"Pastor Is Always Right, Even If Wrong" - Abusive Spiritual Authority Hall of Shame

I'm beginning to catch the flow of our "discussions" here.... no matter what you say you're going to step on some pharoah's pet frog.
 
Sam Ensor said:
I'm beginning to catch the flow of our "discussions" here.... no matter what you say you're going to step on some pharoah's pet frog.
Click to expand...
You are on a public forum called the “Fighting Fundamentalist Forum”. Did you think it was a site where people would agree with everything you typed?

More to the point, the church and her authority was given by God for rebuke, reproof, instruction, etc. Do some pastors overstep their authority at times? Sure do. But to say that any and every appeal to Scripture by congregants is equally valid in weight of authority is a gross oversimplification.
 
ALAYMAN said:
You are on a public forum called the “Fighting Fundamentalist Forum”. Did you think it was a site where people would agree with everything you typed?

More to the point, the church and her authority was given by God for rebuke, reproof, instruction, etc. Do some pastors overstep their authority at times? Sure do. But to say that any and every appeal to Scripture by congregants is equally valid in weight of authority is a gross oversimplification.
Click to expand...
My reply was an attempt at levity. Sorry it was received otherwise. Consider me rebuked.
 
ALAYMAN said:
You are on a public forum called the “Fighting Fundamentalist Forum”. Did you think it was a site where people would agree with everything you typed?

More to the point, the church and her authority was given by God for rebuke, reproof, instruction, etc. Do some pastors overstep their authority at times? Sure do. But to say that any and every appeal to Scripture by congregants is equally valid in weight of authority is a gross oversimplification.
Click to expand...
I’m sure most if not all here would agree to take scripture out of context would be wrong and then in turn try to defend whatever idea does not hold up.

All we are saying is that a pastors authority starts and stops with scripture. Why would anyone argue against this?

That guy youre talking about smoking weed……that’s not what anyone here is talking about. Please give a better example.

But look, if you believe the pastor has every right to demand something of Gods people that God doesn’t require, that’s fine just say so.
 
Bruh said:
I’m sure most if not all here would agree to take scripture out of context would be wrong and then in turn try to defend whatever idea does not hold up.

All we are saying is that a pastors authority starts and stops with scripture. Why would anyone argue against this?
Click to expand...
As usual, you miss the mark in characterizing or understanding the other person’s argument.

Bruh said:
That guy youre talking about smoking weed……that’s not what anyone here is talking about. Please give a better example.
Click to expand...

Our church constitution declares no member shall imbibe booze. What authority and responsibility do you think the pastor has in the event somebody believes (and openly challenges him and the church) that he/she can have a drink recreationally based on their understanding of Scripture?

Bruh said:
But look, if you believe the pastor has every right to demand something of Gods people that God doesn’t require, that’s fine just say so.
Click to expand...

An absolutely ridiculous assertion and not even close to what I am saying.
 
ALAYMAN said:
As usual, you miss the mark in characterizing or understanding the other person’s argument.



Our church constitution declares no member shall imbibe booze. What authority and responsibility do you think the pastor has in the event somebody believes (and openly challenges him and the church) that he/she can have a drink recreationally based on their understanding of Scripture?



An absolutely ridiculous assertion and not even close to what I am saying.
Click to expand...
Well, it looks like your constitution pushes the Bible to the side on this one. That being said, if someone agrees to this, then they agree they see it as you do.

My understanding of scripture when it comes to alcohol is that it doesn’t say dogmatically not to drink but only gives warnings. It really doesn’t say anything good but only negative about alcohol.

Therefore, my response to someone that doesn’t agree with your constitution is that, you don’t have to be a member. I’d also say, show me in scripture where it says something positive.

I’ve often thought that a good sermon would be, if all I knew about alcohol is what the Bible says.
 
Bruh said:
Well, it looks like your constitution pushes the Bible to the side on this one.
Click to expand...

You see what you did there? You made yourself the final authority. You have every right according to your conscience to believe what you will, but you don’t have the right to deny the authority of a body of believers and their covenant as a church, at least not without consequences.
Bruh said:
Therefore, my response to someone that doesn’t agree with your constitution is that, you don’t have to be a member.
Click to expand...

No, we would not say it that way, we’d say you CAN’T be a member in good standing. Would you deny us (and our pastor by extension) that ecclesiastical authority?

Bruh said:
I’ve often thought that a good sermon would be, if all I knew about alcohol is what the Bible says.
Click to expand...

The irony in this discussion is that I don’t believe drinking alcohol, in and of itself is a sin, but abide by the covenant and constitution because I don’t have to exercise my liberty (in that area), so I serve where He has called me and don’t miss a thing.
 
Another balanced view, from an IFB pastor, Charles Dear, Crescentville Baptist Church, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:

"Baptists believe in democratic procedures that permit open discussion of problems and divergent views. This is right and Biblical. Please read Acts 15. Note that this is not a council as is often stated, but a business meeting of the local church in Jerusalem (v.22)....The conduct of the meeting is interesting. Acts 15 for all practical purposes, contains the minutes of that church meeting. The question was freely discussed by many in this big assembly...(and) James, who was obviously the moderator, summarized the discussion and stated the conclusion which had been reached by the "whole church" (vv. 13-22).

"If that sounds strange to you, you might consider whether your church is forfeiting a vital process that maintains the accountability of church leadership to its members. Abandoning the exercise of such accountability will lead our churches further away from our Baptist heritage . . .

"Baptists thrive on openness in sharp contrast to church polities that keep their people in the dark and leaders that operate secretly. We have no time for Baptist 'popes' who rule their ministries with an iron hand and can do no wrong, neither should we countenance heavy-handed Deacon Boards who usurp to themselves the leadership of a pastor and rob the membership of their informed consent. Such Pastor and Deacons have wrought untold damage in many local churches, usually just before they leave the scene of their crime and pass the responsibility to others to recover from the carnage.

"Such high-handed leadership undermines a reasonable extension of the Baptist principle of Individual Soul Liberty. . . . In fairness, not all of the responsibility for this problem falls on church leadership. Too many church members (please don't call them 'laity' in a Baptist church) are also guilty of abdicating their rights to participate in local church decision making."


[Click on "Recent Articles" and then on "Power to the People: Are We Abandoning Congregational Polity?"]
 
ALAYMAN said:
You see what you did there? You made yourself the final authority. You have every right according to your conscience to believe what you will, but you don’t have the right to deny the authority of a body of believers and their covenant as a church, at least not without consequences.


No, we would not say it that way, we’d say you CAN’T be a member in good standing. Would you deny us (and our pastor by extension) that ecclesiastical authority?



The irony in this discussion is that I don’t believe drinking alcohol, in and of itself is a sin, but abide by the covenant and constitution because I don’t have to exercise my liberty (in that area), so I serve where He has called me and don’t miss a thing.
Click to expand...
I did not make myself the final authority. The Bible is the final authority not the church or the pastor.

If a person gives all the authority to a church that takes away from the authority of scripture.

It’s not about liberty but about giving scripture the authority over my life.

I think I know your view about women and pants. That being said, if a church says, you can’t be a member if your wife wears pants. Would the church have the authority to rightfully do this?
 
Last edited:
Bruh said:
I did not make myself the final authority. The Bible is the final authority not the church or the pastor.
Click to expand...
False dichotomy and over-simplification of the issue. The Bible is the ultimate and final authority for your faith and practice. It is not your authority to declare yourself able to dictate to the church/pastor what it will believe and practice.
Bruh said:
If a person gives all the authority to a church that takes away from the authority of scripture.
Click to expand...

Who has suggested the church has “all authority”? Cite examples.
Bruh said:
It’s not about liberty but about giving scripture the authority over my life.

I think I know your view about women and pants. That being said, if a church says, you can’t be a member if your wife wears pants. Would the church have the authority to rightfully do this?
Click to expand...
Asked and answered, when earlier today I said….

“You have every right according to your conscience to believe what you will, but you don’t have the right to deny the authority of a body of believers and their covenant as a church, at least not without consequences.”


So in such a case, I would either comply out of deference to the church on a matter that is not of fundamental importance (in concert with prudent mutual consideration to my wife’s beliefs), or if I felt the examples of misapplication of Scripture was intolerably frequent then I would walk with my feet (if I thought dialogue with leadership would be unproductive).
 
illinoisguy said:
Another balanced view, from an IFB pastor, Charles Dear, Crescentville Baptist Church, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:

"Baptists believe in democratic procedures that permit open discussion of problems and divergent views. …
Click to expand...
To what extent should allowances of said discussions be made? What if the congregant wanted to introduce and advocate for the notion of open theism, infant baptism (baptismal regeneration), or modalism?
 
ALAYMAN said:
False dichotomy and over-simplification of the issue. The Bible is the ultimate and final authority for your faith and practice. It is not your authority to declare yourself able to dictate to the church/pastor what it will believe and practice.


Who has suggested the church has “all authority”? Cite examples.

Asked and answered, when earlier today I said….

“You have every right according to your conscience to believe what you will, but you don’t have the right to deny the authority of a body of believers and their covenant as a church, at least not without consequences.”


So in such a case, I would either comply out of deference to the church on a matter that is not of fundamental importance (in concert with prudent mutual consideration to my wife’s beliefs), or if I felt the examples of misapplication of Scripture was intolerably frequent then I would walk with my feet (if I thought dialogue with leadership would be unproductive).
Click to expand...
Your last paragraph says you and I agree. I’m saying the same thing.
 
ALAYMAN said:
To what extent should allowances of said discussions be made? What if the congregant wanted to introduce and advocate for the notion of open theism, infant baptism (baptismal regeneration), or modalism?
Click to expand...
I suppose the answer to this may yes, if the controversy cannot be handled and quelled in private discussions with that congregant. In the original article by Pastor Charles Dear, he used the example of the Acts 15 business meeting, at which the rather dangerous "notion" that "except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved," a teaching that resulted in "no small dissension and disputation," was discussed. The Jerusalem church did make an "allowance" for that discussion, in which that false teaching was handled openly within the congregation, and was decisively refuted and rejected.

The article you posted yesterday on church authority is indeed "good reading." I take anything from 9 Marks with a grain of salt, because some "9 Marx" churches have a reputation for exercising church discipline and control over the membership in an unnecessarily high-handed manner. But this particular article by Pastor Greg Gilbert is balanced and scriptural, so everyone should read it.

It is understood that some churches carry out church discipline in an unfair, unscriptural manner. Pastor Gilbert understands this and makes allowance for the fact that this may happen, and under Point 5 he states that churches are free to admit to their membership persons who were improperly disciplined from another church. I agree with that. Some churches take the position that they will not admit a member unfairly placed under discipline by another church under any circumstances, and they have "the right to be wrong." However, any church that is willing to admit an excommunicated member, after examination of the circumstances, has the right to do so.

Here is what Landmark Baptist theologian J.M. Pendleton said about this situation in his 1882 book, "Distinctive Principles of Baptists:" "If unjustly excluded, and the church does not, when the injustice is shown, annul its action, the excluded member may apply for admission into a sister-church, which may, in the exercise of its independence, receive him without encroaching on the independence of the excluding church. The opposite view would imply that the excluding church has a monopoly of independence, which is absurd."

There are some who would like church discipline to be abandoned completely, since it is sometimes misused and turned into a "Kangaroo Court." That is like saying that since the police unquestionably carry out false arrests and enforcement actions on some occasions, then let's "Defund the Police." We have checks and balances to correct such miscarriages of justice by the police, and likewise in our churches we have checks and balances to rectify miscarriages of justice in the exercise of church discipline, as Pastor Gilbert has pointed out.
 
illinoisguy said:
I suppose the answer to this may yes, if the controversy cannot be handled and quelled in private discussions with that congregant. In the original article by Pastor Charles Dear, he used the example of the Acts 15 business meeting, at which the rather dangerous "notion" that "except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved," a teaching that resulted in "no small dissension and disputation," was discussed. The Jerusalem church did make an "allowance" for that discussion, in which that false teaching was handled openly within the congregation, and was decisively refuted and rejected.

The article you posted yesterday on church authority is indeed "good reading." I take anything from 9 Marks with a grain of salt, because some "9 Marx" churches have a reputation for exercising church discipline and control over the membership in an unnecessarily high-handed manner. But this particular article by Pastor Greg Gilbert is balanced and scriptural, so everyone should read it.

It is understood that some churches carry out church discipline in an unfair, unscriptural manner. Pastor Gilbert understands this and makes allowance for the fact that this may happen, and under Point 5 he states that churches are free to admit to their membership persons who were improperly disciplined from another church. I agree with that. Some churches take the position that they will not admit a member unfairly placed under discipline by another church under any circumstances, and they have "the right to be wrong." However, any church that is willing to admit an excommunicated member, after examination of the circumstances, has the right to do so.

Here is what Landmark Baptist theologian J.M. Pendleton said about this situation in his 1882 book, "Distinctive Principles of Baptists:" "If unjustly excluded, and the church does not, when the injustice is shown, annul its action, the excluded member may apply for admission into a sister-church, which may, in the exercise of its independence, receive him without encroaching on the independence of the excluding church. The opposite view would imply that the excluding church has a monopoly of independence, which is absurd."

There are some who would like church discipline to be abandoned completely, since it is sometimes misused and turned into a "Kangaroo Court." That is like saying that since the police unquestionably carry out false arrests and enforcement actions on some occasions, then let's "Defund the Police." We have checks and balances to correct such miscarriages of justice by the police, and likewise in our churches we have checks and balances to rectify miscarriages of justice in the exercise of church discipline, as Pastor Gilbert has pointed out.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the detailed answer, and wonder what other FFF members think. Short answer, I see the value in open discussion and transparency for the benefit of the body, particularly those young in the faith. However, I think an expectation of any positive impact would likely be outweighed by the dangers of seduction into error for the new Christian if the “discussion” was not over adiaphora, but rather rank heresy like the ones I mentioned. To give a platform to a known heretic in the assembly seems quite unwise, given Paul’s admonition (Titus 3:10-11).
 
Seems that they revoked voting rights in order to combat the "Woke Agenda" but this speaks of far greater problems that they have allowed to go on for far too long! I would venture to say that they were quite "liberal" in their membership requirements as well as being lax in their church discipline! If this group this is suing got their way, chances are you would soon likely see "Rainbow" and "Black Lives Matter" flags flying about their multiple campuses throughout the Houston area. I do not doubt their concern but it seems as if they are taking an ethically questionable approach to deal with an issue that would've been preventable had they taken the scriptures seriously from the start! Perhaps Second Baptist is the "Model SBC Church" showing everyone what not to do?

I have listened to Ed Young's "Winning Walk" program at times on the local radio station and it seems that he was a decent enough preacher mainly sticking to the word of God but of course I thought he was an "unregenerate devil" back in my hard-core IFB days!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top