How to identify a valid pastor.

[Faith]

test

 

[Faith]

Guess what the one and only tool anyone has to successfully guard against being led astray from the truth (by whatever means)?

I don’t like hearing about the end days because the subject freaks me out.

 

[jswauto]

Guess what the one and only tool anyone has to successfully guard against being led astray from the truth (by whatever means)?

Jesus!

 

[jswauto]

I don’t like hearing about the end days because the subject freaks me out.

Here's one you might not mind:

Mathew 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.

 

[Frankj]

Guess what the one and only tool anyone has to successfully guard against being led astray from the truth (by whatever means)?

Keep in mind that we are warned that the deception will be so great that it would even deceive the elect if it were possible.

This is subject for deep consideration, and absolute self honesty. Everyone wants to believe that they are those special elect, but we are told that only a few actually are with almost everyone actually walking the wide road while convincing themselves they are on the narrow one.

How do you confirm that your self awareness is actually self awareness and not self deception? What are the standards of your self examination?

 

[VeritatisVerba]

Jesus!

That's actually an accurate answer - albeit not in the way you intended.

The answer is REASON!!! Conforming one's mind to the truth is the very definition of the term "rational". Conversely, being led astray from the truth is the very definition of the term "irrational".

Why your answer is accidentally correct is because Jesus is Reason (capital R).

John1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.​

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.​

10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.​

14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.​

In this passage, everywhere you see the phrase, "the Word" the Greek word being used is "Logos". It is important to understand what this Greek word means because the use of "Word" as an English translation just doesn't convey what this passage is teaching. Logos conveys the idea of communication or more specifically, discourse and more specifically than that, rational discourse and/or rational argument. It is the word from which we get the suffix "-ology", as in Biology, Theology, Technology, Climatology, Cosmology, etc. So, the study of living things is "Biology" and the processes in a living creature are said to be biological. Notice bio-LOGICAL. To apply logic to the processes in living things, and thus to understand them, is biology, it is the logos of life. This is the meaning conveyed by "Logos".

So now, with this better understanding of the Greek, lets look at this passage again...

John 1:1 In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.​

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.​

10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.​

14 And Logic became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.​

In actual fact, the English word "logic" refers most technically to the rules of sound reason and "logos" has to do with the actual act of performing proper thought and so, in English the most technically correct word to use as a translation of "Logos" would be "Reason" and in context probably "Divine Reason" would do the best job of conveying what John is expressing in that passage, but that's a debate for linguists. The point is that Jesus is Reason. Just as He is Love, He is also Reason. (Just as love can be corrupted, so too can reason, thus the use of the capital "L" in "Love" and the capital "R" in "Reason".) Jesus is the ideal, the source, the embodiment and the incarnation of every aspect of Righteousness including Reason.

 

[VeritatisVerba]

Keep in mind that we are warned that the deception will be so great that it would even deceive the elect if it were possible.

Why would it not be possible to deceive the elect?

It isn't because of some miracle fairy dust that God sprinkles on our heads.

This is subject for deep consideration, and absolute self honesty.

I agree!

Just what does the phrase "deep consideration" mean to you?

Everyone wants to believe that they are those special elect, but we are told that only a few actually are with almost everyone actually walking the wide road while convincing themselves they are on the narrow one.

You'd have made a terrific Jew! The warning you're referring to was written to Jews, the Jews themselves were (and will be again) the "elect lady" (II John 1:1). In fact, nearly every use of the term "elect" in scripture refers to Israel as a nation. There are a few exceptions where the term is used to more generally refer to all believers and, in the case of Matthew 24:22, Jesus was referring to His hand picked (i.e. elected) apostles. With just a very few exceptions (e.g. Colossians 3:12, Titus 1:1), the terms "elect" and "believer" are not synonyms.

Not to mention the fact that, we, the Body of Christ, aren't going to be around to be deceived by the anti-Christ.

How do you confirm that your self awareness is actually self awareness and not self deception?

There is one and only one way to do so. The use of sound reason. I can tell that you aren't really a big fan of the idea, Frank, but I'm here to tell you that you have no choice. There isn't an other alternative other than to turn off you mind and let someone else's reasoning be your surrogate brain.

Is it possible to make an error? Of course! But an error of reason is safer than fifty doctrines accepted without it because it retains the only tool your mind can use to detect the error and correct it.

What are the standards of your self examination?

An excellent question! Truly!

True self-awareness is impossible without an objective standard outside of ourselves. If the heart is deceitful above all things, then mere introspection without a trustworthy reference point will only confirm our biases. The standard of self-examination cannot be our feelings, our experiences, or the opinions of others; it must be the truth God has revealed about Himself and about us.

That truth is not arbitrary, by the way. It flows from His nature, which is personal, rational, relational, righteous, and just - and immutably so. It is revealed in Scripture, confirmed by sound reason, and demonstrated in the life and work of Jesus Christ. A moral inventory measured against this standard will expose self-deception because it does not shift to accommodate our desires.

In short, the way to know whether your “self-awareness” is real is to hold your beliefs, motives, and actions up to the light of God’s revealed truth, testing them for consistency with His character and with reality itself. If what you believe about yourself would still be true even if it cost you everything in this life, and if it aligns with God’s moral nature rather than with self-serving rationalizations, then it is more likely genuine self-awareness than self-deception. This is the very "deep consideration" to which you refer.

 

[Frankj]

Why would it not be possible to deceive the elect?

This is what the Bible says, I don't question it.

Just what does the phrase "deep consideration" mean to you?

An absolute examination of my genuine motives and thoughts so that I know the truth about myself.

You'd have made a terrific Jew!

Jesus was a Jew, as were his original followers. It is a compliment that you say I would have made a good one, but that implies a righteousness I do not have even though I wish I did.

Not to mention the fact that, we, the Body of Christ, aren't going to be around to be deceived by the anti-Christ.

I've heard this debated, I neither agree nor disagree with it and God has not given me insights to lean one way or the other. What I do know is that Jesus told us to endure to the end and we fill find salvation (interpret that, what the end is and why we are told to endure till it comes, any way that suits you).

True self-awareness is impossible without an objective standard outside of ourselves.

A standard outside of ourselves doesn't make us self aware. We can easily be in deep self deceit about what we are and that self deceit could easily match any external standard. As Robert Burns observed so long ago 'O wad some Power the giftie gie us / To see oursels as ithers see us!'.

Can you do that, step outside of yourself and objectively see who you really are without your own view of yourself distorting it?

But moving on on a related path consider this statement and what it means to you: It is not as important to understands the words of a scripture and their meaning as it is to understand the scripture itself.

Blessings upon you this day, may his light shine on you and light your way.

 

[VeritatisVerba]

This is what the Bible says, I don't question it.

I was questioning you, Frank. It would not have been possible to deceive the Twelve. There is no question about that. It is a biblical fact. The question I'm asking you is why would they not have been vulnerable to Satan's deception?

An absolute examination of my genuine motives and thoughts so that I know the truth about myself.

An absolute examination?

What absolute are you referring to?

Jesus was a Jew, as were his original followers. It is a compliment that you say I would have made a good one, but that implies a righteousness I do not have even though I wish I did.

No. It was not a compliment. Jews (i.e. those who practice Judaism - I'm not talking about the race of people) will go to Hell, Frank!

Judaism and Christianity are not the same thing.

I've heard this debated, I neither agree nor disagree with it and God has not given me insights to lean one way or the other. What I do know is that Jesus told us to endure to the end and we fill find salvation (interpret that, what the end is and why we are told to endure till it comes, any way that suits you).

Jesus did NOT tell YOU to endure to the end. If that's what you're trusting in, your own ability to endure, then you're completely hobbling your own Christian walk. It is Jesus' endurance that we are to trust, not our own, for when we are faithless, He remains faithful. He cannot forsake Himself!

A standard outside of ourselves doesn't make us self aware.

Of course it does. It is the only thing which can. It is the condition of being without an objective standard where self awareness is impossible.

We can easily be in deep self deceit about what we are and that self deceit could easily match any external standard.

Not ANY external standard! You certainly could create an external standard if you wanted to try and do so but just because you made it doesn't make it true!

What makes it true is how well it conforms to reality, Frank! God is real! God is the ultimate reality and the only standard for truth! He is Life itself and He wrote us a whole book just so that we can know who He is and apply that knowledge as the standard against which we measure both the actions of others and ourselves.

As Robert Burns observed so long ago 'O wad some Power the giftie gie us / To see oursels as ithers see us!'.

If the way others see you is your standard, you are to be pitied.

Can you do that, step outside of yourself and objectively see who you really are without your own view of yourself distorting it?

It is not possible to be entirely objective in any such endeavor - by definition. The closest one can come is to know why right is right and wrong is wrong and apply it honestly to your own actions. The key - the BIBLICAL key - is to know that it isn't about our righteousness but about His, that is Christ's righteousness, which has been imputed to those who have trusted in Him. That much is, in fact, an OBJECTIVE biblical fact upon which I can KNOW that I am righteous in Him.

But moving on to a related path consider this statement and what it means to you: It is not as important to understands the words of a scripture and their meaning as it is to understand the scripture itself.

Contradict yourself much?

Blessings upon you this day, may his light shine on you and light your way.

If by “His light” you are referring to the light of God, then John 1 comes immediately to mind:

In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it (John 1:4–5, NKJV).​

Notice that John speaks of comprehension. This is not mystical or esoteric light but the illumination of the mind. It is the understanding that comes from the Logos (see verses 1 and 14 of the same passage). It is reason, truth, and moral clarity, not a vague inner glow or whatever such thing. The true light enlightens because it reveals reality as it is.

 

[Frankj]

If the way others see you is your standard, you are to be pitied.

Well, you might find you come across better if you tried doing this, and that would lead to a stronger consideration of whatever you are trying to present.

It is not possible to be entirely objective in any such endeavor - by definition

Then you would do well to examine your posts and explain what you mean when you call for it.

Contradict yourself much?

Ignore the question much?

If by “His light” you are referring to the light of God, then John 1 comes immediately to mind:

I sincerely give a blessing to you and you take issue with it. I will avoid such in the future since it seems objectionable to you and I do not wish to offend.

This conversation is obviously going nowhere, lets just leave it where it is and hope that someone else may find some value in it.

 

[VeritatisVerba]

Well, you might find you come across better if you tried doing this, and that would lead to a stronger consideration of whatever you are trying to present.

I present rational arguments. If you find that offensive then I can't fix that.

Then you would do well to examine your posts and explain what you mean when you call for it.

You are trying your best to land on my ignore list. It's more fun the way it is - for now.

One of us being intellectually dishonest!

Ignore the question much?

The self-contradictory cannot be "answered", Frank! Except to point out that it's contradictory, which I did. If the scripture isn't the words that comprise it then you can turn it into whatever tickles your ear!

I sincerely give a blessing to you and you take issue with it.

This response to what I said is proof that it wasn't sincere. I took no issue with it. I agreed with it!
The difference, I suppose, is that I use words that actually give name to definable concepts.

I will avoid such in the future since it seems objectionable to you and I do not wish to offend.

Nonsense. The only one of who is offended by the other is you! I've done nothing but respond to your own words, Frank! The whole thread is still right here for the whole world to read!

This conversation is obviously going nowhere, lets just leave it where it is and hope that someone else may find some value in it.

It went where it needed to go. You attempting to undermine the veracity and absolute necessity of sound reason and finding yourself frustrated to the point of casting aspersions on my character rather than offering anything of substance to the discussion.

If there is one of us who picks and chooses whatever it is he desires to believe based on next to nothing vs. one who demands that his worldview be fully integrated and consistent with an objective standard - well, I'll let those reading the thread decide which of us is which.

 

[Faith]

I was questioning you, Frank. It would not have been possible to deceive the Twelve. There is no question about that. It is a biblical fact. The question I'm asking you is why would they not have been vulnerable to Satan's deception?


An absolute examination?

What absolute are you referring to?


No. It was not a compliment. Jews (i.e. those who practice Judaism - I'm not talking about the race of people) will go to Hell, Frank!

Judaism and Christianity are not the same thing.


Jesus did NOT tell YOU to endure to the end. If that's what you're trusting in, your own ability to endure, then you're completely hobbling your own Christian walk. It is Jesus' endurance that we are to trust, not our own, for when we are faithless, He remains faithful. He cannot forsake Himself!


Of course it does. It is the only thing which can. It is the condition of being without an objective standard where self awareness is impossible.


Not ANY external standard! You certainly could create an external standard if you wanted to try and do so but just because you made it doesn't make it true!

What makes it true is how well it conforms to reality, Frank! God is real! God is the ultimate reality and the only standard for truth! He is Life itself and He wrote us a whole book just so that we can know who He is and apply that knowledge as the standard against which we measure both the actions of others and ourselves.


If the way others see you is your standard, you are to be pitied.


It is not possible to be entirely objective in any such endeavor - by definition. The closest one can come is to know why right is right and wrong is wrong and apply it honestly to your own actions. The key - the BIBLICAL key - is to know that it isn't about our righteousness but about His, that is Christ's righteousness, which has been imputed to those who have trusted in Him. That much is, in fact, an OBJECTIVE biblical fact upon which I can KNOW that I am righteous in Him.


Contradict yourself much?


If by “His light” you are referring to the light of God, then John 1 comes immediately to mind:

In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it (John 1:4–5, NKJV).​

Notice that John speaks of comprehension. This is not mystical or esoteric light but the illumination of the mind. It is the understanding that comes from the Logos (see verses 1 and 14 of the same passage). It is reason, truth, and moral clarity, not a vague inner glow or whatever such thing. The true light enlightens because it reveals reality as it is.

You’re just here to fight.

 

[BruceLeiter]

This simply isn't true. There are forms of adaption, aka micro evolution, that can be demonstrated in a laboratory in a matter of weeks.

The idea that life appeared out of nothing and then evolved into what we see today has some evidence supporting it and a whole host of unanswered questions, but it's simply not true to say there's no evidence for any sort of evolution.


You follow up your argument with a very weak argument...



which completely ignores the possibility that Scripture is metaphorical rather than literal. This is ironic, given you also quote the verse that says God's ways are higher than our ways while apparently expecting God to do things the way we would.

... and then a logical fallacy to complete the trifecta of bad arguments:

 

[BruceLeiter]

I believe that Genesis 1 & 2 are literal, not metaphorical. Why? Because the rest of Scripture affirms the fact that God has created everything and everyone.

However, how he creates humanity and the universe is open to discussion. Scientific FACT, not theories like evolution, can help us gain a little glimpse into the answer. No one has documented one species changing into another one, but I believe that God has created the first ancestors of the animal families and then has enabled them to diversify (or evolve) into different species.

The biblical givens with which we must start instead of starting with scientific theories say that in the beginning of creation, God makes everything and then makes humans separately as the pinnacle of his creative acts. Those truths are what the first two chapters teach us.

How long creation takes is open to interpretation because the phrase "evening and morning" on each day seems to state six 24-hour days. On the other hand, God doesn't make the sun until the fourth "day," leading to the conclusion that they aren't twenty-four hours. In addition, the word "day" in the Bible tends to be twenty-four hours when it refers to humans' time, but it is much more indefinite when it refers to God's time.

I don't think that we can say much more about creation than those principles that Moses in Genesis 1 & 2 establishes. However, I'm thankful that God has guided science to understand more about his creation than we could have without it. I'm especially fascinated with the facts of astronomy, for which I give him praise with amazement. As Paul says in Romans 1, humans' basic sin has been to reject God as their Creator.

Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.

Psalm 8:1 O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! You have set your glory above the heavens.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
Rom 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Rom 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

 

[Frankj]

However, how he creates humanity and the universe is open to discussion. Scientific FACT, not theories like evolution, can help us gain a little glimpse into the answer. No one has documented one species changing into another one, but I believe that God has created the first ancestors of the animal families and then has enabled them to diversify (or evolve) into different species.

Let me run my thoughts by you and get your opinion of them.

I absolutely accept Genesis 1-3 as true, any misunderstands I might have are the fault of myself not scripture.

When we talk about the creation of the fishes and birds and critters of the land it seems that 'evolution' might be fitted into it -stressing 'might'-, but when we talk of the making of Adam the Bible is specific that he was directly created by God from the dust of the earth and the breath of life then breathed into him.

That this is when he became a living soul.

This would seem to exclude any idea that he was created from some already living thing, one that didn't need to be brought to life since it was alive to start with, and did not evolve directly or indirectly from anything else.

How does this reasoning seem to you?

 

[Lamb]

This thread has undergone a thread clean up. Please respond to the topic and respect our site rules.

I've removed posts that were off topic and those that responded to those posts as well.

 

[MrE]

This thread has undergone a thread clean up. Please respond to the topic and respect our site rules.

I've removed posts that were off topic and those that responded to those posts as well.

What was the topic again?

A Moderator's work is never done! Good job.

With respect to the topic and OP concerning the validity and value of pastors -- (and of Moderators alike) --by their fruit you shall know them.

 

[BruceLeiter]

Let me run my thoughts by you and get your opinion of them.

I absolutely accept Genesis 1-3 as true, any misunderstands I might have are the fault of myself not scripture.

When we talk about the creation of the fishes and birds and critters of the land it seems that 'evolution' might be fitted into it -stressing 'might'-, but when we talk of the making of Adam the Bible is specific that he was directly created by God from the dust of the earth and the breath of life then breathed into him.

That this is when he became a living soul.

This would seem to exclude any idea that he was created from some already living thing, one that didn't need to be brought to life since it was alive to start with, and did not evolve directly or indirectly from anything else.

How does this reasoning seem to you?

This thread has undergone a thread clean up. Please respond to the topic and respect our site rules.

I've removed posts that were off topic and those that responded to those posts as well.

@Lamb, these posts are on-topic as criteria that we can use to determine whether a pastor is a good one who is faithful to the Bible's teachings, in this case, the creation of the universe.

 

[BruceLeiter]

Let me run my thoughts by you and get your opinion of them.

I absolutely accept Genesis 1-3 as true, any misunderstands I might have are the fault of myself not scripture.

When we talk about the creation of the fishes and birds and critters of the land it seems that 'evolution' might be fitted into it -stressing 'might'-, but when we talk of the making of Adam the Bible is specific that he was directly created by God from the dust of the earth and the breath of life then breathed into him.

That this is when he became a living soul.

This would seem to exclude any idea that he was created from some already living thing, one that didn't need to be brought to life since it was alive to start with, and did not evolve directly or indirectly from anything else.

How does this reasoning seem to you?

@Frankj, yes, your reasoning is true to Scripture.

 

[Lamb]

@Lamb, these posts are on-topic as criteria that we can use to determine whether a pastor is a good one who is faithful to the Bible's teachings, in this case, the creation of the universe.

I have removed the posts that were not about pastors and their character, but were complaints about our site's rules and the posts that responded to them.