb. xiii. 17.
31. 1 Tim. v. 17.
32. 1 Tim. iii. 4, 5.
33. Phil. i. 1.
34. Acts xx. 28.
35. 1 Peter v. 2.
36. Titus i. 5, 7.
37. John xviii. 36.
38. Matt. xx. 25-27.
39. 2 Cor. viii. 5.
40. 1 Peter v. 2. 41. 1 Cor. ix. 14.

Click to expand...

SeventhValley said:

To be a Baptist you accept the Priesthood of all believers which means there can be more than one Pastor/elder per church but

From SBC.net



and



From

The democratic process can take place whether there are a plurality of pastors/elders or not. Someone, somewhere in some office will have to make decisions given the scope of their capacity as it relates to their position and to the congregation. As far as I am aware, every item is not brought before the congregation for a vote in most churches. Many churches set-up committees or boards of some kind to handle certain issues. Yet, the only two offices listed in the BFM are that of deacons and pastors (same office as an elder). These offices are Scriptural which means we have inspired guidelines for selecting those are are to serve in those two offices. Neither does the BFM define how many deacons or pastors a church should have.-http://hereiblog.com/southern-baptist-church-offices-elders-et-al/


Bryant Wright makes the point

"At Johnson Ferry, we have an elder form of government that is also congregational on certain major decisions. The Southern Baptist Convention has no say in the local church. The President of the Southern Baptist Convention speaks for one person only — himself. He is a representative of all Southern Baptists, but he doesn't speak for any Baptist other than himself. His power is in the appointments he makes to determine who serves on denominational agency boards, such as the Sunday School Board, Board of Trustees for Baptist seminaries, etc. He has no say in local church doctrine, government or decisions."





So the big difference is elder led-Baptist congregationalism where you do not necessarily need ordained elders other than the Pastor but you can have a plurality of them. I.E. More than one Elder/Overseer per church.

Verses Anti Baptist Elder-Rule in which the priesthood of all believers is thrown out and you get a priest class serving under the Pastor/Bishop.

Just because something was done a certain way for a long time like Preists and Elder rule dose not make it Biblical.

Click to expand...

The Priesthood of The Believer

The priesthood of each believer in Baptist thought is tied closely to another concept, that of soul competency. Each person has a God-given competence to know and follow God’s will. A decision to follow Christ as Lord and Savior is an individual decision; no one can make it for another. Being a believer priest is a gift from God, not a human achievement; it comes with salvation.

Each believer priest is responsible for his or her own actions. Individual believers can go directly to God without the aid of any intermediary. Individuals can and should read and interpret the Bible for themselves without religious officials dictating to them what to believe.

Believer priests are all equal to one another in Christ (Galatians 3:26-28). There is only one High Priest, that is Jesus Christ (Hebrews 7:23-8:13).
Each believer priest has a responsibility to be committed to Christ and to share Christ through word and deed. As Peter stated it: to “declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light” (1 Peter 2:9 NIV).

Therefore, a church does not have only one priest. Potentially it has many who communicate the love and forgiveness of God and demonstrate concern and compassion of one believer for another.

The Priesthood of Believers

The New Testament also speaks of the priesthood of believers. Believer priests are part of the body of Christ. They form a community of believers. Although each believer priest is individually responsible to God, all believer priests are related to one another as brothers and sisters in Christ.
This communal aspect of believer priesthood highlights the fact that being a Christian involves fellowship with other believers. This fellowship functions to encourage and assist the believer in Christian growth and ministry. How sad and difficult it would be to live the Christian life in isolation from other believers.

The fellowship of believer priests also aids in interpreting the Bible and understanding God’s will. Although each believer priest can and ought to read and interpret the Bible for herself or himself, the competent and wise believer will seek insight and understanding from other believer priests. By searching the teachings of believer priests in the past and by seeking out the wisdom of those in the present, persons are aided in their understanding of the Bible and of God’s will.

The Baptist model of a church rests on the concept of the priesthood of believers. A church is made up of persons who have exercised their God-given competency by believing in Jesus as Savior and Lord and by voluntarily associating with a particular fellowship of believers.
Each believer priest in the fellowship is equal to all of the others. Therefore, no one is in authority over all. Thus decisions are made by the community of priests seeking to know the will of the head of the church, the great High Priest, Jesus Christ. They do this by prayer, Bible study, meditation, discussion and decision.

Click to expand...

1728​

In the year 1728, the Association met the sixth day of the week.
1. Query from Hopewell: What course to take in choosing a ruling elder in the church? We answer, that a church wanting ruling elders or deacons, as in other cases, should set a day apart, and by fasting and prayer, seek the guidance and direction of God, and then unanimously pitch upon one or more of their brethren to act upon trial in the office of ruling elder or deacon; and our judgment is, that persons called upon trial in the said offices, may act by authority of the church, with as full power as if completely qualified; but not so teaching elders or ministers of the word and ordinances.

1729​

The elders and messengers of the baptized congregations, in Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, met at Philadelphia, September 27th and 28th, 1729, in a solemn Association. Sendeth greeting:

1731​

The elders, ministers, and messengers, of the baptized congregations in Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, met in Association at Philadelphia, September 24th, 1731. To the respective congregations we represent, send greeting:

1733​

The elders, ministers, and messengers, of the congregations holding believers' baptism, in Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, met in Association, at Philadelphia, the 22d day of September, 1733, to the several congregations we represent send Christian salutation:

1734​

The elders, ministers, and messengers, of the congregations holding believers' baptism, in Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, met in Association at Philadelphia, on the 21st, 22d and 23d of September, A. D., 1734, to the several congregations we represent, send Christian salutation:

1735​

The elders, ministers, and messengers of the baptized congregations in Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, met at Philadelphia, 27th, 28th, and 29th of September, A.D. 1735.
To the several congregations we are related unto, do send Christian salutation.

1738​

The elders and messengers of the several congregations, holding believers' baptism in Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, met in Association at Philadelphia, the 23d day of September, and continued to 25th, 1738.
To the several congregations, we represent, we wish grace and peace from God our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, may be multiplied.

1739​

The elders and messengers of the congregations holding believers' baptism in Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, met in association at Philadelphia, 22d September, 1739.
To the congregations we represent, we send our Christian salutation.

1740​

The elders and messengers of the several congregations of the people owning believers' baptism in Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, meeting in Association at Philadelphia, September 27th, 1740:
To the churches we are related to in gospel order, we send our gospel salutation.

1741​

The elders and messengers of the several churches holding believers' baptism in Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, met in Association at Philadelphia, September 26, 1741.
To the churches we represent, send greeting.

1742​

The elders and messengers of the baptized congregations in Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, met in Association at Philadelphia, September 25, 1742.
Send our Christian salutation.

Click to expand...

Hentenza said:

Present Baptist churches do have elders and most are run by a plurality of elders with the senior pastor as the overseer. The primitive church was run the same. Acts 15 gives us a snapshot of how the early church was ran.

I think this is more an issue of terminology rather than role and how the terms bishop and elders were used in the 16th to 20th century Europe and the US.

Click to expand...

Hentenza said:

Hi Dean,

All in leadership positions in the church are elders. The primitive church sets church government to include overseers (no distinction is made between elders and bishops (see Titus 1:5)).

I will contend that Dagg got it wrong when he wrote:

The question has been much discussed, whether the authority of a bishop is restricted to a single local church. Episcopalians maintain that it extends to the churches of a large district called a diocese; and that the Scriptural title for the ruler of a single church, is presbyter or elder. Against this opinion, the following arguments appear conclusive. The single church at Philippi contained more bishops than one.(33) The elders of the church at Ephesus are styled overseers or bishops.(34) Peter addresses elders as persons having the oversight(35) of the flock, that is, the authority of overseers or bishops. In Paul's epistle to Titus, after the ordination of elders is mentioned, the qualifications of a bishop(36) are enumerated; and the connection plainly indicates that elder and bishop were titles of the same office.

I agree with his last sentence and by saying this he missed the larger picture. Peter aligns himself as an elder (1 Peter 5:1) and not above it even as he held the office of apostle. When the decision was reached in the Jerusalem council the letter written to Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia is addressed to the elders not to bishops or overseers which seems to indicate that they were one in the same. Paul left Crete and commended Titus to appoint elders in every city (this effectively shuts down Dragg's argument that Bishops are "in charge" of multiple churches). Notice that Paul's command to Titus was for appointing elders not bishops or overseers. This further evidences that they are one in the same.

Now, there is no distinction of roles within the elders (other than that of overseer) that would prevent them to serve a variety of roles. A youth pastor is an elder, a music pastor is an elder, and so on. Deacons, as you know, perform essentially the same tasks as elders and the scriptural requirements are virtually the same. As a fellow deacon we both know that our roles are varied and essential including tasks that are part of the governing body of elders.

To address the reason for the change, I believe the change back to the scriptural model happened simply because it was the right thing to do. Churches today should be ran following the NT model but adjusting for the needs of a much larger congregation than the one that existed back then.

Click to expand...

According to Gal. 2, the data relevant to the council are as follows: first, agreement between Paul’s gospel and that preached by the primitive community is confirmed and not just established. Gal. 2:2: “aneqemhn autoiV to euaggelion o khrussw en toiV eqnesin” (I put before them the gospel which I proclaim in the nations) Vs.6: “emoi oi dokounteV ouden prosaneqento” (to me, for those conferred nothing) Note in the KJV, the translators added the word “important” thus the italics, to emphasize Paul was referring to the Apostolic council.

Click to expand...

Hentenza said:

Galatians 2 is an interesting book. Paul is defending his calling as being equal with that of the apostles (a continuation of the last part of book 1). The same Christ that appeared to him is the same Christ that walked in Galilee. Paul is not using derogatory language, as has been proposed by some, but merely, by way of the gospel conferred to him, an equal pillar and of good reputation. The use of ouden prosaneqento is not saying that nothing was conferred but that Paul, by way of the gospel entrusted to him, nothing new was conferred that he already did not know. This is evidenced by the disagreement in the execution of the pronouncements of the Jerusalem council as Paul rebukes Peter in verses 11-21 for not following the pronouncements of the council.

In Acts 15 he prebysteros are the elders (πρεσβυτέρου&#962 as verse 2 states. These are the same elders that debated the issues along with the apostles. Also, it appears that the debate did not happen behind close doors but in front of the congregation (see verse v. 12, All the people... ) which exemplifies a congregational church. The elders were ruling elders not as the monarchial bishops that they transitioned to later in the 2nd century.

It is also interesting that James, as the overseer of the church of Jerusalem, is never called that but remains part of the group of ruling elders. This adds evidence to the position that the primitive church was ran by a plurality of elders.

Click to expand...