# Elders and their Children



## ChristopherPaul (Dec 13, 2005)

> [elders must be] above reproach, the husband of one wife, *having children who believe*, not accused of dissipation or rebellion (Titus 1:6).



Does this verse really mean that the children of elders must be believers? 

What is Paul implying by such a requirement?

Can Baptist churches appoint elders who have infant children who are not old enough to give a credible profession that they are indeed believers?

This is a serious question.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> 
> > [elders must be] above reproach, the husband of one wife, *having children who believe*, not accused of dissipation or rebellion (Titus 1:6).
> ...


A very serious question indeed. Why should they have such qualifications?


> 1 Tim 3:4-5
> ...one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (*for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?*)


A *very* serious question.


----------



## Steve Owen (Dec 13, 2005)

It is an important question, and the reason why I've never felt able to take on that particular role. It would appear to apply to paedo-baptist churches as well as baptistic.

It might be possible to translate _pista_ as 'faithful' in the sense of being generally obedient to their parents, especially since Paul does not specify 'believing' in the parallel passage in 1Timothy. Also, does the text exclude single people or those without children from eldership? That would exclude Paul himself!

Martin


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Dec 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> It is an important question, and the reason why I've never felt able to take on that particular role. It would appear to apply to paedo-baptist churches as well as baptistic.
> 
> It might be possible to translate _pista_ as 'faithful' in the sense of being generally obedient to their parents, especially since Paul does not specify 'believing' in the parallel passage in 1Timothy. Also, does the text exclude single people or those without children from eldership? That would exclude Paul himself!
> ...



Good points Martin.

I think we agree that Paul is qualifying the married with children in order to cover all bases, not making a requirement that all elders must be married fathers. He could have said something like, "If a man is _unmarried _then he must be blameless, hospitable, self controlled, etc., and if another man is _married _he is to be blameless, hospitable, self controlled, etc., AND husband of one wife; and if another man is _married and with children _then he must be blameless, hospitable, self controlled, etc., AND husband of one wife AND having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion." He then could even add single fathers and so on. But Paul instead covers all requirements that apply.

Regarding the requirement that children be believers, so Baptists must argue that Paul did not mean believers but obedient children?


----------



## Steve Owen (Dec 13, 2005)

Hello Christopher.


> Regarding the requirement that children be believers, so Baptists must argue that Paul did not mean believers but obedient children?


See the opening sentence of my last post.
Also, would you please explain why you think that this text has some different application for Baptists than for others? I can't see why it would.

Thanks.

Martin


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> ...



First of all, Paul was not an elder so that was not an issue for him.

Second, I think we dismiss the nature of the eldership too easily by interpreting the passage as suggested above. The eldership requires the same qualifications and discipline that being the male head of a household requires (abiding faithfulness, "husband of one wife"). He must be able to demonstrate that he can "command" the respect of those under his care ("having children who believe"). I think it is unwise to choose elders who are neither married nor have children who believe. (Cf. 1 Tim. 3:5)

Regarding the "children who believe" (faithful children, children of faith) comment, I think this gives evidence of the expected age of an elder. They ought to be chronologically old enough to have believing children. "not a novice" (1 Tim. 3:6)


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> ...


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Dec 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Hello Christopher.
> 
> 
> ...



Sure, I will explain:

A Baptist will not consider anyone a believer until they give credible profession that they are. Whether that profession reveals the true state or not, no one knows for sure.

A Paedobaptist will consider the children of credibly professed parents as believers and will treat them as such while under their care. Whether that profession reveals the true state or not, no one knows for sure.

A Baptist's children are not considered disciples until they are of a certain age to profess belief which will then permit them to then be baptized by the church and taught all that Jesus commanded.

A Paedobaptist's children are born disciples (again we do not know for sure if they are elect or not). Therefore they will be taught all that Jesus commanded and will be baptized by the church to be taught by her.

A Baptist elder does not consider their children to be believers until that important profession is made, and therefore cannot be an elder while they have any children who are infants and unable to make a profession.

A Paedobaptist elder is required to understand and obey God's command to raise Godly children. To not heed this command will disqualify him from the office. The children, under the direction and wisdom of the parent will be baptized and taught all that Jesus commanded and will profess Jesus as Lord for that is what they are taught while under the parents care.

But, as you said you may translate the passage to convey faithfulness instead of belief which I will grant. But under my paradigm, a parents faithfulness to God is raising their children as if they were believers even though ultimately no one knows the heart except for our Lord. For my children to be faithful and obedient in my household they will confess Jesus as Lord, for that is certainly what I will teach them, that indeed Jesus is Lord. If they say otherwise, I will rebuke them as being wrong just as if they give a wrong sum to 2+2.

You can ask my 2 year old, my 3 year old and my 4 year old who is Lord and savior and they will say Jesus. My 4 month old cannot speak yet, but I will be sure to it that they will be taught to confess the same as soon as they are of age to be instructed on facts. Whether they grow up and all become seminary students or pastors or teachers in the church, ultimately I don't know for certain the state of their hearts, but regardless, that is up to God's good grace and not my doing, so I should not worry with such unknown heart conditions that I will never surely know this side of glory. I will raise them as disciples for God saw it good to plant them in my house.

That is my perspective and basis for my question regarding the elder qualification regarding our children.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Dec 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by ChristopherPaul_
> ...



Tom, 
I am not sure we can be dogmatic on preferring elders who are married with children. Paul of course made it clear that God's officers would be more focused on the Church and the gospel if they did not have a household to manage. 

1 Timothy 3:6 is direction to not ordain those who are new converts. Whether they are novices at 14 or 36, the age is not to be examined, but the maturity. We should not ordain new believers, but wait until they themselves are instructed and brought to a maturity level where they can hold fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be *able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict*.


----------



## SRoper (Dec 13, 2005)

"First of all, Paul was not an elder so that was not an issue for him."

Wow, Paul was not an elder? I can't say I've heard that claim before. I'd be interested in pursuing this in another thread.

"I think it is unwise to choose elders who are neither married nor have children who believe. (Cf. 1 Tim. 3:5)"

Of course, one can also manage a household by having servants. Your preference for married elders appears to be contrary to Paul's teaching that a married man's interests are divided (1 Cor. 7).


----------



## gwine (Dec 13, 2005)

> A Paedobaptist will consider the children of credibly professed parents as believers and will treat them as such while under their care. Whether that profession reveals the true state or not, no one knows for sure.



So when can we decide when the children are not believers, or do we have to wait until they die without making a public profession of faith to say that they made a credible non-profession of faith? If an elder in our church whose adult children had yet to make a profession of faith would we still consider them to be believers?

And would you explain the second sentence more fully? It sounds like you are tying the children's belief to whether their parents are *really* true believers.


----------



## Steve Owen (Dec 13, 2005)

> A Paedobaptist will consider the children of credibly professed parents as believers and will treat them as such while under their care.


The text doesn't talk about 'considering' children believers. It talks about them believing.


> A Paedobaptist's children are born disciples


Again, the text doesn't talk about 'disciples.' It talks about believers. A Paedobaptist's children are *'Born in sin and shapen in iniquity'* just like everyone else's. Or do they somehow avoid original sin?


> A Paedobaptist elder is required to understand and obey God's command to raise Godly children. To not heed this command will disqualify him from the office. The children, under the direction and wisdom of the parent will be baptized and taught all that Jesus commanded and will profess Jesus as Lord for that is what they are taught while under the parents care.


Do you imagine that Baptists do not teach their children and raise them in a Godly manner?


> You can ask my 2 year old, my 3 year old and my 4 year old who is Lord and savior and they will say Jesus. My 4 month old cannot speak yet, but I will be sure to it that they will be taught to confess the same as soon as they are of age to be instructed on facts.



I do hope and pray (indeed, I've just done so) that all your children will grow up to know and love the Lord. But I have to tell you that small children will often say what they think their parents want to hear. Whilst it is no doubt a great privilege and advantage to grow up in a Christian home, nevertheless there are those Christian parents who find the truth of our Lord's words that, *'A man's enemies will be those of his own household' *(Matt 10:36 ).

Should an elder who is appointed on the _presumption_ that his small children are believers, be required to resign if one or more should prove to be unregenerate as he grows up?

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 12-13-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> First of all, Paul was not an elder so that was not an issue for him.



Tom,

I don't see how this can possibly be maintained in light of Scripture:

the apostles and elders (including Paul) gathered at the Council of Jerusalem:


> The *apostles and the elders* were gathered together to consider this matter. (Acts 15:6)
> 
> Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose *men from among them* and send them to Antioch with *Paul and Barnabas*. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers (Acts 15:22 )



Peter makes clear that even though he was an apostle, he was a fellow elder:



> So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: (1 Peter 5:1)


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Dec 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> 
> > A Paedobaptist will consider the children of credibly professed parents as believers and will treat them as such while under their care. Whether that profession reveals the true state or not, no one knows for sure.
> ...



Gerry,

We decide that children are not believers when they decide. If my child grows to an age where he will say "I do not believe all this stuff you are teaching me dad, and no longer want to be discipled by you or the church" then I will surely not try to convince him that he is really saved but doesn't know it. There is no magic moment with credible professions like a sinners prayer. I don't ask my children every minute if they still believe or not. We just live our lives in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If someone comes to a point where they want to deny what is being proclaimed and taught, then they are professing to not be a believer. But even then, we pray hoping that they are indeed elect and will return like a prodigal son later on. But while they are young, we teach them in the way they should go so when they are old they will not depart from it.



> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> 
> > If an elder in our church whose adult children had yet to make a profession of faith would we still consider them to be believers?



If an elder has children that never made a profession then I would question his ordination in the first place. As of now my oldest is 4. It is clear to me and others that she is being discipled and she is eager to learn. We are not requiring her to recite some water buffalo slogan to validate anything, but it is apparent that she is being taught the word of God. As an elder he is required to faithfully and responsibly to obey God's word which commands to teach our children in knowledge and submission to not just their parents but to the church. For an elders child to grow to an adult and people wonder if they are even a Christian or not, makes me question if the elder was doing his fulfilling his role in his house in the first place. While the now adult person was a child, and under the elders care, it should have been evident that the child was being raised the way he should go. This is a bizarre hypothetical situation in my mind.



> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> 
> > And would you explain the second sentence more fully? It sounds like you are tying the children's belief to whether their parents are *really* true believers.



Nowhere am I guaranteeing true salvation for anyone, whether it be the parents or the children. Based on the parents public profession (truly converted or not, we do not know), their children are considered holy as are the parents from the visible church's perspective and from that visible church perspective, those children will be treated as disciples while they are under the management of the head of the household. Does this help clear things up?


----------



## gwine (Dec 13, 2005)

> While the now adult person was a child, and under the elders care, it should have been evident that the child was being raised the way he should go. This is a bizarre hypothetical situation in my mind.



Not as bizarre as you might think. And definitely not hypothetical. Trust me.



> Nowhere am I guaranteeing true salvation for anyone, whether it be the parents or the children. Based on the parents public profession (truly converted or not, we do not know), their children are considered holy as are the parents from the visible church's perspective and from that visible church perspective, those children will be treated as disciples while they are under the management of the head of the household. Does this help clear things up?



No. That's ok, though.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> ...



Fred,

Thanks for your comments. Some things I noticed:

Unlike Peter, Paul is never referred to as an elder. 

Unlike Peter (apparently), Paul never exercised eldership responsibilities over a local congregation. (Cf. Corinth were Paul highlights the fact that he did not baptize many folks even though he was there for a year and a half.) Peter apparently served as both apostle and elder in Jerusalem. Paul was more an evangelist in the formal sense. 

Paul is referred to as an apostle, thus he is included in the group labeled "apostles and elders" of Acts 15. One did not need to be both in order to be in the group.

"Apostle" and "elder" are not synonymous terms. They are two distinct offices. While the qualifications may overlap, they are not identical.

I stand by my comment that Paul was not a elder.

In which local church would you say that Paul was an elder?


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Dec 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> > A Paedobaptist will consider the children of credibly professed parents as believers and will treat them as such while under their care.
> ...



Are you saying we should know the true state of all people's hearts? Who does? No one does. The Apostle even said that some appeared to be elect, but left the church which only reveals that they never were one of us (1 John 2:9). 

Paedobaptists are too often accused of knowing the true state of a person's salvation. To the contrary, we grant that we do not know. A designation is being missed here between what we can know and what we will not ultimately know. We must apply the sacraments and the qualifications to the visible church; the visible believers.



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> > A Paedobaptist's children are born disciples
> ...



I can see where the contention for you and possibly other Baptists lie. You insist on thinking Paedobaptists believe their children are saved without a doubt through merely being the offspring of believers. A distinction must be made between visible and invisible church. Through time many professing believers have been baptized who were not elect (as far as we know). Even within the Baptist paradigm you must distinguish between visible and invisible church. Remember: man looks at the outward appearance but the Lord looks at the heart.

A Paedobaptist's children are 'Born in sin and shapen in iniquity' just like everyone else's. AND they DO NOT avoid original sin, BUT they will not only be taught by the church, but baptized as well; they will be treated as disciples.



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> > A Paedobaptist elder is required to understand and obey God's command to raise Godly children. To not heed this command will disqualify him from the office. The children, under the direction and wisdom of the parent will be baptized and taught all that Jesus commanded and will profess Jesus as Lord for that is what they are taught while under the parents care.
> ...



No, but I do not understand why you do not treat them as holy until they produce some work that satisfies man's requirement when Jesus said to not only teach them, but baptize them. You treat your children as believers but you will not call them such. To be consistent you should not ordain any elders with infants either, no?



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> 
> 
> > You can ask my 2 year old, my 3 year old and my 4 year old who is Lord and savior and they will say Jesus. My 4 month old cannot speak yet, but I will be sure to it that they will be taught to confess the same as soon as they are of age to be instructed on facts.
> ...



Thank you for the prayers brother. Does my two year old understand that she is a sinner who is in dire need for the grace of God or else she is doomed to justice? No. Does she understand why Jesus is indeed Lord and savior? No, not really. Is she among the elect? I do not know. Is she to be considered holy because she is in my household? Yes. Am I allowed to teach her all that Jesus commanded before she is cut to the heart and cries, "What must I do to be saved?" Certainly. If raised with an honest knowledge of the word of God will she ever come to a point where she actually verbally says such? Maybe, maybe not. Some are saved before ever experiencing life as a lost sinner per se. yes she is born in sin deserving God's wrath, but who knows when the spirit dwells in her. I am not going to wait for some required statement that may be genuine or may not be genuine, before I teach her, nor will wait for such before I baptize her. May my enemies be from within my own house? Yes, but that is of little concern as far as teaching my children in the way they must go.



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_Should an elder who is appointed on the _presumption_ that his small children are believers, be required to resign if one or more should prove to be unregenerate as he grows up?



That depends on what your understanding is of "grows up". An elder with children who are not believers should resign and focus on his duties in managing his house. Others may add light to what age this entails, but I assume that the qualification applies to the children as long as they are under the authority of the federal head of the home. A man may be ordained as an elder when his children are infants, but by the time they are, say, 12-13 years old and they rebel and no longer seek Christ, then he needs to step down and put his house in order.

Grace brother,


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Dec 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> 
> > While the now adult person was a child, and under the elders care, it should have been evident that the child was being raised the way he should go. This is a bizarre hypothetical situation in my mind.
> ...



What is bizarre to me is that an elder is appointed in the first place who is not doing his job as the federal head of his home. I am sure many are appointed to such offices when they do not meet the qualifications, so yes in that way it is not hypothetical. I just find it hard to visualize an elder who remains in office with a child who grows up year after year never showing any fruit of the spirit. That is what is bizarre to me. There is another issue that needs to be addressed in such a situation.



> _Originally posted by gwine_
> 
> 
> > Nowhere am I guaranteeing true salvation for anyone, whether it be the parents or the children. Based on the parents public profession (truly converted or not, we do not know), their children are considered holy as are the parents from the visible church's perspective and from that visible church perspective, those children will be treated as disciples while they are under the management of the head of the household. Does this help clear things up?
> ...



gwine, do you understand the Paedobaptists designation between visible and invisible church?

Grace,


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Dec 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> Do all "covenant children" believe from the womb?



Hi Trevor, 

I didn't mean to ignore you. Actually, I had hoped other more knowledgeable (and qualified) people would be able to clarify and not just me.

Paedobaptists do not believe all covenant children believe from the womb, rather we respond as David that we were conceived in sin. We do believe that we are to treat them as believers from birth. We do this when we teach them to pray in one accord with the saints, "Our Father...," or when we teach them to confess in one accord with the saints the Apostle's creed. We teach that God will bless their prayers and works just as he does for the saints. We teach them to store up treasures in heaven, love our neighbors, give thanks in all things, pray without ceasing, and glorify God and enjoy Him forever. We allow them to be enlightened by the church and to taste of the heavenly gift, to be partakers of the Holy Spirit, taste the good word of God and the powers of the age to come. As parents, we watch over their souls by raising them in the way they must go so when they are old they will not depart from it. When they leave father and mother we pray they will make their election sure, but know that they are no longer under our care and authority. They may fall away and prove they were never truly elect, but while they are under their parents headship, they will be treated as sheep in hopes that their many professions through their growing years reflected the true state of a converted heart.



> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_Doesn't belief denote an ability to understand?



Trevor, I do not know how it all works. What is to be understood? Do I fully understand? Does the unborn child understand before he is aborted? The mentally disabled? Children probably understand better than the adults. in my opinion, the adults say I believe, help my unbelief while the child's belief is rock solid but gradually weakens as he gets older.


----------



## gwine (Dec 13, 2005)

> gwine, do you understand the Paedobaptists designation between visible and invisible church?



The WLC


> Q. 62. What is the visible church?
> A. The visible church is a society made up of all such as in all ages and places of the world do profess the true religion, and of their children.
> 
> Q. 64. What is the invisible church?
> A. The invisible church is the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ the head.



And, because I want to, the The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689:



> CHAPTER 26 - THE CHURCH
> 
> 1. THE catholic or universal church is invisible in respect of the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace. It consists of the whole number of the elect who have been, who are being, or who yet shall be gathered into one under Christ who is the church's head. The church is the wife, the body, the fullness of Christ, who 'fills all in all'.
> 
> ...



Interesting distinction regarding the visible church. And no, I don't care to hijack this thread further.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 13, 2005)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> Fred,
> 
> Thanks for your comments. Some things I noticed:
> ...



I see nothing in the texts to state that there are two distinct offices, one of elder and one of apostle. The only texts we have are the one from 1 Peter that I cited, in which Peter clearly states that he is both an apostle (1:1) and elder (5:1), and the Acts text, which puts Paul among the number of elders and apostles. I see nothing that has another man in Scripture holding two distinct offices.

All apostles are elders, but not all elders are apostles.

I would say that Paul was an elder (at least) in Ephesus, from Acts 20.




> And when they came to him, he said to them: "You yourselves know how *I lived among you the whole time* from the first day that I set foot in Asia, serving the Lord with all humility and with tears and with trials that happened to me through the plots of the Jews; how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and *teaching you in public and from house to house*, testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. And now, behold, I am going to Jerusalem, constrained by the Spirit, not knowing what will happen to me there, except that the Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and afflictions await me. But I do not account my life of any value nor as precious to myself, if only I may finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God. And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again. Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all of you, for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God. Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert, remembering that *for three years* I did not cease night or day to admonish everyone with tears. And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. I coveted no one's silver or gold or apparel. You yourselves know that these hands ministered to my necessities and to those who were with me. In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" And when he had said these things, he knelt down and prayed with them all. And there was much weeping on the part of all; they embraced Paul and kissed him, being sorrowful most of all because of the word he had spoken, that they would not see his face again. And they accompanied him to the ship.
> 
> 
> Acts 20:18-38


----------



## gwine (Dec 13, 2005)

Luke 1



> 39 In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah,
> 40 and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. 41 And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And *Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit*,
> 42 and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!



It appears that Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, not the baby.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Dec 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> Hi ChristopherPaul;
> 
> Good response. Yes, this is a hard topic. I am a Baptist, but admit that I do not know what to think of John the Baptist leaping in his mothers womb at the presence of his Lord. Was he unregenerate at any time, or did he have the New Birth before birth?



It is mysterious how the Spirit works. "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit" (John 3:8). How many discussions could we have just on the _Ordo Salutis_?

One thing is certain from John the Baptists and the Apostle Paul, they were indeed among the elect while in their mother's womb. Now if only God would have put that yellow stripe on the backs of the elect as Spurgeon suggested....

Grace brother,


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> I see nothing in the texts to state that there are two distinct offices, one of elder and one of apostle. The only texts we have are the one from 1 Peter that I cited, in which Peter clearly states that he is both an apostle (1:1) and elder (5:1), and the Acts text, which puts Paul among the number of elders and apostles. I see nothing that has another man in Scripture holding two distinct offices.
> 
> ...



"And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ," (Eph. 4:11,12)

I would say there is a distinction between the office of apostle and the office elder. I don't see anything in the text which automatically would confer the title/office of "elder" on an apostle. If we go by the assumption that every apostle is an elder, then the phrase "the apostles and elders" in Acts 15 is superfluous.

I would agree that Paul at times appeared to carry on the ministry of pastor/teacher/elder, but I'm not conviced that he held that office in any given local congregation. His calling, in the case of Ephesus, was not to stay with the flock as overseer (the calling of the office of elder). He told the Ephesians elders, " For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock." The overseer does not abandon the flock when he knows that peril awaits them. But that was not Paul's calling. His calling was an an evangelist to the larger church. He left the task of overseer to other men.

I'm not going to be dogmatic, it's just the way I see it.


----------



## Steve Owen (Dec 14, 2005)

Hello Chris,
You wrote:-
That depends on what your understanding is of "grows up". An elder with children who are not believers should resign and focus on his duties in managing his house. Others may add light to what age this entails, but I assume that the qualification applies to the children as long as they are under the authority of the federal head of the home. A man may be ordained as an elder when his children are infants, but by the time they are, say, 12-13 years old and they rebel and no longer seek Christ, then he needs to step down and put his house in order. [/quote]

Do you think that Samuel should have stepped down as Judge over Israel since his sons were wicked?

Martin


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 14, 2005)

In dealing with Titus 1:6, I'd be careful to take "faithful" as "converted and regenerated."

The word "unruly" is used of horses and oxen who will not tolerate the yoke. Being faithful is to tolerate the yoke, or be broken. Obviously, horses can't be converted.

Being "faithful" in Titus, and other places, means that the children show themselves faithful in the execution of commands or the discharge of official duties. It can even mean that they can be trusted or relied on. 

Things that are faithful:

The Moon: Psalm 89:37, "...like the moon, even like the faithful witness in the sky."

Promise keepers: Proverbs 11:13, "A talebearer reveals secrets, But he who is of a faithful spirit conceals a matter."

Dignitaries, Proverbs 13:17, "A wicked messenger falls into trouble, But a faithful ambassador brings health."

Messengers: Proverbs 25:13, "Like the cold of snow in time of harvest Is a faithful messenger to those who send him, For he refreshes the soul of his masters."

Friends: Proverbs 27:6, "Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But the kisses of an enemy are deceitful."

Servants who take care of the home: Matthew 24:45, "Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his master made ruler over his household, to give them food in due season?"

People who are good stewards of money: Luke 16:11 "Therefore if you have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?"

Children who obey parents: Titus 1:6, "if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination."

Etc.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 15, 2005)

Typical reformed (I refrain from making a blanket supposition) position on the offices is that the greater or higher office is contained in one of lower degree. Thus in Christ, the king, is all the offices. He delegates to the apostles, the apostles delegate to to elders, the elders to the deacons. And I have left off of the full list from Eph 4:11-12, which many writers on polity have pointed out appears to move generally from "higher" to "lower" office, or "extraordinary" to "ordinary".

Thus the phrase "the apostles and elders" in Acts 15 is _not_ superfluous, because the lead noun is narrower in scope, the second noun broadens the phrase. If it had said, "the elders and the apostles," you would have more of a basis (if just using this passage) to argue for a hard distinction. 

Gerry,
The Luke passage you quoted goes on to say, verse 44:
"For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sonded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb *for joy*."

And verse 15:
"...and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, *even from his mother's womb*."


----------



## gwine (Dec 15, 2005)

> Gerry,
> The Luke passage you quoted goes on to say, verse 44:
> "For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sonded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy."
> 
> ...



Ah, the danger of stopping too soon when reading.

Thank you for the correction. I shall be more diligent next time, _deo volente_.

Trivia fact:

Deo-Volente is a town in the Otjozondjupa region of Nambia.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Hello Chris,
> You wrote:-
> That depends on what your understanding is of "grows up". An elder with children who are not believers should resign and focus on his duties in managing his house. Others may add light to what age this entails, but I assume that the qualification applies to the children as long as they are under the authority of the federal head of the home. A man may be ordained as an elder when his children are infants, but by the time they are, say, 12-13 years old and they rebel and no longer seek Christ, then he needs to step down and put his house in order.



Do you think that Samuel should have stepped down as Judge over Israel since his sons were wicked?

Martin [/quote]
Considering that they were in positions of influence and extorting the people of Israel, I would say Samuel had a lot to answer for. There is a "tension" in the fact that Samuel is rejected as Judge of Israel and his children are cited as one of the reasons.

I find it fascinating quite frankly that people are so willing to compartmentalize the Christian faith when we would apply no such standards to another position of leadership. Perhaps it's because so few have such real experience, and the expectations of leadership in real life that it is easy to set such a low bar.

In the military, you are held responsible for the professional and personal character of the the people in your charge. Everything, good or bad, is your responsibility. It cannot be shirked as "...well God must have elected him to do that..." but accepted. Responsibility can never be delegated or given away. There are periods of inculturation and discipline to train compliance into men and women from the most varied religious, economic, and social background such that, if they do not render a courtesy as simple as a salute, they are rebuked. A commander cannot whine about the quality of people he gets and, if he does not accomplish the missions provided, he is relieved and replaced by somebody up to the task.

Because the nature of the office in which I serve is so serious, we give no quarter to people with serious character deficiencies and we get rid of people who can't lead. When it is lives of Marines on the line, we don't worry about hurting feelings or "...he's served for 15 years..." if a person is not up to the task of leadership.

Somehow we set a lower bar for leadership in the Church while we're not even supposed to be afraid of those who can merely kill us.

I'm honestly not surprised at some of the answers even from some of the Presbyterians here because, when it comes to the household, many take a "...well God must not have elected his kids..." approach to the whole thing.

To say God elected or didn't elect an individual goes without saying but it doesn't inform the secondary causes that God used. I think we worry far too much about election/reprobation and too little about preceptive will as expressed through the Scriptures.

Repeatedly throughout the Scriptures the blame is given to the parents, and not to God, for rebellious children. It is not spelled out in all cases where children rebel (just as it is not always spelled out that God hates polygamy) but in some cases it is stated very clearly.

When I see a five year old throwing a temper tantrum in the grocery store, I don't think "Well God elected that...." When I see a 13 year old with holes all over his face and with black lipstick I don't think "Oh, and God elected that too." I guess I could think that for both but that wouldn't inform any kind of causality that has to do with our responsibility as parents.

I thought somebody might jump on the passage I cited in Timothy a little more. Paul says that the reason we check the family is because, in effect, if an elder can't even lead his own family well in the faith what makes you think he's going to be able to provide spiritual "fatherhood" to the rest of the Church? To chalk it up merely to election to keep Romans 9 always in mind doesn't really inform the situation. It would be a "Duh" statement to us if we weren't so wrapped about the "Election axle" so much at times.

Now what I'm not positing is some sort of deterministic "God elects my kids because I was faithful" logic. What I'm saying is that God uses means both good and bad in His election. We Calvinists are very fond of telling people all the time how totally depraved we are and how everything that is bad we deserve for our own sins and that the good we get is by sheer grace. Amen. Let's not be so milqetoast about parenting. It's like the forbidden topic. Heaven forbid you tell a parent that a primary reason their kid is reprobate is because they never prayed with him or taught him the Scriptures or loved him in the faith. Why that's just mean. You can't tell a parent they sinned in their parenting. No, _God didn't elect them_, that way they don't have to feel guilty because we all know how guilty parents can feel (you think I'm joking but a Presbyterian minister once told me that). Guess what? God elected me to punch my sister when I was a kid but I still got in trouble for it.

We need to honestly recognize the way in which God crowns his good gifts. If a child is a believer then, yes, he has been the subject of much of God's grace but not merely, usually in some sort of vaccuum. God graces many such elect children by the secondary causes of good Christian homes that nurture in the faith and grow them up to love and serve God.

I don't know if any of you have seen the fruit of a wife or kids who were in rebellion to a Church leader but it is scandalous. As one who leads people in a serious secular profession I refuse to buy the flippant answer from any man of God that he has no responsibility in the matter because, in the manner Adam said to God, "...those children _You_ gave me rebelled not because of anything I did but because _You_ didn't elect them."

Heaven forbid. I wouldn't accept that out of a Marine and I sure as heck wouldn't accept it out of a Pastor or Elder who I'm placing the spiritual well being of my family under in Godly submission. I've seen the fruit of bad leadership far too often in my life, Church and secular, to buy into that cop out.

[Edited on 12-15-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 15, 2005)

Good post Rich.

I took away some very practical and basic lessons of leadership from my military days. The first place for application I found was with my family. Second, my biblical comprehension of _office_ has been enhanced by previously holding an office.

In another thread I remarked that the grace of good parenting was clearly not in conspicuous evidence under the Old Covenant. We (thankfully) see more often (at least in the churches I have been priviledged to grow up in and attend) intergenerational Christianity as the norm. But do we think, "Boy, I guess we're just better at it today!"

No. At least, we ought to say something like, "God continue to grant me the grace to be a proper parent to these thy children you have placed in my care. _Sanctify my sinful, imperfect efforts_ to their spiritual good, the advancement of thy kingdom, and thy own glory. For Jesus' sake, Amen." This is the kind of prayer engendered by the Spirit, and not born out of a self-reliant attitude. It seems equally clear that this was not a typical Israelite prayer, even, tragically, among faithful believing Israelite parents. I don't see how we can say otherwise, unless our God (who works so often by ordinary means) was playing a cruel joke on his covenanted nation. The Spirit was not yet poured out. More often than not parents lacked the grace to act consistently in faith of the promises.

My hopes are enlarged here in the New Covenant age. It is God who gives me the grace to lead my growing family in covenant discipleship. He puts the desire in me. He drives me to my knees, and back to the Bible for wisdom. He takes my weak efforts and uses them, as I rely on him. I fully expect all my children to become professing Christians, in part because I have already seen it going back three generations of Christians. And I am using God-ordained means, and being a means, by faith, that I believe God is using to accomplish his purpose in my children. I don't expect this because I have special parenting skills. I expect it because it ought to be expected in the age of the outpouring of the Spirit, the New Covenant age.

And it's not like I don't believe in exceptions. Sadly, they are all too real. But I do believe in the effectiveness of the faithful use of ordinary means. They are accompanied by words of promise. Our duty is to believe them.

The exceptions then prove themselves by their exceptionalness. Show me a Christian father with 12 sons, and only 1 of them a reprobate. That's sad, but that's election. Show me one with 12 sons, (like Jacob) and only one of them a "Joseph", today, since the outpouring of the Spirit, and I'll show you the careless, casual Christian, who blames God for his ungovernable house. That this is as common in our affluent lands today as it is (or something verging on it) is due to the judgment of God, and our grieving the Holy Spirit away from us, and not because he has not been poured out.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Good post Rich.
> 
> I took away some very practical and basic lessons of leadership from my military days. The first place for application I found was with my family. Second, my biblical comprehension of _office_ has been enhanced by previously holding an office.
> ...




What is all too sad is that some Churches will not examine the household of an Elder when they have a child or wife that has completely repudiated the faith. I am almost shocked sometimes at the carelessness with with some people handle the doctrines of election and reprobation, especially Presbyterians, in explaining it away. We're never given license as parents in the Scriptures to blame anybody but ourselves.

I completely resonate with your reflections on the grace in parenting. It is a great blessing that one of the New Covenant promises is that the hearts of the fathers will be turned to their children and vice versa. Scripture doesn't "fill in the blanks" as to the homelife of some of the biblical households but, my goodness, even a pagan philosopher like Dr. Phil would have reason to criticize the fruit of some of their efforts.

[Edited on 12-15-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------

