Comments on: Pilgrim’s Progress: The Enchanted Ground http://theplowman.org/2006/03/26/pilgrims-progress-the-enchanted-ground/ A podcast featuring the pulpit ministry of Trinity Baptist Church, Tulsa, Oklahoma Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:23:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Wayne Hatcher http://theplowman.org/2006/03/26/pilgrims-progress-the-enchanted-ground/#comment-365 Wayne Hatcher Fri, 31 Mar 2006 17:55:03 +0000 http://theplowman.org/2006/03/26/pilgrims-progress-the-enchanted-ground/#comment-365 Jeff,<br/>(This comment is a repost to correct a spelling and punctuation. I am sure there are more but a couple really glared at me just now.) Good points. Examples, that is what I was looking for. I don't know if the average man in the pew would catch the <i>nuance</i>. Maybe that would be a better word to use in place of <i>symantics</i>, but the point is well taken, that words do have meaning. We have a wonderful gift in language, and should make the best possible of it. <br/>A change in nomenclature is no guarantee against the kinds of examples that you gave, but I guess that could be a start. <i>Education</i> seems to be a word that continually drums through my head these days. Our young people aren't the only ones in church who need to be educated.<br/>I will pass one more challenge by you. As you have stated, the verb form of <i>pastor</i> is used in scripture to define analogously the role of a church minister, but the corresponding noun/title form to refer to a church minister is never used. Ok, so:<br/>1. Do we always have to use "Bible" words to define/label things in the church? Where do you find the word <i>Trinity</i> in Scripture?<br/>2. We often define/label people by what they do. A plumber plumbs. A fisherman fishes. A preacher preaches. If you agree that the idea of shepherding (pastoring) is biblical, why is the label not biblical?<br/>3. 1 Peter 5:2, in referring to Christ, combines the two labels <i>Shepherd</i>, and <i>Overseer</i>, one right after the other. Later in 1 Peter 5:2, the verb form is used, obviously speaking to a church minister. Just two verses later in 1 Peter 5:4, Peter refers to Christ as the <b>chief</b> Shepherd, which would imply that church ministers could be referred to as shepherds as well.<br/><br/>Motivation is always an interesting subject to me. Why do you think the terms used in the 1925 were abandonded? Was it because of a desire to distance us definitionally from other denominations that use those terms? Could this also indeed be a sign of Landmarkism? I am not culturally bothered by the term <i>elder</i>. <br/>I was a member of an independent Reformed Baptist church for 25 years. <i>Bishop</i> would make me squirm a bit, though.<br/><br/>Jeff, thanks for your comments. Let me know what you think.<br/><br/>Wayne Jeff,
(This comment is a repost to correct a spelling and punctuation. I am sure there are more but a couple really glared at me just now.) Good points. Examples, that is what I was looking for. I don’t know if the average man in the pew would catch the nuance. Maybe that would be a better word to use in place of symantics, but the point is well taken, that words do have meaning. We have a wonderful gift in language, and should make the best possible of it.
A change in nomenclature is no guarantee against the kinds of examples that you gave, but I guess that could be a start. Education seems to be a word that continually drums through my head these days. Our young people aren’t the only ones in church who need to be educated.
I will pass one more challenge by you. As you have stated, the verb form of pastor is used in scripture to define analogously the role of a church minister, but the corresponding noun/title form to refer to a church minister is never used. Ok, so:
1. Do we always have to use “Bible” words to define/label things in the church? Where do you find the word Trinity in Scripture?
2. We often define/label people by what they do. A plumber plumbs. A fisherman fishes. A preacher preaches. If you agree that the idea of shepherding (pastoring) is biblical, why is the label not biblical?
3. 1 Peter 5:2, in referring to Christ, combines the two labels Shepherd, and Overseer, one right after the other. Later in 1 Peter 5:2, the verb form is used, obviously speaking to a church minister. Just two verses later in 1 Peter 5:4, Peter refers to Christ as the chief Shepherd, which would imply that church ministers could be referred to as shepherds as well.

Motivation is always an interesting subject to me. Why do you think the terms used in the 1925 were abandonded? Was it because of a desire to distance us definitionally from other denominations that use those terms? Could this also indeed be a sign of Landmarkism? I am not culturally bothered by the term elder.
I was a member of an independent Reformed Baptist church for 25 years. Bishop would make me squirm a bit, though.

Jeff, thanks for your comments. Let me know what you think.

Wayne

]]> By: Jeff Richard Young http://theplowman.org/2006/03/26/pilgrims-progress-the-enchanted-ground/#comment-364 Jeff Richard Young Fri, 31 Mar 2006 16:20:44 +0000 http://theplowman.org/2006/03/26/pilgrims-progress-the-enchanted-ground/#comment-364 Dear Wayne,<br/><br/>Yes, I agree that it is a matter of semantics. Here is the definition of semantics: "the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning." Words have meaning. Using the biblical word conveys the biblical meaning. Using a non-biblical word may or may not convey the biblical meaning. In this case, it does not.<br/><br/>"Elder" (Greek presbuteros) and "bishop" (Greek episkopos) have meaning that shouldn't be lost in the definition/job description of the modern church minister. In the New Testament, the elder/bishop is commanded to tend the sheep as a shepherd. So the idea of pastoring is quite biblical. But when we dismiss the terms that God chose for the church, elder and bishop, and choose our own term, pastor, we lose some of the meaning.<br/><br/>For example, if the office were still referred to as "elder," how often would a church call a 22-year-old man as the (only) pastor? Or if the office were still referred to as "bishop," which means "overseer," would that help church members to feel like charges of the minister, rather than like his boss?<br/><br/>Please be clear that the New Testament never refers to this office as "pastor" or to the person in the office as a "pastor." He is told to pastor, to tend the sheep, but he is referred to as an elder or a bishop/overseer.<br/><br/>Let's do it right!<br/><br/>Love in Christ,<br/><br/>Jeff Dear Wayne,

Yes, I agree that it is a matter of semantics. Here is the definition of semantics: “the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.” Words have meaning. Using the biblical word conveys the biblical meaning. Using a non-biblical word may or may not convey the biblical meaning. In this case, it does not.

“Elder” (Greek presbuteros) and “bishop” (Greek episkopos) have meaning that shouldn’t be lost in the definition/job description of the modern church minister. In the New Testament, the elder/bishop is commanded to tend the sheep as a shepherd. So the idea of pastoring is quite biblical. But when we dismiss the terms that God chose for the church, elder and bishop, and choose our own term, pastor, we lose some of the meaning.

For example, if the office were still referred to as “elder,” how often would a church call a 22-year-old man as the (only) pastor? Or if the office were still referred to as “bishop,” which means “overseer,” would that help church members to feel like charges of the minister, rather than like his boss?

Please be clear that the New Testament never refers to this office as “pastor” or to the person in the office as a “pastor.” He is told to pastor, to tend the sheep, but he is referred to as an elder or a bishop/overseer.

Let’s do it right!

Love in Christ,

Jeff

]]> By: Wayne Hatcher http://theplowman.org/2006/03/26/pilgrims-progress-the-enchanted-ground/#comment-363 Wayne Hatcher Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:00:22 +0000 http://theplowman.org/2006/03/26/pilgrims-progress-the-enchanted-ground/#comment-363 Jeff,<br/>Thank you for your comment. Your alert is well taken. On Wednesdays my church has been going over the BF&M 2000 since October 7. We just finished the last session this week. I am aware of some of the changes between the 1963 and 2000, but was not aware of the two items you mentioned. If you are interested those lessons were recorded and are on line at <a HREF="http://pwhatcher.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow">Bulldogs and Piggies</a>, 18 in all. They are not in depth, but more like a survey, very pastoral. <br/>I am going to be taking our high-shcool Sunday school through the BF&M 2000 in a similar fashion. I am not so concerned with an in-depth study as I am in getting our kids a solid base for their beliefs. I believe that some of the problems in the SBC, as well as culture in general, is that we don't really know what we believe. Our church a few years back started catechising the younger children with a Baptist catechism. That should give them a solid foundation in general theology, but as they get older, they also need to know more about their Baptist distinctives. That has been one of my goals the past couple of years in Sunday school: "What do you believe, and why?" "Does it really matter?"<br/>I read some of your posts over at your blog. I will be commenting over there as well. I don't quite see the issue over the change from "elder" to "pastor". It seems to be an issue of symantics. Perhaps it is just a generational change. I would be interested to hear more about this. The baptism issue is a different matter alltogether. I am curious if the confessional changes from 1925 to 1963 are connected to J.M. Carroll's <i>Trail of Blood</i>. I am fairly certain Landmarkism is a part of the issue with the IMB's recent policy changes concerning baptism. It would appear that the change to <i>church ordinance</i> in the 1963 and 2000 is evidence of Landmarkism as well. <br/>Again, Bishop (grin) Young, thanks for stopping by. I look forward to hearing from you again soon.<br/><br/>Wayne Jeff,
Thank you for your comment. Your alert is well taken. On Wednesdays my church has been going over the BF&M 2000 since October 7. We just finished the last session this week. I am aware of some of the changes between the 1963 and 2000, but was not aware of the two items you mentioned. If you are interested those lessons were recorded and are on line at Bulldogs and Piggies, 18 in all. They are not in depth, but more like a survey, very pastoral.
I am going to be taking our high-shcool Sunday school through the BF&M 2000 in a similar fashion. I am not so concerned with an in-depth study as I am in getting our kids a solid base for their beliefs. I believe that some of the problems in the SBC, as well as culture in general, is that we don’t really know what we believe. Our church a few years back started catechising the younger children with a Baptist catechism. That should give them a solid foundation in general theology, but as they get older, they also need to know more about their Baptist distinctives. That has been one of my goals the past couple of years in Sunday school: “What do you believe, and why?” “Does it really matter?”
I read some of your posts over at your blog. I will be commenting over there as well. I don’t quite see the issue over the change from “elder” to “pastor”. It seems to be an issue of symantics. Perhaps it is just a generational change. I would be interested to hear more about this. The baptism issue is a different matter alltogether. I am curious if the confessional changes from 1925 to 1963 are connected to J.M. Carroll’s Trail of Blood. I am fairly certain Landmarkism is a part of the issue with the IMB’s recent policy changes concerning baptism. It would appear that the change to church ordinance in the 1963 and 2000 is evidence of Landmarkism as well.
Again, Bishop (grin) Young, thanks for stopping by. I look forward to hearing from you again soon.

Wayne

]]> By: Jeff Richard Young http://theplowman.org/2006/03/26/pilgrims-progress-the-enchanted-ground/#comment-362 Jeff Richard Young Wed, 29 Mar 2006 19:50:35 +0000 http://theplowman.org/2006/03/26/pilgrims-progress-the-enchanted-ground/#comment-362 Dear Wayne,<br/><br/>I just found your blog today, and have enjoyed reading your posts. I also enjoy the theme verse for this blog.<br/><br/>You mentioned that you are about to study through the BFM. I am doing that now with my church discipleship training class on Sunday evenings. I'd like to give you a "heads up."<br/><br/>The 1925 BFM was modeled after the New Hampshire confession, and I find it very biblical at most points, as well as in agreement with the older confessions. The 1963 BFM, however, includes some very significant departures from traditional Baptist language. For example, baptism being called a "church ordinance" is new to the 1963 BFM, as well as the New Testament terms "elder" and "bishop" being dropped in favor of the non-biblical term "pastor." These changes were carried over to the 2000 version.<br/><br/>So, my point is that you should be VERY CAREFUL to examine the biblical basis for every assertion in the BFM, to find out whether or not it is true, in the spirit of the Bereans.<br/><br/>Love in Christ,<br/><br/>Jeff Dear Wayne,

I just found your blog today, and have enjoyed reading your posts. I also enjoy the theme verse for this blog.

You mentioned that you are about to study through the BFM. I am doing that now with my church discipleship training class on Sunday evenings. I’d like to give you a “heads up.”

The 1925 BFM was modeled after the New Hampshire confession, and I find it very biblical at most points, as well as in agreement with the older confessions. The 1963 BFM, however, includes some very significant departures from traditional Baptist language. For example, baptism being called a “church ordinance” is new to the 1963 BFM, as well as the New Testament terms “elder” and “bishop” being dropped in favor of the non-biblical term “pastor.” These changes were carried over to the 2000 version.

So, my point is that you should be VERY CAREFUL to examine the biblical basis for every assertion in the BFM, to find out whether or not it is true, in the spirit of the Bereans.

Love in Christ,

Jeff

]]>