Pastor Or Reverend???

[pastor_chris]

Sheep,

You actually managed to completley avoid the heart of the matter. That was the most artful act of avoidance and obfuscating I have ever witnessed.

Let me spell it out.

Please define Bishop/Pastor/Elder.
Then please give a detailed and intelligible explanation of the type of compensation, etc was given to the local pastor.

The idea that the Bible was the sole authority in the local church reveals a naivete and ignorance of church history that is honeslty quite alarming. You act like everyone had a Bible 2,000 years ago. You do know this wasnt the case, right? I hope so. The entire Cannon wasn't even circulated in all the churches until after 100 AD. So the questions arises Sheep, what was the authority in the church since the Bible wasnt accesible? The answer is simple and right in the scripture. The church appointed leaders who were discipled in the truth to pass on the faith.

Before the Bible was in every church men like Polycarp (a pastor and disciple of John) and Ignatius (another pastor appointed by Peter) were responsible for passing on sound doctrine. Both of these pastors were paid by the way. Not that the facts matter to you but it is a well established fact that the Roman Bishop received 25% of the church tithes since the first century. Because you detach yourself from church history and have declared yourself to be the ultimate authorority you can literally denounce any doctrine in scripture you dont like. From the Trinity to the deity of Christ you can believe anything you wish. You are the authority, your interpretation reigns supreme. This is like you becoming the pope of your own little faith world.

The church has passed along the great doctrines of the faith and the correct interpretation of the scriptures. Funny thing is you only pick and choose the doctrines you like. Why do you accept the Trinity? Well maybe you dont! Yikes! But if you do then why? It was a doctrine formulated in the 2nd or 3rd century. The point is that your interpretation of scripture and rejection of church history is dangerous.

If you had understood how the early church interpreted scripture you never would have fallen for the HR lie. I mean this respectfully. The interpretation of the early church was the same as that of the Apostles and was handed down in what is known as "the rule of faith". Because you are ignorant of church history you dont know this but you should.

Faith is not born in a vacuum, it is preserved and transmitted in history. Honeslty If I didnt know church history I'd be heavily tempted by the HR movement. But my knowledge of how the church fathers understood th church and the scriptures is a safeguard that has kept my heart from the wicked pitfalls of false doctrine.

In addition sheep the scriptures make absolutely no sense the way you intepret them. You make them useless, meaningless, and completely incoherent by changing the clear meaning of the text regarding the pastoral office. To me the agenda is clear. Take out the scripture that supports an institutional church so we can build an online ministry and not ever have to feel bad about living in sin apart from the body of Christ in fellowship. Yes you heard me right it is a sin to live out of Christian fellowship. You ought to be under the leadership of a prfound man of God. But you have explained away your need for the church. Amazing, amazingly sad.