Can Pastors tell others what to do if they are not obeying their own instruction?

Dave-W said:

This passage speaks to that very issue:

Matt 22:2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.​

So yes - do what they say; but do not imitate their own disobedience.

Click to expand...

It says do not do according to their deeds. Jesus is only telling them to obey them if they are in line with God's Word. But this was also the Old Covenant, though. They had to deal with the Pharisees because they were a part of the gatekeepers to the temple and the priesthood. In short, you have to find a verse or passage that talks about how church leaders can be disobedient and yet we still must obey them. You will not find such a verse in Scripture. Jesus is now our passover Lamb, and high priest. There are no gatekeepers to the temple we need to go to like in the Old Covenant before the cross. In fact, 1 Corinthians 5 proves that the one who is disobedient is to be kicked out of the church and they are not to have fellowship with him.

Phoebe Ann said:

A Christian isn't a hypocrite and a hypocrite isn't a Christian. A person is saved by grace through faith. Works are the result of salvation not the means of obtaining it.

Click to expand...

So you are saying that it is impossible for a Christian to be saved and also to be a hypocrite at the same time? Or are you saying that a Christian can be a hypocrite and get hit by a bus, and the Lord will welcome him with open arms into His kingdom? Not sure where you are coming from here.

Foxfyre said:

Yes they can tell others pretty much anything just like anybody else can. Being a sinner or being foolish in our own behavior does not change the fact that the advice we give others is sound advice.

A doctor who doesn't follow his/her own good medical advice, can nevertheless give that good advice to another.

The world's most careless, inept cook can nevertheless provide you with a great recipe.

The people who have foolishly wrecked their credit, or destroyed their marriage via adultery, or who have been chemically dependent and/or co-dependent are in a better position to understand the dynamics and counsel others in such positions.

Giving others good counsel is not contingent on us following that counsel ourselves. But judging and condemning others, most especially when we ourselves are sinners, is a pretty big no no in Jesus's rules of ethics.

Click to expand...

We are talking about submitting to authority in the sense we are looking up to them as spiritual guides and leaders, and we are not talking about the mere giving of good advice that is optional to the person to partake in (like a doctor recommending somebody to do such and such, etc.). Submitting to authority of a body of believers is different. I believe it was something that existed more in the early church days and not so much today because we are living in the last days.

RDKirk said:

Is there validity to that? Is there--was there ever--any validity to submitting to authority as "spiritual guides and [spiritual] leaders?"

“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. "--Matthew 23

Jesus said this in the middle of ratcheting up to a powerful anti-hypocrisy rant that would end with Him literally cursing those lawyers and Pharisees He was addressing.

I have and do argue that submission to authority is an essential practice for Christians in itself, to be practiced whenever it can be practice without much respect to the quality of that particular master as a "spiritual guide and [spiritual] leader."

I argue this because of all the scriptures that urge Christians to submission without regard to the spiritual perfection of those leaders--without regard to whether the master is even Christian.

Every Christian ought to be practicing submission to someone, because if we can't submit to someone we can see, then we lie if we say that we submit to someone we can't see. Peter and Paul identified even the ordinary social hierarchies of their day as perfectly acceptable ways to practice submission.

If one can identify a relatively good pastor as the person to whom one submits so that submission is also in service to the Body of Christ...that's a bonus.

Click to expand...

If one has a boss, they should submit to them (as long as they do not break God's laws as per the orders of their boss).

If one is slave to a master, they should obey their master (as long as they do not break God's laws as part of being a slave).

But the church is different. We have to identify the true church in order to follow what they say spiritually. If they are pot smoking drunkards that watch inappropriate content, they are not the kind of church leaders you want to obey.

Also, when do you think 2 Timothy 3:1-9 takes place?

Foxfyre said:

If it is not law established via social contract and/or if the authority is not from God we are not obligated to submit. But I didn't see that as the issue but whether one in authority, the pastor, who is obviously not following his own advice has any authority to instruct a parishioner in something. And I believe a lot of us know the right thing to do even when we don't do it. And our failure to follow our own counsel does not make that counsel bad.

Click to expand...

Jesus said narrow is the way that leads to life and FEW be there that find it.
So I must take this to mean that not all pastors are in the narrow few (Whereby they have the true authority from God to be obeyed). Yes, good advice is one thing, but being obligated to build a Pastor's ministry (i.e. submitting to him) whereby you do not agree with how that Pastor is living, or you do not agree with his teachings is nonsensical. We have to agree that they truly are an authority from God in order to submit to them in building their ministry.

Let's say for example the Pastor believes in nudity fellowship. I have a right to say... "No, that is not in the Bible and that is not descent," I have a right to no longer fellowship with him anymore and or submit to building his ministry. The same would be true for any other sin the Pastor may condone and think is okay. Why would submit to a spiritual leader that does not follow Jesus?

com7fy8 said:

I am glad that without holiness no one will see the Lord. Because I understand God will not accept less than His best blessing in us. And so, His correction changes us so we "become partakers of His holiness" > in Hebrews 12:4-14.

Holiness has to do with God's nature. And in His love we share with Him in His own nature > 1 John 4:17. But there are ones claiming holiness, but they only or mainly have works which are supposed to show they are holy. Meanwhile, do they have the character of God's own holiness in them???? They can be showing the form but denying the power.

Jesus says four things, in His Beatitudes about how to be holy >

pure in heart

poor in spirit

merciful

meek

These are things of the character of Jesus, I believe, and so they are descriptive of holiness > how to be > not only what to do and how to act.

And 1 Corinthians 13 describes the nature of God's love, which is the nature of holiness.

Then, as we grow in Jesus, we grow in His creativity which does works of love through us . . . not only rule keeping, but how He with us does good to love any and all people.

Or else, our works could be the form of holiness but denying its power.

So, works of holiness are created from Jesus and His nature in our spirit. The works of God's holy love are not a condition, but a result. And works of holiness certainly are not church rules which even a devil can fake!!

Click to expand...

Jesus says by your fruits you will know them. Jesus says a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit and a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit. So while a wolf may able to put on a sheep covering, their wolf like tendencies will slip through sometimes and they will be exposed (if we are careful to look).

SPF said:

Sure, they can do that. And some certainly do that. And if I'm on the receiving end of that instruction, if that instruction is sound, and lines up with Scripture, I should certainly follow it regardless of whether or not they are a hypocrite. Another's Christians sin does not excuse me from right living.

Click to expand...

But we are not obeying these teachers in what they are saying, but we are obeying God and His Word and we are not submitting to their authority if they are living in error. We are submitting to God's authority according to His Word. We should not submit to their authority in building their ministry if they are not walking the talk or if they are living in error. We should not have fellowship with them and we should seek fellowship elsewhere who are truly seeking to follow the Lord correctly. For what do you think happened in 1 Corinthians 5 with a believer being kicked out for his fornication? We are told not to have company with fornicators (if they are a professing believer in Jesus).

You said:

Well sure we can. You're a hypocrite at times, we all are at times.

Click to expand...

No. That's scary that you would said that. Jesus actually condemned the Pharisees for their hypocrisy and he asked them how can they escape the damnation of hell? (Matthew 23:33). The word "hypocrite" is used 7 times in reference to the Pharisees and the word "hypocrisy" once in regards to this question by Jesus.

You said:

If you think you are without sin, then you're deceiving yourself, and you don't actually know what sin is.

Click to expand...

No doubt you are alluding to 1 John 1:8.

Question:
Does not 1 John 1:8 say that if we have no sin we deceive ourselves?

Answer:
What is helpful in understanding 1 John 1:8 is looking at its immediate context. 1 John 1:10 says if we say we have not sinned. 1 John 1:10 switches gears from 1 John 1:8; John talks about the declaration on committing sin in verse 8 (which is present tense) to a declaration on committing sin being a past declaration (with verse 10). Verse 10 is saying there are people who said they have not sinned (past tense). This is clearly a gnostic belief. Why? Well, most believers today hold to the idea that they have sinned as a part of their old life before coming to Christ (Regardless of whether they are “OSAS,” a “Sin and still be saved” type believer, or a “Conditional Salvationist”). So this clearly is a “gnostic belief” that John was warning the brethren about (See 1 John 2:26). 1 John 1:8 is a present declaration of sin. It is saying if we say we have no sin when we do sin (present tense). This has to be the interpretative understanding of this verse because 1 John 2:4 says if we say we know Him and do not keep His commandments we are a liar and the truth is not in us. The OSAS's interpretation on 1 John 1:8 does not work because it conflicts with a normal reading on 1 John 2:3-4. You cannot always be in sin (breaking God's commands) as a part of 1 John 1:8 and yet also fulfill 1 John 2:3 that says we can have an assurance of knowing Him if we keep His commandments. Especially when 1 John 2:4 says we are a liar and the truth is not in us if we break his commandments. In other words, if the OSAS interpretation on 1 John 1:8 was true, then I would be damned if I do by obeying God's commands (1 John 1:8) and yet I would be damned if I don't by not obeying God's commands (1 John 2:4).

In fact, the New English Translation says this for 1 John 1:8,


In other words, this verse is saying that if a person sins and says they do not bear the guilt of sin (in the sense that they will not have to face any wrath or Judgment from God over their sin) then they would be deceiving themselves and the truth would not be in them. This is exactly what the Eternal Security proposes. They are saying that they do not bear the guilt of any sin (destruction of their soul and body in hell fire) if they do sin because they believe their sins are paid for: Past, present, and future by Jesus. They are saying, they do not bear the guilt or the punishment of sin at the final Judgment because of their belief on Jesus. In short, 1 John 1:8 is a denial of the existence of sin on some level. “If we say we have no sin (in the sense that it does not exist) we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” (1 John 1:8). Christian Scientists think sin is an illusion and does not exist at all. So this verse would apply to them. Eternal Security Proponents and those who deny that “Sin Can Separate a Believer from God” deny the existence of sin partially. They believe sin exists physically but they do not believe sin exists for them on a spiritual level because Jesus has forgiven them of all their sin by their belief on Jesus. In fact, to see just how silly your argument actually is for 1 John 1:8, you would have to believe that you are sinning right now at this very moment in order for such a verse to be true because 1 John 1:8 is speaking in the present tense.

John prescribes that we do not think that sin is an illusion, and we are automatically saved, but John is telling us to "sin not" and go to our advocate Jesus Christ (1 John 2:1), and confess our sins so as to be forgiven of sin and to be cleansed of all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). How can you confess and be forgiven of sin if all your future sin is paid for? It makes no sense.

You said:

...once we receive Salvation, we don't then have to do works to maintain it. We cannot earn or keep Salvation by works. You sound very works based.

Click to expand...

That is not what my Bible teaches.

1 John 3:10 says,
"In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother."

"His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord." (Matthew 25:21).

"And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 25:30).

Titus 1:16 says you can deny God by a lack of works.
James 2:24 says we are justified by works and not by faith alone.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 says that God has chosen us to salvation by two things:


While grace abounds (Romans 5:20), God's grace also reigns (rules) by righteousness (righteous living) (Romans 5:21).

For the grace of God teaches us to deny ungodliness and that we should live righteously and godly in this present world (Titus 2:11-12).

For the purpose or reason Christ died for us was so as to sanctify us and wash us with the washing of the water of the Word (Scripture) so that He may present to Himself a church that is holy and without blemish (Ephesians 5:25-27).

You said:

Salvation comes to us VIA grace, by faith, and not by works, so that no man can boast.

Click to expand...

Ephesians 2:8-9 is talking about Initial Salvation and Ultimate Salvation.

In reference to Initial Salvation in Ephesians 2:

We are saved by God's grace through faith (which is a gift of God). God's grace (Jesus Christ) is the gift (John 3:16). How many times do you receive a gift? Once, right? Ephesians 2:1 says we have been quickened. How many times does this generally happen for a believer? Once usually right? Ephesians 3:17 says that Christ may dwell in our hearts by faith. Initial Salvation.

Ephesians 2:9 is talking about "Man Directed Works Alone Salvationism" because it is referring to the kind of work that a man would boast in himself in doing.

Ephesians 2:10 switches gears in talking about a different kind of work (i.e. God directed works done through the believer by our cooperating with the Sanctification Process by the Lord). For we are created unto Christ Jesus for good works before the foundation of the world. These are clearly "God directed works" being spoken here in verse 10, whereas verse 9 is talking about "Man Directed Works."

Why would Paul speak in this way?

Well, Paul was fighting against "Circumcision Salvationism" (Which is Law Alone Salvationism without God's grace); A certain sect of Jews were trying to deceive some Christians into thinking they had to first be circumcised in order to be saved. This was a heresy that was clearly addressed at the Jerusalem council (See Acts of the Apostles 15:1, Acts of the Apostles 15:5, Acts of the Apostles 15:24). Paul also addressed this problem; Paul said to the Galatians that if you seek to be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing (Galatians 5:2), and then Paul mentions how if you seek to be justified by the Law, you have fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4). This "law" is the Torah because circumcision is not a part of the commands given to us by Jesus and His followers.

You said:

If this were true, then nobody would go to heaven.

Click to expand...

Jesus said narrow is the way that leads to life and FEW be there that finds it.

For what about Zacharias and Elisabeth?


Please take note that I am not desiring to discuss Sinless Perfectionism here (Which I believe is not a salvation issue and it is putting away faults of character and minor transgressions - like going over the speed limit a little without thinking about it, etc.; I am referring to in this instance to the importance of our putting away or overcoming "grievous sin," which are things like: "Lying, hating, lusting, etc."). Believers need to meet the bare minimum level required level of holiness by putting away grievous sin out of their lives. For blessed is the man that endures temptation, for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life (James 1:12).

Also, what about the 144,000 (in the upcoming future)?

The Bible says he that does righteousness is righteous. We are told not to be deceived about this fact (See 1 John 3:7).

I hope this helps, and may God bless you.


Side Note:

Oh, and narrow truly is the way in one believing that we are saved by: "God's grace through faith + Works of Faith." For the ony Trinitarian Sola Scriptura church that believes this way that is significant in size to a degree exists along the Eastern seaboard. They are called "Christ's Sanctified Holy Church."

Christ's Sanctified Holy Church-Holiness unto the Lord

All others believe in Sola Fide (or Belief Alone-ism) which can potentially lead a person to think they can turn God's grace into a license for immorality on some level (See Jude 1:4 in the NIV). For even you yourself have implied that we can be hypocrites on some level and still be saved (Which is contrary to the words of Jesus in Matthew 23). Yes, there is God's grace. We can confess our sins and be forgiven of our sins to be cleansed of all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). But we also have to forsake sin, too (See 1 John 1:7, and Proverbs 28:13).

com7fy8 said:

So, a distinction can be made here. There is a difference between a pastor not being perfect, though he is mature, versus a pastor who is not maturing in Jesus plus he is condoning wrong things.

For another example > let's say a pastor gives in to arguing during a meeting, and then he keeps justifying his failure. This is not how I think a maturing and qualified man with handle his failure.

But a maturing pastor might get rough or controlling during a disagreement, but then even right in the middle of the arguing he will stop and say oh-oh I am not being "swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath" (in James 1:19-20); so I am wrong and I need to stop and pray . . . right now. He will be an example to the flock, by being stopped by the Holy Spirit and right in front of everyone he receives correction and feeds us how God's word says,

"Do all things without complaining and disputing, that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation" (in Philippians 2:13-16).

I was in a Wednesday midweek study with a pastor. While he was talking with us, he mentioned how the Holy Spirit will caution him about the tone of his voice while he is relating at home with his family. He made himself an example of how in the secret of himself he can be corrected > so, we can be challenged to be also sensitive to how the Holy Spirit corrects us in how we are relating with others.

I have had various pastors who have made a point of pointing out how God's word is correcting them, and how God uses their wives to help them get more real with God. Ones praise their wives for being there for them as their examples and to confront how they are wrong. And I do understand a lady is her man's help-mate, who can be so important, like this.

I think of how Paul and Silvanus and Timothy say they loved the Thessalonians "as a nursing mother cherishes her own children", in 1 Thessalonians 2:7. From this, I see how it is possible that nursing mothers helped these great leaders to find out how to share as family with and cherish God's children while ministering to us. So, yes it is basic how a qualified leader has had help of his lady and other Christian women, so he can learn how to love and share as family with God's people, so we can feed on this example >

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

And this example is required of us all. You follow an example, right?

So, how can we have a functional church ministry unless our leaders are feeding us God's word and His example? 1 Peter 2:20-23 says >

"For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:

. . . 'Who committed no sin,
. . . .Nor was deceit found in His mouth';

who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously;" (1 Peter 2:20-23)

So, our basic calling includes to follow the example of Jesus. Therefore, our qualified leaders demonstrate God's word, by being our examples. Good teaching includes demonstration, not just lecturing, right?

Click to expand...

I am not in disagreement with what you said here. However, I think most today believe they can sin on some level (i.e. they cannot overcome doing certain grievous sins on occasion (like lying, lusting, hating, etc.) over the course of their lives) and yet they are still saved if they were to die in doing one of these sins on occasion because they believe Jesus paid for their future sin. I believe this is turning God's grace into a license for immorality because we are told to "sin not" and to go to our advocate Jesus Christ (1 John 2:1), and confess our sins to be forgiven of sin (1 John 1:19). We are told to forsake our sins by walking in the light (1 John 1:7). For he that confesses and forsakes sin shall have mercy (Proverbs 28:13); And without holiness, no man shall see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14).