On preaching and the hearer's responsibilities.

[ALAYMAN]

There are those who assemble in a house church where there is a pastor....

But the truth of the matter is God uses and places people in our lives who are authorites (influence) to us. Spiritually speaking their job is to help us get connected to God. The less prideful these folks are the quicker they get us connected with Christ and not to depend on them. They are not God yet God has placed them in a position to help others in their relationship with him. Many times when we are young and immature we defer to their position on something. As we mature and are connected to Christ we form our own positions. Like the different assembly positions above.

My guess would be all of us have had people in our lives who have helped us get better connected with God in our relationship. These people are/were an authority in our lives.

Good post. 

But the reality is that there are certain kinds of people that don't like accountability for themselves, but rather only for the "pagan Christians".  They prefer theological navel-gazing, where every person's opinion on theology is equally valid and all get to chime in with their own unique perspective.  While you are 100% correct that the kind of authority that is referenced often in the Scripture is the kind that happens via influence/persuasion rather than legal force akin to coercion, the local church certainly has been given authority to discipline unrepentant members of the body.  It is a built in method of grace that allows those who willingly subject themselves to mutual submission of other members of the body to be kept or brought back into fellowship (or in the worst case scenario, disfellowshiped).

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Now, that is the kind of substantive argument to which your position lends itself!

It's as substantive as these, which you two use continually:

LAMER:  He just has a problem with authority!!

YOU:  He wanted to be a pastor, so he's just jealous!!

I have not meant that argument directed at you....however I do think that has a definite bearing on a couple of posters here who share your disdain for churches and pastors.

My argument does not come from authority in the church as much as one of spiritulal leadership in the church. As I posted before, Jesus appointed the 12 as leaders out of the greater mass of His disciples.
Paul appointed elders, pastors, bishops....leaders in the churches he started.
The book of Acts and the entire NT records that there were leaders...elders, pastors, bishops in the churches.

I do not equate leadership with authoritarian dictatorship, but leadership....by example and influence. There is NO doubt but that such leadership in the churches was Gods plan. Qualifications of leadership, instructions to leadership and an encouragement to follow said leadership is in the NT.

And, the Pastoral Epistles were, are and always shall be the Pastoral epistles!

Because Paul called them that....  :

Earnestly Contend

If I had to choose between Paul, Bible students, Bible scholars and Christians for generations and Peerophet on the fff.....well you know! 

 

[prophet]

Now, that is the kind of substantive argument to which your position lends itself!

It's as substantive as these, which you two use continually:

LAMER:  He just has a problem with authority!!

YOU:  He wanted to be a pastor, so he's just jealous!!

I have not meant that argument directed at you....however I do think that has a definite bearing on a couple of posters here who share your disdain for churches and pastors.

My argument does not come from authority in the church as much as one of spiritulal leadership in the church. As I posted before, Jesus appointed the 12 as leaders out of the greater mass of His disciples.
Paul appointed elders, pastors, bishops....leaders in the churches he started.
The book of Acts and the entire NT records that there were leaders...elders, pastors, bishops in the churches.

I do not equate leadership with authoritarian dictatorship, but leadership....by example and influence. There is NO doubt but that such leadership in the churches was Gods plan. Qualifications of leadership, instructions to leadership and an encouragement to follow said leadership is in the NT.

And, the Pastoral Epistles were, are and always shall be the Pastoral epistles!

Because Paul called them that....  :

Earnestly Contend

If I had to choose between Paul, Bible students, Bible scholars and Christians for generations and Peerophet on the fff.....well you know! 

Uhhhhh, the point was that Paul didn't call them "pastoral epistles", your Seminary did.

Earnestly Contend

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Now, that is the kind of substantive argument to which your position lends itself!

It's as substantive as these, which you two use continually:

LAMER:  He just has a problem with authority!!

YOU:  He wanted to be a pastor, so he's just jealous!!

I have not meant that argument directed at you....however I do think that has a definite bearing on a couple of posters here who share your disdain for churches and pastors.

My argument does not come from authority in the church as much as one of spiritulal leadership in the church. As I posted before, Jesus appointed the 12 as leaders out of the greater mass of His disciples.
Paul appointed elders, pastors, bishops....leaders in the churches he started.
The book of Acts and the entire NT records that there were leaders...elders, pastors, bishops in the churches.

I do not equate leadership with authoritarian dictatorship, but leadership....by example and influence. There is NO doubt but that such leadership in the churches was Gods plan. Qualifications of leadership, instructions to leadership and an encouragement to follow said leadership is in the NT.

And, the Pastoral Epistles were, are and always shall be the Pastoral epistles!

Because Paul called them that....  :

Earnestly Contend

If I had to choose between Paul, Bible students, Bible scholars and Christians for generations and Peerophet on the fff.....well you know! 

Uhhhhh, the point was that Paul didn't call them "pastoral epistles", your Seminary did.

Earnestly Contend

Uhhhhhhhhhhh, the point is that because you don't call them that doesn't change the fact that they are, by their nature, pastoral epistles...and have been recognized as such by generations of Christians.

Uhhhhh, you opinion has no bearing on me...or the fact of the matter.

Uhhhhhh......

 

[prophet]

Now, that is the kind of substantive argument to which your position lends itself!

It's as substantive as these, which you two use continually:

LAMER:  He just has a problem with authority!!

YOU:  He wanted to be a pastor, so he's just jealous!!

I have not meant that argument directed at you....however I do think that has a definite bearing on a couple of posters here who share your disdain for churches and pastors.

My argument does not come from authority in the church as much as one of spiritulal leadership in the church. As I posted before, Jesus appointed the 12 as leaders out of the greater mass of His disciples.
Paul appointed elders, pastors, bishops....leaders in the churches he started.
The book of Acts and the entire NT records that there were leaders...elders, pastors, bishops in the churches.

I do not equate leadership with authoritarian dictatorship, but leadership....by example and influence. There is NO doubt but that such leadership in the churches was Gods plan. Qualifications of leadership, instructions to leadership and an encouragement to follow said leadership is in the NT.

And, the Pastoral Epistles were, are and always shall be the Pastoral epistles!

Because Paul called them that....  :

Earnestly Contend

If I had to choose between Paul, Bible students, Bible scholars and Christians for generations and Peerophet on the fff.....well you know! 

Uhhhhh, the point was that Paul didn't call them "pastoral epistles", your Seminary did.

Earnestly Contend

Uhhhhhhhhhhh, the point is that because you don't call them that doesn't change the fact that they are, by their nature, pastoral epistles...and have been recognized as such by generations of Christians.

Uhhhhh, you opinion has no bearing on me...or the fact of the matter.

Uhhhhhh......

It's popular, so I'll go along with it...

No wonder the daughters are heading back to the Whore.

Earnestly Contend

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Now, that is the kind of substantive argument to which your position lends itself!

It's as substantive as these, which you two use continually:

LAMER:  He just has a problem with authority!!

YOU:  He wanted to be a pastor, so he's just jealous!!

I have not meant that argument directed at you....however I do think that has a definite bearing on a couple of posters here who share your disdain for churches and pastors.

My argument does not come from authority in the church as much as one of spiritulal leadership in the church. As I posted before, Jesus appointed the 12 as leaders out of the greater mass of His disciples.
Paul appointed elders, pastors, bishops....leaders in the churches he started.
The book of Acts and the entire NT records that there were leaders...elders, pastors, bishops in the churches.

I do not equate leadership with authoritarian dictatorship, but leadership....by example and influence. There is NO doubt but that such leadership in the churches was Gods plan. Qualifications of leadership, instructions to leadership and an encouragement to follow said leadership is in the NT.

And, the Pastoral Epistles were, are and always shall be the Pastoral epistles!

Because Paul called them that....  :

Earnestly Contend

If I had to choose between Paul, Bible students, Bible scholars and Christians for generations and Peerophet on the fff.....well you know! 

Uhhhhh, the point was that Paul didn't call them "pastoral epistles", your Seminary did.

Earnestly Contend

Uhhhhhhhhhhh, the point is that because you don't call them that doesn't change the fact that they are, by their nature, pastoral epistles...and have been recognized as such by generations of Christians.

Uhhhhh, you opinion has no bearing on me...or the fact of the matter.

Uhhhhhh......

It's popular, so I'll go along with it...

No wonder the daughters are heading back to the Whore.

Earnestly Contend

Did you know that the popular opinion of a vast majority of mathematicians is that 2+2=4?

Daughters and whores aside.....

 

[prophet]

Now, that is the kind of substantive argument to which your position lends itself!

It's as substantive as these, which you two use continually:

LAMER:  He just has a problem with authority!!

YOU:  He wanted to be a pastor, so he's just jealous!!

I have not meant that argument directed at you....however I do think that has a definite bearing on a couple of posters here who share your disdain for churches and pastors.

My argument does not come from authority in the church as much as one of spiritulal leadership in the church. As I posted before, Jesus appointed the 12 as leaders out of the greater mass of His disciples.
Paul appointed elders, pastors, bishops....leaders in the churches he started.
The book of Acts and the entire NT records that there were leaders...elders, pastors, bishops in the churches.

I do not equate leadership with authoritarian dictatorship, but leadership....by example and influence. There is NO doubt but that such leadership in the churches was Gods plan. Qualifications of leadership, instructions to leadership and an encouragement to follow said leadership is in the NT.

And, the Pastoral Epistles were, are and always shall be the Pastoral epistles!

Because Paul called them that....  :

Earnestly Contend

If I had to choose between Paul, Bible students, Bible scholars and Christians for generations and Peerophet on the fff.....well you know! 

Uhhhhh, the point was that Paul didn't call them "pastoral epistles", your Seminary did.

Earnestly Contend

Uhhhhhhhhhhh, the point is that because you don't call them that doesn't change the fact that they are, by their nature, pastoral epistles...and have been recognized as such by generations of Christians.

Uhhhhh, you opinion has no bearing on me...or the fact of the matter.

Uhhhhhh......

It's popular, so I'll go along with it...

No wonder the daughters are heading back to the Whore.

Earnestly Contend

Did you know that the popular opinion of a vast majority of mathematicians is that 2+2=4?

Daughters and whores aside.....

2+2=4 is not an opinion.
It is a law.
It can be proven every time it is figured, and cannot be disproven.

You're batting 1.000 here.

Earnestly Contend

 

[Recovering IFB]

There are those who assemble in a house church where there is a pastor....

But the truth of the matter is God uses and places people in our lives who are authorites (influence) to us. Spiritually speaking their job is to help us get connected to God. The less prideful these folks are the quicker they get us connected with Christ and not to depend on them. They are not God yet God has placed them in a position to help others in their relationship with him. Many times when we are young and immature we defer to their position on something. As we mature and are connected to Christ we form our own positions. Like the different assembly positions above.

My guess would be all of us have had people in our lives who have helped us get better connected with God in our relationship. These people are/were an authority in our lives.

Good post. 

But the reality is that there are certain kinds of people that don't like accountability for themselves, but rather only for the "pagan Christians".  They prefer theological navel-gazing, where every person's opinion on theology is equally valid and all get to chime in with their own unique perspective.  While you are 100% correct that the kind of authority that is referenced often in the Scripture is the kind that happens via influence/persuasion rather than legal force akin to coercion, the local church certainly has been given authority to discipline unrepentant members of the body.  It is a built in method of grace that allows those who willingly subject themselves to mutual submission of other members of the body to be kept or brought back into fellowship (or in the worst case scenario, disfellowshiped).

Who has said this here? What I am saying instead what I'm  against an unbiblical position of a managawd, that can be easily an used when it is left unchecked.
It's funny, TB claims to have other "pastors" that lead his 'assembly', but yet claims that he is more equal than the others.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

There are those who assemble in a house church where there is a pastor....

But the truth of the matter is God uses and places people in our lives who are authorites (influence) to us. Spiritually speaking their job is to help us get connected to God. The less prideful these folks are the quicker they get us connected with Christ and not to depend on them. They are not God yet God has placed them in a position to help others in their relationship with him. Many times when we are young and immature we defer to their position on something. As we mature and are connected to Christ we form our own positions. Like the different assembly positions above.

My guess would be all of us have had people in our lives who have helped us get better connected with God in our relationship. These people are/were an authority in our lives.

Good post. 

But the reality is that there are certain kinds of people that don't like accountability for themselves, but rather only for the "pagan Christians".  They prefer theological navel-gazing, where every person's opinion on theology is equally valid and all get to chime in with their own unique perspective.  While you are 100% correct that the kind of authority that is referenced often in the Scripture is the kind that happens via influence/persuasion rather than legal force akin to coercion, the local church certainly has been given authority to discipline unrepentant members of the body.  It is a built in method of grace that allows those who willingly subject themselves to mutual submission of other members of the body to be kept or brought back into fellowship (or in the worst case scenario, disfellowshiped).

Who has said this here? What I am saying instead what I'm  against an unbiblical position of a managawd, that can be easily an used when it is left unchecked.
It's funny, TB claims to have other "pastors" that lead his 'assembly', but yet claims that he is more equal than the others.

It's funny that your reading comprehension is tainted by what you want to hear.
You intimate that I am somehow deceitful when I claim we have other pastors. The people in our congregation would vouch for the validity of that fact.
I have never said I was more equal, I said that on what you claim to be equal elders that one or more of the elders in your church are more equal than the others in influence.

You argue against a position I do not hold...a dictatorship.
The funny thing is that Mater would think your church is unbiblical because it is larger than a breadbox and contains structure....if he is consistent.

And, I repeat, our pastors are just as equal as your so called elders. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

Who has said this here? What I am saying instead what I'm  against an unbiblical position of a managawd, that can be easily an used when it is left unchecked.

I'm also against authoritarian unilateral dictator leadership in the church, but that ain't what the OP is about, and it ain't the point that the pastor in the OP is making.  If you read the link to the article where the OP quote is extracted from you'd know that.

 

[subllibrm]

Here's a link to the entire article cited in the OP
https://bible.org/seriespage/lesson-56-your-duties-toward-church-leaders-hebrews-1317-19-22-25


And another theological fundy nimwit....

Because we are Christians who believe the inspired Word of God and because we believe that the Holy Spirit is the abiding third person of the Trinity, there should be more divine authority in our preaching ministries. A preacher of this gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ should have the authority of God upon him, so that he makes the people responsible to listen to him. When they will not listen to him, they are accountable to God for turning away from the divine Word. A preacher under God's unction should reign from his pulpit as a king from his throne. He should not reign by law or by regulation or by man's authority. He ought to reign by moral ascendancy. The divine authority is missing from many pulpits. We have "tabby cats" with their claws carefully trimmed in the seminary, so they can paw over the congregations and never scratch them at all. The Holy Spirit will sharpen the arrows of the man of God who preaches the whole counsel of God.

-- A.W. Tozer

I like Tozer but that is just flat out wrong. There is only one throne and only one worthy to sit upon it.

 

[subllibrm]

It's not a contempt of authority. I have a contempt of the wrong kind of authority, mainly, the Moses model managawd role you see in most evangelical churches. At my assembly, 6 elders. Nobody claiming to follow after them. But giving guidance and leadership. I have  no problem listening to that.
So you see, I have an issue with the managawd, which isn't Scriptural.

You don't think that there has been an erosion of institutional/societal authority and trend towards distrusting religious folk?

Who would argue against that point? But after watching the self-destruction of  Jimmy and Jimmie and generation ago and the regular parade of fallen preachers why wouldn't there be some cynicism in the minds of thinking people?

With that said, I do believe the "anti-pastor" crowd here has much more heat than light to bring  to the conversation.

Do self-absorbed, self-proclaimed "kings" exist in the pulpit today? Yes. (paging Frag, nasty DOEG comment for Frag). Are they (he) the norm? Not a chance.

 

[subllibrm]

I see you haven't lost the uncanny ability to start stupid threads.  Good to see you Lamer.

It's stupid to say that God's word should be respected and heard when preached?

Good to see you as well Stephen.

It isn't the message. It is tying the message to the messenger or the messenger to the message.

The MOG wants to be seen as king (see your Tozer quote) but never as Balaam's ass. Why is that?

 

[subllibrm]

Apparently if TB hasn't seen something,  it doesn't exist.

Same goes for TRT, right?

 

[rsc2a]

Apparently if TB hasn't seen something,  it doesn't exist.

Same goes for TRT, right?

At times.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I like Tozer but that is just flat out wrong. There is only one throne and only one worthy to sit upon it.

I think that if you keep it in context of "unction" then it is reasonable to say that a <benevolent> king ought to have the ear of his people as he leads them then the Tozer quote makes sense to say that when a sermon is delivered the congregants should tune in and commune with Christ (via the conduit of the human "king").

 

[ALAYMAN]

It's not a contempt of authority. I have a contempt of the wrong kind of authority, mainly, the Moses model managawd role you see in most evangelical churches. At my assembly, 6 elders. Nobody claiming to follow after them. But giving guidance and leadership. I have  no problem listening to that.
So you see, I have an issue with the managawd, which isn't Scriptural.

You don't think that there has been an erosion of institutional/societal authority and trend towards distrusting religious folk?

Who would argue against that point? But after watching the self-destruction of  Jimmy and Jimmie and generation ago and the regular parade of fallen preachers why wouldn't there be some cynicism in the minds of thinking people?

With that said, I do believe the "anti-pastor" crowd here has much more heat than light to bring  to the conversation.

Do self-absorbed, self-proclaimed "kings" exist in the pulpit today? Yes. (paging Frag, nasty DOEG comment for Frag). Are they (he) the norm? Not a chance.

The temptation for those who disdain institutional authority is that such rebellion often isn't boundaried by the love of Christ or His rule, but a desire for (as I said recently) radical American individualism/autonomy.  Simply put, Christ's Lordship is real, despite an abuse by the abusive perverse rule of the supreme potentates within fundyland and elsewhere.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I see you haven't lost the uncanny ability to start stupid threads.  Good to see you Lamer.

It's stupid to say that God's word should be respected and heard when preached?

Good to see you as well Stephen.

It isn't the message. It is tying the message to the messenger or the messenger to the message.

The MOG wants to be seen as king (see your Tozer quote) but never as Balaam's ass. Why is that?

The mannagawd seeks often to rob God of the glory by usurping the Holy Spirit's place, but I wouldn't put Tozer (and many others who rightly call for the Christian to properly reverence the word) in that category.

 

[rsc2a]

I like Tozer but that is just flat out wrong. There is only one throne and only one worthy to sit upon it.

I think that if you keep it in context of "unction" then it is reasonable to say that a <benevolent> king ought to have the ear of his people as he leads them then the Tozer quote makes sense to say that when a sermon is delivered the congregants should tune in and commune with Christ (via the conduit of the human "king").

So much for a called-out royal priesthood of believers...

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I like Tozer but that is just flat out wrong. There is only one throne and only one worthy to sit upon it.

I think that if you keep it in context of "unction" then it is reasonable to say that a <benevolent> king ought to have the ear of his people as he leads them then the Tozer quote makes sense to say that when a sermon is delivered the congregants should tune in and commune with Christ (via the conduit of the human "king").

So much for a called-out royal priesthood of believers...

The Pharisees wanted Jesus dead in part because He undermined their authority.  Nothing has changed.  Pharisees still resent Jesus undermining their authority.