₦airaland Forum

jaysworld:
This is really something Great, I mean the fellowship, Bravo!Am in.

Welcome!

Pataki:
I do not know how many people have strayed from God, but he is ever ready and willing, standing at the door knocking for us to open our heart to receive HIM.

Prayer:
Lord, I give everything about me to YOU. It is not about me LORD, but you and you alone.

Amen brother.  Thank God for the love of the Father.  It's unconditional.  Simply amazing, beyond comprehension.  Stay in it.

Gamine:
IT is never about any of us, its about the Cross

the One, Who died and Is on the Throne

Sure, it's all about Him.  Father, I pray you continue to shine the light of your mystery upon us that we may know our utter dependency is on You and You alone.

begood1:
let the peace of God reign in our lives here in Jesus NAMe!

Amen

onyinye2:
It is truly a wonderful feeling to know no matter what, there is ALWAYS someone there watching over you.

Yes o.  Have you seen the way mother hen watches over her chicks?  Covering, protecting, giving warmth, succour and fending off danger from them?  That is the way He watches over us too.

Check this out:

Deut: 32:9-12

For the LORD's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

He found him in a desert land, and in the waste howling wilderness; he led him about, he instructed him, he kept him as the apple of his eye.

As an eagle stirreth up her nest, fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings:

So the LORD alone did lead him, and there was no strange god with him.

Isn't that simply wonderful?

onyinye2:
I feel that any problem or trouble I have crossed paths with, God was my light at the end of the tunnel.

". . . Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age " (Matt 28:20b) What a glorious assurance from the One who is the Beginning and the Ending!

@Oyinye2, Welcome sister. Read some wonderful things from you in other threads. I grew up in an Anglican Church too. But thank God for tearing down the middle wall of partition. . . There is no denomination in the Spirit. He seeks those who will worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.

@Pataki, God bless you pal. I can see we will have a swell time here!

All, maybe we should just spare a word of prayer now for each other that we are here together. In Jesus name. . .

@Pataki, in other words, you want to have good success and true prosperity, the Word is it!

@MissyB,  I return the praise to Him alone.  I was led.  I got tired of logging on without being satisfied.  So like most, I stayed off.  Then I saw some threads (referenced above already) and thought, why not have a fellowship in here?

Now I am really grateful to God because I nearly discarded the idea.  This is our fellowship. We are more than 2, so Christ Himself is here already. Let's all make it a point to keep it alive and touch lives everyday.

Love you all.

Hey Patakiiiiiiii! Where have you been? Thank God you resurfaced here. Welcome to fellowship.

Sooo right!  It is what I call Fast Christianity, just like you have fast food!  I think it's the spirit of the age.  Every thing must happen instantly.  However the Word says "Study to show yourselves approved as a workman. . . "  Every student knows there is no shortcut to studying.  Lack of it leads to failure.  So it is with God.  Remember, the Word is the Son.  Halleluyah!

How I pray God will grant us grace.

Gamine, preach it sister! I repeat with you: I choose to pay attention to God's Word. I choose life and health. I choose God.

Bless you richly.

Hi All.

I feel this is long overdue.  I know quite a lot of folks that have refused to log on or post again probably due to the atmosphere in the religion section.  However, I feel we can get together here in this thread and share our faith and love in true fellowship.

Do you have a word of encouragement?  You want to admonish others?  Do you have a topic to study together with others?  Or is it a question?  Do you have a song to share, an issue to pray about?  Maybe yours is a word of revelation or a testimony?  Or perhaps you want others to share your burden(s) in the true spirit of Christ?  Then lets have a fellowship here!

[list]
[li]Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. (Colosians 3:16)

[/li]

[li]Not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near (Hebrews 10:25)

[/li]

[li]But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called "Today," so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. (Hebrews 3:13)

[/li]

[li]"For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst." (Matthew 18:20) [/li]
[/list]

Atmosphere

Let's do this in an atmosphere of love, unity, peace,true fellowship, respect for each other and being our brother's (or sister's) keeper.  Let's refrain from things that divide us and keep it clean.  Folks, lets have a real christian groove here and make this thread a rich christian online experience!  We can do it!!

Admission

For those who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Saviour and Lord or those ready to become part of us or fellowship with us.

Welcome to Fellowship!

---

Other Christian threads for Praise, Prayer, Songs, Quotes and Favourite Passage.

---

texazzpete:
Do you actually NEED to be told this?

What made him confess to his Girlfriend if his conscience wasn't already torturing him?

His babe is not forgiving him because she feels cheated. But if the God she worships can forgive her, why can't she forgive him? Must everything be covenant abi na oath?

Texazzpete, this guy needed help and advice. I have just given mine. In proferring solutions to problems, you need to know such details so as to give wise counsels.

Excuse me sir, confessing to his fiancee because his conscience was torturing him and repenting of his wrong/reconciling with God are just not the same thing. One can do the former without the latter.

Also, how are you so sure she hasn't forgiven him? Forgiveness and relationship are also not the same thing. The lady simply needs time to heal of the emotional wound. This takes time. The guy should exercise patience with her. Patience is a christian virtue. While at it, he should use the time to work on himself and his relationship with God.

I tell you, when she heals, she will warm up to him if she truly loves him.

Texazzpete,

This is not about self-righteousness.  My point of view is because these two are christians who are in courtship, engaged to be married.  The guy backslided and betrayed the Lord and his fiancee.  He went to confess to his fiancee, which is good.  But I expected him to reconcile with his Saviour and Lord, first and foremost.  Maybe that was done but we were not told.

So, if the lady is disappointed in what he did, I don't think it's out of place.  Don't forget she is also human.  That doesn't mean she hasn't forgiven him.  If the guy reconciles with God and shows true repentance he can win back the love and trust of his fiancee.

You mentioned David as if you didn't know even though David repented and was forgiven, he still faced the consequence of his action. Judas never repented, but Peter did. The robber that was killed on the cross was forgiven, but that didn't stop him from dying anyway. I am not apportioning blames but only admonishing the guy to seek peace with God before trying to seek peace with his fiancee.

Cheers.

@Poster and all,

I wonder why everybody is castigating the lady for being chaste.  She is hurt and greatly disappointed in her fiance of two years and rightly so!  The truth is, she is not alone.  His Lord is greatly disappointed too.

What do you expect of someone that chose to loiter at the street of temptation?  No doubt he will eventually get to the house of sin! This is what happened to the guy.  Remember bad association corrupts good manners.

Maybe we should flip this around.  Assuming it's the girl that chose to go into fornication, what would have been your responses to the guy?  Definitely, most here wouldn't waste time in advising him to leave her.

It seems the guy is more interested in getting her back than in restoring his peace and salvation with his Lord.  I think this should be his main concern.  It is godly sorrow that works repentance.  Let him show the fruit of that and the Holy Spirit knows how to take it up from there and restore the relationship.

Meanwhile, allow her to express her annoyance and disappointment.  Give her time and space, while working on yourself.  She deserves a man who she can vouch for, a man that shows integrity and self-control even in the midst of temptation, a man she can trust.

All the best.

Thanks Tayo-D for opening the thread so that these matters can be addressed under a more appropriate and wider topic.  Let's all feel free to share in this discussion.  Bring them on- the revelations, expositions, your experiences, etc for edification, direction and instruction in righteousness.

For clarity sake, the issues at stake as highlighted in the post above are:

[list]
[li]How do we become Babes in Christ?[/li]
[li]How do we grow? How do we mature?[/li]
[li]What are the hallmarks of maturity or of a true believer?[/li]
[li]What makes a good Christian? Infact, what makes you a Christian?[/li]
[li]Is it once saved, always saved or can you lose your salvation?  How?[/li]
[li]Is it possible that you have always believed, having been raised in a Christian home?[/li]
[li]Others, as the discussion progresses.[/li]
[/list]

I trust God that this will be a good avenue to discuss diverse issues concerning our salvation.

Bless y'all.

@4Him, Tayo-D and all, I am glad we understand ourselves now.  Thanks for the discourse.

However, I think there are other salient issues raised in the discussion that I feel can still be discussed further:

   - Once saved always saved? 
   - "I have always believed"
   - The place of a call in ministry.

@TV01, it's good to have you in here.  Good to see you are well too.  You are fondly missed.  How has been the 'journey'?

TV01:
As ever I hate to make it about people, so may I suggest that contributors talk around what they think are the hallmarks of a true believer/disciple of Christ - at whatever level of walk/sevice/circumstance - and indeed traits/action/conduct/behaviour that run contrary to such a profession.

I think we can add this to the list above.

TV01:
It may also help to define or at least understand what individuals mean by or consider to be a false prophet. For example, I could say my view is that anyone that has not personally encountered the risen Lord, subsequently entered into onging communion with Him and been specif ically instructed to speak is false, regardless of whether or not what is spoken is true.

I am of the same opinion here.  The race starts with a personal encounter with the Saviour.  So anyone who claims to speak for Him must have encountered Him and been with Him.  This is why I find the "I have always believed" hard to take.  I know some have the encounter at a very early age, the details of which they may not readily remember now, but they must have met Jesus one day.  But to say "I have always believed" is so false to me.

4Him, thanks for your inputs. I like the zeal. But it appears you don't really grasp what Tayo-D was trying to explain. I don't think the two of you are far from each other on the aspect of works and salvation. A liitle more explanation will suffice.

4Him:
NO ONE has said anything remotely close to this AT ALL. Salvation is a gift, mercy is a gift, grace is a gift, repentance is also a gift . . . we don't work for it, even our righteousness (works) is like filthy rags before the Lord.

Well said. If it is a gift, then you don't work for it. And if it is by grace, then you don't earn it. It is all done and procurred by the Giver. Your only part in it is to recieve the gift and it is all yours (John 1:12, 3:16-18, ) . I think we all agree on this.

What is being said is this - you can't claim to be saved and continue to live in sin. You can't claim to be saved and be a live-in lover, you can't claim to be saved and divorce your wife as most of our pastors now take the liberty to do, you can't claim to be saved and work in a strip joint . . .

I am not sure that is what Tayo-D is claiming. What I think he is saying is that not doing all those things on their own does not qualify you to be saved. Remember the young man that came to Jesus asking how to be saved? He kept all the laws from his youth but he is not saved all the same!

Let me simplify this. At salvation (or more appropriately, conversion), one receives the gift of eternal life. You enter by the door. You are saved. You are now a child of God, a new born baby. This is the new birth experience. This is the gift. You don't work to earn it. It is all done. You only receive it.

But that is not the end. You don't just stay at the door! It is just the entrance. You enter the building called new life in christ. This is the beginning of the new life in Christ, eternal life. You then grow in grace just as a new born grows through the stages until (s)he becomes an adult. This is growing unto maturity. The fruit begins to come out of the life you have already. You start to show your faith by your works, not because you want to earn the gift, but because you have the gift. Your former ways are past. You are a new creature. You now bear new fruit.

Salvation is a gift but you also have a part to play.

I wont put it that way. If it is a gift, then the only part you have to play is receiving the gift, not procuring it. This is at conversion. But you have a part to play in growing to maturity.

What part did you have to play when you were born naturally except coming through the birth canal (equivalent to new birth)? But you certainly have to play your role to grow up to what you are now. Get my drift?

timbaland:
I will not takes sides with either 4HIM or Tayo 'because it's obvious both are concerned about keeping the faith.

@Timbaland, thanks for your input.  This is not taking sides with either 4Him or Tayo-D.  Rather, it is being on the side of the truth.  As far as the Joel issue is concerned, he let Christ down on that occassion.  If he was afraid of being quoted, the least he could have done was to quote the very words of Christ himself "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, No one comes to the Father except by Me".

That is the truth, whether some like it or not.  Religions may be sincere in their quest for God, which I guess Joel was trying to consider, but that doesn't take anything from the truth.  They are sincerely wrong.  What is it that Joel didn't know about that when the Master Himself said it and the Apostles confirmed it?  There is no salvation in any other.  End of discussion on that.

Tayo-D:
@Analytical,

Thanks for your contribution. I thot we've all agreed that the guy could have done better with the interview. the difference is just that while 4Him deems it fit to call JO a false teacher, I sincerely do not think so. He realised from reading the transcript that he really seemed to have given a false message from what he intended, and he duly apologised for that. The rest is left between him and his Master.

However, I wish you'd contribute to the raging issue at hand. What is the role of works with respect to salvation (as in getting born again)? I'd really love to have your input on that, as I think it is very crucial.

Thanks pal.  I agree with you here.  I have listened to Joel Osteen severally and I won't call him a false teacher as well.  While his experience, style and delivery may be different from some other ministers, I won't label him as a heretic.  I see him more of an exhorter/encourager than a preacher.  That he as well acknowledged.

As to the raging issue of works with respect to salvation, you are perfectly in order sir!  Works are the fruit of salvation, not the cause of it.

Ephesians 2
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Romans 11

6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

This you have beautifully summarized in post #164 as:

Tayo-D:
Now with respect to salvation, the works that follows an inward conviction of faith in Christ is to confes Him as Lord. Here what Jesus said John 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. Faith in Christ must be follwoed by confession. When this is done, the cycle is complete. 2 Cor 4:13 We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;

The works that accompany our salvation is not to secure our salvation, but is a testimony to the change that has occured on the inside. That is why James said an I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. His works proves his faith, it does not secure it.

I hope I've made myself clear.

Bless y'all.

All,

I stumbled on this thread today and I decided to drop a line. While I am not one that is quick to condemn, I feel we all owe it a duty to correct when need arises and as occassion demands.

Going through some of the transcripts of Larry King's interview with Pastor Joel Osteen, one could feel 4Him's outrage on his responses to the fundamentals of the Christian faith. Maybe one would have excused him if he were to be a babe or immature believer being interviewed.

But to think of Pastor Joel, the Christian leader and pastor of the largest congregation in America, voted the most influential Christian in 2006 and among the 10 most popular figures of 2006, stuttering through questions of the basics of the christian faith, before the most watched program on the most watched TV channel (CNN) and before millions of viewers world-wide, believers and unbelievers alike! I was ashamed and thoroughly disappointed, I must say.

TayoD, while I wont go to the extremes in condemning him I feel let down reading the transcripts; which is why I don't seem to understand why you are making excuses and trying to explain what Pastor Joel didn't say! What a chance wasted to be a witness and a voice for Christ. You don't get such opportunities everyday. Agreed, he later offered apologies in his website and tried to give a 'correct' interview later, I think a damage was done already.

It appears he was afraid of offending some and so mindful of sounding correct in an increasingly permissive world. I couldn't but think of Peter and John appearing before the Sanhedrin in Acts 4 when they were called to defend the faith. Hear what Peter said in verse 12 "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved". He didn't mince words about it. Or should we talk about Paul before King Agrippa in Acts 26? The king marvelled and almost became a Christian just listening to Paul's persuasion and declaration about the risen Christ.

Should Joel have done less, given almost the same circumstances and a wider audience, where truth is on trial?

Thanks, TV01. All is well. You are right. I noticed the deterioration and withdrew. I do come by most days too, but move on when I find nothing (apologies to all) worthy. I am with you on your quest. That is our calling- one that strives for mastery. I will be glad to learn anytime you feel led. I am for any quest that takes one a level higher in his walk with the Master Himself.

Thanks for the text you dropped. I will meditate on that.

Expecting,

God bless, bro.

Hi TV01,

Been quite a long while. I have been lurking ever since and learning elsewhere in the forum. Good to see you are still around. Read somewhere about your newfound meditative and contemplative stance now. Though I can't remember which thread in particular. March on pal. Care to share?

Be blessed.

All,

It's not only possible, it is also achievable! There are countless men who have not cheated on their wives and are not planning to. With all humility, I am one of them! And just last month we marked 6 years of marriage.

The key is not in the situations around you nor what your wife is (not) doing, but your commitment to the marriage vows you made to her before many witnesses. Integrity is what will keep you there!

Blessings.

Hmmmhh!!  I thought you two were discussing tithing!  But I get confused the more, after all "the way of a man with a maid. . . who can understand?"  No be me talk that one o, na Solomon (Prov 30 vs 18-19).

Blessings.

Marjson,

Please go through my former post if you haven't done so already.  Now that you have added more details, my earlier suggestions become more relevant.  Let me explore one of my options in more detail.

Look at it this way.  You have a contract job that expires in October, 2008 which may/may not be renewed.  Assuming it is renewed, it will not be for ever.  Sooner or later, it must expire.  What do you do after then?  You will still look for another job with your ND.  But if it is not renewed, you find yourself in the labour market sooner than you think!  Either way, you will still look for a job, soon.  That is a fact.  It means you lose 2 ways- the job and the forgone further studies.

Be proactive about this before it happens.  Plan for it.  You are in a good field- Elect/Elect Engineering.  Getting employed or creating one should be easier with a degree than with a ND.  At best with your ND, you will end up a technician!

This is my candid advice:

- Between now and the expiration of the contract in Oct. 2008 is 15 months (excluding this current month).  You already have N250k saved.  You can plug that in a good investment plan with a minimum tenure of 15 months.  A good one will be mutual funds (IBTC funds, ARM discovery etc).  This will ensure you don't lose your money unlike direct investment in shares.  Let's say this gives you at least 75% returns (there is no reason why it shouldn't be more).  This brings you to about N430k by Oct. 2008.

- Next plan to save at least N10k from your pay for the next 15 months.  You may increase it if you can.  You can then increase your investment in the mutual fund monthly starting from next month.  This will give you additional 150k in funds (by Oct. 2008) plus the appreciation, say another 40% since it's cummulative.  This should give you about N210k by then.

- By the expiration of your contract in Oct 2008, you would have about N640k in funds.  That is a good time to start your studies full-time, if you take that option.  In other words, defer your admission till then.  You don't have to sell all your funds at once by then.  All you need to do is to sell the quantity you require for your monthly upkeep in school.  The mutual funds give that flexibility.  You just go to the house in charge, fill a form and in 4-5 days you have your money, while the remaining keeps appreciating to last for the entire duration of your study and maybe beyond.

Be wise and look ahead!

Marjson and all,

There is much to gain in furthering your education and nothing really to lose.  Some have talked about investing your money and going into business, forgetting that the best investment you can make is that of education.  It is for a lifetime!

Whatever you think you will lose now (N37k monthly) is just temporary.  Think long-term and don't be myopic.  By all means, a first degree (HND/Bsc) is not the same thing as OND!  Think of how you will cut yourself off potentially from better offers in future that require a first degree, all because you carry OND.  Even in the present job you are doing, are you on the same scale as a degree holder in the same company?  There is a limit you can go with your present qualification.

Even, if you have to open a business as Seun suggested, you stand a better chance as a graduate!  It will broaden your horizon further and help you become a better manager of people and resources.  So don't stagnate yourself if you have the opportunity.  It's a good thing to improve yourself.  You will appreciate this better when in some years to come you have to pay rent, maintain a family, pay the bills, train the kids, and discover you need better income.  Then you will  remember suddenly the alternative forgone!

However, since you are sponsonsoring yourself, here is my advice:

1.  Some have already given a good advice- explore a part-time option.  

2.  Alternatively, you may also want to defer the admission for a while (maybe 1 year more) to enable you save and invest more so that money will not be a problem.  You have started well.

3.  Depending on your discipline, you may invest that some of the money in a campus business that will pay your way through school, while you are studying full-time.  I know such outfits like barbing salons, computer services, photocopying, eateries, repair and maintenance, programming, etc are hotcakes in a school environment.

By the way, what's your discipline, where and when do you plan to school?

All the best.

@Poster,

No you are not mad.  Maybe you have just discovered your purpose in life!  Your happiness and greatness in life lie in the area of your passion/calling.  There are many routes that can take you there:

1.  Sharp man's idea above is one option- pursue teaching to the highest level and turn out the best lecturer you can ever be.

2.  Use what you have to get what you want.  Work in Telecoms for now and use it as a stepping stone to where you want to be.  Save up, invest and plan for opening a school in no distant future.  Plan big and start small at your level.  You may start as aweekend school, extra-mural school, etc and watch your dream grow!

3.  Who says you can't be a great educator even in your Telecoms line?  Leverage your expertise with your passion!  Explore that angle too- specialised training in telecoms- repair, maintenace, installation, networking, etc.  Think in the mould of NIIT!  It's achievable.

4.  Navigate yourself to the training department of your company and be an instructor.

By all means don't give up.

Godspeed!

@TayoD

Thatnks so much for your input. My persuasuins are exact same with yours with regards to the scriptures you've been discussing. I mentioned earlier in the debate that I will get to the various scriptures that TV and Sage use to propagate their male pre-eminence but you pre-empt me.

Thanks, brother.  I was enjoying myself on this discussion with great minds like you, TV01, Stimulus, Pilgrim.1 et al (By the way, where are Shahan, Syrup etc?) without contributing until I couldn't resist again.  I guess we are all learning and adding to our knowledge of Him.  You know the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (2 Cor 3:6b)

I will oblige you because I believe many people need to understand this concept. First, it couldn't be companionship that God was talking about. Adam couldn't have been lonely. He was created perfect and the only relationship he must have longed for was God's.
Second, we are told that God created Adam in His own image. The question to be asked then is what is god's image? Paul answerd that in 2 corinthians 4:4 when he said Christ is the image of God -lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, In order words, the image of God that He planned to replicate in man was Christ and Christ is represented only in marriage when there is a union of a male and a female. Why do you think the devil is attacking marrigae so much these days? That is the spirit of the anti-Christ at work fighting against everything that represents the Christ.

[Sigh!!]  TayoD, this is a hard saying, who can understand it?  I guess I have to think it over.

@TV01

What a character you are!  I guess you are still going over those scriptures (in various translations) posted earlier?  

Love.

@TV01

The outline speaks to the requisite qualification for elders/deacons. IFF they are married , it must be to the one wife (polygamy as we are aware was a problem).

It is gender based, not marital status, or age.

It precludes females. Females do not rule homes, cannot marry wives, and could not commit polygamy/polyandry in that age, due to their status in society.

In other words, that particular prerequite is conditional, based on IF they are married.  Put another way, it doesn't apply to someone considered for that office that is not married since he has no wife nor children to rule.

Now try and remove that clause, assuming we are considering a single, and you will see your argument fizzle out!  The same goes if the consideration is for a woman.  That is why the Holy Spirit has to address women (candidates for the office and not every woman in the assembly) as well in that same outline for elders and deacons likewise.

Mind you, polygamy is still a problem today, with its varieties!  The woman of Samaria was not just an adulteress, she had 5 (sorry not 6 as stated previously) previous husbands:

John 4 vs

16 He said to her, “Go, call your husband and come here.”
17 The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You have correctly said, ‘I have no husband’;
18 for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly.”

To such, yes she can be a believer, but NT christianity says she can't be an elder/deacon.  Period!

I will check this claim out. Care to mention any?

Here you have them.  In fact, majority of the translations:

1 Tim 3 vs 11-

- The women likewise must be serious, no slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things. (Revised Standard version, RSV)

- [The] women likewise must be worthy of respect and serious, not gossipers, but temperate and self-controlled, [thoroughly] trustworthy in all things. (Amplified Bible)

- Women in like manner must be grave, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. (American Standard Version, ASV)

- Women are to be serious in behaviour, saying no evil of others, controlling themselves, true in all things. (Bible in Basic English, BBE)

- The women in like manner grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. (Darby Bible Translation, DBY)

- Deaconesses, in the same way, must be sober-minded women, not slanderers, but in every way temperate and trustworthy. (Weymouth New Testament)

- Women -- in like manner grave, not false accusers, vigilant, faithful in all things. (Young’s Literal Translation, YLT)

- Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things. (New American Standard Bible, NASB)

- No exceptions are to be made for women—same qualifications: serious, dependable, not sharp-tongued, not overfond of wine. (The Message)

- Women must also be serious. They must not gossip or be heavy drinkers, and they must be faithful in everything they do. (Contemporary English Version)

- Also it behooveth women to be chaste, not backbiting, sober, faithful in all things. (Wycliffe New Testament)

- In the same way, the women are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything. (Today's New International Version)

Agreed re the emphasis on polygamy. But the emphasis is also on gender. Can a woman be the "husband of one wife (food for the same-sex brigade)?" Are women generally considered "violent" Do women "rule" homes? Read the outline for deacons again. It says "Likewise their wives", are you claiming this is gender neutral or should necessarily read "spouse?"

As explained above.  Please don't read same-sex into this discourse.  Do single males rule homes too?  Or have children to have in subjection?  Provision is adequately made for women in that outline.

Phoebe was a servant and "a helper of many". It is at best debatable that she was anything more than it reads. Why do we have to ferret out tenuous examples,  to prove debatable claims in order to support doubtful doctrine?

Let's put this to rest now.  Phoebe, however you want to describe her, was a deaconess.  Take time out to check the reference in many translations.  I previously offered the exact Greek word translated servant there, and it is the word translated as deacon.  Same used for the first 7 deacons Philip, Stephen etc.  This is not debatable.  I am not even saying what her duties were as a deacon, but the fact that she was a deacon(ness), just as Stephen, Phillip and co.

If you are saying, she was merely a servant and a helper of many, her service and help was in the same class as that of Stephen and co because they were all deacons.  What is tenuous and debatable there?

Or what does it mean to be a deacon?

Blessings.

@TV01,

4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence
5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)

Presumably verses 4 & 5 refer to women also?

Just as the verses don't just mean they must be married men with children!  What if the person here is not married and don't have children- just as Paul?  Does he still qualify as an elder/deacon?  I'm trying to let you see that those verses don't preclude singles as well as females.  They are only saying 'in case he/she is married' or 'if he/she has a family'.

11 Likewise their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things.
12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

If you check other translations, the word rendered 'Likewise their wives' say 'Women in like manner'.  In other words, 'if the person happens to be a woman' the same applies.  In fact some translations say 'Deaconesses . . .'  Remember it is not talking of every member of the congregation here.  This place is discussing those to be appointed as deacons.  They are stipulations for both male and female!

I see this line of thought as somewhat flawed. You make the point that the thrust is against “polygamy”, a simpler and more obvious interpretation would be “if the man is married”, not that he “has to be married”

I did say the emphasis is against polygamy (in all it's varieties), whether one spouse at a time, many at once, or whichever form.  If the person is married, (s)he must be to one person only (except of course if the cause of separation is death), which is consistent with NT christianity!  If not that scripture would have read simply 'married' instead of saying 'the husband of one wife'.

=> Point 2: is out, as both are being addressed, and without contradiction. Women could not be polygamous at that time, which only buttress the point that it is men as in males that are being referred to.

Both male and female, married and single, having children or without, are being addressed.  I think it's all-encompassing.  Why do you think women could not be polygamous at that time?  Consider it's varieties.  Remember the woman by the well of Samaria?  She had 6 before and the 7th one was not even married to her!

Point 3: A double fault. Probably as the basis is flawed and the premise faulty.

No fault there, it stands!

Please, we have thrashed this severally. This is at best debatable. As you have been honest enough to note, it could be minister (aren’t we all?) or servant. And like I have often said, whether elder, deacon, minister or any other office/function/role, it’s about service. Net court, net out.

I know we have been through that before.  But the fact remains that Phoebe was called a deaconess, which you said females cannot be.  Of course any christian work is about service.  Who is debating Phoebe being a deaconess?

So? It doesn’t apply in every instance and not here.

It dosen't apply in every case, but the context and evidence from Phoebe proves it applies here.

Many blessings.

@TV01,

TV01:
No!

God bless
TV

Thanks for the straight reply.  I asked that question based on your stance that eldership, and now deaconate, is for men-only:

1. Elders cannot be female and females cannot be elders simply because the pre-requisite's for elders are gender based as outlined below;

I dare to disagree, sir!  I don't believe the reprequisite for elders, and deacons, are gender-based.  Let's examine the same scripture you used more carefully:

1 Timothy 3:

1.This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop,* he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, F3 but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)

8 Likewise deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money, 9 holding the mystery of the faith with a pure conscience. 10 But let these also first be tested; then let them serve as deacons, being found blameless. 11 Likewise their wives must be reverent, not slanderers, temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

It appears to me your position is based on those verses (same as in Titus).  But if you go rigidly by those letters of the words, then an elder or a deacon must be a married male!  This is not the case because Paul, through whom the Holy Spirit inspired those words, was not even married and he was an elder of the church.

Point 1:  You don't have to be married to be an elder or a deacon!

Secondly, those words ('husband of one wife') are not using gender as a prerequisite for being an elder or a deacon.  Rather, the issue being addressed in those words, I believe, is polygamy (in all its varieties)!  If you want to be an elder or a deacon of the church of Jesus, you must not be a polygamist!  The emphasis there on the word 'one'.

Point 2:  The issue being addressed in those highlighted words is polygamy and not gender![/color]

This leads us to the corollary therefore, that:

[color=#000099]Point 3: A female can actually be a deacon or an elder!

Let me give you an example of a female deacon right from the scriptures:

Romans 16: 1

I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:

Phoebe was a deacon(ness).  The word translated servant is 'diakonon' from which we have 'deacon'.  Check Strong's Greek Dictionary to confirm:

diakonon - 'specially, a Christian teacher and pastor (technically, a deacon or deaconess) -- deacon, minister, servant.'.

This agrees with my 3 points above.  Therefore, if the prerequisite being used against female elders (husband of one wife) cannot hold for a deacon (whose qualification supposedly contains the same clause), then it means your interpretation of that clause is wanting, seeing obviously there was a female deacon in Romans 16:1.

Lastly, there is what I call a Converse Principle in interpreting the scriptures.  This works in cases where:

- it seems one gender is being addressed (Converse: the other gender is equally implied)
- blessings are attached to fulfilling certain conditions (Converse: curses for not fulfilling the same)
etc

A popular example is this:

2 cor 5:17

"If any man be in Christ, he is a new creation"

The converse also holds:  "if any woman be in Christ, she . . . " because the emphasis is not on gender.

The same Greek word 'tis' (meaning some or any person or object) used for 'man' here is the same used in 1 Tim 3:1 -

"If a man desires the office of . . ."

That is why some translations render it as: "If any one . . ."

Using this principle therefore, it follows that for a married female (she may actually be a single) to be an elder or a deacon, she must be married to one man i.e. not be a polygamist, among other qualifications.

This, I believe, is the spirit behind those letters.

Blessings.

Thanks pilgrim.1.  You are right!

@TV01,

Please oblige me and this board a very straight answer to this:  Can a woman be a deacon?  This is either a 'Yes' or 'No'.

---

Welcome back from Wimbledon.  Venus proved me and the bookmakers wrong and Nadal gave me a real scare!

Why not?  If the Holy Spirit so desires to call them into such offices as stipulated in Ephesians 4 and others (which Stimulus has countlessly tried to highlight) and as such into leadership roles in the congregation of the saints, who is man to hinder Him in doing that?  There is neither male nor female in Christ (Gal 3:28)!

I think the misunderstanding is coming from the different perceptions of eldership and leadership, which you haven't really obliged a clear answer to, according to Stimulus' posers.

TV01, why do think females cannot be elders?  And using my examples of female congregations above, who will constitute the leadership in such assemblies?

Okay brothers, cool temper!  After all, it's only a discussion 

@Stimulus

stimulus:
@TV01,

Many thanks for the manifestation of your rigid spirit, brother I thank you again and again.

Since you have refused to open your eyes and read my inputs, which in many instances do not fall into your allegations, I have offered to leave this thread for you until you invite a discussion. I'm least interested in your slobbers, so you can just as well save them.

Cheers. 

I must admit TV01's doggedness tends sometimes to stubborness and rigidity (TV01 Please I'm not being insultive here, just an observation).  I came to that same conclusion of yours when we were discussing Church Structure & Sole Authority Pastors, which also has to do with this topic.  But please, I appeal to all to keep it cool.

@TV01

Remember I chided you sometimes ago about pouring out your vituperations in discussions.  It only scares people away from further engagement.  The same advice still holds.  Keep it calm, brother.

@Topic

Now to answer you directly (IMHO) without equivocation:

Can a plurality of female only elders shepherd a NT Christian congregation?

YES!  To make a little clarification,  I want to see a possiblility of female-only elders/leaders happening in a congregation, since your question is 'Can?'.  If you follow Stimulus very well, you will see there is no gender dicrimination in Christian leadership. He is only providing a balance.  Let me give you an instance of all-female eldership happening.  In situations where you have female prisons, female schools etc and there are christian congregations, Yes!  You will have that.

(even in the presence of or even regardless of the availability of suitably qualified males?).

NO!  My persuasion is based on the fact that you don't have all-female congregation that often and I haven't seen a situation where you will have all-female leadership in  mixed congregations, except if the males are all kids!  My emphasis is on 'female-only'.

Now look at my conclusion made in the thread Should women preach?:

Preach ? Yes.

Teach in church? Yes.

Overall or final authority/head in home/church? Nope.

I still stand by this.  You may visit the thread to see my persuasions.

@Stimulus

stimulus:
@Analytical,

How bodi? How is it that you senior discussants are letting the rest of us rascals alone on this thread?!? Abeg, please try and weigh in on this one O! There are issues I simply don't understand - and yours will be greatly appreciated as well.

Rascals? No, you guys are not.  I have had to consider again and again by the exchanges and I'm glad consensus are being reached, albeit laboriously!    We are all pressing to reach the mark, and so, learning.  For now, let me have the pleasure of receiving!

@TV01

TV01:
^{You mean people are following, without weighing in? Analytical, I thought the reference to your "under-arm" sevice would flush you out earlier ! Hope you are enjoying Wimbledon. See how my girl Venus laid some hurt on that Communist poser !}

You bet I'm following!  I simply refused to be pulled in earlier as you said.  I was almost concluding Venus should just face modelling and fashion, but she's proving me wrong!

---

@Topic,

More from you guys.

Blessings.