Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
"He" is Paul. Of course, he cited Scripture. But the Thessalonians did reject his message, the Bereans went and looked into Scripture to see if Scripture said as Paul did.Acts 17:2 — "And for three sabbath days he reasoned with them out of the scriptures"
Please explain how one can "reason out of the Scriptures" without "searching the Scriptures"?
You are right, I should have been more carefully. I did not mean that you twisted intentionally, but ... well, In said it. I can only ask for forgiveness.By the way, a more charitable way would have been to say that I "misunderstand" my own question, rather than "twist" the arguments.
What did the Thessalonians do before they rejected the Gospel? Did they stand there with a blank look on their face for three sabbaths listening to Paul citing the Scriptures? And then finally on the fourth sabbath they snapped out of their trance and decided to reject the gospel?"He" is Paul. Of course, he cited Scripture. But the Thessalonians did reject his message, the Bereans went and looked into Scripture to see if Scripture said as Paul did.
In Acts 17:1-13, St. Paul narrates his experience with the Thessalonians and the Bereans. Both of them were Jews, both of them were "fully equipped" with the same "God-breathed" Scriptures, both of them heard the same Paul preach the same Gospel, both of them "searched the Scriptures", and yet, the Thessalonians ended up rejecting the Gospel and driving Paul out of town, while the Bereans ended up accepting the Gospel and becoming believers.
So, what was the difference between the Thessalonians and the Bereans that caused the former to reject the Gospel and the latter to accept it?
No, I think it was like it is sometimes nowadays: From the very beginning, they rejected, and even three Sabbaths of Scriptural arguments from Paul did not scatter it. Have you never met persons that had no arguments left against what you showed from Scripture, but still refused to draw the consequences?What did the Thessalonians do before they rejected the Gospel? Did they stand there with a blank look on their face for three sabbaths listening to Paul citing the Scriptures? And then finally on the fourth sabbath they snapped out of their trance and decided to reject the gospel?
This raises the question: How can we discern the "true pastors"?But this by no means authorizes him to be judge of the true pastors of the Church
You gave a list describing what a "good" pastor is. "True" is quite a bit different.This raises the question: How can we discern the "true pastors"?
Scripture gives some hints:
This rules out some candidates. Note that some "wolves" may arouse in the midst of true pastors (Acts 20:30), so it is not enough to show that someone started as a true pastor ...
- Good reputation among the unbelievers, especially by living an exemplary marriage life.
- No sex scandals or the like.
- Not seeking the money of the believers (though they should give him enough to live a life simple without harm).
- A true pastor binds the sheep to God, not to himself or to a church leader.
- Not teaching his own thoughts, but what ids in Scripture
- A man of peace.
It is not just about "good" pastor. The contrary (seeking money, lusting after women, binding believers to himself and not Christ) are attributes of false teachers. Unless you are willing to call a false teacher a "true pastor" (if he meets your conditions, whatever they may be), those people should be ruled out.You gave a list describing what a "good" pastor is. "True" is quite a bit different.
True pastors can either he good or bad. False pastors can either be good or bad. It is called the human condition.It is not just about "good" pastor. The contrary (seeking money, lusting after women, binding believers to himself and not Christ) are attributes of false teachers. Unless you are willing to call a false teacher a "true pastor" (if he meets your conditions, whatever they may be), those people should be ruled out.
I'm open for more guidelines, from Scripture, of course.
But a pastor who is a false teacher can never be a true pastor. That's my point.True pastors can either he good or bad. False pastors can either be good or bad. It is called the human condition.
The text says the Jews were jealous, but what were they jealous of?
But a pastor who is a false teacher can never be a true pastor. That's my point.
BTW, the modern concept of "pastor" is alien to the Bible. In the NT, we have church leaders (overseers, episkopoi, also called elders, presbyteroi, sometimes other terms like "the ones standing before" proistantes are used), we have teachers (teaching how to live a life according to God's will), we have prophets (explaining to the church what God wants now), we have pastors (in a somewhat narrower sense, the ones caring for the souls), we have evangelists (preaching to outsiders, and thus spreading the Gospel) and so on. A church demanding that all (or most of) those roles (or ministries, to use biblical language) should be united in a single person deviates from what Scripture teaches about the Church. And it is no coincidence that church leaders are virtually every time mentioned in the plural - a church should have a board of leader, like a synagogue (this is where the term "elder" comes from) or a Hellenistic society (this is where the term "overseer" comes from).
EDIT: typos corrected
The discussion went along and left the original topic. There is only a faint link: The requirements for a "true pastor" I took according to sola scriptura.Does this sub-discussion have anything to do with the OP? I don't see a connection to sola scriptura.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?