Nicolaitan

[Tarheel Baptist]

Smellin Coffee:
Democrat congregants?

An oxymoron! 

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I think it is time to bring up the pastor/priest model for discussion.

In case one is unfamiliar with this model, it goes like this:

Heb 13:7&17 - Those who teach the Bible have the rule over the others in the church.  The laity should follow the teacher's faith and obey him in steps of faith, because the teacher is directing the laity towards God.  The laity should willingly submit to the teacher of the Bible (pastor). 

This teaching is then substantiated by its followers with 1 Peter 5:2 - The pastor should take the oversight of the flock - and 1 Peter 5:5's command for other to submit to the pastor.  Such authority to command people into the faith of God is then believed to be rewarded by God in 1 Peter 5:4

You take great liberties with your interpretation of Hebrews 13.  First, it says nothing about pastors.  Absolutely nothing. 

Second, the verse can be translated rulers (NKJV) or leaders (NIV).  Since Jesus clearly prohibited the idea of ruling over one another, the latter is the only interpretation that does not contradict the words of our Lord.

Third, it doesn't say "your leaders who speak [note the present tense here] the word of God to you every Sunday for an hour".  It doesn't even identify them as teachers. 

7 Remember your leaders, who spoke [note the past tense here] the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.

Since it is past tense, these are most likely the leaders who planted the church and probably keep tabs on it.  In fact, that's pretty much what verse 17 says:

17 Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account.

I already quoted 1 Peter 5:2, "nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock".  That is not a description of anyone ruling over the laity. 

1 Peter 5:5 Doesn't even say anything about a pastor.  What is says is, "Likewise you younger people, submit yourselves to your elders. Yes, all of you be submissive to one another"

"Elders" is plural, and "be submissive to one another" cannot be interpreted as a call for an elder (or pastor) to rule over anyone. 

 

[Citadel of Truth]

"Elders" is plural, and "be submissive to one another" cannot be interpreted as a call for an elder (or pastor) to rule over anyone.

Who or what are the elders ruling over, then?

"Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine." I Timothy 5:17

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

"Elders" is plural, and "be submissive to one another" cannot be interpreted as a call for an elder (or pastor) to rule over anyone.

Who or what are the elders ruling over, then?

"Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine." I Timothy 5:17

Again, if you interpret it to mean ruling over people, you contradict the words of our Lord.  NIV has the better translation here:

17 The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honor, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.

Note also that it is not a given that those who direct the affairs of the church also preach and teach. It say especially those elders who (also) preach and teach. 

 

[Bob H]

To commit the etymological fallacy, or root fallacy, is to "insist" that the meaning of a word is neccessarily contained in its root(s).

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

"Elders" is plural, and "be submissive to one another" cannot be interpreted as a call for an elder (or pastor) to rule over anyone.

Who or what are the elders ruling over, then?

"Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine." I Timothy 5:17

You can't site scripture to the kitchen table crowd...to them Scripture doesn't say what it means and doesn't mean what it says. They use the contortion and double jointed method of hermeneutics.

 

[rsc2a]

"Elders" is plural, and "be submissive to one another" cannot be interpreted as a call for an elder (or pastor) to rule over anyone.

Who or what are the elders ruling over, then?

"Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine." I Timothy 5:17

You can't site scripture to the kitchen table crowd...to them Scripture doesn't say what it means and doesn't mean what it says. They use the contortion and double jointed method of hermeneutics.

Interesting.  So when it says to be baptized for the remission of sins,  you teach people to be baptized for the remission of sins?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

"Elders" is plural, and "be submissive to one another" cannot be interpreted as a call for an elder (or pastor) to rule over anyone.

Who or what are the elders ruling over, then?

"Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine." I Timothy 5:17

You can't site scripture to the kitchen table crowd...to them Scripture doesn't say what it means and doesn't mean what it says. They use the contortion and double jointed method of hermeneutics.

Citing alternate translations and pointing out how scripture cannot contradict scripture is not contortion or a double-jointed method.  But you wouldn't know much about hermeneutics, would you? 

 

[bgwilkinson]

Many pastors it would seem, do not want to be accountable to the assembly of believer priests.

I have never, ever met a pastor who was truly open to being held accountable for his teaching to the assembly of believer priests. 

And they've got the perfect model for remaining unaccountable.  They get up.  They speak for an hour.  And if the laity wants to say anything, they can tell him in private where it can safely be ignored. 

They appear to be bosses and not shepherds.

Popish pastors.

Exactly.  And they consider themselves teachers with exclusive rights on scripture interpretation.  Now, where does the Bible define a pastor that way?

That is an excellent question.

I have not found and do not know of any place in Scripture that answers that question.

Of course it would have to be interpreted in context not twisted to mean something even God didn't know.

Again, I ask...what about YOUR PASTOR?
Where does HE fit into this so called abuse or non-abuse of the office?

We know where mater stands and what he practices.....how about you, your church, your practice?

I will speak about my current pastor.

When we were without a pastor you might say we came to ourselves, we finally started to take the responsibility of believer priests and as bereans to seek a pastor unlike the last two pastor disasters we had just  endured. And for whose sins we are still paying the price. We may apologize as a congregation eventually, but it's hard to admit one had been wrong so many years, however we are moving toward it.

Part of the process of vetting possible pastor candidates was to do a background search on each man as the names were presented. This consisted in looking for information that would reflect badly on the candidate.

We wanted to find all the bad stuff out there so there would be no surprises.

Paul told Timothy and Titus to choose men that were held in high regard, blameless, a man who is so before men, and has not been guilty of any notorious and flagitious crime; and particularly, is not chargeable with the vices.

We did not find many men who could be termed blameless. Sure is a lot out there when vetting time comes.

Nowhere were we told to look for a great soul winner, nope not mentioned.

A great orator, no again, or great preacher-motivator, no and again no.

We were looking for a man 180 degrees out of phase with the last two, more like Bro. Miller.

We were told to look at his family. In Timothy we have the principle presented that if you don't know how to make your family turn out right you can not have the church turn out right.

We sure see this principle in Bro. Hyles.

So we next looked at their kids, boy did that blow a lot of them out of the water. Google is your friend.

We came up with one name left. At that point we started listening to his past sermons.

In one of them he talked about how he had been wrong and thanked a church member for pointing out the mistake. He said I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again. If you think I've gotten something wrong point it out to me. I couldn't believe I had heard that. I listened again, same thing. I listened to several sermons and they were all like that, just loaded with scripture presented in context and not twisted to support his philosophy. The philosophy came right out of the Bible and not from some novel interpretation.

I almost fell off my chair when I found one on Baptist distinctives. Our last two pastors would never have reveled this information to the flock, they would have lost much of their power.

It was evident that this one was way different from the last two.

One more thing. When we were pastor-less we rewrote our corporate by-laws to have the board of directors, who are the deacons, give advise and consent to the pastor while at the same time giving him latitude to do his job. Bro. Hyles would never have been our pastor under these by-laws. He would have declined or resigned and been out the door.

Will this prevent a pastor from ceasing control of everything as in the past? No but if the board does its job and its due diligence it will keep the organization in line and on the up and up.

It been almost two years, as for me and my house we are very pleased.

He is the opposite of a popish pastor.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I will speak about my current pastor.

When we were without a pastor you might say we came to ourselves, we finally started to take the responsibility of believer priests and as bereans to seek a pastor unlike the last two pastor disasters we had just  endured. And for whose sins we are still paying the price. We may apologize as a congregation eventually, but it's hard to admit one had been wrong so many years, however we are moving toward it.

Part of the process of vetting possible pastor candidates was to do a background search on each man as the names were presented. This consisted in looking for information that would reflect badly on the candidate.

We wanted to find all the bad stuff out there so there would be no surprises.

Paul told Timothy and Titus to choose men that were held in high regard, blameless, a man who is so before men, and has not been guilty of any notorious and flagitious crime; and particularly, is not chargeable with the vices.

We did not find many men who could be termed blameless. Sure is a lot out there when vetting time comes.

Nowhere were we told to look for a great soul winner, nope not mentioned.

A great orator, no again, or great preacher-motivator, no and again no.

We were looking for a man 180 degrees out of phase with the last two, more like Bro. Miller.

We were told to look at his family. In Timothy we have the principle presented that if you don't know how to make your family turn out right you can not have the church turn out right.

We sure see this principle in Bro. Hyles.

So we next looked at their kids, boy did that blow a lot of them out of the water. Google is your friend.

We came up with one name left. At that point we started listening to his past sermons.

In one of them he talked about how he had been wrong and thanked a church member for pointing out the mistake. He said I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again. If you think I've gotten something wrong point it out to me. I couldn't believe I had heard that. I listened again, same thing. I listened to several sermons and they were all like that, just loaded with scripture presented in context and not twisted to support his philosophy. The philosophy came right out of the Bible and not from some novel interpretation.

I almost fell off my chair when I found one on Baptist distinctives. Our last two pastors would never have reveled this information to the flock, they would have lost much of their power.

It was evident that this one was way different from the last two.

One more thing. When we were pastor-less we rewrote our corporate by-laws to have the board of directors, who are the deacons, give advise and consent to the pastor while at the same time giving him latitude to do his job. Bro. Hyles would never have been our pastor under these by-laws. He would have declined or resigned and been out the door.

Will this prevent a pastor from ceasing control of everything as in the past? No but if the board does its job and its due diligence it will keep the organization in line and on the up and up.

It been almost two years, as for me and my house we are very pleased.

He is the opposite of a popish pastor.

Wow.  I've never met a pastor like that. Not even close.  Congratulations! 

 

[bgwilkinson]

Usually the closer you get to a pastor the worse he looks, for that reason I've tried to keep my distanced from the last two. I didn't want to know too much.

I hope and pray this one continues as he has to this point.

He did come out blameless during the vetting process.

As someone said he's the real deal.

IMHO, of course.

 

[prophet]

"Elders" is plural, and "be submissive to one another" cannot be interpreted as a call for an elder (or pastor) to rule over anyone.

Who or what are the elders ruling over, then?

"Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine." I Timothy 5:17

I Tim 5:17 is
Written to one man?
Who is at one church, Ephesus?
Being told how to treat elders (pl)?
In that church?

Is this consistent with the multiple bishops at Philippi?

Or the presbytery that laid hands on Tim?

Or, the fact that God sends at least 2 witnesses to represent Him, consistently, from the Law to Revelation's magic martyrs?

 

[bgwilkinson]

Recently he changed the grand popish entrance though the center doors and now comes on stage from the side in a more humble entrance.

There are other things that he has done that indicate his separation from popish ways.

During the tenure of the last two pastors no one would have dared to sit in his chair when he was away.
Now the fill in speaker sits there. That would have been unthinkable in the past. That was popish in the past.

In the Catholic church they call that the cathedra or chair or bishop's throne.

There is no longer the confessional line at his door after the services as in Bro. Hyles time.

Oh did I say confessional?

Ok I always thought that that receiving line at the pastors door was just Baptist confession used for the Sacrament of Penance
The people in that line confessed their sins and evil deeds to the pastor priest.

He stays in the grand lobby greeting anyone who wants to meet him until the last person.

This is 180 degrees out of phase with the last two Baptist Popes.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

Didnt JS stand in the auditorium until all had greeted hom who wanted to?

 

[bgwilkinson]

Didnt JS stand in the auditorium until all had greeted hom who wanted to?

He allocated a set time for a receiving line that was set up by his protection teem. Then he exited out the center door to his office.

 

[subllibrm]

I have never, ever met a pastor who was truly open to being held accountable for his teaching to the assembly of believer priests.

Well there is no arguing against evidence like that. Mater hasn't seen it so it doesn't exist.

 

[Mathew Ward]

I think it is time to bring up the pastor/priest model for discussion.

In case one is unfamiliar with this model, it goes like this:

Heb 13:7&17 - Those who teach the Bible have the rule over the others in the church.  The laity should follow the teacher's faith and obey him in steps of faith, because the teacher is directing the laity towards God.  The laity should willingly submit to the teacher of the Bible (pastor). 

This teaching is then substantiated by its followers with 1 Peter 5:2 - The pastor should take the oversight of the flock - and 1 Peter 5:5's command for other to submit to the pastor.  Such authority to command people into the faith of God is then believed to be rewarded by God in 1 Peter 5:4

You take great liberties with your interpretation of Hebrews 13.  First, it says nothing about pastors.  Absolutely nothing. 

Second, the verse can be translated rulers (NKJV) or leaders (NIV).  Since Jesus clearly prohibited the idea of ruling over one another, the latter is the only interpretation that does not contradict the words of our Lord.

Third, it doesn't say "your leaders who speak [note the present tense here] the word of God to you every Sunday for an hour".  It doesn't even identify them as teachers. 

7 Remember your leaders, who spoke [note the past tense here] the word of God to you.[/b] Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.

Since it is past tense, these are most likely the leaders who planted the church and probably keep tabs on it.  In fact, that's pretty much what verse 17 says:

17 Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account.

I already quoted 1 Peter 5:2, "nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock".  That is not a description of anyone ruling over the laity. 

1 Peter 5:5 Doesn't even say anything about a pastor.  What is says is, "Likewise you younger people, submit yourselves to your elders. Yes, all of you be submissive to one another"

"Elders" is plural, and "be submissive to one another" cannot be interpreted as a call for an elder (or pastor) to rule over anyone.

How do these people submit to their authority?

 

[subllibrm]

I will speak about my current pastor.

When we were without a pastor you might say we came to ourselves, we finally started to take the responsibility of believer priests and as bereans to seek a pastor unlike the last two pastor disasters we had just  endured. And for whose sins we are still paying the price. We may apologize as a congregation eventually, but it's hard to admit one had been wrong so many years, however we are moving toward it.

Part of the process of vetting possible pastor candidates was to do a background search on each man as the names were presented. This consisted in looking for information that would reflect badly on the candidate.

We wanted to find all the bad stuff out there so there would be no surprises.

Paul told Timothy and Titus to choose men that were held in high regard, blameless, a man who is so before men, and has not been guilty of any notorious and flagitious crime; and particularly, is not chargeable with the vices.

We did not find many men who could be termed blameless. Sure is a lot out there when vetting time comes.

Nowhere were we told to look for a great soul winner, nope not mentioned.

A great orator, no again, or great preacher-motivator, no and again no.

We were looking for a man 180 degrees out of phase with the last two, more like Bro. Miller.

We were told to look at his family. In Timothy we have the principle presented that if you don't know how to make your family turn out right you can not have the church turn out right.

We sure see this principle in Bro. Hyles.

So we next looked at their kids, boy did that blow a lot of them out of the water. Google is your friend.

We came up with one name left. At that point we started listening to his past sermons.

In one of them he talked about how he had been wrong and thanked a church member for pointing out the mistake. He said I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again. If you think I've gotten something wrong point it out to me. I couldn't believe I had heard that. I listened again, same thing. I listened to several sermons and they were all like that, just loaded with scripture presented in context and not twisted to support his philosophy. The philosophy came right out of the Bible and not from some novel interpretation.

I almost fell off my chair when I found one on Baptist distinctives. Our last two pastors would never have reveled this information to the flock, they would have lost much of their power.

It was evident that this one was way different from the last two.

One more thing. When we were pastor-less we rewrote our corporate by-laws to have the board of directors, who are the deacons, give advise and consent to the pastor while at the same time giving him latitude to do his job. Bro. Hyles would never have been our pastor under these by-laws. He would have declined or resigned and been out the door.

Will this prevent a pastor from ceasing control of everything as in the past? No but if the board does its job and its due diligence it will keep the organization in line and on the up and up.

It been almost two years, as for me and my house we are very pleased.

He is the opposite of a popish pastor.

Wow.  I've never met a pastor like that. Not even close.  Congratulations!

You are more than welcome to visit with us. What he describes is what I call normal from my 30+ years with my church family. That covers 5 senior men and 8 or so associate/youth men. Out of all of them I only ran into one who even had a set of "hackles" to "get up". And he was quick to realize when he crossed lines and seek reconciliation.

I am grieved that you did not experience the blessing that comes with an under-shepherd who truly cares for the Lord's sheep above himself.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

How do these people submit to their authority?

Try reading the Bible.  It's a fascinating book, really.  Here's an example for you:

26 What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and to God.

Paul, who helped found the church in Corinth, gave instructions for orderly behavior when they assemble.  I would assume they submitted to his authority on that subject. 

Do you consider the Bible an authority?  Do you submit to this authority?

29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. 30 And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. 31 For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged.

 

[subllibrm]

When our auditorium was built we had platform furniture (short versions of our pews) where the pastor and song leader (choir director) would sit. Once the song service was over the song leader would go sit with his wife. Other than those few minutes those little benches were empty. I don't remember when but a long time ago those benches disappeared and all of our pastors sit in the congregation except for if/when they are speaking.

The first time I saw one of those throne looking things at another baptist church I thought it the oddest thing. Then seeing videos with a big panel of guys sitting on the platform really made me go huh? Not in my world.