“If the NT required multiple pastors for every church, this passage would have said so – but it does not.”

Overmiller sounds like he’s trying to find reasons to not follow the descriptive norm in the NT. Bauder made similar arguments in his Baptist polity book. I get it; I just find the reasoning for denying two elders unconvincing. We just called another elder where I pastor, and I would never put myself in a situation where I was a solo pastor.

I just find the reasoning for denying two elders unconvincing.

He is not really denying multiple elders, is he? He affirms their existence in the NT. His point is about requirements. He is arguing that the NT does not require multiple elders.

Perhaps. I don’t think that possibility can be ruled out entirely. Still, doesn’t it seem strange that “deacons”, in the same passage is plural, whereas “bishop” is singular? Does that imply a deliberate distinction between the requirement of singular and plural respectively?

[TylerR]

Overmiller sounds like he’s trying to find reasons to not follow the descriptive norm in the NT. Bauder made similar arguments in his Baptist polity book. I get it; I just find the reasoning for denying two elders unconvincing. We just called another elder where I pastor, and I would never put myself in a situation where I was a solo pastor.

Tyler, you are correct that Bauder makes a similar point, which I (unlike you) have found to be insightful.

[Larry]

He is not really denying multiple elders, is he? He affirms their existence in the NT. His point is about requirements. He is arguing that the NT does not require multiple elders.

You are correct. I am not denying multiple elders and I am affirming their existence in the NT. And yes, I am making a case that the NT does not *require* multiple elders.

[G. N. Barkman]

Doesn’t it seem strange that “deacons”, in the same passage is plural, whereas “bishop” is singular? Does that imply a deliberate distinction between the requirement of singular and plural respectively?

That’s why I am emphasizing this point (as Bauder does).

P&D will be posting two more installments (one Thu, one Fri) that continue what I’ve introduced in this one.

• Thursday’s post will address the group leader dynamic, the problem of domineering leaders, and pastoral accountability.
• Friday’s post will address congregational accountability, congregational decision making, and the spiritual fitness of a congregation

There may also be a fourth post next week that addresses paid vs. unpaid pastors and various related factors.

I’m looking forward to reading the rest. I respect folks who don’t see the need to make dual elders a requirement. I just disagree! No worries.

[TylerR]

I’m looking forward to reading the rest. I respect folks who don’t see the need to make dual elders a requirement. I just disagree! No worries.

No worries at all brother!

The next posts (there are three, actually) are spread out over the next few weeks.

We aim to keep people coming back!

And in Thomas’ defense, as noted, he is not being dogmatic on this point. Neither is the Bible. This first article begins to outline the data, then Thomas explores other angles as we go along.

If the NT required multiple pastors for every church, this passage [1 Tim 3] would have said so – but it does not.

He seems to admit this passage is silent on numbers, but then makes a claim as to what that silence means.

Regarding his treatment of “elders in every city,” which shows up in Titus 1 and Acts 14:23, see https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/robertsons-word-pictures/a…

He seems to admit this passage is silent on numbers, but then makes a claim as to what that silence means.

I don’t think he is admitting the passage is silent on numbers. His point in the preceding paragraph is that there is a number: one by virtue of the singular.

From beginning to end, it describes this role in a singular way. The word bishop is singular not plural. The same is true for all the following referents, descriptions, verbs, and pronouns. These all refer to a single pastor, not multiple ones.

In contrast to deacons:

In fact, this contrasts markedly with the way that Paul refers to deacons in a plural way in the following verses, saying “deacons” and referring to them with plural words afterwards.

Just because you say, “contrasts markedly,” doesn’t mean it does contrast markedly.

If I tell my son, “If you want to be a soccer player you have to practice, practice, practice.” And he walks away and says, “Dad used singular - ‘soccer player.’ So obviously a team can consist of just one player.” Then he didn’t get the point and what he did get he misunderstood.

EDIT: I am not saying this is a cut and dried explicit matter.

[Larry]

He seems to admit this passage is silent on numbers, but then makes a claim as to what that silence means.

I don’t think he is admitting the passage is silent on numbers. His point in the preceding paragraph is that there is a number: one by virtue of the singular.

From beginning to end, it describes this role in a singular way. The word bishop is singular not plural. The same is true for all the following referents, descriptions, verbs, and pronouns. These all refer to a single pastor, not multiple ones.

In contrast to deacons:

In fact, this contrasts markedly with the way that Paul refers to deacons in a plural way in the following verses, saying “deacons” and referring to them with plural words afterwards.

From a contextual perspective, Paul refers to the pastor as singular and the deacons in a plural form. At the very least, this numerical distinction between the two allows for a single pastor and does not require multiple. A key to understanding my point is the distinction between the two within the same context.