[John]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Of course, John, there are no scripture delineating some course of leadership training, but there are cases where Paul took opportunity to train leaders. Here are my observations from these verses --

• Paul took the disciples away from those who spoke evil of the way
• Paul was in this setting with only desirous disciples/believers
• Paul taught daily in this school, not just Sunday morning service
• Paul had opportunity for two years to develop the disciples
• The fruit of this was that all in Asia heard the word of the Lord

If Paul was not training Christian leaders of tomorrow, what was he doing? He was teaching them the truths of the kingdom of God. He was equipping them in the gospel work. He was training shepherds to care for others. Paul was developing the next generation of elders, deacons, evangelists, shepherds, teachers, etc.

I frankly don't understand your statements, "I do not see that Paul had schools with the purpose of training leaders. He was not reasoning with the disciples." How do we distinguish between the disciples and those who "would listen to about the kingdom of God"? I'm quite sure Paul would measure his words according to the audience, but I believe that Paul labored to pass on everything he knew, and all that he was, and all that he himself was doing for the Lord. In a nutshell, Paul was struggling to reproduce himself in the disciples at the school of Tyrannus, proven by the fruit after two years.

John, perhaps our discussion here is simply one of semantics. I am in no way justifying "the stuff" that goes on at the FTTA or the Catholic monasteries of my youth, but I am saying that Paul took many opportunities to train future leaders. Paul trained Timothy and Titus to train future leaders. He told Timothy to lay these things before the brothers, (I Tm 4) charge and teach these things, being a pattern to them, etc. II Tim 2.2 repeats this charge, "and the things which you have heard from me through many witnesses, these commit to faithful men, who will be competent to teach others also."

Ohio,

Reasonings with bullets

I am surprised by your second bullet about Acts 19, since that was not the case according to the way I read the passage. Further, since you make no point as to how any of the bullets would advance your view, I’ll leave you to turn your observations into support for a specific position, along with support from the Bible, if you desire. For example, this from you doesn’t say much: “Paul had opportunity for two years to develop the disciples.” Your observation of “opportunity” makes your statement virtually useless as far as providing proof goes, since it is merely something pulled from your imagination. He also had opportunity not to develop the disciples. You also state that “there are cases where Paul took opportunity to train leaders,” but you do not direct me to the proof.

So far, then, I have nothing to go on except verses 8, 9, and 10 previously quoted. These verses do not indicate that Paul was training leaders. The verses indicate that Paul was reasoning with all who would listen, not the disciples. In fact, it does not make much sense to me that he would be reasoning with the disciples, the ones who already believed. Paul was at the school trying to make disciples of non-believers. I do not mean to imply that the disciples were not learning something from Paul; but, we do not even know for sure if the other disciples were focused on Paul’s dialogue with the unbelievers or if, instead, they were focused more on helping the non-believers toward salvation, one-on-one, much as in a salvation meeting conducted in some Christian circles today.


Recapitulation

Please note the whole context and the progression: Paul was reasoning and persuading the Jews in the synagogue in verse 8 about the kingdom. In verse 9, hardened troublemakers spoke against the Way to the point that he couldn’t continue. He then took the disciples to a school and reasoned daily with the ones who came to the school. According to my reading, the context doesn’t change from reasoning and persuading unbelieving Jews in verse 8 to reasoning with just the disciples in verse 9. Instead, Paul simply moved from one location to another and resumed his reasoning and persuading of unbelievers. Verse 10, then, tells us the result of his work with the unbelievers: Both Jews and Greeks throughout Asia heard the word.

Since he had to leave the synagogue, where he could only speak to Jews, by the way, he was able, by going to a neutral site, to also reach the Gentiles. You mention that this went on daily and not just once a week as in the synagogue, as if this proves something (but you do not state what). I actually take it as furthering my perspective that Paul reached all in Asia, both Jews and Gentiles, with the word of the Lord, rather than just the disciples, as you suggest. It makes sense to me that it would take two years on a daily basis to reach that number of people. It seems to me that you are reading into the account what you want to be there; and, as I wrote before, you are free to do so if you like. (By the way, I don’t think that many of the professional leaders in the “pastoral system” would even agree that these verses support some kind of a seminary or leadership training institute or whatever else you would want to call it. I checked a few commentaries and found none agreeing that they supported the training of disciples.) You are the one to first ask, rhetorically, I believe, if Paul didn’t have “schools.” I hope that I have shown to your satisfaction that he did not, at least as far as the biblical record goes.

By this explanation, I hope that you can at least understand my perspective. You ask how we can distinguish between disciples and unbelievers in the quoted passage. Actually, I don’t have to distinguish between them to support my view; you seem to feel the need to do it to support yours. I maintain that, according to the verses, Paul was only reasoning with and persuading the unbelievers, not the disciples. It does not make sense to me that he needed to reason with and persuade those who already believed. “Reason” and “persuade” are not words that I normally associate with a training program; they do apply to evangelism, however.


Semantics plus

You mention that we may have a problem with semantics. I don’t think it’s limited to that. I think that we have a problem with the original topic. As you might recall, what I objected to was this statement from UntoHim, which I thought was rather bold: “There is solid evidence that the original apostles had originated a system (for lack of a better term) of choosing, training and mentoring young men for leadership in the churches.” I asked for his support and got next to nothing from him. You joined in with some verses; but, as I have now shown twice, they do not support the proposition. To actually fully argue this topic, I think that someone would need to define terms and spell out in detail what the boundaries for discussion are. I do not intend to do that, since it would require more time than I want to invest in the topic (roles in the church) that I don’t feel at this time would be worth the effort.

Since my first post, it seems to me that you have been trying to nudge me toward coming out for an extreme position, which I am still resisting. I believe what the Bible states; I do not believe some of your inferences from Acts. I see leaders in the Bible, but I don’t see much of what I’m calling the “ship”—at least any formalized leadership training program. It seems to me that you would like for me to say that Paul never taught anyone or mentored anyone. That would be absurd; however, that doesn’t mean that there was some sort of a formal system set up by Jesus that the apostles followed in order to make leaders. That is going beyond what the Bible has to say, in my opinion.


He is able

I believe that the Lord is fully capable of making a leader of anyone He chooses, whenever He chooses; and, that person doesn’t have to go through any formal educational system. The Lord looks on the heart, as he did with David. David did not sign up for Leadership 101. He had to tend sheep and do what his father told him to do. God has His own training program, and it may involve a “lion” and a “bear” rather than Hebrew and Greek syntax. We are all being trained by our true Master. In fact, many of us, if not most of us, are leaders already. Do we not teach children? Do we not lead families? Do we not shepherd others? In fact, aren’t these some of the requirements Paul gives to Timothy for overseers and deacons? And, by the way, there is no requirement in 1st Timothy 3 for either of these to have undergone a special training or mentoring curriculum to function in those ways.


It’s a family matter

Even though I’ve given you more to work with in this post, it is still not incumbent upon me to prove a case. I am still disproving, in this post, what UntoHim first claimed, as well as, I hope, proving that your verses do not support his claim.

I look at this topic more as believers bringing unbelievers to the Lord and helping them on their way in Christ as time goes along. We all should be doing this kind of work, and we don’t need special qualifications to do so. I look at this as us all being in a big family together. And, this is a segue into a response to your 2nd Timothy 2:2 verse: The context established in chapter 1, verse 2, and in chapter 2, verse 1, is that Paul was a “father” to Timothy. As I’ve stated, I never said that Paul, or anyone else, for that matter, never taught anyone. Does 2nd Timothy 2:2 tell us that Paul had some special training program established for special people? In my opinion, no. Obviously, he taught people who taught others; this would be normal, especially in a familial relationship. From 2:2, you quoted this: “and the things which you have heard from me through many witnesses, these commit to faithful men, who will be competent to teach others also.” What Timothy “heard from Paul,” he didn’t even actually hear from Paul; instead, it came through many witnesses. Also, it wasn’t a special training for a few; it was for the many. Apparently, it wasn’t even special enough for Paul to tell Timothy directly; Paul simply referred Timothy to what he had heard from other witnesses who had heard Paul. I don’t think this verse goes to supporting what I have understood so far of your position.

In my opinion, the Bible does not directly support the status quo as we see it around us. I’m not saying that it’s wrong to go to seminary or to sit under someone who has been there. I’m just saying that the Bible doesn’t directly support it. In the end, it’s really Jesus we should be listening to. Someone having some letters after his or her name isn’t going to safeguard us from error. There were a number of folks with those credentials in the Local Church, and look where it got them (and, indirectly, us). The safeguard from error is not a better teacher with better credentials from a better institution; the safeguard is the Bible, His speaking within, and His servants, our brothers and sisters, without.


Semantics again

Now, as to one of our differences in semantics, you use the word “train” freely. Personally, I have a problem with that word, because of the associations that I make with it that I don’t think represent what was going on back in Jesus’s day. I first think of training as being something you do with a dog. Then, I think of it as classes that I have attended at work in which I am showed PowerPoint slides ad infinitum that the trainer reads to us. Training is, for me, akin to someone saying something like, “Here’s the job, and here’s how you do it.” It’s similar to being given instructions for how to make a pie and shown exactly how to make one. This may not be how you think of training, but these are my “rough-draft, free associations.”

You have stated that you don’t go along with the FTTA or the training administered in earlier Catholic monasteries. I might classify those as more extreme religious training. What about the regular Living Stream Ministry Trainings, where each of the attendees had to fork over $50 and agree to give up their free will to the whim of the trainer? To me, the whole idea of training goes in the wrong direction. In a previous response, you wrote about your thought that “life” was an important consideration in the Bible. Why not carry this thought for Life over to this topic? Paul had a son in the faith; his name was Timothy. Paul wrote to him and passed on things he had learned that he thought would be helpful to Timothy as Timothy followed the Spirit. This would be only normal in a family, I would hope. To me, it doesn’t need to get any more complicated than that. (By the way, I re-read both letters to Timothy while writing this, looking for any formalized system or process of education for leaders. I saw Paul giving advice to his son in Christ, Timothy; I did not see any support for ye ole clergy-laity [or pastoral, if you prefer] system.)

Hopefully, I have given you enough information about my perspective to satisfy you. Since I don’t really have the interest at this time to pursue it further, and it is too time consuming for me, as well, I will just sign off with this verse, which comes to me now and may be apropos:

As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him. (1 John 2:27, NASB)