[BigRed1]

Titles attributed to men in the church are of pagan origin.

I do understand why they are used, TRADITION. We've made titles of certain gifts of the Spirit in the manner of the culture around us. I'm in the same boat. I'd have a very difficult time not referring to my former pastor, who is well-respected and loved, as "Pastor," though I've never heard him refer to himself by that title....never. This is not my recently former-fundy CEO who required his underlings to call him by his title. [side note: This guy referred to himself by his first and last name when he got the word I was leaving his umbrella of protection and called me to confront me]

There is only one person in relation to the church in all the New Testament given titles: JESUS CHRIST

[rsc2a]

(02-03-2014, 11:42 AM)BigRedOne Wrote: Titles attributed to men in the church are of pagan origin...

...There is only one person in relation to the church in all the New Testament given titles: JESUS CHRIST

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer...

...Deacons likewise...

[BigRed1]

(02-03-2014, 12:03 PM)rsc2a Wrote:

(02-03-2014, 11:42 AM)BigRedOne Wrote: Titles attributed to men in the church are of pagan origin...

...There is only one person in relation to the church in all the New Testament given titles: JESUS CHRIST

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer...

...Deacons likewise...

So, are you arguing for a clergy based on that passage?

[rsc2a]

I'm not arguing for anything. I'm pointing out that your "facts" about titles are false.

[co_heir]

Might be straining at a gnat, or maybe not, but I think there's a difference in the office and the title. I don't see any references in the NT to individuals being addressed as "overseer so-and-so," or "elder such-and -such, even when they held those offices.

[Tiarali]

Also, acknowledging that there were positions in the church of elder and deacon doesn't mean they looked anything like what we see today.

[BigRed1]

(02-03-2014, 02:18 PM)rsc2a Wrote: I'm not arguing for anything. I'm pointing out that your "facts" about titles are false.

I'm not angry, rsc2a, I just don't see how you get "titles" out of that passage. There is no indication of titles. Are you referring to the translation "office?"

[BigRed1]

(02-03-2014, 09:00 PM)co_heir Wrote: Might be straining at a gnat, or maybe not, but I think there's a difference in the office and the title. I don't see any references in the NT to individuals being addressed as "overseer so-and-so," or "elder such-and -such, even when they held those offices.

I don't believe your straining at a gnat. This is my point. Paul isn't even referred to as Apostle Paul, like you would say, "Pastor Paul." Paul is an Apostle, another is an elder, and yet another is a "servant," or transliterated, "deacon." Neither is an "office" per se.

The clergy system became common a full two centuries after the apostles (Under Constantine), though it was argued for by Ignatius of Antioch in the 2nd Century. It simply isn't in the NT.

[rsc2a]

(02-03-2014, 09:00 PM)co_heir Wrote: Might be straining at a gnat, or maybe not, but I think there's a difference in the office and the title. I don't see any references in the NT to individuals being addressed as "overseer so-and-so," or "elder such-and -such, even when they held those offices.

I personally believe you're trying to force a modern understanding of how we use offices/titles into a 2000 year old text. It seems pretty clear that there was a certain subset of people who had specific roles as far as governance in the early church but...

Tiarali Wrote:Also, acknowledging that there were positions in the church of elder and deacon doesn't mean they looked anything like what we see today.

...I don't think they looked anything like they often look today. As I've stated before, positionally, these people were still one part of a larger body with all parts being necessary and deserving of honor.

[co_heir]

rsc2a, I don't think we're that far off. It's true that it doesn't help to force our setting on the NT. There were offices and roles from the beginning. That's not debatable. Nor is it debatable that these folks were seen as worthy of honor. I do believe that the church as a whole, especially fundamentalism, has gone far away from what was originally intended, while still claiming to be "biblical."