Quote
J_Edwards said:
And so how does one "rule" without control, authority, and presence (the definition of lordship)? Shepards must rule (control, authority, and presence) the sheep to be a successful shepherd. And yes, rulers may be and "should be" servants -- even in the civil realm (Rom 13:6).

You appear to have an unbiblical idea of what a godly ruler is! Though you have expressed your dislike of the OT, may I point you to Joseph there. However, though the OT is the Gospel "also", if it is insufficient for you, the generally accepted outline of Mark is: (1) Chapters 1-8:26, is "The Servant Who Rules: The Authority of the Servant," and (2) 8:27 to the end is "The Ruler Who Serves." Since Christ is our example, I see a ruler who is a servant and a servant who is a ruler. One of the reasons the qualifications of elders includes managing his household (1 Tim 4:3) is that he is to be a proper ruler over his family (Gen. 3:16 -- please hold God accountable for His OT reference). Thus, we see an example of Christ, a servant-ruler (prophet, priest, and KING) who lovingly meets the needs of those under his care.

Biblical leadership is expressed by several terms which are used of the same office. Generally speaking: (1) the term elder emphasizes his character and maturity, (2) the term overseer or bishop emphasizes his function—he exercises oversight and supervision, and (3) the term shepherd or pastor emphasizes his attitude—he has a shepherd’s caring heart. As Paul states, "Let the elders that rule [proestotes] well[/b] be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine" (1 Tim. 5:17). Or, "He must manage [proistamenon] his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage [prostenai] his own household, how can he care for God's church" (1 Tim. 3:4-5;)? Luke says, "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood" and Peter, "Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve" (1 Pet. 5:2, NIV). As Paul states, "But we beseech you, brethren, to respect those who labor among you and are over you [proistamenous] in the Lord and admonish you" (1 Thess 5:12).

This is starting with a premise. ie 2 elderships, and forcing the text to say what it never intended Joe. The ekklesia is not under the design of the temple/synogogue no matter how many presby's attempt to make it. I agree the Gospel is present. But this will digress the thread. A simple reading of scripture speaks of 1 eldhership with many requirements and hats

I am not saying they are not to rule, I am specifically stating there are not 2 distinct positions. Paul does not make the seperation no matter how much miller thinks he does. There is one who rules yet does not teach? Talk about too many layers.

The westminsters were split on this topic anyway. It was far from a majority who supported it. REason being no matter how had many looked, they could not find it present in the writ..


There never was a sinner half as big as Christ is as a Savior.