Thelyphthora Martin Madan

[Asforme&myhouse]

I agree. But this wasn't just some friend of theirs sqawking about his opinion. He said don't do x. If someone does x withdraw from them. And if someone does do x the elders which he appointed will see to it that the assembly shuns him until he stops doing x.

Admittedly this is hard to conceive in a time when the only people who ever get shunned are those who try and actually obey the teachings of the apostles.

Maybe we should be doing more of the shunning... just kidding... but seriously...

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I agree. But this wasn't just some friend of theirs sqawking about his opinion. He said don't do x. If someone does x withdraw from them. And if someone does do x the elders which he appointed will see to it that the assembly shuns him until he stops doing x.

We’re probably saying the same thing. I’m assuming that we’re talking about the 1 Corinthians 5&6 passage.

My point is that even though he instructs them to behave a certain way, and is quite emphatic about it, he doesn’t appear to me to be imperative and a ‘because I said so and I’m the maaan of God’ type approach. Rather both chapters are an exhortation to do right and this is why kind of approach.

 

[rockfox]

Yes but it was more systematic than that. See also 2 Thes 2:15,3:16, Matthew 18:15-17, etc.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Yes but it was more systematic than that. See also 2 Thes 2:15,3:16, Matthew 18:15-17, etc.

I’m not sure what your trying to get at.
Matthew 18:15-17 is about a brother being separated from the assembly, but it is after the assembly has heard the matter and responded. A single man or even a few men did not have that authority in direct contradiction to the model today.

2 Thess 2:15 does tell us to stand fast in the doctrines received from Paul, specifically in defense against verse 4
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

We know this to be specifically about the Anti Christ, and yet is this not the ultimate attitude witnessed in Corporate Christianity to one degree or another? Specifically in the Pastor/Popes that we’re all familiar with.

2 Thess 3 is an even better text for these men. Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
Neither did we eat any man’s† bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.

This ^^^^^ is the epitome of Corporate Christianity pastors. They work not at all, but think they should have the right to coerce monies from their brethren to compensate them for being busybodies! (Sure, I know they call it ministry, but its really socially funded righteousness). Why should any man be compensated for something we are all called to do as believers? Studying? Visiting the sick and elderly and widows and orphans? Sharing a truth from scripture we found while studying this week? Exhorting your brothers to live holy and righteously? Apparently Paul did all that and more while laboring with his own hands just to prove that this is the standard for influence and authority? in the assembly.

Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.
But ye, brethren, be not weary in well doing.
And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

My point is that a singular man was never to have the kind of pompous authority that these men usurp and project. Even Paul in his role doesnt exercise this and lived his life as an example to remove any pretense of headship over the assembly that was not Christ.

 

[rockfox]

Look, I'm no friend of the single pastor model or their authoritarian approach. But I also understand there is a place for discipline in the body.

Agreed, it was never something in a singular man. And you are correct, most of what 'pastors' do today is actually what the body as whole should be doing.

But good elders are still worthy of their wages. Paul did at times not take money, supporting himself, but other times did get money. When he didn't do it, he did that so as not to make it a hurdle to them.

For the most part, the american pastor doesn't do much actual pastoring and his teaching is mainly of little effect. Designed not to equip them to fly but rather to keep them hobbled and dependent on him for their spiritual fix.

 

[Pacman]

Look, I'm no friend of the single pastor model or their authoritarian approach. But I also understand there is a place for discipline in the body.

Agreed, it was never something in a singular man. And you are correct, most of what 'pastors' do today is actually what the body as whole should be doing.

But good elders are still worthy of their wages. Paul did at times not take money, supporting himself, but other times did get money. When he didn't do it, he did that so as not to make it a hurdle to them.

For the most part, the american pastor doesn't do much actual pastoring and his teaching is mainly of little effect. Designed not to equip them to fly but rather to keep them hobbled and dependent on him for their spiritual fix.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I get the impression that whatever “pay” Paul or others like him received was given of the people’s own free will and only what they could afford. Even the collection took to help the persecuted believers was a free will offering.

I have no problem with voluntarily donating money to help a man who is doing ministry or a missionary to a country where he is unable to work... I have a problem with it being falsely presented as a requirement...

 

[rockfox]

Correct me if I’m wrong but I get the impression that whatever “pay” Paul or others like him received was given of the people’s own free will and only what they could afford. Even the collection took to help the persecuted believers was a free will offering.

I have no problem with voluntarily donating money to help a man who is doing ministry or a missionary to a country where he is unable to work... I have a problem with it being falsely presented as a requirement...

Correct. And it was person to person in private; between you and god. There was no compulsion. No budget. No salary. No tax write offs.

 

[rockfox]

I have a problem with it being falsely presented as a requirement...

This is actually a huge problem. Because they will even call it a tithe and teach it as being mandatory.

So on the pro side in Galatians 6:

6The one who is taught the word is to share all good things with the one who teaches him. 7Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. 8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary. 10So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.

But the way many "Pastor's" teach it is to put us under the old law with presents a problem, from Gal 3:

For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY ALL THINGS WRITTEN IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW, TO PERFORM THEM.”

 

[Pacman]

But the way many "Pastor's" teach it is to put us under the old law with presents a problem, from Gal 3:

Ehh you’re taking Gal 3 out of context... but I agree that the Pastors teaching that tithes are to be paid to the modern church are also incorrect and violating their own religious dogma...

 

[frederick]

Shalom

So on the pro side in Galatians 6:

As an ex-pastor, I would like to make the following point regarding Galatians 6:6ff, as this passage is frequently misused to "encourage" saints to give to the pastors/popes.

While there is a God-given responsibility for an assembly of believers to provide for those who are the teachers (e.g. 1 Tim. 5:17-18), that isn’t the subject being dealt with here in Galatians 6. Both v:5 and v:6 are dealing with the believer’s obligations. In v:5, Paul is explaining that each person will bear what he has been assigned; the assigned load to carry. In v:6, Paul admonishes the one who has been soundly instructed (literally - catechized) in the word to share or participate with the one who has instructed him in all good things. The exhortation is in the form of a pres. act. imp.; lit. it’s for the one taught to continually participate with the one who is giving the spiritually beneficial instruction; instructing in all good things. We as Christians have an obligation in helping others in their spiritual walk to restore and then maintain godly fellowship. It’s for those who have been blessed through being taught the word who are to continue to participate or fellowship with the one who instructs in all good things. Making this a reference to paying "pastors/popes" is taking it out of context of Chapter 6 and the epistle itself.
Shalom

 

[rockfox]

Making this a reference to paying "pastors/popes"

Far be it for me to defend paying popes.

While there is a God-given responsibility for an assembly of believers to provide for those who are the teachers (e.g. 1 Tim. 5:17-18), that isn’t the subject being dealt with here in Galatians 6

Sorry, I'm not really following what you're trying to say. I fail to see how "share all good things with the one who teaches him" does not include things like 1 Tim. 5:17-18. But I don't think we need to further distract this thread as we're really not disagreeing much, if at all. I don't have much vim in me to defend the little protestant popes.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

What he calls the Moses Model is actually the Yeshua Model. The original Moses Model initiated and instituted a substitutionary priesthood that our modern Christian model follows that is vested with authority and headship.

He spends a lot of time dancing around the fact that the original Moses Model had a singular Nasi over the people under Moses. If he was truly expounding on a Moses Model, he would have to support a head pastor over the people and subordinate to Moses. In the 119 “Moses Model” Yeshua is both Moses and Aaron. IMO this is circular at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Yeshua would never be the equivalent comparison with Aaron who would have been subordinate to Moses. In a Levitical priesthood, it is impossible to remove a human mediator between God and man. Numbers 27:15-17 is proof of this. Only in a Melchizedek priesthood does a man approach God without a human Nasi. The Moses Model institutionalized it. The Melchizedek Model restored it to the head of the household.

The etymology lesson is interesting, but totally misses that the reason that there was a group called the Nicolaitans was because they followed the heresy of Nicolas, who was one of the original Jerusalem deacons. It had nothing to do with a victory over the laity. Too funny, and yet sad.

Ran across this today. Numbers 16:15. And Moses was very wroth, and said unto the LORD, Respect not thou their offering: I have not taken one ass from them, neither have I hurt one of them.