ECT Is this pastor correct or out of line?
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
glorydaz
Well-known member
nikolai_42
Well-known member
I would say it depends on the issue. If there isn't a specific issue (i.e. just developing a "critical mindset"), then the pastor asking them to be removed from the mailing list seems a bit of a stretch. But if there are specific problems with Cloud's teaching, then the pastor should take the time to deal with those specific teachings directly (for the benefit of the individuals involved). First with the individuals taking in the teaching and only then with the purveyor of the teachings (whatever they are).
musterion
Well-known member
Bingo. Do I know my reformed folk or what? :rapture:
nikolai_42
Well-known member
Where do you think the pastor erred?
1. In asking another ministry to remove all members of his congregation from a mailing list - given by someone who he believes to be divisive to his congregation?
2. Or in trying to look out for the spiritual well-being of a couple of his congregants?
nikolai_42
Well-known member
Look at it also from Cloud's perspective. If you were him and your teaching was dividing a church (or at least causing disruption), would you continue in what you were doing?
musterion
Well-known member
Go back and read the OP: Did the apostle Paul give pastors the authority to extend their pastoral powers (whatever those are) to affairs outside of the local church, and do so without the knowledge (apparently) of the adult members in question?
Follow-up question: Would you be okay with your church pastor emailing Knight on his/your behalf (depending on one's point of view) and asking Knight to not allow you to post here "for your own good"? I'm guessing your answer is "yeah, well, sure, he IS my pastor" but figured I should ask.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
You mean like (for example) men who sleep with their mothers? If the pastor has any authority over his flock (any at all), then what one person might call meddling is not going outside the local church. Only if he didn't consider Cloud a brother in Christ would his actions be considered at least fruitless. And if he does consider him a brother in Christ, then where is Cloud's authority?
I may possibly be very upset about that....but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be the right thing to do :
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Hebrews 13:17
But I would also say that such an action would certainly be extreme - and so it certainly shouldn't be the first course of action.
Again...where did the Pastor err - and why would Cloud not realize he is causing division and respond accordingly? Remember, there has been no specific issue cited and my answer was predicated on what the issue is.
NO! The letter to the pastor is the cause of discord.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
But how do we know that?
2 Corinthians 10:
1. Now I Paul myself beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, who in presence am base among you, but being absent am bold toward you:
2. But I beseech you, that I may not be bold when I am present with that confidence, wherewith I think to be bold against some, which think of us as if we walked according to the flesh.
3. For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
4. (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; )
5. Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
6. And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.
7. Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ’s, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ’s, even so are we Christ’s.
Regarding this issue of the message such things can send if allowed to continue, and that that Pastor in your quote appears to be concerned with....
As with the world in general, it is also par for the course within the Body that most saints will not be the rare individual who pauses to examine "the message" he or she are actually allowing themselves to conclude is "being sent" by someone.
Beauty being in the eye of the beholder, it is up to the Pastor to somehow attempt to lead his flock into an understanding of how to look at things to begin with; that the needed perspective already be in place when needed.
The intended result being that they are then able to guard themselves against what is really their own perception of "the message being sent."
That out of the way, the issue some fool would make the issue, becomes moot - the saints are "stablished in the faith" and know how to look at things thrown at them from within said grounding.
For, per a passage like Ephesians 4, that is also what the Pastor's and his assistant's role are, beyond the preaching that Christ died for our sins:
12. For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13. Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14. That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
As with Romans 12, 1 Corinthians 12-14, etc., that passage is actually addressing local assembly issues: the need for unity within a local assembly (within its members) - for unity in understanding as to those details within The Faith potentially impacted by the sleight of men...
The need for a full, perfect, or mature in knowledge or understanding of The Faith, in such areas to the result effect that when some fool comes along, the local assembly is found no more children in how they look at things, not so easily tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.
For all we know, that Pastor's heart is right.
For all we know, it might not be.
One thing we can know is that we can learn something of use two2ards our own edification from either of those two unknowables, if we'll sit down and attempt to sort out our own understanding of such issues through passages such as the above.
Thus, the Apostle Paul's words as to these kinds of issues "And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified," Acts 20:21.
In this, thanks, Musterion, for the opportunity to reflect on these kind of things through the rightly divided Word, that your OP can result in :thumb:
There is quite obviously a breakdown in communication twixt Pastor and his flock which needs the more attention....why could he not simply reason it out with his flock?
Presumably their names did not leap onto Cloud's mailing list without their knowledge.
Pastor has a problem.
Presumably their names did not leap onto Cloud's mailing list without their knowledge.
Pastor has a problem.
musterion
Well-known member
All who are in Christ are counted as ADULT sons of God, each of whom is answerable to our Lord, Savior and Judge alone and totally on our own, not with some human pastor mediating for us. I quote Stam here:
On the other hand...if the pastor felt the people subscribing to Cloud's updates were doctrinal "babes," mere sheep to be led around but who had been misled, then by the logic of the modern shepherdhood industry, who shares the blame for that?
But why are they seeking outside their own assembly? why the need? the Pastor [if he so places himself in that position] is responsible for meeting their needs.
I'm saying but I don't know who Cloud is or what O Timothy is
No.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Since this is a public matter, I will weigh in. As a pastor back in the day I would have handled the matter differently.
Cloud's work on Erasmus is reasonably good, albeit from a fundamentalist perspective versus using a confessional one. That said, his shoddiness when it comes to his poor understanding of Calvinism warrants saying as much.
See, here I have given potential "ammunition" to the anti-Calvinist, fearing nothing that may come from it, in fact, relishing the more reasoned rebuttals readily at hand. After all, I may be in error, and forgive me for my assumption, but the OP's not fully stated plain agenda screams loudly to me. :AMR:
More importantly, I do not think a church with decidedly Reformed or Calvinistic views (or opposing views for a non-Reformed or Calvinistic church for that matter) should fear anything that might be said or read by its members as long as these members remember their membership avowal to "keep the peace" of the church to which they have covenanted their membership. Properly understanding the views of others, even when they are uninformed or partaking in parabolic polemics, is useful for the strengthening of what one holds dear. In fact, anyone who reads the great works of the Reformers cannot avoid their strident polemics directed at Rome's egregiousness. This was necessary at a time when the church militant was being devastated by Rome's walk towards apostacy. The Reformers sought to rid the church of error, not replace it. Unfortunately, the work continues.
Beloved, if matters of doctrine held are forbidden to be explored, no matter what the stance being taken, one must wonder what such a group fears. As I have always remembered when once a young pastor, when there is mist in the pulpit there is fog in the pews. A pastor not confident in what he is exhorting should take care to equip himself more fully.
One does not legislate "keeping the peace" in a local vestige of Our Lord's Bride by restricting what a member reads. It smacks of some sort of cultic mindset and should send up a warning signal to the presbytery or local session of elders who have avowed to strict compliance (few scruples taken withstanding) with their church's confessional basis. Hopefully, they will do their sworn duty accordingly and put an end to the scandal being brought upon their church.
AMR
Cloud's work on Erasmus is reasonably good, albeit from a fundamentalist perspective versus using a confessional one. That said, his shoddiness when it comes to his poor understanding of Calvinism warrants saying as much.
See, here I have given potential "ammunition" to the anti-Calvinist, fearing nothing that may come from it, in fact, relishing the more reasoned rebuttals readily at hand. After all, I may be in error, and forgive me for my assumption, but the OP's not fully stated plain agenda screams loudly to me. :AMR:More importantly, I do not think a church with decidedly Reformed or Calvinistic views (or opposing views for a non-Reformed or Calvinistic church for that matter) should fear anything that might be said or read by its members as long as these members remember their membership avowal to "keep the peace" of the church to which they have covenanted their membership. Properly understanding the views of others, even when they are uninformed or partaking in parabolic polemics, is useful for the strengthening of what one holds dear. In fact, anyone who reads the great works of the Reformers cannot avoid their strident polemics directed at Rome's egregiousness. This was necessary at a time when the church militant was being devastated by Rome's walk towards apostacy. The Reformers sought to rid the church of error, not replace it. Unfortunately, the work continues.
Beloved, if matters of doctrine held are forbidden to be explored, no matter what the stance being taken, one must wonder what such a group fears. As I have always remembered when once a young pastor, when there is mist in the pulpit there is fog in the pews. A pastor not confident in what he is exhorting should take care to equip himself more fully.
One does not legislate "keeping the peace" in a local vestige of Our Lord's Bride by restricting what a member reads. It smacks of some sort of cultic mindset and should send up a warning signal to the presbytery or local session of elders who have avowed to strict compliance (few scruples taken withstanding) with their church's confessional basis. Hopefully, they will do their sworn duty accordingly and put an end to the scandal being brought upon their church.
AMR
Last edited:
musterion
Well-known member
Why are you on TOL?