Would you pastors object to being called "brother" instead?

[FSSL]

The Pharisaical system was not much different than current day secularists who were debating positions on earth and in the afterlife.

Paul is encouraging the church that they have a variety of gifted people with a variety of gifts.

Two completely different ideas. You see inequality among the gifted men. Paul goes to great lengths to remove that.

 

[ALAYMAN]

A hammer and a screwdriver are different tools designed for different jobs. Is the hammer better than the screwdriver? No. Is a screwdriver better than a hammer? Of course not! Can you use a screwdriver as a hammer? Maybe, but it won?t work as well.

Who is better, men or women? The answer to that question is ?Yes!? A man is infinitely superior to a woman at being a man, and a woman is infinitely superior to a man at being a woman. Men and women are different?by design. Neither is superior to the other, but they are very, very different.

--Adrian Rogers

 

[Mathew Ward]

Except that Paul does refer to gifted men with descriptive titles... evangelists, pastors, teachers...

Context is everything.

Context is everything, and you're missing it.  Paul is talking about jobs, not titles.  If Paul was assigning titles, he would be contradicting Christ (which actually isn't all that far-fetched, since Paul still had a good deal of Pharisee left in him).

But with a job comes a title and responsibility.

Whether one is a capenter, an accountant or a pastor.

When I meet another person and I ask what they do for a living they respond with I'm an accountant. I've never heard them say I add and subtract numbers.

The title tells us the job and the responsibility would be up to the organization they work for or serve.

 

[FSSL]

You argue against an extreme position that isn't held by most here.
I have no problem understanding that a Pastor, as a God appointed position of leadership in the church, should be a servant leader...one who leads by example.
That, in essence, is the definition of a true leader in any endeavor.

What this brother said!

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Paul's teachings do not have a hint of Pharisaicalism.

You're kidding, right?  I mean, aside from attempting to replicate a hierarchical system of leadership from his experience, there's plenty of other evidence.

The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul? 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Farewell.

He's already compromising on grace, dishing out rules and regulations from the law, and falsely attributes this to the Holy Spirit. 

Paul was very fallible.  It is foolish to treat every word of Paul the same as the words of Jesus.

 

[FSSL]

The problem is not between Paul and Jesus. The problem is between you and Paul.

Paul is against the abstaining... You need to reread Paul.

Where does apostolic authority come from?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

The problem is not between Paul and Jesus. The problem is between you and Paul.

Paul is against the abstaining... You need to reread Paul.

Where does apostolic authority come from?

He agreed to carry the message which was agreed upon by some apostles, didn't he?  And he was constantly waffling between abstaining and not abstaining in the epistles. 

And I didn't say Paul wasn't an apostle.  I said he wasn't infallible.  None of the apostles were infallible.  The epistles of Paul are excellent and instructive, but not every word is equal to the word of God.  Like I said, even Paul pointed that out. 

Jesus, on the other hand, is infallible.  So when Jesus says don't call anyone "rabbi", etc., I take that as authoritative and final, no exceptions. 

 

[FSSL]

Is all Scripture infallible?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Is all Scripture infallible?

You're missing my point.

Isaiah

1 The vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem that Isaiah son of Amoz saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.

A Rebellious Nation
2 Hear me, you heavens! Listen, earth!
    For the Lord has spoken:



Romans

1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God

For Paul has spoken

See the difference?

 

[FSSL]

No. Either the writings of Paul are inspired, infallible and authoritative or they are not.

You do see the word "apostle," right?

 

[ALAYMAN]

I know that I occasionally yank chains of my freebird brethren on their borderline antinomianism, but in all seriousness what we are seeing in this thread from TRT is pert nigh outright heresy.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

No. Either the writings of Paul are inspired, infallible and authoritative or they are not.

You do see the word "apostle," right?

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

Now, who do you suppose he was speaking for when he simply started his epistles with "Paul, an apostle..."

 

[FSSL]

You know why he gives those two caveats and makes it clear that marriage was optional? Because his words, penned as an apostle, were considered to be the very words of God.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

You know why he gives those two caveats and makes it clear that marriage was optional? Because his words, penned as an apostle, were considered to be the very words of God.

Wasn't Peter an apostle, too?  I wonder how they could possibly have had a disagreement since they were both speaking the very words of God by virtue of being apostles. 

 

[FSSL]

What they WROTE was inspired.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

What they WROTE was inspired.

By the way, they (the apostles) -- which of them made Paul an apostle?  Just curious.  Luke, the historian (not an apostle) calls Paul (and Barnabas) apostles (which makes 14 apostles, total).  Other than that, unless I missed something, the only person who called Paul an apostle was Paul, himself.  If self-appointed apostolic authority works, then I am an apostle, too, just because I say so. 

Also, where did this rule come from -- what they said and did was not necessarily inspired by God, but when they wrote stuff down in letters to people, THAT was magically inspired and infallible?  Can you provide some Scriptural proof-text for this fascinating rule without sounding like a KJVO? 

 

[FSSL]

Lovely questions that I will let others jump in on. I have things to do all weekend. It is Mardis Gras season down here. Gotta catch and throw beads.

 

[prophet]

I see a pattern of two problems on here.

1. Mistranslation:  For example, the Pharisees and pastors on here favor "ruler" and "obey" when the actual Greek is saying "leader by example" and "have confidence in". 

2. Favoring Paul over Christ:  Sorry, but the words of Paul are not on the same level as the words of Christ.  Paul even admits this sometimes when he notes that "this is from me, not the Lord".  So when Paul says something you Pharisees and pastors like, you favor what Paul says over what Christ says.

In other words, you're filtering Scripture through what makes you feel good about yourselves and your positions, i.e., you are exalting yourselves.  Not to worry, though.  As Jesus said, you will be humbled.

You argue against an extreme position that isn't held by most here.
I have no problem understanding that a Pastor, as a God appointed position of leadership in the church, should be a servant leader...one who leads by example.
That, in essence, is the definition of a true leader in any endeavor.

"Pastor" is not a "God-appointed position of leadership in the Church".

It is a gift, a type of "public speaking" gift.

We can't even get the first block in the building laid.

Earnestly Contend

 

[T-Bone]

Paul's teachings do not have a hint of Pharisaicalism.

You're kidding, right?  I mean, aside from attempting to replicate a hierarchical system of leadership from his experience, there's plenty of other evidence.

The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul? 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Farewell.

He's already compromising on grace, dishing out rules and regulations from the law, and falsely attributes this to the Holy Spirit. 

Paul was very fallible.  It is foolish to treat every word of Paul the same as the words of Jesus.

Careful...you are moving toward progressivism...either the Bible is the inspired Word of God or it's not.  Paul is not the author, the Holy Spirit is.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Paul's teachings do not have a hint of Pharisaicalism.

You're kidding, right?  I mean, aside from attempting to replicate a hierarchical system of leadership from his experience, there's plenty of other evidence.

The apostles and elders, your brothers,

To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul? 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

Farewell.

He's already compromising on grace, dishing out rules and regulations from the law, and falsely attributes this to the Holy Spirit. 

Paul was very fallible.  It is foolish to treat every word of Paul the same as the words of Jesus.

Careful...you are moving toward progressivism...either the Bible is the inspired Word of God or it's not.  Paul is not the author, the Holy Spirit is.

I'm reading it the way it's written.  Read the law and the prophets.  You see over and over again, "this is what the LORD says".  You read the Gospels.  You read what the Lord says because he's quoted as saying it. 

Then you read the historical books.  I assume the books are inspired enough such that the history is accurate for the most part (there are some contradictions, most likely introduced by copyists, but whatever). 

Then you read Acts.  For the most part, it's what Luke says about the history of what happens. 

Then you read Paul's epistles.  Paul identifies himself as the author.  It's what Paul says.  Occasionally, he identifies what he says as what pleases the LORD or what the LORD commands, but the rest of his letters are just what they are -- letters from Paul.  We learn a lot about the early church from the letters, and how Paul wanted things to be.  But I don't take everything Paul says as "This is what the LORD says..." like you see in books like Deuteronomy.