Was There A Pastor At Philippi?

So they all began with a plurality of elders/pastors?
Unfortunately, not biblically factual.

They apparently many began with one person (though there were times they were blessed to have more than one), and as those of the church grew in the faith some were later appointed or as others might have come in who were mature in the faith already. It began with one and as it grew more were appointed.

Apparently you missing a some portions of your NT.

[/QUOTE]
Again you apparently did not notice that the duties can be fulfilled by one or many. But hey, everyone has personal preferences they like regardless ...

 

1. You are correct it is. But that still doesn't answer my questions, more specifically the question concerning what position did these two men hold in which they taught, rebuked (even the elders), reproved, with all authority and appointed other to the office of bishop.
Another is why are Timothy and Titus part of the pastorial epistles if they were not indeed pastors?

Also we find in scripture that only the apostles and bishops appointed people to that office OF bishop. Acts 16:4

2. The verses you quoted do not show any such 'opinion' with regard to Titus nor Timothy.
First, why are you equating that which was done in Asia Minor (Acts) with that which is done on the Island of Crete?
Adam Clarke states this:

Also Barnes Notes on the NT state this about the potentiality of Bishop Titus

John MacAuthor agrees that Titus was IN FACT a Bishop:

Paul spent a great deal of time in Asia minor but very little in Crete therefore he did not have the time to groom/train up those who would eventually be appointed as they grew in faith and knowledge of Christ.

With regard for Titus and those churches without an Elder who Titus was to appoint:

In fact Titus 1:5 speaks explictly to that fact when Paul directs Titus to appoint elders because as seen above he had to set things in order AND appoint elders... Otherwise those ELDERS could appoint other Elders.

I have looked through 8 different commentaries thus far and have not found your particular brand in any of them. 3 Calvinistic specifically Adam Clarke, John Mac, and Matt Henry (but he calls Titus an Evangelist yet states he was to appoint pastors in the churches of Crete that did not have any) and 2 Non-Cal specifically - Barnes Notes, Ryire, and 3 that sway back and forth Jamison, Brown, Fuasette , IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Commentary of the Whole Bible (NT), and the Bible Readers companion.

So I'm not sure I know where you are comming from? Maybe Pink or Gill?

3. It appears that is what I have done and others (from both sides of the theological spectrum appear to) quite agree

But I will concede this - there is no 'difinitive' proof they were or were not ordained Pastors/Bishops/Elders

 

see previous post.

Many commentaries seems to agree and others leave it silent but it does 'seem' apparent.

That was not what I ment and thus the reason for the smiley. Simply put, you can call me shallow but I'm am more concerned if GOD calls me shallow

Agreed, and that is part of what I was contending.

Your right, I was thinking of Peter who was an elder.

I didn't say ONLY elders are ever ordained. I was speaking to the ordination of a particular church office - ie, Bishop/Elder/Pastor - which only bishops and apostles are ever seen doing

In the KJV it is in brackets, and with Titus it is the same showing him as a Bishop as well. Yes, the brackets illistrate it is not in the original autographs. But the contention has been for either side of the debate.

Can you find any place in scripture where a bishop is not appointed by an apostle or another bishop?
But here is a verse that illistrates my point:

I should qualify this, since the church can choose an elder/bishop but they have to be found qualified by the other bishops and or apostles to be valadated or confirmed to that position. But the pastors can reject them also, thus there is a proper set of checks and balances. This way the pastors do not a special club and the church can not run off into all manner of unsound doctrine and or bring reproach upon the church and Christ.

Where does scripture give a man who 'ministers the word' the same authority as that of a pastor IF they are seperate? If they have the same authority as that of Bishop/Elders does that not establish them AS Bishop/Elders. One is not a pastor just because he gets behind a pulpit but is a pastor because he is endowed with a certain authority in conjunction with a qualified lifestyle. You, on the other hand, place some having the authority of a Pastor without needing the qualifications nor appointing/ordaining to maintain such authority.

By the Way - I just cited a few commentaries showing Timothy and Titus were know and have been contended throughout Church history as Bishop/Elders.

See previous posting.

Acts 16:4, - - and Timothy and Titus

 

Nor have you proved the contrary Seems it is biblically a stand still.

Oh good grief!
I already acknowledged it was in brackets and therefore not part of the original autographs. But as I ALSO stated Christian history says both were and were not bishps. There isn't anything that states they specifically were and nothing that states specifically that they were not. The allusioin IS substantial they most likely were due to the fact they had the same duties and authority ordained bishop/pastors had.

THEY were given the authority to enforce those commands which is the same authority Bishops have. They were even given the authority to judge pastors. They had the SAME CHARGE bishops have and you STILL have not addressed THAT issue. You maintain they were only ministers of the word, which I can not find and any translation.

Yes, and it historically supports Christ's being given as the propitiation.
Historical data is not without error but it is not to be discarded as all lies.
You use it to validate you own points at times, but when it disagrees with you it is of no import. We use it as a tool toward understanding, and acknowledgment of certain stands and views once held.

Another thing:
First, You contend that these two were 'just' ministers of the word (more specifically Timothy), as if that doesn't allude or insinutate pastorial authorty.

Second, We do find Timothy spoken of as a minister but is called by Paul a minister of Jesus Christ and NOT 'of the word' as you keep adding to the text. 1 Thes states Timothy is a minister of God. Also, as I'm sure you know the word for 'minister' is diakonos and it's meaning is basically thus:
(5.) Greek diaconos, usually a subordinate officer or assistant employed in relation to the ministry of the gospel, as to Paul and Apollos (1 Cor. 3:5), Tychicus (Eph. 6:21), Epaphras (Col. 1:7), Timothy (1 Thess. 3:2), and also to Christ (Rom. 15:8).
So we have 2 types of subordinates
1. a subordinate to the church of Christ
2. a subordinate to Christ for the Church

He is not called a servant or minister of the Church but of Christ. Paul in Phil 1:1 places Timothy in the same status as himself as a servent of Jesus Christ. In 1 Thes3:2 Timothy is called a minister of God AND our fellowlaborer of the gospel of Christ TO ESTABLISH YOU. This shows TWO distinct positions of ministry in which Timothy walked and one was specific to that of a pastor/bishop.

However, I can not find one Bishop/Pastor or Apostle who is not called a servant of Christ. I also can not find one deacon or other subordinate who is not called a servant of or to the Church. Am I missing something? One shows ministerial authority which is subordinate to Christ the other shows ministerial assistance subordinate to the church.

However with regard to your contention of them (Timothy and Titus) being ONLY ministers of the word, Fine. Please show scripture what that entails.

As I stated earlier with due regard to your contention that you give those who are ministers of the word the same authority as that of a Pastor but with no accountability to that position via qualifications to that office. You have two position doing the same thing with the same authority but only one has qualifications. Who would seek the the office of bishop when the other is the exact same yet has no guidlines? It makes the office meaningless, TCG.

That was not an allusion, come on TCG. It says exactly what happened. Can you show anywhere in scripture a NON- ordained person ordaining elders/bishops/pastors. (other than our disputing Titus and Timothy). No you can't and THAT is fact. Scripture does show Apostles and Elders/bishops ordain men to the ministry. If you can show biblically anyone NOT already ordained, ordaining men then I am more than willing to see and recant my statement.

So far they are but I haven't seen anything substantial that speaks to the contrary from you but at worst it appears it is a biblical stand still. On a different note though, I will say that you are more and more sounding like skypair in last few weeks or so.

 

You to brother.

I had an interresting encounter with one of our godfearing and humble sisters in the Lord. She is quite elderly but MAN, You should hear that woman pray!

I leaned in and hugged her and said I hope you have a merry Christmas. To which she replied rather suprisingly, no thank you.

She looked at me and said we need to remember the blessedness of this time in which God clothed His majesty in flesh to be our Redeemer not our Merry-maker. But our blessing in hopelessness. She said I pray you have a blessed Christmas Allan. Be blessed in the Lord our God, who has redeemed us.

I couldn't help but smile and agree.

So brother, I say to you with the same heart as she did me - Have a blessed Christmas TCGreek. Be blessed in the Lord our God who has redeemed us.

 

Your right on that, I got him mixed up with the other (Calvinistic) Clark. It is the last name, since I don't usually use him and only look to him to see what other position might be held by another commentator.

In any case I was advised of that mistake ONCE and acknowledged it back then, which was 5 months ago.
There has not been any such 'time and time again'.

Who said it had to do with C/A? I was merely citing both sides have agreement they were Elders/bishops and even those who don't specifically have side.

BTW - I'm still waiting to hear of any repentence from you (and you to what I am speaking)

 

Wow. But this exhaustive list inexplicably entirely skips over one of the most prominent relevant chapters: I Timothy 3. There "bishop" and "deacons" are mentioned, but not "elders".

 

In scripture, church officers who are referred to collectively in some places as "elders" are elsewhere classified as "bishop(s) and deacons".

The OP begins by accurately quoting Philippians 1:1, which does not use the term elders, but bishops (lit. overseers) and deacons.
But notice how in the OP the terminology morphs:

overseers (presumably quoting the NASB)
b. overseers/elders
2. elders/overseers

 

"Philip. 1. 1. vers. where the Apostle writeth to the Saints, with the Bishops and Deacons: so Paul to Timothy writes of the qualifications of the Bishops and Deacons, not Elders and Deacons; you shall never in all the Scripture find Elders and Deacons expressed."
--William Rider, Laying on of Hands Asserted, 1656, p. 17.

 

Acts 6 and I Tim. 5:17 suggest that a church is to appoint two kinds: one who ministers to the church in such a way that another can be given totally to the ministry of the word (prayer, doctrine).

 

That is what is called a mistype--I accidentally erased that section before I copied and pasted it in to the post. However, I hold, based on the usage of the words in Acts 20:17-36 and Titus 1 that bishop=elder. And that "deacon" is a subsidiary office with a different mission. Although the noun form of "deacon" is absent from Acts 6, the verb form is there (" 'deacon' tables").