Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
I don't see "elders" appointed by an apostle to be a requirement for the assembly(cf Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5). Trying to re-create, wholecloth, Paul's activities may necessitate one of us stepping forward as "today's Paul", which thus far hasn't turned out very well, from what I have seen.
Or we could vote in each assembly, which will probably lead to political machinations. No, I don't really see that "office" as a pressing need, any more than trying to re-create "12 apostles" to oversee the Body today.
Plus, John (pointedly?) does not address the elders in Asia in Revelations 2 and 3, instead using "messengers". Also, John's first epistle addresses "fathers", "children", and "young men", without the sense of outward appointment or office.
Taking something that happened at one point and making it a requirement for all assemblies at all times, seems to be leading us the wrong way.
|
Kind of like throwing the net on the other side of the boat and expecting a huge haul of fish.
It happened to Peter, didn't it?
The appointment of elders by the so-called "Apostle" became a most valuable tool in the hands of dominant men, those lording it over the flock. First of all, who is the elder-appointing apostle? Supposedly, he was the one who directly established the church. Eventually the apostle was the one who supposedly "raised up brothers" who then were appointed the elders. That to me sounds like the job description of
Bishops, which we were, of course, vehemently opposed to.
Can someone please explain to me what was so bad with bishops, and how does our present system differ from them?