Rather, that if we seek to march foreword back into Biblical Christianity, it mainly exhorts that we need not to bow down to a set feast that has no Biblical precedent as a yearly tradition (in Dec. no less), and which thus used to be banned by England and the Puritans, etc, and they should not seek to Christianize paganism, but worship God in Spirit as a He leads, and in truth, consistent with it's principals and precepts. 
   
Sorry for taking so much space.

Amen Daniel,

You may be interested in these articles.

"Truth" http://www.nlbchapel.org/truth.htm

"Christ-mass" http://www.nlbchapel.org/Christmass.htm

"THE CHRISTMAS JESUS CAME TO MY HOUSE" http://www.nlbchapel.org/Christmashome.htm

God bless,
Pilgrim

The sin spoken of in Heb 10:26 is not sin in general, but the specific sin of apostasy. 

Here is the last part of an article I wrote on this. You can read the whole article here if Interested.  http://www.nlbchapel.org/heb6.htm

"Another explanation which I believe is the correct one is that the writer of Hebrews is using a hypothetical situation to make a point. This is the only explanation that I am aware of the does not violate other Scripture. The writer of Hebrews is concerned that some are turning back to the Old Covenant ways so he sets out to prove how foolish this is in light of how much better the New Covenant is. Remember, the book of Hebrews is a contrast between the Old and New covenant. His argument would amount to something like this for Hebrews 6:4-6 (the verses at the top of this article).


   If it were possible for someone who is truly saved (verses 4-5) to fall away and abandon the salvation he has already received by the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus (verse 6). It would be impossible for him to be renewed to repentance (salvation) because in order for him to be renewed he would have to crucify the Son of God again, and put him to an open shame which will never happen (verse 6). The point being that outside of the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus in the New Covenant there is no salvation.

I believe this explains Hebrews 10 as well.

Hebrews 10:26 “ For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,  27  But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.  28  He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:  29  Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?”

    The argument is something like this. If it were possible for a true Christian to sin willfully after receiving the gospel truth by rejecting it and therefore losing their salvation, there would be no hope of him ever getting saved again. The only thing awaiting him is the fiery indignation of God seeing that he has trodden under foot the Lord Jesus Christ and counted His blood by which he was saved an unholy thing. The only way of salvation is through the blood of Jesus and if a true Christian COULD reject this then there is no hope for him, seeing he rejected the only thing that could save his soul.

    The hypothetical is the only way I know of that allows these verses to fall in perfect harmony with the rest of Scriptures. I hope this may help some. May God open all of our eyes of understanding."

pilgrim

Hello Daniel,

Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. The division of the Mosaic Law is a man made idea that is foreign to the Scriptures. You will find no such division divinely laid out. Many say that it was the so-called ceremonial and dietary laws the was nailed to the cross not the so-called moral parts. They say that the so-called moral parts are still in force. Think about how silly this is. If you hold to this view then Christ sacrifice on the cross would only avail for what was nailed to the cross. That would mean that there is no sacrifice for the so-called moral parts which would then mean man kind is still in huge trouble with God. In the end you wind up having a works based salvation based on keeping the so-called moral part of the law of Moses.

Within the Church I can’t think of to many doctrines that people are more confused on than that of law and grace. This is sad because it is one of the most important doctrines and greatly influences one’s view on salvation. I invite you to prayerfully and carefully read the following articles.

“Which Law are You Under?” http://www.nlbchapel.org/which%20law.htm

“Subverters of Souls”  http://www.nlbchapel.org/Subverters.htm

“Comparing the Old Covenant with the New Covenant.”   http://www.nlbchapel.org/covenant.htm

In Christ,
pilgrim

Jesus did not debate the tithe...he gave the tithe...

He also did away with it.

Pilgrim

Don’t you find it ironic that many who practice wickedness and hate the Bible have favorite verses just like those who love the Lord? I can’t count how many times I heard a God hating rebel say “Judge not, that ye be not judged.” or “He who is without sin cast the first stone.” As much as they hate the Bible they sure seem to love their misunderstanding of these two verses.

Yet, God’s Word say the spiritual man judges all things.

1Co 2:15 “But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16  For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.”

Also, we will set in judgement of the world and angles. We are to judge matters among ourselves as well.

1Co 6:1 “Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? 2  Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3  Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? 4  If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. 5  I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?”

Pilgrim

I receive a lot of email in regards to an article on my site by the title “Truth” http://www.nlbchapel.org/truth.htm  Many like what is said but then ask why we worship on Sunday rather than the Sabbath. After numerous response by email I decided to post a reply at the end of the article titled “Why Sunday Worship?” which I think may help some here.

http://www.nlbchapel.org/truthreply1.htm

Comments from reader:

"Steve, good article about the catholic church mass and Christmas. Why do you still worship on the catholics non biblical Sunday?


Hello Reader,

    Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am happy that we both agree to the evils of christmass. Christmass season is a time of the year when many who call themselves children of God rebel against Him. Some do it in ignorance and some do it with full knowledge of what this season is all about. Some day I believe many religious leaders will stand in shame when they have to give an account for their spiritual malpractice concerning their involvement in this wicked celebration of a false christ.

    We worship on Sunday because like the early church we follow the Word of God. An honest student of the Scripture will easily see that the saints of the early Church met on Sunday (the first day of the week) for worship. Below are a few verses pertaining to this.

Act 2:42 “And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.”

Act 20:7 “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.”

1Co 16:1 “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. 2  Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.”

     We know that Jesus arose the first day of the week.

Luk 24:1 “Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.”

Joh 20:19 “Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.”

Joh 20:26 “And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.”

    Matthew Henry’s Comentary

“Joh 20:26-31 -We have here an account of another appearance of Christ to his disciples, after his resurrection, when Thomas was now with them. And concerning this we may observe, I. When it was that Christ repeated his visit to his disciples: After eight days, that day seven-night after he rose, which must therefore be, as that was, the first day of the week.”

    As you can see we meet on the first day of the week just like the early Church did. It was Jesus Christ Himself who established this by raising from the dead on Sunday, and meeting on consecutive Sundays with the saints of the early Church. We choose to follow the pattern set forth by Jesus Himself. Seeing that Jesus established Sunday worship it makes no difference that some pagans or Catholics may have met on Sunday as well for their worship. Some Pagans also meet on Saturday for their worship but only in ignorance would someone claim that the Sabbath of the “Ten Commandments” was tied to paganism.

    We have to be careful when we come to conclusions based upon similarities of events or things. There are many things in pagan and Catholic rituals that are close to things ordained by God in the Scriptures. Yet we do not throw out the things that God commands because pagans or Catholics may do likewise. Christmass was never ordained by God and it is rooted in paganism and Catholicism therefore we reject it. Sunday worship and gatherings of the saints on the other hand, is found in the Word of God and instituted by Jesus Himself therefore we continue to follow the pattern regardless of what pagans and Catholics practice.

    Also, we need to be careful and not confuse laws that belong to Israel alone with laws that belong to the Church alone. A classic example of this would be groups like the “Seventh Day Adventist” who try to say that the “Ten Commandments” apply to the saints in this age. The Word of God teaches differently. In fact, the Word of God clearly teaches that the “Ten Commandments" was only for Israel and not for the gentile.

If interested you may read the rest of the reply here http://www.nlbchapel.org/truthreply1.htm

Pilgrim

Hello RBKay,

Everything we have is a blessing from GOD, so we really could say why not 20% or 30%.

Love In Christ,
Tom

Colossians 2:6-7 NASB  Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith, just as you were instructed, and overflowing with gratitude.

Hello Tom

Greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. What would you say about a cheerful giver giving 1/2 of 1% without grudging?

Pilgrim

Continued

http://www.nlbchapel.org/baptism%20&%20salvation.htm

    Notice the preaching of the kingdom of God and the gospel are one and the same and Paul uses the terms interchangeable. John preached the kingdom of God, Jesus preached the kingdom of God and Paul preached the kingdom of God which was the same gospel under every Covenant. You have other verses where the disciples where sent away by Jesus and told to preach the kingdom and when they came back they said that they preached the gospel.

Luke 9:1  "Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases. 2  And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick. 3  And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece. 4  And whatsoever house ye enter into, there abide, and thence depart. 5  And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them. 6  And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where."

Matt. 24:14 “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.”

    Notice the gospel that Jesus and His disciples preached under the Old Covenant is the same gospel that He charges us with in the great commission. There is only one gospel for all ages.

    We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that all those saved before “Believers Baptism” was introduced were saved without baptism being necessary for their salvation. Yet, those who believe baptism is necessary for salvation are not moved, citing the means of salvation before the introduction of “Believers Baptism” was different than it is now. It is hard to reason with these people that there is only one gospel of salvation recorded in the Bible as demonstrated so far.

    Yet, for those who still insist on a case of someone being saved in the New Testament without baptism, all they have to do is turn to Cornelius in Acts 10.

Acts 10:44 “While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.  45  And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.  46  For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,  47  Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?  48  And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.”

    Here is a passage that clearly shows people well after water baptism was instituted being saved before they were baptized. Verse 47 states clearly that these saints received the Holy Spirit, thus salvation, before their water baptism. How can a person explain this away when it is crystal clear that these people were saved before they were baptized? Notice there were many that day who were saved before being baptized. They were saved as a result of believing the gospel which Peter preached in the preceding verses which do not even mention “Believers Baptism” and were baptized as a result of already being saved.

Acts 15:5  "But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command [them] to keep the law of Moses.  6  And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.  7  And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men [and] brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.  8  And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as [he did] unto us;  9  And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10  Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?  11  But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they." 

    Here Peter is reflecting on what took place with Cornelius and notice what he says. Verses 7 that they should hear the gospel and believe. Verse 8 The salvation of the apostles was the same as that of the household of Cornelius (Receiving the Holy Spirit before water baptism). Verse 9 Purifying there hearts by faith, not baptism. Verse 11 All salvation is by the same method (by faith, not baptism) as Cornelius and those in his household which took place before their water baptism. So here we have a clear example of many people in the New Testament well after believer’s baptism was instituted being saved before they were baptized and Peter declaring that we all are saved in the same manner. Baptism had nothing to do with the salvation of Cornelius and those with him, and was done as a result of already being saved not as a requirement to be saved.

    Also, notice that baptism is not even mentioned in Acts 15 as something that needs to take place in order for a person to be saved. In fact, it is not even mentioned at all in Acts 15 which is amazing seeing the entire text has to do with what man has to do in
order to be saved. Ether the Holy Spirit made a huge mistake and forgot to include baptism as part of the plan of salvation here, or the gospel which includes baptism for salvation  is not the gospel being discussed in Acts 15. If “Believers Baptism” was necessary for salvation it Surly would have been included in this chapter seeing the Pharisees were saying one needed to be circumcised in order to be saved they would have been corrected and told “no circumcision is not necessary but baptism is”. Yet the only requirement was believing the gospel just like Cornelius and those with him.   

2 Cor. 4:3 “But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:  4  In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.  5  For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.  6  For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to [give] the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”

by Steve Barton

Continued

http://www.nlbchapel.org/baptism%20&%20salvation.htm

In Romans chapter 10, Paul gives one of the clearest teaching of the gospel of salvation found in the Word of God. Consider very carefully what is being taught in this chapter.

Rom. 10:9 “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10  For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11  For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12  For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13  For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14  How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15  And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the  gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! 16  But they have not all obeyed the gospel . For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? 17  So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. 18  But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. 19  But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by [them that are] no people, [and] by a foolish nation I will anger you. 20  But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. 21  But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.”

    Once again, we see that the gospel is the same before the cross of Jesus as it was after.  Romans 10 is powerfully used today in declaring the gospel of salvation. I cannot count how many times as a Christian I heard these verses used by evangelists in proclaiming the gospel of salvation to individuals today. Verse nine is clear that it is by receiving the Messiah as Lord and believing God. Verse 17 is one of the most quoted passages of Scripture and shows the importance of faith in relation to salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel of salvation it defiantly should be included in this passage as well as many others, yet it is not even in the entire chapter. Even though Romans 10 is setting the gospel of salvation for New Testament saints Paul goes back to Old Testament writings dealing with salvation to prove his points, once again demonstrating that the gospel of salvation is the same throughout the entire Bible.

    Before “Believers Baptism” was introduced John the Baptist and Jesus preached the same gospel of salvation as Paul did well after “Believers Baptism” was introduced.

Luke 16:16 “The law and the prophets [were] until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.”

 Matt. 4:23 “And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the  kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people.”

Mat 3:1 “In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, 2  And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”

Notice that “since that time the kingdom of God is preached,” Notice what Paul preached in Acts 28:31 “the kingdom of God”.

Acts 20:24 “But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.  25  And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.  26  Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I [am] pure from the blood of all [men].  27  For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.”
Continued

http://www.nlbchapel.org/baptism%20&%20salvation.htm

Is Baptism Part of the Gospel of Salvation?

    Baptism is not a requirement in order to be saved or of having our sins forgiven. Baptism is a command of the Lord Jesus Christ which identifies us with Him. A person gets baptized because he is already saved, not in order to be saved. Christians are baptized in loving obedience to the Lord and because they want to identify with His death, burial and resurrection in the prescribed manner in which God taught us.

    Here are a few very important questions to ask yourself in regard to baptism. By answering these questions, I believe we will have the answer to the primary question and title of this article, “Is baptism part of the gospel of salvation?” 

1. How many gospels are there whereby a soul is saved?

2. Were saints before the cross of Jesus saved under a different gospel of salvation than saints after?

3. If yes, what was the gospel of salvation before the cross of Jesus whereby saints were saved, and did it include baptism?

    The bible clearly teaches that there is only one gospel of salvation in the Word of God, not two, three or more. The gospel before the cross of Jesus is the same as the gospel after the cross. I believe the reason question 1 is so important is obvious. You see, “Believer’s Baptism” practiced today, even by groups who believe baptism is necessary for salvation, was not introduced until after the death of Jesus on the cross. Before that, you had John the Baptist baptizing unto repentance which was very different than believer’s baptism introduced after the cross of Jesus. Therefore, if believer’s baptism practiced after the cross of Jesus was necessary for salvation, as some groups claim, then it would have been necessary for saints before the cross to be baptized by the same baptism. If not, then you would need to have two different gospels of salvation. One for those before the cross who did not have “Believers baptism”, and a different one for those after the cross who did. By accepting the false teaching that baptism is necessary in order to be saved, you are then forced to accept that there are at least two different gospels whereby souls are saved. 

    If your answer to question one is correct in that there is only one gospel of salvation whereby a soul is saved, then you don’t even have to deal with the next two questions. If those saved before the cross of Jesus were saved without “Believers Baptism” being necessary, then those saved after are saved by the same gospel of salvation in which “Believers Baptism” is not necessary.

    On the other hand, if one insists that there is more than one gospel of salvation, the next two questions are important to answer. In my personal dealings with those who hold to the “Church of Christ” doctrine, that baptism is necessary for salvation, they will point out that the thief on the cross is not a valid example of one who was saved without baptism. They rightly claim that he was saved before “Believers Baptism” was introduced. In fact, he was saved while the Old Covenant was in effect, yet he died after the New Covenant was in place seeing Jesus died before him. When Jesus gave up the ghost (Matt 27:50-51) the Old Covenant was removed (nailed to the cross Eph. 2:15, Col. 2:14) and the New put in place as portrayed by veil of the temple being torn in two from the top to the bottom. The thief on the cross is a perfect picture of someone being saved by the gospel as presented in Romans 10.

Rom. 10:9 “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”

Here is what took place in the life of the thief as he was being crucified at the side of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Luke 23:39 “And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 40  But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41  And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42  And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43  And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.”

    Notice that the thief called Jesus Lord with his mouth (v42) and he had to believe in his heart that God was going to raise him from the dead, how else could he have made the following request, “ remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.”? Isn’t this exactly the gospel of salvation laid out so clearly in Romans 10:9? One of the most important similarities is that both show the gospel of salvation without baptism being required for it. Keep in mind that the formula for salvation found in Romans 10 is given well after believer’s baptism was introduced. More on Romans 10 later in the article.

    So, if there is more than one gospel of salvation, where do we place the thief on the cross? He was saved while the Old Covenant was in effect, but he died after the New Covenant was in place. He was saved before “Believers Baptism” was introduced, yet died as a New Testament saint. Are there now three gospels of salvation, one for those before the cross, one for the thief on the cross and one for those after the cross?

    What about those who are willing but unfortunately die suddenly before being able to be baptized? Those who confess Christ in their last breath? Does God damn them because they were not baptized even though it was not possible for them? Would this not make a mockery out of God’s claim that He is not willing that any should perish and that all should come to repentance (2Pet. 3:9)? If God on the other hand saves these individuals without baptism being necessary for their salvation do we have yet another gospel of salvation? I believe the answers to the preceding questions are answered beyond question in the following passages of Scripture. Consider for example what God declares in Hebrews 4.

Heb. 4:2 “For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard [it].”

Reading the context of Hebrews 3 tells us who “them” of Heb. 4:2 were.

Heb 3:16 “For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. 17  But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? 18  And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? 19  So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.”

    The “them” of Hebrews 4:2 are clearly those who came out of Egypt with Moses and who wandered in the wilderness for forty years. These verses clearly teach us that the same gospel of salvation preach to those wandering the wilderness under Moses (before the cross of Jesus) is the same gospel preached to saints today  (after the cross). Notice that before the cross as well as after, that faith is the key to the gospel of salvation, not baptism. Most importantly keep in mind that “Believers Baptism” was not even introduced until after the death of Jesus on the cross. Therefore if the gospel of salvation preached to those under Moses is the same as the gospel of salvation preached to us (as Hebrews 4 teaches) then “Believers Baptism” is not necessary in order to be saved.

In Galatians 3 we find another verse which declares that the gospel of salvation held to before the cross is the same found after the cross.

Gal. 3:7 “Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.  8  And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, [saying], In thee shall all nations be blessed.  9  So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.”

    Here we see clearly that the gospel preached after the cross of Jesus is the same gospel preached to Abraham who was even before Moses. Again, we see the key to gospel is faith, not baptism.

Continued

No the specific word "pastor" is not in the NT at all. Just like other words used today that are not specifically there but still do apply. The word pastor is found in the OT in Jer 17:16. It means "to tend a flock". As Jesus told Peter: "feed my sheep" therefore that is what a pastor should be doing, feeding the sheep of the great shepherd.

You will find the word Bishop in the NT however and this is the same as that of a Pastor.

Boy is that strange. Most of today’s Churches revolve around a pastor system that is not even found in the New Testament. Can you find even one passage that speaks of voting in a pastor? Is this man’s way or is it God’s way? When God instituted the Church did He do it all wrong? Does He need our correction? Is today’s unbiblical structure of the Church better than God’s Biblical structure?

Bishops and pastors are different roles. The office of a bishop is the same as that of an elder but not of a pastor. God’s structure of plurality of elders for each local church is biblical. Man’s way of pastors is not. 


Peter was an apostle and an elder, the Bible never calls him a pastor. I don’t believe it ever called him a Shepherd either. As an elder (not a pastor) he charged with feeding the flock. Elders, not pastor, are to take oversight of the flock.

1Pe 5:1  The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2  Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3  Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. 4  And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. 5  Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble.


Pilgrim

Sadly, many of today's churches revolve around a pastor. Is the pastor system of today's modern church Biblical? Check and see how many times you even see the word pastor in the New Testament, you may be surprised.

This same thing is happening in the churches. So called Christians are not taking a stand on what is right over what is wrong. They are allowing leaders in the church that are leading the flock astray. If we are not to be involved in politics then we should not be involved in churches because churches are set up also with a political structure because Preachers are voted in or out.

Or, maybe the churches should stop copying the corrupt political systems of the world and go back to Biblical ways of appointing elders in the Churches. Today's Church refelects so much of the world that it is completely foreign to the new testament Church the Lord Jesus Christ instituted.

pilgrim

Rom 13:1 “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.”

Joh 19:10 “Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? 11  Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.”

According to Romans 13:1 (above) it is God who appoints the governmental authorities. Jesus demonstrated this in His conversation with Pilate in John 19. This clearly means the two terms which Bill Clinton served as president was a result of God appointing him to that office. Yet, the so-called Christian right, as well as I, were opposed to Bill Clinton as president. Was the so-called Christian right and myself, opposed to the will of God as a result of opposing the man (Bill Clinton) God appointed president for two terms?

Many believe that in order to see a moral change in our society Christians must vote the “righteous” into office. They believe that when the “righteous” hold the governmental powers they will enact laws to promote righteousness in the land. They believe they are doing God’s will by voting for the “righteous”.
Is it possible that in light of the verses above the methodology of the so-called Christian right is flawed? That it is man’s way, not God’s way, of bringing about moral change to a society? The Word of God teaches us that God’s thoughts are not our thoughts, that His ways are higher than our ways. Could this be the case in politics? After all, according to Romans 13:1, it was God who appointed Bill Clinton to office for two terms.  Obviously, God’s thoughts were not the thoughts of the “Christian right” and His ways were not their ways in this matter.

Many Christians will say that President George Bush is a righteous Christian man who loves the Lord and President Bill Clinton a vile, wicked and immoral man. This is one of the reasons why the so-called Christian right supported George Bush for president and opposed Bill Clinton. It is obvious that both men became president because it was God who appointed them to the office, yet in God’s eyes, is one any more righteous than the other?

Many point out the immorality of President Bill Clinton while in office. They are shocked that such an immoral person could be president. The truth of the matter is that Bill Clinton is just like the vast majority of people in the world today, immoral. On the other hand, many Christians think highly of President George Bush because of his moral conduct and professed belief in God. Yet, president Bush is the one telling Muslims we pray to and serve the same God. Is it true, that the true God of the Bible and the false god of Islam are the same? It is president Bush who gave honor and respect to a Buddhist idol while in Japan and it is president Bush who is a member of the “Skull and Bones” a secret society engrossed in occult religious activity which is opposed to God.   
On the one hand, we have a president (Bill Clinton) who claims to be a Christian who was caught in physical immorality, and another who claims to be a Christian (George Bush) steep in spiritual immorality. The so-called Christian right condemns Bill Clinton for his immorality and for whatever reason gives George Bush a free pass over his spiritual immorality, or worse yet, deny that he is practicing spiritual immorality at all. Is this another case of God’s ways and thoughts being higher than man’s ways and thoughts? Is the physical immorality that Bill Clinton practiced worse the spiritual immorality that George Bush practiced? Therefore, based on morality which president is more fit for the office of President?


Mat 16:21 “From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. 22  Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. 23  But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”

The above passage is a clear example of God’s ways and thoughts being higher than man’s ways and thoughts. Jesus told His disciples that He was going to go to Jerusalem to be put to death by evil men. Peter had a hard time with this and pulled Jesus aside to rebuke Him. Obviously, the will of Jesus and that of Peter collided here in a big way. Keep in mind that this took place right after Peter acknowledged Jesus as being the Son of God.

On the one hand we have God (Jesus) telling Peter what must take place, that He was going to go to Jerusalem and be put to death by evil men. On the other hand, incredible as it seems, we have Peter rebuking God concerning this. Obviously, what Jesus just told Peter must take place did not fit with Peter’s preconceived ideas of what the Messiah must do and accomplish while here on earth.

We know from other Scripture that the disciples focus on the Messiah was that of a conquering King, ushering in His kingdom not as the suffering Messiah going to the cross and becoming the sacrificial Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world. As a result, Peter’s desires for Jesus and God’s desires for Jesus were opposed to each other. Peter foolishly attempted to rebuke God and in return received a severe rebuke himself, “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”

Ouch! that must have smarted. Notice in His rebuke to Peter, Jesus revealed some important things that were wrong in Peter’s thinking.

First, Jesus tells Peter that his agenda opposed God’s agenda. Satan opposes God. Therefore the rebuke “Get thee behind me, Satan”. Peters agenda and Satan’s agenda were the same in nature, opposing God.

Second, Jesus tells Peter that as a result of his opposing God’s agenda, he was an offense to Him. Many today oppose God by trying to impose their own will on Him, thinking all the time they are in the will of God. In reality, they are an offense to Him. In this case, one who was close to Jesus (Peter) became an offense who needed severe rebuking.

Third, Peter’s agenda was not of God, but of man. Proverbs 16:25 “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” Had Peter’s will for Jesus prevailed, and Jesus had not gone to the cross and made payment for the sins of the world, there could be no salvation of mankind. Mankind would be damned to an eternity without God, wailing and gnashing their teeth in suffering for all eternity. Perhaps now we can see why Peter’s rebuke was so severe.

Could it be, that many times we ourselves are like Peter. We see things from our own preconceived ideas and based on these thoughts set our own agenda for God, all the time thinking that we are serving God when in fact we are opposing Him?

How about the area of politics? Is this one of the areas we confidently believe we are serving God by voting to office the so-called “righteous” man? Could it be that like Peter, our agendas are not that of God’s but of man’s and we find ourselves opposed to the will of God rather than submitting to Him? Like Peter, can we become an offense to God because our agendas in politics are different from God’s?

Stop and think about it for a minute. If we believe Romans 13:1 to be true, then for whatever reason God appointed Bill Clinton for two terms of office. The so called Christian right was oppose to the will of God in this matter and spent much time, energy and effort in opposing God’s choice of president for these two terms. Was the so-called Christian right an offense to God in this matter?  Was their agenda that of man’s and not of God’s in the matter? I believe the answers to these questions are obvious and will be to all truth seekers who are willing to put aside their own preconceived ideas and agendas so that they may be in alignment with the will of God.   

After reading an excellent article by a good friend and brother Carl Knott “THE CHRISTIAN AND POLITICS”
http://www.nlbchapel.org/politics.htm I became convicted that my involvement in politics was not according to the will of God and that I needed to stay out of politics completely. The morality of a nation is not going to be set by those holding political office, but by myself and other Christians getting out and sharing the gospel. If the so-called Christian right would spend even half the time, energy and effort as they do in politics they would leave a far greater impact on the morality of the nation that will last much longer than the political term of their man in office.

2Ti 2:3 “Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. 4  No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.”

Pilgrim

Pilgrim,

Your points are...interesting to say the least. Are you the pilgrim who used to post at HL? Are you the Pilgrim who said that he was posting on the 'Prophecy Web'? Are you the 65 year old Pilgrim, who hasn't aged over 65 since 2001? That Pilgrim? Are you the Pilgrim who had a new grand baby within the last year and a half? And last but not least, are you the Pilgrim who is concerned that everyone get a good nights sleep? If you are this 'Pilgrim' then "Hi!" and if you are not this Pilgrim ignore this post.

God bless you!

Sorry! I am not that Pilgrim.

Steve