Christianity Lounge

[Servant of Christ]

Since I am pretty sure you are going to disagree with me on the word "pastor" here is a pre-emptive follow up.

• The Greek word often translated pastor is ποιμήν (poimēn), which literally means shepherd.
• In the New Testament, it is used most often of Christ Himself (John 10:11, “I am the good shepherd”; 1 Peter 2:25, “the Shepherd of your souls”).
• Only once is it applied in connection with Church ministry, in Ephesians 4:11, where Paul says Christ gave some as “Apostles, Prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers” - but the text does not describe pastor as a separate, distinct office. Most scholars read “pastors and teachers” as one combined role.
• The early Church never developed “pastor” into an official title or office. At most, it was a function carried out by Bishops and Presbyters. The established terms or offices were Bishop (episkopos), Presbyter (presbyteros), and Deacon (diakonos).

The bottom line is the protestant office or role of “pastor” as we know it today is a reformation-era invention. It took the biblical metaphor of “shepherd”, collapsed it with presbyteral functions, and turned it into a new church role without Apostolic succession, sacramental authority, or liturgical grounding. We can agree it means "teacher", which is fine, but that holds no Apostolic authority or special meaning otherwise.

In Christ,

SoC

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Early texts show fluidity (elders, Bishops, Deacons), but by Ignatius’ time the structure had matured into the threefold hierarchy. That’s organic growth, not corruption.

Early texts (the Scriptures, the Didache, Clement's letter) show a plurality of Elders as the Apostolic Church government. This is not "fluidity." This was the Church government as instituted by the Apostles. The Monarchical Episcopate is a novum, a theological development. You won't find someone before Ignatius talk about it, it simply didn't exist. You place central weight on something that the Apostles did not even institute.

The new testament never establishes “pastor” as an office. The Church knew only Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, with the Bishop as the center of unity and succession. “Pastor” is a post-reformation invention, collapsing Bishop/Presbyter into a role without Apostolic succession, sacraments, or liturgy. In Orthodox terms, a protestant "pastor" is simply a layman acting as preacher.

Pastor is just another way of saying bishop. There are only two offices in the Apostolic Church, Bishops and Deacons. Unlike Apostolic Succession, you can find "pastor" in the Bible, and you cited it in Ephesians 4:11. So why are you saying the Reformation "made it up"?

So I again ask you plainly - where is your Bishop? If you have none, how can you claim to be a member of the Church?

The plurality of Elders in my church. Do not impose your un-Apostolic standard on me.

 

[Servant of Christ]

Early texts (the Scriptures, the Didache, Clement's letter) show a plurality of Elders as the Apostolic Church government. This is not "fluidity." This was the Church government as instituted by the Apostles. The Monarchical Episcopate is a novum, a theological development. You won't find someone before Ignatius talk about it, it simply didn't exist. You place central weight on something that the Apostles did not even institute.

The NT uses Bishop and Presbyter interchangeably (Acts 20, Titus 1), showing overlap, not the absence of Bishops. Clement of Rome (before Ignatius) already speaks of Apostolic succession and even intervenes in Corinth which is proof of supra-local authority. The Didache shows a transitional stage with Bishops, Deacons, and traveling prophets, but by Ignatius’ time the threefold ministry had stabilized. That’s not corruption but natural maturation. If the Apostles intended only a flat plurality of elders, why did the whole Church, within one generation, universally embrace episcopacy?

Pastor is just another way of saying bishop. There are only two offices in the Apostolic Church, Bishops and Deacons. Unlike Apostolic Succession, you can find "pastor" in the Bible, and you cited it in Ephesians 4:11. So why are you saying the Reformation "made it up"?

The plurality of Elders in my church. Do not impose your un-Apostolic standard on me.

I intend no dis-repect, but saying "pastor is just another way of saying bishop" is so wrong and mis-guided it deserves really special attention.

For example, it's like saying “doctor” is just another word for “surgeon”. One is a general description, the other is a specific office with particular training, lineage, and authority.

It’s like saying “captain” and “sailor” are the same thing because both work on a ship. The title of captain carries a unique office and authority that “sailor” does not.

Or like saying “king” is just another word for “father.” A king may act fatherly, but “father” is not the formal office.

Again, “pastor” (poimēn) is never an office in the NT. It’s a metaphor for Christ and only once for ministers (Eph. 4:11). The real offices are Bishop (episkopos), Presbyter, and Deacon. Clement already speaks of Apostolic succession with Bishops and Deacons, and by Ignatius the threefold order is universal. Early plurality of presbyters doesn’t erase Bishops; the roles were fluid initially but matured quickly.

And at the risk of being redundant, I think this needs to be emphasized:
The “plurality of elders” in scripture isn’t proof against Bishops. In the NT, Presbyter (elder) and Episkopos (Bishop/Overseer) are often used interchangeably (Acts 20:17,28; Titus 1:5–7). What you’re calling “elders” were precisely those who later came to be distinguished as Presbyters under the authority of a Bishop. Clement (c. 96) already shows succession through Bishops and Deacons, and Ignatius (c. 107) speaks everywhere of a single Bishop surrounded by Presbyters and Deacons.

So in other words, your “plurality of elders” was never an alternative to Bishops. It was the seed form of the episcopate that matured almost immediately after the Apostles. Your own claims earlier in this thread support me on this. And even if “pastor” really equals “Bishop”, which it clearly doesn't, Ignatius’ words still stand: ‘Where the Bishop is, there is the Church.’ So I ask again, where is your Bishop in Apostolic succession?

And frankly, whatever word you want to call it, pastor, elder, minister, captain kangaroo, the point is you don't have Apostolic succession, or sacraments, or the liturgy, or a real Bishop, or Deacons, or Priests, or any other real claim to the Holy traditions or body of Christ. It doesn't mean you don't love Christ or wish to seek him out, which I accept you do without question, and it doesn't mean you won't ultimately be saved, because noone but God knows that, but you're essentially wandering around lost without a compass when you should be in His Church. And you're arguing with the person who wants to help you and give you a map.

Take care & God bless my brother.

In Christ,

SoC

 

[Servant of Christ]

For what it is worth I don't enjoy telling someone they are wrong, but I feel an obligation to fight for the truth. Christ said in Matthew 10:34–36, “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword… a man against his father, a daughter against her mother.” He wasn’t calling for violence, but showing that His truth inevitably divides. The Holy Fathers explain this “sword” as the Word of God itself, cutting between truth and falsehood, light and darkness.

That is what’s happening here. This debate isn’t about pride, bur rather it’s about fidelity to the Apostolic Church. Any way you want to spin it, however sincere you may be, the heterodox are in error because they have cut themselves off from the very order and succession the Apostles left behind. The division we feel is exactly what Christ warned of: real unity only exists in the fullness of His Body, not in man-made substitutes.

I don't know your background and it's none of my business anyway, but in my experience a lot of people are taught or raised a certain way and that is what they know and that creates an incredibly strong bias to defend it. It's like in the matrix when morpheus explains how people will fight to prevent being freed from it, because their belief in it is so strong. Maybe that is you and maybe it isn't, but from my point of view I came at this from a fresh perspective without any pre-conceived ideas and just researched the information for a long time, prayed a lot, and let the truth lead me where it may. Whatever God's plan is for you my friend I pray you will get there and find true theosis and salvation.

In Christ,

SoC

 

[Wutang]

And frankly, whatever word you want to call it, pastor, elder, minister, captain kangaroo, the point is you don't have Apostolic succession, or sacraments, or the liturgy, or a real Bishop, or Deacons, or Priests, or any other real claim to the Holy traditions or body of Christ.

This could also be an argument for becoming a Catholic or Oriental Orthodox instead. I asked before why someone would choose Eastern Orthodoxy over the other two churches instead and the answer I was given is that it was the Catholics and OO that have broken off from the true church. However, that's the exact same answer that a Catholic or OO would give. What would be the argument that would settle the issue over which church is the original and which two are the ones that broke off and are in schism?

 

[Servant of Christ]

This could also be an argument for becoming a Catholic or Oriental Orthodox instead. I asked before why someone would choose Eastern Orthodoxy over the other two churches instead and the answer I was given is that it was the Catholics and OO that have broken off from the true church. However, that's the exact same answer that a Catholic or OO would give. What would be the argument that would settle the issue over which church is the original and which two are the ones that broke off and are in schism?

That is a totally fair question. I answered it in one of my earlier replies and I would ask that you please go re-read it if you haven't done so, but I'll try to give a short explanation here:

Council of Chalcedon (451) - The Coptic/Oriental Schism​

• Attendance: 500-600 bishops (modern scholarship usually says about 520).
• Decision: The Chalcedonian definition of Christ’s two natures was upheld overwhelmingly.
• Who rejected?: A minority, mostly from Egypt (Alexandria) and parts of Syria/Armenia. Estimates are a few dozen Bishops at most.
• Outcome: The majority of the Church (hundreds of bishops across Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc.) upheld Chalcedon. The Copts and their allies walked away from the council’s decisions.

So it was not a 50/50 split. It was a small minority leaving the consensus of the whole.

Great Schism (1054) - Rome’s Separation​

• By the 11th century, there were five ancient patriarchates (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem).
• Rome stood alone in pushing papal supremacy and the Filioque. The other four patriarchates (the overwhelming majority of the ancient Church) remained united in the Orthodox faith.
• At that time, the Orthodox East represented the bulk of Christianity geographically (Byzantine Empire, the Middle East, Slavic lands, etc.). Rome was one patriarchate that separated from the rest.

Again, we have a large majority holding firm with tradition and a small minority ended up splitting off. Also it is important to remember the Great Schism was driven less by faith and more by politics, unlike the earlier split with the Copts. Under pressure from Frankish emperors and western rulers, Rome pushed the filioque and papal supremacy to consolidate power. The pope became a pawn of state ambition while the east refused these innovations and remained faithful to the Apostolic tradition.

In Christ,

SoC

 

[Servant of Christ]

Just adding some historical context for the last post.

Charlemagne (crowned in 800) was central in setting the stage for the Schism:

• Political Rivalry: He wanted to create a western “Roman Empire” to rival Byzantium. For that, he needed a distinct theology and a compliant papacy.
• Filioque Push: His court theologians promoted the Filioque, not from Apostolic tradition, but to mark western identity and claim theological superiority over the Greeks. At the Council of Aachen (809), his Bishops insisted on it.
• Papal Pressure: Pope Leo III resisted altering the Creed officially, even engraving the original text in Latin and Greek on silver plaques in Rome, but politically the papacy became dependent on Charlemagne’s protection and later fell in line.
• Result: This set the precedent for Rome using theological innovations (filioque, papal supremacy) as political tools. By the 11th century, the breach with the east was formalized.

In Christ,

SoC

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

The NT uses Bishop and Presbyter interchangeably (Acts 20, Titus 1), showing overlap, not the absence of Bishops.

You're misunderstanding my argument. No one is arguing against having Bishops. The Apostles instituted Bishops. Every church should have them. What's being argued against is Ignatius' separation of Bishop from Presbyter, and his Monarchical Episcopate (One Bishop over Presbyters). The reason it's being argued against is because it's not the form of church government that the Apostles instituted.

If the Apostles intended only a flat plurality of elders, why did the whole Church, within one generation, universally embrace episcopacy?

"The whole Church" didn't. There were churches both during and after Ignatius' time that still had not embraced the Monoepiscopacy. What churches do a century or two later does not reflect back on the Apostle's intentions.

The reason the Monoepiscopacy was embraced was due to administrative purposes, not theological. The early church father, Jerome, recognized this: going so far as to call it a "man-made custom" and "not by divine ordination."

Clement of Rome (before Ignatius) already speaks of Apostolic succession and even intervenes in Corinth which is proof of supra-local authority.

Clement does not speak of "Apostolic Succession" at all. He also does not issue commands to the Corinthians as if he had authority over them. He was telling the Corinthians that they should bring back their Bishops (who they kicked out) because the Bishops were ordained in an orderly way. Apostle's ordaining Bishops ≠ Apostolic Succession. AS depends on "unbroken lines" of succession. The earliest lines given by the earliest fathers were all broken. None of the lines agreed with each other.

The Didache shows a transitional stage with Bishops, Deacons, and traveling prophets, but by Ignatius’ time the threefold ministry had stabilized.

There's nothing "transitional" in the Didache. What it says is "Elect for yourselves Bishops and Deacons." That's it. There is no three-fold ministry to be read implicitly there. The text presents a two-fold office.

Again, “pastor” (poimēn) is never an office in the NT. It’s a metaphor for Christ and only once for ministers (Eph. 4:11). The real offices are Bishop (episkopos), Presbyter, and Deacon.

In Acts 20:28, Paul tells the Bishops to be Shepherds (Pastors) over the flock of God. "Pastor" and "Bishop" and "Presbyter" refer to the same office.

Does the Bible teach the office of pastor? | GotQuestions.org

Does the Bible teach the office of pastor? Is the office of pastor the same as the office of elder/bishop?

www.gotquestions.org

And frankly, whatever word you want to call it, pastor, elder, minister, captain kangaroo, the point is you don't have Apostolic succession, or sacraments, or the liturgy, or a real Bishop, or Deacons, or Priests, or any other real claim to the Holy traditions or body of Christ.

You are drawing theological conclusions from an administrative wrinkle.

 

[Northumber]

Result: This set the precedent for Rome using theological innovations (filioque, papal supremacy) as political tools

Innovation. Funny to think that now this is a very positive word to our modern world.