Analytical, your latest return is no more factual or scripturally based than your previous ones. You are in serious jeopardy of defaulting  .

Prior to responding to the points you have raised, may I clearly state that you have in no way answered the simple question I put to you in my previous post. If it’s there in scripture, please show it.

Analytical wrote;
The crux of my position is not the 'pastor' title/office.  Rather, it is my disagreement with the plurality and parallel nature in which your model functions that makes everybody equal and in charge and doesn't make them accountable to any.  I cannot find any such type or pattern in the scriptures, anywhere.

My response;
Plurality is exactly what the Bible prescribes. Again, I challenge you to show from the scriptural narrative anywhere, time or place that elders are addressed or referenced individually (in a functional or operational sense).

One clear reason for this is abundantly clear when casting a glance over today’s religious landscape. The sleazy celebrity circuit & personality cults that predominate arise largely due to the focus on man in a hierarchical paradigm.

Plurality of Elders stops the focus resting on one person and also acts as a check against error or abuse. If a single person with sole authority falls into error/heresy, the whole flock are likely to follow. Debacles like the Rev. King Saga arise due to that very reason.

Analytical said;
I have made my position as plain as I could.  Call him whatever you want, there is a bishop/overseer/superintendent/minister-in-charge/Senior officer/pastor in a church ably assisted by elders/leaders/ministers and supported by deacons for the purpose of administering the flock over which the Lord has made them leaders.

My response;
Sir, your position could not be clearer. Unfortunately, your efforts to provide a scriptural foundation for it haven’t really gotten of the ground.

Analytical said;
The qualifications/criteria for the office is well spelt out and well discussed already in Timothy and Titus and in your post #53 above.  The same office the Lord addressed in His messages to the churches.

My response;
I can’t really argue with a nod to my input, but that in no way buttresses your premise, which is simply wrong. The office is for bishop/elder/presbyter/overseer etc, which are one and the same as I have severally explained by recourse to the scripture.

Who exactly did the Lord address? Was it the SAP or the OB? (You also wrong foot yourself here if you subscribe to the false “pastors are called elders are chosen” notion)

Analytical wrote;
The robustness and number required on the structure varies depending on the size and maturity of the church.  In a baby church, the pastor/teacher is the elder and deacon.  As the church grows in size and maturity and spreads, it calls for more structure to be put in place to carry and share the burden.  Hence the emergence of the deacons and more elders, to be put in place by the pastor (now bishop) overseeing the church.

My response;
Clear evidence of an organisational and hierarchical approach. Church in it’s primitive form is home-led community based. It just keeps replicating, not growing endlessly in size. Due to said approach, you mistake size/numbers for maturity. A typically wrong emphasis in much of todays badly structured church. The Bible gives no leave or makes any provision for an endlessly growing organisation. That is an organisational imperative. Hence Pope’s, Primates. Superintendants, Metropolitans GO’s and the like.

Analytical wrote;
This leads me to the unfinished business of apostles and others and how they fit in the NT church.

My response;
The business of Apostles is finished!
Ephesians 2:20 ~ having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone,

Analytical wrote;
Let me state briefly how it fits in in the contemporary.  It is still the same way it was in the early church.  The apostles and prophets lay the foundation.  They are what I refer to as the earth-moving equipment (or the bulldozers) in preparing a virgin land or a site for construction.  The evangelists are the harvesters or the rakers that proclaim the good news and bring in the souls.  The Pastors stay with the souls to feed them and nurture them to maturity like a good shepherd does.  The teachers break down the word and brings it down to the level of each member of the flock, baby to adult.  Some times pastoral and teaching grace combine in the same person.

My response;
The foundation is laid already. We are merely building on it. Your use of the word “construction” is both apt & ironic. As that is exactly what you are presenting here. A man-made construct with no foundation (pun intended  ) in scripture!

1 Corinthians 3:11 ~ For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Please see verses 10 & 12 also.

You omitted the OB (or “Presiding Bishop” as some religionists refer to it nowadays ).
Every believer proclaims the good news, and even those specifically gifted do not have to minister to large groups using costly (and relatively unproductive) crusade/program formats.

Elders as I have detailed severally shepherd (pastor) the flock. The pastoral is a function of eldership. The pastoral and teaching grace is often combined in the elder.

Analytical wrote;
The NT prohets are not to be confused with the OT prohets of old that primarily does foretelling and are sometimes called seer.  The NT prophets exhorts.  Each office have their peculiar giftings and unctions that make their functions effective as the Holy Spirit enables them.

My response;
Your first point here has already been stated. As for “NT Prophets exhort”, you are lunging at thin air here. Two quick passing shots as your hope of retrieving this match slowly slips away;

Hebrews 3:13 ~ but exhort one another daily, while it is called "Today," lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

1Peter 5:1 ~ The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed:

We are all called to exhort. Exhortation, edification and comfort are the whole basis of Christian fellowship. The Hoy Spirit gifts and enables all believers “severally as He wills”.

Analytical wrote;
The 1st category apostles- the original 12 apostles that were chosen by Jesus.  These have all died and are no more.  You cannot add to their number again.

The 2nd category apostles- like Paul, Barnabas, Apollos etc that are mostly itinerant. These plant churches and establish structures and raise the leadership.  We can also add Timothy, Titus to these as examples.

The 3rd category apostles- are those that establish the truth or re-establish a lost/forgotten truth of the word or sent for a particular mission, to a specific people
To the 2nd and 3rd categories, the Holy Spirit still gives men even in our contemporary days. To take the gospel to virgin lands, plant the churches and establish them, apostles are required.  They may not wear the tag, but they can still be identified.


or sphere of operation.  These are seen in their operation like Paul was the Apostle to the Gentles, John Apostle of Love etc.

My response;
You have retreated into making it up as you go along? One post it’s in, the next it’s out? I repeatedly stressed the Apostolic nature of T&T work earlier. You insisted they were OB’s. You are now backtracking and calling them Apostles?

Your 1st & 2nd Categorisations are needless. Paul was called & commissioned by the Lord. T&T were not Apostles per se, but the work they undertook was apostolic in nature. Again with your 3rd category you are ad-libbing like Jacko! Your are on dangerous ground when you somehow imply that some of the truth has not been established? No truth is lost or forgotten, just warped or ignored by deceivers. But the truth cannot be hid.

Pray give me an example of these latter-day apostles. As the apostolic carries with it a foundational authority, which truth or foundational precept has been revealed to us in this age that was not fully revealed to the early church? An apostolic mandate has to be writ large as the body has to accept apostles utterances as foundational. So an apostle cannot be incognito. Please think about these things sir.

I could go on and on. Even the religious colloquialisms you use betray your received tradition. Churches are not planted. Church is where believers gather/are. We don’t open branches. In your rush to codify you fail to see that even, gifts, functions, commissions and office could all be temporary and changing as the need arises.

I’m not really being exercised here. On second thoughts, don’t even think about getting into the ring with me  !

God bless

Pete

TV01:

Mrpataki;
How about a few cartwheels and back-flips during the toilet break !!!

I sense an ace (actually, 3 aces) !

God bless

Boris

I am still watching from the sidelines once I see an error, I will interject!

TV01:


4get_me;
Here is your opportunity to make a cogent argument, and one that’s thread-relevant. I’m sure you fully realise that no one would start a thread just to prove that the term “man of God” is not in the bible?

However, since you are grasping firmly to it having some sort of tangible form and application, please articulate in your own words ~ How this MOG concept works out in practical NTC. Is it an office/title/rank/position/ministry/calling? How does one worthy of or who aspires to be a MOG qualify? How do MOGS differ from non-MOGS? Or those who are not deemed qualified or worthy of MOGship ~ A short thesis with pertinent scriptural back-up would be greatly appreciated and edifying to all. Thanks.

I Tim. 6:11 >> But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.

Taking a closer look at the scripture goes to show what we as Christians also Men of God are to follow after. It is not a title, nor an office, calling, but what every True Born Again Christian should aspire to attain.

A MOG is expected to follow after the fruit of the Spirit. So if I aspire after the fruits of the Spirit, and I am called a MOG, I have no problem with.

You know sometimes I feel you don't read between the lines or are just too much in a haste to reply that you fail to understand my points or just simply being presumptious.

Our discussion has progressed beyond the first part of your latest submission and I won't be dragged back again lest we turn it to a race course.  However, I will respond briefly to some of the salient points.

One clear reason for this is abundantly clear when casting a glance over today’s religious landscape. The sleazy celebrity circuit & personality cults that predominate arise largely due to the focus on man in a hierarchical paradigm.

This didn't start today.  Even in the times of the early church it was there.  People can abuse anything.  That doesn't render that thing unscriptural or evil.

Plurality of Elders stops the focus resting on one person and also acts as a check against error or abuse. If a single person with sole authority falls into error/heresy, the whole flock are likely to follow. Debacles like the Rev. King Saga arise due to that very reason.

The same reason why new converts or novices should not be ordained.  A minister should be matured and seasoned.  The likes of Rev King are not new.  It was in the early church too.  He was never a christian!  It reminds me of Simon the sorcerer.

But to ride with you for a while, let's even assume plurality of elders may check against error and abuse, do you care to know that the early church in which such seems to operate don't have the bible (NT) as we have it, since the canon of scriptures had not been closed in their days.  Now we have the whole bible, to check against error and abuse.  There goes the plural roles of checking against error and abuse.

Elders are the ordained leaders or ministers that assist the shepherd of the assembly and he is part and parcel of them.  In a small assembly, the shepherd functions as the elder.  I have said so before.  Timothy and Titus functioned in this capacity when they stayed in Ephesus and Crete.  [The type in the OT when they have 71 elders, the 70 and Moses, as the shepherd.]

I can’t really argue with a nod to my input, but that in no way buttresses your premise, which is simply wrong. The office is for bishop/elder/presbyter/overseer etc, which are one and the same as I have severally explained by recourse to the scripture.

Who exactly did the Lord address? Was it the SAP or the OB? (You also wrong foot yourself here if you subscribe to the false “pastors are called elders are chosen” notion)

Elders are not offices, they are simply a group of leaders.  The bishop is an office.  Why did the scripture not say 'If any desires the office of an elder?'  Think about this.  The Lord addressed a specific person- the angel (minister) of the church.  It is definite and singular.  Check my former posts.

Clear evidence of an organisational and hierarchical approach. Church in it’s primitive form is home-led community based. It just keeps replicating, not growing endlessly in size. Due to said approach, you mistake size/numbers for maturity. A typically wrong emphasis in much of todays badly structured church. The Bible gives no leave or makes any provision for an endlessly growing organisation. That is an organisational imperative. Hence Pope’s, Primates. Superintendants, Metropolitans GO’s and the like.

What is this your fixation about organisation?  God is organised.  His creation is organised.  His heaven is organised.  He organised the angels in bands with arch-angels in charge of each (Michael and Gabriel are examples).  His universe is organised.  He organised the home and governance.  He gave Moses precise details and organization of the 'church' in the wilderness- there were priests and high priests.  Jesus was organised- He had 12 disciples and had a treasurer, even among the 12 he had 3 closest who had special encounters with Him!  Why do you think His church, His choice and most treasured bride should not be organised.  It beats me!

I mentioned growth in size and maturity and spreading.  How does that imply 'growing endlessly in size' or just 'size/numbers'?  I inferred no such thing.  The Lord added daily in size to the early church such as should be saved and they grew in size.  It was the growth that prompted them to ordain deacons.  They also grew in maturity and leaders were raised.  Then they spread by replicating, evangelising and missions.  The modern-day branches are simply mission stations!  The command is to 'Go into all the world. . .'

The superintendents, overseers are simply bishops.  Very bibical.  I have said earlier that no one should make merchandise of the people of God.  Bishops are not to be lovers of filthy lucres and greedy! Read their qualifications again.

Analytical wrote;
This leads me to the unfinished business of apostles and others and how they fit in the NT church.

My response;
The business of Apostles is finished!
Ephesians 2:20 ~ having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone,

I mean the unfinished business (discourse) between you and me.

The foundation is laid already. We are merely building on it. Your use of the word “construction” is both apt & ironic. As that is exactly what you are presenting here. A man-made construct with no foundation (pun intended  ) in scripture!

1 Corinthians 3:11 ~ For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Please see verses 10 & 12 also.

Please don't read meanings into my words.  The foundation of the gospel is laid already.  The scriptural canons are closed.  No one can lay them again.  The truth is forever established.

But how can they (the world) hear it except they go (and preach it) and how can they go except they be sent?  This is the work of the apostles.  By the way 'apostle' means the 'sent one', the one with the 'mission'.

You omitted the OB (or “Presiding Bishop” as some religionists refer to it nowadays  ).
Every believer proclaims the good news, and even those specifically gifted do not have to minister to large groups using costly (and relatively unproductive) crusade/program formats.

Every believer is to witness and proclaim the good news.  But many are called and few are chosen.  The Lord has set some in the church first as apostles, then prophets etc.  The Lord has so chosen to organise His army.  I don't know of any army that is not regimented and organised into battalions and brigades, each with it's officers.  It makes for effective warfare, so that a small army of say 100 soldiers can effectively rout out a whole village!  It also makes for effective administration.

There are many strategies to fight a war.  An army has to be skilled in them.  By all means, we must capture them.  Either in our home churches, person-to-person evangelism, costly programs/crusades, the radio/TV, or satellite. . .name them.  We are only taking the Word to the world.  Jesus ministered to individuals, small groups and crowds, we are only following in His steps!

We are all called to exhort. Exhortation, edification and comfort are the whole basis of Christian fellowship. The Hoy Spirit gifts and enables all believers “severally as He wills”.

But not without order or haphazardly.  He gave some as prophets and spiritual gifts of prophesying (Ephe 4, Romans 12, 1 Cor 12).

You have retreated into making it up as you go along? One post it’s in, the next it’s out? I repeatedly stressed the Apostolic nature of T&T work earlier. You insisted they were OB’s. You are now backtracking and calling them Apostles?

I did refer to them as apostles as well.  You may go over my posts again.  When they were moving with Paul in His missionary or apostolic journeys, they were operating as 'apostolos' the 'sent ones'.  But when they saw to the day to day administration of the churches in Ephesus and Crete, they were effectively operating as bishops (overseers).

Your 1st & 2nd Categorisations are needless. Paul was called & commissioned by the Lord. T&T were not Apostles per se, but the work they undertook was apostolic in nature. Again with your 3rd category you are ad-libbing like Jacko! Your are on dangerous ground when you somehow imply that some of the truth has not been established? No truth is lost or forgotten, just warped or ignored by deceivers. But the truth cannot be hid.

I did say the categorization was mine based on the my study of the operation, writings and callings and so open to modification.  The categories are not hierarchical but classifications.

The 1st and the 2nd are distinct.  When you say the 12, Paul is not one of them.  They will rule each tribe of Israel in the millenium reign.  That is not to say he is less than them or not commsioned by the Lord.  In fact, every one genuinely called into ministry is called by the Lord and certainly apostles are.

The two T's and others like Barnabas, Silas had apostolic callings, hence their inclusion.  I do not infer that some truths are not yet established in that sense.  For example, it took Martin Luther in the Reformation to re-affirm some truths already established in the Word about justification by faith.  He was on a mission.  He qualifies as an apostle.  Consider the dark ages he lived in.  Thank God for using him.  Others like John Knox, John Wesley, Smith Wigglesworth fall into this category.

Churches are not planted. Church is where believers gather/are. We don’t open branches. In your rush to codify you fail to see that even, gifts, functions, commissions and office could all be temporary and changing as the need arises.

That is a metaphor you fail to understand there.  Okay churches are established.  If you go rigidly by the meaning of church (ekklesia), then it is not even 'where'[b][/b] ie place.  So you miss it too.  The church is the believer, the called-out, the saved.  By extension, it is the body, the assembly, which you can establish.  I have already addressed branches simply as mission stations above.  They are in effect church on their own.

Yes commisions and office could change as need arises.  Examples are the two T's  who were pastoral and apostolic.  Some start as evangelists and later apostles.  For example the late Benson Idahosa (Nigeria) started out as evangelist but operated as an apostle later.  The Holy Spirit equip as He deems fit.

[Right now I'm considering Paul Crouch of TBN as apostolic, given the nature of the commision he is operating and the sphere]

TV01, I guess the tournament is over!

mrpataki:

I Tim. 6:11 >> But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.

Taking a closer look at the scripture goes to show what we as Christians also Men of God are to follow after. It is not a title, nor an office, calling, but what every True Born Again Christian should aspire to attain.

A MOG is expected to follow after the fruit of the Spirit. So if I aspire after the fruits of the Spirit, and I am called a MOG, I have no problem with.

You have (probably unwittingly) shown just how much a nonsense the usage of the term "man of God" has become in much of contemporary Christianity.

The term MOG is used to signify something (usually a higher/calling/station/authority/anointing). It has a specific application. Not everyone is lauded as a MOG.

You have quite clearly pointed out that a MOG is supposed to aspire to the fruit of the Holy Spirit. But sir, that is the remit of every believer, so inserting a distinction by calling a select number MOG's cannot be biblical, as those not aspiring to the fruit hardly qualify as Christinas and if all are then everyone is a MOG. QED

Go back to your seat in the stands as I polish off your buddy Analytical

God bless

Analytical,

As ever, you have no recourse to scripture, unsurprising really as you are merely regurgitating wholesale notions that cannot be found in it.

If my position is wrong, at least I have carefully referenced it by indicating supporting scripture. If you would have me adjust my position to be in line or more inclined towards yours, I would expect you to do the same.

You keep skipping the very simple questions posed and try to sweep away the scriptural facts under an avalanche of rhetoric. Please answer the question/s as posed.

I note your latest attempt to overlay wholesale OT precepts into NTC.
It’s an old ploy and it won’t work. The NT is both complete, and replete with instruction and examples of the church’ proper functioning structure and offices.

There was no celebrity circuit in the early church. Any attempt to exalt them was sternly resisted by the apostles. Peters calling himself a “fellow elder” demonstrates the leveling that true fellowship in Christ engenders.

To compare Rev King to Simon is just wrong. And to further say that He was never a Christian is not your call. Many so called Christian leaders fall. Truth is, maybe some of them were never Christians, but it is equally likely that some fell into error and others departed from the faith, but not the church.

Pride is not the preserve of the novice. Anyone can succumb to it and being venerated by your fellow man will only increase the likelihood of it happening. Even Paul had a thorn to keep him humble.

Trying to imply that the completed canon obviates the need for plurality of elders is wrong.  First it’s that very canon that prescribes such. Second, the exaltation of men means some introduce extra-biblical precepts, which are swallowed wholesale by followers who don’t look into the bible in the way they should. Why? Because their gaze is on the MOG. A vicious circle  .

I have nothing against organization. The church is indeed organized, but along simple lines. And please don’t try and cloud matters by resorting to semantics. Yes, people are sent out in this day and age, to spread the gospel and start church, but that does not make them Apostles in a foundational sense.

You keep insisting on offices & positions that scripture does not attest to and then resort to the same scripture to validate your error. It simply cannot work. I have shown that Bishop = Elder, kindly show otherwise. I have demonstrated that Elder = Pastor/al, please show differently.

I have stressed that doctrine & structure go hand in hand. Faults in one often lead to error in the other. The very structure of many of today’s churches lead to this veneration of men (and the cursed “trust in flesh”) which the correct structuring of church would avert.

Martin Luther had truth revealed to him regards faith/works. The truth came because he sought it. I sought God, and something I saw clearly was that “tithing” was not for NT Christians. I share this with anyone that cares to listen or wants to hear. It doesn’t make me an Apostle in the mould of Paul or Peter. It just makes me a believer sharing his walk. What ML received was not a new precept it was something that had previously been twisted or obscured.

Not everyone needed to know it and not everyone has accepted it. Likewise tithing, it was never a tradition in some denominations, so what to me was revelation was already knowledge to them. And even now, many who practice it refuse to abandon it on hearing the truth. And just like the faith/works understanding, many look to MOG’s for confirmation instead of to the Word.

You have used all the ploys in the book. Feigning injury, time-wasting, excessive toilet breaks and even praying for rain interruptions. It will avail you nothing.

I am more than happy to continue this match, but on a point by point basis. This will prevent you hiding under a torrent of words and enable us to discuss this in detail.

I have asked you a question, please respond to that directly. Of course I am also willing to field any specific posers you may have

You do realise that whatever the duration of this match your crushing defeat is inevitable? 

God bless

Bjorn

TV01,
One would suppose that the present day church structure, which mirrors the vatican structure in some respects is born out of imitation of the example set forth by Christ himself.

-Christ is the head of the body. The 'sole authority pastor' if you may.
-He had Peter, James and John as the 'elders, pastors or deacons'
-Then He had the 12, who may be seen as ministers.
-He also had the 70 and 120, who can be seen as evangelists.
-Finally the 5000 may be seen as the congregation, who need to be fed physically and spiritually.

So without going into what Paul, Peter and James interpreted or directed a certain church, one may look unto the examples left by Christ himself.

Your serve.

I am really enjoying the atmosphere in which this debate is being conducted. wish all debates on nairaland could go like this. Thumbs up to TV01 and Analytical (also Mrpataki and 4get_me). And the tennis baseline of the debate keeps everything calm (after all its just a game). Luv u guys.

Grouppoint:

One would suppose that the present day church structure, which mirrors the vatican structure in some respects is born out of imitation of the example set forth by Christ himself.

Would one? WHat is wrong with the clear leading of scripture? The Lord specified the church blueprint through His Apostles (Cornerstone & foundation). He never left an example of a "church". Furthermore, I don't think He intended His actions to be worked into the church structure, but rather into individual walks.

The Vatican structure and the whole Pope thing is not attested too by scripture. If by God's grace we progress the tournament, we shall touch on the outworking of structural doctrine on day to day Christian life.

Grouppoint:

-Christ is the head of the body. The 'sole authority pastor' if you may.
-He had Peter, James and John as the 'elders, pastors or deacons'
-Then He had the 12, who may be seen as ministers.
-He also had the 70 and 120, who can be seen as evangelists.
-Finally the 5000 may be seen as the congregation, who need to be fed physically and spiritually.

I don't deny anyone the right to interprete things as they will. I only ask that if they profess Christianity, that they show it in relation to the scripture. Point in question, apart from your first point here, I see none of what you have postulated. It also demonstrates how easy it is to "force-fit" anything and claim biblical validity.

Grouppoint:

So without going into what Paul, Peter and James interpreted or directed a certain church, one may look unto the examples left by Christ himself.

One may, but do all things according to the pattern shown (Hebrews 8:5)

Grouppoint:

Your serve.

Actually, I think it's your second serve. The weakness off your first meant it failed to clear the net !

lafile:

I am really enjoying the atmosphere in which this debate is being conducted. wish all debates on nairaland could go like this. Thumbs up to TV01 and Analytical (also Mrpataki and 4get_me). And the tennis baseline of the debate keeps everything calm (after all its just a game). Love u guys.

I love God, I love His Word. I could do this all day. The tennis metaphor is apt, as it really is like play (fun) to me. Thanks all for playing in a gracious spirit. Otherwise I'm taking my ball and going home  !

God bless

Mac

Grouppoint, welcome.

I have used the example of Christ and also the focus of His messages to the 7 churches in Asia directed to the minister/pastor in charge of each church and not to the elders, as TV01 would have us accept.

The event in Revelation happened about some 60 years after the birth of the church, so certainly Christ was addressing some mature churches and not baby churches.

He who has ears, let him hear. . .

Lafile

Thanks and love you too.  A christian carries Christ wherever he goes, even if anonymous.  Feel free to contribute.

Bless you all.

Analytical:

I have used the example of Christ and also the focus of His messages to the 7 churches in Asia directed to the minister/pastor in charge of each church and not to the elders, as TV01 would have us accept.

The Lord sent messages to 7 individual churches by His angel/messenger. The messages were sent to the whole body. Not to digress, those letters were for all the believers. Your relentless insistence that it was sent via a SAP is nothing more than a wilful implication. I never said or implied it was sent via the elders. It was equally addressed to them along with all believers.

While I'm heres, let me nail another plank.

Philippians 1:1 ~ Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

If indeed, there is an overseeing/presiding bishop for each region and bishop =/= elder, why does Paul adress the Bishops in plural? Surely there would be only one OB in Philippi? Like in Ephesus & Crete (as you claim)? Does'nt it seem odd? Additionally, why would he address the bishops & deacons, and not the SAP(S) and elders?

^{Analytical working tirelessly but fruitlessly to return these thunderous but pin-point returns from TV01. It's only a matter of time now  !}

God bless

Rod

TV01,

As an all-court action player, I don't shirk from serve and volley players like you.  Your attempts at selective replies of my points informed my elaborate backhand swings from the baseline and I can see they are making you scamper all over, but your footwork is failing you. . .

You had left out directly answering some of my posers like the double honour to the elders who labour well, the person Christ addressed His message to the church to in Revelation etc, to which I have more than done justice.  Your own posers I have answered, but your romance with elders won't allow you to let go.  The answers are plain in all the references we've been examining since.

I note your latest attempt to overlay wholesale OT precepts into NTC.
It’s an old ploy and it won’t work. The NT is both complete, and replete with instruction and examples of the church’ proper functioning structure and offices.

Tell me why it won't work.  The pattern is the same.  The type in th OT merely finds fulfilment in the substance in the NT.  All scripture is given by inspiration . . .  Show me a type that doesn't have it's fulfilment in NT?  The NT is not bible, the whole is!  The NT is silent about many things that are in the pattern in the OT (example is the singers and choir) and are not abolished.

There was no celebrity circuit in the early church. Any attempt to exalt them was sternly resisted by the apostles. Peters calling himself a “fellow elder” demonstrates the leveling that true fellowship in Christ engenders.

As usual, you fail to understand my point here.  We were in agreement there.  I condemned it as well.  No celebrity circuit.  Only service.

To compare Rev King to Simon is just wrong. And to further say that He was never a Christian is not your call. Many so called Christian leaders fall. Truth is, maybe some of them were never Christians, but it is equally likely that some fell into error and others departed from the faith, but not the church.

How is it wrong?  Show me the fruit in him that shows he is christian?  By their fruits, you shall know them.  How can someone who says he is Jesus be a christian.  Someone who will banish somebody to his bed to satisfy his sexual urge as punishment?  No, he is not one.  He didn't fall into error, he was never one.

I have nothing against organization. The church is indeed organized, but along simple lines. And please don’t try and cloud matters by resorting to semantics.

I have shown how everything in God's creation follows the pattern, except this your model of no authority.

Yes, people are sent out in this day and age, to spread the gospel and start church, but that does not make them Apostles in a foundational sense.

You are focusing on just one aspect of the functions and operations of an apostle.  Okay, tell me which foundation were laid by Thomas Didymus, Nathaniel, Andrew, etc who are all apostles and part of the twelve?  If you follow your logic of only foundational you will miss a whole bunch of what they were sent to do.

They apostles were not meant to sit down in Jerusalem, they were to start from there, to Judea, to Samaria and to all the uttermost part of the earth.  They were sent on missions.  Part of the functions include church planting/establishment and missions.  In this sense some missionaries' work is apostolic.

Maybe I should ask you to highlight for us how to take the gospel to a virgin land (never heard the gospel) and establish the church and see it to maturity, according to your model, since all you require is elders and deacons.

Martin Luther had truth revealed to him regards faith/works. The truth came because he sought it. I sought God, and something I saw clearly was that “tithing” was not for NT Christians. I share this with anyone that cares to listen or wants to hear. It doesn’t make me an Apostle in the mould of Paul or Peter. It just makes me a believer sharing his walk. What ML received was not a new precept it was something that had previously been twisted or obscured.

Of course, it is a natural corollary from your model that tithing will be outlawed.  With no pastor, no elders on payroll, it only follows that you have no need for it, and maybe offering too. [May we not drag this discussion towards that!]

Every apostle doen't have to be in the mould of Peter and Paul.  The other apsotles (Thomas & co) I mentioned above, to me were not in the mould of Peter & Paul.

Not everyone needed to know it and not everyone has accepted it.

Not everyone accepted Paul's apostleship too in his day.  That was why he had to keep defending it.  Thank God for him.  Not everone wears the title, but like I said before, they can be identified.

You have used all the ploys in the book. Feigning injury, time-wasting, excessive toilet breaks and even praying for rain interruptions. It will avail you nothing.

I have done no such thing (except I went offline).  My movement on court has forced you to adjourn the match more than once, calling for balls when play is still on, taking over the work of the umpire, switching game to boxing when it becomes too hot, all tactics of poorly coached player. . . Unfortunately the umpire (bari_kade) has disappeared!

The Lord sent messages to 7 individual churches by His angel/messenger. The messages were sent to the whole body. Not to digress, those letters were for all the believers. Your relentless insistence that it was sent via a SAP is nothing more than a wilful implication. I never said or implied it was sent via the elders. It was equally addressed to them along with all believers.

We have been through this before. The return fails to scale the net as usual. This is unforced error! You may want to go over Revelation 1-3 again, this time more openly. To the whole body by implication, but to specific 7 churches through John the Apostles (who received the vision) to the pastor of each church. [By the way there were many other churches aside these ones then].

Philippians 1:1 ~ Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

If indeed, there is an overseeing/presiding bishop for each region and bishop =/= elder, why does Paul adress the Bishops in plural? Surely there would be only one OB in Philippi? Like in Ephesus & Crete (as you claim)? Does'nt it seem odd? Why would he address the bishops & deacons, and not the SAP(S) and elders?

Then you fail to see my point. The T's raise others like themselves in every cities in their domain. If you see elders as ordained leaders, it all falls into place. The bishops are part of the leadership. The T's were also to ordain bishops (as part of and supervising the other leaders) to oversee the ever-expanding work [That is why he wrote if any desires the office of the bishop. . .] But because you see elders as offices on their own, it becomes too dificult to grasp. There is not just one church in most of these regions. [Records have it Timothy stayed up to 15 years at Ephesus.]

Not so hard to return, you see. That was a smash. . .

And the Grand Slam winner is . . . Analytical, sorry, The Shepherd and Bishop of our souls!!!!!!!!

TV01:

You have (probably unwittingly) shown just how much a nonsense the usage of the term "man of God" has become in much of contemporary Christianity.

The term MOG is used to signify something (usually a higher/calling/station/authority/anointing). It has a specific application. Not everyone is lauded as a MOG.

You have quite clearly pointed out that a MOG is supposed to aspire to the fruit of the Holy Spirit. But sir, that is the remit of every believer, so inserting a distinction by calling a select number MOG's cannot be biblical, as those not aspiring to the fruit hardly qualify as Christinas and if all are then everyone is a MOG. QED

Go back to your seat in the stands as I polish off your buddy Analytical

God bless

Yet another weak serve of yours TV01.
When the scriptures made note of the verse Making your calling and election sure, it was not talking about a selection sir!

I still insist if you aspire for the fruits of the spirit, you are entitled to be called a MOG.

Therefore, if all born again christians aspire for the fruits of the Spirit, they are qualified to be called MOG

Now again your weak serve

Just default if you've had enough  ;D1

Double honour;
Goes to those “elders” who rule (lead by example, offer exemplary service) well and especially those who labour in the Word and doctrine. Quite simple really, eldership would be in addition to family and work commitments (no salaried workers). The extra commitment taken to study and share should be acknowledged (and not just with lipservice, but by othe means/resources at one's disposal). Further evidence that they are not recompensed monetarily for their efforts.

The Lord addresses;
The whole of the church. Elders, deacons, young old, male female. Or are you suggesting your “leader” caste have no need of this message/instruction? Funny given the way many of these “MOGS “succumb to all types of questionable (read sinful) practice.

And you miss the import of the 7 regions addressed. The message was to all churches through all time and in every place. Even the 7 who were sent messages should take heed of all.

Not everything in OT times is carried over into NT practice. Notable amongst these is temples, a mediatory priesthood (MOGgery), physical sacrifices, holy days, human kings (MOGgery). And on and on!

By their fruits? Okay, please answer this. After 3 years of unrepentant homosexual behaviour and indulgence in illicit drugs, was Ted Haggard ever a Christian? Was he a fallen one, or had he departed from the faith?

Again emphasise, if people did not subscribe to the SAP model it would have been much harder for Rev King to abuse his followers. Falsely spiritualising authority leads to a form of bondage, which people find it hard to be delivered from. Evidence the very recent saga at Victory church here in London.

There is structure in church. Overall authority is the Lords. This is devolved in a church setting to elders.

Church in a Virgin Land;
Again you miss the essence of church. Probably because you have confused it’s very nature. In the book of Acts, the church spread organically as believers were “scattered”. There was no set pattern. As people moved the church spread. A home-led, community-based church will spread through society. The Ethiopian eunuch, what would have happened to him on his return? The woman by the well, to whom did she first witness?

If mature believers happen on to virgin territory they witness to unbelievers, and teach/pastor any converts. They will use the pattern already laid out and as the Bible clearly describes T&T doing. The focus being on raising up suitably qualified men to function as elders/deacons in the local church. When that is done, they either remain and function as elders (Like Peter and the other apostles who remained in Jerusalem), return or move on.

Tithing;
Is not outlawed per se. But it is redundant as an applicable command to NTC. Your organisational approach sees a management structure and a payroll! That’s why your game lacks inventiveness and creativity  . A rigid org/hier approach. That is not NTC. Offerign is just that. Offered from the heart. There’s a thread for tithing already. I’ll meet you there if you wish. But be warned, it’s boxing and I’m warmed up, gloved up and ready to rumble  .

Peoples acceptance of Pauls is neither here nor there. The Bible testifies to his calling as a “foundational apostle”. Others of his type in this age would suggest omissions in scripture.

You have still failed to provide a biblical brief for the SAP or elder. How counter intuitive is it to say that only the most junior and the most hands-off roles are outlined, but the requirements and outline for those who run the day-to-day affairs (in your construct) were omitted?

When one draws together the instructions and outlines, the requirements and charges addressed in Acts, the pastoral epistles and other NT letters, one receives a unified whole for the elders mandate. Trying to force it to read hierarchy means you have more than the indicated functions and they all (except deacons) lacks fullness. The missing parts are then forcefully imputed by those who adopt this approach, and  exactly as they please. A bishop is an overseer, elders oversee. A pastor is a shepherd, elders shepherd.

I can see that fatigue is setting in and the game is absolutely beyond your reach.

A plucky effort, but nobody rerally expects much from lower ranking players  . Talking of which, where is the unseeded mrpataki?

God bless

Ivan

mrpataki:

Yet another weak serve of yours TV01.
When the scriptures made note of the verse Making your calling and election sure, it was not talking about a selection sir!

I still insist if you aspire for the fruits of the spirit, you are entitled to be called a MOG.

Therefore, if all born again christians aspire for the fruits of the Spirit, they are qualified to be called MOG

Now again your weak serve

Ah, there you are.

Producing spiritual fruit is the call of all Christians. If all Christians are MOGS, then it cannot be applied to a certain elevated few. Thanks for making my point

Even when you play against yourself, you still take a beating .

God bless

TV01:

Ah, there you are.

Producing spiritual fruit is the call of all Christians. If all Christians are MOGS, then it cannot be applied to a certain elevated few. Thanks for making my point

Even when you play against yourself, you still take a beating .

God bless

@ MOG TV01,

No scriptures to back your serve to me?

mrpataki:

@ MOG TV01,

No scriptures to back your serve to me?

None required, I resorted to plain common sense .

@TV01, you said
"Plurality is exactly what the Bible prescribes. Plurality of Elders stops the focus resting on one person and also acts as a check against error or abuse. If a single person with sole authority falls into error/heresy, the whole flock are likely to follow. Debacles like the Rev. King Saga arise due to that very reason. "

Would you say that people like Peter, Paul, James and John were not 'Sole Authority Pastors' in their respective fields/regions/churches?
James was clearly regarded as the leader of the Jerusalem Church.
Pauline epistles rarely seemed like Paul sought the opinion of a fellow elder or deacon. Scripture shows that Paul it was who dished out the instructions to these other Bishops. Why?
The same cuts across when you read James, or John.

Furthermore, the dark events which occurred in the history of the church: e.g. The spanish inquisition, could hardly be blamed on a 'sole authority papacy'. You obviously are aware of the influence that cardinals weild even today.
Hence whether there is a celebrity pastor up there or a group of celebrity elders, the focus should be on God rather than Man/Men.

Your serve,

Grouppoint:

Would you say that people like Peter, Paul, James and John were not 'Sole Authority Pastors' in their respective fields/regions/churches?

That is exactly what I would say and I don't believe the Bible suggests otherwise. For starters, Peter & James were both at Jerusalem. So to suggests they were at once SAP's at the same time and place is contrary to your own thesis.

Grouppoint:

James was clearly regarded as the leader of the Jerusalem Church.

He was highly regarded certainly. That would be as a consequence of the maturity and wisdom he possesed. There was nothing clearly suggesting He was a SAP. That is nothing but supposition.

Grouppoint:

Pauline epistles rarely seemed like Paul sought the opinion of a fellow elder or deacon. Scripture shows that Paul it was who dished out the instructions to these other Bishops. Why?
The same cuts across when you read James, or John.

Please read Galatians chapter 2. Although Paul had a unique commission received directly from the Lord, he still conferred with the other Apostles. And withstood them (not commanded or deferred mind) when they erred.

Who was the leader of the Apostles?

Grouppoint:

Furthermore, the dark events which occurred in the history of the church: e.g. The spanish inquisition, could hardly be blamed on a 'sole authority papacy'. You obviously are aware of the influence that cardinals weild even today.
Hence whether there is a celebrity pastor up there or a group of celebrity elders, the focus should be on God rather than Man/Men.

Please don't confuse church history with Roman Catholic history. The bogus structure of RC and the power that went with it facilitated the evil that took place. Rev king is just a smaller scale occurence. In lots of churches with such set-ups & structure, there are similar things happening. Maybe not as blatant and in some ways more benign, but wrong none the less. Enforced tithing and false authority/submission precepts are basic examples.

Grouppoint:

Your serve,

Double fault. Try again  !

God bless

so this is what it has come to eh? TV, I thought you were waiting for me to ride shot gun with u on this topic. na wa.
it is ok. you already have 4 players and it seems like you are doing ok on this set.

Tv01,

Your returns are becoming too feeble, sure signs of fatigue. . .

Goes to those “elders” who rule (lead by example, offer exemplary service) well and especially those who labour in the Word and doctrine. Quite simple really, eldership would be in addition to family and work commitments (no salaried workers). The extra commitment taken to study and share should be acknowledged (and not just with lipservice, but by othe means/resources at one's disposal). Further evidence that they are not recompensed monetarily for their efforts.

Pray, tell us how! What are those means/resources if not monetary, provisions and promotion? Can't you see the immediate connection to labourers and his wages in the following verses? See it here in black and white:

1 Tim. 5
17 The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.

18 For the Scripture says, “YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”

The whole of the church. Elders, deacons, young old, male female. Or are you suggesting your “leader” caste have no need of this message/instruction? Funny given the way many of these “MOGS “succumb to all types of questionable (read sinful) practice.

And you miss the import of the 7 regions addressed. The message was to all churches through all time and in every place. Even the 7 who were sent messages should take heed of all.

The messages are for the 7 churches in particular (He told John to make sure it gets to them) and the whole church (in all ages) in general.

Not everything in OT times is carried over into NT practice. Notable amongst these is temples, a mediatory priesthood (MOGgery), physical sacrifices, holy days, human kings (MOGgery). And on and on!

I did not suggest otherwise. We agree on many things, you know! By your MOGery I guess you mean those who have made themselves God and not those ministers of God serving God in sincerity and humility.

By their fruits? Okay, please answer this. After 3 years of unrepentant homosexual behaviour and indulgence in illicit drugs, was Ted Haggard ever a Christian? Was he a fallen one, or had he departed from the faith?

Ted started well, but has ended badly. Demas (and some others) started well and ended badly too in scriptures.

Church in a Virgin Land;

The church spread organically as people moved. It also spreads as missionaries (another synonym for apostles) take it to virgin fiels in Asia, Europe etc

As for Peter, he did not always remain in Jerusalem. His epistle was written from Rome (I don't infer as a Pope!)

As for James, this Apostle James is not the James of the 12 Apostles, mind you. This James was the brother of Jesus! So he too became apostle evidently.

Part of the work of apostles is missionary and church planting. We still have them today!

Bless you all.

James was clearly the leader of the Church. This was displayed clearly in the Jerusalem conference. During which Peter, Paul and Barnabas were present also.
James made a ruling, as in a final decision concerning circumcision.
Acts 15:19-20
It is my Judgement,

Note the Greek word used by James here is krino, a term meaning "I decide", "I rule", "I judge" and not "I advise" or "I recommend".

I reffered to Peter as a sole authority, not of a specific church per se. I reffered to him as an apostle or evangelist, in view of passages in acts which describe his speeches to the jews and conversion of 3,000 in one day. He did not seem to confer with the other diciples before making those speeches.

You would also notice that Paul 'withstood' Peter,  because Peter was being hypocritical in the presence of emmissaries of his church leader, James.


- Roger Federer

trini_girl:

so this is what it has come to eh? TV, I thought you were waiting for me to ride shot gun with u on this topic. na wa.
it is ok. you already have 4 players and it seems like you are doing ok on this set.

That's not to say I wouldn't appreciate the company and the support !

Hi Analytical,

As ever, you reveal glaring technical gaps in your all-round game. At this level they will be cruelly exposed. Don’t worry, you will surely emerge as a better player .

First a discussion on to pay/not to pay warrants a thread in it’s own right. However, it ties in with the whole authority/structure thing so I’ll start to answer here.

1 Tim. 5
17 The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.

18 For the Scripture says, “YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”

I repost your scriptural references above. The reference to wages is direct from Luke 10:7. Here you can see that sustenance is to provided for those who devote their lives to “spreading the gospel”. As you can see they were not paid in cash, it was food and board. I have made this distinction before on this thread. Such itinerant ministers can and should be catered for, even if it means a wage. But in a local congregation, there is no requirement for paid ministers. If ministers receive money it is for the same reason that any member of the congregation receives money. They have a physical need that money can answer to. This statement reflects that. As they devote time to feeding the flock, if the flock can devote resources to them “as they have need”, they should do so. It can be anything, from baby-sitting to hosting them. It can be blessing them with money. But it does not speak to a church payroll. If you wish I can further enunciate from the scriptural narrative.

Analytical wrote;
Ted started well, but has ended badly. Demas (and some others) started well and ended badly too in scriptures.

My response;
You totally ignored the nuance of my questions. And how are you sure it’s the end for Ted?

Analytical wrote;
The church spread organically as people moved. It also spreads as missionaries (another synonym for apostles) take it to virgin fiels in Asia, Europe etc

As for Peter, he did not always remain in Jerusalem. His epistle was written from Rome (I don't infer as a Pope!)

As for James, this Apostle James is not the James of the 12 Apostles, mind you. This James was the brother of Jesus! So he too became apostle evidently.

Part of the work of apostles is missionary and church planting. We still have them today!

My response;
Agreed the church spreads and grows organically.

If we consider the work of apostles to be foundational and/or constructional, you may have some semblance of a point. But only if we understand that the foundational is no more. But even that semblance of a point is disputed (net court!), if one considers the following;

Acts 8:4 ~ Therefore those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the word.

Acts 11:9 ~ Now those who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to no one but the Jews only.

Wherever people went, they took the gospel. Church was started. Does that make them all apostles?

If the eunuch Philip witnessed to started church back in Ethiopia (which incidentally claims to have the oldest Coptic tradition), would that make either of them apostles?

Listen to me clearly. Am I saying God cannot move in the Apostolic or Prophetic (a la Isaiah et al)? No I am not. God is sovereign. He does as He wills. And I say Hallelujah to that. But the pattern we see in NTC is a devolution of sorts. Witnessed by the Spirit filled/led life, priesthood and anointing of every believer. There is no caste-system or multi-layered hierarchy.

Peter was not itinerant in the manner Paul was (also, he was sent primarily to the Jews, whilst Pauls remit was primarily to the Gentiles). He made some trips and was at times sent for (Lydda etc). That was no doubt to give Apostolic oversight to believers in a fledgling church without a canon to refer to. But he was based at Jerusalem. His family and work where there.

James was no more than an elder. Respected for his wisdom, true. Very mature and of sound counsel, certainly. But he was still only an elder.

A decent effort, but to my mind, your case is actually weakening.

I have a proposal for you. I would like us to illustrate our different propositions, or our view of the others stance, so we can progress the discussion by reviewing the practical outworking.

What do you say/think about this.

God bless

Grouppoint:

James was clearly the leader of the Church. This was displayed clearly in the Jerusalem conference. During which Peter, Paul and Barnabas were present also.
James made a ruling, as in a final decision concerning circumcision.
Acts 15:19-20
It is my Judgement,

Note the Greek word used by James here is krino, a term meaning "I decide", "I rule", "I judge" and not "I advise" or "I recommend".

I reffered to Peter as a sole authority, not of a specific church per se. I reffered to him as an apostle or evangelist, in view of passages in acts which describe his speeches to the jews and conversion of 3,000 in one day. He did not seem to confer with the other diciples before making those speeches.

You would also notice that Paul 'withstood' Peter,  because Peter was being hypocritical in the presence of emmissaries of his church leader, James.


- Roger Federer

~ James was not the leader of the Church in Jerusalem. Please show it clearly it from Scripture.

~ James made a sound judgment call (not a binding ruling) and all assembled agreed to it.

~ I’m not sure what you are saying about Peter?

~ Yes, Paul withstood Peter. What as? his junior? senior? equal?

~ If James was the SAP, surely Paul should have referred it to him and he should have done it?

~ Who was the SAP over Paul?

~ When Paul and Barnabas had a difference in Acts 15:36, why didn’t one use his SAP?

Rafael Nadal

TV01, I'm cool.

Not all church leaders/elders are full time ministers.  Those that are should be the responsibility of the churches.  They should be supported in everyway possible by the church (wages and other provisions) so as to concentrate on their duty.  Even those that are not should still be partaker of the carnal provisions since they provide spiritually for the flock.  This is the prescription of the scriptures.

You totally ignored the nuance of my questions. And how are you sure it’s the end for Ted?

I don't wish it to be the end.  The church should pray for the leaders.  The Lord is merciful.  If he repents, He is ready to accept him back.  But what a casualty he has been on the warfront!

Wherever people went, they took the gospel. Church was started. Does that make them all apostles?

If the eunuch Philip witnessed to started church back in Ethiopia (which incidentally claims to have the oldest Coptic tradition), would that make either of them apostles?

No, they are not all apostles.  Every believer has the duty to witness.  But some are specially gifted and are called to be evangelists.  Philip was one.  Likewise, the Lord calls apostles and commisions them and equip them for that purpose.

Listen to me clearly. Am I saying God cannot move in the Apostolic or Prophetic (a la Isaiah et al)? No I am not. God is sovereign. He does as He wills. And I say Hallelujah to that.

Thank God we are getting these things sorted out.  So it's agreed that God still calls apostles and prophets in our days.  Halleluyah to that too!

There is no caste-system or multi-layered hierarchy.

I don't support the 'caste-system' of 'holier-than-thou' and 'I-am-not-accountable-to-anybody' too.  Every steward will give accounts of his stewardship to the Owner.  It is not to say there are no people given authority as ministers of our God.

James was no more than an elder. Respected for his wisdom, true. Very mature and of sound counsel, certainly. But he was still only an elder.

An elder that seems to have the final say, after a thorough deliberation of the matters by the others.  Not too far if we call him the leader of the Jerusalem church. This is further implied in Acts 21 when Paul took the offerings from the churches to the christians in Jerusalem:

Acts 21:
17 After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.

18 And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.

19 After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

I have a proposal for you. I would like us to illustrate our different propositions, or our view of the others stance, so we can progress the discussion by reviewing the practical outworking.

Okay.

Love you.

Analytical:

Not all church leaders/elders are full time ministers. Those that are should be the responsibility of the churches. They should be supported in everyway possible by the church (wages and other provisions) so as to concentrate on their duty. Even those that are not should still be partaker of the carnal provisions since they provide spiritually for the flock. This is the prescription of the scriptures.

I see no biblical warrant for this full or part time split. Christian ministry is part of everyday life. A mindset and a lifestyle. In a church setting, ministry is only during the gathering. Outside, it's in everyday fellowship and as a response to individual need. Anyone mature or well-resourced enough can attend to need.

Analytical:

Thank God we are getting these things sorted out. So it's agreed that God still calls apostles and prophets in our days. Halleluyah to that too!

I didn't say that in the sense you are implying it. Please don't knowingly mis-quote or mis-ascribe things to me.

Analytical:

I don't support the 'caste-system' of 'holier-than-thou' and 'I-am-not-accountable-to-anybody' too. Every steward will give accounts of his stewardship to the Owner. It is not to say there are no people given authority as ministers of our God.

I never said I-am-not-accountable-to anybody", my point is that church authority is devolved into a plurality of elders.

Let me ask a few questions;
1. Who does the SAP report too?
2. Who does the OB/PB report too?
3. And so on and so forth?

Analytical:

An elder that seems to have the final say, after a thorough deliberation of the matters by the others. Not too far if we call him the leader of the Jerusalem church. This is further implied in Acts 21 when Paul took the offerings from the churches to the christians in Jerusalem:

Acts 21:
17 After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.

18 And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.

19 After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

You keep resorting to "implication". He did not have the final say, he just happened to have what everyone considered the final word on the matter.

One could equally imply that James was not even an elder. Or that the the significance of referring to him is the place where they met. Implication is a manybranched road. Sir.

I'll be back with refernce to your structure.

God bless

Hi Analytical (and anyone who cares to comment),

I'm back as promised.

I’m not sure how best to articulate this, I’d like to use a pictorial representation, but for now, let me try this.

Lets say we have a region, and in the region 4 areas. Let’ call them North, West, East and South. Now, let’s take the south.

Let’s say they are 32 areas in the south. S1 – S32. And let’s say that each area has a number of mature churches of a reasonable size with plurality of mature elders and a SAP. Please explain briefly, how these mature churches would be overseen.

Thanks.

God bless

I see no biblical warrant for this full or part time split. Christian ministry is part of everyday life. A mindset and a lifestyle. In a church setting, ministry is only during the gathering. Outside, it's in everyday fellowship and as a response to individual need. Anyone mature or well-resourced  enough can attend to need.

I agree christian ministry is part of everyday life and so is a lifestyle.  Ministry in not only during gathering in a church setting.  The leaders responsible for the administration, shepherding, labouring in word, teaching, missions may decide to devote their whole life to this.  They must be supported.

I didn't say that in the sense you are implying it. Please don't knowingly mis-quote or mis-ascribe things to me.

Just when I was beginning to think we are coming to agreement on our differences!  I'm not being mischievous, I sincerely thought so.  

Let me ask a few questions;
1. Who does the SAP report too?
2. Who does the OB/PB report too?
3. And so on and so forth?

To the Owner of the work who called them in the first place.

One could equally imply that James was not even an elder. Or that the the significance of referring to him is the place where they met. Implication is a manybranched road. Sir.

I expected you to also include that it could also mean that James is the leader and all the elders were present, including James too who is part of them.  This is exactly my stance all the while.  You stopped short of that!

Hi TV01,

I saw your last post as I was posting mine. I will respond later, as I'm off for the weekend. However, do everyone reading a favour by using the scenario you posted to explain your position as appropriate.

Enjoy your weekend.

Love!

Hi Analytical,

Please feel free to question the specifics of my model in anyway you choose. I feel my position is Biblically mandated, self-explanatory and practical. It remains for opposers to critique it.

Have a good weekend.

God bless

Nice exchanges so far. Keep it up.

Analytical, I'm 100% with you on this. It appears that TV01 is more obsessed and polarised by the MOG concept and the so-called SAP than the people directly influenced by it.

Elders are as susceptible to every vices that the SAP (using TV's terminology) are susceptible to. The mega-star status that he has trouble with was also a problem with the early Disciples.  No wonder Paul said: Romans 16:7 - Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
Galatians 2: 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship;

The plurality of leadership will never eliminate the 'Mega-star' concept that our dear TV01 is so averse to.