Hey, could someone fill me in on the difference between an Elder

>>1703968
Reverend is just a title for the Pastor
Elders are elected by the regional congregation. They then appoint Pastors, the heads of individual churches.

>>1703968
Elders are parishioners whereas as a Reverend is employed by the church.

>>1704000
In some denominations, Elders are appointed by a committee or the pastor rather than elected.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. What did Elders actually do? Like from what I understand Elder Brewster was the only cleric or whatever on the Mayflower, there was no actual pastor onboard.

>>1704011
As with all things protestant, the correct answer is "It depends on the sect"

>>1704016
An elder board is roughly equivalent to corporation's board of directors with the pastor functioning similar to a CEO.

>>1704019
Using the term "sect" in this case is intentionally misleading.>>1704045

It depends on whether they're congregationalist or presbyterian. In presbyterianism, elders are parishioners elected and ordained to church government (these are sometimes called "ruling elders"), but they do not administer Word and Sacrament. "Reverends" or pastors or ministers (also called "teaching elders") are ordained to administer Word and Sacrament. Depending on the denomination, ministers may not even be members of the parish, but members of the presbytery who are assigned to minister to a parish.

In congregationalist systems, they can mean just about anything. But generally when the positions are distinguished, they kind of mean the same thing. Elders are the ones assigned to oversee the functioning and business aspects of the church, and reverends or pastors are the ones who do the actual teaching.

>>1704494
Where in Scripture does it distinguish two kinds of presbyters?

Presbyters and bishops weren't even different offices in the early Church (since there was generally only one parish per diocese). If they're claiming to run just like the early Church, where do they get the idea of sacramental elders vs. non-sacramental elders?

>>1704500
Irrelevant. The question was about what the English separatists did, not about what I believe. Take your apologetics and shove them up your ass, you dullard.

>>1704505
How is what they believed irrelevant to what they did? Do you want to completely divorce the administrative organization from the ideology its for, when said ideology largely bases the organizational structure from its own ideology? Surely they didn't just pull the administrative structure out of their ass, did they?

>>1704516
I may have misunderstood you. Generally when someone asks, "Where in Scripture does blah blah blah," they're asking YOU to defend a position. I have no intention of doing so. I simply know how they worked.

I don't know the answer to your question, but if I had to wager a guess, I'd say that it was more the practical aspects of running the church that led to the distinction between ruling and teaching elders. To competently preach the Word and conduct pastoral ministry requires a huge amount of education that only some are capable of. It's more a division of labor than a strict distinction of office. Scripture never says anything about earning a seminary degree and gaining licensure to preach and administer the Sacraments, but practically, it's necessary. Otherwise you end up with the ecclesiological and doctrinal chaos of a lot of other Protestant denominations.

They may also find some justification for the distinction in the continuance of the OT eldership vs. the priestly office. I don't know how widespread this was amongst English separatists.