Phariseeism

[Barb]

Originally Posted by ascension2020

I think you make some great points. I view the relationship between the pastor and layperson as being two-way. There are responsibilities on both sides. They lay people do have a responsibility to respect their leaders, as the following verses show:



But on the other hand, the leadership has a responsibility to the lay people to lead well, to treat their flock properly, and to teach true doctrine:



I think that John summed it up well when he told us to "test the spirits to see whether they are from God" (1 John 4:1).

I know that we all have different opinions on what submission and respect entail. I think that there's never a "one size fits all" answer that will cover every situation. I do think that in the end though we are all responsible for testing the spirits. If we find that the pastor is not teaching true doctrine or that he has a spirit that is not lining up with what the New Testament says a leader should be, then we must each pray and trust God to help us decide what to do.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't fall into the camp that says "do whatever the pastor says even if you don't agree." On the other hand, I don't fall into the camp that says "no pastor will ever tell me what to do." I try to find a biblical balance between the two extremes. And I do reserve the right to think for myself and make my own decisions. I have a personal relationship with God...my pastor is not the mediator of that relationship.

Agreed...

[ManOfWord]

Most people don't have a clue as to who the Pharisees were or even that Jesus was, more than likely a Pharisee. There were two schools of Jewish thought during the time of Jesus. The school of Hillel and the school of Shammai. Hillel was considered the kind Pharisee and was a man of the people. Shammai was an aristocrat and was extremely legalistic. Jesus was called Rabbi by the Pharisees. When Jesus spoke against the Pharisees, he was speaking against the teachings of Shammai.

Phariseeism is adding things to salvation which God does not require. There is nothing wrong with convictions...we all need them, but they are NOT salvational. That is why they are convictions. The word is the word and we are to follow the word. If you want to live your life more strict than the written word, then go for it. Just don't demand that everyone else do it or they're lost.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

Most people don't have a clue as to who the Pharisees were or even that Jesus was, more than likely a Pharisee. There were two schools of Jewish thought during the time of Jesus. The school of Hillel and the school of Shammai. Hillel was considered the kind Pharisee and was a man of the people. Shammai was an aristocrat and was extremely legalistic. Jesus was called Rabbi by the Pharisees. When Jesus spoke against the Pharisees, he was speaking against the teachings of Shammai.

Phariseeism is adding things to salvation which God does not require. There is nothing wrong with convictions...we all need them, but they are NOT salvational. That is why they are convictions. The word is the word and we are to follow the word. If you want to live your life more strict than the written word, then go for it. Just don't demand that everyone else do it or they're lost.

And I agree with this as well...

[Sherri]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

Most people don't have a clue as to who the Pharisees were or even that Jesus was, more than likely a Pharisee. There were two schools of Jewish thought during the time of Jesus. The school of Hillel and the school of Shammai. Hillel was considered the kind Pharisee and was a man of the people. Shammai was an aristocrat and was extremely legalistic. Jesus was called Rabbi by the Pharisees. When Jesus spoke against the Pharisees, he was speaking against the teachings of Shammai.

Phariseeism is adding things to salvation which God does not require. There is nothing wrong with convictions...we all need them, but they are NOT salvational. That is why they are convictions. The word is the word and we are to follow the word. If you want to live your life more strict than the written word, then go for it. Just don't demand that everyone else do it or they're lost.

Great post!

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

Most people don't have a clue as to who the Pharisees were or even that Jesus was, more than likely a Pharisee. There were two schools of Jewish thought during the time of Jesus. The school of Hillel and the school of Shammai. Hillel was considered the kind Pharisee and was a man of the people. Shammai was an aristocrat and was extremely legalistic. Jesus was called Rabbi by the Pharisees. When Jesus spoke against the Pharisees, he was speaking against the teachings of Shammai.

Phariseeism is adding things to salvation which God does not require. There is nothing wrong with convictions...we all need them, but they are NOT salvational. That is why they are convictions. The word is the word and we are to follow the word. If you want to live your life more strict than the written word, then go for it. Just don't demand that everyone else do it or they're lost.

They where actually anti-legalist! They did not teach the things they should have and taught things and bound the people with burdens they could not do.
They while in the seat of Moses negated the law of God with traditions.

Nothing wrong with being a legalist. It's all a matter WHO'S law are you teaching!

[ILG]

Originally Posted by theoldpaths

The following is taken from Raymond Woodward's "Because We Are His - Biblical Studies in Practical Holiness". Same author upon which the following link is based upon about Holiness and Nicolaitanes - http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=17658

"Jesus used the word "hypocrite" ("godless actor") to describe the Pharisees seven times in Matthew 23. And yet, He made a distinction between the righteous principles they taught and the unrighteous actions they committed.

Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. "

Mat 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. "

I find it interesting that because the Pharisees were sitting in a place of authority - Moses' seat -, Jesus told the multitudes and his disciples that whatsoever they bid them to observe, they were to observe and do.

However nowadays, some are reluctant to observe and do what a Pastor will bid to observe and do.

This is the only post I have read in this thread, but, I think Jesus was not telling people to do every dot and tittle that the Pharisees taught. Jesus himself taught people to break those rules (think picking corn on the sabbath etc.). But I think he was referring to the principles taught. For example, women can not wear men's apparel while still wearing pants.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Tim Rutledge
Either you percieve your Pastor as a Man of God, or you consider him just a guy, who'll maybe kind of help you spirtually. If I did not believe my Pastor was a true Man of God. I'd leave. People have different ideas about the word submission. And we all have different levels of tolerance towards what the definition of, or what the role of, culture plays into what and how we go about naming sin. If someone draws the line tighter them me.. God bless them, hopefully they will pray for me. If I draw the line tighter on some issues.. and I see it as salvational.. I need to pray for you. I'm not your Pastor and am not responsible for your soul. Every idle word, even if it is typed.. I'll stand in judgement for.

God Bless.

After we pastored for 10 years and then left, I guess I see the pastor where we attend church as just a guy who might kind of help me spiritually. I believe the pastors job is to run the church and teach and preach the Word of God best as He can. I used to have the Man of God point of view and it messed me up bad. It puts a lot of pressure on pastors to perform and people to hold up that belief in his performance. I don't think either side needs it.

[OneAccord]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

I'm starting to think there are some saints who almost like to be in bondage.

They dont mind being being given, or giving themselves, more and more burdensome extrabilical rules and regulatiions.

... makes them feel more holy, I guess.

I don't think people like to be in bondage as much as they feel they NEED to be in bondage. Bondage gives them a sort of security they don't have in the real world where they are responisible for their own decisions. Reminds me of the man that has been locked upo in prison in 1952. When he was locked up, he knew it'd be years (if ever) that he'd be free. So, to deal ith his situation he shut himself off from the world. Didn't see the news, didn't read newspapers, and did all he could to forget about life on the outside. But then, as he was about to be released, he realizied he didn't even know who the President of the US was. Didn't know about cell phones, computers or anything. Bondage had become his security. Freedom to decide for himself was a scarry thing. The Galations, it seems, were like that. They desired the bondage they were freed from when they came to Christ. The felt they needed it to gain God's approval. The old song says,

Thank God I am free, free free.

From this world of sin.

Been washed in the Blood of Jesus, Been born again.

Hallelujah, I am saved, saved, saved

By His wonderful grace,

I am glad trhat I found out,
He would bring me out and show me the way.

Thank God we are free from the bondage of sin.
..and from the Prisons with Stained Glassed windows!

[theoldpaths]

Originally Posted by 1399

"A word" from the Lord will NEVER supersede "The WORD" of the Lord-- be it from a Prophet or Pastor.

Spiritually speaking, if what he bids me to do does not line up CLEARLY with scripture, then I need to find a new Pastor who will not add or subtract from "The WORD".

Amen!

The only thing that I would add to what you said is - does not line up with PRINCIPLES TAUGHT IN SCRIPTURE.

The bible doesn't mention anything about literal smoking of cigarettes, but we and/or a Pastor can apply principles taught in scripture to know that a born again saint of the most high God should NOT smoke.

[theoldpaths]

Originally Posted by 1399

The Man of God can be a mentor-- in fact, in order for him to mentor a soul, that soul must be able to submit. That soul should see in his/her Pastor a love that makes submission possible.

Amen to that!

And because a shepherd/watchmen loves his sheep, when he sees danger coming or the sheep is straying, he will correct them. Not because he is in a place of power and authority and wants to show off that he is, but because he loves that sheep and knows that if that sheep continues what he is doing, it will result in harm or something worse.

Thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

What is the purpose of the rod? Correction.

Sometimes when you try to correct someone because you love them and you give them space to change and they don't or they don't receive one's loving correction; then it is time to toughen that love up a bit.

I personally believe that correction should start out with love and the spirit of meekness first. If that does not work, then we have examples from Paul where he took it up a notch...

1Co 4:17 For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.
1Co 4:18 Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you.
1Co 4:19 But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power.
1Co 4:20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.
1Co 4:21 What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?

Paul's ways were in Christ and his ways he taught in every church.

There is a time and a place for love and the spirit of meekness, but there is also a time for the rod. Taking the rod out is taking correction up a notch when some don't receive instruction/correction in love and in the spirit of meekness.

Paul even wrote about taking it up a notch even further...

2Co 12:20 For I fear, lest, when I come, I shall not find you such as I would, and that I shall be found unto you such as ye would not: lest there be debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings, tumults:
2Co 12:21 And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed.

The attitude of the world is not to correct children with the rod anymore. Could it be that that same attitude had crept into some churches, where the Pastor is afraid to reprove and rebuke and correct with all longsuffering and doctrine?

Pro 13:24 He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.

A father that spares his rod hates his son. A man of God called of God to Pastor a church who is annointed of God will correct his sheep if they need it. If he doesn't then there is something seriously wrong with that Pastor.

Pro 9:8 Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.

Reproving and rebuking is where we can tell the attitude from the one who is corrected. A scorner will hate you, but a wise man will love you.

Pro 15:10 Correction is grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: and he that hateth reproof shall die.

Psa 141:5 Let the righteous smite me; it shall be a kindness: and let him reprove me; it shall be an excellent oil, which shall not break my head: for yet my prayer also shall be in their calamities.