Linkathon!

j2theperson says:

I don’t really understand why the clergy housing benefit was ever okay to begin with. Why don’t pastors just get a regular salary like everyone else and have to pay for their own stuff like everyone else? Why do they get a compensation package composed of multiple benefits instead of just a regular salary?

JoelG says:

“So, can you be a Christian and not go to church? If avoiding church is the goal, then the answer has to be, no.”

BS

If one has social anxiety church can be hellish.

Things are so simple outside of the Christian bubble.

Ron Larson says:

I have listened to the video with Justin Peters and Costi Hinn, and honestly I believe it was a very well laid out argument against so much of the apostasy that surrounds the Word of Faith and New Apostolic Reformation, the latter which is gaining in significance many professing believers. I can’t help wonder, with all of the well documented heresies, written and proclaimed on air, by those who adhere to the blasphemies that publish their “sermons: and teachings on You Tube, why more leaders in that identify as “reformers” will not publicly rebuke and distance themselves from these churches and alleged apostles and prophets. I have a Right Now media account, and have enjoyed Frances Chan, but how he can even consider sharing the pulpit with a Todd White, or accept an invitation from Mike Bickle from IHOP in Kansas City, is beyond my understanding.

When someone accepts this, or an invitation to be used by TBN hosts, it makes the adherents of these heretical movements appear legitimate, and I fear that more and more people as prophesied in scripture, men whom I have appreciated there call to the body to be zealous for His word, and good works, would even consider associating with these groups.

John 20:29 says:

well, i gotta comment again, sorry
just read, admittedly quickly, thru the unarmed empire link and one thing seemed to be overlooked and that is that we do have weapons and we’re supposed to be skilled in their use and that’s what’s been discussed on this thread, i think… dunno

thinking on the housing allowance thing … once upon a time didn’t every church come with a manse of some sort or a parish house that belonged to the church, not the occupying pastor or priest?
my old Presbyterian pastor and his wife retired to a condo … on their own dime, i suspect … pay the pastor a decent salary and leave up to him to save up for a house when he leaves the ministry or retires … housing allowance? more creeping corporatism methinks

Martin Luther's Disciple says:

My understanding of the housing allowance, at least how Lutherans do it, is that it is not an add on to salary, but a designation of salary.

Pay your pastor $50,000 – he then can designate a certain amount of that $50,000 as housing allowance – say $10,000 which then he does not claim as taxable income. Now what the pastor does need to do is show that he did indeed spend that amount on his housing expense. So it’s not like he gets $50K in salary and an additional $10K to call housing and do what he wants with it.
Over the years this has been an offset for churches that pay their pastor as a contract employee who then gets hit paying both sides of the employment taxes – which adds up. Churches do this so that they do not have to pay the employment taxes.

Martin Luther's Disciple says:

I think the important thingto consider is that we all have a role in church. Its not about what we get out of it or if it is fulfilling – but what we deliver to others … even if it is to sit around and tell others why you hate going to church but why you come anyway – -it is an encouragement to others who are thinking of dropping out.

Duane Arnold says:

#12 MLD

I used the parsonage allowance for years… Yes, it is a tax dodge.

covered says:

MLD, your #12 is correct. I receive a salary and the portion of that salary that I pay toward rent or mortgage as well as utilities directly related to the home, is not taxable income. So, if my salary is $3000 per month and my rent and utilities total $1500 per month, then I pay income taxes on $1500 per month.

I do not receive one check for salary and another check for housing allowance or anything else. I also pay for my own vehicle and cell phone. My wife and I also also have to provide our own medical insurance.

There are many clergy who have taken advantage of the current system but I would say that for the most part, it’s the way I laid it out.

Martin Luther's Disciple says:

What’s really funny is that all of us who own homes take a housing allowance (tax dodge) when we take our interest and taxes deduction. Many of us have additionally written off use of home for business purposes.

j2theperson says:

***What’s really funny is that all of us who own homes take a housing allowance (tax dodge) when we take our interest and taxes deduction. Many of us have additionally written off use of home for business purposes.***

Why not just have pastors use those. I don’t understand why they get separate, special, clergy specific allowances and write offs. This is not something I’m offended by or up in arms over, but it is something I legitimately just don’t understand. Why does it exist?

John 20:29 says:

i haven’t, over my lifetime found very many churches that really make you feel that the Lord was in their midst… i don’t think that it was always that way… when times were slower and communities were smaller and one felt that “the Lord was in His Holy Temple” when in church… dunno

i do think that it is wrong to assume that one has to be IN church to walk with the Lord… not so sure He’s on the golf course or at the ball game, tho … might be … dunno

praying that those who are worn out from church games would be given the gift that our family received, so different in composition from what Xenia received, but the result in both instances, was finding a place to grow deeper in the nurture of the Lord and in His wisdom or so it seems to me…

a praise of sorts:
up late because our 19 year old cat decided to dislocate his shoulder trying to get up onto the sofa (“his” sofa) – his whole leg looked grotesquely skewed, so thinking we’d be putting him down, right after she’d gotten in from a 14 hour shift, my nurse daughter was back in the car on an emergency run in to the vet… an hour’s trip one way… the vet gave Axle pain meds, popped his shoulder back in place – and all is well for my cat loving daughter, who is now heading for a good night’s sleep… and, therefore, me too – it was an answer to prayer, thank You, Lord

Xenia says:

Hi Em,

I want to make a little clarification. I didn’t leave Calvary Chapel and the evangelical world because I was worn out, tired of church, disappointed, etc. I didn’t leave because CC was “bad,” I left because *I* was bad and getting worse with each passing year. I don’t believe I fit into the category of many people who left the world of churches for the reasons we often discuss here.

John 20:29 says:

#26, i appreciate the important clarification, Xenia … didn’t mean to imply that i knew “why” you pulled away … sorry
but, still, it does point to the fact that so many of the Redeemed today are starving spirits, does it not? … as i think on it, are churches trying to feed the old man or the new?

j2theperson says:

Thanks Duane. It sounds like it’s not very relevant anymore. It probably should be gotten rid of.

Ron Larson says:

I personally have never understood that fascination with Luther. People gloss over the sad fact, that his teaching on baptism was sadly the same as apostate Rome. He also was as most know, was an utter anti-Semite, and that hatred has spawned the vicious attitude many still have towards Jews to this day. He wanted the book of James removed from the cannon of scripture, because of his imballanced understanding of saving faith and works. He advocated for the death penalty of Anabaptists. Sadly, today, like Rome, many that call themselves Lutheran believe they came into a right relationship with Christ because of their infant baptism, and that heresy has infected the Lutheran Church to large degree with adherents and leadership to compromise with the cultural regarding homosexual deviancy, and women who have authority and oversight as Pastors. It is certainly arguable that while some of what Luther taught was sound theologically, his character and other doctrinal flaws indicate he very well have been unregenated.

Martin Luther's Disciple says:

Ron,
I would just point out a few things related to your post.
1.) If Lutheran teaching on baptism is sadly the same as apostate Rome, is it fair for me to point out that your teachings on the Trinity, the virgin birth, the diety of Christ and many others are also the same as the apostate Rome?
2.) Luther did not propose to have the book of James removed from the canon – check out the Luther Bible – he translated James and included it. He had concerns – but he was not the only one and there is a whole field of study of the Antilegomena and the Homologoumena. Luther wasn’t alone and James was not the only book.
3.) Although some may ignorantly state that they are saved because of their infant baptism, the proper Lutheran teaching is that they came to salvation through their baptism – and Lutherans properly define baptism as God word wash in the water. I will point to something you may be familiar with in your circles – those who said they were saved because of an altar call (in a place that not only does not have an altar, but forbids them.

But that’s just a beginning.

Martin Luther's Disciple says:

I do love when people make charges against Luther – and he was a rascal. I think the late Dr. Gene Scott would be close to Luther in temperment, personality and attitude.

But everyone brings up the book of James – not because they have studied it, but because they have heard and passed on stories. There were several books in question and a division was made between the Homologoumena, the accepted writings and the Antilegomena, the disputed writings.
Hebrews – James – 2 Peter – 2 & 3 John – Jude and Revelation. Now if you are going to argue the case for Luther being a bad theologian, I have given you some fodder. 😉

Martin Luther's Disciple says:

Ron, Lutherans are not covenantal. We would argue that baptism saves, baptism is the washing of regeneration and a whole bunch of other passages saying the same thing. From that point we would argue that there is no age restriction. Can you find the age restriction?
We know infants can communicate and respond to God – check out John the Baptist and David at his mother’s breast.
I don’t even need to use the whole household argument — but I guess I just did. 😉

So tell us how your altar call saved you.

Martin Luther's Disciple says:

Em, you are correct there – it was a more polemic time and it was 300 yrs before the Victorian era of politeness and men wearing silk pedal pushers.

Duane Arnold says:

#46 Jean

Water baptism, for all members of the family – infant to adults – was common by the second century of the common era. There is validity to the covenant argument in that early Christianity was concerned with the family, the community. Even circumcision may come into play. All that being said, the early archeological evidence,initially indicates baptisteries for adults. Sorry to throw this wrench into the works, but I have to be honest with the evidence.

Martin Luther's Disciple says:

Once again, Duane’s eyes, reason and experience trumps scriptures.
I am still going through my concordance page by page looking for the age restriction for baptism.
Archeology, 2,000 yrs from now will dig up many adult baptistries – that only shows they dug in SBC territory in the Bible Belt. 🙂

Jean says:

Michael,

Maybe you have an idea, when did the idea arise that baptism does not convey the remission of sins?

Martin Luther's Disciple says:

So, do I follow scripture or do I follow archaeology?
Who is to say that parents didn’t walk their children into the baptistry?
What about the whole household stuff?

Jean says:

MLD,

What about the whole: let the little children come to Me stuff?

Jean says:

Thanks Michael. That would have been my guess. So, to some, the Church was wrong for the first 1,500 years.

Duane Arnold says:

Jean

The whole issue of sacramental life was brought into question by the early Anabaptists, inclusive of baptism. Owing to the high regard afforded baptism by the early church (they did believe that it conferred the remission of sins) there are numerous examples of people delaying baptism until late in life as they were concerned with post-baptismal sins. The most famous example being Constantine. Sacramental theology is one of those areas where the doctrine developed over the first four centuries of the church.

The denial of baptism as a means of grace does not really arise until the Radical Reformation. That being said, “covenant theology” is not sacramental theology, so you would have to place the vast majority of Reformed as not embracing baptism as a means of grace, even among those who practice infant baptism.

By the way, using Scripture, Reason and Tradition is rather normative in the approach to most of these topics… at least for anyone who is actually wishes to engage in learning and research as opposed to simply shouting slogans. Additionally, I might add that I indicated the archeological evidence in order to be honest. As a result I was immediately accused of some sort of departure from the faith. If you want to ask me what I believe, do so and I will tell you. If you want to ask about some aspect of Church History or the history of doctrine, you are asking for the best evidence and research or my opinion about the same. Attacking a person’s faith or faith system as a result of them offering historical evidence is simply wrong.

Duane Arnold says:

#65 Jean

Sacramental theology, not surprisingly, is restricted to sacramental churches – RCC, EO, Lutherans, Anglicans, Copts, etc. On the Protestant side, most (if not all) do not see physical actions as a means of grace, i.e. conferring grace. Some, however, would say that such actions “reflect” grace (covenant theology, etc.) which is wholly different.

Martin Luther's Disciple says:

Technically children could should be able to participate right after baptism. In many cases for church order it’s delayed.

Duane Arnold says:

I think we have indications in Scripture warranting infant baptism, but nothing that is explicit in terms of example or instruction. I know all the so-called “proof texts”, but there is nothing as explicit as, for instance, the Lord’s Supper. For me, that is not a problem as I believe in the development of doctrine under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. For others, relying only on Scripture, there is ambiguity.

Martin Luther's Disciple says:

Well I certainly do believe in an age of accountability – like the Bible, I put it at birth – perhaps even before 😉

Xenia says:

Baptized Orthodox babies receive the Eucharist. Their first Communion happens at their baptism, which is triple immersion in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. When my godson was a baby I used to carry him up to the Chalice. He’s old enough to go up by himself now.

Duane Arnold says:

#74 Xenia

Indeed, the EO have been consistent with their theology in this matter – all the rest of us… not so much!

Xenia says:

Here’s a picture of a cute baby receiving Communion:

https://fatherstephen.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/communion_africa.jpg

Martin Luther's Disciple says:

Xenia – church order is not about rowdiness – it is just how the church has decided to do something. I don’t always agree with church order – but in the end I am not going to be disruptive. When I open my own Lutheran church we will serve the children.

Xenia says:

I was basically wondering if the decision not to serve babies Communion was a matter of theology or a matter of practicality.

Duane Arnold says:

#82 Xenia

I think there are two issues here (at least) –

1) In the West when Confirmation (reception of the Holy Spirit) became a Sacrament in the RCC it served as the gateway to full participation as an adult in the life of the church.

2) As there was a higher and higher view of the Eucharist, eventually moving toward reception in one kind, it was a matter of practicality in terms of children.

Now that the prayers have been changed and chrismation taking place at baptism (rather than, or in addition to confirmation) it has left a bit of a confused theology in Western Sacramental churches…

There is also the social/rite of passage element of “first communion” that many are unwilling to abandon.