On preaching and the hearer's responsibilities.

[Recovering IFB]

So you just wanted to take a couple of shots at me.  Got it.

Well it's easy, when you announce that we all should "Your first duty is to obey godly church leaders," and finish it off with "short and sweet", yeah, kinda makes it easy

Do you see a pattern in your interactions with me?  You turn every conversation into ad hominem, rather than talk about the substance of the topic. 

You mean like the other ad hom conversations you have with RSC or TRT? You mean those? Funny, when somebody gets snarky with you, you cry about it like a girl. Think about it next time you interact with those guys and we'll see if anything changes

You never made one effort to deal with the OP, and the fact that there is a distinguishable trend of anti-authority disrespect of traditional institutions.  The FFF has regularly displayed such contempt, particularly TRT, with authority figures.

Actually we have dealt with the op, the problem is that you don't agree because of your semi -Pelagian  views obscure your very eyes. We've had this discussion before.
The fact that we rebel isn't against authorities, we rebel against men who are trying to take the place of our Savior, these "men" demand we follow them, Our Savior humbled himself and washed our feet. When the managawd starts to show the humility of our Savior and not demand it from the pulpit, then point to Jesus and not to themselves(and believe me, I saw that; up lose and personal) you'll start to see people fleeing to Christ.  We have a problem when the managawd tries to take the place of the Holy Spirit.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Well it's easy, when you announce that we all should "Your first duty is to obey godly church leaders," and finish it off with "short and sweet", yeah, kinda makes it easy

Okay, at least you owned up to the fact that you intended to make things personal from the get go.

You mean like the other ad hom conversations you have with RSC or TRT? You mean those? Funny, when somebody gets snarky with you, you cry about it like a girl. Think about it next time you interact with those guys and we'll see if anything changes.

You mean the guy that called me a queer?  The guy that twists my words (and others) like a pretzel, similar to how you do?  I give the kind of response that is merited based on how the other person interacts.  I have had plenty of differences of opinion with people who disagree with me without any snark or tude.  But when jerks like you run off at the mouth like diarrhea then you'll receive it back in kind.  In this latest episode you are the one who instigated the dung even though I was responding respectfully.  Heck, I wasn't just responding to you respectfully, I was actually agreeing with you, but you still turned it into one of your inevitable pissing contests.  Even when invited you never offered analysis of the criticism of the book you introduced into the conversation (which was not even remotely closely related to ANYTHING to do with the OP).  I don't think you can stay focused long enough to even follow your own train of thoughts.  Too much of that bourbon has pickled your cells.

Actually we have dealt with the op, the problem is that you don't agree because of your semi -Pelagian  views obscure your very eyes. We've had this discussion before.
The fact that we rebel isn't against authorities, we rebel against men who are trying to take the place of our Savior, these "men" demand we follow them, Our Savior humbled himself and washed our feet. When the managawd starts to show the humility of our Savior and not demand it from the pulpit, then point to Jesus and not to themselves(and believe me, I saw that; up lose and personal) you'll start to see people fleeing to Christ.  We have a problem when the managawd tries to take the place of the Holy Spirit.

ROFLOL!  Do you know why you are such a joke?  I'm glad you asked.  The OP quote is from a die-hard reformed Calvinist!  I've said it before, you are theologically clueless.  Lloyd-Jones, Spurgeon, Piper, Macarthur, and your god Calvin himself has said things identical to the OP post quote.  It's not semi-pelegian to state that the word of God ought to be heeded as a first priority when it is proclaimed in evangelical worship, but you are too theologically bankrupt to understand that.  It's not an Arminian or Calvinistic either/or proposition, but a Christian one.  Wake up and smell the theology, and quit letting your bias towards me expose your ignorance.

 

[rsc2a]

A true leader does not have to beg or demand that people follow them as a right of their position.

 

[praise_yeshua]

A true leader does not have to beg or demand that people follow them as a right of their position.

1Co 4:16  Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

Of course..... Paul isn't around anymore.

 

[ALAYMAN]

A true leader does not have to beg or demand that people follow them as a right of their position.

Nobody has said or implied such.  The mutual submission that is pictured in the servant-leader works well when each member of the congregation humbles themselves and recognizes their part/function in the body.  Of course that is tangential to the idea that as members of the body we ought to prepare our hearts and minds to receive the words of Christ, whether we are reading, or hearing them, as a matter of first priority.

 

[Mathew Ward]

A true leader does not have to beg or demand that people follow them as a right of their position.

I guess Jesus wasn't a true leader by your criteria.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

A) Didn't Jesus tell his disciples to teach others about him?

Yes.

B) Who said anything about a mannagawd?

The quote started in that direction and ended with Your first duty is to obey godly church leaders, and that primarily means obeying the Word of God that they preach.

Using the caveat of their teaching what Jesus did, I take no debate. What I have issues with is that the tenor of the quote promotes the following of men rather than the following of Christ.

C) I know you don't like Paul, but...

1 Thessalonians 2:13King James Version (KJV)

13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Yet there were those who were more noble than the Thessalonians because they didn't take "Preacher" at face value:

Now the Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if these teachings were true.

I would like Paul better if he aligned more with what Christ actually taught.

...you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ.

The name of my adult SS class is/was the Noble Bereans.  I model my teaching upon the "trust but verify" principle.  Most folk who over-react to authoritarianism make assumptions based upon their past <burnt> experiences, but it need not be that way.  The word of God is authoritative, and so long as it is faithfully preached it ought to be obeyed.  That process occurs as the word is read privately and/or through the ordained proclamation of the ministers of God in the church.

We probably aren't as far apart in disagreement as it may seem. I agree that people who have been burned are going to be much more sensitive to the issue than those who haven't. After all, I too am a victim. I've heard that sometimes former slaves take issue with the Bible when it considers God as "Master", specifically in Jesus' parables. From their lens, they see a Master as an abusive dictator when in contrast, God is not.

Getting back to the subject, God will use anybody and anything to get His point across to an individual. Whether it be a donkey (Balaam), the heavenly creation (Ps. 1), circumstances in life, meditation, a friend, a pastor, or really anything, the issue should not reflect not obedience to the conduit through which God speaks, but obedience to God Himself. Revelation was given to John to write down and given to church messengers (angels). Obviously it was to be given to specific churches, transcribed on paper and read by each messenger, hence God speaking through men.

My issue is blind adherence without inspection, reflection and prayer and seeing the conduit (human or otherwise) as being authoritative instead of seeing God alone as authoritative.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

A true leader does not have to beg or demand that people follow them as a right of their position.

Only Jesus has that right.  But he never had to beg or demand that people follow him.  Yes, he told certain select people to follow him, and they did.  But he didn't DEMAND it in an authoritarian sense.  He didn't have to. 

Pastors have to demand it and twist scripture to justify it, because they have neither the divine right nor the qualifications.  Jesus made that clear when he said, "call no one rabbi", etc. 

 

[rsc2a]

A true leader does not have to beg or demand that people follow them as a right of their position.

I guess Jesus wasn't a true leader by your criteria.

When did Jesus beg or demand that others follow him?

 

[Mathew Ward]

A true leader does not have to beg or demand that people follow them as a right of their position.

I guess Jesus wasn't a true leader by your criteria.

When did Jesus beg or demand that others follow him?

So when Jesus told folks to follow him it wasn't a demand or a command?

Do you think he was making a suggestion?

I am sure you can search follow me in your Bible program and see the results.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

A true leader does not have to beg or demand that people follow them as a right of their position.

I guess Jesus wasn't a true leader by your criteria.

When did Jesus beg or demand that others follow him?

Plus, as I said above, the same rules do not apply to Jesus.  He is the One and True Leader, and made it clear that no one is to usurp that position, ever. 

Even Paul, who had a swelled head at times, said, "12 What I mean is this: One of you says, ?I follow Paul?; another, ?I follow Apollos?; another, ?I follow Cephas?; still another, ?I follow Christ.?  13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?"

 

[Recovering IFB]

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.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

A true leader does not have to beg or demand that people follow them as a right of their position.

I guess Jesus wasn't a true leader by your criteria.

When did Jesus beg or demand that others follow him?

Plus, as I said above, the same rules do not apply to Jesus.  He is the One and True Leader, and made it clear that no one is to usurp that position, ever. 

Even Paul, who had a swelled head at times, said, "12 What I mean is this: One of you says, ?I follow Paul?; another, ?I follow Apollos?; another, ?I follow Cephas?; still another, ?I follow Christ.?  13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?"

The men Paul Referenced were all leaders in the church. Paul appointed leaders in the churches he established. Jesus chose the 12 to be leaders of the multitude that followed Him. Leadership in the church is a given. Some call them Pastors. Others call them Elders. I've heard some call themselves Bishop.

But the fact is that leaders are in the church to lead.
And for those here who are paranoid and to them pastor or leader is synonymous with overbearing dictator will never understand the BIBLICAL principle of spiritual leadership.

Many/some who mock the phantom 'man-of God' - remind me of the mayor of Providence RI when fighting to keep a manger scene on his town square. He said the reason liberals so hate Christmas scenes is jealousy....in all of liberal-Dom they can't find a single wise man or a virgin. 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

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.

In your assembly, you have 6 menagawds that you follow. And they are all equal....exactly the same in leadership and influence. Sorry, that sounds good, but there is one or more of them more equal than the others. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Our 'assembly' has 5 Pastors, so your assembly is overburdened with leadership....get rid of one! 

 

[prophet]

A true leader does not have to beg or demand that people follow them as a right of their position.

I guess Jesus wasn't a true leader by your criteria.

When did Jesus beg or demand that others follow him?

So when Jesus told folks to follow him it wasn't a demand or a command?

Do you think he was making a suggestion?

I am sure you can search follow me in your Bible program and see the results.

What were the consequences, that He spelled out, to someone who didn't?

So you just wanted to take a couple of shots at me.  Got it.

Well it's easy, when you announce that we all should "Your first duty is to obey godly church leaders," and finish it off with "short and sweet", yeah, kinda makes it easy

Do you see a pattern in your interactions with me?  You turn every conversation into ad hominem, rather than talk about the substance of the topic. 

You mean like the other ad hom conversations you have with RSC or TRT? You mean those? Funny, when somebody gets snarky with you, you cry about it like a girl. Think about it next time you interact with those guys and we'll see if anything changes

You never made one effort to deal with the OP, and the fact that there is a distinguishable trend of anti-authority disrespect of traditional institutions.  The FFF has regularly displayed such contempt, particularly TRT, with authority figures.

Actually we have dealt with the op, the problem is that you don't agree because of your semi -Pelagian  views obscure your very eyes. We've had this discussion before.
The fact that we rebel isn't against authorities, we rebel against men who are trying to take the place of our Savior, these "men" demand we follow them, Our Savior humbled himself and washed our feet. When the managawd starts to show the humility of our Savior and not demand it from the pulpit, then point to Jesus and not to themselves(and believe me, I saw that; up lose and personal) you'll start to see people fleeing to Christ.  We have a problem when the managawd tries to take the place of the Holy Spirit.

Earnestly Contend

 

[Recovering IFB]

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.

In your assembly, you have 6 menagawds that you follow. And they are all equal....exactly the same in leadership and influence. Sorry, that sounds good, but there is one or more of them more equal than the others. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Our 'assembly' has 5 Pastors, so your assembly is overburdened with leadership....get rid of one! 

Well, seeing that you you don't have 'equal' authority in your 'assembly', can 2 of your Pastors over rule you? who has final say?. After discussing this with you in the past, you don't beleive in equal authority because you have a managawd complex. Your post proves as much.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

The men Paul Referenced were all leaders in the church. Paul appointed leaders in the churches he established. Jesus chose the 12 to be leaders of the multitude that followed Him. Leadership in the church is a given. Some call them Pastors. Others call them Elders. I've heard some call themselves Bishop.

The point is that Paul was telling them it was wrong to "follow" these men.  You FOLLOW Jesus, and only Jesus, NOT men, no matter where these men are in the body.  So the statement, "follow me as I follow Christ" doesn't mean "follow me in the same way that I follow Christ".  It means "follow Christ the way I follow Christ". 

Also, if Paul is telling them to stop following men, that negates the whole concept of "obey your overseer".  But I already debunked that simply by pointing to how it is badly translated in the KJV.

 

[prophet]

A true leader does not have to beg or demand that people follow them as a right of their position.

I guess Jesus wasn't a true leader by your criteria.

When did Jesus beg or demand that others follow him?

Plus, as I said above, the same rules do not apply to Jesus.  He is the One and True Leader, and made it clear that no one is to usurp that position, ever. 

Even Paul, who had a swelled head at times, said, "12 What I mean is this: One of you says, ?I follow Paul?; another, ?I follow Apollos?; another, ?I follow Cephas?; still another, ?I follow Christ.?  13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?"

This is the passage that somehow must be the exception to the rule.

I don't see any contrast in Paul, or in Jesus vs Paul, I just see different situations that merit different instructions.

F.I., when Paul us talking to specific people, he may give them instructions that are for them, as in Corinth, to solve an immediate issue.
At other times, maybe even in the next paragraph, he gives a principle, that can be transferred indefinitely.

This passage is decidedly laying out a principle.
And most of us on this forum have seen the results of a violation of this principle.

There have been 2 basic reactions to these results:

First: "Well, Apollos let me down, so I'll follow Paul.  My friend over at Ephesus says that Timothy is the man, so maybe I'll move to Ephesus, or go hear Tim preach in Thessalonica, next month."

Second: "Apollos let me down.  Maybe there is a problem here.  Maybe I shouldn't have been in a position to be let down, or maybe Apollos shouldn't have been in a position to let me down, or maybe something else is the matter.
Whatever the problem is, we must find it and eliminate it, or we will be doomed to repeat it.
I will daily search the Scriptures prayerfully, til the Spirit reveals to me, through the Word, His divine Will.
Then, I will adjust whatever I have to, to meet His instructions/desires/preferences/Will/Commands.
Then I will do my best to instruct others in this more perfect way."

A third reaction, and purely evil, is this:
"Let tradition continue, I'm collecting a check."

Those of reaction number 2 (blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God) soon understand why those of reaction 1 don't get it, and why the wolves don't want them to get it.

There may be some variations, as some are goats, and some are fooled sheep, and these 2 have similar actions but dissimilar motives.



Earnestly Contend

 

[praise_yeshua]

A true leader does not have to beg or demand that people follow them as a right of their position.

I guess Jesus wasn't a true leader by your criteria.

When did Jesus beg or demand that others follow him?

Plus, as I said above, the same rules do not apply to Jesus.  He is the One and True Leader, and made it clear that no one is to usurp that position, ever. 

Even Paul, who had a swelled head at times, said, "12 What I mean is this: One of you says, ?I follow Paul?; another, ?I follow Apollos?; another, ?I follow Cephas?; still another, ?I follow Christ.?  13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?"

Add to the fact......

Its rather disingenuous to take something an Apostle or Jesus said to do and apply it "across the board" to anyone that wants to use it.

Just because Jesus said follow me.... and Paul said... follow me or my example...... Doesn't mean we should follow SOME OTHERS..... example. We should follow them just like they said.

Quoting Paul or Jesus and apply it.... to yourself..... Is rather senseless. They were unique and rather gifted. The same can't be said of many this day and time.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

A true leader does not have to beg or demand that people follow them as a right of their position.

I guess Jesus wasn't a true leader by your criteria.

When did Jesus beg or demand that others follow him?

Plus, as I said above, the same rules do not apply to Jesus.  He is the One and True Leader, and made it clear that no one is to usurp that position, ever. 

Even Paul, who had a swelled head at times, said, "12 What I mean is this: One of you says, ?I follow Paul?; another, ?I follow Apollos?; another, ?I follow Cephas?; still another, ?I follow Christ.?  13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?"

Add to the fact......

Its rather disingenuous to take something an Apostle or Jesus said to do and apply it "across the board" to anyone that wants to use it.

Just because Jesus said follow me.... and Paul said... follow me or my example...... Doesn't mean we should follow SOME OTHERS..... example. We should follow them just like they said.

Quoting Paul or Jesus and apply it.... to yourself..... Is rather senseless. They were unique and rather gifted. The same can't be said of many this day and time.

True, but it would still be wrong for Paul to say "follow me", unless he's saying, "Imitate how I follow Jesus".