₦airaland Forum

Guys,

Hmmmmh!  Interesting exchanges, deep and enlightening.  I must say I'm enjoying myself on this!  I'm waiting to see how this lands.  I don't want to disturb the flow.  So you guys carry on.  This has taken the other topic a whole new level!

Blessings.

I knew this wouldn't end well !

I sure knew too! But somehow I have to wake the lioness up She is not the one to let that pass. But I already said sorry now I am still laughing my head off here This place has been too dull of recent!

Trini_Girl, why you come swallow my bait like this now? So where have you been now before one Oga go yank this off?

Trini_Girl,

See what I mean! I knew that will drag you out of your 'stealth-mode'!!!! No be me talk am now, na your MOG TV01 o! So where have you been?

TV01,

Sorry if I didn't get you well.  But I thought you said you were with Aproko on this:

man has spirit. this spirit is covered by a cloak called flesh. soul is just an expression coined by the english language to represent the human entity or being i.e both flesh and spirit.

As far as I've studied, soul is not just an expression (to answer Aproko) to represent the human entity.  It doesn't refer to both flesh and spirit.  The human being is not just those two, but three distinct entities: spirit, soul and body (flesh).

The soul comes into being when there is a union of body and spirit. I did'nt say it was not distinct from them, just that it did not exist on its own separately and apart from them.

I agree for now (may adjust later).

The scriptural narrative (as far as I've read - although I stand to be corrected -  only speaks of the creation of the body and the giving of the spirit).

. . . and then the man became a living soul (to complete your reference).

---

Did you see Trini-Girl whilst in stealth-mode? (don't know where it is, but it sure sounds like a cool place ).

Nope!  Guess she was on a different plane -mine was the spiritual realm, while hers I guess was soulish (Sorry Trini_Girl!)  Cool place, though. 

Thanks bari_kade for opening a thread that dragged me out of my lurking position for a while now   Hi TV01, long time.  I have been in stealth mode for a while 

@ Bari_kade, to add to your poser above, why will the Holy Ghost inspire this verse as well, if they are not distinct?

Hebrews 4: 12 (KJV)

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

To me the dividing asunder connotes a distinction while the joints and marrow speak of the body.

Bless y'all.

@Seun,

I was keeping tabs on this thread and was getting encouraged until I came to this line of yours:

I think I'll just spend the rest of my life moderating Nairaland.  I can't seem to succeed at anything else.  Cheers!

Now, that is not the spirit!  Others may not understand you, but you will be doing yourself a disservice if you choose not to understand yourself.  Keep the spirit high and the dreams coming, bigger, brighter and refined!  Joseph was a dreamer and when he was discouraged, he kept dreaming more dreams until one day. . . and his dreams spoke!

Cheer up Seun and dream more dreams!!  Fine-tune and refine it if you have to, but by all means, don't give up!

See you at the top!

@Sage
Haba!  Understandest thou what thou readest?  I couln't help but ask!   

@Stimulus
Thanks for your patience.  You are doing just well and have added to my understanding.  I will leave Sage for you.  I thought this topic has long been concluded. . .

God bless y'all.

As yet, no one has demonstrated how it may be done.

We have tried to do that severally, giving examples of saints of old. That, you have not agreed with.

And that premise is general and should rightfully be considered before a Christian engages in any activity.

100% agreed! That was the point of conclusion.

Bless you.

If one can do so without compromising their faith in anyway, go right ahead

If they can do so without compromising their faith or serving another master.

In what way? I don't see how it can be done. But in order for the discussion to unfold and to give the initiater and fora space to weigh in, I started with that basic premise.

Vintage TV01!  I like your dogged spirit, though.

Hi Friends,

Kudos to everyone, whether for or against! It's simply not the basis for our salvation. There are people that had no such opportunity and yet saved (ask that thief at crucifixion!). I hope for time to add my views.

@TV01

Where's Analytical by the way? I'd guess he supports mandatory tithing. Apologies if you don't dude !

Thanks for asking after me I have been off for a while on a vacation. My village has no internet access! Permit me to do a lot of catching up on Nairaland.

Bless you all.

Friends,

Where on earth have I been to have missed this interesting discussion going on here?  Pressure of work has kept me off from here for some time!  What a discussion!  I just went through all the posts from beginning to the end, and I must commend all of you for the depth of the discussions.  Let me catch my breath and go over them again, abeg!

@Syrup, you've just been added to my favourite list of gals on Nairaland [Shahan was the last addition!]  I doff my cap, sister!  The same way Shahan captivated me sometimes ago.  I'm taking notes. . .

@TayoD, you'll always be my pally on issues, well done!  You spoke my mind as usual!

@Bobbyaf, what a spirited and scholarly effort!  Though, I don't quite agree with you,  I appreciate your articulate inputs all the same.

@Sage, hmmmm!  What can I say now?  Check your post #8, I'm sure we can still be friends despite differences.  Bless you.

@TV01, how are you?  I see you've been busy here   Read all your inputs.  I like your stance (or lack of it!) on this thread so far- somewhat undecided. . .

@others, keep it up.

I'm surely keeping tabs on this discussion, hoping for less pressure to contribute.  Love you all.

Hi TV01,

Now, you are beginning to sound like you really have an axe to grind with certain issues beyond our discourse in this thread.  And it's beginning to scare me!!

Your thesis has been dealt with to a long extent, that makes your latest treatise so uncalled for.  This is where I get scared.  But I will only respond to one point I won't let pass just like that:

3. It introduces a clergy/laity split which is patently unscriptural and particularly hated by The Lord. It’s called the the Nicolaitan heresy.

How unture this could be!  This is not what the Nicolaitan heresy is about.

Rev. 2

6 ‘Yet this you do have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

The deeds/heresy of the Nicolaitans taught Christian liberty meant license to commit sensual sins. In otherwords, they taught that once you are saved, it doesn't matter again what you do, by way of sensual and sexual immorality, that you are always saved. This is what the Lord hates and not what you listed in your thesis!

I beg to take my exit from this thread at this point.  I don't want to be drawn into argument of rightness or wrongness of the expressions of our faith, whatever our leanings are, within the confines of grace.

But may I conclude with this.  The body of Christ will fare more effectively if we concentrate on those things that bind us together and not those that tend to gender strife and needless division among us.  A house divided against itself cannot stand.  We lose so much impact by so doing and the enemy gains.

A christian is not one by structures or models.  Whether leadership by plurality of elders (as in congregational, some baptists etc) or hierarchical (as in episcopal, penticostal etc), everyone who has believed and accepted the saving grace of Christ is part of His one church, structure or not.

What do you call those our brethren in the underground church when communism held sway?  They did not even have the priviledge of gathering, not to talk of structures/models!  Are they not part of the church of the living Christ?  May we not make the purchase by blood of Christ of no effect!

Thank you and God bless.

My responses:

I don't agree it connotes that. What you are unwittingly saying, is that that is what it tends to become in these times. Don't let us confuse the office, with the conduct of the officer.

Then why do you keep qualifying them as such? Pastors should just be pastors and not sole authority pastors or SAP. I don't confuse office and the officer's conduct. That only stems from your view of them all over this thread.

And let me say this, "position-mongering/control-seeking/powerdrunk" is a spectrum. All eyes tend to be on the obvious Jim Jones/Rev. King type instances, but it is no less evident (if more subtle, stylishly sold and better masked) in all instance where power evolves into the one position.

Whoever ascribes power to himself is either a fake or is abusing his office. The genuine ones far outnumber the fake. They are humble and serve God in spirit and in truth. Power doesn't have to 'evole into one position' for you to abuse it. Your model can as well breed an oligarchy of a ruling class over God's heritage. This is no less an abuse too!

Well said. And in the model I see clearly outlined in the Bible it is. Again you are muddying matters. To much authority never killed anyone. Authority is not synonymous with burden. I feel you are confusing authority with workload here. Either there is one SAP or there isn't?

No sir. No muddying. With authority comes responsiblity. Authority delegated is responsibility shared.

I like your reference to Jethro & Moses, but that was for their time. We have a differnt blueprint for ours. Not to mention that scripture testifies that Moses was the most humble of men.

If Moses could be humble others can be too. Let's focus one the use of the office and not the abuse of it. Whatever happened in OT is for our learning and example. It's still the same God. If it worked for Moses, Paul etc. it will work for us.

The model is either true to scripture or it isn't. You shouldn't need to qualify it. The personal qualifications are outlined in scripture. Your model should stand on it's own merits.

And it is. I have not done any such thing as qualifying it. I couldn't find what's not scriptural there. The qualifications are true to scripture. Rather it's you that's unduly qualifying and extrapolating.

The flaws in your model are both obvious and numerous.

I have tried as much as possible to make my position so plain and easy to understand. It worked then and is still working. I have not seen a perfect church. I have not seen a perfect people. That's why we are humans and His strength is made perfect in our weaknesses. Even in the early church, with the first apostles, theirs was not a perfect one.

Or do you have a flawless one?

So, are you categorically stating that there is no "Sole Authority Pastor" over an individual church?

From my very first post on this thread (#29), I did make it clear that I'm not comfortable with that appellation of 'sole authority'. It connotes a case of someone who is power-mongering, control-seeking and position-drunk!

Authority has to be delegated for it to be optimally effective, except the pastor wants to kill himself before his time with too much burden and responsibility. This is unwise and unnecessary, especially as the church grows. Jethro advised Moses about it in the wilderness and what a sound counsel it was!

If you check my charts well, there are pastors over individual churches, but they are not 'sole authority'. Authority can be delegated or supervised.

Bless you.

There is no SAP in my model! Nobody with sole authority. That model is yours. The leaders/elders still provide the checks, advisory roles etc.

The model is not cast in stone and can reduce or enlarge depending on the size of the whole church, the spread and growth.

1. How ever many churches there are in an area, there is just an increas in the number of SAP's and there remains the 1 overseer for that area?

Very possible. If an area gets too big, you split and spread. Simple.

2. At whatever level of office above SAP, the position will always be filled by someone who is a SAP at church level?

Most likely. Has to be someone mature and experienced to lead the flock of Christ and whoelse, except a shepherd at that level.

3. You've tapered it into a regional overseer. What happens if the regions are multiplied say 100 fold?

A region is as large as you make it. A region maybe 1 country, several countries, or part of a country. Very flexible!

4. What do those above SAP in your model do?

They shepherd and oversee.

The reason why Paul did not put Timothy in charge (your word not mine), would be because they were two different regions/two different works.

Exactly my point!

Negative, sir!  Your extrapolation just does not add up.  You are only complicating the model as simple as it is.  Remember the admin structure is just what it says.  The different overseers are in effect pastors/shepherds of some of those churches in each area as well.  They don't sit in the air, mind you.

In the case of growth of the church, 32 simply becomes 32+x (where x is no. of additional churches) and so on.

The focus of any position is not man, stop seeing it as such.  Any minister (whatever calling he has) worth his calling points men to God and not to himself.  And besides,  who told you many   countries cannot be under one region?  The essence is not to have a model that gets too big to administer, hence the need for effective admin at each level.

Ask Paul why he didn't put Timothy in charge of both Ephesus and Crete!

More thoughts later.

Have been busy lately.

Here is an illustration of my position using your scenario:

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.

The structure of the different mature churches will look like the one in the attachment (Church Structure) and the administrative structure for the region is also as attached (Admin Structure).

Note:

[list]
[li]There could be variations.  Also nomenclature may vary depending on preference (e.g. overseer=superintendent=bishop, shepherd=pastor etc).

[/li]

[li]The overseers are also shepherds of their respective churches in addition to their supervising offices[/li]
[/list]

Hope this explains your question.

Hi TV01,

TayoD, Welcome back 0! I don't even mind that you came with that your wooden racket !

I couldn't hold myself at this!  This is sooo funny!  I'm still laughing my head off!!!

By the way, I thought you would have used that hypothetical scenario to explain or illustrate your position.

I will respond with mine shortly.

[TayoD you are much welcome after the sabbatical!]

Love.

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!

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!

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.

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.

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!!!!!!!!

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.

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!

Very well then.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Ephe 4:
11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,

12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;

13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ

The purpose of the five-fold ministry as contained here (and in 1 Cor 12) is clear in verse 12 i.e. to equip the saints, for the work of service/ministry and to build upthe body.  The duration for them is also clear in verse 13 as it states until. . .  And like I said before, if we have not yet all come to that unity of faith, to maturity and to the measure of Christ's fulness then the offices are still here with us.  Are there saints still to be equipped?  The work of service/minstry to be done?  The body to be built up?  Then sir, the offices remain.

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.

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.

From my little study, I have been able to see about 3 categories of apostles.  This classification is entirely mine and is just for the purpose of explanation and is open for modification.

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

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.

Bless you all.

Bagidi,

Yes it is ADULTERY! But you can still retrace your steps. Severe yourself from this new fellow. It will only bring you misery and regret later. End that relationship with him now. Remember whatever brought you and your husband in the first place, it is called first love. Bring it back.

But take care of you first. Fix yourself. Quit trying to get close to God. Just get close to him. He won't drive you out. He likes us just as we are to come to him. Do it now. Hit the floor and make a complete surrender of yourself and your marriage to Him. He will surely see to it.

Then work on yourself. What is that that drives out your husband? Probably your nagging. Nagging won't make him stop cheating. Quit that. Maybe your shoddy appearance? Then work on that. Get seductive for him alone. It is allowed. Seduce him back, he belongs to you. Or is it sex? Don't deny him. Let him beg you to stop and when he does, don't stop! Give him overdose of it. Drain him and he won't find any reason to take his eye of you. It works.

Also accept the mistake he has made. Treat the child as yours. Accept her. Let your hubby see the complete change in you. I tell you, he will repent and beg for your forgivennes and ask for that same God that has so changed you. There surely is a cure for cheating husband!

You will need all the resilience and courage you've got. You can do it, you can bring back that fire, radiance and warmth in your home.

Get to work now, right away! God be with you.

Now back to play.

TV01 you don't give up, do you?  I thought you should know when you are being drubbed.

The inference that Aggelos (Angelos) => Pastor is one strongs does not make. That is your own forceful interpretation of it (and slightly fraudulent is the manner you attempted to ascribe it to Strongs  ). I will show you why it is tenuous at best. Strong denotes as follows;

"a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger from God"

What are you trying to infer?  For the avoidance of any doubt, I will do a direct cut and paste from Strong's Greek Dictionary for the word 'aggelos' (pronunciation-an'gelos) translated 'angel':

Strong Entry #32: aggelos :from aggello (probably derived from agw - ago 71; compare 34) (to bring tidings); a messenger; especially an "angel"; by implication, a pastor:--angel, messenger.

There you have it.  Refute it if you can!  There is none of my input there and I repeat that is Strong's.  Please be truthful.

Even Easton's Bible Dictionary and others acknowledged that the word is used for the ministers of the New Testament Church among others.

The truth is that that word angel is used not only for spirit beings who are ministering spirits (the common use of angel), it's also used for human beings as ministers, or pastors, or messengers.  It is now left for you as a student of the word to rightly divide in the context used whether the person being reffered to is a spirit or a human being and the context will certainly reveal that.

In the case of who the messages 'To the angel of the church in . . .' were being addressed, there is surely no ambiguity given the context of the messages.  The explanation was given in preceeding chapter 1 verse 20 as to the meaning:

Rev. 1vs 20 (NASB)
"As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.

If you make a crosscheck with other translations, the word 'angel' was properly interpreted either as 'minister' or 'messenger', as I stated earlier.  The minister of the church is the pastor or overseer of the church to whom others are surbordinate and has the peculiar care of that flock.  Jesus addressed his message to the church to its overseer.  This is simple enough.  Trying to explain it away is denying the very words of Jesus.

I will not even take you to task on your "Jesus as Spirit". The Bible clearly portrays The Lord as having a glorified body. You have used lots of verbal sleights, erroneous inferences and tenuous connections in an attempt to make your point, but you cannot clearly trace any of your claims from scripture alone, as I have gone to great lengths to do severally.

Now I see you have decided to switch to boxing with your below-the-belt punches.  I clearly stated that at the point of this revelation of John, Jesus is glorified, and that means He is a spirit being and no longer human!  That was why John was afraid and fell as though dead at His sight.  This was not Son of Man talking, but the Alpha and Omega Himself- He said as much.

In as much as the messages where meant for the church, it means just that, all the church. You also reveal your belief that God speaks through mediators other than The Lord, Who as scripture shows speaks directly to His sheep. Presumably it's the same MOG who fed you this bunkum that told you that?

Now you are really showing signs of fatigue!  Your returns are not crossing the net again.   The messages were specific, even the names of the churches were mentioned because the messages vary from church to church.  The Chief Shepherd was overseeing His flock from above and knows exactly what was going on in each church.  Are you denying that he gave the messages to John to write down and pass to them?  No MOG fed me this.  The Holy Spirit through the bible and careful exegesis did!  Remember your own words, the scripture is simple, don't complicate it.

I will ask the question again:  Will Jesus send John a human being to give a message to a spirit being, if the angel here is to be a spirit?  Please search again.

I will agree if you say by extention the messages also concern us the whole church because the scriptures is for our example and learning and so, profitable for direction and instruction.

It speaks nothing of hierarchy, you just insist on implying it does. Please enunciate the hierarchy you are so fond of refering to? How many levels? What is the geographical area? How about numbers? Non of this works in practice. From the Pope down to the Catholic faithful, there are something like 14 different levels! Is that scripturally mandated? How exact is it?

I'm not implying any legalistic hierarchy that frustrates the Holy Spirit in doing His work.  NO.  All I have been saying is that in any assembly of believers, there are deacons and elders who are under the authority of the overseer (pastor or bishop) of that assembly who is responsible for both the leadership and the brethren (congregation).  This is the NT church.  Within the deaconery, there are differences of giftings and within the elders too differences of callings, giftings and administration.  But all are under the authority of the angel of that assembly, the overseer.  It is not a calling to be lord for to whom much is given, much is desired.  It is a call for service (and I dare say servanthood) for which accounts shall be rendered to Him.

Even the reference to The Lord as the Chief Shepherd & Bishop makes a nonsense of your stance. That is one person (office), clearly carrying out the different functions.

No, it clearly highlights my position.  He is the one person functioning in two different capacities here as the One who feeds us people of His pasture and oversees us.

Your "Spiritual Parent Oversight" remark further betrays how your error is compounded. There is no such precept validated by the scripture! Please show it? Humans do not cover humans. That's flesh covering flesh. Nor do they give "spiritual birth" to other believers.

Don't tell me!  What do you say of Paul calling Timothy his son in the faith, even though he has a biological father?  Or of Onesimus whom he gave birth to in his bonds, or the whole church in Corinth?

1 Tim. 1 vs 2:
2 To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

2 Tim. 1 vS 2:
2 To Timothy, my beloved son: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

Philemon 1 vs 10:
10 I appeal to you for my child Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my imprisonment,

1 Cor 4:
14 I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children.

15 For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

16 Therefore I exhort you, be imitators of me.

17 For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, and he will remind you of my ways which are in Christ, just as I teach everywhere in every church

Satisfied?

This tournament is about ending. . .

First to clear the air, guys.

Using sports parlance does not mean we are toying with the word of God here.  We are doing a serious dividing of the word.  The manner in which we go about it is responsively, hence the tennis jargons.  Like 4getme said, the scriptures use such descriptive language sometimes- races, farming, military, etc.  Check Paul's writings.

4get_me, even though I didn't make any comment on your posts #39 and #44, you were dead right!  I was glad you pointed it to TV01 becuase I was going to use that as well in my replies.  Please don't be booed out, your posts are most welcomed.  In fact the more the better.  TV01  seems to have a phobia for anything 'man of God' or MOG as he calls them, even though the divine afflatus is replete with  many instances including the 1 Tim 6:11 as clearly stated.

But we have a player here (TV01) who doesn't give up easily on his grounds.  If you must play with him, then you must be dogged.  He will use intimidation and other tricks to boo you out of contention.  But in the spirit of fairplay and sportsmanship let's play the game with him.

Mrpataki, I thought you are with me!

Bless you all.

This game is surely getting too hot for you to handle now, hence your desire to end it by all means by taking over the job of the umpire. . .

I knew you were never going to return that last drop shot.  I told you I'm an all-court action player.  It surely is a winner. . .

Revelations 2 vs 1,8,12,18 and 3 vs 1, 7 & 14:

'To the angel of the church in . . .

Here is the exegesis of this-I sure like analysis!

The Lord Jesus Christ was sending a messages to the 7 churches in Asia at this time.  John, the last of the original 12 apostles was banished to the island of Patmos.  Jesus was glorified at this time, so He was not a human being, but Spirit.  He, as such, had no need to send John, a human being, to deliver a message to a spirit.  That will be absurd!  Jesus could have delivered the messages to the angels himself since they are always at his beck and call in the spirit realm.

The angels in these verses are not spirit beings!  Also, the messages were for the churches and were to be written down.  They are certainly messages meant for human beings and not spirit beings.

Secondly, the word 'angel' in the 7 instances was always in singular meaning they are messages for a single person in each instance.  This is coming from Jesus Christ himself!  There goes you plural and parallel model of authority!

Checking the Greek word translated 'angel', you find 'aggelos'.  What does it mean?  From Strong Greek dictionary:

aggelos-  a messenger; especially an angel; by implication, a pastor -- angel, messenger.

The Chief Shepherd and Bishop Himself was giving messages to the churches through His last of the 12 he commisioned and He addressed them to the pastor and not the elders of each church.  The pastor is the messenger (that gives messages) to the church.  You may also interprete it as the 'minister' or shepherd of the church.  What does this tell you of authority and hierarchy?  The revelation was the last book (in choronological order) and the visions happened when the church was well established and not just embryonic.

I said earlier that Jesus believes in hierarchy and order.  Tell me where in the OT or NT, human or spirit realm, where there is no hierarchy.  In the pattern  in OT there is structure and hierarchy,  even in heaven there is hierarchy, among angels you have arch-angels.  Why would the church of the Living God not have structure and hierarchy?  The end-time army of Joel (talking prophetically about the church) is one that doesn't break its ranks!!

What it then means is that operating according to your model, while not a sin, simply robs you of the fulness of the blessings of building according to the pattern, and that of spiritual parental oversight and mentorship that makes for guidance and maturity!

I will respond to the last part of apostles tomorrow.  I gotta rush somewhere.

Meanwhile it's Game, Set & Match (for Analytical) and it will be Tournament tomorrow  !!

Blessings!

End Game? Except if you decide to abandon the game.  Now to the drop shots. . .

And for the umpteenth time, please outline your scriptural understanding of what these different leadership positions are and how they align to operate as “leadership”

I just did.

As ever you are institutionalising church. Units? for what? departments? what for? It is not an organization. The error stems in part from a failure to properly understand exactly what church is and what it is for. Believers come together for two main reasons (1) For mutual impartation/edification leading to growth and maturity (2) body welfare. It’s why just the two offices Elder (Bishop) or deacon are required.

God insituted the home and marriage, government and the church.  Maybe you have another revelation as to what the church is.  The church ('ecclesia') means 'called out'.  Those called out from the world to serve the Living God.  The NT from Acts to Revelation shows the organization of this called-out people, from embryo stage to rapture!  It is not a chaotic, orderless, free-for-all gathering, hence the instructions as to worship, administration, care, welfare, officers, offering, even ex-communication, etc found in the scriptural narratives.

Believers come together for mutual edification and body welfare, but that does not foreclose the organization or modality of going about it, which was clearly the case when the first deacons were chosen, to properly and effectively administer the welfare aspect of the increasing work.  If that is not organization, tell me what it is?

Part of the reasons why we gather is also to be empowered for further service in the kingdom, to do the work of ministry (Ephesians 4).  This surely calls for proper administration.  Why did Paul and the other missionaries keep going back to Antioch to give reports of their missions?

Can you please educate us what a church is and how it functions?

The above quote and ensuing question are both misguided and disingenuous. At Ephesus, Paul did address the elders, repeatedly. At Crete, there were no elders. Indeed the church was embryonic, and what Titus was commissioned to do, was strengthen and establish it by raising up mature believers and men qualified for eldership. In their apostolic capacity, Timothy & Titus would have had to have been jacks of all trade until such time as the church matured.

Now you deliberately parry.  I mentioned the books I was referring to i.e. Timothy and Titus.  These were written to individuals and not to elders.  How could I have said otherwise?  Please read again.

As we have both stated, not all elders share the Word. The bible simply states that those that do (and those that lead well), should be given double honour. The role of elder is not a paid position. So in addition to family and career/business responsibilities, they have the additional burden of eldership. And as such should be honoured.

Please highlight for us how to give double honour to someone who has performed his task creditably well.

The Head of the Church is The Lord. All are personally accountable to "Him to whom we must render account". In the body, some have more responsibility.

And the head of every home and government is the Lord too.  That is why he is the Lord (Master).  The husband will render account to him and so will those placed in authority as kings and rulers, and everyone for that matter.  So don't stretch that.  So in His divine wisdom, he placed people in authority and equips them for same.

I will post some references to eldership and ask that you do likewise for sole authority pastors or overseeing bishops.

Please replace the word 'elders' with 'ministers' or 'leaders' or 'officers' in all the references and the meaning will come clearer.  Those are the synonyms for the word 'elders'.  Any mention of the different offices included is just not necessary as the word 'elders' suffices.

I will end this set with this drop shot. . .

Who were being addressed in the message of Jesus Christ to the seven churches of Asia in Revelations 2 vs 1,8,12,18 and 3 vs 1, 7 & 14:

'To the angel of the church in . . . '

That is a winner surely. . .

Okay take my advice.

If I get the picture well, we have a guy who had the twins before he married the wife.  Then the woman fell in love with another man, but he still went ahead to marry her all the same!  He then left her to stay in Canada and only visited her in Uganda once a year.  Then found out later that the wife cheated on him and divorced her.  He met you later, proposed marriage and now gave you two weeks to decide.

First from my own religious inclination (I'm a Christian), I don't support divorce and if you do, it means you have to remain unmarried while the other remains alive.  That means whoever marries him commits adultery.  You may not agree with that.

It seems he provided the space needed for her infidelity if indeed it's true (I'm not excusing her).  But why did he marry her if it happened before they wedded?  If you go ahead to marry him, know that you are going into that union with loads of baggage from the ealier union.  Don't think the woman will just fade away- those twins remain hers and will still be in the equation, whatever you feel!

If you can't deal with that, it's not worth the burden to go in.  Like Agherese said, marriage is a lifetime relationship.  When you weigh the options and you don't feel up to it, then don't.  Moreso, there are issues on ground- divorce, children, and an enstranged wife in the background.  Putting you under pressure will becloud your sense of judgement.

Personally, I won't go into such marriage.