Paul Chappell - 12 Myths Of Pastoral Leadership

[AVBibleBeliever]

I guess the best thing is to look to the scriptures as to who is the head of the church.

 

Then go to the Scriptures to establish a leadership that is found in them NT church so NT scriptures

 

As much as I like some of Ken Blues dispensational understanding I don't agree with all his teachings or views some of which are questionable

 

the following fits this thread and it is some sound words from a KJV Bible Believer that refute the words of Ken Blue on Pastoral abuse.  this article also has some pretty good examples on right division and correct Bible study as well.

 

 

A Scriptural review of Ken Blue's:

"WHO IS THE LEADER OF YOUR CHURCH"

Regarding Ken Blue’s essay on “WHO IS THE LEADER OF YOUR CHURCH”
 

Ken Blue quotes Romans 16:17 [Romans 16:17 ¶ Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.] and then he states:

 

“Pastor, if you are the leader of your church, you can expect attacks from every direction, for every cause.”

I have news for Mr. Blue: the One & Only “LEADER” of CHRIST’S CHURCH (i.e. “the church of God”) is THE LORD JESUS CHRIST! And in addition, the church belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ not some saved sinner who calls himself a “pastor” (or an “elder” or a “leader”)! The Lord died for the church; He shed His blood for the church; He purchased the church with His precious blood. Christ didn’t suffer and die for His church in order for some mere man (saved or lost) to take possession of His personal property!

CHRIST IS THE HEAD OF EVERY CHRISTIAN
      1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

      Ephesians 4:15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

CHRIST IS THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH {“Local” or Otherwise}
      Colossians 2:19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.

      Ephesians 1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

      Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

IF the husband and wife relationship is a picture (or a simile) of the Lord Jesus Christ’s relationship with His church, can you imagine a genuine Bible believing husband willing to share the headship of his wife with another man? IF it is so obvious that such a relationship would be not only perverse but also contrary to every single scriptural precept and principle having to do with the husband and wife relationship found within the Holy Bible, then WHY isn’t it obvious that the Lord Jesus Christ would be unwilling to share His Headship of His church with any man (regardless of who he might be)?

      Colossians 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

CHRIST IS THE HEAD OF ALL PRINCIPALITY AND POWER
      Colossians 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

What is it that prompts a professing Bible believer to assume the Lord Jesus Christ’s rightful place in His church when the Scriptures are crystal clear on the issue? Can Ken Blue provide us with one verse of scripture where any of Christ’s disciples or apostles ever referred to the Lord’s church as their church, i.e. ‘my church’ or “your church”, just one verse? The only person that comes to my mind is “Diotrephes” [3 John 1:9-11] and I don’t think that Ken Blue would recommend “Diotrephes” as an example for a “pastor” (or elder) to follow.

Ken Blue then quotes Matthew 26:31 [Matthew 26:31 ¶ Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.] and says:

 

“Please don’t try to help me out by reminding me of the context, and who smites the shepherd. I got it.”

Then If Ken Blue gets “the context”, WHY does he proceed to ignore “the context” and privately interpret the verse to support his contention that:

“The application is universal”? How can the application of Matthew 26:31 be “universal” when the Lord Jesus Christ is specifically talking about His capture, His subsequent “trial”, and His death on the cross? In the “context”, Christ is speaking specifically about Himself – and NO ONE ELSE! Ken Blue states “I got it”, and then he proceeds to twist and wrest the verse OUTOFITS “CONTEXT” in order to apply the verse to “pastors” (or elders). I’m sure that since Mr. Blue professes that he “got it” that he is aware of the fact that 'a verse of Scripture taken out of context is a PRETEXT'!  

  
WEBSTER’S 1828 DICTIONARY

PRETEXT', n. L. proetextus. Pretense; false appearance; ostensible reason or motive assigned or assumed as a color or cover for the real reason or motive. He gave plausible reasons for this conduct, but these were only a pretext to conceal his real motives.

RANDOM HOUSE DICTIONARY
pre•text [pree-tekst] Show IPA noun
    1. something that is put forward to conceal a true purpose or object; an ostensible reason; excuse: The leaders used the insults as a pretext to declare war.

   2. the misleading appearance or behavior assumed with this intention: His many lavish compliments were a pretext for subtle mockery.

Origin:
1505–15;  < Latin praetextum  pretext, ornament, noun use of neuter past participle of praetexere  to pretend, literally, to weave in front, hence, adorn. See pre-, texture

Can be confused: pretense, pretext.

Synonyms
2. subterfuge, evasion.

Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2014.

WHY would a preacher say “Please don’t try to help me out by reminding me of the context, and who smites the shepherd. I got it.”, unless he is trying to head off legitimate comments on his private interpretation of the verse? WHY does a Christian “pastor” anticipate criticism of his teachings and then seek to preemptively cut off any debate concerning his personal beliefs? HOW else does a genuine Bible believer go about “rightly dividing the word of truth” if they purposely ignore the “context” of Bible verses?

When trying to teach or explain a spiritual matter to someone, the scriptural methodology for a Bible believer is to: personally rehearse (recount and review) the matter from the beginning and then expound it by order unto them.

      Acts 11:4 But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying,

The Biblical use of the words found within the pages of the Holy Bible (the King James Bible) and the application of those words (i.e. the way that people apply or interpret God’s words - the Scriptural Division: Historical – Doctrinal - Spiritual) are two separate issues. In order for genuine Bible believers to ascertain “what is truth” [John 18:38] they must first establish HOW the words of God are used within the pages of the Holy Bible in order to determine their meaning; and then seek to use those same words in the same manner as they are used within the pages of The Book whenever they teach or preach, or whenever they engage in the defense of sound doctrine, or in a discussion concerning spiritual issues.

The question arises: When “rightly dividing the word of truth” - Is it legitimate (i.e. lawful, legal, fitting, proper, appropriate, or scripturally sound) to separate or divide a doctrinal teaching from the historical context (within a historical setting) as presented in the Holy Bible? Or does the historical context (along with the historical setting) always determine the doctrinal application?

We must not change the way that God’s words are used (or presented) in the Holy Bible to accommodate our limited understanding of them. In addition, we must not change the plain meaning of the words (in context) by ADDING additional words that are not found within the text.  Instead of trying to make God’s words “fit” our doctrine, we must make our doctrine “fit” the words of God, and use those same words in the same manner as they are used within the pages of The Book - whenever we teach or preach, or whenever we engage in the defense of sound doctrine, or in a discussion concerning spiritual issues.

I believe that most of the disagreements, misunderstandings, and confusion amongst professed Bible believers over spiritual issues is due to the failure on the part of many students of Scripture to carefully observe exactly HOW specific words are used in the Holy Bible; and the failure to take into consideration the historical context of the Scriptures (including the historical setting and geographical facts - as they are presented in the Holy Bible).

In addition to the two major failings cited above, there is the corrupt practice of many modern day Bible teachers and commentators of introducing foreign words or phrases (which cannot be found in the Bible) into a study, or a discussion, of a scriptural issue, which only serves to confuse the issue. The mixing, mingling, or outright substitution of foreign words and/or phrases with scriptural words is known as ADDING to the Holy words of God! Also, a thorough study of the history of the “Christian” churches that have existed over the past 2000 years reveals that, when it came to practice, conduct, and church governance, most churches (of any note) ignored most of the scriptural teachings concerning these matters - a fact that is also true of most of the “Christian” churches which are in existence today.

All Scripture has Three Basic Components:

#1 HISTORICAL

The “historical application” of God’s words: This application presents the historical setting and context in which God’s words are found in Scripture - which is the primary determining factor in establishing the meaning (or definition) of Bible words.

#2 DOCTRINAL

The “doctrinal application” of God’s words: This application sets forth a Biblical “TRUTH” which reveals a specific Scriptural Principle or Precept - which has a specific application to a particular individual or to a particular group of people.

#3 SPIRITUAL

The “spiritual application” of God’s words: This application sets forth a Biblical “TRUTH” which indicates a general Scriptural Principle or Precept - but not necessarily a “precept” that is doctrinally applicable to the reader.

The failure to take all three of these things into account, and rightly divide between them, is what has led to most of the error in the churches of God since the death of the Jewish Apostles.

RULES OF CAUTION CONCERNING SYSTEMS OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

•  Any system of biblical interpretation not based on sound Scriptural precepts and principles, or which fails to use the same words in the same manner as they are used within the pages of the Holy Bible, or which fails to incorporate Biblical words within the system should be suspect to all genuine Bible believers.

•  Any system of biblical interpretation which ignores the historical setting, or which fails to consider the context in which God’s words are found in Scripture, is susceptible to private or personal speculation, conjecture, and supposition; (which always leads to misdirection, error, and false doctrine) should be readily avoided by all sincere Bible believers.

•  Any system of biblical interpretation which refers to “the originals”, or runs to the “original languages” (i.e. mainly the Hebrew and Greek) for spiritual understanding, is not to be trusted since the original sources (i.e. scribes) for the vast majority of the Hebrew & Greek manuscripts are unknown, and most of the scholars who have provided the definitions of the Hebrew & Greek words (i.e. Lexicons) were (and still are) unregenerate scribes who relied on secular (i.e. pagan) sources for the definition of spiritual words.

•  Any system of biblical interpretation which ADDS to, or SUBTRACTS from, or CHANGES the Holy words of God as found in the Holy Bible (i.e. the King James Bible) should be summarily rejected by Bible believers – regardless of who is propagating it, or the fact that there may be “some truth” to be found in it.

In order to determine the truth concerning a Scriptural issue we must not confuse or conflate the broader spiritual application of words and phrases found within the pages of the Holy Bible with the specific historical application of those words or we will be at cross purposes. The way, or manner, in which words were used at the time they were spoken (or written) will determine the meaning of those words, because the historical context (i.e. the time, the setting, and the specific circumstances) determines the meaning of the words of Scripture, while the broader spiritual application (made by many pastors, teachers, and commentators of today) is much more general and is not specific to the time, the place, the conditions, or the circumstances in which they actually occurred.     

Why would a “pastor” deliberately choose to ignore the “context” of the words found within a verse of Scripture and twist and wrest them ‘out of context’ to prove a point? WHY?  

Many of today’s “pastors”, teachers, and commentators use the Bible merely as a launching pad to launch off into a favorite cherished subject or a personal “pet doctrine”: which has little or no connection to the actual historical context or setting (i.e. the specific time, place, conditions, or circumstances); and which often has little relation to the specific issue being presented within the pages of the Holy Bible.

The wholesale failure to rightly divide the word of truth (i.e. “Expository” preaching and teaching) by many of today’s pastors, teachers, and commentators has lead to the loss of genuine spiritual edification taking place in the minds and hearts of many believers. The inordinate emphasis placed upon Christian celebrities by most of today’s professing Christians and the excessive dependence upon a pastor’s, or a teacher’s, or a commentator’s personal understanding of spiritual issues has crippled true individual spiritual discernment and understanding amongst the vast majority of professing Christians today.

Ken Blue continues:

WHY would a “pastor” (a professing Bible believer) refer to and quote other “pastors” rather than the Holy Scriptures to support his beliefs? Aren’t genuine Bible believers supposed to search the scriptures to see “whether those things are so” [Acts 17:11] rather than citing othermen who are in agreement with them? IF we are to live “by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” [Matthew 4:4] what do we care what men may say (regardless of who they are) if what “is noted in the scripture of truth” [Daniel 10:21] is to be our guide? Are genuine Bible believers supposed to engage in “respect of persons” [Proverbs 24:23; 28:21; James 2:1]?

Ken Blue continues:

WHY does Mr. Blue refer to an unnamed man (and an unnamed book that he wrote), i.e. “An author with the same name as mine”, in reference to pastoral abuse if he didn’t even bother to read the book? How does a sincere Bible believer go about commenting on what other men have to say if they won’t review their words? How can a professed Bible believer confess that “I have not read the book, but I have no doubt about its subject content.”? Is Ken Blue in the habit of judging what a man says before he hears him [John 7:51]? Is Ken Blue aware of what Jesus said concerning Judging: “John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.”, or can we pick and choose when and where to apply John 7:24 according to how we feel?

And what about the genuine “pastoral abuse” that is taking place throughout the United States in many “Fundamentalist”, “Evangelical”, and “Independent Bible” churches? Is Ken Blue denying that it’s NOT taking place? Is he denying that there has been an unprecedented increase in the number of ‘dictatorial pastors’ (i.e. petty tyrants) in many of the churches cited above in the last 40 to 50 years? Could Mr. Blue supply us with some data to prove otherwise, or is he just going to assume that it’s not taking place without searching out the truth of the matter?

Ken Blue continues:

This is where Mr. Blue’s teaching gets a bit ‘meaty’ (and Mr. Blue has bit off far more than he can chew), and unless a Bible believer is skilful “in the word of righteousness”, and “of full age”, and have had “their senses exercised to discern both good and evil”, they may miss the “subtil” sleight of hand Ken Blue employs in order to teach a false doctrine.    

      Hebrews 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are
      become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
     13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
     14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised
      to discern both good and evil.

The first thing sincere Bible believers must do before they can decipher Mr. Blue’s convoluted teaching is: they must first establish Timothy’s status (or position) in the churches of God during the time of the Apostle Paul’s ministry. According to the testimony of the scriptures, at the time that the Apostle Paul wrote his second Letter to Timothy (near the end of Paul’s ministry) Timothy was an “evangelist” [2Timothy 4:5]. There is no scriptural record of Timothy having ever been married, or having been an elder, or a bishop, or a “pastor”, or even a deacon. The Holy Bible is crystal clear concerning Timothy’s position in the churches of God!    

      2 Timothy 4:5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

Since the word “evangelist” shows up only twice in the entire Bible, once in reference to Timothy [2 Timothy 4:5], and once in reference to “Philip the evangelist” [Acts 21:8] it is a little difficult to define what an evangelist was or what his ministry consisted of (although a review of the kind of "work" that both Philip and Timothy did for the Apostles gives us a pretty good idea). However, according to the Scriptures [Ephesians 4:11-12], one thing is for certain “evangelists” were NOT “pastors”:  

      Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
      12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

The word “evangelists” (plural) shows up only once in the entire Holy Bible; and it is both patently obvious and crystal clear that an “evangelist” was different from an “apostle”; or a “prophet”; or a “pastor”; or a “teacher”. In order rightly divide the Scriptures cited (but not quoted) by Ken Blue it is absolutely necessary to settle the matter of Timothy’s status (or position) in the churches of God at the time of the Apostle Paul’s ministry; if not, a Christian might make the error of thinking that Timothy was a “pastor” at the time Paul wrote his final letter to him – which, according to the testimony of the Scriptures, he was NOT!

Now that we have settled the matter of Timothy’s status we can proceed to examine Ken Blue’s statements in the light of the holy words of God.

Ken Blue stated:
You will notice that Mr. Blue fails to quote 1 Timothy 1:4 in “context”. As a matter of fact he fails to quote the verse at all! I will supply the verses that Mr. Blue failed to quote:
      1 Timothy 1:1 ¶ Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;
      2 Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
      3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
      4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

In the historical “context”, the Apostle Paul is addressing his “fellowlabourer in the gospel of Christ” [1 Thessalonians 3:2], Timothy, concerning his personal conduct; so far Mr. Blue has got it right. In 1 Timothy 1:4 Paul is personally advising Timothy concerning his personal conduct. However, Mr. Blue jumps to 1 Timothy 3:5 (where he cites the reference, but once again, fails to quote the verse - which I will supply):

      1 Timothy 3:1 ¶ This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
      2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
      3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
      4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
      5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
      6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
      7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

In 1 Timothy 3:5 the Apostle Paul is not advising Timothy concerning his personal conduct, but instead Paul is laying out the qualifications and requirements for the scriptural office of “bishop” which is to be held only by elders [Titus 1:5-9].

      Titus 1:1 ¶ Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness;
      2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
      3 But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;
      4 To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.
      5 ¶ For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
      6 ¶ If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
      7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
      8 But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
      9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

Did you notice that Titus (an evangelist?) had the extraordinary authority to “ordain elders in every city, as I (i.e. Paul) had appointed thee”? Titus, like Timothy, was one of the Apostle Paul’s companions and (notice how Paul doesn’t elevate himself above his “fellowlabourers”, but instead was mindful to keep them on the same footing as himself – unlike most of today’s “pastors”). Did you also take notice that the Apostle Paul’s instructions to Titus concerning ordaining elders for the office of bishop were exactly the same as his instructions to Timothy? There can be no doubt, Paul’s instructions to Timothy in 1 Timothy 3:5 were not in reference to Timothy personally, but in reference to the qualifications and requirements for a man who desired the office of a bishop!

Ken Blue continues:
Once again Mr. Blue fails to quote the verse of Scripture that he cites and then he ADDS to the verse and CHANGES the wording:  
      1 Timothy 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
      5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

Does 1 Timothy 3:4-5 say “he is to “rule, and care” for the church” as Mr. Blue claims? Or does it say that a man who desires the office of a bishop must “ruleth well his own house . . . (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)”? Can you see the difference? Does it matter that a “pastor” CHANGES God’s holy words to suit his own purposes; or do we give him ‘a pass’ because he is a “pastor”?

In addition to CHANGING God’s words, Ken Blue continues to wrongly divide the word of truth by assuming that the “he” in First Timothy Chapter 3 verse 5 is Timothy, which I have demonstrated by Scripture that the “he” is clearly speaking about any man who desired the office of a bishop and not Timothy. Blue then jumps to verse 12 of the same Chapter (and again fails to quote the verse) and presumes that since Timothy is a “pastor” (which he is not) then “he (i.e. Timothy as a “pastor”) must exercise judgment about the choice of deacons”, and, by extension, that today’s “pastors” have the same authority to appoint deacons just as “pastor” Timothy did back in the Apostle Paul’s time!     

Do you see how it’s done? Cite a verse (but don’t quote it); avoid the context; and then privately interpret the meaning of the verse to support whatever false doctrine you may be trying teach! And today’s Christians swallow this tripe as if it were the truth!  

Ken Blue then cites 1 Timothy 4:6 & 11 (without quoting either verse) and makes a couple of short comments concerning the verses before jumping to 1Timothy 5:18 (where, once again, he fails to quote the verse) where he claims that “he (i.e. Timothy as a “pastor”) is to set the salary of other pastors who work for him”; which, Mr. Blue, once again by extension, presupposes that since “pastor” Timothy had the authority back in the Apostle Paul’s time, that today’s “pastors” can exercise the same authority over the brethren that Timothy did – which is a bald-faced lie! Read the verses in their context and see if they really say what Ken Blue claims they mean:

      1 Timothy 5:1 ¶ Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
      2 The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.
      3 ¶ Honour widows that are widows indeed.
      4 But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable before God.
      5 Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day.
      6 But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.
      7 And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless.
      8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
      9 Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man,
      10 Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the
      afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.
      11 But the younger widows refuse: for when they have begun to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry;
      12 Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith.
      13 And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.
      14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.
      15 For some are already turned aside after Satan.
      16 If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.
      17 ¶ Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.
      18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
      19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
      20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
      21 I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by
      partiality.

It’s necessary to quote most of the verses in Chapter Five of First Timothy in order to understand the “context” of 1 Timothy 5:18. CONTEXT: The meaning (or definition) of God's Holy words is determined by their CONTEXT! [1 Timothy 5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.] QUESTION: Does 1 Timothy 5:18 say that “he (i.e. Timothy as a “pastor”) is to set the salary of other pastors who work for him”? Does the verse even come close to saying what Ken Blue claims it does? Or is “pastor” Ken Blue guilty of ADDING to the holy words of God and CHANGING them to suit his own purposes once again?

In addition to CHANGING God’s words, Ken Blue is setting forth a false premise, i.e. that “other pastors who work for him” (i.e. Timothy as a “pastor”) and so, once again by extension, today “other pastors” can work for “pastor” Ken Blue or any other “pastor” because they worked for ‘pastor Timothy’ back in the Apostle Paul’s time! Except that, according to the Holy Bible, no Christian apostle, prophet, evangelist, elder, bishop, or deacon ever worked for another Christian apostle, prophet, evangelist, elder, bishop, or deacon! They all worked for the Lord Jesus Christ and served Him and His people in His church! Check out Chapter Three of the Book of First Corinthians to corroborate what I say.

It’s amazing how the holy words of God and the Holy Spirit can straighten out false teaching and give sincere Bible believers discernment and understanding in these matters.

Ken Blue continues:

Once again, and for the last time in his essay, Ken Blue fails to quote any verses from either of the Books of Scripture that he mentions. What is it about “pastors” who are reluctant to quote “the Scripture of truth”; aren’t they called to “preach the word” [2 Timothy 4:2] and teach “the way of God in truth” [Matthew 22:16; Mark 12:14]? In reference to a “preacher” or “pastors” Mr. Blue states “He must love his people”. I have news for Ken Blue; a genuine servant of God, i.e. a “pastor”, has NO “people”! All the “people” in the churches of God belong to the Lord Jesus Christ. After all, the “pastor” is just another “sheep”, he’s not the Great Shepherd!

Ken Blue continues:

NOTE: The following statements of fact are in regards to the historical “church of God”, and/or the historical “churches of God”. The “spiritual” and “doctrinal” application is not under consideration, only the Scriptural historical record, historical setting, and historical context (as presented and testified to in the Holy Bible) is under consideration. Believing that “all scripture” - “is profitable for doctrine” and “for instruction in righteousness”; let us attempt to conclude this matter.

1. Historically: In the Holy Bible, the words church (singular) or churches (plural) were never used to describe a building or buildings.

2. Historically: In the Holy Bible, the word church is always used to describe a particular group of people gathered (or assembled) together in one place for a specific purpose.

3. Historically: In the Holy Bible, the word churches (plural) is always used to describe multiple   churches within a region or province (or regions and provinces) within the Roman Empire.

4. Historically: In the Holy Bible, the word churches (plural) is never used to describe multiple churches within an individual city within the Roman Empire.

5. Historically: In the Holy Bible, there was only one church in each individual city within the Roman Empire. And with the exception of Matthew 16:18 & 18:17; Acts 7:38; and Hebrews 12:23, the word church (singular) is always used (within the historical context) to describe an individual church within an individual city within the Roman Empire.

6. Historically: In the Holy Bible, (where mentioned) there were always multiple elders, or multiple bishops, within an individual church within an individual city within the Roman Empire.

7. Historically: In the Holy Bible, there never was an official scriptural position (or “office”) of a chief elder, or chief bishop (or chief “pastor”); or a senior elder, or senior bishop (or senior “pastor”); or a presiding elder, or presiding bishop (or presiding “pastor”) who had authority over other elders, or bishops, (or “pastors”) in an individual church.

8. Historically: In the Holy Bible, there never was an official scriptural position (or “office”) of a bishop, or an elder, (or a “pastor”), who had authority over multiple churches within a region or province (or regions and provinces) within the Roman Empire.

9. Historically: In the Holy Bible, no man, be he an apostle; prophet; evangelist; bishop; elder; pastor; or teacher, ever claimed to be the HEAD the church (“local” or otherwise).

10. Historically: In the Holy Bible, the Lord Jesus Christ is always presented as the ONLY HEAD of “the church of God” (“local” or otherwise), and He is always declared to be the ONLY HEAD of “the body of Christ”.

Points 1-10 above are the historical record as presented in the Holy Bible (i.e. the King James Bible). What we, as professing Bible believers, do with that record is another thing. The first thing a Bible believer has to do with the historical record stated above is to determine whether it is true or not; and if it is true, the next thing to determine is whether the historical record, as presented in the Holy Bible, is meant to be an “example” (or a “pattern”) for us to follow. It is one thing, if a person is ignorant of the historical record, or if they choose to ignore the historical record, it is quite another if they choose to change it or deny it!

[Ukulelemike]

The problem I have in this, is that there seems to be quite a bit of liberty in HOW a church is to be operated. We see many examples of how things are done, but no real directives. I think this is because the Lord knew things would change vastly over time, and with differing areas and cultures. Just like, in the OT we see absolutely NO directives for the synagogue, nor Sabbath worship, yet come the time of Christ, we see not just syb=nagogues with rabbis, but Jesus giving His implicit approval by attending and participating. Yet, the prescribed manner of worship was to have been JUST the temple worship, with the priesthood in charge. And that changed even before, with Samuel the prophet taking over after the sins of Eli and his sons.

 

My point being, Jewish ministry changed over time, for many reasons, but when the changes occur, often we have seen the Lord both accepting it as well as attending it. From family worship to Moses and Sinai and the tabernacle, to the temple in Jerusalem to the synagogues and later, the churches in homes and the outer court of the temple area, and spreading abroad. And we have history to look at to see how some of the methods have changed, yet we see God bless many different styles of the churches.

 

Obviously, there are some that are wrong, plain and simple-Catholic and many of its children are just plain wrong in many ways, (pedobaptism, adoration of saints and Mariolatry, worship of the host, the eucharist and transubstantiation, and the like), and true Nicolaitan-type churches. But what we are speaking of here are NOT nicolaitan, unless they have a pastor who truly is unquestionable and rules, with the help and protection of implicit deacons and elders who protect his authority and position.

 

I have been reading a lot about the house church movement, and while there is much to be admired, their insistence that a church MUSt meet in a house to be right, I disagree with. That they did it then is true, but we also see that they met daily IN THE TEMPLE, as well, AND from house to house, so if they really want to be consistent, we need to find a temple to meet in, as well.  so they can be just like the first church.

 

Otherwise, I believe we should understand that because nothing was directly mandated, we DO have some liberty, so long as we understand that the church IS the believers, assembled together with leadership, which are subject to the church and clearly gifted from God to be in such a place. The layers and levels of leadership, whether multiple pastors, elders, bishops, deacons, etc, should be properly adjusted to be appropriate from the church size and needs. I suspect we don't need a plethora of elders in a church with 20 members.

[HappyChristian]

AV, I'm sorry - I don't have time to thoroughly read that post you just did.  I skimmed it and it's kind of confusing...when you say Ken Blue, I don't know which you are referencing necessarily.  Are there two?  I know Pastor Ken Blue, who was my pastor many years ago.

 

You cited a number of historical things - very interesting, really.  But one thing I thought as I read them - if we are to have churches only as given example in scripture, then we are to only have one per city....because, as you pointed out, there was only one in each individual city. Not being sarcastic or argumentative...just showing that sometimes examples aren't dictates...

[AVBibleBeliever]

The problem I have in this, is that there seems to be quite a bit of liberty in HOW a church is to be operated. We see many examples of how things are done, but no real directives. I think this is because the Lord knew things would change vastly over time, and with differing areas and cultures. Just like, in the OT we see absolutely NO directives for the synagogue, nor Sabbath worship, yet come the time of Christ, we see not just syb=nagogues with rabbis, but Jesus giving His implicit approval by attending and participating. Yet, the prescribed manner of worship was to have been JUST the temple worship, with the priesthood in charge. And that changed even before, with Samuel the prophet taking over after the sins of Eli and his sons.

 

My point being, Jewish ministry changed over time, for many reasons, but when the changes occur, often we have seen the Lord both accepting it as well as attending it. From family worship to Moses and Sinai and the tabernacle, to the temple in Jerusalem to the synagogues and later, the churches in homes and the outer court of the temple area, and spreading abroad. And we have history to look at to see how some of the methods have changed, yet we see God bless many different styles of the churches.

 

Obviously, there are some that are wrong, plain and simple-Catholic and many of its children are just plain wrong in many ways, (pedobaptism, adoration of saints and Mariolatry, worship of the host, the eucharist and transubstantiation, and the like), and true Nicolaitan-type churches. But what we are speaking of here are NOT nicolaitan, unless they have a pastor who truly is unquestionable and rules, with the help and protection of implicit deacons and elders who protect his authority and position.

 

I have been reading a lot about the house church movement, and while there is much to be admired, their insistence that a church MUSt meet in a house to be right, I disagree with. That they did it then is true, but we also see that they met daily IN THE TEMPLE, as well, AND from house to house, so if they really want to be consistent, we need to find a temple to meet in, as well.  so they can be just like the first church.

 

Otherwise, I believe we should understand that because nothing was directly mandated, we DO have some liberty, so long as we understand that the church IS the believers, assembled together with leadership, which are subject to the church and clearly gifted from God to be in such a place. The layers and levels of leadership, whether multiple pastors, elders, bishops, deacons, etc, should be properly adjusted to be appropriate from the church size and needs. I suspect we don't need a plethora of elders in a church with 20 members.

the Home church is very wrong in insisting that Homes are the only place to meet.  To one person he promoted it I pointed out all the different place people had met in the Book of Acts and they still didn't get it.

[AVBibleBeliever]

AV, I'm sorry - I don't have time to thoroughly read that post you just did.  I skimmed it and it's kind of confusing...when you say Ken Blue, I don't know which you are referencing necessarily.  Are there two?  I know Pastor Ken Blue, who was my pastor many years ago.

 

You cited a number of historical things - very interesting, really.  But one thing I thought as I read them - if we are to have churches only as given example in scripture, then we are to only have one per city....because, as you pointed out, there was only one in each individual city. Not being sarcastic or argumentative...just showing that sometimes examples aren't dictates...

the article states there are two Ken Blue.  this one is from Washington State.

 

It is a good refutation of something he wrote recently on his blog on his view on abusive leadership.  take you time and read it is good.  But you can go to Ken Blue's blog and under Leadership on the left hand side just click it and you will come to a page that has all sorts of articles about leadership.  this particular one was posted Feb 17, 2014

 

Happy, I didn't write the article I cut and posted it from another site many of you would never go to.

[Ukulelemike]

AV, I'm sorry - I don't have time to thoroughly read that post you just did.  I skimmed it and it's kind of confusing...when you say Ken Blue, I don't know which you are referencing necessarily.  Are there two?  I know Pastor Ken Blue, who was my pastor many years ago.

 

You cited a number of historical things - very interesting, really.  But one thing I thought as I read them - if we are to have churches only as given example in scripture, then we are to only have one per city....because, as you pointed out, there was only one in each individual city. Not being sarcastic or argumentative...just showing that sometimes examples aren't dictates...

Actually, The Epistle to the Galatians is addressed to the churches of Galatia, so that's not strictly true. Sorry.

[HappyChristian]

the article states there are two Ken Blue.  this one is from Washington State.
 
It is a good refutation of something he wrote recently on his blog on his view on abusive leadership.  take you time and read it is good.  But you can go to Ken Blue's blog and under Leadership on the left hand side just click it and you will come to a page that has all sorts of articles about leadership.  this particular one was posted Feb 17, 2014
 
Happy, I didn't write the article I cut and posted it from another site many of you would never go to.[/quote

ok - that's what confused me - I wasn't sure who was being quoted when. I think II'll go to the blog and read the article and then re-read your post. I'm sure itll make more sense to me then. He is the one who was my pastor long ago.

I knew you were cutting and pasting. Time constraints didnt allow me to read it thoroughly, and I'm sure that added to my confusion.