hldude said:
To serve God and share the Gospel, there is no degree required, just a willingness to be used by Him.
Let me tell you about Mike who I have met. Mike was a sales rep and an evangelist. No degrees and no training. Just an anointed evangelist gifted by the risen and ascended Christ (Ephesians 4:11).
Just to show you how anointed and in touch with the Spirit he is he told me of the time he was driving by a school and a boy was hanging against the perimeter fence by the road.
God told him to stop and talk to the boy, which he did. He shared with him the good news about Jesus and this led the boy to surrender his life to Christ.
Simple, straightforward, Spirit led evangelism without a degree in sight.
Now, If God can do that with Mike, why can't he do it with everyone?
These are my responses to veteran.
You're behind the times. Many patterns of the OT Church carried over into the NT Church. They're both the SAME Church anyway, the difference was how the covenants changed through Christ Jesus.
the word church is not to be found in the Old Testament in any shape or form. It is just another figment of your imagination to defend the indefensible.
There is no indication here that only shepherds teach. In Paul instructions to Timothy and Titus about leadership in the church, pastors are not mentioned once. It does say that Elders were to be chosen from among the flock to lead and some of them would shepherd and/or teach. These passages blow the idea out the window that the leader of the church is someone brought in from outside and given a title and a salary. If you are going to do that, then there must be people who are addressed as Apostle Tom, Evangelist Bill, Prophet Mark, Teacher James and pay them all a salary and put their names on the church noticeboard outside.
No one said only some in the Church are allowed to teach. And you're fibbing about the idea of 'pastors' not being mentioned in the NT. SEE Eph.4:11 that I quoted. Since I quoted that in my previous post, you have no excuse. The Holy Spirit does the choosing, and He manifests by the gift revealing itself, just as it was in Paul's time, just as one called here can recognize others that are not.
Your anger seems to be blinding you to reality. if you read my post you will see that I said IN Timothy and Titus pastors are not mentioned once. I DID NOT SAY they were not mentioned in the NT.
In addition, I did not say that someone said only some in the church are allowed to teach.
At the same time I did not say that being a shepherd is not a calling. I said that the scripture clearly shows that shepherds are not called to lead churches in another town.
The word minister here means to attend as a menial or worshiper, it does not mean to teach
You've got a long way to go to try and prove Hebrew sharath isn't about their ministering duties to the congregation. The word for "service" there actually means labor delegated to the bondservants of that time, (i.e., slaves of the Canaanite left-overs that dwelt among Israel).
The word you raised and which I responded to was "minister." Now you are talking about the word "service" which is not in the verse. In addition, you have just agreed with me that it does not mean to teach so I do not know what your problem is.
I've already given proof of its meaning, the phrase "in the tabernacle of the congregation" where they were to minister is more direct proof and should be enough, even for hard-heads.
So vague it is laughable. That means the guy who stands at the door shaking hands with those arriving is a minister because he is in the tabernacle of the congregation.
The word for minister here is huperetes which means an under oarsman; a subordinate; a minister, officer, servant. It does not means to teach. The word for teacher is didaskalos. So where do you get teacher from in this verse when it is obviously not there?
Same word used in "ministers of Christ" in 1 Co.4:1. Look how it's used in other NT Scripture instead of picking and choosing one phrase from a Strong's, especially when the Strong's gives other definitions you left out.
The word in 1 Cor 4;1 is "huperetes" the same as the other verse and does not mean teacher. If it did it would use the word "didaskalos" which it hasn't.
The word for minister here is diakonos, not didaskalos, and it means to run errands or an attendant or a waiter at a table or other menial duties. It does not mean to teach
It means 'service' right? That's the role of ministering. One can be a minister of many different things, your absolutism prevents you from understanding a simple word in the English language that was translated properly from the Greek NT.
So you agree with me that it does not mean teaching. if it did it would use the word "didaskalos" not "diakonos." I have the impression that you like to take words and give them any meaning that suits you regardless of what they actually mean.
The word minister here is diakeno which means to be an attendant or to wait upon others, It does not mean to teach.
What happens when one 'ministers' The Gospel? Is it not teaching? Of course it is. What happens when one 'ministers' The Lord's Supper to the congregation? Is it teaching? No, of course not. But it's still the idea of ministering. But pastoring in the Church, that's different, it means to 'feed' God's Word to the congregation Biblically. Evangelizing specifically means to preach The Gospel.
Of course it is not teaching. Whatever gave you that silly idea. The word preaching means to herald as a town crier. A town crier doesn't teach. He makes announcements. As for your quaint idea about "ministering" the lord's supper, the only thing you do is hand out a bit of bread or cracker and give people a shot glass of fruit juice.
Shepherding has nothing at all to do with teaching. That is a man made invention to keep the religious institution going in their mould and that is why it is going mouldy. To be a shepherd you watch over their souls and find good pasture for them to eat the grass there.
You show your lack of knowledge about history and God's Word. Do you not know about Apostle Philip explaining to the Ethiopian soldier what he was reading in the Book of Isaiah? (Acts 8). The idea that all... Christ's Apostles were illiterate people is a tradition of men. Apostle Luke was a medical doctor (Col.4:14).
You really are clutching at straws here. So Phillip explaining what Isaiah meant indicated he had a theological degree. Strewth. Talk about pulling a long bow.
Luke did not have a theological degree. he was a trained doctor which has nothing to do with having degrees to be a shepherd.
1Co 1:26 For you see your calling, brothers, that there are not many wise according to flesh, nor many powerful, not many wellborn. But God chose the foolish things of the world that the wise might be put to shame, and God chose the weak things of the world so that He might put to shame the strong things. And God chose the low-born of the world, and the despised, and the things that are not, so that He might bring to nothing the things that are, so that no flesh might glory in His presence.
So you think God's people should remain illiterate and sottish to justify some whimsical idea that they'll have more Faith for denouncing learning? You may as well say it, when you say "degrees" you really mean education absolutely!
Whatever gave you the idea that is what I think. You will notice that the scripture says "not many wise." It does not say "not any wise." And you will notice that it says "not many powerful." It does not say "not any powerful."
God did not denounce learning. he just put in perspective which is that he does not need learned people to achieve what he wants to do. Paul put everything into perspective when he said the he counted ALL THINGS loss for the sake of knowing Christ his Lord.
If God said "not any wise" Paul would not have been saved but the verse goes on to say that God has chosen the things that are not...You can't get more nondescript than that.
I have four degrees but they are never the basis of my relationship with God and I never appeal to him on the basis I have four degrees.
I've met your kind before, you're like the liberal Leftist environmentalists that want to burn all the books and return the majority of people back to the primitive dark ages so you can be in charge instead. Knowledge and understanding equals Freedom from those who would put God's people in bondage, and that's what Jesus promised for staying in His Word. And because God's Holy Writ came to mankind in so many languages, that shows God wants people to READ IT.
Sad isn't it when your only defense is pejorative claims that have no substance.
For your information, I have a personal library of over 1,000 books so the last thing I want anyone to do is burn them. Your accusation about the primitive dark ages is childish in the extreme and suggests that you don't like being disagreed with.
And for your information, i have never said that God doesn't want people not to read his word. I would have thought that unlike you, I am sticking to what the word actually says, that it is obvious I am devoted to God's word. if you can't see that you can't see anything.
The word says that the letter kills but the Spirit gives life. You can read the bible all day long but without the revealing power of the Holy Spirit all you have done is read God's word. That in itself will never bring freedom as only the Holy Spirit can lead you into all truth. I didn't say that. The word of God does.
Firstly, you must have attended a dumbed-down version of theological college, because you can't even understand the 'minister' idea in Scripture, nor apparently in the English language.
Once again, you are indulging in childish rhetoric and pejorative accusation.
And in my experience, theological college = man's religion. Proof of that is all the beating around the seminary traditions bush yal do while leaving out the weightier Truth of God's Word, just like what the Pharisees of old did.
Perhaps you could set out your experience for us and what are the weightier truths of God's word? and I am led to believe it take a Pharisee to recognise a Pharisee.
So your supposed qualifications mean nothing to me.
Just to put your mind to rest. I am not at all interested in trying to impress you.
You're a DECEIVER. All you're doing is going to a Greek concordance to try and change Paul's meaning of 2 Tim.2:18.
Actually the verse under question was 2 Timothy 2;15 not verse 18.
As the Quote brackets do not seem to be working, I am doing it a bit differently
Veteran: Anyone can go to whatever Greek concordance they like and pick and choose definitions to make Scripture read totally different than the Message actually given. The IDEA there of Paul admonishing Timothy to rightly divide The Word is... about understanding IN God's Word.
Me: In case you had not noticed, that is what you do all the time.
Veteran: If you really... did... have even one theological degree you would have well known... where Paul got that idea of dissecting God's Word from! It's about Isaiah 28, precept upon precept, precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little and there a little.
Me: Once again a very derogatory statement. Definitely not a sign of maturity. I have not said anything about dissecting God's word. All I have done is dissect it, which you seem to be against judging by all your angst against the dissected word. The verse that comes to mind is that a double minded man is unstable in all his ways as you seem to go from A to B to Z to H to D to R to E and so on.
Veteran: All you've done is REVEAL yourself here as false and a deceiver.
Me: And all you have done is to reveal yourself as someone who is very intolerant of other people's views, devoid of any real knowledge of scripture, and your penchant to be derogatory and pejorative when you can't argue against what is being said. 
