Nicolaitan

[Mathew Ward]

There is a difference between submitting to the authority of the Bible and submitting to another persons interpretation of the Bible.

Oh, I see.  It's all a matter of interpretation.  So when you read:

"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."

You interpret that to mean "Only the one preacher should speak, and the others listen."

As for me, I'm going to interpret this part like the plain language it is: 

"what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command. 38 But if anyone ignores this, they will themselves be ignored."

And since you're ignoring these plain instructions in favor of your "interpretation", you will be ignored.  By me, at least.

So when you said if I answered your question first you would answer mine, that wasn't quite forth coming?

Sure.  We submit to the authority of scripture. 

Sauce for the goose.

So you were not truthful about answering my questions and in ignoring me. You add to that, that you not following the Scriptures of your favorite passage and you are on a roll.

 

[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.

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

You want to compare apples and tractor trailers!

One of the basic principles of hermeneutics:
WHEN THE PLAIN SENSE OF SCRIPTURE MAKES COMMON SENSE, SEEK NO OTHER SENSE; THEREFORE, TAKE EVERY WORD AT ITS PRIMARY, ORDINARY, USUAL, LITERAL MEANING.
UNLESS THE FACTS OF THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT, STUDIED IN THE LIGHT OF RELATED PASSAGES AND AXIOMATIC, FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS INDICATE CLEARLY OTHERWISE.

In other words, you agree that you believe the "common sense", "literal" verse that rsc2a posted that one must be baptized for the remission of sins. Got it.

No you don't get it Dan.
You and r2 are so brilliant you missed the second paragraph. Or don't understand two syllable words. Or in r2's case his superior intellect overshadows centuries of church fathers and scholars.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

Here is my question:

Among those who practice church outside of the home, do you believe the pastor/priest model?  Will the pastor report to God what the people did and God will reward them accordingly, or will the pastor be held accountable for his actions in leading the people?  Do the people need to obey, in faith, the command of the pastor?  Or, is the pastor to set an example of faith for others to witness?

I haven't seen anyone attempt to answer this yet, and it was really the intent of the OP.  I understand that many on this forum, or who browse this forum have been hurt by abusive pastors (A mog, as we call them here).  I still read that we are to submit ourselves and that some have the rule over you.  I still read that leaders are to be humble and teach in conjunction with others.  There seems to be a great divide among Conservative Baptists, even among the IFB, about the pastor/priest model.  Where do you draw the line on submission and obedience to separate it from manipulation and control?

 

[Ransom]

I haven't seen anyone attempt to answer this yet, and it was really the intent of the OP.

*shrug* So far as I can tell, you made up the term "pastor/priest model." It's rather difficult to comment on something that didn't exist until you invented it a few posts ago.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

I haven't seen anyone attempt to answer this yet, and it was really the intent of the OP.

*shrug* So far as I can tell, you made up the term "pastor/priest model." It's rather difficult to comment on something that didn't exist until you invented it a few posts ago.

Really?  Maybe I coined the term!  Is there another name for it?  Many of us who have grown up in the IFB movement are quite familiar with this.  Here on the forum, we commonly call the follower of this model a "mog."  The mog gets his supposed authority from Hebrews 13.  Teh Catholic church has a long history of abusing the authority of the bishop / elder, and so has the IFB.  Yet, we do see the instruction in Scripture to obey them.  Where do you draw the line?

 

[bgwilkinson]

Here is my question:

Among those who practice church outside of the home, do you believe the pastor/priest model?  Will the pastor report to God what the people did and God will reward them accordingly, or will the pastor be held accountable for his actions in leading the people?  Do the people need to obey, in faith, the command of the pastor?  Or, is the pastor to set an example of faith for others to witness?

I haven't seen anyone attempt to answer this yet, and it was really the intent of the OP.  I understand that many on this forum, or who browse this forum have been hurt by abusive pastors (A mog, as we call them here).  I still read that we are to submit ourselves and that some have the rule over you.  I still read that leaders are to be humble and teach in conjunction with others.  There seems to be a great divide among Conservative Baptists, even among the IFB, about the pastor/priest model.  Where do you draw the line on submission and obedience to separate it from manipulation and control?

I could not formulate an answer seeing I am a convinced Baptist holding that all believers are priests of God, whether they are pastors, deacons, nursery workers, men or women.

God made all saved people priests, men make other men pastors.

 

[Ransom]

Really?  Maybe I coined the term!  Is there another name for it?

Maybe you did. Google "the pastor/priest model," and you get two hits. One of them is this thread. So as far as I can tell, the idea has popped out of thin air in the last week or so.

Where do you draw the line?

I draw the line at my own accountability before God to be faithful in those things that he has given me stewardship over, such as my home, my work, and my money.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

"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?

You want to compare apples and tractor trailers!

One of the basic principles of hermeneutics:
WHEN THE PLAIN SENSE OF SCRIPTURE MAKES COMMON SENSE, SEEK NO OTHER SENSE; THEREFORE, TAKE EVERY WORD AT ITS PRIMARY, ORDINARY, USUAL, LITERAL MEANING.
UNLESS THE FACTS OF THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT, STUDIED IN THE LIGHT OF RELATED PASSAGES AND AXIOMATIC, FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS INDICATE CLEARLY OTHERWISE.

In other words, you agree that you believe the "common sense", "literal" verse that rsc2a posted that one must be baptized for the remission of sins. Got it.

No you don't get it Dan.
You and r2 are so brilliant you missed the second paragraph. Or don't understand two syllable words. Or in r2's case his superior intellect overshadows centuries of church fathers and scholars.

The second paragraph:

UNLESS THE FACTS OF THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT, STUDIED IN THE LIGHT OF RELATED PASSAGES AND AXIOMATIC, FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS INDICATE CLEARLY OTHERWISE.

So what you are admitting is that Scripture actually contradicts itself so you have to believe that it cannot in an effort to begin your hermeneutic method. When Peter preached to "Repent and be baptized for the remission of sin" and it contradicts your view of Paul's "gift of God" by grace through faith ALONE, they cannot be harmonized without textual gymnastics.

Comparing Scripture with Scripture can do one of two things: harmonize with additional detail or contradict one another. When we try to harmonize the contradiction based on the premise the Bible cannot be contradictory, how is that reliable justification of what is true? IOW, the Bible is on trial and preachers such as yourself have taken to the defense as a defense lawyer would: prove innocence (or questionable doubt of the prosecution) regardless of the truth.

This has nothing at all to do with my intellect which is quite lacking, I must admit. What it has to do is with justice and what is right. And you think I am comparing myself with Christian scholars in ages past? There are just as many Jewish scholars, Muslim scholars, etc who are just as intellectual as the church fathers and have come to different conclusions.

Rather than taking all evidences and processing them before creating a conclusion, hermeneutic principles create the conclusion first and find "backers" throughout history and keep the spin. Otherwise, they stand to lose their mini empires, circles of influence and perhaps even their livelihoods in the process.

Do I have the answers? HECK NO! But I am beginning to realize, neither does anyone else, even those who think they do.

 

[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.

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

You want to compare apples and tractor trailers!

One of the basic principles of hermeneutics:
WHEN THE PLAIN SENSE OF SCRIPTURE MAKES COMMON SENSE, SEEK NO OTHER SENSE; THEREFORE, TAKE EVERY WORD AT ITS PRIMARY, ORDINARY, USUAL, LITERAL MEANING.
UNLESS THE FACTS OF THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT, STUDIED IN THE LIGHT OF RELATED PASSAGES AND AXIOMATIC, FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS INDICATE CLEARLY OTHERWISE.

In other words, you agree that you believe the "common sense", "literal" verse that rsc2a posted that one must be baptized for the remission of sins. Got it.

No you don't get it Dan.
You and r2 are so brilliant you missed the second paragraph. Or don't understand two syllable words. Or in r2's case his superior intellect overshadows centuries of church fathers and scholars.

The second paragraph:

UNLESS THE FACTS OF THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT, STUDIED IN THE LIGHT OF RELATED PASSAGES AND AXIOMATIC, FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS INDICATE CLEARLY OTHERWISE.

So what you are admitting is that Scripture actually contradicts itself so you have to believe that it cannot in an effort to begin your hermeneutic method. When Peter preached to "Repent and be baptized for the remission of sin" and it contradicts your view of Paul's "gift of God" by grace through faith ALONE, they cannot be harmonized without textual gymnastics.

Comparing Scripture with Scripture can do one of two things: harmonize with additional detail or contradict one another. When we try to harmonize the contradiction based on the premise the Bible cannot be contradictory, how is that reliable justification of what is true? IOW, the Bible is on trial and preachers such as yourself have taken to the defense as a defense lawyer would: prove innocence (or questionable doubt of the prosecution) regardless of the truth.

This has nothing at all to do with my intellect which is quite lacking, I must admit. What it has to do is with justice and what is right. And you think I am comparing myself with Christian scholars in ages past? There are just as many Jewish scholars, Muslim scholars, etc who are just as intellectual as the church fathers and have come to different conclusions.

Rather than taking all evidences and processing them before creating a conclusion, hermeneutic principles create the conclusion first and find "backers" throughout history and keep the spin. Otherwise, they stand to lose their mini empires, circles of influence and perhaps even their livelihoods in the process.

Do I have the answers? HECK NO! But I am beginning to realize, neither does anyone else, even those who think they do.

I would never, ever accuse you of having the answers. 
And, fortunately for you, understanding hermeneutics isn't necessary for someone who simply declares large portions of scripture null and void!

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I would never, ever accuse you of having the answers. 

I'm totally cool with that but in fairness, don't accuse me of me believing I do.

And, fortunately for you, understanding hermeneutics isn't necessary for someone who simply declares large portions of scripture null and void!

Then hermeneutic method is flawed if it starts off with the end and works backwards. It simply becomes a tool that AFTER a conclusion has been drawn, contort texts into fitting that conclusion. This goes for those of other denominations and religions, not just Evangelicalism. Hence, it starts off on a dishonest quest and does not allow for a different conclusion regardless of how facts are rightly or wrongly perceived.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Here is my question:

Among those who practice church outside of the home, do you believe the pastor/priest model?  Will the pastor report to God what the people did and God will reward them accordingly, or will the pastor be held accountable for his actions in leading the people?  Do the people need to obey, in faith, the command of the pastor?  Or, is the pastor to set an example of faith for others to witness?

I haven't seen anyone attempt to answer this yet, and it was really the intent of the OP.  I understand that many on this forum, or who browse this forum have been hurt by abusive pastors (A mog, as we call them here).  I still read that we are to submit ourselves and that some have the rule over you.  I still read that leaders are to be humble and teach in conjunction with others.  There seems to be a great divide among Conservative Baptists, even among the IFB, about the pastor/priest model.  Where do you draw the line on submission and obedience to separate it from manipulation and control?

Your asking a question fraught with landmines, or perhaps another way of saying it is that your question is pretty vague or generalized, and you asked it on the FFF where multiple models of polity and multiple levels of those hurt in abusive situations will dictate the responses.

Here is my question:

Among those who practice church outside of the home, do you believe the pastor/priest model?  Will the pastor report to God what the people did and God will reward them accordingly, or will the pastor be held accountable for his actions in leading the people?  Do the people need to obey, in faith, the command of the pastor?  Or, is the pastor to set an example of faith for others to witness?

So, the pastor is a priest, (assuming he is saved) because he became a priest at salvation just like all the rest of the saved members of the church. What you might have been trying to say was pastor/high priest. The pastor is not the high priest. He is the pastor/bishop/elder.

So, let me answer the question(s) as a pastor. I will not report to God for what the people did, I will report for what I taught, exhorted and warned them about. They will report for what they did.

The pastor will be held accountable for what he taught, exhorted and warned about as well as how he led.

The people do not need to obey the command of the pastor, they need to obey the command of scripture. They do need to follow his leadership as long as his leadership does not contradict scripture, they are in fact responsible to make sure his leadership does not contradict scripture.

Yes, he is supposed to set an example of faith for others to follow in all areas. He is not held to a perfect standard, but he is held to a higher standard.

That's my answer.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

The people do not need to obey the command of the pastor, they need to obey the command of scripture. They do need to follow his leadership as long as his leadership does not contradict scripture...

This idea creates "yes men". For example, a famous (now imprisoned) pastor wore Stacy Adams shoes. Certainly not against Scripture to wear them but suddenly, church men began to wear them because their pastor did. Now when he slept with an under-aged girl, well...

It is dangerous to follow anyone's "spiritual" leadership. Just read and try to obey the recorded teachings of Jesus and let everything else be of mundane significance.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I would never, ever accuse you of having the answers. 

I'm totally cool with that but in fairness, don't accuse me of me believing I do.

And, fortunately for you, understanding hermeneutics isn't necessary for someone who simply declares large portions of scripture null and void!

Then hermeneutic method is flawed if it starts off with the end and works backwards. It simply becomes a tool that AFTER a conclusion has been drawn, contort texts into fitting that conclusion. This goes for those of other denominations and religions, not just Evangelicalism. Hence, it starts off on a dishonest quest and does not allow for a different conclusion regardless of how facts are rightly or wrongly perceived.

So noted, Dan doesn't believe he has the answers....but he does believe he has discovered truth about Paul and Scripture and the motive behind hermeneutic principles that has escaped or deceived the church and those gullible Christians for centuries! 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

So noted, Dan doesn't believe he has the answers....but he does believe he has discovered truth about Paul and Scripture and the motive behind hermeneutic principles that has escaped or deceived the church and those gullible Christians for centuries! 

And I believe there is a chance I might be wrong. Are you willing to make such a concession? 

There were serious doubts about Paul well before the canon was assembled, from the Corinthian church, to the church at Ephesus to the Ebionites. So if those dissenters were correct, it would make sense the canon as we know it has been flawed from the beginning before hermeneutic principles to defend it were even considered.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

So noted, Dan doesn't believe he has the answers....but he does believe he has discovered truth about Paul and Scripture and the motive behind hermeneutic principles that has escaped or deceived the church and those gullible Christians for centuries! 

And I believe there is a chance I might be wrong. Are you willing to make such a concession? 

There were serious doubts about Paul well before the canon was assembled, from the Corinthian church, to the church at Ephesus to the Ebionites. So if those dissenters were correct, it would make sense the canon as we know it has been flawed from the beginning before hermeneutic principles to defend it were even considered.

YES! I absolutely believe you are wrong. 
My basic position is not 'my position', but  that of historic, orthodox Christianity!

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

The people do not need to obey the command of the pastor, they need to obey the command of scripture. They do need to follow his leadership as long as his leadership does not contradict scripture...

This idea creates "yes men". For example, a famous (now imprisoned) pastor wore Stacy Adams shoes. Certainly not against Scripture to wear them but suddenly, church men began to wear them because their pastor did. Now when he slept with an under-aged girl, well...

It is dangerous to follow anyone's "spiritual" leadership. Just read and try to obey the recorded teachings of Jesus and let everything else be of mundane significance.

1 Timothy 4:12  Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

Hebrews 13:7  Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

Now, Smellin, I already know your a "words of Jesus only" follower, but I posted it anyway. I disagree with the "words of Jesus only"

 

[Smellin Coffee]

My basic position is not 'my position', but  that of historic, orthodox Christianity!

And there it is: an admission to adopting a traditional position instead of coming to your own conclusions.

Who says that Evangelicals are nothing like the Pharisees?

Carry on!

 

[Binaca Chugger]

Here is my question:

Among those who practice church outside of the home, do you believe the pastor/priest model?  Will the pastor report to God what the people did and God will reward them accordingly, or will the pastor be held accountable for his actions in leading the people?  Do the people need to obey, in faith, the command of the pastor?  Or, is the pastor to set an example of faith for others to witness?

I haven't seen anyone attempt to answer this yet, and it was really the intent of the OP.  I understand that many on this forum, or who browse this forum have been hurt by abusive pastors (A mog, as we call them here).  I still read that we are to submit ourselves and that some have the rule over you.  I still read that leaders are to be humble and teach in conjunction with others.  There seems to be a great divide among Conservative Baptists, even among the IFB, about the pastor/priest model.  Where do you draw the line on submission and obedience to separate it from manipulation and control?

Your asking a question fraught with landmines, or perhaps another way of saying it is that your question is pretty vague or generalized, and you asked it on the FFF where multiple models of polity and multiple levels of those hurt in abusive situations will dictate the responses.

Here is my question:

Among those who practice church outside of the home, do you believe the pastor/priest model?  Will the pastor report to God what the people did and God will reward them accordingly, or will the pastor be held accountable for his actions in leading the people?  Do the people need to obey, in faith, the command of the pastor?  Or, is the pastor to set an example of faith for others to witness?

So, the pastor is a priest, (assuming he is saved) because he became a priest at salvation just like all the rest of the saved members of the church. What you might have been trying to say was pastor/high priest. The pastor is not the high priest. He is the pastor/bishop/elder.

So, let me answer the question(s) as a pastor. I will not report to God for what the people did, I will report for what I taught, exhorted and warned them about. They will report for what they did.

The pastor will be held accountable for what he taught, exhorted and warned about as well as how he led.

The people do not need to obey the command of the pastor, they need to obey the command of scripture. They do need to follow his leadership as long as his leadership does not contradict scripture, they are in fact responsible to make sure his leadership does not contradict scripture.

Yes, he is supposed to set an example of faith for others to follow in all areas. He is not held to a perfect standard, but he is held to a higher standard.

That's my answer.

This is what I see as the traditional teaching of Heb 13.  We should subject ourselves to being admonished from the Scripture, so long as we examine the Scripture and ourselves to make sure it is an accurate teaching and a real deficit within ourselves.  Once we recognize the truth of the pastor's admonishment to us, we should adjust ourselves.  The pastor will give account for his handling of the sheep and the sheep will give account for their willingness to yield to the Holy Spirit.

As long as the pastor is humble, this works quite well.  Once pride enters in to the pastor, abuse begins to take place.  I have heard some outlandish remarks and demands from pastors which are followed by: "You have to do this because I have faith that it will work out well for you and you need to follow my faith.  If you don't, I will have to report to God that you would not heed His Word and that report will not be good for you."  From there, the mog goes into a tirade of all the things that might happen to one who fails to heed God's warning - including impending death.

What safeguards can be implemented to prevent the move from pastor to mog?  If one moves to a new area for work, how can he determine if a pastor is a pastor or a mog?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

My basic position is not 'my position', but  that of historic, orthodox Christianity!

And there it is: an admission to adopting a traditional position instead of coming to your own conclusions.

Who says that Evangelicals are nothing like the Pharisees?

Carry on!

The irony here is rich, Dan.

According to you:
I'm admitting that I'm either too dumb or too lazy to research in order to form my belief system.
And, I"M a Pharisee?!

Oh! The irony! 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

The people do not need to obey the command of the pastor, they need to obey the command of scripture. They do need to follow his leadership as long as his leadership does not contradict scripture...

This idea creates "yes men". For example, a famous (now imprisoned) pastor wore Stacy Adams shoes. Certainly not against Scripture to wear them but suddenly, church men began to wear them because their pastor did. Now when he slept with an under-aged girl, well...

It is dangerous to follow anyone's "spiritual" leadership. Just read and try to obey the recorded teachings of Jesus and let everything else be of mundane significance.

1 Timothy 4:12  Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

Hebrews 13:7  Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

Now, Smellin, I already know your a "words of Jesus only" follower, but I posted it anyway. I disagree with the "words of Jesus only"

I understand but when Jesus said to call only Him as Rabbi and to follow only Him, that kinda puts Paul's (or anyone else's) words on the back-burner.

Now back to the original point: should a church member ask his pastor to approve of the person he should marry, ask his permission as to when to have children, ask him to walk through a house for their approval to buy, ask what jobs he/she should apply for? Should the pastor be telling people to vote as he would? Should he be telling people to use the same version of the Bible as he does? Should they follow him in these "non-biblical" (notice I didn't say anti-biblical) issues?