:cross2: Mt.12:25b; Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.This is a very much spoken and quoted verse, but so much truth to it. Very befitting in this day in the Body of Christ.Unfortunately the kingdom of evil is very organized.More and more today we see churches competing with one another, playing the numbers game. Outdoing each other with bigger and bigger churches, forgetting the Lord's Great Commission. One church has a great ministry to teens, reaching souls for Christ or a successful ministry to the homeless, restoring souls and families, instead of churches seeing the opportunity to get behind these ministries, see a call to compete instead. For what reason sad to say build the offering plate. The competing never been called to that certain ministry. Then we have what I call " Heaven's police force ", these are the ones who use the " gottcha club ". Look up and down to see who doesn't belong in the Body of Christ, no rights to Heaven. I guess in their minds God needs their help. Pray for these people. They do more damage to the Body than help it. Members of the congregation placing the pastor in a glass fish bowl just waiting for him or a memebr of his family to make a mistake. Instead of praying for the pastor and his family, letting him know you truly care about him and he can depend on you for prayer and support. Giving him a shoulder and non-condemming ear. Refusing to place him or his family on a level he really doesn't want to be on, forcing him to live to standards we our selves could never live up to. Could your Pastor look out from the pulpit at you and say to his self there's my brother or sister who has prayed that I would have the wisdom from God to deliver to the flock. There's someone I could go to for prayer and not worry that it would wind up at the board of trustees or elders. Is that you?:angel10:
Two Unfortunates in The Body of Christ
- Thread starter pastorlesofm
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I agree that we should pray for our pastor, as well as the members of our church, and should never judge nor condemn. It is biblical however, that a pastor must have a higher calling, and higher standard. It is not only his life and walk with Christ that he should act a certain way for, but it is his chosen profession. Just like a teacher, he is in a position that can hurt a lot of people if he does certain things. The verse about...it not necessarily being a sin to you, but if it makes your brother fall, don't do it...that applies here...it's not to condemn or judge the pastor, but a pastor can hurt a lot of brothers, and it is a hard calling.
I certainly realize the responsibility of a pastor and agree , but what if your Pastor went around saying "well I'm not like you, I've made it, I'm without sin?". Myself I'd have to find out what book he's been reading, obviously not the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Was Jesus' Blood shed only for the members of the congregation and not the pastor and his family? God does make those in church leadership answerable to Him. I've seen many servants of God , many times thrown out with the baby's bath water, without any grace. God does forgive and He is the God of Restoration, even for pastors. Any pastor worth his salt will tell you , He is a sinner saved by grace , first, pastor (under shepherd), second. Pastors have daily struggles between flesh and spirit like all other Christians. As long as we all are in this earthly body , we have daily struggles. No one is exempt. Our advantage is the Word of God and The Holy Spirit dwelling in us. That is why Paul said "I put on Christ". Daily having to crucify his flesh. Remember Jesus restoring Peter , after Peter denied Him three times. Many other examples in Scripture of Jesus restoring His servants. The Lord Bless you for your interest in this.
I don't see anything wrong with Churches competing against each other, per se. Competition encourages people to try harder. The problem I see with the churches that focus heavily on growth is that they water down Christianity, sometimes to the point that there is no substance left. Pastors are leaders, if they are not morally beyond reproach, they need to be removed. But, too often when a preacher is found to be morally deficient, the congregation keeps him. I reject the argument that such things like divorce make him just like one of us. First, I'm not divorced. Second, he's not one of us. He's a leader. Not everyone is qualified to be a leader.
I find it sad that pastors are not granted the same mercy and grace that the congregation expects. I know there are those who have questionable actions or sins that does lead to the conclusion a leader is not fit to lead. I have no problem other than the Lord does require us to forgive, even though it is a must that the pastor should be removed. As I always say from the pulpit it is the Christian's duty to "love the Hell out of them right into the Kingdom and Family of God". To deny a fallen leader that is not our call. We are to love him and pray him to the Cross.
(pastorlesofm;59946)
I find it sad that pastors are not granted the same mercy and grace that the congregation expects. I know there are those who have questionable actions or sins that does lead to the conclusion a leader is not fit to lead. I have no problem other than the Lord does require us to forgive, even though it is a must that the pastor should be removed. As I always say from the pulpit it is the Christian's duty to "love the Hell out of them right into the Kingdom and Family of God". To deny a fallen leader that is not our call. We are to love him and pray him to the Cross.
God's word says to expel the immoral brother. Preachers need to be held to yet a higher standard because their example is raised for all to see. Modern Christians are so busy demonstrating their tolerance of sin that they're not praying us to the Cross. They're praying us to Sodom. They're not praying the Hell out others. They're praying others to Hell.We have no right or ability to forgive anyone for offenses against God! We can only forgive those won sin against us. But, forgiveness isn't the issue with removing someone. It's about qualifications, such as those in 1 Timothy 3.2-7.
I find it sad that pastors are not granted the same mercy and grace that the congregation expects. I know there are those who have questionable actions or sins that does lead to the conclusion a leader is not fit to lead. I have no problem other than the Lord does require us to forgive, even though it is a must that the pastor should be removed. As I always say from the pulpit it is the Christian's duty to "love the Hell out of them right into the Kingdom and Family of God". To deny a fallen leader that is not our call. We are to love him and pray him to the Cross.
God's word says to expel the immoral brother. Preachers need to be held to yet a higher standard because their example is raised for all to see. Modern Christians are so busy demonstrating their tolerance of sin that they're not praying us to the Cross. They're praying us to Sodom. They're not praying the Hell out others. They're praying others to Hell.We have no right or ability to forgive anyone for offenses against God! We can only forgive those won sin against us. But, forgiveness isn't the issue with removing someone. It's about qualifications, such as those in 1 Timothy 3.2-7.
(Follower;59952)
(pastorlesofm;59946)
I find it sad that pastors are not granted the same mercy and grace that the congregation expects. I know there are those who have questionable actions or sins that does lead to the conclusion a leader is not fit to lead. I have no problem other than the Lord does require us to forgive, even though it is a must that the pastor should be removed. As I always say from the pulpit it is the Christian's duty to "love the Hell out of them right into the Kingdom and Family of God". To deny a fallen leader that is not our call. We are to love him and pray him to the Cross.
God's word says to expel the immoral brother. Preachers need to be held to yet a higher standard because their example is raised for all to see. Modern Christians are so busy demonstrating their tolerance of sin that they're not praying us to the Cross. They're praying us to Sodom. They're not praying the Hell out others. They're praying others to Hell.We have no right or ability to forgive anyone for offenses against God! We can only forgive those won sin against us. But, forgiveness isn't the issue with removing someone. It's about qualifications, such as those in 1 Timothy 3:2-7.Didn't Yeshua said this to God when He was being crucified at the cross?Luke 22:34 - Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.And yes we do have rights to pray to the people who is against God to know and to accept Christ as Saviour. Same thing, we have to forgive them as well...
(pastorlesofm;59946)
I find it sad that pastors are not granted the same mercy and grace that the congregation expects. I know there are those who have questionable actions or sins that does lead to the conclusion a leader is not fit to lead. I have no problem other than the Lord does require us to forgive, even though it is a must that the pastor should be removed. As I always say from the pulpit it is the Christian's duty to "love the Hell out of them right into the Kingdom and Family of God". To deny a fallen leader that is not our call. We are to love him and pray him to the Cross.
God's word says to expel the immoral brother. Preachers need to be held to yet a higher standard because their example is raised for all to see. Modern Christians are so busy demonstrating their tolerance of sin that they're not praying us to the Cross. They're praying us to Sodom. They're not praying the Hell out others. They're praying others to Hell.We have no right or ability to forgive anyone for offenses against God! We can only forgive those won sin against us. But, forgiveness isn't the issue with removing someone. It's about qualifications, such as those in 1 Timothy 3:2-7.Didn't Yeshua said this to God when He was being crucified at the cross?Luke 22:34 - Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.And yes we do have rights to pray to the people who is against God to know and to accept Christ as Saviour. Same thing, we have to forgive them as well...
marksman
My eldest granddaughter showing the result of her
The last couple of years I have read and contributed to many different Christian Forums. The last few weeks it has dawned on me how many churches are having problems with their leadership, due mainly it seems to so called "pastors" dominating the flock.This does not surprise me as a long detailed study of New Testament teaching of New Testament leadership had one stand out. There is no such thing as "a pastor" leading a NT church. Without doubt, the NT church was led by a group of unpaid elders composed of the senior men of the church. These men had grown up in the fellowship which they eventually lead. These men were required to oversee the life of the church, teach, pastor and correct. The term "pastor' only appears once in the NT in Ephesians 4. In all the references to the leadership of the local congregation, not once does it refer to or mention "the pastor". I realised that the problems churches are having with leadership is due to one simple thing. The leadership is not biblical, therefore God cannnot bless that which he does not sanction. I have read the operational manual of more than one denomination and found that even when they do have elders, they are there to "support the pastor". You will not find that in scripture. It is a construct of a church that is based on tradition, not the scripture.In my country of Australia, there are 10,000 pastors that have left the ministry because of stress and unrealistic expectations. In the USA, on average 1,600 a month resign. The leadership of the NT church was originally apostles who handed over to elders and who were supported by apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. They worked alongside the elders, not over them. Whilst we insist that we have a leadership not in line with scripture we are going to have problems of our own making. The answer is to go with the word and do it God's way. If we want evidence that the church is failing we only have to look at the fact that only 1% of the churches in the USA are growing. The NT church changed the world in 30 years. We have failed to change our town in 300 years in most cases.Recently I read that a survey showed that approximately 1 million christians are leaving organised religion every year in the USA for a NT church experience that embraces the priesthood of all believers and lay leadership and ministry. What you might call the proof of the pudding etc.
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 12
- 0
- 65
(Follower;59943)
I don't see anything wrong with Churches competing against each other, per se. Competition encourages people to try harder. .....
Competing against what? And "trying harder" for what? What is the purpose of the church? And what about this verse? 1Corinthians 10:17.If there is any dissension about doctrine, then one or the other (or possibly both) are in error since there is only one truth.("marksman")
The last couple of years I have read and contributed to many different Christian Forums. The last few weeks it has dawned on me how many churches are having problems with their leadership, due mainly it seems to so called "pastors" dominating the flock......I realised that the problems churches are having with leadership is due to one simple thing. The leadership is not biblical, therefore God cannnot bless that which he does not sanction.
You hit the nail on the head about why some pastors and congregation are in the state they are in..... Ask them what the purpose of the church is and I'm sure you'll get varied answers but most likely to the effect to "save souls" and get people to heaven. They may be trying to drag people into the fold that were never called by God and not salvation material and then one has too many weeds in the garden. The weeds do not see anything from spiritual eyes and may end up running things.They don't preach the return of Christ, our role (as the church) in that, the purpose of God by establishing His (Christ's) rule over this earth again that Adam lost to Satan, and our ultimate destiny and the rest of mankind. That's a little different than "dying and going to heaven" and "keeping souls from hell".
I don't see anything wrong with Churches competing against each other, per se. Competition encourages people to try harder. .....
Competing against what? And "trying harder" for what? What is the purpose of the church? And what about this verse? 1Corinthians 10:17.If there is any dissension about doctrine, then one or the other (or possibly both) are in error since there is only one truth.("marksman")
The last couple of years I have read and contributed to many different Christian Forums. The last few weeks it has dawned on me how many churches are having problems with their leadership, due mainly it seems to so called "pastors" dominating the flock......I realised that the problems churches are having with leadership is due to one simple thing. The leadership is not biblical, therefore God cannnot bless that which he does not sanction.
You hit the nail on the head about why some pastors and congregation are in the state they are in..... Ask them what the purpose of the church is and I'm sure you'll get varied answers but most likely to the effect to "save souls" and get people to heaven. They may be trying to drag people into the fold that were never called by God and not salvation material and then one has too many weeds in the garden. The weeds do not see anything from spiritual eyes and may end up running things.They don't preach the return of Christ, our role (as the church) in that, the purpose of God by establishing His (Christ's) rule over this earth again that Adam lost to Satan, and our ultimate destiny and the rest of mankind. That's a little different than "dying and going to heaven" and "keeping souls from hell".
(marksman;60059)
The last couple of years I have read and contributed to many different Christian Forums. The last few weeks it has dawned on me how many churches are having problems with their leadership, due mainly it seems to so called "pastors" dominating the flock.
I consider the pastor to be one of the elders or overseers, along with the others who lead the church. I have no objection to them being paid if it's a full-time job. There could be problems with pastors excessively dominating the flock, a personality cult.
Recently I read that a survey showed that approximately 1 million christians are leaving organised religion every year in the USA
The church has already left them. Those leaving organized religion are just tired of pretending. The church is a place were a sodomite can make millions selling music to the Christians, but Jesus would not be welcome. I don't know how changing the leadership structure could help this. It sounds like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
The last couple of years I have read and contributed to many different Christian Forums. The last few weeks it has dawned on me how many churches are having problems with their leadership, due mainly it seems to so called "pastors" dominating the flock.
I consider the pastor to be one of the elders or overseers, along with the others who lead the church. I have no objection to them being paid if it's a full-time job. There could be problems with pastors excessively dominating the flock, a personality cult.
Recently I read that a survey showed that approximately 1 million christians are leaving organised religion every year in the USA
The church has already left them. Those leaving organized religion are just tired of pretending. The church is a place were a sodomite can make millions selling music to the Christians, but Jesus would not be welcome. I don't know how changing the leadership structure could help this. It sounds like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
marksman
My eldest granddaughter showing the result of her
They don't preach the return of Christ, our role (as the church) in that, the purpose of God by establishing His (Christ's) rule over this earth again that Adam lost to Satan, and our ultimate destiny and the rest of mankind. That's a little different than "dying and going to heaven" and "keeping souls from hell".
This is an excellent observation. I admit that I have been guilty of turning over the machinery with a few new converts thrown in to keep me happy, but since reading Ed Silvoso's book "That None Should Perish" I realise that we are called to reclaim the earth from Satan who is an unlawful occupier. In other words, we are on a war footing and unfortunately too many churches are POW camps instead of being an army barrack training troops for war.
I consider the pastor to be one of the elders or overseers, along with the others who lead the church. I have no objection to them being paid if it's a full-time job. There could be problems with pastors excessively dominating the flock, a personality cult.
I am not sure that the scripture says that we can follow its words but if we are comfortable with something that is not in scripture that's OK. What we are saying is that I have no objection to the church doing its own thing instead of following the teaching of scripture. If that is the case, we might as well forget scripture and make up the rules as we go along based on what keeps us happy. In other words, "bugger off God we don't really need you."I have spent about 20 years in fellowships that had no pastor, paid or otherwise with the fellowship preferring to follow scripture and have a plurality of unpaid elders all of whom grew up in the fellowship as it says in scripture. Not once was there any semblance of a personality cult.
I don't know how changing the leadership structure could help this.
What will change things is following the teachings of scripture, part of which is having a leadership structure that is set out in scripture. I don't see anywhere in scripture where we are given the option of cherry picking what we will obey or not. If we choose to ignore the teachings of scripture regarding the leadership of the church, it is more than likely that the church will ignore most things the scripture teaches in favour of man made tradition. The end result is that it is not the church, it is a religious organisation where the Holy Spirit is not welcome because man has everything organised to the last detail, so why would we need the Holy Spirit. There is no point in paying someone to replace the Holy Spirit if the Holy Spirit is going to be in charge.
This is an excellent observation. I admit that I have been guilty of turning over the machinery with a few new converts thrown in to keep me happy, but since reading Ed Silvoso's book "That None Should Perish" I realise that we are called to reclaim the earth from Satan who is an unlawful occupier. In other words, we are on a war footing and unfortunately too many churches are POW camps instead of being an army barrack training troops for war.
I consider the pastor to be one of the elders or overseers, along with the others who lead the church. I have no objection to them being paid if it's a full-time job. There could be problems with pastors excessively dominating the flock, a personality cult.
I am not sure that the scripture says that we can follow its words but if we are comfortable with something that is not in scripture that's OK. What we are saying is that I have no objection to the church doing its own thing instead of following the teaching of scripture. If that is the case, we might as well forget scripture and make up the rules as we go along based on what keeps us happy. In other words, "bugger off God we don't really need you."I have spent about 20 years in fellowships that had no pastor, paid or otherwise with the fellowship preferring to follow scripture and have a plurality of unpaid elders all of whom grew up in the fellowship as it says in scripture. Not once was there any semblance of a personality cult.
I don't know how changing the leadership structure could help this.
What will change things is following the teachings of scripture, part of which is having a leadership structure that is set out in scripture. I don't see anywhere in scripture where we are given the option of cherry picking what we will obey or not. If we choose to ignore the teachings of scripture regarding the leadership of the church, it is more than likely that the church will ignore most things the scripture teaches in favour of man made tradition. The end result is that it is not the church, it is a religious organisation where the Holy Spirit is not welcome because man has everything organised to the last detail, so why would we need the Holy Spirit. There is no point in paying someone to replace the Holy Spirit if the Holy Spirit is going to be in charge.
tim_from_pa
New Member
- Jul 11, 2007
- 1,656
- 12
- 0
- 65
This is an excellent observation. I admit that I have been guilty of turning over the machinery with a few new converts thrown in to keep me happy, but since reading Ed Silvoso's book "That None Should Perish" I realise that we are called to reclaim the earth from Satan who is an unlawful occupier. In other words, we are on a war footing and unfortunately too many churches are POW camps instead of being an army barrack training troops for war.
Yes, so true. And it is more than an observation. God's Word teaches the purpose of everything. Kriss and others of us talk about the different earth ages and few people realize the throne Lucifer had/has and man was supposed to take that over as God would beget one as Himself to do the job right to put it colloquially. But since we've sinned, we've hissed away our authority to Lucifer called the god of this world. The whole purpose of God Himself is to restore his Kingdom. But it gets done in due time at various stages (some like to call them "dispensations" but they are all intertwined).
Yes, so true. And it is more than an observation. God's Word teaches the purpose of everything. Kriss and others of us talk about the different earth ages and few people realize the throne Lucifer had/has and man was supposed to take that over as God would beget one as Himself to do the job right to put it colloquially. But since we've sinned, we've hissed away our authority to Lucifer called the god of this world. The whole purpose of God Himself is to restore his Kingdom. But it gets done in due time at various stages (some like to call them "dispensations" but they are all intertwined).
(marksman;60096)
I am not sure that the scripture says that we can follow its words but if we are comfortable with something that is not in scripture that's OK.
It's not a question so much of whether something is in scripture or not, only whether it is contrary to scripture (either the word or the spirit). This has nothing to do with picking what I want to believe. There is nothing in scripture that says that one shouldn't earn a living preaching. On the contrary, the apostles made a living by preaching. They didn't have other jobs to support themselves. The Apostle Paul defends preaching for money and implies that it was the norm. Although Paul says he worked for a living (doing what?). 1 Corinthians 9 and again in 1 Timothy 5. The worker deserves his wages. But, if your style of church is advancing the Kingdom of God, God bless and more power to you.
I am not sure that the scripture says that we can follow its words but if we are comfortable with something that is not in scripture that's OK.
It's not a question so much of whether something is in scripture or not, only whether it is contrary to scripture (either the word or the spirit). This has nothing to do with picking what I want to believe. There is nothing in scripture that says that one shouldn't earn a living preaching. On the contrary, the apostles made a living by preaching. They didn't have other jobs to support themselves. The Apostle Paul defends preaching for money and implies that it was the norm. Although Paul says he worked for a living (doing what?). 1 Corinthians 9 and again in 1 Timothy 5. The worker deserves his wages. But, if your style of church is advancing the Kingdom of God, God bless and more power to you.
marksman
My eldest granddaughter showing the result of her
There is nothing in scripture that says that one shouldn't earn a living preaching.
There is plenty of teaching in scripture that indicates no one was paid to be good. History as well shows that this was the case because Constantine, when he legalised christianity and made it the state religion, highjacked the leadership and imposed civil leadership models on the church.Part of that move was that he insisted that the clergy be paid. If they were already paid why would he insist they be paid?
On the contrary, the apostles made a living by preaching. They didn't have other jobs to support themselves.
On the contrary, the apostles did not make a living by preaching. The church supported the apostles WHILST THEY WERE TRAVELLING as they could not earn money. Once they were resident in a town, Paul in particular made tents to earn money to keep him and his companions.In 1 Corinthians 9 defends his right to be paid but made it very clear that he would not accept money. His reward was to preach the gospel. Contrary to 1 Timothy 5 supporting the paying of a salary to a pastor, it does the opposite. The New Testament word for pay or wages in Greek is ‘misthos’ or ‘opsonion’. The word used here in the term “double honour” is ‘time’ which means esteem or dignity. If it is saying to pay Elders it would use the Greek words which mean that. The fact that it doesn’t means that you cannot build a case to pay elders and certainly not to pay a pastor who isn’t even mentioned.One definitely comes unstuck if you insist this passage sets down the authority to pay pastors. The same word ‘honour’ (time) is found in Romans 12 v 10 where we are told to “honour one another above yourselves”. Those who insist honour means pay will have to honour the totality of scripture and pay everybody in the church a salary. If they don’t they are opening themselves to the charge of interpreting scripture to suit their tradition and ignoring the overall revelation of scripture.If you want to see a full exposition of what the scripture teaches about this topic go to my website at http://churchalive66.googlepages.com
There is plenty of teaching in scripture that indicates no one was paid to be good. History as well shows that this was the case because Constantine, when he legalised christianity and made it the state religion, highjacked the leadership and imposed civil leadership models on the church.Part of that move was that he insisted that the clergy be paid. If they were already paid why would he insist they be paid?
On the contrary, the apostles made a living by preaching. They didn't have other jobs to support themselves.
On the contrary, the apostles did not make a living by preaching. The church supported the apostles WHILST THEY WERE TRAVELLING as they could not earn money. Once they were resident in a town, Paul in particular made tents to earn money to keep him and his companions.In 1 Corinthians 9 defends his right to be paid but made it very clear that he would not accept money. His reward was to preach the gospel. Contrary to 1 Timothy 5 supporting the paying of a salary to a pastor, it does the opposite. The New Testament word for pay or wages in Greek is ‘misthos’ or ‘opsonion’. The word used here in the term “double honour” is ‘time’ which means esteem or dignity. If it is saying to pay Elders it would use the Greek words which mean that. The fact that it doesn’t means that you cannot build a case to pay elders and certainly not to pay a pastor who isn’t even mentioned.One definitely comes unstuck if you insist this passage sets down the authority to pay pastors. The same word ‘honour’ (time) is found in Romans 12 v 10 where we are told to “honour one another above yourselves”. Those who insist honour means pay will have to honour the totality of scripture and pay everybody in the church a salary. If they don’t they are opening themselves to the charge of interpreting scripture to suit their tradition and ignoring the overall revelation of scripture.If you want to see a full exposition of what the scripture teaches about this topic go to my website at http://churchalive66.googlepages.com
(marksman;60164)
On the contrary, the apostles did not make a living by preaching. The church supported the apostles WHILST THEY WERE TRAVELLING as they could not earn money.
"Who serves as a soldier at his own expense?... If others have this right of support from you, shouldn't we have it all the more?... the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel." I don't see where you get the objection to paying the leaders of the church. Yes, Paul didn't take payment, but he made clear that he had the right to payment. He also implied that the the others, other than him and Barnabas, took payment for their work.I don't see a limitation to paying people only when they are traveling. And, I don't see a difference between someone traveling and someone devoting their time working for the church without traveling. Someone who puts in a lot of hours at church also doesn't have time to earn a living elsewhere.
Contrary to 1 Timothy 5 supporting the paying of a salary to a pastor, it does the opposite. The New Testament word for pay or wages in Greek is ‘misthos’ or ‘opsonion’. The word used here in the term “double honour”
Being paid is one way to substantially show honor. But, it's not the honor comment itself. Paul is very clearly defending the payment of elders in the context. "Those whose work is preaching and teaching... The worker deserves his wages" isn't vague.Christianity has done fine for hundreds of years with paid leadership. What has changed in the west is that Christians are more fearful of man than God. I read across this article. Falwell's Liberty University is becoming sodomite friendly. The people who run the school are more worried about being called homophobes than about going to Hell. Most religious institutions have already moved further from God than Liberty.
On the contrary, the apostles did not make a living by preaching. The church supported the apostles WHILST THEY WERE TRAVELLING as they could not earn money.
"Who serves as a soldier at his own expense?... If others have this right of support from you, shouldn't we have it all the more?... the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel." I don't see where you get the objection to paying the leaders of the church. Yes, Paul didn't take payment, but he made clear that he had the right to payment. He also implied that the the others, other than him and Barnabas, took payment for their work.I don't see a limitation to paying people only when they are traveling. And, I don't see a difference between someone traveling and someone devoting their time working for the church without traveling. Someone who puts in a lot of hours at church also doesn't have time to earn a living elsewhere.
Contrary to 1 Timothy 5 supporting the paying of a salary to a pastor, it does the opposite. The New Testament word for pay or wages in Greek is ‘misthos’ or ‘opsonion’. The word used here in the term “double honour”
Being paid is one way to substantially show honor. But, it's not the honor comment itself. Paul is very clearly defending the payment of elders in the context. "Those whose work is preaching and teaching... The worker deserves his wages" isn't vague.Christianity has done fine for hundreds of years with paid leadership. What has changed in the west is that Christians are more fearful of man than God. I read across this article. Falwell's Liberty University is becoming sodomite friendly. The people who run the school are more worried about being called homophobes than about going to Hell. Most religious institutions have already moved further from God than Liberty.
marksman
My eldest granddaughter showing the result of her
Being paid is one way to substantially show honor. But, it's not the honor comment itself. Paul is very clearly defending the payment of elders in the context. "Those whose work is preaching and teaching... The worker deserves his wages" isn't vague.
That is your take on things, it is not what the scripture says in the Greek. As I said, if double honour means financial payment, then you have to pay everyone in the fellowship, otherwise you have to explain why the same word has two different meanings. if you can't, your interpretation must be wrong.Once again, why would Constantine insist on them being paid if they were already being paid. The fact that he said this, it is obvious that they weren't.
Someone who puts in a lot of hours at church also doesn't have time to earn a living elsewhere
You are interpreting this in the light of modern day experience, not NT reality. Then, everyone was full time and there was no such thing as the clergy/laity divide. Then the only priesthood recognised was the priesthood of all believers. Because of this fact, they did not need someone who as you say put in a lot of hours at church, bearing in mind that the church we have today was non-existent in the NT. I have read over 40 authors who have written about church history and everyone of them said no one was paid in the NT church.
Christianity has done fine for hundreds of years with paid leadership.
This statement is fallacious. In comparison to the NT church which changed the world in 30 years, we are going backward at an alarming rate and have become irrelevant to most people. A survey showed that only 1% of churches in the USA were growing. Another one said that approx. 1 million christians are leaving the institutionalised church every year. That being the case, I would hardly consider the church is doing fine.
That is your take on things, it is not what the scripture says in the Greek. As I said, if double honour means financial payment, then you have to pay everyone in the fellowship, otherwise you have to explain why the same word has two different meanings. if you can't, your interpretation must be wrong.Once again, why would Constantine insist on them being paid if they were already being paid. The fact that he said this, it is obvious that they weren't.
Someone who puts in a lot of hours at church also doesn't have time to earn a living elsewhere
You are interpreting this in the light of modern day experience, not NT reality. Then, everyone was full time and there was no such thing as the clergy/laity divide. Then the only priesthood recognised was the priesthood of all believers. Because of this fact, they did not need someone who as you say put in a lot of hours at church, bearing in mind that the church we have today was non-existent in the NT. I have read over 40 authors who have written about church history and everyone of them said no one was paid in the NT church.
Christianity has done fine for hundreds of years with paid leadership.
This statement is fallacious. In comparison to the NT church which changed the world in 30 years, we are going backward at an alarming rate and have become irrelevant to most people. A survey showed that only 1% of churches in the USA were growing. Another one said that approx. 1 million christians are leaving the institutionalised church every year. That being the case, I would hardly consider the church is doing fine.
(marksman;60186)
That is your take on things, it is not what the scripture says in the Greek. As I said, if double honour means financial payment,
No one has said "double honour" means payment. It looks plain as day that Paul teaches that church leaders have a right to be paid and I see nothing at all to indicate that paying church leaders is countrary to scripture.
This statement is fallacious. In comparison to the NT church which changed the world in 30 years, we are going backward at an alarming rate and have become irrelevant to most people. A survey showed that only 1% of churches in the USA were growing. Another one said that approx. 1 million christians are leaving the institutionalised church every year.
I agree with that.
That being the case, I would hardly consider the church is doing fine.
I didn't say the church is doing fine. I said it had been doing fine with paid leaders Of course, the Church is sick, but not because leaders are being paid. It's overran by fools who even boast of having no fear of God. Adjusting pay rates is not going to fix the problem.
That is your take on things, it is not what the scripture says in the Greek. As I said, if double honour means financial payment,
No one has said "double honour" means payment. It looks plain as day that Paul teaches that church leaders have a right to be paid and I see nothing at all to indicate that paying church leaders is countrary to scripture.
This statement is fallacious. In comparison to the NT church which changed the world in 30 years, we are going backward at an alarming rate and have become irrelevant to most people. A survey showed that only 1% of churches in the USA were growing. Another one said that approx. 1 million christians are leaving the institutionalised church every year.
I agree with that.
That being the case, I would hardly consider the church is doing fine.
I didn't say the church is doing fine. I said it had been doing fine with paid leaders Of course, the Church is sick, but not because leaders are being paid. It's overran by fools who even boast of having no fear of God. Adjusting pay rates is not going to fix the problem.
marksman
My eldest granddaughter showing the result of her
Being paid is one way to substantially show honor.
No one has said "double honour" means payment.
I hope that you are not going to quibble over "honour" and "double honour" but it looks to me that you have said that honour means payment.
It looks plain as day that Paul teaches that church leaders have a right to be paid and I see nothing at all to indicate that paying church leaders is countrary to scripture.
If that is the case, why did Constantine insist that they be paid. Until you can answer this fact, your argument won't stand up.
I said it had been doing fine with paid leaders Of course,
I think that this is splitting hairs. The evidence is clear. The church is not doing fine with paid leaders. What don't you understand about only 1% of churches (with paid leaders) growing. What don't you understand about 1 million christians annually leaving churches (with paid leaders). Bottom line is the church is doing abysmally when you compare it with the NT church that changed the world in 30 years (without paid leaders).
It's overran by fools who even boast of having no fear of God.
to have an unscriptual leadership model ( a paid pastor who in most cases is brought in from outside the fellowship) is to have no fear of the word of God and the consequences of ignoring it, which is a church that is doing abysmally.
Adjusting pay rates is not going to fix the problem.
Which I have never advocated but obeying God's word is. Despite your protestations to the contrary, no one in the NT was paid to be good as church history writers agree. I hope your are not one of those that say if 40 authors have a different viewpoint from you they must all be wrong.
No one has said "double honour" means payment.
I hope that you are not going to quibble over "honour" and "double honour" but it looks to me that you have said that honour means payment.
It looks plain as day that Paul teaches that church leaders have a right to be paid and I see nothing at all to indicate that paying church leaders is countrary to scripture.
If that is the case, why did Constantine insist that they be paid. Until you can answer this fact, your argument won't stand up.
I said it had been doing fine with paid leaders Of course,
I think that this is splitting hairs. The evidence is clear. The church is not doing fine with paid leaders. What don't you understand about only 1% of churches (with paid leaders) growing. What don't you understand about 1 million christians annually leaving churches (with paid leaders). Bottom line is the church is doing abysmally when you compare it with the NT church that changed the world in 30 years (without paid leaders).
It's overran by fools who even boast of having no fear of God.
to have an unscriptual leadership model ( a paid pastor who in most cases is brought in from outside the fellowship) is to have no fear of the word of God and the consequences of ignoring it, which is a church that is doing abysmally.
Adjusting pay rates is not going to fix the problem.
Which I have never advocated but obeying God's word is. Despite your protestations to the contrary, no one in the NT was paid to be good as church history writers agree. I hope your are not one of those that say if 40 authors have a different viewpoint from you they must all be wrong.
Similar threads
