Covering

[Koey]

May I ask for your comments on a "covering." As far as I can see those who tout that we need a "covering" over a new church do not understand church history.

I believe in Protestant freedom. However, no Protestant church can rightly claim a covering. From what I can see, that is just a control issue.

One of our friends talked about a new church as being a cult because it had no covering. But, that new church was started by a half dozen Bible College students with bachelors and masters degrees, whereas the AOG church she belongs to has a pastor with only a one or two year certificate course. Frankly that particular large AOG church pastor is very sloppy in his use of Scripture and hence more "cultish" than the small, new interdenominational church.

Comments?

 

[christian-only]

What do you mean by covering? Are you saying that this church worships in a building with no roof or what?

 

[Koey]

Yeah, that's a good question. I guess people mean some kind of supervision, overseer, etc.

 

[KleinerApfel]

Hello Koey,

There definitely should be a hierarchy of leadership, if that's what you're asking. Otherwise, where does a church member go when they have a problem with something the minister says or does, if they can't resolve it between the two of them?

But you state: "no protestant church can rightly claim a covering." Whatever can you mean by this? Perhaps I'm not understanding the question?

Your other point, that a theology degree is essential for pastors, I have to disagree with.
Many theologians play fast and loose with scripture, putting trust in their own intellect. On the other hand, I've heard some really sound teaching from lay preachers, with their "lesser" training but more respect for, faith in, and understanding of the word of God.

Blessings, Susana

 

[christian-only]

So you are saying like there is no one man who is pastor but multiple people do the teaching?

 

[Koey]

So you are saying like there is no one man who is pastor but multiple people do the teaching?

Oh, I like that idea too, but that is not exactly what I was asking. I guess there are people who just can't stand a new independent church in town, that is not tied in with a denominational oversight of some kind, and I wonder how necessary it really is. I mean, the church I'm talking about has no denominational supervisor, but has better theology and better teaching than the cultish doctrines of a megachurch down the road. This Pentecostal mega-church has an abusive control-freak pastor who has very sloppy, sugar-coated explanations of the Bible. Yet, this new maligned little church has excellent, meaty Bible teaching.

 

[christian-only]

No church should be denominational anyway.

"Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Cor 1:12-13) "For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?" (1 Cor 3:4)

When one says "I follow Luther" and another "I follow Calvin" and another "I follow the pope" are they not carnal? I mean back then Paul chided these men for following actual apostles that taught the truth, but now men follow error-prone men that usually teach false-doctrine. Are they not carnal?

 

[Koey]

No church should be denominational anyway.

"Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Cor 1:12-13) "For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?" (1 Cor 3:4)

When one says "I follow Luther" and another "I follow Calvin" and another "I follow the pope" are they not carnal? I mean back then Paul chided these men for following actual apostles that taught the truth, but now men follow error-prone men that usually teach false-doctrine. Are they not carnal?

I agree with your sentiment, even though your logic is a little skewed. Paul also said, follow me as I follow Christ. So, we do follow men to some extent. However, perhaps not to the extent that we are "of" Paul, or Peter, etc.

And you are correct about men teaching error. Usually, I find it is the uneducated, who don't know enough to know where they are wrong. Example: there is a certain large church in our town, where the pastor only has a certificate in ministry. He mostly preaches what I call Amway-style motivational sermons - sugar-coated smooth things. He doesn't preach the Bible much and when he does, he preaches very sloppy interpretation with the greatest of "authority." He doesn't know enough to understand that he is no authority at all in Scripture.

Even those with a reasonable education can get sloppy with Scripture. There is an awful load of junk food preached and written in the Christian "market place" today, especially on TV.

 

[KleinerApfel]

And you are correct about men teaching error. Usually, I find it is the uneducated, who don't know enough to know where they are wrong. Example: there is a certain large church in our town, where the pastor only has a certificate in ministry. He mostly preaches what I call Amway-style motivational sermons - sugar-coated smooth things. He doesn't preach the Bible much and when he does, he preaches very sloppy interpretation with the greatest of "authority." He doesn't know enough to understand that he is no authority at all in Scripture.

Even those with a reasonable education can get sloppy with Scripture. There is an awful load of junk food preached and written in the Christian "market place" today, especially on TV.

Koey,
I disagree with your assertion that superb education makes good preachers, and that lack of it is responsible for error.

My vicar, whose credentials in theology are exemplary, does not preach the Bible strongly.
This man is very proud of his academic achievements, but chooses a fairly liberal interpretation of God's word.

It's not about education, it's about belief and trust in God's word as the final authority.
Any believer can choose to trust the Bible, regardless of their intellect or academic achievements.

A good grounding in the bible is obviously essential for preachers, but I don't equate this with academic education and ability.

As you say:

He doesn't know enough to understand that he is no authority at all in Scripture.

I agree it's about understanding, and some preachers don't have it, for whatever reason.

God bless, Susana

 

[Koey]

I was refering to a Bible education, not a liberal one. There is a difference. Our Pentecostal pastor in town only has a certificate and knows his Bible well, but not with any theological depth. He preaches heresy almost every week.

 

[KleinerApfel]

I was refering to a Bible education, not a liberal one. There is a difference. Our Pentecostal pastor in town only has a certificate and knows his Bible well, but not with any theological depth. He preaches heresy almost every week.

Yes. I understand what you're saying. The college my vicar was trained at is known for being somewhat liberal, but theologians admire it!

I suppose it's what's in a preacher's heart as much as his head that matters though. Surely you can't love God and read His word devotedly and keep coming up with heresy?

God bless, Susana

 

[christian-only]

I disagree with the idea that education makes good preachers as well. Most of the time education ruins preachers because they get all that Greek gobbly-gook in their head and start doubting the inspiration and preservation of the Scriptures and then get to the point where they will just say anything because they no longer feel bound by the authority of the Scriptures to teach the truth, since they no longer believe that they have the Scriptures.

 

[Ripper]

Yes. I understand what you're saying. The college my vicar was trained at is known for being somewhat liberal, but theologians admire it!

I suppose it's what's in a preacher's heart as much as his head that matters though. Surely you can't love God and read His word devotedly and keep coming up with heresy?

God bless, Susana

Your faith is not supposed to rest on what he says anyway. It is supposed to rest on the wisdom of God. Make sure you know what that is.

1 Corinthians 2:4.

Ripper

 

[Koey]

I disagree with the idea that education makes good preachers as well. Most of the time education ruins preachers because they get all that Greek gobbly-gook in their head and start doubting the inspiration and preservation of the Scriptures and then get to the point where they will just say anything because they no longer feel bound by the authority of the Scriptures to teach the truth, since they no longer believe that they have the Scriptures.

I took 3 semesters of that Greek "gobbledygook" and only have even MORE admiration for and faith in the Scriptures. I think it's a good thing to study the Bible in the original languages. Instead of doubting the Bible, I DO doubt what some people preach about the Bible -- especially most TV evangelists.

 

[KleinerApfel]

Your faith is not supposed to rest on what he says anyway. It is supposed to rest on the wisdom of God. Make sure you know what that is.

1 Corinthians 2:4.

Ripper

Don't worry Ripper - my own faith in God's word as absolutely trustworthy is firm, and I don't allow any preacher to sway me from that.

My vicar knows we don't see eye-to-eye, but we get by.
In fact, I think he's inadvertently strengthened me, because I have to keep on my toes and look things up when he's said something I think is out of line.

Proverbs 27:17 -
"As iron sharpens iron,
so one man sharpens another."

Blessings, Susana

 

[artybloke]

This man is very proud of his academic achievements, but chooses a fairly liberal interpretation of God's word.

So? Maybe he's right and you're wrong. Maybe it's a good idea to listen with an open mind before deciding that someone is "wrong." Why are your sources of authority any better than his?* At least he has studied things from more than one angle, considered possibilities, weighed arguments etc. What have you done that's equivalent?

Not that you're not allowed to disagree with the vicar. But maybe he's been put in that church to enable you to learn how to think for yourself, rather than read a few approved texts and have a few approved opinions.

* Oh, and, people, don't come out with the old one about "the Bible is my only authority." The Bible has to be interpreted, it wasn't written with 21st century problems in mind, it wasn't even written in the Queen's English, it contains some difficult ideas that have to be teased out and aren't that easy to understand.

Anyway, Christian faith is in Christ, not a book.

 

[christian-only]

I took 3 semesters of that Greek "gobbledygook" and only have even MORE admiration for and faith in the Scriptures. I think it's a good thing to study the Bible in the original languages. Instead of doubting the Bible, I DO doubt what some people preach about the Bible -- especially most TV evangelists.

What I meant by "Greek gobbledygook" is Modern Textual Criticism which is based on the idea that the Textus Receptus (Received Text) isn't good enough and must be corrected by Vaticanus (the pope's private treasure) and Sinaiticus (the monks' trash-pile) and any other Gnostic manuscripts they can find. Reading the Received Text in Greek is not gobbledygook. However, anyone who supports the UBS or Nestle-Aland text cannot truly have faith in the Scriptures, seeing as how these texts are efforts at "restoring" the text and no one makes an effort to restore that which isn't lost. Therefore, in saying that they restore the text, UBS and NA are saying that it was lost, and anyone who therefore trusts these UBS or NA texts is saying along with them that he believes the text was lost. How then can he have faith that he has the Scriptures? Does he base his faith on the NA-26th? Well, there is now a NA-27th! Does he base his faith on the NA-27th? There will soon be a NA-28th! If we do not acknowledge that the Textus Receptus is THE text, then we are full of gobbledygook.

 

[Koey]

I agree with what you said. However, the other extreme is also a loser. There are too many preachers out there blaming the Holy Spirit for their ignorant and heretical pronouncements, when if they had a better Bible education they would know how to rightly divide the Word of God.

 

[christian-only]

The best Bible education is simply to read it over and over again - every day.

 

[Koey]

The best Bible education is simply to read it over and over again - every day.

So then if you misunderstand some words, then each day you will reinforce your error. If you misunderstand some basic doctrines, you will have no one to challenge your heresy and teach you where you are wrong from the same Scriptures. If you are bigoted towards another denomination, you will have no one to teach you that they get their beliefs from the same Scriptures, and you will miss out on some balance. If you lack wisdom in understanding the Scriptures, you will have no one wiser and more experienced than you in the Word to teach you.