A Study on Church Leadership

A Study on Church Leadership March 22, 2019

The character and effectiveness of any church is directly related to the quality of its leadership.

Qualified Leadership

The Bible stresses the importance of qualified church leadership and specific standards for evaluating the moral character of anyone that would serve in the ministry. A church might go only as far as the leadership takes it. Some churches will evangelize while others fossilize, but if there’s a failure to uphold the integrity of church leaders, there’ll be failure in the pews. Timothy faced such problems while in Ephesus, and this is why Paul gave him a detailed explanation of the qualifications for elders (1 Tim. 3:1-7), and it has been used throughout the centuries for this same purpose. The Apostle Paul had started the church at Ephesus, staying there around three years in order to train church leaders (Acts 18:19; 20:17, 31), so the Ephesian church had solid leadership, thanks in large part to Paul’s laying down qualifications for elders and deacons.

Satanic Influence

Almost like a prophetic statement, Paul told the Ephesian elders that, “I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:29 30). In other words, Paul was certain that Satan’s most effective weapon to attack the church is to provide false or unqualified leaders who preach a false or works-based gospel, and that’s exactly what happened. After Paul was released from his first Roman imprisonment, he decided to leave Timothy at Ephesus, leaving him specific instructions regarding church leadership. One requirement was that “an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money” (1 Tim 3:2-3). Of course, the underlying implication is that these characteristics were missing in the Ephesus elders.

Departing from the Word

Not only was it understood that some would depart from the faith, but some of the leaders would depart from preaching of God’s Word, so Paul told Timothy that an elder must not be “a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive” (1 Tim. 1:3 4, 6-7), but he also “must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil” (1 Tim 3:6-7). If someone is ordained too quickly, they are not equipped or experienced to handle the Word correctly, and they can easily mislead others…either knowingly, or unknowingly. Either way, it must be addressed.

Prideful Elders

First Timothy 6:3-5 says, “If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.” Much of their endless speculations and contradictions (like between their teaching and the way they live) is “falsely called ‘Knowledge’” (1 Tim 6:20), and tragically, by their “professing it some have swerved from the faith” (1 Tim 6:21). When teachers or preachers are blinded by pride, they become the blind leading the blind.

Apostate Leaders

First Timothy 4:1-3 says, “The Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared” (1 Tim 4:1-2), including adding works to salvation (1 Tim 4:3). Paul tells Timothy he must be “trained in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine that you have followed” (1 Tim 4:6), but “Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths. Rather train yourself for godliness” (1 Tim 4:7). This is why Paul advised Timothy to “Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching” (1 Tim 4:16a). Elders or church leaders are not above correction from the church. First Timothy 5:19-20 says, “Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.” It seemed apparent that some of the elders were in need of public rebuke. If you look at the church at Ephesus and Corinth, their problems were related to poor leadership, and this caused division.


Paul instructed Titus, who was ministering on the isle of Crete, that he must “appoint elders in every town as I directed you” (Titus 1:5). This church needed elders because it was new. Church growth had outstripped leadership, but by the time Paul gave Titus instructions, he knew exactly how to select them, and these instructions are very similar to 1 Timothy 3, and like that chapter, Paul tells Titus that an elder must be “above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain” (Titus 1:6-7). Even after all this, Titus and Timothy’s task was not over because they had to ensure that the elders were qualified according to God’s standards (1 Tim. 3:2-7) and in their moral conduct (1 Tim 3:1-13), but they were always to “Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching” (1 Tim 4:16a). God will hold church leadership accountable for how they ran Jesus’ church. Each will stand before Him and give an account on what they did (sins of commission) and what they didn’t do (sins of omission). Jesus is the Head of the Church and He expects the Body to cooperate, but the Body can more easily cooperate when church leadership is sound; in teaching sound doctrine and in living a life above reproach.

Article by Jack Wellman

Jack Wellman is Pastor of the Mulvane Brethren Church in Mulvane Kansas. Jack is a writer at Christian Quotes and also the Senior Writer at What Christians Want To Know whose mission is to equip, encourage, and energize Christians and to address questions about the believer’s daily walk with God and the Bible. You can follow Jack on Christian Crier or check out his book Teaching Children the Gospel available on Amazon.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • pud

    Church leaders? You mean the low ranking foot soldiers responsible for spreading propaganda to the stupid, credulous and gullible? The ones responsible for lying to and the indoctrination of children into the cult?

    Here’s an example of how dangerous your psychotic cult truly is….https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mike-pompeo-christian-broadcasting-network-interview-president-trump-present-day-queen-esther/

    Demonstrably delusional people in places of power making insane assertions and policy that affects the whole world. This is why I fight you and your deranged death cult.

    • Matthew 22:37

      You have a scrambled understanding of God’s Word not a working knowledge of it. You really need to go back and re-examine everything. Because you are trying to scramble people that have a better understanding of God and his perspective than you have when God is your friend. Not your enemy but you keep treating him like you’re he is your enemy.

      • pud

        Demonstrate that any word in your primitive book is the “word” of a “god”

        Demonstrate that any “god” has ever existed


        • Matthew 22:37

          I don’t have to demonstrate anything. Many arguments proving God exists have already been supplied by God’s followers down through the ages plus God supplied general revelation as proof.

          Your problem is you reserve subjective right to yourself to act as the only judge of the arguments.

          You can subjectively move the evidence goal posts any time you like to deny God exists and suit yourself even though that is disadvantageous to you.

          So stop demanding people prove things to your subjective standard that you pretend is objective. You are being self deceptive and don’t even seem to know it.

          I have my own mind and perception and it is not subservient to your’s nor subject to your burden of proof demands.

          • pud

            If you make a “claim” it is your responsibility to back up that claim with evidence. Otherwise it is just another baseless assertion in the heap of mindless ridiculous assertions all sorts of lunatics make every day.

        • Matthew 22:37

          Is there an argument for the existence of God?

          An answer from gotquestions.org:

          Answer: The question of whether there is a conclusive argument for the existence of God has been debated throughout history, with exceedingly intelligent people taking both sides of the dispute. In recent times, arguments against the possibility of God’s existence have taken on a militant spirit that accuses anyone daring to believe in God as being delusional and irrational. Karl Marx asserted that anyone believing in God must have a mental disorder that caused invalid thinking. The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud wrote that a person who believed in a Creator God was delusional and only held those beliefs due to a “wish-fulfillment” factor that produced what Freud considered to be an unjustifiable position. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche bluntly said that faith equates to not wanting to know what is true. The voices of these three figures from history (along with others) are simply now parroted by a new generation of atheists who claim that a belief in God is intellectually unwarranted.

          Is this truly the case? Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable position to hold? Is there a logical and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Outside of referencing the Bible, can a case for the existence of God be made that refutes the positions of both the old and new atheists and gives sufficient warrant for believing in a Creator? The answer is, yes, it can. Moreover, in demonstrating the validity of an argument for the existence of God, the case for atheism is shown to be intellectually weak.

          To make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. We begin with the most basic metaphysical question: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” This is the basic question of existence—why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian has said, “In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God.”

          In considering this question, there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all:

          1. Reality is an illusion.
          2. Reality is/was self-created.
          3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).
          4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.

          So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking, then he must “be.” In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated.

          Next is the option of reality being self-created. When we study philosophy, we learn of “analytically false” statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as “spontaneous generation” —something coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” Since something cannot come from nothing, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out.

          Now we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads:

          • Something exists.
          • Nothing cannot create something.
          • Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists.

          Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter?

          To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.

          Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated.

          Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements:

          • Something exists.
          • You do not get something from nothing.
          • Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
          • The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
          • Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
          • Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

          Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God’s existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”

          But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised:

          • He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
          • He must be powerful (exceedingly).
          • He must be eternal (self-existent).
          • He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
          • He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
          • He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
          • He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality).
          • He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
          • He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
          • He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
          • He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
          • He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
          • He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).

          These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 5:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7).

          One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—“no god,” which is what “atheist” means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist.

          Next, it is important to understand the issue that surrounds the seriousness of truth claims that are made and the amount of evidence required to warrant certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two containers of lemonade in front of you and says that one may be more tart than the other, since the consequences of getting the more tart drink would not be serious, you would not require a large amount of evidence in order to make your choice. However, if to one cup the host added sweetener but to the other he introduced rat poison, then you would want to have quite a bit of evidence before you made your choice.

          This is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God. Since belief in atheism could possibly result in irreparable and eternal consequences, it would seem that the atheist should be mandated to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support his position, but he cannot. Atheism simply cannot meet the test for evidence for the seriousness of the charge it makes. Instead, the atheist and those whom he convinces of his position slide into eternity with their fingers crossed and hope they do not find the unpleasant truth that eternity does indeed exist. As Mortimer Adler says, “More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question.”

          So does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a wish-fulfillment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. But refuting Freud is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth that He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20). But for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ: “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12-13).

          • pud

            All wrong..every single thing has been and can easily be refuted. You choose to read only that which supports your delusions…you only want to “believe” what you want to “believe”

          • pud

            There is no such thing as a “belief in atheism” “A”theism is the absence of “belief”

            No one can make themselves “believe” or not “believe” in something

            Pacals wager…LOL….you better “believe” in Allah or else!!

          • pud

            There is no religious “claim” that can be falsified….more stupid irrational gish gallop. Atheism is NOT a negative claim stupid it is the absence of ANY claim. It is simple non “belief” just like you don’t “believe” in Ganesh, Hanuman or Zeus….you are an atheist.

          • pud

            “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.”

            Total bullshit….demonstrate this claim. Show a single example of this being true. Define “mind”

            Lee Strobel is a deranged con man…full of ridiculous non arguments that have been repeatedly exposed for gibberish.

          • pud

            • Something exists.
            • You do not get something from nothing.
            • Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
            • The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
            • Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
            • Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

            Totally and completely flawed.

            Objects exist…we know this because they have shape and can be measured…no “god” passes this test

            Only delusional theists claim that an invisible undetectable agent created everything from nothing

            Does not follow from the argument

            Not the only 2 options

            Not true at all….energy and matter are eternal…1st Law of Thermodynamics

            Flawed in every way

            This is not even an argument…it is flawed in structure and conclusion. 100% wrong in every way

          • pud

            “To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator.”

            LIE. There is no evidence for any invisible undetectable “creator” or a “creation” NONE.

  • pud

    “God will hold church leadership accountable for how they ran Jesus’ church. Each will stand before Him and give an account on what they did (sins of commission) and what they didn’t do (sins of omission). Jesus is the Head of the Church and He expects the Body to cooperate,”

    OR ELSE!

    What a sick doctrine. What an insane proposition. What total bullshit put forward by an ancient religious lunatic and swallowed whole by crazy people like you. Unreal

    • Collao

      I’m truly sorry for your loss. Hopefully your father was a better person than you think he was.

      • pud

        That’s pretty bizarre dude.

  • Matthew 22:37
  • Theodore A. Jones

    “For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom. 2:13

    • pud

      Who cares what your “book” says…demonstrate that anything in there is actually true.

      • Theodore A. Jones

        You and Wellman both will be forced to believe that book since you and Wellman will be spending eternity in the same confine.

        • pud

          Is that so? The good pastor janitor jack is going to hell with me? Tell me how you “know” this.

          • Theodore A. Jones

            Bubba! You’ve got access to the same Bibles I do. Look it up.

          • pud

            But I don’t give a shit what some deranged sick make believe ancient text written by no name authors says….I want to know how YOU can make that claim. Back it up…demonstrate that you actually “know” what you claim to know. Or can you not do that?

          • Theodore A. Jones

            As soon as you drop dead you and Wellman are going to believe every thing I’ve written to you both and then some. The only I’ll give you any positive credit for is that you’ve got the balls to reply. Jack Wellman doesn’t.

          • pud

            Janitor Jack is a coward…you are a raving lunatic.

            Answer my question…..HOW do you KNOW that the swill you spew is actually true? Let’s keep it simple….Demonstrate that your claim that a “hell” exists is actually true.

            If you can’t do this simply admit that you can’t…confess to simply believing an absurdity and that you have no basis to “believe” anything. Try to be honest at least with yourself

          • Theodore A. Jones

            Jackass how do you know it won’t?

          • pud

            That is dishonest….It is not incumbent upon one to disprove a claim. Can you prove that a tea pot ISN’T circling Pluto? You can’t so does that mean that a tea pot is or could be circling Pluto? Of course not.

            In logic, in argument…Anyone making a “positive” “claim” bears the “burden of proof”….this is common sense.

            Since you are making the “positive” “claim” that a “hell” exists….it is your responsibility…if you want to be taken seriously…to demonstrate the truth of that “claim”

            Still waiting or are you incapable of backing up your “claim” ?

          • Theodore A. Jones

            Gotcha by the short hairs didn’t I, stupid? Are you not making the positive claim that hell does not exist? Wellman is probably going to be your bunk mate in hell at least he will be if I’ve got anything to do with the bunk assignments.

          • pud

            I’ll give you one last chance….You’ve shown so far that you’re a liar and ignorant but I’ll give you one last shot at demonstrating your claim…If you don’t I’ll not waste anymore of my time with a dishonest religious lunatic.

            I made no “claim” about “hell” whatsoever.

            You made the positive “claim” that “hell” exists and that me and the cowardly pastor are going there

            For the last time….

            Demonstrate the truth of your “claim” that an actual “hell” exists

            Last chance to redeem yourself….begin

          • Theodore A. Jones

            Stupid I’m really shak’in in my boots. At the end you and Wellman will have permanent residences at the same local. Because neither of you have the righteous sense to confess directly to God that you are truly sorry God’s only begotten son Jesus was murdered when he was crucified.
            And yep, as sure a a fish from the lake is wet, I do not have to any answer to your stinking posterior.

          • pud

            You are clearly a sick individual…dishonest, cowardly, deranged, deluded, insane…a true religious lunatic in the extreme.

            I will no longer engage you since you cannot defend even the simplest assertions you mindlessly make.

            PS…your “jesus” had to be “murdered” per the directive of your invisible imaginary “god” in your deluded story book or you would be going to imaginary make believe hell with janitor jack

            You clearly are irrational and insane…cheers!

          • Theodore A. Jones

            “I will no longer engage”. Hope ya ain’t ah lying to the people whako since that is an unlawful act that God forbids. You and Wellman need to become chummy chummy and real soon. For Jesus is soon to return, and then he will mop the floor with the likes of you and Wellman. Enjoy.

  • Matthew 22:37

    Max Planck: “There can never be any real opposition between science and religion; for the one is the complement of the other. Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the religious element in his nature must be recognised and cultivated if all the powers of the human soul are to act together in perfect harmony. And indeed it is not an accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were also deeply religious souls.”

    • pud

      Science and religion are mutually exclusive. They are 100% incompatible. Science is empirical, relies on measurements and observation, theory and models. Religion is entirely superstitious, non empirical, totally faith based, makes no predictions, has no evidence and adds nothing to an understanding of reality.

      Demonstrate the existence of this so called “soul”

      Early “scientists” like early artists had no choice but do their work under the thumb of religion. You either cowed to the church or you got nothing. If you correctly described a natural phenomenon that was in opposition to the church they burned you at the stake.


  • Matthew 22:37

    Thanks for being so sane and rational, Pastor. I know that you studied science in college but that did not stop you from going on to study even higher knowledge: theology.

    It might well be that the study of Jesus’ life promotes sanity in a person. I think it does.

    Thanks, again for standing up for God on the interwebs. Only the bravest do that.

    Give all the glory to God and have a great day walking in His light!

    • pud

      He is neither sane or rational. He makes a living lying to children. There is no way he studied science or if he did he surely failed. “Theology” is not knowledge and has no basis in knowledge. It is baseless mindless superstitious “claims” and “assertions” that have no evidence and no basis in fact whatsoever.

      There is nothing to “study” about “jesus” whose existence cannot even be demonstrated.

      Demonstrate that any “god” ever existed.

      Explain why any “god” needs defending


    • Jack Wellman

      Amen. There will always be God-haters here, but if there weren’t, I’d be concerned. They hate us for a God they don’t believe in when we don’t hate them for not believing, so wished they would give mutual respect as most atheists do. Don’t let these who post be an indicator that all atheists are like that. They are not. Only a few (as you can read their sophmoric comments).

      • pud

        Demonstrate that ANY “god” has ever existed…waiting…FAIL

        Can’t respect someone who makes his living lying to children, threatening people with imaginary hellfire and who has no respect for evidence, the truth or reality.

      • pud

        Cannot “hate” that which does not exist. Demonstrate that ANYTHING you have EVER babbled is actually true. Come on…don’t be a coward your whole life…..defend your death cult…prove that your warped view or reality is actually true….waiting…don’t cower jack…be a man.

      • Matthew 22:37

        The most manipulative, vindictive and sophomoric atheists tend to be online. The famous atheist scientist Martin Rees does not agree with the militant atheists though.

        From wikipedia on Rees:

        Rees married Caroline Humphrey in 1986.[1] He is an atheist but has criticised militant atheists for being too hostile to religion.[55][56][57] He is a member of the Labour Party.

        Rees said in an interview that people should not be taking Hawkings views on religion seriously. He did no serious reading or studying of philosophy or theology.

        The same thing can probably be said about Richard Dawkins. Many say Dawkins philosophical knowledge is sadly lacking and he admitted himself he hates priests’ language so that indicates he has interpretive comprehension problems.

        Plus a lot of atheists are probably weak on psychology. That’s why they think it’s ok to take children away from their religious parents.

        This is a wiki summary from the “Rage of God” of what Peter Hitchens discovered about his brother the famous New Atheist, Christopher Hitchens, and wrote about in that book:

        Hitchens writes “the biggest fake miracle staged in human history was the claim that the Soviet Union was a new civilisation of equality, peace, love, truth, science and progress. Everyone knows that it was a prison, a slum, a return to primitive barbarism, a kingdom of lies where scientists and doctors feared offending the secret police, and that its elite were corrupt and lived in secret luxury”.[23] He then cites Walter Duranty’s denying the existence of the great Ukrainian famine,[24] and Sidney and Beatrice Webb’s acceptance that the 1937 Moscow show trials were “genuine criminal prosecutions”.[24] Hitchens then examines Lenin’s suppression of religion in the Soviet Union, which included making the teaching of religion to children punishable by the death penalty and the creation of an antireligious organisation of Soviet workers. Hitchens begins Chapter 13 by quoting William Henry Chamberlin: “In Russia, the world is witnessing the first effort to destroy completely any belief in supernatural interpretation of life”,[25][26] and then examines some consequences of this, including intolerance of religion, terror, and the persecution of priests and bishops at the Solovetsky concentration camp. Hitchens asserts that in the Soviet Union “the regime’s institutional loathing for the teaching of religion, and its desire to eradicate it, survived every doctrinal detour and swerve”.[27]

        In the final chapter, Hitchens analyses a number of his brother’s arguments, and contends that “the coincidence in instinct, taste, and thought between my brother and the Bolsheviks and their sympathisers is striking and undeniable”.[28] He then records how his brother nominated the “apostle of revolutionary terror”[28] Leon Trotsky for an edition of the BBC radio series Great Lives;[29] praised Trotsky for his “moral courage”;[28][30] and declared that one of Lenin’s great achievements was “to create a secular Russia”.[28][31] Hitchens speculates that his brother remained sympathetic towards Bolshevism and is still hostile towards the things it extirpated, including monarchy, tradition, and faith.[32] He ends the chapter by claiming a form of militant secularism is becoming established in Britain, and that “The Rage Against God is loose”.[33] – end quote

        The New Atheists are like Sigmund Freud. They are out over analyzing Christians not realizing that sin has driven them crazy.

        Sad but true and these insane unbelievers determined to stay in their unbelieving insanity like to hang out on Internet message boards spewing their insanity. That is God’s truth.

        Have a blessed day, Pastor. I am going to continue to tell the truth so Jesus can continue to destroy the works of the devil. Insanity is one of the devil’s works.

        But I doubt I will do it online any more. There are too many insane atheist trolls who lack self control. They could not take God seriously yet they want Christians to take them seriously. But what person in his right mind mocks another person or takes mocking from another person seriously.

        Only the seriously insecure feel the need to mock others.

        • Why bring up Communists? They are not atheist humanists! Atheism is not a philosophy. It simply means, “no Theism”. Dialectical materialism is a philosophy and Communist parties were dictatorial parties that obliterated much of their opposition, when the Communists came to power. Most atheists in the Western World reject Communism. Humanism is a philosophy and many atheists in the West are humanists. We don’t believe in killing our opposition, yet by raising this stuff about Communism you want to tar us with the same feathers. Would you not scream that it is unfair if we were to tar you with the horrors of ISIS because your religion and theirs are both Abrahamic sky religions?

      • How does disagreeing with the existence of God does make us god-haters? Is saying that books of the bible like Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings and 1and 2 Chronicles were written by barbaric, bloodthirsty, very violent and ignorant savages mean that a person hates God? Maybe he hates the commands by the so-called Yahweh to slaughter little children and babies, but does not hate not any God of compassion, healing-mercy and loving-kindness. Such a God (if he/she exists) would be wonderful, but I have seen very little evidence for such a God. Too much of the bible is filled with violence, and some of this is said to be performed by its god.

      • Theodore A. Jones

        “For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom. 2:13

    • “… higher knowledge:theology,”

      If God doesn’t exist then theology isn’t knowledge at all. It is all made up, whereas science is knowledge: models can be set up, conditional predictions drawn and hypotheses tested empirically. Those hypotheses that fail experimental testing are rejected or revised and subject to further tests. How can God hypotheses be tested? Ancient religious texts that contradict one another are not evidence for the existence of any god. The bible is not the Word of any god because much of it was written by very violent, bloodthirsty, barbaric and very ignorant savages who created god in their own likeness.

      I don’t mind you saying that you don’t know whether god exists or not but that you choose to believe in a god of compassion, healing-mercy and loving-kindness, because you need a crutch. But to claim that theology is “knowledge”, let alone “higher knowledge” than science is bunkum.

    • Did a study of Jesus’ life produce sanity in the nutty heretics like Joyce Myer, Benny Hinn, Creflo Dollar, Jerry Savelle, Marylin Hickey, Joel Osteen and numerous other “Word of Faith”, “Prosperity theology” and “Name it and claim it” propagandists?

  • Theodore A. Jones

    “For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom. 2:13

    • pud

      You can quote a book until the cows come home…so what? Demonstrate that anything in your deranged book is actually true. Only a disingenuous person discards his critical faculties in favor of blind belief in a book.

    • pud

      Do you “obey the law”?

      Do you eat seafood? Wear mixed fabric? Do you stone adulturers as commanded? Kill insolent children? Hate homosexuals etc etc? There are over 600 “laws”….all of them absurd….do you follow them?

      • Theodore A. Jones

        You’ve plugged in the wrong law there bubba and Wellman has to. You both are either unaware of or flatly deny that the law has been changed. Rom. 5:20 & Heb. 7:12 The law Paul references in Rom. 2:13 is the word that was added into law regarding the sin of murdering Jesus Christ by crucifixion allowing the sin of Jesus’ murder to become an accountable sin. However for everyone who refuses to obey that law and only that law they are guaranteed to spend eternity in hell. Maybe Wellman will be one of your bunk mates.

        • pud

          It’s “too” not “to” as in also. You’re not very educated I assume? You still haven’t answered the question….I want to know how you KNOW that your sick vile claim is actually true. Quoting from the book you swallowed isn’t demonstrating HOW you actually know that what tripe you spew is actually true.

          For example…I’ll make it even easier for you

          Demonstrate the existence of this so called hell. Do not offer a quote from a book. Present your evidence and rational argument that an actual hell exists.


        • pud

          Can’t possibly be a “sin” to murder imaginary “jesus” since your “god” designed the plan right?

          Do you treat your women according to the “law”?

          99 Leviticus 15:19 – On Tumah (unclean) of a menstruant woman.
          And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
          100 Leviticus 12:2 – On Tumah (unclean) of a woman after childbirth.
          Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child, then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.

          • Theodore A. Jones

            Like I said bubba you and Wellman are plugged into the same law, but Rom. 2:13 is not referencing the OT written code. You are correct I am not highly educated, but I am not stupid like you and Wellman are.

          • pud

            Ok..so let’s assume that you’re not stupid…a stretch but I’ll roll with it..

            Demonstrate to me the truth of your “claim” that a “hell” actually exists

            This is a very simple straight forward request and yet you can’t seem to manage it…why is that?

          • Matthew 22:37

            Well you and the Pastor are both wrong on hell. Hell has been mistaught since the early days of the Church since Jerome mistranslated the Vulgate and the Catholic Church let the Roman Emperors apply the wrong perspective to the Bible. God’s perspective is Hebraic not Roman.

            quote:The verbal pivot on which swings the question, Does the Bible teach the doctrine of Endless Punishment? Is the word Aión and its derivatives and reduplications.

            Go read this essay and stop teaching an erroneous eternal torment doctrine.

            John Wesley Hanson: Aion – The Greek Word Translated Everlasting (1875)

            You are the victim of a bad translation like the majority of Christians are.

          • Read Matthew 25:31-46. Verse 46 uses the same Greek word of eternal in eternal life and eternal punishment. Aionion is used in both cases so if eternal means only “for an age” so that the there is no eternal punishment in hell then there is no eternal life in heaven. Eternal life is only “for an age”. Jesus taught that each is the same duration. If eternal life is forever, then Jesus taught the eternal punishment is forever. This is a monstrous doctrine. How do finite “sins” committed in finite time by finite persons deserve eternal punishment?

        • Jack Wellman

          Gal 3 is a good chapter about trying to load down people with “laws” and is very foolish (Paul’s words), which by the way, Jesus fulfilled, since we can not in a million lifetimes. Works like lawkeeping do not justify us in any way (Eph 2:8-9). Can you keep the law Mr. Jones? Stumble in one point of the law,you break it all! I urge you to repent Mr. Jones of this Works-based salvation. God will not accept your attemtp at justification by keeping the law.

          • Theodore A. Jones

            “For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom. 2:13
            Bubba. That law Paul is referencing is a single word that was added into law regarding the sin of murdering Jesus Christ by crucifixion. Whosoever does not have the faith to obey that particular law fries. There are no exceptions.

          • Susan Jane Elohim


            Mr. Jones what rudeness. Please apologize to the Pastor right now.

            And get your doctrine perfect if you plan on pillorying people in public.

            Doctrine is difficult to understand.

            Look at you. Off on one key point and ready to turn the whole human race back over to the law and make Christ’s Cross of no effect.

            That Cross is efficacious that’s why God sent Jesus to the world. To be personally efficacious for everyone when the law could not be.

          • Theodore A. Jones

            The response to the Acts 2 message, as instructed, was to repent of the sin of premeditated murder.

          • Susan Jane Elohim

            He needs to read the following work:
            The Law of Moses, The Passover and the Lord’s Supper on the Associates for Scriptural Knowledge site

            He is trying to return people to a works based religion.

            Keeping the law is works.

            Christians are saved by grace not works.

            He is confused by why the Mosaic Law will be in operation in the Millenial Kingdom but that is for the spiritually immature who never accepted Jesus by faith to tutor them to accept him.

            Some did keep the law perfectly in ancient Israel but that did not change their heart or give them a new godly spirit.

            Only Christ can do that.

  • Ssenabulya Nickson

    Mr.Jack thanks for the teaching. This is saint nickson ssenabulya from Uganda. can you text me in inbox and we share more on the gosple. nicksonlya.sn@gmail.com that’s my mail. God bless you

    • Jack Wellman

      Hello friend. I will email you as I don’t use text. I have an old flip phone.

      • Matthew 22:37

        Pastor you need to get a smartphone. It is amazing the number of features it has. It has camera, GPS, a feature to store contacts, ability to surf the Net, alarm clock, etc.

        You can even get the temperature and weather forecast.

        As well as take selfies and use the phone as a mirror.

      • Ssenabulya Nickson

        that would be great, i would like to share

  • Matthew 22:37

    Dear Atheists who frequent this blog. Stop working for the devil making arguments to keep people mentally enslaved to sin.

    You should be rational enough to seek to know God and build a more accurate understanding of His nature than you currently hold.

    Stop letting the devil undermine your thought processes. That is what the devil likes to do.

    Turn around and seek a true knowledge of God’s nature as given in His Word and stop confusing Him with the devil.

    The devil is the author of confusion and he uses a lot of worldly ideas to keep people confused and not seeking to know God so they cannot establish a relationship with Him.

    I am not arguing any more. Arguing serves to delay unbelievers’ spiritual understanding so they continue to refuse to get their hearts right with God.

    So accept God at His Word. He is holy. Every sane person knows it is the devil who is unholy.

    Get your heart right with God. What would you let the devil drive you out of your God given mind?

    Have a blessed day! I am done arguing. Why argue when one can study God’s word if he has the self discipline. Seek out the good ethical teachers on God’s Word so you can become proficient at God’s knowledge yourself.

    It takes time to absorb everything so don’t waste your time arguing for the devil.

    God exists! He says He does.

    Hallelujah! Praise the Lord.

    Song of Moses

    • What evidence do you have that any “devil” exists? The concept of the devil is used by many Christians to justify their bad behaviour, instead of taking responsibility for their bad actions. “The devil made me do it”, is their excuse. What a copout!

    • Why would any atheist or agnostic argue for the devil? We believe that no devil exists. As for God, there is little or no convincing evidence that he/she/it exists. It seems that all you want to do is spout nonsense. Stop telling me that a non-existent being says he exist! You’ll be telling me that fairies, goblins and leprechauns exist next, won’t you? All you want to do is believe in fairy stories but the fairy stories you believe in are often very barbaric. Then you want to project your book of fairy stories onto atheists, agnostics and believers in other religions. Aren’t your beliefs sheer tripe?