ARE AMERICANS READY FOR JUDGMENT?

[doogie]

Fourth - this year has shown a dramatic increase among the people of God abandoning "the church system". People are leaving in droves, answering the call of the Spirit to come out of Babylon. People are leaving the church and pressing on into the kingdom. The pull is getting stronger as false teaching is being revealed.

There's a lot more. I hope that is enough to consider. 

Any specifics you can give -- what false teachings, anyone in particular, any group in particular, etc?

Oh John. You don't ask the easy stuff do you? 

False teachings.... pretty much fill all of recognized christianity. One of the biggest is the prosperity gospel. The one where God wants you to be rich. You can receive that by sowing into "my ministry". Puhleze!

Tithing is another big deceit. Fleeces the sheep by unruly shepherds.

Church buildings being "the house of God". Spending so much money on programs that ignore the poor and widows but build man's kingdom.

The elitism of the ministry. The high priesthood propagating ministry and laity being separate.

The pre-trib rapture lie. How unprofitable has that been to the Body over the years?

The "sacredness" of Jews and Israel and how Jerusalem is "holy".

The church will not be persecuted. Well, in America at least.

All these are the preachings of another Jesus.

Your delusional writings leave me speechless but NOT unable to respond by typing... 

Let me attempt to un-delude you:

False teachings.... pretty much fill all of recognized christianity. One of the biggest is the prosperity gospel. The one where God wants you to be rich. You can receive that by sowing into "my ministry". Puhleze!

You cannot lump all of "chrisianity" into the same pile.  Have you considered these words of Jesus?

Mark 10:28-30
28  Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.
29  And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
30  But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

Titus is so much more eloquent than I. I hope to at least add some things for you.

******************************************************************

The last time I checked the Bible, the church - believers in Jesus Christ, also called Christianity - is called the Body of Christ. A body is singular and not plural. Did not Paul say the Body is one? Lumping Christianity into numerous piles would create another Jesus. But wait, isn't that what religion has done? Create a Jesus body not like scripture?

All prosperity teaching focuses on one thing only: THE FLESH. What's in it for me? If I do this, what do I get and when? The kingdom of God is not a stock market wherein returns come with investments. The Kingdom of God is the kingdom of our Christ; it is He who has made the investment in us thru redemption. It is He who expects a return for Himself. We are His creation, formed for His pleasure. Not the other way around. Jesus is not a genie who comes out of the magic Bible; nor is He bound by the incantation of sacred words. Much of what we see, and the attitude shown is that of carnal men hiding behind religious sounding phrases.

Um sure.  So, please tell me exactly what Jesus was referring to, if not the obvious "carnal" things he mentioned?  I am not for a second defending the idea of doing "spiritual things" for earthly gain, but I do believe that God will bless us if we seek HIS kingdom first.

[titushome]

So, please tell me exactly what Jesus was referring to, if not the obvious "carnal" things he mentioned?  I am not for a second defending the idea of doing "spiritual things" for earthly gain, but I do believe that God will bless us if we seek HIS kingdom first.

When Jesus referred to His followers being given the things of this world, He wasn't saying that we would be "blessed" with the abundance of material goods to which we in modern America have become accustomed - He was simply saying, as you said earlier, that our needs would be met; that no member of His family would be lacking for the physical necessities of life.

You wrote that "God will bless us if we seek HIS kingdom first."  This is absolutely true.  But the words of Jesus and the writings of His disciples speak a great deal more about the spiritual blessings/riches we are to receive than the physical.  The only thing we are promised with regard to physical goods is that God will meet our basic needs.

[onli-one-jehovi]

The last time I checked the Bible, the church - believers in Jesus Christ, also called Christianity - is called the Body of Christ. A body is singular and not plural. Did not Paul say the Body is one? Lumping Christianity into numerous piles would create another Jesus. But wait, isn't that what religion has done? Create a Jesus body not like scripture?

All prosperity teaching focuses on one thing only: THE FLESH. What's in it for me? If I do this, what do I get and when? The kingdom of God is not a stock market wherein returns come with investments. The Kingdom of God is the kingdom of our Christ; it is He who has made the investment in us thru redemption. It is He who expects a return for Himself. We are His creation, formed for His pleasure. Not the other way around. Jesus is not a genie who comes out of the magic Bible; nor is He bound by the incantation of sacred words. Much of what we see, and the attitude shown is that of carnal men hiding behind religious sounding phrases.

Um sure.  So, please tell me exactly what Jesus was referring to, if not the obvious "carnal" things he mentioned?  I am not for a second defending the idea of doing "spiritual things" for earthly gain, but I do believe that God will bless us if we seek HIS kingdom first.

[/b]


We seem to forget that there is no need to seek "blessings" at all. We can't get any more blessed than we already are! Christ in you - is the biggest blessing of them all! It dwarfs everything thing else! Truly, what more do we need to seek? Oh yeah, we need to seek the "blessings of Abraham" don't we? We need to seek all Abe's stuff. And that is what the prosperity gospel is all about.... giving to gain stuff.

There is nothing wrong with petioning nor expecting the Lord to provide "carnal" things. He know what we have need of in our lives. Yes, He will add all things to us IF we seek the kingdom first. All things we need --- shelter, food, clothes, spending money, & even many of our wants. He promised to take care of us. The kingdom of God - first and foremost - is spiritual. It is bringing His rule and His reign in earth; just like the Prayer says. Read the Lord's Prayer again.

Notice it does not say: thy will be done on earth; it says: thy will be done in earth. Thy will be done in this earthen vessel. Bring me under subjection to Your rule, Your reign, Your authority, just as the inhabitants of Heaven. That is what seeking the kingdom is all about. Then, because our focus is concentrated upon that, and our faith is in Him - He will add to our lives all the things we need and usually, desire. There is no need to seek "blessings" at all. Absolutely none. He is a good Father who provides for His children. He is a faithful Husband who provides for His Bride. Just trust Him.

Then we will give from the heart toward those "carnal things" needed by the Body. Then we will more easily discern what is truly being asked of God and what is asked of Man. No need to seek properity; it will already be there. What I have- I give because He has given me the means to meet your need. Or at least give toward it.

The church, on the other hand, envisions grand things for God and sets off on their own devices to bring it to pass. We go into debt to do it and then demand the congregation to pay it off.  Doesn't the Bible warn us not to get into debt? Doesn't it say to owe no man anything? Yet so many turn to a false prosperity teaching to manipulate the sheep into footing the bill for Man's Kingdom. That's why it always falls to enticement to covet. Covet Abraham's material wealth. You can have it too. God wants you to have it. All you have to do is give to my ministry. Just sow your seed for a hundred-fold return. God will provide it for you, if you give it to me. That's not the kingdom of God.

[doogie]

If the "carnal" things I "give up" for Christ lead to them being multiplied and returned to me ONE HUNDRED FOLD, how is this NOT a blessing above and beyond the basic necessities of life?  Please respond without "spiritualizing" what was a "carnal" conversation between Jesus and his Disciples. 

I am also curious as to why anyone would want to water down this promise that came from the mouth of God himself? 

[doogie]

Titushome:

Please see my comments below.

Previously you wrote:

As far as "the Apostolic church teaching doctrines that are lies," many Apostolic churches I've been part of have taught and enforced the following incorrect doctrines and practices:

   1. They typically set up one man, the pastor, as the sovereign head of the local assembly, and he is to be obeyed more or less without question, excepted only when he is in obvious violation of the Scriptures.

Response:  The local "assembly" is a corporate body.  Of course the pastor is the "leader" of the group.  You are an intelligent person, how could you possibly believe that Pastor's are not ordained in scripture?  Read 1 Timothy 3 where requirements for a "Bishop" are set forth, then deacons as well.  What could Paul have possibly intended if not leadership?  That having been said, there are boundaries, and if a "pastor" oversteps them, it can lead to problems.   

   2. They typically teach, or at least imply, that the pastor somehow has a special relationship with God that the rest of the saints can't have, as evidenced by such sayings as "God will tell the pastor things he won't tell you or me," or "the pastor is empowered to make rules because God gives him the wisdom to know what's best for his church."
   
Response:  This teaching is most certainly modeled by the scriptural principles laid out in Epehsians 4:11-14:.

11  And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12  For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13  Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14  That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

A strong case could be made that rather than seeking advice from "friends" on an internet board, a church member should rather seek Godly counsel from their pastor - this could protect them from being led astray by what Paul refers to as the "sleight of men." 

3. They typically refer to assemblies by the pastor's name, as in "Bro. So-and-so's church."  It's not his church; it's Jesus' church.

Response:  This is just chilidsh hyperbole on your part.  The loose reference to a church as "Bro. So & So's church" is simply an easy reference tio a particular body of believers and has ZERO significance beyond that. 

   4. They typically teach, all denials to the contrary, that the church building is sanctified.  Thus we refer to the building as "the church" or "the house of God," we hear parents telling their children not to run "in church," and we are often told that when we enter the church building we are in the presence of God - as if we're not in His presence outside the building.

Response:  The effort to maintain a certain level of decorum is noble, and should be upheld.  Unruly children running through the church is no different than unruly children running around in a restaurant - it is strongly looked down upon, and is disruptive to the experience of others.  Actions that are distracting to others attempting to glean from the preaching of the Gospel of Christ should be discouraged in the church building.  Furthermore, calling it the House Of God is not wrong - it is in fact a building dedicated to worship and the furtherance of the gospel.  As far as the "presence of God" comment, maybe you are injecting humor?  Of course God is omnipresent, however, as worship ensues, there is often an additional presence of God that visits the assembled worshippers.  If you have not experienced this personally, I am deeply saddened for you.  After all, this is supposed to be a a "spiritual" church.  References to "entering the presence of God" are most likely a throback to the tabernacle and are intended to be symbolic, ie:  The priest set aside his daily routine once a year and entered the Holy of Holies.  When we come to church, we should set aside our cares and thoughts and enter into a time of corporate worship.

Added later  You may also want to read the following NT verses that refer to the House Of God:

1 Timothy 3:15  But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

1 Peter 4:17  For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

I guess Paul and Peter were mistaken when they referrd to the "Church Facility" as the "House Of God"



5. They typically teach that regular attendance of scheduled meetings is mandatory, and that the faithfulness of anyone who misses a meeting is to be questioned.

Response:  Faithfulness is in fact revealed by attendance.  How would your work feel if you missed several times a week, or were late every day?  You'd probably be fired.  It is only natural that a "corporate body" would be concerned about "members" who are not faithful to church.

I could go on, but I won't.  These things, I believe, are the trappings of religion.  They hamper, rather than help, the Body of Christ.

Response:  Your comments reveal a lot about how you feel about what some refer to as "church government."  How does it hinder the Body of Christ to have a pastor who cares for the saints under his charge?  How does it hinder the Body Of Christ to have a building to worship in?  How does it hinder the Body of Christ to discourage activites that disrupt the worship environment?  How does it hinder the Body of Christ to encourage regular attendance to church - primarily so that the preaching of the Word of God can change and shape the Christain's life?

Answer:  It doesnt.

That having been said, none of the aforementioned "practices" preclude a Christian from living for God in their daily lives, reading his word, paying their tithes, giving to the poor, etc. 

[onli-one-jehovi]

If the "carnal" things I "give up" for Christ lead to them being multiplied and returned to me ONE HUNDRED FOLD, how is this NOT a blessing above and beyond the basic necessities of life?  Please respond without "spiritualizing" what was a "carnal" conversation between Jesus and his Disciples. 

I am also curious as to why anyone would want to water down this promise that came from the mouth of God himself? 

First... Jesus said the words He spoke were spirit and life. You can't un-spiritualize anything Jesus said. It is the flesh interpretations of religion that does so.

The answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?

And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive onehundredfold and shall inherit eternal life. (Mt 20:27-29)

The hundredfold is not referring to material increase. It is referring to restoration. Let me explain.

Forsaken here means to "yield up". What was yielded up in search of the Kingdom? Houses, brethren, family, spouse, children, and property/possessions. God will give every bit of it back if you surrender it to Him. If I do not seek or worry about the "carnal/natural" things that go with life - the Father will add it to me. It means - if God so clothe the flowers of the field and feed the sparrow, how much more will He provide for us? It's not about trying to attain the carnal things, but rather seek the kingdom of God and to be conformed to His image. Be aware of needs? Sure, but don't focus on them.

Listen to what's preached. Listen to what many saints think will cause God to provide {bless} them.

I'm in need of _____. I'll sow a seed of faith into _______ ministry. Give to get is the order of the day.

Does that sound like God's kingdom?

Again. Nothing wrong with being blessed above the necessities of life. That's good! It leaves us open to meet the needs of others and be a "blessing" to them. It's not a token of spirituality or a measure of righteousness. It's not to build bigger churches, or buy bigger equipment, or more stuff. It's to help provide for the Body.

Our church system in America, is predominantly focused upon getting and not giving. It's focused upon the flesh and not the spirit.  I hope that is clearer.

[doogie]

Let me say this one more time:

Please explain to me how you can derive any meaning from Jesus words in Mark 10:30 other than what the PLAIN TEXT reads?

Im waiting...

[titushome]

   1. They typically set up one man, the pastor, as the sovereign head of the local assembly, and he is to be obeyed more or less without question, excepted only when he is in obvious violation of the Scriptures.

Response:  The local "assembly" is a corporate body.  Of course the pastor is the "leader" of the group.  You are an intelligent person, how could you possibly believe that Pastor's are not ordained in scripture?  Read 1 Timothy 3 where requirements for a "Bishop" are set forth, then deacons as well.  What could Paul have possibly intended if not leadership?  That having been said, there are boundaries, and if a "pastor" oversteps them, it can lead to problems.   

Allow me to clarify what I meant: of course there are human leaders within the body of Christ.  But note my exact words, by which I described a typical pastor "as the sovereign head of the local assembly, [who] is to be obeyed more or less without question."  There's a big difference between a leader and a sovereign head.

A leader provides guidance, and leads by making himself an example.  His guidance is heeded because his spiritual maturity and wisdom are recognized by all.

A sovereign head, however - which is, to some degree, how most pastors these days function - issues directives to be obeyed, and obedience is due him because of his position, regardless of his personal maturity, wisdom, or alignment with the mind of God in a given situation.

Don't believe that most pastors function as sovereign heads?  Consider the following: I've been a Christian for most of my life, over twenty-five years, and in that time I've been part of at least ten different churches, and visited countless more.  In that time I've heard preached and taught ad nauseam that to disobey one's pastor is to disobey God; that the pastor alone is tasked with "casting a vision" for the church, which all others are to give their full support; that, as I wrote before, the pastor has a special relationship with God that the rest of the saints can't have; that the pastor alone can baptize; that the pastor is primarily charged with the instruction of the saints; that the pastor is empowered to makes binding rules upon the saints in "his" church.

In all these things and more, the pastor effectively replaces Christ as the functional head of the church.

Contrast this with, for example, your pastor and mine: he does not make demands of obedience, but rather provides counsel.  He makes a strong effort to include all who want to be included in planning and executing church events.  While he shoulders the bulk of the preaching and teaching, he also utilizes the teaching gifts of numerous others within the church, and does so for a substantial amount of the teaching that goes forth.  I've never heard him claim, explicitly or implicitly, to have a special relationship with God that others cannot; to the contrary, he regularly emphasizes his equality with the rest of the saints.  And he has never, as far as I've heard, laid down rules to be followed.

But our pastor, in my experience, is an exception to the rule.  Most other pastors I've encountered over the years, whether I heard them speak only once or whether I assembled with them for years, have been guilty, in small degree or large, of at least some of the things I've described above.  Even worse, perhaps, is that many non-pastoring preachers and teachers I've heard over the years have with their words reinforced these erroneous ideas.

On the other hand, most pastors I've known have been spiritually mature, wise, and Christlike in most ways.  Yet this does not change their guilt regarding their incorrect ways of relating to the rest of the Body.  I actually had one former pastor, a man I love dearly and greatly admire, describe himself to me as "God's representative" - I almost leapt out of my seat when he said that!  Yet I've found it to be a typical attitude among church leaders today.

continued...

[titushome]

   2. They typically teach, or at least imply, that the pastor somehow has a special relationship with God that the rest of the saints can't have, as evidenced by such sayings as "God will tell the pastor things he won't tell you or me," or "the pastor is empowered to make rules because God gives him the wisdom to know what's best for his church."
   
Response:  This teaching is most certainly modeled by the scriptural principles laid out in Epehsians 4:11-14:.

11  And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12  For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13  Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14  That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

A strong case could be made that rather than seeking advice from "friends" on an internet board, a church member should rather seek Godly counsel from their pastor - this could protect them from being led astray by what Paul refers to as the "sleight of men." 

Ephesians 4:11-14 in NO way supports the erroneous idea that, as I wrote before, "the pastor somehow has a special relationship with God that the rest of the saints can't have, as evidenced by such sayings as 'God will tell the pastor things he won't tell you or me,' or 'the pastor is empowered to make rules because God gives him the wisdom to know what's best for his church.' "  These conceptions are wholly unfounded on the Scriptures.

Ephesians 4:11-14 DOES tell us that God has gifted some men with the abilities to plant churches (apostles), to prophesy, to preach (evangelists), and to teach - with the goals that the saints be perfected, and the Body of Christ edified.  This passage describes functions within the Church more than it describes positions over the Church.  The entire NT is infused with the idea that all saints are equal under Christ.  See Matthew 20:25-28, Luke 22:24-26, and Matthew 23:8-12 for starters.

3. They typically refer to assemblies by the pastor's name, as in "Bro. So-and-so's church."  It's not his church; it's Jesus' church.

Response:  This is just chilidsh hyperbole on your part.  The loose reference to a church as "Bro. So & So's church" is simply an easy reference tio a particular body of believers and has ZERO significance beyond that. 

If it was simply a matter of easy reference, I wouldn't have mentioned it.  But when a church is identified with its pastor - not just his name, but his personality, preaching style, etc. - when his name appears on the sign board, and when he is empowered, as I described above, to govern the church as he sees fit - then it's only natural to think of it as "his" church, as opposed to merely referring to it by his name.

continued...

[titushome]

   4. They typically teach, all denials to the contrary, that the church building is sanctified.  Thus we refer to the building as "the church" or "the house of God," we hear parents telling their children not to run "in church," and we are often told that when we enter the church building we are in the presence of God - as if we're not in His presence outside the building.

Response:  The effort to maintain a certain level of decorum is noble, and should be upheld.

Since when?  Do you have Scripture to back up that idea?  Or is it simply a tradition to which you are accustomed?

Unruly children running through the church is no different than unruly children running around in a restaurant - it is strongly looked down upon, and is disruptive to the experience of others.  Actions that are distracting to others attempting to glean from the preaching of the Gospel of Christ should be discouraged in the church building.

I agree that no one should be permitted to disrupt the work of God taking place during the meeting.  But I was referring more generally to those who take the tack that such behavior in the church building is wrong because it's the church building - as though the building itself had some special significance.  If it's not taking place during the meeting, then it's a whole different issue.

Furthermore, calling it the House Of God is not wrong - it is in fact a building dedicated to worship and the furtherance of the gospel.  As far as the "presence of God" comment, maybe you are injecting humor?  Of course God is omnipresent, however, as worship ensues, there is often an additional presence of God that visits the assembled worshippers.  If you have not experienced this personally, I am deeply saddened for you.  After all, this is supposed to be a a "spiritual" church.  References to "entering the presence of God" are most likely a throback to the tabernacle and are intended to be symbolic, ie:  The priest set aside his daily routine once a year and entered the Holy of Holies.  When we come to church, we should set aside our cares and thoughts and enter into a time of corporate worship.

I have experienced that, many times.  But I would describe the experience as becoming more attuned to God's presence, as opposed to a supposed "additional presence of God."  The importance of this distinction is highlighted by your last statement above: should we not strive all the time to be more attuned to God's presence among and within us?  Jesus was undoubtedly far more acutely aware of God's enduring presence than we usually are, and I want to be more like Him.

Added later  You may also want to read the following NT verses that refer to the House Of God:

1 Timothy 3:15  But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

1 Peter 4:17  For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

I guess Paul and Peter were mistaken when they referrd to the "Church Facility" as the "House Of God"

No, they were not mistaken, but neither were they referring to a building as "the house of God."  Read I Timothy 3:15 again: "the house of God, which is the church of the living God."  It's the people, doogie - NOT the building.  God no longer dwells in temples made with hands, remember?  The same goes for I Peter 4:17 - we could rephrase that verse to say, "judgment must begin with the people of God."  That this is what Peter meant is made clear with his very next phrase, "and if it first begin at us."

5. They typically teach that regular attendance of scheduled meetings is mandatory, and that the faithfulness of anyone who misses a meeting is to be questioned.

Response:  Faithfulness is in fact revealed by attendance.  How would your work feel if you missed several times a week, or were late every day?  You'd probably be fired.  It is only natural that a "corporate body" would be concerned about "members" who are not faithful to church.

My regular presence at the office is an explicit condition of my employment.  But nowhere in the Scriptures will you find regular attendance of church meetings to be a requirement of Church membership.  Yes, for sure, we are instructed to "not forsake the assembling of [ourselves] together" - but that's it.  There's no requirement regarding when to meet, or where, or how frequently, or even that the frequency be regular.  God leaves that up to us; it's a heart issue.

And while it's only natural, as you wrote in your last statement, for us to be concerned when a brother or sister is hit-and-miss when it comes assembling with the rest of the Body, what I've seen usually crosses the line from concern into judgment, where a saint is looked down upon and gossiped about for any absence that is more than occasional.  The frequency with which my family is not present at our church meetings, for example, would probably be considered suspect in the minds of many Christians I've known, without regard for the reasons we're not there: assembling with another group of believers instead, or caring for a fussy baby, or taking a little vacation, or whatever.

I could go on, but I won't.  These things, I believe, are the trappings of religion.  They hamper, rather than help, the Body of Christ.

Response:  Your comments reveal a lot about how you feel about what some refer to as "church government."  How does it hinder the Body of Christ to have a pastor who cares for the saints under his charge?  How does it hinder the Body Of Christ to have a building to worship in?  How does it hinder the Body of Christ to discourage activites that disrupt the worship environment?  How does it hinder the Body of Christ to encourage regular attendance to church - primarily so that the preaching of the Word of God can change and shape the Christain's life?

Answer:  It doesnt.

That having been said, none of the aforementioned "practices" preclude a Christian from living for God in their daily lives, reading his word, paying their tithes, giving to the poor, etc. 

I hope my elaborations have made more clear to you what I'm talking about when I say these things hinder, rather than help, the Body.

It is true, as you wrote, that none of these things prevent an individual believer from walking with God one-on-one, but what I'm talking about is the proper functioning of the Body.  And while the misfunction of the Body won't outright block any individual believer from pursuing God as deeply as they want to, I believe it can and often does negatively impact the spiritual growth of the individual saints.

[onli-one-jehovi]

Let me say this one more time:

Please explain to me how you can derive any meaning from Jesus words in Mark 10:30 other than what the PLAIN TEXT reads?

Im waiting...

I thought I did. Why don't you explain how it means what you're saying.

Actually, if you back up to the beginning of their conversation in verse 17, we see the rich ruler who had great possessions. He chose not to forsake those possessions for the sake of the kingdom. The disciples were astonished and wanted to know who could be saved. Then comes the primary question: what about us?

That leads to my earlier reply. The point still remains that gaining possessions is not the focal point of following Christ. He will provide all that we need w/o our seeking them. He will determine the abundance - and/or lack thereof - among His people. The prosperity gospel totally ignores that.

[onli-one-jehovi]

The term "house of God" correlates directly with "house of David". Also with "and all his house", used often in the OT. It is plainly obvious from any look at scripture that the reference is toward people and not buildings.

[bishopnl]

If anything more gets said about prior arguments in this thread, including but not limited too the snake in the grass or whited sepulchres comments, I will lock this thread too.  This isn't a place for hashing out personal differences. 

[Rattlesnake]

Bishop1,

Jesus addresses current sins as well as prior ones! The response was not a personal attack - but a response and proof against a personal attack on a fellow brother.

[bishopnl]

I made it clear in the other thread in which the comments were made that any further discussion of this matter should be taken to pm or email.  This board isn't a place to air personal grievances, which I considered most of the comments listed to be. 

And when responding to future administrative actions, per board rules, pm rather than post. 

http://godplace.com/forum/index.php?topic=25131.0

[bishopnl]

Per the board rules, a link to which has already been posted here.

4) Please don't openly argue with or complain about the monitors.   If you have a problem take it to e-mail!

7) The decision of the monitors to delete any thread or post is NOT subject to debate or discussion.

Also, from a notice Scott posted September 16th in the General Discussion area of the forum:

The above named persons are the staff of Godplace.com/forum.

If you start a thread, you do not moderate that thread, you don't own it and you do not call the shots in that thread. If you try to do so, you are in violation of one of the basic rules of any discussion forum.  '' do not pretend to be a moderator / monitor''.

If there is a problem with a poster, notify a mod  or admin, please do not attempt to moderate. If we need additional help, we will  select that appropriate person.

This is a notice to all members.  As a representative of Christ, it behooves all of us to act in a Christian manner, and when posting on any discussion forum, to follow the rules of that forum.  Even if you feel you are in the right, that doesn't make any decision to violate the rules of the board righteous. 

[doogie]

Let me say this one more time:

Please explain to me how you can derive any meaning from Jesus words in Mark 10:30 other than what the PLAIN TEXT reads?

Im waiting...

I thought I did. Why don't you explain how it means what you're saying.

Actually, if you back up to the beginning of their conversation in verse 17, we see the rich ruler who had great possessions. He chose not to forsake those possessions for the sake of the kingdom. The disciples were astonished and wanted to know who could be saved. Then comes the primary question: what about us?

      MY POINT EXACTLY!  To which Jesus replied:

29  And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,
30  But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time  ---->  , houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come  ----> eternal life.

That leads to my earlier reply. The point still remains that gaining possessions is not the focal point of following Christ. He will provide all that we need w/o our seeking them. He will determine the abundance - and/or lack thereof - among His people. The prosperity gospel totally ignores that.

[doogie]

Titushome:

In an effort to save space, I will briefly reference your point, and then give my responses (others reading this post can scroll-up to see your point in its complete context, etc.).  I will break up my responses into "smaller chunks" as to allow for easier reading and manageability.  This heading will only occur on this first response...

1.  Pastor as "sovereign" head:

Response: 

While there may be some who overstep their bounds as "overseer" of the "flock", lets take a look at what both Paul and Peter had to say about "oversight" in the "Body Of Christ."

First Paul, in Acts 20:17,28-30

17  And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church

28  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.
29  For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30  Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Ok, so in verse 17, we establish who Paul was talking to - the "elders" of the church of Ephesus.  Verse 28 reveals the authority they were given - that of "overseer.  What does overseer mean?  According to the American Heritage Dictionary, it means "One who keeps watch over and directs the work of others, especially laborers."  They were tasked with "feeding" the "church of God."  Was this physical food?  No, it was sound doctrine that they were to "feed" the church.  This is borne out by verses 29-30, where Paul warns of perverse men who would come into the church and "draw away disciples after them."  It's no different today.  The "overseers" of the Church are tasked with feeding the flock (preaching/teaching the word) and protect them from false teachings (doctrines). 

Now, consider what Peter had to say in 1 Peter 5:1-5

1  The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
2  Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
3  Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.
4  And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
5  Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

Like Paul, Peter addressed the Elders.  Interestingly, he expressed the same concern as Paul - "feed the flock."  He instructed them to "take oversight" of the "flock of God," and gave guidelines as to how they should go about it in verse 2.  He admonished them to lead by example in verse 3.  Then we read what he had to say in verse 5 - something that is contrary to the beliefs of some, who love to embrace the "counterculture" - he said that they should "submit" themselves unto the elder. 

The common thread here is that both of these men acknowledged that the "elders" were there to provide oversight and feed the flock.  What is oversight, if not supervision or direction?   

Consider what God said through his prophet Jeremiah in Jeremiah 3:14-15

14  Turn, O backsliding children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:
15  And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding

Now, I realize this is an OT reference, however it reveals a principle that is consistent with the writings of both Paul and Peter.  God promised to give his children pastors "according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding"  The role of the modern-day pastor has not changed.  It is to provide oversight in the local assembly, and feed them with GODLY knowledge and understanding - which can also be referred to as SOUND DOCTRINE.

While I have certainly read your comments questioning the pastor's authority in regard to vision-casting (modern day groupspeak referring to planning for the growth of the church), baptizing, their "special relationship with God", etc. - these are individual issues that really have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.  I will briefly comment that some pastors establish "rules" for their local assembly, which is certainly within the bounds of their pastoral authority in a corporate setting. 

Again, it is borne out by scripture that Jesus Christ does in fact endorse human pastoral "oversight" in the local church body.  This does not preclude a pastor from conducting himself according to scripture, but it does give blessing to the modern day NT church model.  If you must be technical about it, it could be said that the individual pastors in a given city are the "elders" of the church in that city (which also touches on item # 3 below...).

[doogie]

2.  Pastor does not have a special relationship with God:

Response:

My point in referencing Ephesians 4:11-14 was to illustrate a principle that is evident in scripture.  Namely that apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers serve a purpose - as Paul put it - "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ."  To achieve ANY of the items listed in verse 12, requires wisdom and direction - if not the outright hand of God.  The Church is not a democracy; rather it is a sovereign Theocracy wherein God uses the five-fold ministry to "edify" the Body of Christ.  That is not to say that edification should not emanate from all in the Body of Christ, but it is to say that there are special instances wherein God uses Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers to induce growth, oversee and feed his church.  Does this elevate the "pastor" or any of the other "ministries" to a superhuman level?  No, but it does indicate that at times God "anoints" particular members of the Body of Christ to serve in any one, or any combination of these ministries.  It just so happens that in the modern day NT church, pastors are appointed to oversee the local flock, and at any time, he/she may be also endowed with the other four "ministries."  Does this demean the other members of the "Body of Christ" who have not been "anointed" or "called" to the distinctive service of these five mentioned ministries?  No, rather, it gives us all hope that we may aspire to be set apart ourselves into one of these "holy" distinctions.  As to the question of equality in the "church", we are certainly all "equal" in that we are saved by Jesus Christ, but that does not preclude the need we all have for "oversight" and "feeding."

[doogie]

3.  Church being identified with its pastor:

Response:

Your views on this matter are influenced by your incorrect view as to oversight of the local assembly.  Again, I will state, although in more detail, that churches in our modern world must comply with laws, customs and standards in order to exist.  For example, if you start a business, you must post a sign declaring the nature of your business.  Churches are no different.  Since Jesus Christ did not establish a signage program for the church, nor did he admonish his disciples as to what name the church should have before he ascended, we are left with a plethora of choices as to how our local church assembly should be identified for easy reference.  Admittedly, some of the more modern church names are much catchier than "First Pentecostal Church," it really has ZERO bearing on anything other than as a means to alert passerby of what "brand" of church it is.  The fact that the Pastor's name is on the sign (or not) is again only relevant as a point of reference for those who may wonder who the pastor is.  The use of signage has been around since the advent of written language, so if you have a problem with it, take it up somewhere else.  Paul referenced churches by City, and referred to the "elders" of the individual assemblies in that city (see item # 1 above), we simply refer to each "facility" often by the given name on the sign, or the Pastor's name in a particular city or state.  Again, this is a mere technicality, and as such, I want to emphasize my next statement so it is loud and clear:

INTRINSIC TO ANY "TRUE" CHRISTIAN BELIEF SYSTEM, BODY OF BELIEVERS, ETC. IS THE FOUNDATIONAL UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST, NOT THE CHURCH OF "insert local pastor's name."  TO IMPLY OTHERWISE IS HYPERBOLE.   

[doogie]

4.  Questioning whether decorum in the "church" is in fact "noble":

Response:

I do have a reference to back up the idea of "decorum" in the church:

1 Cor. 14: 33 "For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. "

Here's another...

1 Cor. 14:40 "Let all things be done decently and in order."

While this was speaking to the issue of multiple tongues and interpretations during a gathering, it is a "principle" that can be applied here.  Furthermore, I believe this to be a tradition to which most normal Christians are accustomed (not just me).  How is the expectation that the church service not be disrupted by unruly behavior in any way not noble?  To be clear, I use the term unruly to describe actions that are not consistent with the expectations of the assembled group.  As an example, in a Pentecostal Church, it would not be considered unruly for someone to break out in tongues, or dance in the aisles during the middle of service, as this would be considered a "move of God" (subject to the guidelines of 1 Cor. 14:1-40, or course).  Since you are the father of a young child I will patronize you and say that if a young child cries, or makes noise, there is certainly a "window" of acceptable behavior before it would be thought prudent that a parent take the child to the nursery.   What is not acceptable is the continued disruption of a church service by those whose intention is to disrupt the activities of the others in attendance. 

5.  Questioning whether it is wrong to chasten the unruly when church service is not in progress:

Response: 

This really falls under another issue, which is parental authority and obedience.  If a parent so chooses to "elevate" the status of the "church building" in the eyes of their children in an effort to induce respect for the "church facility," then sobeit.  Certainly many refer to the "church building" as the "House of God," but unlike what you are trying to imply, they are not equating it to the "Holy of Holies" in the Tabernacle.  Rather, it is in fact a place of communal worship that has been dedicated to service unto God.  As such, to teach their children respect for such matters is in fact noble, and should be encouraged - if for no other reason than to limit the number of disrespectful, unruly and disobedient children in our modern world.  That having been said, a mature Christian understands that their body is the Temple of God, and since God is omnipresent, we can worship him anytime or any place.  It is nice to have a communal place of worship as well... 

[doogie]

6.  "Additional" presence of God...:

Response:

I really chose my words poorly in that response.  Certainly we should be aware that God is omnipresent, but scripture does illustrate many instances where there was a unique and special visitation of God's presence.  Consider the annual "Holy of Holies" visitation in the Tabernacle.  Consider the day of Pentecost when cloven tongues like as of fire sat upon all of them.  Consider our personal prayer lives where we begin to worship God and in time become attuned to and aware of his presence.  A communal church service is no different.  We all come in from our daily grid - whatever it may be - and must become attuned to God's presence.  We do as the Psalms say and enter into His courts with thanksgiving and praise - usually opening with prayer, a few songs, etc.  This is supposed to get the corporate body's mind off of their surroundings and onto God.  All too often, however "worshippers"  are more interested in their girlfriend across the church, their wife's purse, or whatever other distraction can be concocted to distract from actually focusing on God in worship and praise.  Some do not believe in any public worship, others seem to only worship in public.  A balance must be struck wherein a Christian lives their daily life as unto God, spends time in meditation on the word and private praise and worship, as well as entering into communal worship and praise.  This communal worship and praise is for the purpose of the edification of the body as a whole.  It also serves as a tool to draw in unbelievers, who sense the move and presence of God but may not be aware of what it is.

7.  Questioning whether the church building is the "House Of God":

Response:

We absolutely understand that our bodies are the "Temple of God."  That having been said, there is nothing wrong - scripturally, or otherwise - with dedicating a facility to be used for conducting communal church services with "believers" of like faith.

If you consider the account of "Jacob's Ladder" in Genesis 28, he established a precept.  He had a vision, and when he had awakened he said the following:

16  And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the LORD is in this place; and I knew it not.
17  And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place! this is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.

You will notice that in the phrase "house of God" is not capitalized.  He was not stating that "this is none other than the Tabernacle of God," rather, he was acknowledging that God had dwelt there with him during his vision.  The reference to a "house" was as a dwelling place - albeit a temporary one.  Certainly, you could visit that spot today and there would not be a ladder there leading to heaven.  But, for Jacob, that spot was sacred - sacred because he had been touched by God there.  Today, there are many people who have found God in their local church building, and for them, it will always be the "house of God."  If they ultimately come to an understanding of truth, they will realize that within them is the "House of God." 

8.  Church Attendance...:

Response:

** I have to be careful here to annunciate very clearly that these are my words and interpretations of events, and in no way am I attempting to usurp ANY authority or misrepresent myself as anything else but a layman in the church I attend.  Furthermore, this is being written without the approval or knowledge of the pastor whose authority we both worship under. **

Since you used a personal reference, I will go ahead and elaborate on that.  When you first began attending the church you now attend, you made an agreement with the pastor that since your Father-in-Law conducts services at a local rest home, you would be meeting with them once a month.  Like any agreement, in this instance, abscence from church in conformance with the agreement is not considered unfaithfulness.  Nor is it considered unfaithfulness to miss due to illness, family vacation, etc. (at least in the church we both attend).  If, on the other hand, your pastor became aware that you were missing church on a regular basis to attend services in churches whose doctrines were not consistent with those of your home church, he would most likely be compelled to counsel you in regard to avoiding false doctrine. 

A fundamental key to your written response is your implied belief that you really answer to no one but Jesus Christ himself.  As such, you imply in your writings that church attendance is really not necessary, and is at the whim of the "Christian."  Please tell me how you reconcile the inverse of what Paul wrote in Acts chapter 20, and what Peter wrote in 1 Pet. 5:1-5?  He did not write these things to the elders so they could "oversee" and "feed" empty chairs.  It was understood that as part of the "body of christ" you would align yourself with an "elder" and as Peter said in 1 Peter 5:5:

5  Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.

It is a proud person who feels they are so wise that they no longer need attend church, or can attend once or twice a year just to make an appearance.  The truly humble understand that at every possible occasion we should seek to join ourselves together with the Body of Christ so that we can be "fed" and submit ourselves to "oversight," even as Paul and Peter wrote as the surrogates of Jesus Christ himself.

[doogie]

Regarding the "Body of Christ" and who the "members" are, scripture is quite clear concerning this matter.  We need not create an offensive list of excluded denominations, fellowships, etc.  Rather, we simply apply this standard:  "are they continuing in the Apostles Doctrine" as preached and taught in the new testament?  Have they obeyed the scriptures as Jesus revealed them to Nicodemus, or as Peter commanded on the Day of Pentecost, and was later borne out with the conversion of Cornelius?

Consider this wonderful conversion of Cornelius and his household:

22  And they said, Cornelius the centurion, a just man, and one that feareth God, and of good report among all the nation of the Jews, was warned from God by an holy angel to send for thee into his house, and to hear words of thee.
23  Then called he them in, and lodged them. And on the morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him.
24  And the morrow after they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and he had called together his kinsmen and near friends.
25  And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
26  But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.
27  And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together.
28  And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
29  Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me?
30  And Cornelius said, Four days ago I was fasting until this hour; and at the ninth hour I prayed in my house, and, behold, a man stood before me in bright clothing,
31  And said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.
32  Send therefore to Joppa, and call hither Simon, whose surname is Peter; he is lodged in the house of one Simon a tanner by the sea side: who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee.
33  Immediately therefore I sent to thee; and thou hast well done that thou art come. Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.
34  Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35  But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
36  The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)
37  That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
38  How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
39  And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
40  Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
41  Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
42  And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
43  To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
44  While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45  And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46  For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47  Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48  And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Now, consider Peter's version when he recounted it to those in Jerusalem who were questioning his affiliation with a "Gentile:"

Acts 11:12-16

12  And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house:
13  And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
14  Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
15  And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
16  Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

The Angel of the Lord prefaced and endorsed Peter's doctrine by saying "Who shall tell the words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved."

Subsequent to Peter preaching Christ to Cornelieus household, verses 44-48 reveal what happened:

1.  The Gift of the Holy Ghost was poured out on all of them that heard the word.
2.  They spake with tongues and magnified God.
3.  They were baptized in the name of the Lord.

If this constituted "salvation" in the early church, why would it be any different today?  Those who do not believe in the infilling of the Holy Ghost with the evidence of speaking in other tongues, and being baptized in the name of the Lord, are in fact NOT the body of Christ. 

Consider what Jesus himself had to say to Nicodemus in John 3:1-7:

1  There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2  The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3  Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4  Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5  Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6  That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7  Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Two things to consider:

a)  Until a person is "born again," they cannot "see" the Kingdom of God.  This speaks of the "enlightening" that occurs when we are born again - an enlightening that allows us to comprehend the Word of God, and to practice spiritual discernment.

b)  Unless a person is "born again" they cannot "enter into" the Kingdom of God.  Confession of one's faith in Christ alone does not procure "entrance" into the Kingdom of God.  One MUST be "born again."  All too many are "stopped" in the process at repentance.  They are taught that confessing Christ as your personal saviour constitutes salvation, while this "methodology" never occurs in scripture.   

So, the secular definition of "Christianity" consists of those who profess to follow Christ.  The "Biblical" definition of "Christianity" are those who demonstrate their belief in Christ by being Born Again, as evidenced by repentance from sin, Baptisim in the name of the Lord, and the infilling of the Holy Spirit.  When we are filled with the Holy Ghost, which is Christ within us, we truly become "his body" on earth.  To infer otherwise is false doctrine, and reveals either a misunderstanding or a manipulation of scripture.  Admittedly, there are many who profess to love "Christ", but have not continued past the act of repentance.

I may be doing a poor job of it, but, I am merely reciting scripture verbatim where the question of "salvation" was posed, then answered by the Jesus Christ himself, or by the action of the Holy Ghost (which is also Jesus Christ...).

Shalom.

[Rattlesnake]

   1. They typically set up one man, the pastor, as the sovereign head of the local assembly, and he is to be obeyed more or less without question, excepted only when he is in obvious violation of the Scriptures.

Response:  The local "assembly" is a corporate body.  Of course the pastor is the "leader" of the group.  You are an intelligent person, how could you possibly believe that Pastor's are not ordained in scripture?  Read 1 Timothy 3 where requirements for a "Bishop" are set forth, then deacons as well.  What could Paul have possibly intended if not leadership?  That having been said, there are boundaries, and if a "pastor" oversteps them, it can lead to problems.   

Allow me to clarify what I meant: of course there are human leaders within the body of Christ.  But note my exact words, by which I described a typical pastor "as the sovereign head of the local assembly, [who] is to be obeyed more or less without question."  There's a big difference between a leader and a sovereign head.

A leader provides guidance, and leads by making himself an example.  His guidance is heeded because his spiritual maturity and wisdom are recognized by all.

A sovereign head, however - which is, to some degree, how most pastors these days function - issues directives to be obeyed, and obedience is due him because of his position, regardless of his personal maturity, wisdom, or alignment with the mind of God in a given situation.

Don't believe that most pastors function as sovereign heads?  Consider the following: I've been a Christian for most of my life, over twenty-five years, and in that time I've been part of at least ten different churches, and visited countless more.  In that time I've heard preached and taught ad nauseam that to disobey one's pastor is to disobey God; that the pastor alone is tasked with "casting a vision" for the church, which all others are to give their full support; that, as I wrote before, the pastor has a special relationship with God that the rest of the saints can't have; that the pastor alone can baptize; that the pastor is primarily charged with the instruction of the saints; that the pastor is empowered to makes binding rules upon the saints in "his" church.

In all these things and more, the pastor effectively replaces Christ as the functional head of the church.

Contrast this with, for example, your pastor and mine: he does not make demands of obedience, but rather provides counsel.  He makes a strong effort to include all who want to be included in planning and executing church events.  While he shoulders the bulk of the preaching and teaching, he also utilizes the teaching gifts of numerous others within the church, and does so for a substantial amount of the teaching that goes forth.  I've never heard him claim, explicitly or implicitly, to have a special relationship with God that others cannot; to the contrary, he regularly emphasizes his equality with the rest of the saints.  And he has never, as far as I've heard, laid down rules to be followed.

But our pastor, in my experience, is an exception to the rule.  Most other pastors I've encountered over the years, whether I heard them speak only once or whether I assembled with them for years, have been guilty, in small degree or large, of at least some of the things I've described above.  Even worse, perhaps, is that many non-pastoring preachers and teachers I've heard over the years have with their words reinforced these erroneous ideas.

On the other hand, most pastors I've known have been spiritually mature, wise, and Christlike in most ways.  Yet this does not change their guilt regarding their incorrect ways of relating to the rest of the Body.  I actually had one former pastor, a man I love dearly and greatly admire, describe himself to me as "God's representative" - I almost leapt out of my seat when he said that!  Yet I've found it to be a typical attitude among church leaders today.

continued...

I thought we were all Ambassadors - Dosen't that make us all representatives of Jesus?  Isn't that what an Ambassador is - a representative?

[Rattlesnake]

Response to Titushome:

Only in your corrupt, possibly "satanically-deluded" mind.

Wow, doogie.  Tell us how you really feel. 

Response:  I will ferociously and vociferiously defend what I believe to be truth.  There are those who may read this board who could be led astray by some who post their false interpretations of scripture.  While I may inadequately defend scripture, I will at least make an attempt to do so.  Consider that OOJ postulated that doctrines I hold sacred are in fact lies.  A pacifistic response is not acceptable.  I believe him to be of a contentious spirit and find his writings to be false doctrine.

Added later:

I also would say this:  If OOJ's approach were one of "I have studied the scripture, and as such this is what I believe," I might respond differently.  However, when he calls basic doctrinal beliefs "lies," it is disturbing.  As such, I feel the need to be very very clear that I do not agree with his posting.  I might add that I do not use the word "delusional" lightly - rather I see it as a sad end to those who choose to reinterpret Truth to fit their belief system.

All Right. Thanks for making it plain. I appreciate that.

I am contentious, but not in the way you and others here believe. Apparently, you find anyone who challenges the religious conclusions of your doctrine to be in error. Apparently, you and other such ones are incapable of being deceived. It has to be someone else. Isn't that what Adam and Eve said when God revealed their error? Oh I'm contentious alright. I'm doing the best I can to reason & persuade everyone who will listen. I want religion to be destroyed out of the Body of Christ so we can all be like Him. That's what I want.

Why is something false only when "I" don't agree with it? Wherever I am today in my relationship with God - the deepest deeps and highest highs and truth understood - each step required exposing something false. Not one of us here today got here knowing everything. We all had to re-evaluate what we thought was true. I have yet to see a stopping place for that event. Not this side of Heaven anyway.

You find it false doctrine, even though you have yet to seriously study things out. At least as far as I can tell. Some things take weeks, months, and even years to recognize. You can't do it with one quick scan. Disagree all you want. Just do it after serious consideration and searching of scripture.


I might add that I do not use the word "delusional" lightly - rather I see it as a sad end to those who choose to reinterpret Truth to fit their belief system

What do you think a mixture of leavened bread and unleavened bread is? It is up to us to allow the HG to kill off the leaven and totally remove it. You can't do that only hearing a particular denominational doctrine or hearing particular denominational interpretations or fellowshipping with particular denominational saints. The Body is so much bigger than that and will feed itself. What your denominational saint cannot tell you, another saint can. Eventually there will be no denominations, just one united Body of Christ with Jesus as the Head. Together we can clearly see the real wolves among the sheep.

Doogie, your response has been one of the flesh and not the Spirit. It was the same response seen over and over in scripture by the Sanhedrin and enemies of God. I don't think that was the intent. I've disagreed with many here myself. That happens in discussion. Don't be so quick to condemn what you don't understand. I really don't care what you call me. I figure I'm in good company. 
[/quote]

WOW!! It is amazing to me that you can say that doggie responded in the flesh - and not mention that you have done the same ( and first I might add) when you used the word "delusional" to describe the writings written in response to you're post. I looked back and read the whole conversation and did not find any place where you were called anything until you choose to call something that you could not answer scripturally,  delusional!

It would seem to me, that inconsisties to scripture are a normal teaching around the world, but not by the church, but a select few who think that Jesus somehow made them professors over the rest of an ignorant church. While teaching the unlearned is a good thing, any teaching must first align itself with the gospel of Christ, or be considered by it's true value, a false doctrine!
Jesus, in coming back for his church, is coming back for a church that have made themselves ready, not for a church that he has to "beat down" so to speak, in order to get them ready for a rapture. We are taught, to be ready at all times, for we know not the hour Jesus will return, and in no wise are we taught that a good "a beat down" will get us in line before that great day.

There are many, who "like Satan himself" teach half truth and decieve many, one's who do not agree with scripture because it does not align itself with their personal belief on "how things should be done". Denying the fact that there is an Holy Order that must be followed by all in order to enter in to Heaven. And to be Christlike (as some have in error believed) is to accept all teachings and keep our opinions to ourselves, when we see a wrong, to avoid hurting someone's feelings.

To be Christlike, not only attends to the meekness and love to which we are to display, but also to the firmness and sometimes "unliked" stances we take in defense of this precious Gospel, against any and all who would distort or pollute this precious truth. Jesus tells us, that the world will hate us because it hated him, because like him, we will convince this world of their error and shed his light on their sins.