carlos123

I appreciate the further input but I have decided to stop my re-involvement in this forum after a number of years being absent. I had a hope that things might have changed in all that time but things have gone from the way they were then...bad...to worse. In this thread I have been accused of all kinds of ridiculous nonsense. It's like I have stepped into a den of vipers intent on biting at my heels no matter what I say. Admittedly my views may need some correction and I thank whoever of you that may be that brought a true word of correction to me. I appreciate that. What I say doesn't apply to everyone either. Some on this forum are Christians that I find it beneficial to discuss things with and to learn from. But overall...this forum has gone downhill and badly in that it is by no means a safe place to discuss things anymore. The atmosphere here is anything but Christian. Religious maybe but Christian? I don't think so. Anyway I wish you all well. May the Lord do with you and this forum whatever he might wish to do with it. Let the further accusations and bombardment of ridiculous nonsense continue. Be my guest. I won't be around to hear any of it as I will unsubscribe from this thread and will blacklist any further emails from this forum advising me of further responses. I will however still be available by PM if anyone wishes to say anything to me that way. Take care. Carlos

Here is another interesting quote from Calvin...pay special attention to the parts I have bolded...I have added my own commentary in parantheses. I have also added paragraph separations to make the quote easier to read. From http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.vi.iv.html Exaltation of church leadership above other members of the body exudes out of this quote throughout. Almost as if the ministers are standing between God and man and dispensing God's grace to us all. In other words instead of all the gifts of the Spirit operating through individuals standing side by side as equals before God our common Father...though having different roles in the church, Calvin sees ministers as having a profound and significantly more important (even a superior) role in the life of the church than other members of a local body. It's a subtle but significant difference from the biblical perspective I think. Carlos

Here is an interesting quote regarding one of Calvin's views on the role of ministers... This quote, which comes from his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Chapter 3 - see http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.vi.iv.html is indicative of what I said earlier. That Calvin had an overly exaggerated view of the importance of church leaders. Here he says that the Lord "dispenses and distributes" his gifts to the Church by the ministers! Not the Holy Spirit as God wills but rather the ministers! As if the flow of gifts to the church comes through the ministers!! Carlos

Wikipedia says... Quoted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastor Of course Wikipedia is certainly not authoritative but still...I thought that statement was interesting. Would love to know what they base that on. If true...that points to there being a problem in the use of that word in place of the more general "shepherd" in that we as Christians no longer have priests that mediate between us and God. Carlos

It strikes me as very odd that they started using the word Pastor, a Latin word, when a perfectly acceptable word (i.e. shepherd) had been in use for many years and in every English translation before the Geneva Bible came out (I am referring to the use of this word in Ephesians 4:11 and in Jeremiah). WHY did they make that change? It's the first time that the word "Pastor" made it into our English bibles. Any ideas? Carlos

As I understand it Shiloh there is no difference. The role of a shepherd (a la Ephesians 4:11) is to shepherd the sheep. The role of a pastor (a la Ephesians 4:11) is also to shepherd the sheep. These two words are obviously different words but they define the same underlying Greek word in Ephesians 4:11. What is involved in shepherding / pastoring? Well...to do what a shepherd would do for the sheep but where it is applied to people figuratively. Shepherds / pastors lead the sheep to water and green pastures. Shepherds / pastors protect the sheep from wolves and other predators. Shepherds / pastors search out lost sheep and bring them back to the flock. Shepherds / pastors help maintain peace between members of the flock. Shepherds / pastors exert discipline over the sheep when any of them get out of line. I think those are the essential tasks of this role in the church. Carlos

Hi Shiloh, At the risk of straying even further from what I originally wanted to discuss in this thread...though it is somewhat relevant I think. Hmm...I appreciate you bringing this up Shiloh. It's making me think...which is not at all a bad thing . I've never heard anyone say that the gift is separate and a totally different thing than the man who has the gift. That's a new one for me. To me the gift and the man are as one where the two cannot be separated. Let me think about that some. Carlos

By your own words...THE PASTOR. The ONE man not multiple men. As for your wondering...well...that is pure conjecture. I could wonder as well all kinds of things about you too Ayin Jade but what would be the point of such pointless wondering other than to impugn your character and cast you in a bad light? Such wondering is pointless and doesn't serve to further fruitful discussion. Still...if you must know...I think most Pastors I have ever been under would have a far better appreciation of my attitude and my willingness to submit to their authority while in churches that they pastor than you have of me. Fight with Pastors? Vendetta against Pastors? Such innuendos and fleshly implications tell me that you have completely, and I mean completely, missed the thrust of what I have been saying in this thread. It's like you haven't even read what I have said at all such that you have completely misread my heart. I have been saying that the modern day role of Pastor is unbiblical. Not in line with the biblical model of what oversight is supposed to be about. And that I have been interested in discussing why the Geneva Bible tossed out the use of "shepherds" in Ephesians 4:11 and took up "pastors" instead as a possible moment in time when a corruption of the role of oversight worked it's way into the text. A real concern and a real issue that has nothing to do with any so-called desire to fight with Pastors, to not be in submission, and other nonsense. Sigh... Carlos

You say that Ephesians 4:11 is not talking about pastor as a gift in the same sense that teaching is a gift as mentioned in Romans 12. Yet I have to ask why not? While the verses in Romans 12 do not mention shepherds (or pastors if you will) as is mentioned in Ephesians 4:11, the gifts of prophecy and teaching ARE mentioned (along with others). The Greek words which are rendered "prophecy" and "teaching" in Romans 12:6-8 are G4394 and G1321 respectively. In Ephesians 4:11 the Greek words rendered "prophets" and "teachers" are G4396 and G1320 respectively. Prophets are one's who have the gift of prophecy and prophesy. Teachers are one's who have the gift of teaching and teach. 1 Corinthians 12 makes things even clearer. We see Paul mentioning some of the same gifts he mentions in Ephesians 4:11 in 1 Corinthians 12:27-31 and this time he even uses the same exact Greek words! 1 Corinthians 12 is talking about GIFTS...NOT POSITIONS. In context Ephesians is clearly talking about GIFTS NOT POSITIONS. An apostle is one who has the gift of apostleship. A prophet is one who has the gift of prophecy. An evangelist is one who has the gift of evangelism. A pastor is one who has the gift of pastoring (i.e. shepherding). A teacher is one who has the gift of teaching. There is no support whatever in any of the above verses for the idea that any of these terms describe a POSITION of church government. They describe people who are gifted. The gifts is what the Lord gave the church or one could righly also say that the Lord gave people with these gifts to the church as well. But saying that the Lord gives these particular type of persons to the church does not imply that these people are only able to operate within a POSITION. Nowhere is there any support for the idea that these gifts are given to only ONE person within a local body. They are given according to the need of the body and as the Lord wills. In the New Testament church there were many who were gifted as apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and/or teachers. No where is there a single example of a church that only had ONE of each within the body where it could only have ONE and never more. For that matter there is no example of a church that only had ONE person at the top of a hirearchy with the gift of shepherding in operation (i.e. in line with the modern idea of a Head Pastor). Maybe I am misunderstanding what you meant to say Shiloh and went overboard in my response (I have been known to do that in the past). If that is the case please correct my overly wordy response and bring me back to the point of your post if you would be so kind as to do that for me. Carlos

If you think nothing good can come out of discussing this issue I guess I am somewhat perplexed as to why you are participating in this thread Shiloh.If you don't like what I wanted to discuss or think it can serve no purpose by all means you are free to not participate in this discussion at all. I mean why in the world would you participate in a discussion you view as utterly useless? Why did you ask for discussion when you clearly don't want discussion. An answer was given and you don't like the answer. The answer was repeated and now you decide they shouldn't be involved in the discussion. You are making an aweful lot of assumptions Another_Poster. "you clearly don't want discussion" WRONG. "you don't like the answer." WRONG. "you decide they shouldn't be involved in the the discussion." WRONG. I wish you wouldn't assume and instead that you would ask me whether this or that is true instead. I DO want discussion which means a give and take, a challenge to my thinking and that of others, etc. Whether I personally like an answer or not has absolutely nothing to do with anything. What kind of discussion would it be if I insisted on everyone giving me only answers that I liked? That's ridiculous. As for me deciding that Shiloh shouldn't be involved in this discussion why did I say what I did to him Another_Poster (not to mention that it is not within my power on this forum to stop anyone from participating in a thread)? It was because he said "nothing good is served by trying to manufacture a problem that doesn't exist.". That left me perplexed as to why he was involved in this discussion at all which led me to suggest that it would be better for him not to be involved in this discussion since...he did not apparently see much value to it. It would further profitable discussion if you would not assume things about my motives or desires Another_Poster. Carlos

Hi Ezra, Thanks for participating in this discussion. I'm tired of wrestling with the forum software here in that it tends to mess up my quotes so I am just going to quote the old fashioned way from now on. @Ezra said "The words *pastor* and *shepherd* are interchangeable, so the word itself is not really a big issue." Though I agree that the words "pastor" and "shepherd" are interchangeable in a strictly biblical sense, they are just two words even if one is Latin and the other English that pertains to a GIFT of shepherding in Ephesians 4:11, I do not agree that it is not a big issue which word we use to refer to those in the role of oversight in churches. As a matter of practical reality these words are not interchangeable. If I go into almost any church in the U.S. and ask "Who are your shepherds (plural)?" many folks won't have much of a clue as to what in the world I am asking. Worse...some might immediately conclude that I am a trouble maker, a weirdo, or just plain wacky. Now if I go into the same church and ask "Who is your Pastor (singular)?". No problem at all. Everyone will immediately understand who I am asking about. Most understand the word "Pastor" as used in Ephesians 4:11 to refer to a POSITION of church leadership that one is ordained to NOT a gift. Why is that a problem? First and foremost the Lord inspired Paul to write what he did and to say something specific by what he wrote. Since Paul was referring to a GIFT when he used the Greek word poimēn (Strong's G4166) in Ephesians 4:11 and NOT a POSITION, to end up thinking that Paul was speaking of a POSITION rather than a GIFT is to misinterpret the Word at best and to obscure and twist what the Lord meant to say through Paul at worst. Leading to a faulty practice of church respecting the role of oversight. Faulty in what sense? When a GIFT is looked upon as a POSITION and not a GIFT then the gift gets tied to the position such that anyone having the gift of shepherding is considered out of line to practice that gift when they do not have the position. We diminish the role of that gift in the life of the church when we limit it's operation to a position. Worse we elevate those having a POSITION above those who do not have said position instead of looking upon them as being no less and no more than members of the body like any other member of the body but with a different gift and role. Equating a GIFT with a POSITION is a reflection of our tendency as fallen creatures to exalt one man above another. The scriptural reality is that the GIFT of pastoring should and can be exercised, by anyone having that gift, whether the gifted person has the POSITION of being an Elder or not. In other words GIFTS are not tied to a POSITION. Most Pastors today will frown upon if not outright deny anyone, who is not a duly recognized and ordained Pastor, the opportunity to practice the gift of shepherding since the only one in modern church practice who is seen fit to operate in that gift are recognized and ordained Pastors. I guess what I am saying Ezra is that as a matter of practical reality there IS a difference in meaning between these two words such that they are not interchangeable. The difference in meaning as a matter of practical reality is significant. The GIFT of shepherding is NOT seen to be equivalent to the POSITION of Pastor as one might think they would be IF these two words meant the same thing where one could be used as readily to refer to the same thing as the other. Now one might well wonder if I am making a mountain out of a molehill by making an issue over which word we use to refer to church overseers to which I would say this. A GIFT is something that is to be exercised for the well being of the church whether one has a POSITION or not. If we view the word "Pastors" in Ephesians 4:11 to be referring to a POSITION, when in fact it refers to a GIFT, we then limit the exercise of that gift to being expressed only within and through a POSITION. Any such limitation limits the Holy Spirit's work in and through members of the body that have the gift of shepherding. To use the word "Pastors" for those having oversight over churches, when said word has come to be understood by all as referring to a POSITION rather than a GIFT, is to perpetuate the biblically mistaken idea that the gift of shepherding can only be exercised by those who have a pastoral POSITION. Furthermore the whole notion of a modern day Pastor is that of one man oversight over a church. I refer to what is generally known as the Head Pastor. Just because many churches have a Pastor of this and a Pastor of that doesn't mean that they are practicing the biblical model of a multiplicity of overseers having the same authority over churches as seen in the New Testament. The GIFT of pastoring and it's proper operation within the body has been obscured and buried under the modern day understanding of the positional role of Pastor. My desire in starting this thread was to get help (through a discussion or through any source material others might have known about that I did not) as to how this shift (from seeing the GIFT of pastoring become a POSITION in the understanding of Christians) came about. I think the Geneva Bible starting to use the word "Pastor" in place of "shepherd" may have been a pivotal moment in time when the corruption of the role of oversight as the Lord intended got incorporated into our bibles through a change from the use of the word "shepherds" to that of "Pastor" in Ephesians 4:11. Or at least it would seem so. That was my interest in discussing this. Carlos

An excellent question Shiloh and one that I will regretfully have to answer tomorrow as I don't think I will have time to get on my laptop tonight. I appreciate your desire that I explain myself better - which I think I need to do. Carlos

Ahh...a nice short quote that is easy to work with even under my Android. I am dumbfounded by your response Ayin Jade. The very foundations of our modern day church practices come from the Reformation (though in truth even before that but still much of it is from the Reformation). If our modern practices have strayed from what the Lord meant the church to be then going back to understand the roots of any corruption from the biblical model of church practice is extremely beneficial to revealing what the nature of that corruption is. And in helping us better understand how best to counter that corruption and even expose it through the Word and through history. Your response implies that going to the root of what causes a behavior in one's adult life by exposing how any such behavior began in childhood is unimportant. It implies that it is unimportant or worthless to understand a nation's history in order to better understand why a nation is what it is today. The church is what it is today BECAUSE of things that happened in the past. In so far as the church may be off in its practice today it is incredibly beneficial to understand what caused its practice to go astray in the past. How you can say that having a desire to understand the change from shepherd to pastor in our Bible's and how that might help us to ubderstand how the present day pastoral role came to be is like straining at gnats is beyond me. It utterly perplexes ne how it is that you obviously do not see the value to this discussion. Carlos.

I appreciate your attempt to show me why this discussion won't go anywhere in your opinion Shiloh. I completely disagree and will leave it at that with respect to interacting with you on this thread unless you have insight to share on WHY the Geneva Bible started using the word "Pastor" in place of "shepherds". Right, wrong, useless, or profitable that IS the topic of this thread. Carlos

@Omegaman All good questions Omegaman. I hope to respond more fully when I get in front of my laptop instead of fighting to chicken peck a response out through this tiny editing box on my Android screen. You rightly point out some assumptions on my part. That is one reason I am interested in a discussion of this issue. So that I can better distinguish between reasonable historical fact and unsupported assumptions on my part. I will post some quotes from John Calvin later to support my view (which I don't see as assumption) that he had an overly exalted view of church leadership. Carlos

If you think nothing good can come out of discussing this issue I guess I am somewhat perplexed as to why you are participating in this thread Shiloh. If you don't like what I wanted to discuss or think it can serve no purpose by all means you are free to not participate in this discussion at all. I mean why in the world would you participate in a discussion you view as utterly useless? Carlos

And you're basing this on your 30 years of linguistic,etymological research and your advanced degree in biblical translation and linguistics and extensive expertise in the thousands of biblical manuscripts from Greek and Latin? By all means Shiloh if you know of any reason at all as to WHY they chose to drop the rendering of the underlying Greek as "shepherds" and started using "Pastors" I am all ears to hear it. Otherwise my words to the affect that I personally know of no linguistic, scriptural, or other reason for why they did so stand, as yet, unchallenged and unrefuted. Carlos

The ideal is of course to make the best translation possible but I think it is bit naive to believe that ungodly, selfish, and other fleshly motives and viewpoints never enter into in to render words in a way that may at times not reflect the meaning of the underlying Greek. For example many people do not realize that a number of words in the King James Bible (such as bishop, church, etc.) were rendered as such, not because these words best represented the meaning of the underlying Greek but rather because King James insisted that words that had been in use and that dealt with hirearcheal offices or described the Church of England be left unchanged. As such the King James translators could not have translated the Greek otherwise in the case of these words. With respect to "Pastors" in the Geneva Bible I suspect that John Calvin, who was very influential over its production and who had an overly exalted view of church leadership as against lay people, influenced the translation to discard "shepherds" and replace it with "Pastors". Possibly because the word "shepherds" was too general and did not accurately reflect or sufficiently distinguish between lay people and ministers in line with the exalted view of church leadership that he had. Carlos

@bopeep Just so you know (I gave up trying to work with your quote...this forum software is a pain to use under Android)...I think your quote on what the Geneva Bible was is absolutely appropriate for the topic of this thread. The material you quoted gives us very useful info regarding the times when it was written and who were some of the men who might have had a great influence on this translation. Carlos

On the one hand you say one word or another doesn't matter but then you bring up a number of words that you would not feel comfortable using for a church leader because of implied meanings associated with those words. You clearly show by your post the IMPORTANCE of words and their associated meanings. As a word "Pastor" has an associated meaning. In the minds of most today it refers to a POSITION of church leadership. The underlying Greek word rendered Pastors in Ephesians 4:11 has no such POSITIONAL significance. Rather it refers to GIFTING and is not POSITIONAL in meaning at all. Anyone can have a GIFT and can exercise that GIFT. In today's church practice only ONE person can have the POSITION of Pastor. BIG, BIG DIFFERENCE. To render the Greek word as "Pastor", given its clear POSITIONAL meaning in the minds of most is to do an injustice to what Paul meant to say about the GIFT of shepherding. Words and their implied meaning have GREAT significance! What I am trying to ascertain is WHY the Geneva Bible chose to carry over a Latin word (presumably from the Latin Vulgate), which likely had an implied if not explicit POSITIONAL meaning back then as well, into that English bible. Why didn't they stick with the more accurate rendering of "shepherds"? A word which more clearly carries the GIFTING emphasis of the underlying Greek. Carlos

I am interested in doing a bit of collective historical research if anyone is game for that. The Geneva Bible was the first English bible to start using the Latin word "Pastors" in Ephesians 4:11. The New Testament was published in 1557 followed afterwards by the entire bible in 1560. All other English bibles, prior to the Geneva, rendered the underlying Greek word in Ephesians 4:11 as a derivative of the word we know as "shepherds". The Wycliffe Bible - shepherdis The Coverdale Bible - shepherdes William Tyndale New Testament - Sheperdes The Great Bible - Shepherdes Matthew Bible - sheperdes The Geneva Bible also used the Latin word "Pastors" (either in the singular or plural) in 9 other verses in Jeremiah. Jeremiah 2:8 3:15 6:3 10:21 12:10 17:16 22:22 23:1 23:2 Today all modern English bibles have gone back to using the word "shepherd" or a derivative in Jeremiah. But the rendering of the underlying Greek word into "Pastors", as the Geneva Bible did, has remained and has now become the norm (with the exception of the English Standard Version and Young's Literal Translation who have rendered this word into "shepherds"). Why did the Geneva Bible begin using the word "Pastors"? There is no logical, linguistic, scriptural, or other reason to justify this rendering. Anybody got any interest in digging into history with me to find why this rendering began to be used by the Geneva Bible? Carlos

Well put Ezra!! And I completely agree. What that says about present day Pastors is not very positive. If a man who is a Pastor claims to be willing to do WHATEVER the Word says but doesn't do it (assuming he at least understands what it says)...that man is a hypocrite if not worse. Akin to the religious leaders whom the Lord called a lot of other choice words. If a Pastor doesn't understand how far the church of today has strayed from what the Lord intended that man is, at the very least, blind. We are not called to defend and uphold the status quo. To defend positions of power, influence, or authority that we might enjoy. We are called to be obedient to the will of another. The Lord! Carlos

Howdy Ayin Jade, Just so you know (though it might be a bit confusing trying to follow this thread and who said what I have to admit) I was not the one who brought up the idea that we should imitate the church of Jerusalem in Acts as a model for how churches ought to be. But I do believe that what they did, in so far as it was done because of their devotion to and faith in God, is an example for us to imitate. In other words if they did what they did out of devotion to God then it stands to reason that if we are likewise devoted that we also will do some of what they did out of that same devotion. So with respect to selling all that they had and combining their income to meet needs in one another's lives... Why did they do that? Here are some clues I think. Jesus said... Jesus talked of us being one as he and the Father were one. And he connected that oneness as being extremely important as a visible demonstration of the love that God has for each of us. Oneness connected with love. And why is there such a connection? Well...if you and I are one...what does that mean? Let's see what it meant between Jesus and the Father. I get the sense that oneness between Jesus and the Father, at least the oneness that Jesus spoke of as something that we too needed to be, involved a kind of unselfish oneness where what caused you to rejoice caused me to rejoice. Where what caused you sadness made me sad. Where what hurt you hurt me. And where your need was taken on by me as my own. So if I was indeed one with you where what was mine was yours and what was yours was mine, as members of one body in Christ, then it stands to reason that I would sell anything I had to meet needs in your life at the time of your need and that you would in turn do the same for me when there was unmet need in my life. Doesn't that make sense? I mean if we take the oneness of Jesus and the Father as our example. We are members of the same body. What do I do when a member of my body hurts? I nurse it and nurture it and do what I can to meet it's need for care. We should do no less than that for one another. Just because people who profess to be Christians today don't generally do that doesn't mean anything at all. That's just the way it is today. The Christians in the Jerusalem church were simply applying what Jesus had spoken about and what the Apostles in turn taught out of what Jesus taught them. Nothing strange or unusual about it at all in my mind. And something we need to imitate today if we are going to lay claim to wanting to be one as Jesus spoke of and to being members of the same body. If I love you and you love me as members of the same body with a love like that of Jesus Christ we can do no less. This is not a legalistic thing where you MUST sell your house to meet my need and I must sell mine. No less than it is not a legalistic thing where we MUST worship God, or read our bible's, or do any other such thing. If we love God, truly love the Lord, we will follow his example of sacrificial love because we WANT to. Not because we HAVE to or else. The fact that we don't generally love one another that way today is nothing less than an indication that our love for the Lord (as expressed in our love for one another) is incredibly superficial and wanting. It is no wonder to me that the world takes note of this superficiality and calls us hypocrites. We claim to love one another in Christ while clinging to our own lives, living for ourselves, and otherwise looking out for our own self-interests as if this life was all there was. As for whether I am doing that in my relationships with others. I would love to do that Ayin Jade. I once did do that (within a fellowship the Lord began through me in the apartment complex that I lived in). But I can't even find believers around me here who are willing to do whatever the Bible says to do no matter what the cost or the consequences to our lives is - never mind moving into oneness as an expression of Christ-like love. I am not to squander what I have and sell it or give it away to sacrifically meet needs in any Tom, Dick, or Jane. Even the Christians in Acts didn't do that. But if I don't have an immediate need in my life for something in my possession and a true believer crosses my path who is in genuine need - a need that must be met sooner rather than later, then yes...I am to make available whatever I have had and can bring to bear to meet their need trusting God to provide for my own needs in the future. That is one aspect of what living by faith in a living God is all about. Just as Jesus did. But it would be so much better and more all encompassing if I could be a part of a group of believers willing to love each other that way instead of dealing with believers in isolated instances of meeting one here or there where most all the one's I meet are so much richer than me that there is hardly ever any opportunity for me to love other believers through what I possess or can bring to bear to meet needs in their lives. Materially speaking I mean. Carlos

Hi everyone, There are a few things people have said that I would like to comment on if I might. I have bolded those statements that I am commenting about in the quotes below. The Pastor is NOT, NOT, NOT the only one being led by the Spirit in any give body of believers Openly Curious. He leads every single member of the Body (Romans 8:14) though you would think by modern day practice that He ONLY leads THROUGH the Pastor. If a person is not led by the Spirit they are not a Christian. This goes to the modern view of pastoral leadership (as opposed to a scriptural view). The modern day Pastor has become in practice if not in theology the new Catholic Priest. The man in the middle between God and man or in the case of the church between God and the members of the body. God leads but he leads through the Pastor the view goes. God's Spirit inhabits every single believer but few if any are able to express God's gifting through the Spirit other than the Pastor who may expound at will on what he thinks truth is about. You have hit on the core problem I think Shiloh. Namely the belief that no one can read the Scriptures and interpret them accurately enough to hold everyone accountable to do what it says! It's as if you are saying that we should all live and let live respecting correct biblical interpretation. If that is indeed your view...I find it hard to believe it is so by all means if it is not please correct me...the following verses completely negates that view. Nothing in the Scriptures is a matter of personal opinion or interpretation. For the words written were penned under inspiration to express the thoughts of God. Specific words having a specific meaning. A meaning that CAN be understood and rightly divivided and to which we can be held accountable. Admittedly there are countless different interpretations of this or that set of verses floating around. Even in this thread there are various interpretations of various verses being brought out. But having these different interpretations does not negate what the Word says. That there is ONE correct interpretation. Perhaps many different applications but there is a definite something that God meant to say through some set of verses when he inspired the writer to pen the words that they did. To say that we understand a set of verses and what the Lord meant to say through them is not arrogance or presumption if we are correctly dividing the Word of truth and accurately interpreting what it says in the plain meaning of the words used. To hold others accountable to obey that interpretation and calling out other interpretations as being innacurate and in error is not judgemental. It is godly in that we are called to speak the truth in love to one another and to judge and correct innacurate interpretations which can lead to all kinds of problems within the body. I completely disagree Shiloh. What do you think 1 Cor 14 is talking about? You have mentioned in the past that Paul was correcting faulty practice in the life of the Corinthian church. Quite true. But you have then concluded by that...that 1 Cor 14 doesn't apply all that much today as a result (if I am understanding your responses correctly). But a correction of something in error does not lead automatically to the negation of the prescribed solution. If you go to a nutritionist to advice you on a better diet and the nutritionist tells you that you should eat more vegetables and fruits...does the fact that you were faulty in your diet automatically mean the the nutritionist's advice to you about eating more vegetables and fruits does not apply to every single person on the face of this Earth? Of course not! Paul's instructions in 1 Cor 14 were indeed correcting faulty practice in the Corinthian church but his instructions, in so far as they lay out how a meeting of the church is supposed to be conducted, was applicable (see 1 Corinthians 14:33-37) to all other New Testament churches and is still applicable to us today. To say otherwise is to discount the value of instructions just because they are given to deal with a specific problem. Someone isn't using a hammer correctly so we all can ignore instructions given to someone on how to use the hammer correcty because...well...they were given to someone who didn't know how to use a hammer. Someone isn't driving correctly so we can all ignore instructions given on which traffic signals mean what, when to stop and go, how to maneuver a car, and all manner of other instructions on correct vehicle operation because...well...they were given to someone who didn't know how to drive. Such a perspective is ludricous and leads either to incorrect interpretation of the instructions given in the Word or to disobedience in ignoring clear instructions given for how a church meeting is supposed to be conducted. 1 Cor 14 means something. Something definite. Concrete. Paul did not waste his time and the Holy Spirit did not inspire him to pen meaningless nonsense. I believe what he said is clear. Very clear. And that those who do not see clearly what it says are resistant to God and his ways. Perhaps not in a blatant rebellious manner but resistant in some way. Unwilling to do the will of God. For Jesus said that if ANYONE is willing that they will know whether something that is being taught is of God or whether it is nothing more than personal opinion which can safely be ignored. Paul even went so far as to say this about his instructions in 1 Cor 14. That's how important Paul thought his instructions were! That's pretty important if you ask me. That anyone who does not recognize and acknowledge his instructions as being the commands of the Lord himself is to be ignored. He would not have said such a thing if those instructions could not be understood. I believe that they can be understood and that we are to apply them. To shape our modern day church meetings around them. I began this thread to get input on why Pastors seem so unwilling to me. To apply what Paul said. After talking with the Pastor I did yesterday it is becoming rather clear to me that there is a blindness over the hearts of many. Where they simply do not see what is written in 1 Cor 14. Can I say that such men have evil hearts? I have thought that in the past and still do to some degree. I still don't know what to make of that entirely but it seems clear to me that there is a blindness among many who profess the name of Christ that is caused by pride, selfish ambition, an unwillingness to yield to what is plainly said in the Word. No amount of discussion will remove the blinders anymore than Jesus was able through what he said to remove the blinders on the hearts of the Pharisees and Saducees. Giving sight to those who are blind is a matter where the Lord must extend mercy and open the eyes of the blind through the power of his Spirit. I cannot force those who are blind to see no matter how much I might wish at times to beat them over the head with a 2x4 of truth. What is becoming evident to me is that I must continue to speak truth to anyone willing to listen but that I must also continue to love - even those who are blind. That is a tough thing to do. In my natural self I want to write off those who are blind and have nothing more to do with them. Jesus did not do that and we must follow his example in that I think. Still...there is a blindness in the church of today regarding these issues that I can do little about. It would be best I think to find others who are able to see and join with them somehow but I am somewhat clueless as to how to find such Christians in my local area. Carlos

Hi Joseph (I assume that is your name), Thanks so much for your encouragement! Well put and exactly so. I will take your admonishment to heart! I frankly have little clue as to how it is that I still cling to Jesus Christ as my real Saviour and Lord. A real being with whom I have relationship. In view of the state of the church and the Christians. I don't see Jesus anywhere to be frank with you. I just don't. Love like that of Christ is non-existant. Christianity as I have experienced around about me here is mainly if not entirely about the head. Head knowledge. It's like we believe some sort of religious philosophy just like so many other religions. Our Jesus isn't real. He is a figment of our religious imagination. It's not just the state of the church but inward struggles and doubts too. I don't see Jesus in the people around me who call themselves by his name Joseph. I just don't. I see a semblance of reality but not the real thing. The real, sacrificial, all out embrace of the Word as truth with a willingness to live it out and die by it if need be. Where we are staking everything on it's words as representing a real being and a real heaven. Instead I see so many who go the way of compromise. Where they do what is comfortable not what God would will done. The cost is high. Too few are willing to follow. Too few are willing to live by faith in a living God. I am not saying that I am perfect or that I have arrived. Far from it. I stumble and fall and waddle about in my spiritual life like some toddler in diapers. But I KNOW what is it is like to EXPERIENCE the LIVING God!!!!! I KNOW WHAT THAT IS LIKE!!! And how greatly and magnificently that can fill my heart to overflowing. At one time in my life I EXPERIENCED God like that among a fellowship the Lord led me to start in an apartment complex I once lived at. It was the most unbelievable experience of God and fellowship that I have ever had. My immaturity destroyed it. I know what the real thing is like and the present church practice ain't it. That's what drives me. That's what keeps me so incredibly discontent with the present and sorely lacking experience of God in the church practices around me. I've tasted the real thing and there is nothing around me to compare. I have often wondered as to how what happened happened. As to what it was that led me to experience the things I did back then. I have often tried and wanted to repeat things. Some trick. Some method. Some means. But to no avail. I have tasted the living reality of God in fellowship with other Christians and I just can't settle for anything less anymore. Most often I have no idea what to do with myself so I talk things over with the Lord but there are no answers. Thanks for your encouragement Joseph. Much appreciated. Carlos