₦airaland Forum

I'm not just a baseliner but an all-court action person that forces serve and volley guy like you into unforced errors. . .

I have repeatedly asked you to outline the other members of the management/leadership team apart from elders. Specifying their function and how they work in tandem. Trying to forcefully overlay an organizational model and ignoring the detail won’t wash sir. Paul never described himself as an elder as he was mostly itinerant. If you meant Peter, I will speak further to his position later in this post.

Sorry for that typo, I meant Peter.  I'm not forcing any model, I just used a simple analogy you can relate with in a contemporary setting.  For the umpteenth time, I repeat the elders refer to the group of leaders in the church, and not an office.  Anyone called to a leadership position based on the criteria set in Timothy and Titus qualifies as elder.

This group will include the heads of the various units/departments/groups depending on the usage, and those ministers in the speaking ministries (preaching and teaching) like the pastors, teachers and evangelists within the church.  Note that it's not all with pastoral gifts that are in charge of a church.  These all consititute the elders of the church, with the overseer in charge.  This is why the scriptures in speaking about elders quickly followed with the particular office of the bishop who oversees the work.

Titus 1:

5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you,

6 namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion.

7 For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.

Timothy was ordained by the laying on of hands of the eldership. He aspired, qualified and was ordained “as an equal”, not a junior or associate. He in turn was called to nurture others who could function as elders and commit responsibility to them.

He was ordained into ministry by the laying on of hands of the elders.  Yes.  But this happened  before he became a companion with Paul in the apostolic missions and definitely way before he became the bishop at Ephesus.

The distinction is not successive levels of authority, but merely the maturity and qualification to assume an eldership role. The need to force a ranking hierarchy into church structure has led to the further error of over-stated authority and submission precepts and the utterly bogus covering doctrine.

So how do you force something that has been there all the while or doesn't the simplistic reading of the two books of Timothy and Titus even point to the fact that these were individuals having a higher authority to rebuke, teach, exhort, ordain, set things in order, oversee, appoint, denounce, organise etc?

Why do you think the books were not addressed to the elders in Ephesus and Crete if everybody was in charge?

How? Why? This merely points out that those elders who demonstrate exemplary leadership & labour in doctrine should be especially honoured. It doesn’t denote them as senior. Taking the time to study and share the word is an additional burden on such elders and should be acknowledged.

How do you then honour them?  What then have these elders, in your definition, been doing that to study and share the word is now additional burden on them?  What are their functions apart from wearing the tag?

Unsurprisingly, you make it sound like the upward career trajectory of an ambitious corporate executive. A  natural consequence of trying to apply an organizational paradigm to what is a family structure. A Father with offspring of different ages, maturity, talents and responsibility. The Word is so simple, so straightforward, so beautifully intuitive to those who approach it with a childlike innocence. It takes a “man-made religious mindset” to complicate it.

Good.  A family structure it is.  But isn't the father in charge as the head in a family, even though each member has different responsibilities?  Well said this: The Word is so simple it takes a “man-made religious mindset” to complicate it!

From the insitutions ordained by God Himself (home, government and the church), which one of these have the pattern where everyone is in charge and no one is the head?  Certainly not the home, for the husband is the head, and not the government where there are the kings and those placed in authority.  Why then the church having a parallel model where no one is responsible and accountable but all?

As was Paul’s practice, he would often remain in area until the church was mature enough to function without his oversight. He would then move on. Visiting when possible to strengthen and encourage. Timothy and Titus merely replicated this pattern. If they “settled” in a particular area they would have functioned as elders in their local congregations.

Excuse me sir, they did settle for a long time at both Ephesus and Crete.  They did not function as apostles here but as bishops overseeing the churches in their respective regions and effectively administering the same as contained in the books written to them for the same purpose.

This is exactly the case with Peter who remained in Jerusalem. As the church there was established and mature, he discarded the “Apostle” tag. Apostolic work is foundational. Once the church is founded, the apostolic becomes redundant in a day-to-day sense. As I have petitioned you previously, please outline what Apostles do in NTC and how their “ministry” dovetails with that of the local assembly

Peter remained an apostle till death.  The discussion will certainly cover that request of yours later [as you have made that unforced error of playing right into my path ] since this is a more appropriate thread to thrash that as well.

The scripture outlines the mandate for two offices only Bishop & Deacon. As I have often stressed those are the only two. The SAP role is a man-made construct and cannot be honestly inferred from the Bible. As ever, I stand to be corrected if you can show it.

I thought you meant elders and deacons (in plural)

Not so fast as a straight set.  Just concentrate on your game and leave the scoring for the umpire.  I'm going to make the next points drop shots. . .

Further questions so that we can get the whole picture: Please tell us where you, the man and the wife came from (i.e. nationality) and the state of the relationship with his wife whether separated, divorced legally, or just isolated?

Right.  Then take this stroke from the baseline. . .

First, render the word/s as you will, but one cannot use semantics to somehow disregard the Priesthood of all believers in the NTC. You are rigidly enforcing an unscriptural split.

The use of the Greek words as used in the scriptural references is not to semantically disregard anything.  Rather, it is to lay a good foundation for the meanings of the terms in our discourse.  You will agree with me that English is sometimes inadequate in properly dividing the word.  Some words have simply lost their original meanings in English.  Check the word translated 'charity' (1 Cor. 13-KJV) for example, would you believe it is 'agape'?

Secondly, I don't disregard the priesthood of all believers in the NT church.  We have all been made priests and kings unto our Lord and we are a royal priesthood.  I believe.  The former Levitical priestly order (the type in th OT) has found fulfilment in believers, to the extent that we require no priest to perform any mediating role nor animal sacrifices for us again.  But we now offer a different type of sacrifice- that of praise and our bodies as living sacrifices and we now all have access to our Father.  Just to clarify that.

So, in that wise I'm not enforcing a strict split.  All I did was to offer the different shades of meaning and usage of the terms, as used in both OT and NT.

Secondly rendering the word pastor as shepherd and saying they are elders also wrong-foots your starting premise of distinct “elder/pastor” from post #43.

If you follow me very well, you will understand my analogy here.  In the same sense as the MD of an organization is part and parcel of the management of the same, the pastor is also part of the leadership (elders) in an assembly, hence Paul himself saying he is also an elder, because the term refers to a Christian Leader, in our context.

There is no difference between bishop/overseer/presbyter/pastor//shepherd etc, however you translate or render them, they are all different facets of the same eldership role. Not a template for hierarchical structure in church. As you have rightly pointed out, not all elders assume all functions. Pastoring, overseeing and teaching are functions in NTC, carried out by elders.

Not quite.  That all of them are elders, I concur, if you follow the explanation above.  But within the leadership/eldership there is certainly an hierarchy.  What do you make of one who has the authority to ordain another if not a higher authority?  Or the one who has the power to promote? 

1 Tim 3 vs 17

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

Someone is certainly above another here.  It also means that there are different types/categories of elders and they can be promoted!  Consider this also

1 Tim. 3 vs 1
1 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do.

Other translations render it 'desires the office of a bishop'.  How do you desire something that is not a higher office?  Note that part of the qualification is that the one who is desiring should not be a novice.  We are talking of a leader desiring a higher office here!

Again you are making needless distinctions here and at the same time excluding certain scriptural imperatives. What of the deaconate? Functioning in “helps” does not necessarily make you an Elder. Elders minister/shepherd/teach/protect/lead the flock. It’s that simple. You have also failed to say how these other offices/leaders align with the eldership

I thought we agreed (from the beginning of the thread) that the deaconate is not in question here.  Hence, the focus on the elders.  I agree that functioning in helps does not necessarily make you an elder.  You can be a deacon and still function in helps.  You don't even have to be a deacon for you to function in helps if that is your gifting.

Placing a Bishop as overseer of a group of churches? Please append scripture to show that individual churches were anything other than autonomous? The attempt to impose a hierarchy is of men not of the scripture. The passage I posted serves to dispel this notion as well. The elders are called to oversee in verse 2. I repeat, scripture does not show bishops as senior to or different from elders.

Considering the very office of the bishop as a superintendent/overseer, it is not out of place for him to oversee a group of churches.  Churches were in houses in those days (partly because of the persecution of the era) and each has their leaders.  In a city then, you certainly have more than one.  As a result, the office of the bishop oversees the churches.  This is the NT church.

Referring to Timothy & Titus as hierarchical Bishops is simply mistaken. There was no church where they were at that time. They were helping establish it. They were acting more as apostles. As soon as there were suitably qualified men to function as elders, the church would have been up and running. Job done.

Yes, Timothy and Titus were more as apostles in as much as they moved with Paul to plant churches from place to place.  However, the moment they were placed over the regions of Ephesus and Crete respectively, they were effectively acting in the capacity of the overseer/bishop of the churches in those regions.  This they did for a long time and not just as soon as they establish elders.

I'm sure you will find it hard to return this stroke. . .

You can't be the player and the umpire/coach at the same time!  Wey our umpire sef?

In all the references to the two words (Elders and Pastors) I have not seen a sngle instance where the same word was used for each other.  For clarity sake, the word translated 'elder' has two origins/meanings in Greek:

1. meizon  - elder, greater, more, especially in age.  This is not our focus here.

2. presbuteros/presbyteros -  a senior; specially, an Israelite Sanhedrist (also figuratively, member of the celestial council) or Christian presbyter (in addition to what I wrote previously)

Thank you for adding that word 'presbyter'.  But what does it mean?  And who is a presbyter?  It simply means a priest or a minister or elder.

On the other hand, the word translated 'pastor' in NT is 'poimen'.  It means shepherd.  There is therefore no confusion as to the original Greek words used in NT to refer to this two different words.

Like I said earlier, the elders refer to the leadership in a church.  This group and their qualifications are well spelt out in Timothy and Titus.  It includes everyone ordained as a leader/minister/elder in the NT church regardless of their ministry in the congregation, whether as an evangelist or a teacher, or in helps.

By calling and gifting, the office of the shepherd (pastor) who is also an elder (presbyter/minister), however, has the responsiblity of feeding the flock and nurturing it.  Every presbyter/elder is not a shepherd/pastor.

When you have a large local assembly or a group of churches, the office of the overseer is what the scripture calls 'episkopos' in Greek translated 'bishop' meaning a superintendent in charge of the church or overseer.

Tell me, who does an overseer oversee?  And don't tell me it's the same as shepherd.  They are also distinct.  However, a bishop may be a pastor by calling.  But the responsibility is not the same.  Remember that Jesus Himself is refered to as the Shepherd (Pastor) and Bishop (Overseer) of our souls in 1Pet2:25, operating in the two capacities.

When you consider all of them as leaders you refer to them collectively as elders.  However, there are distinctions in responsibilities, callings and authority.  Timothy was the Bishop of Ephesus and Titus that of Crete.  They have the authority to ordain elders in the churches.  They have authority to rebuke Titus 2vs15.

Please be informed that I'm not forcing the church into any paradigm that is alien to it.  Just as the Bishop oversees the flock of Christ and the elders, the Managing Director oversees the management of an organization.  Jesus believes in hierarchy.  All believers are equal before God, but there are differences in administration and authority.

A beg return serve. . .

Hi Shahan Fan Club Members

I was away a few days and suddenly I feel I have just landed on Mars!!! I don't seem to have a clue what's going on again and the Martian language here is just too coded for me to understand again. I feel old suddenly!

To add to Tywoh's questions:  Who is putting you under pressure by giving you a deadline and why?

Guys, I'm back!

Umpire seated.
TV01 on court.
Analytical on court.

Major 0-0
Minor 15-15

Analytical serving TV01. . .

Game on!

In talking about church structure and pastors,  I wish to state categorically that the scripture does not support someone taking advantage of the flock of Christ or use their positions as shepherds of His flock to venerate and exalt themselves or make merchandise of the people of God.  This is outright abuse of office and priviedge and they have their reward!

However, that people abuse God-given positions and offices does not render such (offices) unscriptural.  Taking it up from where we stopped the last time, there certainly exists a distinction between elders and pastors.  And there certainly exists a hierarchical authority structure/pattern in the New Testament Church.  The position of authority in the church does not lord it over people, rather it calls for service and greater responsiblity.

The scripture is clear about the ministry gifts to the church.  There is no mention of the office or gift of an elder, set in the church, in the references to ministry gifts in Ephes. 4 and 1 Cor 12 (viz. apostles, prohets, pastors etc).  The church structure as contained in Timothy and Titus and other references, talks of elders, and they are in plural, as noted by you.

The term 'elder' comes from the Greek word 'presbuteros' from where the English word 'priests' comes from.  It refers to the clergy.  The same term is used for the Sanhedrin of the Old Testament.  In the contemporary, the same term could be applied to the church leadership, or church council.  It is a word that refers to the entire leadership of a local assembly or church and not to a specific office within the 'eldership' or leadership.

I will use a simple analogy here as we proceed.  In the corporate world, you refer to the management.  This term does not refer to a specific position within organizational structure, but to the entire leadership of the organization.

Now over to TV01. . .

TV01,

Walkover for where? I just sprained my arm when making that first serve and called for break and I will be back when my physio has finished! I play the game and very well too!

I have been too busy and won't be chanced even over the next few days. Just get ready for a love game when I'm back.

Be blessed.

I will not say it is wrong to marry a lady that is older than you.  No, it is not.  However, there are certain realities that you have to consider very well before you say 'I do'.  When you are thoroughly convinced of yourself, then you can take your decision.

Personally, I feel the age difference of 9 years is a bit on the high side.  It would have been better the other way round (i.e you, the man being older).  See my reasons:

No. 1 Reality - Biologically

The odds don't really favour you.  If you plan to have kids (which I think you do), then you have to consider that when she is 45 (about menopause), you will just be 36!  I don't know how old you are now, but consider that by 36 you should be through with having kids (all things being equal).

No. 2 Reality - Physically

Generally, women age faster than men.  Have you considered that she will most likely look much older than you are?  When you are 41 (just starting your life!) she will be 50.  Her youthful looks may be gone, grey hairs sprouting here and there.

No. 3 Reality -Sexually

Depending on your drives,she may just not be as active as you would wish, and definitely earlier than you.

No. 4 Reality -Maturity

Be ready for some mothering!  She will most likely be more matured than you are.

No 5 Reality - Death
All things being equal, she may go before you do.  Most men prefer to go before their wives.

Consider all these.  I am not trying to scare you.  But you must be ready to face realities, so that you don't wish to back out later.  If the strength of your conviction is very solid, you may go ahead.  It takes more than age to make marriage work.  There are more weighty issues of love, commitment, understanding, companionship, mutual tolerance etc.  But please don't go about telling people her age!

All the best.

Hi TV01,

There has been a little lull here of recent!

Maybe the problem I have with this thread is your use of 'Sole Authority' to qualify pastors, as though they are some overlords of sort.  That is not to say that pastors have not been set over assemblies of believers, to nurture and feed them.

I understand your viewpoint of the role of elders in the church.  However, someone has to be responsible for the care of souls- and that happens to be the pastor (or shepherd).  If you consider the type in the OT, the elders are always accountable to an individual.  This is necessary for direction and focus.

Even if you consider the traditional roles of shepherds, the root word from where pastors come from, an individual is always responsible for a group of sheep, leading them.  If they are many, the flock will scatter.  The shepherd knows the sheep intimately and they in turn know the voice of their shepherd and they listen to him.  Little wonder the same terminologes are used for the flock of Christ.

Or what do you think?

I don't know that one ever "submits to a teaching"

Sorry for that .  I mean being taught.

Bro' Analytical, you are absolutely right, I have gone to far. No excuses. I wholeheartedly and unreservedly apologise to all. That includes those I addressed directly and those who took offence at any of my remarks. Indeed, I repent. I should have demonstrated more XTian virtue than I have thus far.

I thank you for championing sound XT conduct, regardless of the slights to your own person. Glowing witness and excellent personal testimony. Thank you.

Now, that's my brother speaking there!   That's the spirit, beloved and thanks for the compliments.  All praise and glory to God!

Love and Peace!

TV01,

Next time please bring some relevance or join Analytical, mrpataki et al in the gainsayers corner!

A an aside, let me also educate you on the fact that most so-called XT denominations & ministries also work on that principle. By now you are not only screaming, you are also foaming at the mouth. One mo' I'll  call the men in white jackets  ! Enter mrpataki, havila & analytical - OMG, the lunatics are running the asylum

I chose to refrain from trading words and exchanging tantrums.  I’m sure you know I can hold my own when it comes to debate and theoretical doctrines based on my study and personal convictions, and not on any MOG’s according to you-  I wonder what’s wrong anyway in submitting to a teaching from an MOG that has more understanding and depth than one. I am, certainly too, not bereft of depth and understanding of cogent discussions, to answer you.  I merely responded to correct a misconception (contrast with this thread for an example of your own response!) and what has been your reply?  Further vituperations!

While not condemning, we are called to be our brother’s keeper.  You are my brother and it follows I shouldn’t keep silent where I sense a danger.  Your posts are too couched in pretense, pride and intolerance.  And the last time I checked they are not exactly virtues!

It is an offence on its own when you ascribe all knowledge and intelligence to yourself.  Anyone (and I’m not talking of those invectives) that doesn’t agree with your views, pretentious and debatable as they are, becomes your ‘sniper and gainsayer’ and are ‘naïve’, ‘not deep’ or ‘deluded’.  Their views become ‘misguided, more convoluted thinking, a mixture of sloppy half-baked deductions and nonsensical conclusions.’  Their submissions and posts are to you ‘overblown, wordy, off-point, bombastic, and spiritually impacted nonsense’, an ‘offense’ of which you are the first culprit.

Please show more grace, humility and maturity (as becoming of our calling as Christians), so your points don’t become too much ‘knowledge’ that wearies the soul of the reader.

Considering how the topic has been going round in circles, the best submission you have made in all your rejoinders and posts on it is just this simple sentence here:

Quote from: mrpataki on January 22, 2007, 06:30 PM

@ TV01,
Please answer my question, Is it wrong for christians to go into Politics?

TV01's response:

Apologies.

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

And I guess this can as well be the conclusion of the whole matter.

I love you all, TV01 inclusive, sincerely.

Neither you nor TayoD  suggested we 'siddon look', but I opted to because my views and his on the topic were the same.  I thought I made that clear above and on that thread by the posts I made.

You are wrong regards my denominational views. I don't belong to any denomination and I discuss each doctrinal position on it's merits, not on it's denomination or MOG endorsement! If I happen to have points of convergence or divergence with any tradition, rest assured it's merely coincidence. Stand corrected sir!

I stand corrected sir!  But still curious, where do you worship/fellowship?  Or do you have a church in your house?   

"What does an Apostle do (how do they function) in this age"?

So as not to divert the topic and at the same time fully correct my error, please open a thread answering my question above and I'll be happy to engage you there.

I have made my point.  You are not right all the time, you know?  I wonder why you would single out the gift of an apostle (and leave the rest!) for abolishment, simply because you don't seem to understand their importance in this age! 

In the spirit of Christ, one should own up to a mistake, especially one that's so glaring and scripturally baseless like this one, instead of further engaging in an exercise in futility, moreso when it is borne out of a desire to win an argument and not to edify.

Topic, please!!

TV01, while deciding to side-step on this discussion and watch from the terrace, I was hoping the discussion will progress more constructively.  Moreso, when in one of your earlier posts on the thread 'Is God a politician', before the discussion was transferred here, you made a comment of fighting a war on many fronts!  I then decided to leave the discussion to between you and TayoD because he was speaking my mind as well, and as such, there was no need to duplicate efforts, so that the discussion could be more focussed.

However, as much as we (all of us) try to defend our positions, there is also need to be more careful when projecting such positions, as there are many reading the posts and are getting informed and enlightened as well.  This is why such statements of yours like the one below should have been better framed, to reflect that it's your own opinion:

No, there are no more Apostles. What the Apostles/Apostolic is about is foundational. The foundations have been laid. Think "No other foundation can any man lay than that which is laid which is Christ Jesus" And "Being built on the foundation of the Apostles, Christ being the chief cornerstone".

Trying to make such a claim like this and seemingly justifying it by a part-quotation of a scripture that does not even support it, is at best misinforming! Who says there are no more apostles?  The word apostle is taken from the Greek word 'apostolos' which, acoording to Strong's Greek Dictionary, means:

'a delegate; specially, an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ (apostle) (with miraculous powers) -- apostle, messenger, he that is sent'.

Yes, there are 12 officially chosen by Our Lord.  But after these, there were many more in the New Testament and the early church.

This is the full text of that passage you tried to quote:

Ephe. 2
19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household,
20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,
21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.

Note that the foundation is laid by the apostles and the prophets, not just the apostles, as you would have us believe!  What follows in Chapter 4 of the same book, by the same writer is of importance.

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.
14 As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;
15 but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ,
16 from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.

1 Cor 12
28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.

The apostles are gifts to the church, just as the prophets, evangelists and so on.  To say there are no more apostles is to say there are no more other gifts to the church.  I can't find any scripture that supports your position, and certainly not this one you quoted in Ephesians.

The pupose and duration of the various gifts, all of which are still operating today, is very clear and unambigous.  Check verses 11 and 12 very well.  Have we all attained 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?  NO.  Are there saints to be equipped yet, for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ? YES.  Then the gifts are still very much alive!

By the way, Sage your views tend more to those of Jehovah's Witnesses and TV01 more to those of the Brethren (Christ Churches).  Correct me if am wrong please.

[P.S.  I don't intend to divert the topic, but to correct an error by TV01]

TV01, I was expecting your reply before the interruption. Have you taken time now to go through Nehemiah again as said in my post?

I pleaded with him off-Nairaland and he has graciously decided to unlock it (he actually locked it!) for now, but still wants to split the topic. Like TV01 said we have just progressed on the topic. Please leave it as it is.

All hail King Seun of Nairaland!

@mihai

How did I miss these:

15: And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples e.t.c. [clearly the 11, contrary to your claims], and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
This does not, as I said in the brackets, include the women amongst the number of disciples, neither does it claim that there were a hundred and twenty disciples. What it does claim is that there were 120 people gathered. Although it is a more archaic way of converse, the number simply refers to the number of names registered at the gathering.

Acts 2:
1: And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. [as I said, this is no longer the 120, but the 12].
Just in case there's some doubt left, after the multi-lingual confession , this happened:
14: But Peter, standing up with the eleven (e.t.c.)

You are wrong, you know?  This is how.

From your post above, you are saying just the 11 disciples were gathered and that the 120 were not disciples but just crowd.  Now, if the disciples that gathered were just the 11 where did the two disciples put forward, ie Joseph Barnabas and Matthias, come from?  Were they disciples too, or just part of the crowd?

Read what Peter said very well for the criteria to choose the person to replace Judas.  He (the person to be chosen) must have been with them from the start of Jesus ministry at the baptism of John to the day He ascended (vs 21).  Clearly these two men were disciples, and not just crowd, and they were part of the about 120 disciples present, both men and women.

Also, from the criteria in vs 21, they were also present when Jesus was taken up from them at the ascension.  That means not just 11 disciples were there at that day of the ascension as witnesses, contrary to what you wrote.  Other disciples, of which are Barnabas and Matthias, were also present, according to Peter.  Mind you, it was that same day of the ascension that He gave that Great Commision in Matt. 28:19!

Now, these same about 120 disciples (men and women) were the ones that were together in one place (likely the same upper room) at the day of Pentecost.  Remember by this time Matthias had replaced Judas, to make the 12.  Are you now suggesting that Joseph Barnabas was no longer part of the disciples or that he left after he wasn't chosen and therefore was not part of the Pentecost experience?

Notice that when they were all speaking in tongues and Peter stood up, he had to quote Joel, that that day was that coming to pass.  Part of that passage says 'your daughters shall prophesy' to explain the presence of the women as well!

Seun, please don't lock it. I suggest you modify the title to :Is God A Politician/Should Christians participate in Politics?

Segoye2, please don't derail this discussion.

Trini-girl, you will agree with me that the discussion in this thread has since shifted focus from God being a politician (we know He is not) to that of Christians participation in government and politics, which is the bone of contention between us and TV01.

It seems the absolute use (and the consequent abuse) of power by those in government is what informs his opinion on this.  But we must understand very well what the focus of a believer in place government should be.  A believer in authority is not to lord it over people, but to serve them.  This is the spirit of Christianity- service.  Whether secular or ministry.

I believe in the separation of state and church as separate institutions.  But that is as far as it goes.  The church is not to be state-run and vice-versa.  That is not to say that individuals that make up both are mutually exclusive.  A believer is a citizen of a state, bound and affected by its policies- both good or bad.  What a witness it is for our God to have believers of integrity and high moral standards, that will serve people in fairness and fear of God, with a clear focus on who they are and why they are in power!

Should we continue to groan under oppressive tyrants and all we do is to stay at the receiving ends of their tyrannies and pray for deliverance from their hands and refuse to rather take the opportunities available to serve people with godly ideals?  All because we choose to see a ‘worldly’ agenda in government?  Then we should altogether leave this world and refuse to be involved in all its ‘worldly’ endeavours in music, sports, business etc.

May I crave the indulgence of all here to please go read again the accounts of Esther, Daniel and Nehemiah.  These were believers in their dispensations.  You can’t just miss their involvements in the politics of their days.  Those were empires governed by monarchy- the prevailing system of government of their days.

Would you know that Esther participated in a process that eventually brought her into the palace as queen.   What do you call the process through which an evil decree was overturned, if not lobbying, with God in her favour?  The same could be said of Daniel.  I disagree that these were just servitude as TV01 called it.

What do you make of Nehemiah?  Please go grab a Bible and do some reading (not even studying).  This was a man who served King Artaxerxes of Medo-Persian Empire as cup-bearer (servitude here), but was busy making plans and mapping out the strategy of reaching his goal of rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem and leading a return to Judah of the captives.

By the time he made his request known to the king (after 4months), he was ready with every answer the king required of him, the duration, the means, and the goal!  Would you care to know that he was made a governor of Judah and actually served for more than 12 years, with purpose and integrity.  This was a believer in governance.  By the way, the empire had 127 provinces, and Judah had governors before Nehemiah came.

Hear what this man wrote himself in Nehemiah 5:

14 Moreover, from the day that I was appointed to be their governor in the land of Judah, from the twentieth year to the thirty-second year of King Artaxerxes, for twelve years, neither I nor my kinsmen have eaten the governor’s food allowance.

15 But the former governors who were before me laid burdens on the people and took from them bread and wine besides forty shekels of silver; even their servants domineered the people. But I did not do so because of the fear of God.

16 I also applied myself to the work on this wall; we did not buy any land, and all my servants were gathered there for the work.

17 Moreover, there were at my table one hundred and fifty Jews and officials, besides those who came to us from the nations that were around us.

18 Now that which was prepared for each day was one ox and six choice sheep, also birds were prepared for me; and once in ten days all sorts of wine were furnished in abundance. Yet for all this I did not demand the governor’s food allowance, because the servitude was heavy on this people.

19 Remember me, O my God, for good, according to all that I have done for this people.

He conducted census, removed taxes, organised guards, restore public order, refused to abuse power, improved living conditions etc.  He had his own fare share of distractions and evil plots from enemies who had been oppressing the people.

What more do I say?  May God give us the Nehemiahs of our days!

[I appreciate you all and no hate in my heart, nor any intention of intellectual wetin wetin, according to trini_girl]

TV01, thanks for restating your position.  As much as I respect your right to have your opinion, however, I still have a problem with the position.  Statements like these are part of my concern for this your gospel of segregation (no pun intended):

I believe that the nature of  political discourse and the underlying spiritual dynamic make it all but impossible for a Christian to seek political authority via the normal worldly channels without compromise. I believe this is bourn out by scripture.

I think if one can see the “big picture” scenarios as spelt out in scripture, then ideas such as “influencing the world” and “being a witness for Christ via political position” will be understood as being misguided at best. What the enemy wants is for us to engage him/the world, on his/their terms, using his/their structures.

No Sir!  I will agree if you say it's difficult for a Christian, but to say it's impossible is to go off the limits.  Please like others have asked, can we see your scriptural references that support this your position, since it is bourne out of scriptures?  Whatever is wrong in influencing the world through and being a witness for Christ via political positions?  It is this kind of reasoning that has rendered us so ineffective and waned our influence to truly be a salt and a light in the world, according to our calling!

May I ask, what does it even mean to be a christian?  Does it mean we are some kind of aliens who had no business being in the world?  Should a christian remain so aloof and unconcerned with the world around him, while on his way to heaven?  That will not be the gospel.  A christian is someone who was blood bathed and redeemed, translated from the kingdom of darkness into that of light, thereby removing the world from him, then put back into the world to affect and occupy till the One who purchased him comes back.

While He still tarries, we are under a mandate here to occupy.  We have relinquished this mandate long enough and that is why the enemy keeps deluding us that it is not possible to do.  I am not preaching a theocracy here- you cannot have that until He comes to establish his earthly kingdom- but an involvement in everyday affair on planet earth.  The early church had so much impact because of it's everyday influence in the market place, waterside, politics, business, even in prison yard!

Hear what the scripture says in Isaiah 9 vs 6:

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

Don't let us submit to the lie of the devil, thereby cheating us of what is ours by being indifferent, after all our Lord is the One that has the government upon His shoulder, whether through the civil service or political participation!  We are the people of His pasture and constitute His body.  Who then are we to say otherwise.  (By the way, the shoulder is part of the body!)

He has not told us our walk (whether in business or government) is going to be easy.  It wasn't easy for Esther who said if 'I perish I perish' nor for Daniel who purposed in his heart not to defile himself.  But these stood, even in the midst of opposition and mischeivous plots, as shinning lights in their generations.  Please note that participation in government is not synonymous with the apostasy of a state religion.

What then is the conclusion of the matter: whatever vocation you are in, be it in government or busniess, be a shinning light for Christ, not only by what you say, but by your godly character.  Let your light so shine, that others will see your good works and glorify your father in heaven.

Peace.

@Shahan

@Analytical,
As son of man, you could now pass into the more mature category. Since you're no longer in the "dream-dreams" category, it says rather that the "[young men] shall see visions!" That's more like it - and remember that visions are not as common as dreams!

Visions no dey as common as dreams, but you no know say vision dey more clear and serious?

@TV01

I can see some confusion here:

1. You are equating participation in governance and agitation

These two are not the same thing.  The example of Deuteronomy I cited, which was also used by TayoD, is an instance of the participation of a people in choosing their leaders to represent them, which is simply politics.

The wikipedia defines politics as:

Politics is the process by which groups make decisions. Although the term is generally applied to behavior within governments, politics is observed in all human (and many non-human) group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as:

a.  The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs.

b.  Political science.

c.  The activities or affairs engaged in by a government, politician, or political party: "All politics is local" (Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.) "Politics have appealed to me since I was at Oxford because they are exciting morning, noon, and night" (Jeffrey Archer).

d.  The methods or tactics involved in managing a state or government:

I just hope you are not beginning to redefine what politics is.

2. It seems you are saying it's difficult for a christian to be involved without compromising rather than that (s)he should not be involved at all.

Clarify so I can get where you stand clearly.

Mihai,

Why would you think I just posted single verses of passages I've not digested before posting? I've shown from both the very account in Matthew and parallel account of the same event in luke and events shortly after in Acts, still refering to the same disciples, both men and women.

What more further persuasion do I give than to commend you to the hands of the One that gave the charge in the first place! I'm not the Holy Spirit- He is the one that teaches us all truth. May He continue to illuminate our hearts and grant us more understanding.

Peace.

@TV01

We are told to affect governments vertically (by our prayer upward), not horizontally (by political agitation).

Go on then, provide yor examples. I'm right here!

It's not by our prayer alone that we can affect governments.  People of God can and should affect governments horizontally too.  Your use of political agitation is more on the militant side, which doesn't have to be.  God has always had His people in governance and politics, to carry out his agenda, deliver His people and rule in righteousness.

And God effects His will whatwever system is in place, regardless of what the sons of men will to do. God is Sovreign!

This borders on fatalism, what will be will be.  Should we then fold hands and expect the Soveriegn God to come down and do what we should do ourselves?

Remember what He said in Proverbs 29:2

When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn

Since you require examples of people that affected governments horizontally by being involved (doesn't have to be agitation as you put it), where then do you place Joseph, Daniel, Esther, Nehemiah, Ezra etc.

It would interest you to know that Esther went through a selection process before she could become queen.  Thank God for her involvement in the politics of the land, coupled with prayer and fasting, through which God delivered His people from extinction.

While we pray, there also has to be God's people in place to affect policies and decisions that will serve to bless people.  What shall we say of Daniel, the 1st of 3 presidents in Babylon, through whom an unbelieving king passed a decree that only the God of Daniel shall people worship.  Would you know that Daniel and his 3 friends went through a rigorous selection process before they could be part of that government in a foreign land.  Their exploits we all know.

Or is it Joseph we should talk about, as the prime minister of Egypt, through whom God preserved the world in time of famine?  If more than anything else, I think we need more of such set people for our time- people that will carry the banner of Jesus high in the high echelons of power and politics and bear their influence upon a crooked world and establish righteousness and justice in the land.

Make God give us such in our generation!

@TV01

I don't get it.  Where did I go wrong?  I have not said I'm a guru or whatever you called me.  Neither did I say you did not believe.  I used 'except if you do not believe in that scripture'.  The emphasis on the if and that scripture.  I was referring to the truth of that scripture.

I posted a rejoinder about the same time you replied.  Please go over what I wrote again.  It seems I misunderstood what mrpataki wrote earlier.  If by saying politics and democracy, he meant government, then God instituted it.  If however, what he meant by politics and democracy is the compromise and questioning of God's authority and mandate, then maybe I misunderstood him and I thought i made that clear.

The fact that God instituted order, hierarchy and government. Does not mean he instituted democracy or is involved in politics.

God is sovereign and does not request mandate from anyone, I submit.  Please read my post (#23) just above yours, I corrected myself that God instituted government.  However to suggest He is not involved in politics is to underrate His sovereignty!

Thanks y'all. If He can do it for me, He can do it for you too. Remember, the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Be blessed.

I agree that the word democracy was not mentioned in the bible, but that does not remove the fact that God insituted government.  I am of the opinion He also gave us free will to determine how we want to be governed as a people, as long as truth and justice according to His will are not compromised.

Check the first reference I quoted above, of Moses:

Deut. 1:
9 “I spoke to you at that time, saying, ‘I am not able to bear the burden of you alone.
10 ‘The LORD your God has multiplied you, and behold, you are this day like the stars of heaven in number.
11 ‘May the LORD, the God of your fathers, increase you a thousand-fold more than you are and bless you, just as He has promised you!
12 ‘How can I alone bear the load and burden of you and your strife?
13 ‘Choose wise and discerning and experienced men from your tribes, and I will appoint them as your heads.’
14 “You answered me and said, ‘The thing which you have said to do is good.’
15 “So I took the heads of your tribes, wise and experienced men, and appointed them heads over you, leaders of thousands and of hundreds, of fifties and of tens, and officers for your tribes.
16 “Then I charged your judges at that time, saying, ‘Hear the cases between your fellow countrymen, and judge righteously between a man and his fellow countryman, or the alien who is with him.
17 ‘You shall not show partiality in judgment; you shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not fear man, for the judgment is God’s. The case that is too hard for you, you shall bring to me, and I will hear it.’
18 “I commanded you at that time all the things that you should do.

I hope by politics and democracy you do not mean all the dirty compromises and bickering and all that, that is common to this generation?

Cheers.

@segoye2

@ Analytical,
IS a touching story you got there, can we see some documents please?

I did not bother to make photocopies of any documents.  However, those will still be in my family folder at the hospital.  Mind you, I was very angry at the time, for even missing the appointment.  The accident case was entered at the police station too.  Maybe I should have snapped a picture of my car as it was then.  But all those were not on my mind, as I was very sick and too disappointed and did not even know I was being healed and stopped on purpose!  I'm still smiling at myself!  God must have thoroughly enjoyed Himself that day!!

I know people want to see evidence, but take what I'm telling you.  It happened to me!  And nobody is paying me to say it.

Or do I talk of when my wife was about to deliver in 2002?  When after being in labour for more than 12 hours, it was concluded that she was going to have an operation to have the baby, because the cervix could not fully dilate.  After calling on some friends to join me in faith as we pray, I went in to anoint her with oil and called the baby forth.  The theartre was already prepared and the gynaecologist already sent for.  He checked her and concluded if she doesn't deliver by 9am he was going ahead with the operation because the baby was getting weak.  He left and was to come back for the CS, but before he came back, my baby was already out by 7.30am, even without the cervix fully dilating!  Guess what her name was?  Iyanuloluwa- The Lord is full of wonders!

Blessings.

@TV01

The God of the Bible, is not a democrat, He is a Sovreign!
Please, feel free to kiss-up and brown nose each other all the day long.
But don't reduce God (my God) to being a vote canvasser.

I think you got it all wrong!  Mrpataki has just blessed us with a verse that showed us some truths about the very nature of our God, for which we bless him.  I don't think we need to dwell on this for long, except if you don't believe in that scripture.

No one has said He is not the Sovereign.  In fact, as the Sovereign, He decides what He wills as He wills.  All mrpataki said was that He instituted democracy and has been involved in politics, except if you don't believe that there is no power except ordained of God.  There is surely a God in heaven who still rules in the affairs of men.

Going through the scriptures, you will find various accounts of how God showed His Sovereignty in diverse ways.  Sometimes, He speaks, sometimes through his prophets, at other times through lots.  Remember the heads of the tribes that worked with Moses were chosen (Deuteronomy 1 vs 6-13), Saul was chosen as king by lot (1 Sam. 10 vs 17-21).  Even the 12th apostle to replace Judas was by lot.  The first deacons were selected by the congregation out of many.  But it's still the same God in all.  He appointed the kings, set up the prophets and priests and instituted the judges.  For short, He instituted government.

This is what mrpataki meant.  However, I don't subscribe to His being a democrat or republican.  Those are human set-ups and God is not against any.  He can choose to work through any, He can set up and remove too.

Thanks Bari_Kade for the replies. You've said what I wanted to. Mihai and Donzman take note.

But for the other rejoinders in mihai's post, please refer to my post again and study the references.

Peace.

Who says miracles don't happen today?  As long as there is still a God in heaven who rules in the affairs of men, then there will continue to be miracles!

What is a miracle?  A miracle happens when the Super-natural steps in to the natural realm, when God decides to do what ordinarily would have been impossible otherwise.  Is there still a God in heaven?  Are their still humans on earth?  And are there situations that need divine intervention?  Then miracles can and still occur!

December 2004, yours truly was down with a stomach problem that was on for more than a week.  All the symptoms point to appendisitis- pains towards the appendix, inflamation, tenderness etc.  I was at the hospital, checked by 2 different doctors and was confirmed.  Arrangement was made and appointment fixed to meet the surgeon for the surgery by 3pm on the D-day.

I was faced with a challenge.  I was changing accomodation at the time, so the money was not there, coupled with the inconvenience of being incapacitated for a while, at a time my wife was heavy.  My wife and I decided to call on the God of heaven to step in.  How he was going to do it, we didin't know.

We left for the surgery, but around 2.30pm by an intersection, we stopped for the traffic warden to pass us (I was managing to drive!).  We've been there for close to a minute when a car ran into my car from behind, on a top speed.  The two cars were dented and found ourselves at the police station, instead of the hospital!  When all these was over, appointment over-taken and surgery postponed, I took time to reflect.  After some days, I discovered there was no pain again, no inflamation.

What had happened?  Well, you can say anything you want to, but God had just healed me miraculously!  And what a way to get me to stop going to the hospital for the surgery!!  Till today I'm still healed and had no need for appendisitis again!  God still moves in mysterious ways to perform His wonders!  I can't but smile anytime I think about the humour of it all!

Bless y'all.

Admirer, yes, but dreaming dreams, nope.  Son of man has dreamt all the dreams that needed to be dreamt and it has produced 2 daughters who shall prophesy!  Hope I'm not dashing any hopes?

By the way, I do admire you too babyosisi, your posts have been a blessing! Maybe we should open a thread on the great gals of Nairaland?