Saved Without A Pastor??

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I think this is more or less accurate, when understood through the filter that there was no sole authority in any individual church, or even in the Council of Jerusalem. If you consider this meeting (that we have more or less dubbed the Council of Jerusalem) it is very similar to the church. While I have asked the question repeatedly, "who was the pastor of this church of that one in the New Testament church, nobody has been able to answer. I think it is pretty obvious to those of us that are active in this discussion that the leadership model for the NT church was a plurality of elders. The same seems to be true at Jerusalem. Who was the sole solitary leader? Some say Peter (the RCC certainly does) others say James. My point is that there is no solid scriptural evidence, either at the local church level, or the Hazelwood Missouri level.

Then there is this:

Bible, King James Version


1Cor.11
[3] But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

I think that this conflicts with the "head of every man is his pastor" culture that is propagated today in the apostolic church. I think leadership is needed, but lordship (lower case l) is to be avoided. The danger is where you put your faith. Paul said follow me as I follow Christ. I think the words should cause us to consider and analyze the motives, intentions and the veracity of our pastors and elders.

Paul said of the saints at Berea . . .

Bible, King James Version


Acts.17
[11] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Paul makes a head to head comparison between the saints of these to churches, and declares the saints at Berea are more noble because they didn't just accept the word, but also verified it. Today these same saints might be considered troublemakers, and the saints at Thessalonica would likely be exalted.

So what is the scriptural model?

This one . . .

Eph.5
[21] Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
[22] Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord

Wives being submissive to the pastor INSTEAD of their own husbands is in direct conflict with the Bible, yet there are many who believe that it should be done.

The man who won't submit to Christ as his pastor, he will never submit to any minister.

Wives submit to their husbands in everything. Yet, a woman who won't submit to her husband will never submit to Christ.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I think this is more or less accurate, when understood through the filter that there was no sole authority in any individual church, or even in the Council of Jerusalem. If you consider this meeting (that we have more or less dubbed the Council of Jerusalem) it is very similar to the church. While I have asked the question repeatedly, "who was the pastor of this church of that one in the New Testament church, nobody has been able to answer. I think it is pretty obvious to those of us that are active in this discussion that the leadership model for the NT church was a plurality of elders. The same seems to be true at Jerusalem. Who was the sole solitary leader? Some say Peter (the RCC certainly does) others say James. My point is that there is no solid scriptural evidence, either at the local church level, or the Hazelwood Missouri level.

James and Peter address Paul and Barnabas. James is definitely have a level of leadership of elder which gave him the ability to tell everyone to shema unto him, Acts 15:13-18. Submit yourself one unto another as far as ministry can only be achieved through ability. Not talking about how we are all brothers in the Lord. But eldership cannot operate when you are connected to full blown knuckleheads. Imagine you TM if you were in an eldership who were diametrically opposed to what you believe? You wouldn't be able to operate. Or if you were in a submit yourself one to another plurality of elders who were spiritually immature, or mentally immature, you would be greatly as restricted as being under a despot. Unless you walk a mile in another man's Tony Lamas you just can't imagine the actual difficulties of what we believe a doctrine "Should Be"

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

James and Peter address Paul and Barnabas. James is definitely have a level of leadership of elder which gave him the ability to tell everyone to shema unto him, Acts 15:13-18. Submit yourself one unto another as far as ministry can only be achieved through ability. Not talking about how we are all brothers in the Lord. But eldership cannot operate when you are connected to full blown knuckleheads. Imagine you TM if you were in an eldership who were diametrically opposed to what you believe? You wouldn't be able to operate. Or if you were in a submit yourself one to another plurality of elders who were spiritually immature, or mentally immature, you would be greatly as restricted as being under a despot. Unless you walk a mile in another man's Tony Lamas you just can't imagine the actual difficulties of what we believe a doctrine "Should Be"

I think the key is the Holy Ghost leading and guiding us unto all truth. Knuckleheads are not being led by the Holy Ghost. The example of Brother Phil White is an example (I believe) of something that could be remedied by a healthy dose of plural elder leadership. Think about this instruction from Paul, which is one of the other "two or three" comments that you don't hear that much about;

1Cor.14
[29] Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge

I am not talking isolated scripture here. There are several examples of proceeding with caution and having reasoned, methodical, scripture basis for teaching and preaching. The snake handlers are an example of taking one passage and emphasizing it above others. (There is also a school of thought (mine) that believes that this may be where the tradition of running the backs of pews came from. Just kidding.)

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I think the key is the Holy Ghost leading and guiding us unto all truth. Knuckleheads are not being led by the Holy Ghost.

Bro, are you or ever been part of an collegial eldership?

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

The example of Brother Phil White is an example (I believe) of something that could be remedied by a healthy dose of plural elder leadership. Think about this instruction from Paul, which is one of the other "two or three" comments that you don't hear that much about;

Are you, or have you ever been part of a collegial eldership? I live in a city where the most famous collegial leadership was founded? It was called the Shepherding Movement. It ended in disaster. Not saying that eldership cannot work, but Brother White has elders, people he has to answer to.

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

1Cor.14
[29] Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge

But I have never been to an Apostolic Church that didn't have this. Pastors have visiting ministers preach. At times more numerous then you could imagine.

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I am not talking isolated scripture here. There are several examples of proceeding with caution and having reasoned, methodical, scripture basis for teaching and preaching. The snake handlers are an example of taking one passage and emphasizing it above others. (There is also a school of thought (mine) that believes that this may be where the tradition of running the backs of pews came from. Just kidding.)

Understandable, that's what we take the word wholistically