Pastoral Authority Part 898,230

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

I would take this to mean also to mean that Pastors will give an account in that must make sure that what they teach and preach is biblical.

Scott, though I believe you are right, the problem is the context: obey them that have the rule over you, for they give account for your souls. This obviously has something to do with the saints first and foremost. What you have said is right as well, though not the primary meaning of the verse. Do you agree?

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

What type of authority, and how much?

That is the question. Not to become a dictator, but to admonish and provoke toward good works. What did Paul say in the letters? That's are greatest clue. If a pastor is giving account for your soul, I'd say God also gave him some authority. It's not authority to go outside of scripture, but it is God's model leave his undershepherds with the authority. They are not lords, but they have a sobering responsibility to preserve the church from sin, false doctrine and division.

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by jaamez

A few things:

1 - Why do we call these epistles (Titus, both Timothy) the "Pastoral Epistles"? The word "pastor" does not even occur in any of them. Are we making an assumption based on our current congregational model/paradigm that Titus and Timothy were lone, singular-rule pastors of congregations as we know them? Do we have either scriptural context or historical accounts that would verify such a statement?

2 - The word "pastor" does not occur in the New Testament canon. The plural form, "pastors" does however - but only twice. We've allowed centuries of tradition to form our logic, and thus we just assume that the correct model for the church is for the main body (laity) be under the authority and leadership of a figurehead (minister), who serves as our vicar. He speaks for God to us, and we ask questions of him in God's stead. But is that the real NT model? There was one example of this in the scripture, but it wasn't referred to favorable. Diotrephes loved to have the pre-eminence... he had to be in charge... he spoke badly about the other ministers around him... wouldn't allow the saints to fellowship outside his congregation. Sound familiar? Check out 3 John.

3 - How can you say that a pastor's authority is evident without question in the NT? Can you show us? And it needs to be something more than Hebrews 13.17, because it takes a pretty impressive scriptural acrobatics to make the assumption that the writer of Hebrews was absolutely talking about single pastor rule. The entire book of Hebrews doesn't mention the pastor at all. Are we making an assumption based on our current model? Are we interpreting scripture through our 21st century understanding?

The church has ONE HEAD... Jesus Christ (not some earthly potentate)
There is ONE MEDIATOR between God and man... Jesus Christ (not a pastor/vicar)

For the sake of having discussion, allow me to respond.

That they are called Pastoral epistles has been true for centuries. They were words given to men who were over particular churches, as well as instructions regarding how to pick elders and deacons. Any seminary class will be proof to this, and any serious scholars, without question, refer to Titus and 1/2 Timothy as the Pastoral Epistles. Please read these books. Then I ask you, who were Titus and who were Timothy? These evidently were sharing Paul's letters (as we do today) with the church -- including instructions that were intended to preserve the image of Christians as not of mean-spirited rebels, but of Christ. This is why he instructs women's role in the church, the relationship between slave and servant,

Perhaps the word "pastor" has taken by tradition, but understood what it was intended. NT uses the word overseer, elders, etc... Who, then, was the overseer? These young men were even instructed to put out troublemakers (kick them out!), but to others to work with in gentleness. Timothy is encouraged to take special attention to his learning, study and teaching, because "by doing this you will save yourself and your hearers." Timothy is told to "preach the word." He's given license to reprove, rebuke and exhort. He's told to do the work of an evangel.

Please read these (not that you never have), but again, and you will see how I can say there is clear pastoral authority granted in scripture... to reprove, rebuke, exhort, teach, preach, instruct in doctrine, kick out troublemakers, do the work of the evangelist... Titus 2:15 says to "rebuke with all authority."

While Christ is the head and mediator on behalf of our salvation, there is an obvious model in the NT that we can't ignore that has been gifted to the church for our sake.

How do you explain Heb 13? This can't be talking about the King, because he doesn't account for your soul. So what's your explanation?

[Withdrawn]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

For the sake of having discussion, allow me to respond.

That they are called Pastoral epistles has been true for centuries. They were words given to men who were over particular churches, as well as instructions regarding how to pick elders and deacons. Any seminary class will be proof to this, and any serious scholars, without question, refer to Titus and 1/2 Timothy as the Pastoral Epistles. Please read these books. Then I ask you, who were Titus and who were Timothy? These evidently were sharing Paul's letters (as we do today) with the church -- including instructions that were intended to preserve the image of Christians as not of mean-spirited rebels, but of Christ. This is why he instructs women's role in the church, the relationship between slave and servant,

Perhaps the word "pastor" has taken by tradition, but understood what it was intended. NT uses the word overseer, elders, etc... Who, then, was the overseer? These young men were even instructed to put out troublemakers (kick them out!), but to others to work with in gentleness. Timothy is encouraged to take special attention to his learning, study and teaching, because "by doing this you will save yourself and your hearers." Timothy is told to "preach the word." He's given license to reprove, rebuke and exhort. He's told to do the work of an evangel.

Please read these (not that you never have), but again, and you will see how I can say there is clear pastoral authority granted in scripture... to reprove, rebuke, exhort, teach, preach, instruct in doctrine, kick out troublemakers, do the work of the evangelist... Titus 2:15 says to "rebuke with all authority."

While Christ is the head and mediator on behalf of our salvation, there is an obvious model in the NT that we can't ignore that has been gifted to the church for our sake.

How do you explain Heb 13? This can't be talking about the King, because he doesn't account for your soul. So what's your explanation?

I understand where you're coming from and what you're saying. I am very familiar with the passages to which you are referring, and have (I think) a pretty good understanding of what Paul is saying in them. Again, however, I would ask you to answer my questions.

I understand that centuries of tradition have called these "pastoral letters", but honestly, it's based on a weak assumption that Titus and Timothy were actual pastors as we know pastors today. We're putting our 21st century understanding into it instead of reading what it says. Again, you're assuming a one-man ruler over the church, and I don't believe the NT bears that out. There's an entire five-fold ministry that needs to be accounted for as well as the elders.

I'll answer more when I have more time, and can handle the Word responsibly (rather than just trying to answer off the cuff from my cell phone... LOL).

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by jaamez

I understand where you're coming from and what you're saying. I am very familiar with the passages to which you are referring, and have (I think) a pretty good understanding of what Paul is saying in them. Again, however, I would ask you to answer my questions.

I understand that centuries of tradition have called these "pastoral letters", but honestly, it's based on a weak assumption that Titus and Timothy were actual pastors as we know pastors today. We're putting our 21st century understanding into it instead of reading what it says. Again, you're assuming a one-man ruler over the church, and I don't believe the NT bears that out. There's an entire five-fold ministry that needs to be accounted for as well as the elders.

I'll answer more when I have more time, and can handle the Word responsibly (rather than just trying to answer off the cuff from my cell phone... LOL).

Thanks. Looking forward to your response. The text doesn't seem to indicate that Timothy and Titus aren't pastors either, nor does it indicate they shared the same position as someone else in these churches. The letters were written directly to them.

[Neck]

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

And what does "for they give account for your soul" mean to you?

That some preachers need to get some polish and stop saying things off the top of their heads. They are accountable for the soul's they lead. That is the bottom line to that statement.

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by Neck

That some preachers need to get some polish and stop saying things off the top of their heads. They are accountable for the soul's they lead. That is the bottom line to that statement.

Neck, I agree with this statement -- however, that's not the context of the verse.

[Scott Hutchinson]

To me this verse seems to be saying,obey those who lead you in the word,for they keep watch for your souls,as men who must give an account for the concern for the souls that they teach and preach to.
Those who have oversight over a flock of God must give an account of how concerned they were for the saints well-being.

[missourimary]

An elder, bishop, pastor-any church leader really-should preach the word (2 Tim 2:4). Some believe that includes certain "standards".

They are to "reprove, rebuke and exhort". However, that quote doesn't equate to "blast, blast, blast." (Sorry, pet peeve of mine.) Reproof is gentle correction. Rebuke is more "ye generation of vipers". Exhortation is uplifting and encouraging people to live for God.

They are to lead by example. (1 tim 3, Titus 1, 1 Tim 4:12) Their families are actively involved in their ministry, as they are to have godly wives and children who are to lead by example as well. They are to be patient, slow to anger... in the New Testament, they were setting a course for the church of God. They were not to place undue restrictions on their people, however. (1 Tim 4:3)

They are to teach (1 tim 3:2) and to preach (2 tim 4:2) Jesus. They are not there to lift up themselves or make a show of or by their buildings or their activities or lifestyles, but to walk humbly, giving honor to God as His servants. (Mt 6:1-6, Mt 23:11, 2 cor 4:5, Acts 28:31...)

[GrowingPains]

Originally Posted by missourimary

An elder, bishop, pastor-any church leader really-should preach the word (2 Tim 2:4). Some believe that includes certain "standards".

They are to "reprove, rebuke and exhort". However, that quote doesn't equate to "blast, blast, blast." (Sorry, pet peeve of mine.) Reproof is gentle correction. Rebuke is more "ye generation of vipers". Exhortation is uplifting and encouraging people to live for God.

They are to lead by example. (1 tim 3, Titus 1, 1 Tim 4:12) Their families are actively involved in their ministry, as they are to have godly wives and children who are to lead by example as well. They are to be patient, slow to anger... in the New Testament, they were setting a course for the church of God. They were not to place undue restrictions on their people, however. (1 Tim 4:3)

They are to teach (1 tim 3:2) and to preach (2 tim 4:2) Jesus. They are not there to lift up themselves or make a show of or by their buildings or their activities or lifestyles, but to walk humbly, giving honor to God as His servants. (Mt 6:1-6, Mt 23:11, 2 cor 4:5, Acts 28:31...)

Is it abusive for them to ask their leaders not to wear tank tops? Is that decent under the admonishment of being modest? We make it sound as if they are to be an example only, but to be silent on what they are an example of. Don't we all draw lines somewhere? Sure, uncut hair and others have a place for debate about whether or not they are scriptural, but matters of modesty? And just how modest is women's pants? I know, not enough to ban pants, but the greater issue is modesty and gender distinction.

I'm opening a can, I know... so perhaps let's stick to the first part of my questions.