William Thornton is an SBC pastor in the Atlanta area that blogs as the "SBC Plodder". He is my favorite blogging pastor, as he is conservative, yet not afraid to speak his mind even when his views are contrary to the CR party line.He posted a great article Monday entitled "Chronic Clergy Complaining Syndrome". Many pastors seem to exhibit the symptoms of CCCS, as I chronicled in my series "Crybaby Pastors" (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3).
Here is William's recommendations to his fellow pastors who have CCCS:
Plodder’s suggestions to help the brethren avoid unbecoming whinefests:Good one, William.
1. If you think preaching a 30 minute sermon is like working an eight hour day, take a nap on Sunday afternoon.
2. If you think you are underpaid, find a better paying occupation. You are in an occupation you chose. No one forced you into it.
3. Talk to some eightysomething retired pastors about compensation and other job related matters.
4. Figure out a way to be paid a dollar every time someone says, “I wouldn’t want your job.”
5. Thank Jesus for your high calling.
83 comments:
Good advice. Pastors need to follow it. No one should go into the ministry for the money or to run a business. All pastors want to do these days is fund-raise and grow their churches. What happened to humbly serving God as the leader of a church and trusting in Him to provide the rest? If you are out there to be a big shot, rich mega church pastor, you are in the wrong profession and you need to stay out of the church. Brunson and Young are two prime examples.
"No one should go into the ministry for the money or to run a business. All pastors want to do these days is fund-raise and grow their churches."
How do you know? Are you God? I have never known anyone who goes into paid ministry say they were doing it for the money.
Perhaps things change after they are in it for a period of time, but to say folks go into it for all the wrong reasons discounts divine influence on their decision to serve don't you think.
Perhaps things change after they are in it for a period of time, but to say folks go into it for all the wrong reasons discounts divine influence on their decision to serve don't you think.
May 26, 2011 6:38 AM
Actually, money is rarely the motivator. WSJ used to publish surveys every year on the top motivators and number one was: Recognition.
This plays out with our celebrity culture. And the cult of personality that has become so big in Christendom.
Some are attracted to having followers even if it is a small church. They like being the big cheese. Having people listen to them as the expert or the more spiritual one. If you listen to many pastors you hear them use the word "called" a lot. As if all believers are not called to ministry, just a few special ones who are to be paid for it.
As to money, I would like to see more folks do it for free while holding down a real job. If that happened, then perhaps more of the "body" would function as it should.
"If you listen to many pastors you hear them use the word "called" a lot. As if all believers are not called to ministry, just a few special ones who are to be paid for it."
This is what you don't get. No one is suggesting that all believers are not called. Pastors are are called to a specific task that few have a desire to do. Do you want get up there each Sunday and preach a 30-40 minute message that is both biblically accurate and keeps your audience engaged? At the same time can appropriately deal with the various complaints and concerns and tragedies and counseling that will be laid at your feet each day? Can you balance the emotional and spiritual needs of your church with the needs of your family? This is just part of it.
Everyone is called to minister. No doubt. But you should know that the Bible most certainly acknowledges people being called to specific tasks of ministry and that includes some being called as a pastor. Yes, I said called. You don't like that term then blame the church because there the ones that vote to "call" a pastor. I know that is an unpopular concept here but it doesn't make it not true. Being a pastor is a calling, somewhat like being a doctor is a calling, or a teacher etc... Don't discount it simply because you don't like your pastor.
"This is what you don't get. No one is suggesting that all believers are not called. Pastors are are called to a specific task that few have a desire to do."
To this and the rest of your comment - good word.
no one specific funtion one is gifted for use in the body is more important. If 'pastor' is so important then who was the pastor if the Corinthian church? The Philippian?
You are speaking of tradition that has made 'pastor' into a manager.
I guess you did not notice on the last thread Jon, the pastor, either does not study or twists the Word. Whichever one it is, I fear for the ones who sit and listen to him every week.
"To this and the rest of your comment - good word."
This is hilarious coming from the scripture twisting "touch not mine anointed" pastor.
General agreement with Thorntons's advice, but not completely.
Thornton's advice seems to center around the issue of "pay."
As a pastor, "pay" is never to be a motivating issue at all. In fact "pay" is never to be a motivating issue for anyone.
Leaving a $10/hour factory job, for a $20/hour factory job, is no different than a pastor leaving a $500/week church for a $700/week church.
In both situations, "Mammon is their Lord."
Money is not only not to be the deciding factor for pastors, money is not to be the deciding factor for anyone.
Money is never to be anyone's master, Jesus is.
Any pastor, any where that deterimines the Lord's will, through the amount of money he will make is a hireling any way.
If the Lord has called a man to be a plumber, then he is out of the will of God by being a pastor.
The fact remains that they who preach the gospel are to live of the gospel, "Whatever that living provides." It is up to the will of the church how they will care for their pastor. The fact is that some churches are very gracious, some churches are unnecessarily lavious, some churches are limited in funds, and some churches are simply uninterested in anything more than a part time pastor and choosing a bi-vocational plan. And yes, you could say that some are just stingy and money motivated themselves.
The only disagreement I have with thornton is the notion that "you chose this occupation."
Not exactly. I wanted to be a baseball coach. That was my choice.
However, the Lord stepped in made His will for me known to me. Then my only choice was obedience or disobedience.
Any man who has chosen his own occupation has stepped out of line. It has been said over and over here that every saint has a calling, which is categorically true.
Within that calling the Lord also has his chosen vocation for His children, and therefore His children's choice is reduced simply to obey Him, or disobey Him.
The question every man must rightly ask is "Lord will you have me to do vocationally as well as ministerially?"
In this day and age, the Americanized message to everyone is to "follow your heart" "chase your dreams" and "if you can dream it you can achieve it." - Baloney.
Never under any circumstances follow your dreams. Follow your Lord! If there is something you want to do, make your request, but accept God's answer.
He that would lose his life for Christ's sake and the gospel's shall find it.
Any man working for the company instead of the kingdom, regardless of the company is working for the wrong master.
Jesus is either Lord of all, or not at all.
I will readily admit, that in this day and age we have pastors that ought to be plumbers, and "ministers" that ought to be manufacturers. But I also believe that the other side is true. There are some men plumbing, when the Lord wants them preaching/pastoring. There are some men manufacturing, when the Lord wants them in full-time ministry.
What is fundamentally false is this idea that full time pay nullifies the integrity or validity of a man's ministry. That is Biblically false. The false accusation that is made is that if he is paid, then that's why he's doing it. If that's why he's doing it, then he shouldn't be paid!
Some will always ask , how then do we tell the real ones from the false ones?
1st Timothy 3. - Whoever doesn't fit those characteristics, is not qualified for the full time pastoral/eldership ministry.
Not discerning the Lord's will for our own vocations may be why we have so many "money motivated ministers" today, as opposed to "Spirit Led" servants of the Lord.
"no one specific funtion one is gifted for use in the body is more important. If 'pastor' is so important then who was the pastor if the Corinthian church? The Philippian?"
While your comment makes little sense I would simply say that just because you find no specific name of a pastor given doesn't mean there was not one. Furthermore, explain 1 Timothy 3 and how it fits with this belief.
Jeff H -
Good word. I wish I could communicate, in writing, as well as you. There is no gift for written communication or if there is, I don't have it. There is a gift for oral communication and I do better there than with a pen or keyboard before me.
My wife says it is because I think to far ahead when I type and don't go back and see what I have typed. She is usually right and much smarter than I.
Back to my point. Good word. I enjoyed your post.
"What is fundamentally false is this idea that full time pay nullifies the integrity or validity of a man's ministry. That is Biblically false."
How did you come to that conclusion?
Why did the first century church not have a full-time paid pastor?
"1st Timothy 3. - Whoever doesn't fit those characteristics, is not qualified for the full time pastoral/eldership ministry."
So, what should be done if the pastor doesn't fit these characteristics?
There on those who comment on this blog that defend a pastor when he is clearly not living up to these characteristics and then misuse scripture (Psalm 105) to try to intimidate church members into not being good Bereans.
I pastor I know made the following observation. Why do pastors seem to be "called" to a new church in which they will make more money? How many pastors do you know who are "called" to church in which they will make less money?
For years I have heard preachers get up and say that they are a "God called preacher, not a momma called preacher." Homer Lindsay used to say it quite often. It was always delivered with an air of arrogance. My personal opinion is that God leads all of us into certain areas of adult life. Some get called to be teachers, some carpenters, some doctors, some pilots, some stay at home moms, some as preachers, etc, etc. Being a preacher has unique responsibilties, just as being a pilot, a doctor, a mom. Preachers/pastors have no more of a divine calling than any other adult does. When preachers (or anyone for that matter) say that they have a devine calling, it makes me think that they think they are special. They ain't. Have a nice day.
"I pastor I know made the following observation. Why do pastors seem to be "called" to a new church in which they will make more money? How many pastors do you know who are "called" to church in which they will make less money?"
Those of you who are not pastors and have served on a search committee. If your church ran, let's say, 200 how do you go about seeking men who come from similar size and style church. How do you seek men who serve in a larger church? How do you go about seeking the new pastor?
If there is a problem with moving up, isn't that a search committee issue? Shouldn't they be told not to let the new pastor come from a lower level church?
Help me out here. If climbing the ladder is the problem how does the search committee put a stop to this?
"If there is a problem with moving up, isn't that a search committee issue? Shouldn't they be told not to let the new pastor come from a lower level church?"
Jon, does your arm ever get tired from passing the buck?
We were told not to question the decision making of the search committee (you know like touch not mine anointed) - but just to pray for them since they were anointed.
That didn't keep them from selecting a pastor that split the church later.
"Jon, does your arm ever get tired from passing the buck?"
Are you saying the search committee has no part or responsibility in who is called? I know there are some pastors who are ladder climbers but if the subject is to be discussed why not consider more thoughts than blame the pastor.
If ladder climbing is wrong wouldn't it be advantageous for any church looking for a new pastor to refuse anyone who does not come from a similar size or larger church? Wouldn't this keep the members in control of the evil pastors who want nothing more than a bigger check?
I am of the opinion that the vote for a new pastor is more a vote for the committee bringing the recommendation than it is the person being presented. It isn't fair to blame the bullet which wounds you if you don't look for the ones who loaded the gun and shot that bullet at you.
Don't put a gun in the hands of those who don't know how to use it.
"We were told not to question the decision making of the search committee (you know like touch not mine anointed) - but just to pray for them since they were anointed."
So they told you that they were going to be shooting a bullet at you and you were to stand there and let them and you want to just blame the bullet.
"Are you saying the search committee has no part or responsibility in who is called?"
Are you saying that the pastor has no responsiblity in who is called?
Isn't he the one who makes the final decision on taking the job and not the search committee?
"If ladder climbing is wrong wouldn't it be advantageous for any church looking for a new pastor to refuse anyone who does not come from a similar size or larger church? Wouldn't this keep the members in control of the evil pastors who want nothing more than a bigger check?"
How would you advise an oridinary church member of occomplishing this action without being accsued of touching God's anointed?
And how would that solve the problem if the problem lies with the pastor?
"Isn't he the one who makes the final decision on taking the job and not the search committee?"
Can't be a final decision if there never is an initial one. Who is offering the man the position?
"I am of the opinion that the vote for a new pastor is more a vote for the committee bringing the recommendation than it is the person being presented. It isn't fair to blame the bullet which wounds you if you don't look for the ones who loaded the gun and shot that bullet at you."
Our church told us that it is the job of the sheep to "swallow and follow."
I love it. If the pulpit committee chooses someone who becomes a charlatan, it is not the charlatan's fault.
Oh, the logic of pastors. Sounds like Jon has personal experience with such things.
Those of us with a lot of hiring experience take responsibility when we make a bad decision. Problem is, the hiree never presents their bad side during the long and arduous process.
"Can't be a final decision if there never is an initial one. Who is offering the man the position?"
Someone must be offered the job if the church is to have a pastor.
Who makes the final decision on taking the job - the search committe or the pastor?
Oh, and many find the "hiree" waits to consolidate power before they start showing their bad side.
One more thing...I have found that those who want to 'get rid' of someone many times will give them a great reference when one is doing due diligence. That is the one thing that always amazed me...especially when it came to former churches and pastors.
Jon, you need to go over and hang out at SBC Voices. You have a lot in common with those pastors.
Most churches and pastors do not understand that the pastor is "hired help". The church organization is Christ at the top, then all of the laity, then the lay leadership, including deacons, with the pastor at the bottom. Servant leadership at its best is making oneself the least. Not my will but that of the Lord as revealed to all of your above me in this organization.
Few are willing to so serve, which is why the church is dying and being replaced with a Sunday morning entertainment event in a building built with money better spent feeding the hungry.
Few are willing to so serve, which is why the church is dying and being replaced with a Sunday morning entertainment event in a building built with money better spent feeding the hungry.
Very well said, there is a carnival atmosphere, there underlying aim is to remove strong biblical truths with the new agenda.
"That is the one thing that always amazed me...especially when it came to former churches and pastors."
Yea. Just ask Christa!
"I pastor I know made the following observation. Why do pastors seem to be "called" to a new church in which they will make more money? How many pastors do you know who are "called" to church in which they will make less money?"
Well then Dee, aren't you glad you are not in that position to have to make that tough decision?
"Oh, the logic of pastors. Sounds like Jon has personal experience with such things.
Those of us with a lot of hiring experience take responsibility when we make a bad decision. Problem is, the hiree never presents their bad side during the long and arduous process."
I never did say there was no responsibility on the pastor. There are many out there who are nothing but trouble. My point is that before anyone becomes a pastor of a church (unless he plants it) a committee works with him through a process. Much prayer should be involved and no movement forward until God speaks clearly.
Is a committee who brings in a poor excuse of a man not responsible? How did God lead them to such a person? would God lead them to such a person? Was the committee so far off base on what God wanted, they did not know His will? Who chose such a committee?
If the church puts men chasers on the committee, then the church deserves what they get.
Anonymous
If it was God that was doing the calling, it would seem to me that some from megachurches making a great deal of money would be called to a small church in which they would be making much less money. This calling stuff is often christianese for "moving on up." I get tired of the pretend "holiness."
As for tough decisions, I have been there. Have you ever had to decide whether or not to allow your 3 year old child to be radiated for a brain tumor? So, I get difficult and would be more than happy to consider such a decision.
Megachurches are reaching huge numbers of people for Jesus!
Jealousy is ugly.
Hate sucks
Mean people need Jesus
Take it up with God
He is the One that is raising up these Churches
Why do YOU hate them?
I love how many of you on here never want to answer Jon's questions. You just fire questions right back at him so as to avoid actually addressing his point. Hmmm...I wonder why that is?
Mega churches are reaching huge numbers of people for Jesus!
Where is the proof, and instead if reaching you should be touching, you are only reaching in the pocket, try to save people, that dose not mean spending money. Discover the mission of the church, not the building of a circus, but a people of god where we peace can bring people to the saving grace.
I love how many of you on here never want to answer Jon's questions.
I avoid Jon.
I love how many of you on here never want to answer Jon's questions. You just fire questions right back at him so as to avoid actually addressing his point. Hmmm...I wonder why that is?
May 26, 2011 11:27 PM
Hi Jon.
"I love how many of you on here never want to answer Jon's questions."
Some of us know Jon's tricks...like this one after he makes an "implication":
"I never did say there was no responsibility on the pastor".
And then for many years, some of us have seen Jon rebuke using flawed application and twisted biblical proof texts only to say later he never meant that. Or that he changed his mind...then he finds something else to use to try and make people think he is some wise sage.
We answer Jon's questions all the time. It is just not in the manner Jon wants. He wants to build a false premise and discuss that. Some of us know the premise is false. Guess you don't.
And Jon has been playing this game since around 2007 over at BBC open forum.
Perhaps if anon should make a list of Jon's questions he thinks have not been answered.
I look forward to reading Jon's self-contradicting statements, word-parsing, and scripture twisiting each morning. It's an exercise in refuting bad thinking and bad interpretation.
Here are some good examples from today:
Contradcitory statements:
"I never did say there was no responsibility on the pastor."
"Is a committee who brings in a poor excuse of a man not responsible?"
Notice how the rest of his comments blame the search committe and the church who picked the church committee - never the pastor.
Jon oversimplifies the process and ignores contengencies that have already been pointed out to him.
Some churches will give a good report on a bad pastor to get rid of him.
The pastor doesn't usually show his ugly side during the interview process. He waits until he has consolidated power at the new church.
The pastor, not the church or the search committee, is the one responsible for the final decision about God's calling in a ministry.
In conclusion, Jon's "it's always someone else's fault" mentality when it comes to pastors is self-serving and simplistic.
"I love how many of you on here never want to answer Jon's questions."
A few threads back, Jon was asked several pointed questions about his belief in the tithe. He dragged his feet in answering them because he knew that the answers would contradict his position.
His tactics in dealing with this problem included:
Trying to distract by asking a series of unrelated questions when it was he who had made the claim and was unable to defend it.
Using proof texts out of context to try to defend his position.
Ignoring contradictions in his beliefs (like why they paid 3 tithes in the OT and only one is required today, tithes were given to the poor, and it was always food).
Then he borrowed a philosophy from the culture (relativism) to try to claim that no one knows and that you were wrong for trying to push your views on him. Even though he had been doing the same thing until he realized he was wrong.
Then he used a scripture verse out of context to claim that he didn't need to answer "foolish questions" even though they were logical follow-up questions to his claims.
The following Monday he wrote that he had changed his mind on the subject without giving any credit to the discussion the week before.
Later he found a loophole in an old pastor's saying (more is required under grace than in the law) - so that he could hold on to his church tradition (and source of income) even though it contradicted 2 Corinthians 9:7.
In the end, he said that he didn't care that his congregation was ignorant about the NT model for giving even though he was the one that given them the bad informaton.
So don't talk to us about not answering Jon's questions - please.
"In the end, he said that he didn't care that his congregation was ignorant about the NT model for giving even though he was the one that given them the bad informaton."
Please show the world where I said I didn't care.
"The following Monday he wrote that he had changed his mind on the subject without giving any credit to the discussion the week before."
The discussion the week prior had nothing to do with my position change. I think it was anon who said I didn't give him credit. I thought that to be funny that anon needed my giving him credit for anything.
"Later he found a loophole in an old pastor's saying (more is required under grace than in the law) - so that he could hold on to his church tradition (and source of income) even though it contradicted 2 Corinthians 9:7."
Of course the subject of grace being is always greater than the law is not new. As far as a contradiction to 2 Cor. that is up to interpretation and anon's position is only one of others on this subject. disagreeing with anon does not mean I contradict scripture.
"A few threads back, Jon was asked several pointed questions about his belief in the tithe. He dragged his feet in answering them because he knew that the answers would contradict his position."
I also stated during the give and take that i did not have all the answers.
"Contradcitory statements:
"I never did say there was no responsibility on the pastor."
"Is a committee who brings in a poor excuse of a man not responsible?""
Of course a simple observation would show only one of these is a statement (which is factual), the other is a question (which has been avoided).
"The discussion the week prior had nothing to do with my position change. I think it was anon who said I didn't give him credit. I thought that to be funny that anon needed my giving him credit for anything."
Not true my friend. You would have never come to that conclusion on your own. It was forced upon you by a mountain of evidence.
After days of discussion, even you were not able to avoid the facts. It was obvious that you had not studied the subject on your own (other than proof texts given by others who also pushed this false doctrine).
And when you announced on the following Monday, that you had changed your view, you pretended like you had come to that conclusion on your own.
So you want me to believe that after 50 years of holding on to one belief, you discussed it with me for several days and were not able to defend your position and a mountain of contrary evidence was presented to you (obviously for the first time) - that had no influence on your decision?
I know that you are used to speaking to a bunch of sheep each week, but the people here have functioning brains and use them.
The funniest part of the whole discussion is that you left Friday you proclaimed that I was waisting my time trying to convince you that the 10% was not for today.
Then you show up on Monday and try to pretend like that discussion had nothing to do with you chaning your mind.
You are funny friend.
Later in the day you said that I was right and you were wrong and did apologize and give me credit. After you were confronted.
You need to try some ghinko biloba. It helps with the memory.
"Of course the subject of grace being is always greater than the law is not new."
It's not new. It's also not in the Bible. It's an old preacher's saying (tradition) to get around the clear teaching of NT giving from 2 Corinthians 9:7.
One easy way to know your interpretation is wrong is when it contradicts other clear teachings in the scripture.
"As far as a contradiction to 2 Cor. that is up to interpretation and anon's position is only one of others on this subject."
Ah, back to using the culture's philosophy of relativism (no right or wrong answer) instead of using the Bible's standard (absolute truth).
Of course, this philosophy contradicts itself because the relativist believes he is right and the other opinion is wrong.
"disagreeing with anon does not mean I contradict scripture."
The blind squirell finds the acorn. You finally got something right.
Disagreeing with me does not mean that you are contradicting scripture. Disagreeing with what the Bible teaches means that you are contradicting scripture.
2 Corinthians 9:7 says that each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion.
The tithe is a percentage which means that you have not given what you have decided in your own heart.
The OT tithe is also compulsory which means that it is given under compulsion.
I can't make it any more plain than that Jon.
If you don't see that as a contradiction, you should seriously consider your qualifications for teaching.
"I also stated during the give and take that i did not have all the answers."
Thanks for letting me know that.
It was hard to tell with you arguing for 3 days and using scripture to try to avoid questions and using other scripture to try to support your position.
I would have never known that you didn't have all the answers if you hadn't told me so.
"Of course a simple observation would show only one of these is a statement (which is factual), the other is a question (which has been avoided)."
Keep parsing your words Jon. Perhaps that will distract everyone from realizing that your "statement" and implication from your "question" completely contradict each other.
Were you a lawyer before you entered the ministry?
"Please show the world where I said I didn't care."
I have no problem with church people believing that the Lords' tithe is still required. Giving by grace instead of law requires at least that.
Please don't attempt to parse your words again Jon and say that "don't care" doesn't mean the same thing as "don't have a problem with." That old trick doesn't work here.
And your last sentence is wrong according to the clear teaching of 2 Corinthians 9:7.
"Giving by grace instead of law requires at least that."
Your use of the word "requires" by definition means that what you are promoting is not grace.
"Giving by grace instead of law requires at least that."
Your use of the word "requires" by definition means that what you are promoting is not grace.
May 27, 2011 3:33 PM
Exactly! I wish more pew sitters would study deeply on their own. If they did, guys like Jon would not last 5 min as teachers of the Word.
Of course that word "requires" is necessary to be taught to the sheep if one is making a living from the Gospel.
"After days of discussion, even you were not able to avoid the facts. It was obvious that you had not studied the subject on your own (other than proof texts given by others who also pushed this false doctrine)."
My position for the tithe was not out of hearing others speak but my approach to scripture and understanding of it. I admit and am not unashamed to say that I stood with many a fine man of God on this subject for years. That my changing on this subject does not negate others who believe the tithe. I do believe the final say so on the tertiary subject may still be different and so those who still find peace to stand on the tithe, I do not consider stupid or followers of men.
" you pretended like you had come to that conclusion on your own. "
I hadn't pretended anything. I stated a fact. Not enough info for you? Seems so but I can't help that.
"So you want me to believe that after 50 years of holding on to one belief, you discussed it with me for several days and were not able to defend your position and a mountain of contrary evidence was presented to you (obviously for the first time) - that had no influence on your decision?"
I have wrestled with this much longer than ever speaking with someone unknown about it. The position I hold now is one, for example, Dr. Akin holds and I have heard him share for more than a decade. So to think I first heard it here was simply wrong.
"The funniest part of the whole discussion is that you left Friday you proclaimed that I was waisting my time trying to convince you that the 10% was not for today.
Then you show up on Monday and try to pretend like that discussion had nothing to do with you chaning your mind."
I also have stated back then that my time here (then) was a time of humor, nothing too serious in the give and take - a lot of ROFL type stuff. I have since apologized for that approach and my attitude then. I am willing to discuss, ask questions and seriously approach this site. I may be wrong at times but I may not be. never with intent.
"Later in the day you said that I was right and you were wrong and did apologize and give me credit. After you were confronted."
I think the comment was something like, if you need to be thanked then I thank you. At that time I was willing to feed your ego.
"It's not new. It's also not in the Bible. It's an old preacher's saying (tradition) to get around the clear teaching of NT giving from 2 Corinthians 9:7."
Please show me how 2 Cor. 9 teaches that grace is not greater than the law or that the law is greater than grace? I am missing it.
""Please show the world where I said I didn't care."
I have no problem with church people believing that the Lords' tithe is still required. Giving by grace instead of law requires at least that"
On a tertiary subject, like this, I am OK with the differing interpretations. The holding to the tithe is not new and many men of good theological understanding (better than you or I) still hold to it. I don't call for the heresy truck for every person who comes to a different, well known and held conclusion.
"Your use of the word "requires" by definition means that what you are promoting is not grace."
I disagree. These words can be used together with it erring.
"Of course that word "requires" is necessary to be taught to the sheep if one is making a living from the Gospel."
To believe a pastor should not be paid goes against Timothy and 2 Cor.. Believing that the scripture teaches that there is a pastor to lead the church (under Christ) helps in interpreting this passage.
"Of course that word "requires" is necessary to be taught to the sheep if one is making a living from the Gospel."
It seems you are unaware of God's call upon a man to pastor / preach. That's OK, I'm not here to convince you of that.
Changing the subject, Jon. you are the master of deflection.
"It seems you are unaware of God's call upon a man to pastor / preach. That's OK, I'm not here to convince you of that."
Exactly what are you here for Jon?
I've been trying to figure that one out for years now.
"My position for the tithe was not out of hearing others speak but my approach to scripture and understanding of it. I admit and am not unashamed to say that I stood with many a fine man of God on this subject for years. That my changing on this subject does not negate others who believe the tithe. I do believe the final say so on the tertiary subject may still be different and so those who still find peace to stand on the tithe, I do not consider stupid or followers of men."
This is typical double-talk Jon. Full of contradcitions.
Jon, it is obivous that you only followed men for the first 50 years of your life.
If you had truly studied scripture, you would have discovered the NT model for giving in 2 Corinthians 9:7. You would have noticed that this verse contradicted your beliefs.
You would have observed that the OT required 3 tithes and that you were promoting only one.
You would have discovered that the OT tithe was always food and was given to the poor.
From history you would have learned that the tithe wasn't observed for the first 700 years of the NT church, and that the idea was borrowed from land leasing principles from the 8th century secular culture.
That fact that you are not ashamed to be ignorant of easily discernable biblical teaching because you are following men says volumes about your priorities.
"I hadn't pretended anything. I stated a fact. Not enough info for you? Seems so but I can't help that."
So you are asking me to believe that you held to a belief for 50 years, had a 3 day discussion with me, changed your mind on Monday, and that had no effect?
As Judge Judy likes to say: don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
"Please show me how 2 Cor. 9 teaches that grace is not greater than the law or that the law is greater than grace? I am missing it."
As usual Jon, your logic is backwards.
When you make the claim - you are responsible to back it up with scripture.
Where is the verse that states that grace giving is more than giving under the law (23%).
Until you can do that, that is your opinion Jon. Nothing more.
"I have wrestled with this much longer than ever speaking with someone unknown about it. The position I hold now is one, for example, Dr. Akin holds and I have heard him share for more than a decade. So to think I first heard it here was simply wrong."
It didn't appear that you were "wresting" with the issue when you were arguing (unsucsesfully) for it for 3 days.
My favorite bit of bad thinking on your part is where you tried to pit me against the "men of God" that you were listeing to at the time. Since you have changed your mind, perhaps now you can see how blind loyalty to a man is a handicap in discovering the truth.
Dr. Akin must not have been very persuasive. For it was only after a 3 day discussion with me that you changed your mind. It is only logical to assume that you were offered new information in the discussion.
I laugh every time to attempt to employ the "unknown person" slight. It only makes you look worse since the "unknown person" is obviously the one with a superior knowledge of scripture.
"On a tertiary subject, like this, I am OK with the differing interpretations. The holding to the tithe is not new and many men of good theological understanding (better than you or I) still hold to it. I don't call for the heresy truck for every person who comes to a different, well known and held conclusion."
I see a pattern here Jon. Once again you are wrong, but offer no apology.
You ask me to "show the world" where you said you didn't care as if I were making it up. I do exactly what you ask, and you go on as if it didn't happen. Most people would be humbled at that point and admit they were in the wrong. But not you Jon.
I am not finding scripture that states that all Biblical truth is not worth defendinding. Please supply the text that states that truth is not important in all matters.
Did you notice that while you were arguing for an OT tithe for 3 days that tithing was not an unimportant issue. You were arguing for it with great passion accsusing those who spoke against it as not being equal with "great men of God."
Now that you have discovered that you are wrong, it has become a "tertiary" issue where the truth is not so paramount.
Self-serving.
"I disagree. These words can be used together with it erring."
Only if you equivocate on the word "requires" and don't mind the contradiction in 2 Corinthians 9:7.
"To believe a pastor should not be paid goes against Timothy and 2 Cor.."
Again you are eqivocating on the word "pastor." There is no example of a full-time paid senior pastor (like we have today) in the new testament. As a matter of fact, there was no church building (other than borrowed buidlings that were occasionally used).
If you were to study history, you would discover that was the case until the 3rd century when Christianity became fashionable in Roman society and the church began to borrow practices from the pagan culture.
The church borrowed the idea of a "pastor" from the pagan temples who hired eloquent oraters to lead their services.
"Believing that the scripture teaches that there is a pastor to lead the church (under Christ) helps in interpreting this passage."
And that's the entire problem isn't it? You are superimposing your already preconceived (and self-serving) ideas upon the text instead of using a good hermaneutic.
That's why it is so important for each individual to learn how to interpret the Bible correctly for themselves and not depend on someone who has conflicting interests.
I deleted my comment because I believe I became more caustic than I desire.
"I deleted my comment because I believe I became more caustic than I desire."
It's frustrating dealing with people who can interpret scripture for themselves, isn't it?
"It's frustrating dealing with people who can interpret scripture for themselves, isn't it?"
Oh, it has nothing to do with you and how you rightly or wrongly interpret scripture. Yet, I am glad to know you are not like other men.
"Oh, it has nothing to do with you and how you rightly or wrongly interpret scripture."
Yeah yeah sure.
Just like you didn't change your 50 year view on tithing after a 3 day discussion with me in which you were not able to defend your position.
There was no connection at it. It was all just a big coincidence that you changed a 50 year old view the following Monday.
hahahahahahahaha
Keep telling yourself that story. Perhaps you can fool yourself, but it won't work with anyone here.
As far as interpreting scripture goes, my track record is good. I'm not the one changing my views after discussions with anonymous posters and then denying it.
"Yet, I am glad to know you are not like other men."
I'm not the professional Christian. That's you my friend.
Jon L. Estes
Often Wrong
But Never in Doubt
"I'm not the professional Christian. That's you my friend."
Check out Pipers book "Brother, we are not professionals" and you might begin to understand better the calling of God upon mere men.
"Jon L. Estes
Often Wrong
But Never in Doubt"
And not afraid to put my name on my comments.
"And not afraid to put my name on my comments."
That's because you risk nothing by doing so. You are a sycophant.
"Check out Pipers book "Brother, we are not professionals" and you might begin to understand better the calling of God upon mere men."
I prefer scripture as my guide. You won't find a professional preacher where one person speaks and everyone else listens in the NT.
"That's because you risk nothing by doing so. You are a sycophant."
Please do tell who I want to impress.
"I prefer scripture as my guide. You won't find a professional preacher where one person speaks and everyone else listens in the NT."
Yet you, a mere man, wants me to listen to you. You are contradicting yourself.
"Please do tell who I want to impress."
Anyone with a Christian title. They can do no wrong in your eyes.
You know like all the ones that you are constantly making excuses for and kissing their butts on this blog.
"Yet you, a mere man, wants me to listen to you. You are contradicting yourself."
Jon, you are a wonder. You see contradictions where they don't exist, and yet you can't see the ones that you constantly espouse.
Perhaps that is because you don't really care about the truth. You only care about the truth when it benefits you. When it doesn't, "you don't care about disagreements on tertiary issues."
Once again you have aligned yourself with a view that is opposite from the scripture.
Jon, I can't tell if you are just not very bright or you are purposely obstuse. In either case, let me make is simple for you, since you don't seem to be following plain logic.
You're problem isn't with me. It is with scripture that often gets in the way of your self-serving purposes.
When I suggest that you follow its teachings, the only contradiction is with your heart and the Word of God.
Your comments are an affirmation and a warning that the Bible never intended one man to hold your current occupation.
Post a Comment