Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2014 23:48:58 GMT -5
Where I grew up, there were NO NEIGHBORS! Well, I guess there were if you counted the people who lived a mile away. Are those considered neighbors? I don't rightly know. Being the redneck I was raised I didn't know any different. It was "normal" to look outside and not see another house. It was "normal" to have to travel at least a mile to see a neighbor. And, the best fences were definitely BARBED WIRE. FWIW-bop Then perhaps you lived in "Critter Country". Call it whatever you want. I'm just a hick from the sticks. fwiw-bop
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2014 6:55:30 GMT -5
Arguably the other positions can be combined, but deacon and apostle or disciple cannot be. In Acts 6 roles were established so that those looking after the ministry would not have to "wait on tables". I have no problem with overlap of roles or of persons occupying several roles. That obviously happens everywhere. However, restricting every role to a privileged few is very problematic, especially for a travelling ministry. I would seem to me that the early church had the apostles going about preaching Jesus and when converts were made and a church was established then they left it in the hands of a man who would have the qualities to be an Elder/Bishop/Deacon. This Bishop/Deacon/Elder would be responsible for the church and people who made up it members. The apostles would then be free to continue evangelizing. Todays purported New Testament Church retains all of these functions in the workers ministry; with a very firm hold. I concur. Acts 6 makes it very clear there were those whose special calling was to take the message of salvation to all the world as per Christ's command and were not to be hindered by pastoral and other duties unfolding as the church began to develop. The preaching role was also an important part of at least some of those whose roles were connected with looking after the local needs of the church.
|
|
|
Post by sacerdotal on Jan 6, 2014 9:38:06 GMT -5
I would seem to me that the early church had the apostles going about preaching Jesus and when converts were made and a church was established then they left it in the hands of a man who would have the qualities to be an Elder/Bishop/Deacon. This Bishop/Deacon/Elder would be responsible for the church and people who made up it members. The apostles would then be free to continue evangelizing. Todays purported New Testament Church retains all of these functions in the workers ministry; with a very firm hold. I concur. Acts 6 makes it very clear there were those whose special calling was to take the message of salvation to all the world as per Christ's command and were not to be hindered by pastoral and other duties unfolding as the church began to develop. The preaching role was also an important part of at least some of those whose roles were connected with looking after the local needs of the church. I concur as well. If my understanding of the early days of 2x2ism is correct, all converts were to be workers. Later it was decided that some could be saints, or converts, and keep a house and stay married etc. But I don't think that it ever evolved, or much thought given to, what to do about the converts/saints. The role of deacon was never setup. Nor elder, for that matter- past setting up chairs for a meeting in their home. Maybe the time is now for the workers to think about actually trusting the friends, using the criteria given in the New Testament for choosing Bishops and Deacons, and turning over the maintenance of the fellowship to the friends, so that they can concentrate on carrying forth the gospel. The same thing for special meetings- allow the deacons and bishops to speak to the friends in those gatherings to free up that considerable amount of time for the workers to continue their gospel missions. Conventions, too, could be a mix of bishops/deacons/and workers. I think that that would be awesome. And more biblical, at any rate. Would anyone really have had an issue with hearing men in the mold of Stephen, from the book of Acts, speak and encourage? Or Philip?
|
|