On preaching and the hearer's responsibilities.

[Smellin Coffee]

To put it more bluntly, I love to hear preaching, as it draws my very being closer to Him and rightly orients my priorities and thoughts.

BINGO!

We have relativity! (Not at all saying it is a bad thing...)

For what it's worth, I love to hear good preaching/teaching.  But that's not the purpose of the assembly.  And, to be honest, 99% of what I hear in traditional churches is rehashed sermons that bore me to tears. 

I have a better chance of hearing good teaching on radio, MP3, etc., with the advantage of easily turning it off if it turns out to be error or just bad preaching. 

Then I can meet with a small Christian assembly for the purpose of intimate interaction and mutual edification.

I attend a church that has both a Sunday School and small groups. In all three venues, I listen to what is said, contemplate, argue in my head, consent to what I believe coincides with my principles (that being, how I believe Jesus taught) and allow another the freedom to disagree with me. In Sunday School, there is no teacher. We discuss what we would like the following term to discuss, go to the church denomination's huge video library and pick a topic for the term. Each Sunday, a different member gets the teaching guide associated with the video and facilitates for his/her Sunday by asking questions, mentioning observations and giving everyone in the group to engage.

What you are describing, I certainly do agree. It is the small group setting where we group message one another several times a week, arrange meetings with/without the entire group, confront one another, volunteer together, encourage each other and 'do life' with the core. Like you suggested, I get more out of that interaction than I do in both the church and Sunday School settings, both in challenge and in encouragement.

 

[subllibrm]

Then I can meet with a small Christian assembly for the purpose of intimate interaction and mutual edification.

I do this too but the assembly is limited to me and my wife.  8)

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

FTR I am "pro-pastor" in my ecclesiology.

My experience has been pretty much the exact opposite of what I described in my last post. The first time I serve as a deacon I found my self on a board with men who thought their role was to be a sea anchor on the pastor. They used great words like oversight and discernment to describe their activities but you didn't have to scratch hard to see that they felt their role was mostly to keep him in check and prevent anything in the church from changing. Those men were just as twisted in their application of scripture as are those pastors who would see themselves as some sort of a king. Of course our church never had a pastor king because we had the other guys there to obstruct anything he might want to do.

So while we may have had a king or two, their title was more likely to be deacon or chairman of the board than pastor.  8)

I have seen that also....and, like you I'm sure, I have also seen Pastors who were narcissistic pompous dictators.
But that doesn't lead me to believe that a true NT church consists of 5 people around a kitchen table and 4 of them are 'equal elders'.

And I know you don't believe that, but some here seem to....

No, you pretty much just pulled that out of your buttocks to mock home assemblies.

You falsely assume my brain is located in the same place as yours'....

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

FTR I am "pro-pastor" in my ecclesiology.

My experience has been pretty much the exact opposite of what I described in my last post. The first time I serve as a deacon I found my self on a board with men who thought their role was to be a sea anchor on the pastor. They used great words like oversight and discernment to describe their activities but you didn't have to scratch hard to see that they felt their role was mostly to keep him in check and prevent anything in the church from changing. Those men were just as twisted in their application of scripture as are those pastors who would see themselves as some sort of a king. Of course our church never had a pastor king because we had the other guys there to obstruct anything he might want to do.

So while we may have had a king or two, their title was more likely to be deacon or chairman of the board than pastor.  8)

I have seen that also....and, like you I'm sure, I have also seen Pastors who were narcissistic pompous dictators.
But that doesn't lead me to believe that a true NT church consists of 5 people around a kitchen table and 4 of them are 'equal elders'.

And I know you don't believe that, but some here seem to....

No, you pretty much just pulled that out of your buttocks to mock home assemblies.

You falsely assume my brain is located in the same place as yours'....

Wow, and it only took you 7 hours to think up the response of a 4th grader. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

The rodent slithered away like Biker, and once again showed that he is full of hot air.  Is that really any surprise?  Nope.


Tozer speaks on the concept of The Divine Right of Kings at the link below, as he ascribes it to God in His role of King of Kings.  He specifically goes to great length to speak about the fallibility of all humans in relation to any notion of human beings authority.  So Ratboy lied, again, then failed to walk it back.  Why?  Pure unadulterated pride.  Too pigheadedly stubborn, when trapped in his deceit, to admit he's full of excrement (much like several of his freebird friends).

https://books.google.com/books?id=tXecGqBYxIwC&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=divine+right+of+kings+Tozer&source=bl&ots=OA6ePX8lnz&sig=ZKcTb75LS3jQ1MoELNomh7Y2Qgk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ7_fCm6XKAhXFGz4KHRKlASEQ6AEIOTAH#v=onepage&q=divine%20right%20of%20kings%20Tozer&f=false

 

[rsc2a]

Your inability to read is the same as a refusal to answer your question.

Now go scamper off and find a new rule to follow or someone else to turn into your king.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

FTR I am "pro-pastor" in my ecclesiology.

My experience has been pretty much the exact opposite of what I described in my last post. The first time I serve as a deacon I found my self on a board with men who thought their role was to be a sea anchor on the pastor. They used great words like oversight and discernment to describe their activities but you didn't have to scratch hard to see that they felt their role was mostly to keep him in check and prevent anything in the church from changing. Those men were just as twisted in their application of scripture as are those pastors who would see themselves as some sort of a king. Of course our church never had a pastor king because we had the other guys there to obstruct anything he might want to do.

So while we may have had a king or two, their title was more likely to be deacon or chairman of the board than pastor.  8)

I have seen that also....and, like you I'm sure, I have also seen Pastors who were narcissistic pompous dictators.
But that doesn't lead me to believe that a true NT church consists of 5 people around a kitchen table and 4 of them are 'equal elders'.

And I know you don't believe that, but some here seem to....

No, you pretty much just pulled that out of your buttocks to mock home assemblies.

You falsely assume my brain is located in the same place as yours'....

Wow, and it only took you 7 hours to think up the response of a 4th grader.

Oh! The irony! 

 

[ALAYMAN]

Your inability to read is the same as a refusal to answer your question.

Now go scamper off and find a new rule to follow or someone else to turn into your king.

Inability to read????

Was that a reference to yourself?

I just posted a link to Tozer's actual words on the subject of Divine Right of Kings and it was the antithesis of what you ascribed to his position, and *I'm* the one who can't read?
You simply are unable to admit what everybody else sees and knows about you.  Obtuse was what I called you, and obtuse is what you are.

 

[rsc2a]

Tozer explicitly linked a pulpit to a throne and a pastor to a king. But, like the Pharisee that you are,  you cannot see it through your  tradition .

 

[ALAYMAN]

Tozer explicitly linked a pulpit to a throne and a pastor to a king. But, like the Pharisee that you are,  you cannot see it through your  tradition .

Spin it how you will, but Tozer explained his theory of Divine Right to Kings, and in doing so thrust a dagger straight through the ignorant and decontextualized assessment you made.  Cling to your foolish opinion at all costs, it only costs you any vestige of credibility you thought you might have had on the FFF.  You're like the rabid fundys you decry who use deception in the Sword of the Lord to edit Spurgeons sermons, or like those who say Macarthur denied the blood.  You're absolutely no different, when confronted with the truth you double down, circle the wagons, dig your heels in, and bury your head to truth.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

contempt for whose church and whose preached word?....... a particular denomination?.... their own church?.... all churches in general?........ ... there are no doubt preachers on this very forum who would say....and have said in the past.... that i am one of those members of the populace who disrespects authority within the church and has contempt for preaching...... and when it comes to their own specific church and their own particular sermons, they are probably right...... tozer might have thought so himself if he knew i would find the first and only quote i remember seeing of his work reprehensible.........  but you would lose all your dollars and your donuts betting that the word of God sits neglected and gathering dust in my house...... .....

While he may have penned some good things, Tozer was quite a Pharisee.  Some of the things he wrote are so illogical as to be laughable, all in an attempt to impose man-made rules. 

 

[rsc2a]

Tozer explicitly linked a pulpit to a throne and a pastor to a king. But, like the Pharisee that you are,  you cannot see it through your  tradition .

Spin it how you will, but Tozer explained his theory of Divine Right to Kings, and in doing so thrust a dagger straight through the ignorant and decontextualized assessment you made.  Cling to your foolish opinion at all costs, it only costs you any vestige of credibility you thought you might have had on the FFF.

Half a dozen people across an spectrum of ideologies have all said the same thing about your Tozer quote, and I'm the ignorant one....okay.....

 

[ALAYMAN]

contempt for whose church and whose preached word?....... a particular denomination?.... their own church?.... all churches in general?........ ... there are no doubt preachers on this very forum who would say....and have said in the past.... that i am one of those members of the populace who disrespects authority within the church and has contempt for preaching...... and when it comes to their own specific church and their own particular sermons, they are probably right...... tozer might have thought so himself if he knew i would find the first and only quote i remember seeing of his work reprehensible.........  but you would lose all your dollars and your donuts betting that the word of God sits neglected and gathering dust in my house...... .....

refusal to accept any one particular church, preacher or theologian, as the absolute authority in all things scriptural does not equate to ignoring the bible or ones spiritual life altogether..... and refusing to go to a fundamental baptist church..... or any baptist church for that matter.... does not equate refusing to go to church at all.......... but some ministers can;t seem to see it any other way..... and in their mind refusal to accept them.... or someone else in their own denomination who thinks just like them.... as the only source of understanding Gods word, is indeed contempt for the preached word of God in general, and even contempt for God Himself....... .... that is a man thinking too highly of himself and losing sight of where his own authority ends and where Gods authority continues.... 

but as far that one quote of tozers goes.... try to look at this way........... that is the first time i rmember seeing something tozer wrote......... and in my mind it stinks with pride and arrogance....... why should i want to read any more of his works to see if the rest of it stinks likewise?........... if you took one bite of a pie and that first bite left a foul taste in your mouth so that couldn;t even swallow it but had to spit it out - would you sit there and continue to eat more of that same pie hoping that it would eventually get better?...... or would you just toss it in the trash?........... .....  for all you know the rest of that pie could be the best pie you ever ate in your life..... but how do you get past that first bite?..... and would you even waste your time trying to if there was plenty of other pies to eat instead?...... ... now that might sound like a silly example to you, but what does the scripture say about a word fitly spoken?..... .... believe me.... that quote from tozer was no apple of gold in a picture of silver.... and it left me completely uninterested in examining the rest of the plate....... 

Tozer wasn't saying that to ignore preachers, whatever the denomination, was rejecting the authority of God.  What he WAS saying is that there are plenty of people who don't like to follow the  Lordship of Christ, and that comes in a variety of packages, including the dismissal of the authoritative proclamation of the gospel.  But Tozer was not a Baptist, and was quite ecumenical as far as his relationship. So to think of him in terms of the modern day IFBx mannagawd is to think quite anachronistically.

But I can see why freebirds  like TRT would call him a legalist, because he actually expected that a professing Christian would behave in a way that was suitable to the holiness they professed to have received in Christ, rather than having mouths that mothers wouldn't kiss, for instance.

Christians all around us are trying every shortcut they can think of, to get ?something for nothing? in the kingdom of God. Talk to them and they will predictably flare up: ?Isn?t grace something for nothing?? That depends upon what kind of grace we are talking about. Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer gave his life as a martyr in Hitler?s Germany, but he left a book now known around the world: The Cost of Discipleship. He pointed out a sharp distinction between ?cheap grace? and ?costly grace.?

Although God?s grace has been given freely to humans who do not deserve it, Bonhoeffer believed it rightly could be called ?costly grace? because it cost our Lord Jesus Christ even the suffering of death. Some men and women have actually turned God?s grace into lasciviousness. They do not know what the word grace means-that God gives us out of His rich and full goodness although we are unworthy of it. When I preach about the grace of God and point out that Jesus commanded us to take up our cross and follow Him, those who do not know the meaning of grace respond: ?Oh, Tozer is now preaching legalism.?

A.W. Tozer

 

[ALAYMAN]

Tozer explicitly linked a pulpit to a throne and a pastor to a king. But, like the Pharisee that you are,  you cannot see it through your  tradition .

Spin it how you will, but Tozer explained his theory of Divine Right to Kings, and in doing so thrust a dagger straight through the ignorant and decontextualized assessment you made.  Cling to your foolish opinion at all costs, it only costs you any vestige of credibility you thought you might have had on the FFF.

Half a dozen people across an spectrum of ideologies have all said the same thing about your Tozer quote, and I'm the ignorant one....okay.....

Half a dozen people could be wrong and it wouldn't phase me one bit. This isn't a popularity contest, and I don't form my opinions about another person's theology from the collective consciousness of the FFF.  Tozer's view of authority in lieu of your claim about DRoK has been shown and your ignorance revealed.  All you have to do is offer some in-context critique of Tozer's own mountainous volume of words on the internet to back up your ignorant claim, but you refuse to do so, primarily because you know he wasn't a mannagawd type pastor.  But carry on wallowing in your obtusity.  It suits you.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

"Mog" is not synonymous with "Scripture".

Neither is rsc2a.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Tozer explicitly linked a pulpit to a throne and a pastor to a king. But, like the Pharisee that you are,  you cannot see it through your  tradition .

Spin it how you will, but Tozer explained his theory of Divine Right to Kings, and in doing so thrust a dagger straight through the ignorant and decontextualized assessment you made.  Cling to your foolish opinion at all costs, it only costs you any vestige of credibility you thought you might have had on the FFF.

Half a dozen people across an spectrum of ideologies have all said the same thing about your Tozer quote, and I'm the ignorant one....okay.....

Half a dozen people could be wrong and it wouldn't phase me one bit. This isn't a popularity contest, and I don't form my opinions about another person's theology from the collective consciousness of the FFF.  Tozer's view of authority in lieu of your claim about DRoK has been shown and your ignorance revealed.  All you have to do is offer some in-context critique of Tozer's own mountainous volume of words on the internet to back up your ignorant claim, but you refuse to do so, primarily because you know he wasn't a mannagawd type pastor.  But carry on wallowing in your obtusity.  It suits you.

I read Tozer regularly and he was not a proponent of the pastor is the man of God dictator...at all. So, in the context of his entire body of work I can agree with your assessment. However, I can see the point of those who evidently aren't that familiar with Tozer's writings.

But, I assure you he wouldn't give a rat's honey what we think about him...aside from that he's dead! 

 

[ALAYMAN]

I read Tozer regularly and he was not a proponent of the pastor is the man of God dictator...at all. So, in the context of his entire body of work I can agree with your assessment. However, I can see the point of those who evidently aren't that familiar with Tozer's writings.

But, I assure you he wouldn't give a rat's honey what we think about him...aside from that he's dead! 

I can concede that those unfamiliar with Tozer, and having come from or are only familiar with an IFBx tradition would be confused about his words, but I find that to be a woefully lacking position to critique somebody from, particularly when evidence from the grave has spoken to the contrary of the misperception of his quote.

And of course your opnion means little, since you too are a controlling-dictatorial-mog-head-elder-type.

 

[prophet]

FTR I am "pro-pastor" in my ecclesiology.

My experience has been pretty much the exact opposite of what I described in my last post. The first time I serve as a deacon I found my self on a board with men who thought their role was to be a sea anchor on the pastor. They used great words like oversight and discernment to describe their activities but you didn't have to scratch hard to see that they felt their role was mostly to keep him in check and prevent anything in the church from changing. Those men were just as twisted in their application of scripture as are those pastors who would see themselves as some sort of a king. Of course our church never had a pastor king because we had the other guys there to obstruct anything he might want to do.

So while we may have had a king or two, their title was more likely to be deacon or chairman of the board than pastor.  8)

I have seen that also....and, like you I'm sure, I have also seen Pastors who were narcissistic pompous dictators.
But that doesn't lead me to believe that a true NT church consists of 5 people around a kitchen table and 4 of them are 'equal elders'.

And I know you don't believe that, but some here seem to....

No, you pretty much just pulled that out of your buttocks to mock home assemblies.

I do not mock home assemblies as some mock churches that have grown past meeting in a home. I have Pastored/led a home assembly.
I mock those who believe the only biblical church is 5 people assembling of which 3-4 are 'equal elders'. 

You still don't understand the difference between all of the assemblies in an a given area are part of the local church,  VS every Assembly is its own Church.

In the former, most elders are debating Scripture (Paul's words) regularly, assembling on the Lord's day with other believers, and when necessary, with the rest of the local church for larger meetings.

Try to picture Acts in action, rather than your life experiences (which is what you claim my Theology is based on, a poor reaction to my life experiences, when any one with a spoonful of objectivity can see that you are actually the one doing this).
The Gospel spreads from house to house, organically, it always has.

I've told you before, the time of our liberty to assemble in the U.S. is drawing rapidly to a close.  I will no longer plant churches with a giant target on their building's front door.

You'd do well to start warning the millennials, with which you have influence, to  take heed.



Earnestly Contend

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I read Tozer regularly and he was not a proponent of the pastor is the man of God dictator...at all. So, in the context of his entire body of work I can agree with your assessment. However, I can see the point of those who evidently aren't that familiar with Tozer's writings.

But, I assure you he wouldn't give a rat's honey what we think about him...aside from that he's dead! 

I can concede that those unfamiliar with Tozer, and having come from or are only familiar with an IFBx tradition would be confused about his words, but I find that to be a woefully lacking position to critique somebody from, particularly when evidence from the grave has spoken to the contrary of the misperception of his quote.

And I cede your point....I see everybody's point....im a Kompromizer. 

And your 'only familiar with an IFBx tradition' is the key to understanding where some of the criticism comes from. But, some here seem to argue against the extreme IFB position regardless. They oppose a clearly Biblical position of Pastor because some have corrupted the position....and assume those who disagree with them hold that position...regardless of the facts.

That's why, in arguing with them, I often assume they hold views from the other end of the extreme spectrum.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

FTR I am "pro-pastor" in my ecclesiology.

My experience has been pretty much the exact opposite of what I described in my last post. The first time I serve as a deacon I found my self on a board with men who thought their role was to be a sea anchor on the pastor. They used great words like oversight and discernment to describe their activities but you didn't have to scratch hard to see that they felt their role was mostly to keep him in check and prevent anything in the church from changing. Those men were just as twisted in their application of scripture as are those pastors who would see themselves as some sort of a king. Of course our church never had a pastor king because we had the other guys there to obstruct anything he might want to do.

So while we may have had a king or two, their title was more likely to be deacon or chairman of the board than pastor.  8)

I have seen that also....and, like you I'm sure, I have also seen Pastors who were narcissistic pompous dictators.
But that doesn't lead me to believe that a true NT church consists of 5 people around a kitchen table and 4 of them are 'equal elders'.

And I know you don't believe that, but some here seem to....

No, you pretty much just pulled that out of your buttocks to mock home assemblies.

I do not mock home assemblies as some mock churches that have grown past meeting in a home. I have Pastored/led a home assembly.
I mock those who believe the only biblical church is 5 people assembling of which 3-4 are 'equal elders'. 

You still don't understand the difference between all of the assemblies in an a given area are part of the local church,  VS every Assembly is its own Church.

In the former, most elders are debating Scripture (Paul's words) regularly, assembling on the Lord's day with other believers, and when necessary, with the rest of the local church for larger meetings.

Try to picture Acts in action, rather than your life experiences (which is what you claim my Theology is based on, a poor reaction to my life experiences, when any one with a spoonful of objectivity can see that you are actually the one doing this).
The Gospel spreads from house to house, organically, it always has.

I've told you before, the time of our liberty to assemble in the U.S. is drawing rapidly to a close.  I will no longer plant churches with a giant target on their building's front door.

You'd do well to start warning the millennials, with which you have influence, to  take heed.



Earnestly Contend

Honestly, I do personally believe that some of what you believe about the church is based on your past experience.
I repeat...I have NO problem with a house church. The church I helped start and still Pastor was a house church for awhile. Our church body has started/helped to start a number of churches in houses. In fact, we are helping to plant a new church right now.

I would not be surprised if you are correct about the future status of our freedom to worship being in some jeopardy. However, that doesn't change anything as far as I'm concerned about the local church. I have yet to see a church begin in a house that could fit into the house 6-10 months later. That's my experience.