Common pastoral errors

Yes. I am saying exactly that. But let me show you why I say such a thing.

Now there are those on this board that will tell you an ungodly ideology that these verses have nothing to do with eternal life.

But Paul never seperates the Blood, the Cross, or the burial from his focus, faith, or theology.

To ignore the shed blood and the cross, the scourging the death, burial and resurrection is a lie from the pit of hell and is pervading our churches more and more.

We are filling our churches with goats instead of sheep, we are gathering crowds instead of congregations, we have come to a time when more and more people refuse to endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts heap to themselves teachers who will tickle their ears and tell them what they want to hear refusing to speak of hell, sin or the blood of Christ. The cross has become unncessary, the grave is irrelevent, and the very gospel that provides power unto salvation is dispised as "churches" in America turn their ears from the truth and buy into fables of prosperity, words have power and can create reality, and God wants you to have lots of money.

When you have faith in Christ you cannot set aside his blood, the cross, the scourging, the burial, the death, or the resurrection. This idea that "I know it all happened, but I dont need to focus on it" which is spouted by so many these days is unbiblical, its the philosophy of man, it is a fable, it dishonors God, the Son, and the cross. Don't buy into it.

The blood has always been an offense to those who refuse its power. But we cannot stand in the presence of God without the blood.

If God were to ask you on judgement day "Why should I let you in my heaven?" And if you only answered "Because I have faith in your son". It would be a wrong answer. What is needful to say is "According to scripture I have faith in the shed blood of Jesus Christ that has washed me pure as the driven snow, and I am clean from all unrighteousness as a result of it".

Faith in Christ cannot be seperated from his blood, the cross, or the resurrection. Anything else is a lie.

 

I appreciate what you said. I can tell you that this is the point that everyone uses to justify to me a monetary Biblical tithe. However, some questions arise for me.

1. Was farming the only practice done in Israel throughout the Old (and New) Testaments? We know there was tentmaking, carpentry, tayloring, smithing, etc. It would be clear from the specifics of the tithe laws that none of these occupations tithed. It was only the farmers who tithed. Now, maybe the other professions helped out with things, like transportation, tools, etc. This to me makes the Biblical tithe miles away from an income.
2. Was the tithe over income or increase? We know it was annual: based on the harvest season. If a farmer started with one hundred cows, and made an increase of fifty cows, the tithe would be five cows. If during the year the outgo in supplies were greater than the input, the farmer likely would not be required to tithe. To me, this more or less places a tithe on the "profit" or "revenue" rather than the income.
3. We know that tithe laws made reference to money for certain regulations, so we know that the people had and used money. However, money was not titheable, but only crops and livestock were; no clothes, tents, tools, etc. How does this correlate to today with money?
4. It seems apparent that the tithe laws were specific to the nation of Israel, as were the dietary laws (no pork or shrimp, etc.), and the debt-release laws. Why do we try to apply a form of this one law to the church today, yet totally disregard the others immediately surrounding it? The tithe laws were God's form of tax and welfare system for the theocratic nation of Israel in some sense like what we already pay in taxes to our government (only ours is not a religious state).

I do not see a 10% "principle" applied anywhere in the New Testament. I don't think there is a minimum that can properly be justified in Scripture.

What I do believe to be the command for the church is called cheerful giving.

There is no limit (upper or lower) to church giving, but that it should be done cheerfully, knowing that what you sow is what you reap, and the more you so to the spirit, the more you'll reap bountifully from the spirit.

Pastors today constantly preach to the congregation about living by faith; yet they can't do that with regards to cheerful giving. They should also be able to live by faith knowing that their needs will be met from Spirit-led believers who give cheerfully with no limitations.

If more is needed, the preacher should give a sermon about cheerful giving. Present the need; present how much is needed; and motivate the people to give cheerfully, encouraging about the blessing received from fulfilling this need. Believe me, it is much easier to give if you are told you would be blessed for giving bountifully, rather than "if you don't give 10% of your income to this church (and no where else) then you are robbing God!" I believe that God would not let the truth of His Word return void. If Spirit-led believers see a need and have the liberty to fulfill it, they will and with more than was needed, if they don't know how much each other are giving.

Since I don't see any Scriptural justification for a so-called chuch "tithe" mandate, I don't think it would be Scripturally used effectively, but New Testament cheerful giving would. I hope this helps and makes sense.

 

Understanding the Biblical tithe

Amen! This is the Word of God! This is His holy tithe! Read it and obey!

*Disclaimer: I don't drink at all and don't intend to. Just trying to recognize what the Bible says about the tithe, that it was a time of rejoicing and freedom, and that this is what you never hear preached behind the pulpit--ever! Yet, this is GOD's Holy Word, and I believe in verbal plenary inspiration. Every word of God is pure. If tithing is required for the church, we should obey the tithe laws, if you are going to use Malachi 3:8-10.

 

There is nothing idolitrous in having faith in the shed blood of Christ.

What I have said stands on biblical grounds. What you have said stands on nothing as you cannot support your view scriptually.

Failure to recognize, and preach the blood demeans the work of the cross. Failure to recognize and preach the cross demeans the work of Christ. It is both scriptual and needful to remember and preach all these things as they are the basis for our relationship with Christ.

You cannot have a relationship with Christ without faith in the blood for this is scriptual.

 

Hello Revmitchell, I thought your post was a good one but I have some problems with the last part of it.
First of all, if Christ cannot be seperated from his blood, the cross, or the resurrection, then wouldn't the correct answer to God's question be "Because I have faith in your son, and his blood, and the cross, and the resurrection, etc?

Second, who are you to say that "Because I have faith in your son" would be the wrong answer, or that the person giving it is lying? I think you are complicating this issue a bit too much. I don't fully understand all aspects and teachings concerning the things of Christ but I wouldn't deny any of them, and I believe that John.3:16 is good enough for me.

 

revmitchell

Surely you must understand that when Paul, or anyone else, says to have “faith in the blood of Jesus” they are referring to what Jesus did in offering Himself as a sacrifice, not literally of the blood-cells lying on the ground?

The object of our faith is the God-Man, Jesus Christ; who He is and what He did.

I find it hard to believe that I have had a Christian tell me that to focus my faith on Jesus is a “philosophy of man and a lie straight out of the pit of hell.”

Peace to youraying:

 

Chris first let me say this...By what I'm about to say I am in no way saying this about you as I don't know your situation.

However one of the things that you have to be careful with in saying that John 3:16 is good enough for me is that there are a number of people that give mental acknowledgment to God. They say I believe in God and I believe in Jesus.

But just because someone (again not saying this of you, because I don't know you) believes in the existance of God and/or Jesus doesn't mean they are saved.

When someone believes they have to believe that Jesus died and shed His blood on their behalf because of their sin. That is the belief one must have.

We can't say simply that we believe in God or we believe in Jesus. It is what we believe about Jesus and His substitutionary death and shed blood of the cross of Calvary as the Lamb of God that saves us.

 

I'll believe in anything I need to to be saved, that doesn't mean I have to fully understand everything though, that would leave out a lot of people with lesser mental facaulties. Would you say that John 3:16 is not a good summary of salvation?

That is my belief.

Is it not good enough to believe in and accept him your Lord and Saviour? Is his blood only good in so far as one can understand doctrine?

 

Well I guess we're getting into semantics now, but I wouldn't say that it's a matter of knowing "doctrine" per se, but a person must realize that they are a sinner and in need of a Savior and that Jesus is that Savior and He is that Savior because He died and shed His blood in their place.

If they believe that then they are saved. If they just believe in God, or believe in Jesus and that Jesus lived and died that does not save a person. Only when a person is convicted of sin and believes in Jesus' substitutionary death and shed blood on their behalf is a person saved.

Now if they believe that then they are believing doctrine, but I don't think a person has to know the term doctrine and such at that moment, but they do have to realize their sin and realize that Jesus paid the penalty for that sin or salvation has not occurred.

Hope that makes sense.

 

"God will never put more on you than you can bear."

I've heard it thousands of times. But it ain't scriptural. It sounds scriptural, but it ain't. It just sounds really good instead of saying, "Buck up, grad them bootstraps, and haul yourself up."

God puts much more on us than we can bear alone. If we could bear it, we wouldn't need Him, because we would have it under control. That's not to say that He keeps us loaded down.

 

Maybe that is what they mean by "God will never put more on you than you can bear."

 

I understand what you mean here, but I could see where something like that could apply. I don't think God is going to call someone to be a Pastor, Deacon, or door to door soulwinner, etc, if that person simply doesn't have the ability to do those things. The wrong person could cause more harm than good!

There are those in the church who would try to talk somebody into doing what they know they shouldn't, and I think that's where the "God will never put more on you than you can bear" saying can be true.

 

You are absolutely right, ole Trotter---ole pal!!! He will throw MORE on you than YOU can bear---so that HE can be your guest and bear it for you!!

Cast all your burdens upon Him because He cares for you!! The strong Man from Heaven has never buckled under a load!!!

 

Trotter, It all depends on what your referring to when saying, "God won't give you more than you can bear."

In the sense of temptation, it is very true. God will not give you more than you can bear. Now, in the Sense of trials and tribulations. That's another story. God sometimes gives you those to make you stronger. A Perfect Example would be found in the book of Job.

I guess the proper thing to say is, Our Trials and Tribulations may be strong, But My God is Faithful and will Carry us Through them.:thumbs:

Anyways... My 2 cents worth!

-WTD

 

"If you were the only one that would ever be saved, Jesus would have still died on that cross for you."

This is simply unbiblical. Christ died for the elect, the Church. A corporate "bride". Never was His death intended for one person.

peace to youraying:

 

Why is this an error?