Don’t Buy
If you own the MacArthur study Bible, do not by the MacArthur Bible commentary as they are virtually identical with the study Bible, having a little bit more material in the explanations.
If you do not own the MacArthur study Bible or the commentary, you can buy the commentary on sale here: https://www.logos.com/product/213186/the-macarthur-bible-commentary
DAL
Comments
-
How highly do you recommend it for someone who already has most of the major commentary sets (NICOT/NT, WBC, NAC and others)? I've only interacted with McArthur a little but and found our conclusions on certain narratives wildly different.
0 -
Morgan said:
How highly do you recommend it for someone who already has most of the major commentary sets (NICOT/NT, WBC, NAC and others)? I've only interacted with McArthur a little but and found our conclusions on certain narratives wildly different.
Honestly, the one volume by MacArthur is better suited for a recent convert and maybe not even, since there are way better one volume commentaries than MacArthur’s!
I don’t recommend it since the Study Bible has a bit more meat than the commentary.
DAL
0 -
My primary use for Study Bibles (and I use them a lot) is to see what "ordinary" people will have read about the text before they hear/read me. It can change both what I believe I need to say and how I need to say it.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Morgan said:
How highly do you recommend it for someone who already has most of the major commentary sets (NICOT/NT, WBC, NAC and others)?
MacArthur's commentary set is more of a set of sermon manuscripts than a commentary in the traditional sense. If you want more expository commentary from a Reformed Pretrib Dispensationalist Baptist point of view, then you probably want it. If not, then you don't (I don't care much about someone's perspective I'm an academic commentary but in an expository one I do). If you have his sermon archive, the material is also basically the same (not verbatim but in substance).
Using Logos as a pastor, seminary professor, and Tyndale author
0 -
Justin Gatlin said:Morgan said:
How highly do you recommend it for someone who already has most of the major commentary sets (NICOT/NT, WBC, NAC and others)?
MacArthur's commentary set is more of a set of sermon manuscripts than a commentary in the traditional sense. If you want more expository commentary from a Reformed Pretrib Dispensationalist Baptist point of view, then you probably want it. If not, then you don't (I don't care much about someone's perspective I'm an academic commentary but in an expository one I do). If you have his sermon archive, the material is also basically the same (not verbatim but in substance).
We’re talking about the one volume commentary on the Thomas Nelson $8.99 sale: https://www.logos.com/product/213186/the-macarthur-bible-commentary not the NT set.
DAL
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
My primary use for Study Bibles (and I use them a lot) is to see what "ordinary" people will have read about the text before they hear/read me. It can change both what I believe I need to say and how I need to say it.
That's an interesting perspective for certain Study Bibles in popular use. This might not stand too well if they have a good Logos library and that day is almost here[8-|]
The mind of man is the mill of God, not to grind chaff, but wheat. Thomas Manton | Study hard, for the well is deep, and our brains are shallow. Richard Baxter
0 -
...DAL said:If you own
(sic)DAL said:do not by
I have both and tend to agree with DAL's comparison of the two.
I also recommend the SB over the 1VC for the same reason, and also because in Logos, it works a little better as a linked tool in my opinion.
For whatever it is worth, the SB notes seem more recent than some of the 1VC notes, and JMac's perspective has shifted a tad away from on older one he had, so if that matters to you (and if it does you know what I'm talking about), that's another +1 for the SB.
FWIW.
Eating a steady diet of government cheese, and living in a van down by the river.
0 -
There are three things that stand out to me about John MacArthur.
First, I like that he does not preach "easy believe" cheap grace. On that I agree with him completely. He emphasizes the Lordship of Jesus. That counts for a lot.
Second, I dislike his dispensational eschatology. If you are familiar with dispensational theology, you know what he is going to say about any prophetic passage, (I am of the historic premillennial persuasion. I admire many dispensationalists, but I could not be one.)
Third, he comes across as very arrogant.
But that is just my opinion. Obviously, thousands disagree with me.
"In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley0 -
Doc B said:
...DAL said:If you own
(sic)DAL said:do not by
I have both and tend to agree with DAL's comparison of the two.
I also recommend the SB over the 1VC for the same reason, and also because in Logos, it works a little better as a linked tool in my opinion.
For whatever it is worth, the SB notes seem more recent than some of the 1VC notes, and JMac's perspective has shifted a tad away from on older one he had, so if that matters to you (and if it does you know what I'm talking about), that's another +1 for the SB.
FWIW.
John MacArthur resources don't interest me, but I am curious as to the area where his perspective has shifted.
0 -
Paul Caneparo said:Doc B said:
...DAL said:If you own
(sic)DAL said:do not by
I have both and tend to agree with DAL's comparison of the two.
I also recommend the SB over the 1VC for the same reason, and also because in Logos, it works a little better as a linked tool in my opinion.
For whatever it is worth, the SB notes seem more recent than some of the 1VC notes, and JMac's perspective has shifted a tad away from on older one he had, so if that matters to you (and if it does you know what I'm talking about), that's another +1 for the SB.
FWIW.
John MacArthur resources don't interest me, but I am curious as to the area where his perspective has shifted.
Eternal sonship and subordination? I’m probably confusing him with Wayne Grudem 🤔 I can’t remember for sure.
DAL
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
My primary use for Study Bibles (and I use them a lot) is to see what "ordinary" people will have read about the text before they hear/read me. It can change both what I believe I need to say and how I need to say it.
I think of myself as being "ordinary" but it seems that you use "ordinary" in in a derogatory way. I just never thought "ordinary" was beneath anyone....
xn = Christan man=man -- Acts 11:26 "....and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch".
Barney Fife is my hero! He only uses an abacus with 14 rows!
0 -
xnman said:
it seems that you use "ordinary" in in a derogatory way
Take no offense. She did not mean it in a derogatory manner. Most people don't read academic books. Most Study Bibles aren't "academic" and don't get into technical matters.
macOS, iOS & iPadOS |Logs| Install
Choose Truth Over Tribe | Become a Joyful Outsider!0 -
xnman said:
it seems that you use "ordinary" in in a derogatory way.
Huh? I used ordinary to mean those who are not specifically trained as Bible scholars/religious professionals but who are inclined to attend a Bible study/faith formation class. One of my most perceptive participants insisted he was only his wife's transportation ... he was an automobile mechanic who unfortunately grew up at a time when book learning was valued over mechanical learning (think born circa 1900). I'd take his commentary over many professional commentators.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Paul Caneparo said:Doc B said:
...DAL said:If you own
(sic)DAL said:do not by
I have both and tend to agree with DAL's comparison of the two.
I also recommend the SB over the 1VC for the same reason, and also because in Logos, it works a little better as a linked tool in my opinion.
For whatever it is worth, the SB notes seem more recent than some of the 1VC notes, and JMac's perspective has shifted a tad away from on older one he had, so if that matters to you (and if it does you know what I'm talking about), that's another +1 for the SB.
FWIW.
John MacArthur resources don't interest me, but I am curious as to the area where his perspective has shifted.
https://community.logos.com/forums/p/145869/909874.aspx#909874
0 -
Mattillo said:Paul Caneparo said:Doc B said:
...DAL said:If you own
(sic)DAL said:do not by
I have both and tend to agree with DAL's comparison of the two.
I also recommend the SB over the 1VC for the same reason, and also because in Logos, it works a little better as a linked tool in my opinion.
For whatever it is worth, the SB notes seem more recent than some of the 1VC notes, and JMac's perspective has shifted a tad away from on older one he had, so if that matters to you (and if it does you know what I'm talking about), that's another +1 for the SB.
FWIW.
John MacArthur resources don't interest me, but I am curious as to the area where his perspective has shifted.
https://community.logos.com/forums/p/145869/909874.aspx#909874
Thanks for that. It find it interesting that eternal subordination seems to be a modern theological development to defend the complementarian viewpoint. I've started reading Michael Bird's latest contribution to the debate "Trinity without hierarchy".
0 -
Paul Caneparo said:
Thanks for that. It find it interesting that eternal subordination seems to be a modern theological development to defend the complementarian viewpoint. I've started reading Michael Bird's latest contribution to the debate "Trinity without hierarchy".
What is "complementarian viewpoint"? Never heard that before....
xn = Christan man=man -- Acts 11:26 "....and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch".
Barney Fife is my hero! He only uses an abacus with 14 rows!
0 -
it relates to the roles between men and women. Egalitarian means there are no role distinctions. Complementarian maintains a distinction. The most practical application of these views is the role of women in ministry. Can a woman be pastor/elder.
macOS, iOS & iPadOS |Logs| Install
Choose Truth Over Tribe | Become a Joyful Outsider!0 -
JT (alabama24) said:
it relates to the roles between men and women. Egalitarian means there are no role distinctions. Complementarian maintains a distinction. The most practical application of these views is the role of women in ministry. Can a woman be pastor/elder.
To add to JT’s response here’s the definition from The Lexham Glossary of Theology:
“Complementarian — The position toward gender roles in the church that argues men and women were created to serve the church and each other in different but complementary ministry capacities and that some leadership roles are intended only for men, such as preacher or elder.” I replaced pastor and put preacher instead, since ”pastor” and “elder” are synonymous in the NT (as the majority of scholars agree).
DAL
PS. Jack Cottrell has an excellent book that discusses this topic as it applies to men and women and also a good section on the Trinity: https://www.logos.com/product/25039/headship-submission-and-the-bible-gender-roles-in-the-home
0 -
DAL said:JT (alabama24) said:
it relates to the roles between men and women. Egalitarian means there are no role distinctions. Complementarian maintains a distinction. The most practical application of these views is the role of women in ministry. Can a woman be pastor/elder.
To add to JT’s response here’s the definition from The Lexham Glossary of Theology:
“Complementarian — The position toward gender roles in the church that argues men and women were created to serve the church and each other in different but complementary ministry capacities and that some leadership roles are intended only for men, such as preacher or elder.” I replaced pastor and put preacher instead, since ”pastor” and “elder” are synonymous in the NT (as the majority of scholars agree).
DAL
PS. Jack Cottrell has an excellent book that discusses this topic as it applies to men and women and also a good section on the Trinity: https://www.logos.com/product/25039/headship-submission-and-the-bible-gender-roles-in-the-home
Thanks! Maybe I am beginning to learn what I am... lol ... and I'm a thinking I maybe am one of these "complementarians"... Definitely the bible teaches that different gender people have different roles in the body of Christ.
And Dal... I agree with your analogy that "pastor" as used in the N.T. is synonymous with "elder" or "shepherd" or "presbyter" and as such fulfills the qualities of 1 Tim 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9.
imho.....
xn = Christan man=man -- Acts 11:26 "....and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch".
Barney Fife is my hero! He only uses an abacus with 14 rows!
0 -
DAL said:JT (alabama24) said:
it relates to the roles between men and women. Egalitarian means there are no role distinctions. Complementarian maintains a distinction. The most practical application of these views is the role of women in ministry. Can a woman be pastor/elder.
To add to JT’s response here’s the definition from The Lexham Glossary of Theology:
“Complementarian — The position toward gender roles in the church that argues men and women were created to serve the church and each other in different but complementary ministry capacities and that some leadership roles are intended only for men, such as preacher or elder.” I replaced pastor and put preacher instead, since ”pastor” and “elder” are synonymous in the NT (as the majority of scholars agree).
DAL
PS. Jack Cottrell has an excellent book that discusses this topic as it applies to men and women and also a good section on the Trinity: https://www.logos.com/product/25039/headship-submission-and-the-bible-gender-roles-in-the-home
Thanks! Maybe I am beginning to learn what I am... lol ... and I'm a thinking I maybe am one of these "complementarians"... Definitely the bible teaches that different gender people have different roles in the body of Christ.
And Dal... I agree with your analogy that "pastor" as used in the N.T. is synonymous with "elder" or "shepherd" or "presbyter" or "bishop" and as such fulfills the qualities of 1 Tim 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9.
imho.....
xn = Christan man=man -- Acts 11:26 "....and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch".
Barney Fife is my hero! He only uses an abacus with 14 rows!
0 -
DAL said:
since ”pastor” and “elder” are synonymous in the NT (as the majority of scholars agree).
Where did you find there was a majority agreement? I'm only finding it as an open question. Just curious not that it matters.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Where did you find there was a majority agreement?
Absent a traipse through the Vulgate, it's slim pickings for the scholars (a hop and a skip, and you're done). But while I was wondering, I ran into the difference between a pastor (however defined), and a theologian. Amusing, if indeed were true. I'd hope those pastors are non-Logosians.
Journal of Biblical and Theological Studies Vol 3 Issue 1 p3.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:DAL said:
since ”pastor” and “elder” are synonymous in the NT (as the majority of scholars agree).
Where did you find there was a majority agreement? I'm only finding it as an open question. Just curious not that it matters.
Out of the 20k + resources, most of my commentaries technical and none technical (even a recent pentecostal commentary I recently bought), all agree that Elders Pastor the flock and are Overseers because they "oversee" the flock. Elder and Overseer are one and the same office according to Kostenberger. Keener says that changed in the second century and others say similar statements that those terms were synonymous but no one says why that changed later on; which would virtually be a departure from the Biblical pattern. Other commentaries that virtually agree are NAC, PNTC, Guzik's commentaries, Robertson's Word Pictures, NIDNTT, EDNT, Vine's, EP Study Commentary, CJ Ellicott, Don Fleming, NIBC, The Woman's Study Bible, Believer's Study Bible, Tom Constable's Expository Notes (along with other study Bibles), The Collegeville Bible Commentary, Warren Wiersbe, The Moody Bible Commentary, Africa Bible Commentary and plenty more who are not members of the church of Christ (in case somebody might think I'm being biased). These are just a few of the most popular among many other commentaries that state this truth based on Acts 20:17, 28 and other verses. The only commentaries that taught differently were my catholic commentaries (Sacra Pagina, Navarre Bible, Haddock's commentary) the only exception being the Collegeville Bible Commentary. So it might matter a little bit. ;-)
DAL
0 -
DAL said:MJ. Smith said:DAL said:
since ”pastor” and “elder” are synonymous in the NT (as the majority of scholars agree).
Where did you find there was a majority agreement? I'm only finding it as an open question. Just curious not that it matters.
Out of the 20k + resources, most of my commentaries technical and none technical (even a recent pentecostal commentary I recently bought), all agree that Elders Pastor the flock and are Overseers because they "oversee" the flock. Elder and Overseer are one and the same office according to Kostenberger. Keener says that changed in the second century and others say similar statements that those terms were synonymous but no one says why that changed later on; which would virtually be a departure from the Biblical pattern. Other commentaries that virtually agree are NAC, PNTC, Guzik's commentaries, Robertson's Word Pictures, NIDNTT, EDNT, Vine's, EP Study Commentary, CJ Ellicott, Don Fleming, NIBC, The Woman's Study Bible, Believer's Study Bible, Tom Constable's Expository Notes (along with other study Bibles), The Collegeville Bible Commentary, Warren Wiersbe, The Moody Bible Commentary, Africa Bible Commentary and plenty more who are not members of the church of Christ (in case somebody might think I'm being biased). These are just a few of the most popular among many other commentaries that state this truth based on Acts 20:17, 28 and other verses. The only commentaries that taught differently were my catholic commentaries (Sacra Pagina, Navarre Bible, Haddock's commentary) the only exception being the Collegeville Bible Commentary. So it might matter a little bit. ;-)
DAL
The only book I've read with a slightly different perspective is
He argues that "while elders (older, respected Christians) could be house-church leaders, a bishop was a house-church leader. The elders were principally communal leaders, the leaders of all the Christians in any one location where there were many believers. In other words, I argue that during the apostolic age two kinds of leaders with two spheres of responsibility emerged: house-church leaders (called bishops and deacons) and communal leaders (called elders). My thesis is not without its problems but I will show that it makes more sense of the limited data than does the direct equating of elders and bishops."
0 -
My commentaries within and outside Logos and my related monographs are heavily slanted towards the ACELO churches (Anglican, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, and Oriental Orthodox) so the near unanimity what I see is unlike what you see. I suspect neither of us has a sufficiently well-rounded collection to be able to say "most scholars ..."
My quick and dirty ChatGPT seems to find diversity but more in the nature of how much overlap there is between titles. My suspicion is that the terms and roles were handled differently in different communities as their size and needs dictated. I had hoped for theologians names rather than denominational names but ...
[quote]
what are the major interpretations of the role of an elder in a first century church and who supports that interpretation?The role of an elder in a first-century church is interpreted differently by various Christian denominations and scholars. However, there are several common interpretations of the role of an elder in the first-century church:
-
Overseer or bishop: In this interpretation, an elder is seen as the overseer or bishop of a local church. The elder is responsible for the spiritual welfare of the church and for ensuring that the church adheres to the teachings of Christ. This interpretation is supported by many Protestant denominations, including the Presbyterian Church and the United Methodist Church.
-
Shepherd or pastor: In this interpretation, an elder is seen as a shepherd or pastor of a local church. The elder is responsible for caring for the spiritual needs of the congregation and for leading the church in worship and prayer. This interpretation is supported by many evangelical and Pentecostal denominations, including the Assemblies of God and the Southern Baptist Convention.
-
Leader or administrator: In this interpretation, an elder is seen as a leader or administrator of a local church. The elder is responsible for overseeing the day-to-day operations of the church and for making decisions on behalf of the congregation. This interpretation is supported by many Catholic and Orthodox denominations.
Overall, the interpretation of the role of an elder in a first-century church varies widely depending on the specific Christian denomination and the individual scholar or theologian.
what are the major interpretations of the role of a deacon in a first century church and who supports that interpretation?The role of a deacon in a first-century church is also interpreted differently by various Christian denominations and scholars. However, there are several common interpretations of the role of a deacon in the first-century church:
-
Servant or helper: In this interpretation, a deacon is seen as a servant or helper of a local church. The deacon is responsible for caring for the physical needs of the congregation and for assisting the elders or pastors in their work. This interpretation is supported by many Protestant denominations, including the Baptist Church and the Anglican Communion.
-
Minister or evangelist: In this interpretation, a deacon is seen as a minister or evangelist of a local church. The deacon is responsible for preaching the gospel and for assisting in the spiritual growth of the congregation. This interpretation is supported by many evangelical and Pentecostal denominations, including the Assemblies of God and the Church of God in Christ.
-
Administrator or leader: In this interpretation, a deacon is seen as an administrator or leader of a local church. The deacon is responsible for overseeing specific areas of the church's ministry, such as finance, building maintenance, or community outreach. This interpretation is supported by many Catholic and Orthodox denominations.
Overall, the interpretation of the role of a deacon in a first-century church varies widely depending on the specific Christian denomination and the individual scholar or theologian.
what are the major interpretations of the role of a pastor in a first century church and who supports that interpretation?The term "pastor" is not explicitly mentioned in the New Testament as a specific church office, but the role of a shepherd is mentioned frequently in the Bible as a metaphor for the spiritual care of the church. The interpretation of the role of a pastor in a first-century church, therefore, also varies among Christian denominations and scholars. However, there are several common interpretations of the role of a pastor in the first-century church:
-
Shepherd or overseer: In this interpretation, a pastor is seen as a shepherd or overseer of a local church. The pastor is responsible for caring for the spiritual needs of the congregation and for leading the church in worship and prayer. This interpretation is supported by many Protestant denominations, including the Presbyterian Church and the United Methodist Church.
-
Preacher or teacher: In this interpretation, a pastor is seen as a preacher or teacher of a local church. The pastor is responsible for preaching the gospel and for teaching the doctrines of the Christian faith to the congregation. This interpretation is supported by many evangelical and Pentecostal denominations, including the Assemblies of God and the Southern Baptist Convention.
-
Priest or celebrant: In this interpretation, a pastor is seen as a priest or celebrant of a local church. The pastor is responsible for leading the church in worship and administering the sacraments, such as baptism and the Eucharist. This interpretation is supported by many Catholic and Orthodox denominations.
Overall, the interpretation of the role of a pastor in a first-century church varies widely depending on the specific Christian denomination and the individual scholar or theologian.
what are the major interpretations of the role of a bishop in a first century church and who supports that interpretation?The role of a bishop in a first-century church is also interpreted differently by various Christian denominations and scholars. However, there are several common interpretations of the role of a bishop in the first-century church:
-
Overseer or leader: In this interpretation, a bishop is seen as an overseer or leader of a local church or group of churches. The bishop is responsible for the spiritual welfare of the churches under their authority and for ensuring that they adhere to the teachings of Christ. This interpretation is supported by many Protestant denominations, including the Lutheran Church and the Anglican Communion.
-
Successor of the apostles: In this interpretation, a bishop is seen as a successor of the apostles and as having a special role in preserving and transmitting the apostolic teachings and traditions. This interpretation is supported by many Catholic and Orthodox denominations, which view the apostles as having passed on their authority to their successors, the bishops.
-
Minister or servant: In this interpretation, a bishop is seen as a minister or servant of the church. The bishop is responsible for caring for the spiritual needs of the congregation and for leading the church in worship and prayer. This interpretation is supported by many evangelical and Pentecostal denominations, which view the bishop as a pastor or overseer of a local church.
Overall, the interpretation of the role of a bishop in a first-century church varies widely depending on the specific Christian denomination and the individual scholar or theologian.
I get an answer more in line with my understanding of church history by asking ChatGPT this question:
[quote]
what distinctions did the pre-Nicene church fathers make between elder, deacon, bishop, and pastor?The pre-Nicene church fathers, who lived and wrote before the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, often used the terms "elder," "deacon," "bishop," and "pastor" interchangeably, and it is not always clear from their writings how they understood the distinctions between these offices. However, there are some general trends in their writings that shed light on how they viewed these roles.
-
Elder: The term "elder" (Greek: presbyteros) was used in the New Testament to refer to leaders in the early church. The pre-Nicene fathers often used the term to refer to those who exercised pastoral or teaching authority in the church. They saw the role of elders as primarily concerned with the spiritual care of the congregation, including preaching, teaching, and administering the sacraments.
-
Deacon: The term "deacon" (Greek: diakonos) was used in the New Testament to refer to servants or helpers in the church. The pre-Nicene fathers saw the role of deacons as primarily concerned with practical matters, such as caring for the physical needs of the congregation and assisting the elders in their work. However, some church fathers also saw the role of deacons as including preaching and teaching.
-
Bishop: The term "bishop" (Greek: episkopos) was used in the New Testament to refer to overseers or leaders in the church. The pre-Nicene fathers saw the role of bishops as primarily concerned with the governance of the church and with preserving the apostolic teachings and traditions. Bishops were seen as having authority over multiple churches in a region, and were responsible for ordaining new clergy and for settling disputes within the church.
-
Pastor: The term "pastor" (Latin: pastor) was not commonly used in the pre-Nicene period, but the concept of pastoral care was central to the early church's understanding of leadership. The pre-Nicene fathers saw the role of pastors as primarily concerned with the spiritual care of the congregation, including preaching, teaching, and counseling.
Overall, while the pre-Nicene church fathers used these terms in various ways and did not always make clear distinctions between them, they generally saw the roles of elder, deacon, bishop, and pastor as complementary and interdependent, with each office having a specific function in the governance and spiritual care of the church.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
-
Elders, bishops, pastor, presbyteros, overseer, are word in the bible to refer to men that have the qualities or qualifications that are listed in 1 Timothy 2:1-8 and Titus 1:5-9. They all refer to the same role in the church.
Church leadership is a great study to do.
A good book to really help understand leaders in the church is Alexandar Strauch's book on Biblical Eldership. Follow the link to view it.
He also wrote a book on Ministers of Mercy: The New Testament Deacon which is on the same page.
xn = Christan man=man -- Acts 11:26 "....and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch".
Barney Fife is my hero! He only uses an abacus with 14 rows!
0 -
Maybe someone should write a book Elders, Bishops and Pastors 4 Views:
View 1. The terms are used interchangeably and refer to the same group of men who hold the same office.
View 2. Elders are different from Bishops and Pastors.
View 3. Bishops are not Elders nor Pastors.
View 4. Pastors are Preachers overseen by the Elders who in turn are overseen by a Bishop.
Or something like that, though based on Scripture alone (Acts 20:17, 28) The Elders pastor the flock because the Holy Spirit Himself made them Bishops. It’s there and it seems pretty obvious and simple. But yes, I’m curious to know who decided to change that and why. Maybe one of these days I’ll dive into some church history and church leadership books to see if someone nails it down.
DAL
0 -
DAL said:
Or something like that, though based on Scripture alone (Acts 20:17, 28) The Elders pastor the flock because the Holy Spirit Himself made them Bishops. But yes, I’m curious to know who decided to change that and why.
Turning your own (illicit) move from resources to theological opinion back onto you, I question what school of logic allowed you to induce "It’s there and it seems pretty obvious and simple." when the evidence is very strong that there is no concensus which implies it is neither simple nor obvious. Not to mention that your logic is open to the charge of cherry-picking the data - aren't you required to consider at an absolute minimum all Biblical evidence? and if that represents a biased or insignificant sample, at least all first century data? And shouldn't your evidence include Romans 16:1-2 and 1 Tim 3:11ff. Please don't answer in the forums regarding the Biblical references or their interpretation. It is simply ill-formed logic that has been seared into my brain/mood today.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Ok folks..... I'm taping my fingers together here so I can't type... But this would be a great discussion....Oh yeah! I would love it.... but my fingers are taped!!! [:#]
xn = Christan man=man -- Acts 11:26 "....and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch".
Barney Fife is my hero! He only uses an abacus with 14 rows!
0 -
MJ, when something is simple as 1+1=2 then I don’t need to rely on the logic or lack thereof of the general consensus. Some have fabricated “evidence” which in any case let’s just conclude that nobody has the truth and that truth cannot really be known, that way everybody can draw their own conclusions based on their logic and evidence 😉 That way it’s a win win for all of us 👌 After all, we all have different “logics” and nobody can say yours or mine is wrong because we’re all correct based on our own logic 👍😁👌
DAL
0 -
Ah, I hadn't taken you for being a relativist. Now that you have self-identified, I will read your posts in quite a different light.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Ah, I hadn't taken you for being a relativist. Now that you have self-identified, I will read your posts in quite a different light.
More like sarcastic 😁 But I guess everyone of us has to be a relativist here since per the guidelines we cannot tell someone that they’re wrong, can we?
😑 👍😁👌0 -
DAL said:
everyone of us has to be a relativist here since per the guidelines we cannot tell someone that they’re wrong
Not to mention that it is more fun to call you a relativist which is anathema to what I've gleaned of your theology than to point out "logics" parallels the British use of "maths". [:D] Actually I look at not pointing out the errors of the ways of others on the forums more like not responding to the elderly uncle who likes to rant about FDR - you'll just egg him on, not get him to think.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:DAL said:
everyone of us has to be a relativist here since per the guidelines we cannot tell someone that they’re wrong
Not to mention that it is more fun to call you a relativist which is anathema to what I've gleaned of your theology than to point out "logics" parallels the British use of "maths".
Actually I look at not pointing out the errors of the ways of others on the forums more like not responding to the elderly uncle who likes to rant about FDR - you'll just egg him on, not get him to think.I love you, MJ! You’re one of a kind! Even though I’m still crazy enough to still think that maybe you and DMB are one and the same person 😂😂😂
DAL
0
