₦airaland Forum

OmoPastor:
@ TV01
i hope you study the scriptures diligently.

OmoPastor:
are you aware most parts of the scriptures are personal revelations written down for our consumption, whatever God reveals to someone which must be scripturally based is for the benefit of others.

Would God be averse to revealing these to all, or any that care to know? That way nothing would be lost in translation?

OmoPastor:
and when i said personal revelation means my eyes were opened to its truth and i decided to share it with others. no one is being coerced into giving firstfruit but when in future people see some rich MOG they start running their mouths not knowing what they had done to get there.

- Again, perhaps share how your eyes were opened. You are sharing your act, not what motivated it.
- Are you sharing to pre-empt people "running their mouths"? Or to explain how "MOGS" get rich?

Thanks
TV

ujchief:
first fruit is biblical, so is tithing!

Hello ujchief,

Indded "biblical" if by that one means they are contained in the bible. But not biblical if one is suggesting that either of these two practices is mandatory for Christians.


Thanks
TV

OmoPastor:
i have been doing this for some time now and i cannot stop cos its a personal revelation to me.

Hello OmoPastor,

In as much as your action is precipitated on a "personal revelation", would it not be more fitting for you to urge other believers to seek that same revelation for themselves? helping them to understand how and why? Surely then, as you recieved it so will they and as you cling to it in faith, they will do likewise? When does one' personal revelation become dogma for all?

Even more questionable when you responded thus to someone who queried you

@ goshen360
Quote
And why do you have to bring it here to tell us before you even do it? I tell you the truth, you have your reward already before men. Do your giving in secret and your heavenly father that sees in the secret will reward you openly.

God have mercy.

leave that between me and my God, you have no say in this so keep your scriptures to yoursel.f

If from the Holy Spirit, point to Him, if from study, perhaps you could share that.  It would be even more of a service if you did either of those and additionally retired the diatribe about believers shutting out the Holy Spirit or not studying the word or being unskilled therein.



Thanks
TV

Bro’ otooro, greetings.

Firstly, let me commend you. I sense you have committed yourself to seeking a wife in the fear of God. If that is so, be sure; He is faithful and He will beautify you in His own time.

Even if not, you have certainly resolved to be upright in your approach in finding a wife. That in itself is laudable.

It also warms my heart and reminds me of where I was not too long ago. And because your approach seems to mirror mine, I’d like to draw alongside and share if I may.

Four years ago you thought this girl may well be your wife. You acted accordingly. You pursued and positioned yourself to get to know more about her character, conduct and comportment. Did she have the qualities to be your wife? Nothing happened at that time and you were never able to determine if she was the one. Truth being, her understanding and interest at that time meant she preferred someone else.

Because you did the right thing – wondering what might have been can be such a drag - you were able to move on, and ultimately forget her. But as you were never able to ascertain those 3 C’s, you still have a romantic picture of her and there are some open questions. Especially so as you are still single and possibly have not met, or not met and matched with anyone who stirred you as much since you met her.

No problem sir, you are in a win, win situation.

There is nothing stopping you from taking time to renew your acquaintance with this girl in order to determine if she is right for you. Indeed, I would encourage it. The least that will happen is that you will determine she is not, clear your decks of her and keep moving. Keeping unencumbered and undistracted is key in the approach you have chosen to adopt.

Caveat – You are not dating, together, hooked-up or whatever you young people call it these days. You are getting to know her to see if there is “a possibility”. No commitment at this stage. This should be no longer than 3 months (rule of thumb, please contextualise the time to the situation), and if at any point there are deal breakers, red flags or serious concerns please desist. There is nothing stopping you meeting others, but if you meet someone you want to be serious with, again, clear your decks. Please continue to keep yourself, it makes for clarity.

Four years down the line “your game” – not players game 0! – has sharpened. You have been faithful, are more aware of what you are after and hopefully what it takes to make a happy home. Her game – of which at this point we are unsure – has also changed. Has she matured, and is more appreciative of your qualities or is she simply more cunning and worldly wise? Does she see you as someone of quality and worth who she will love and cherish as a spouse or someone to use as cover for her waywardness and as a platform to "form" as respectably married big girl? Remember, I said 3 months.

It would take a whole treatise to discuss the notion of “leftover” as used here. I’ll try and be specific and brief. You are more of a man than most for not considering her in that light. You have done right not to judge her. Your only judgement is if you are right for each other. Do this based primarily on her character, qualities and interaction with you. Have trusted counsellors if required and don’t leave any concern unaddressed.

There are only a few women out there that have not been bruised or hurt. Fewer still that have not made “mistakes”. As for virgins, I understand they are as common as impoverished Nigerian legislators. Strange how those who wound them also disdain them? There are users and abusers of both genders. Take heart, you will be shielded from such. What you want in your day to day married life is a good hearted - hopefully God fearing - spouse. She may or may not have a past.

If she is good and will make a great spouse, it may or may not be the former guys loss. That is not your concern, as it will certainly be your gain. Count your blessings. If she is bad, you won't take 4 years to figure that out and be on your way.

Whoever you end up marrying, you appear to have the heart and humility to heal and make her whole with your love and character – if required.

I trust you will make the right call in this instance, have a winning end game over all and a glorious wedding and marriage.

Finally, I don’t know your age, but please don’t let concerns here cause desperation.

God bless
TV

To whom shall I compare Thee and make Thee alike?
To whom shall I liken Thee and make Thee equal?

Blessed be The Lord God Almighty.

Thank You Father.

Joagbaje:
Wad up? What of me, you are not interested in my story? Don't you want to know how I became god?

Yawn!

When the first of this ilk made an appearance, I shook my head, knowing what could have developed into a nice convo would potentially be thwarted. Not that I need to point it out, but a further hallmark of the religious is "attention seeking".

e36991:
@TV01

Excerpt! . . .

This is a great expose by the late Dr. E.L. Martin. It documents the true history of the Samaritans, the meaning of the word "peter" in the ancient world and the "church" that was established at Rome by Simon the Sorcerer.

---

[/size]

---

Right from the very beginning, Satan had his counterfeit "messiah" operating right in the true Messiah's backyard. His name was Simon Magus or Simon the Sorcerer and this man, and not Simon Peter the Apostle, went on to found the Universal Roman "church." His career was the history of Roman Catholicism in miniature. For a long time he bewitched the people with his false miracles. Since the year 800 A.D., Rome has bewitched the world with her false miracles of transubstantiation.

Simon believed and was baptized. Outwardly he was a Christian but his belief was only superficial and he was still a pagan at heart. He coveted the apostolic office and saw the opportunity of using Christianity to make money — a business corporation masquerading as the church of Christ!!

From Simon Magus we get the word simony which means to buy a religious office with money.

After his encounter with St. Peter, this magician went to Rome and by tricks and false miracles established a "Christian church" in that city. This man can truly be considered as the first of the age long dynasty of Popes — many coming in Christ's name and deceiving many (Matt. 25:5) . . .

More?

Click link http://www.reformation.org/simon_peter_versus_simon_magus.html

Thanks @e36991 & Aletheia,

Had a good read. Came away with an intuitive sense of it being correct in essence. Quite insightful and adds depth and detail to stuff I've come across before. Nothing to make me change position or shift stance in anyway. If anything, it probably deepened my conviction.

Truth is, I don't actually think one needs to have an in-depth knowledge of antiquity, be it language, culture or history to have a very clear perception of what obtains. What we need to know and more, can be revealed to us in the here and now.

For a while now, I have been quite convinced as to who/what constitutes "her" who He heeds us to come out of. Right now I think "she" is too big and too obvious to those who truly seek Him, to remain amorphous as possibly may have been the case at certain points.

Now that would be worth discussing!

The Lord knows those who are His.
TV

nuclearboy:
Got it thanks! Simon the Rock versus Simon the Priest. Interesting that nothing truly is new under the sun.

May l see it please.

Thanks
TV

fyneguy:
TV01,

Where hath thou? It's your turn to tell your co-traveller to ''let it go''. Bunch of hypocrites!

WoglyBobo 'sup? You sound pained? Did you run out of jerry curl juice? Or perhaps someone borrowed your anniversary edition of "ROR" and returned it with an oil stain on the cover - soiling the loffly visage of the MOG. Sorry 0 .

And kindly regrain from brutalising her majestys english. But then again, this is someone who relishes in butchering scripture at every opportunity .

I eagerly await your hubristic, censorious, judgemental, condemnatory and invariably nonsensical response .

God bless
TV

fyneguy:
Itching to get insulted? You should strive to keep your dignity, however herculean.

Neither you nor your ilk were RSVP'ed, but in your hubris you had to gatecrash and trumpet your presence in an sneeringly ugly manner. It's probably pointless telling you that you don't actually have the wherewithal to disturb my dignity, although certainly less so thant trying to deny you your deep craving to spew your religiosity.

fyneguy:
Hmmm

I suppose one should be bold enough to tell us the name of his church

You miss road abi?

Post believing, I was a "deep-end" Pentacostal for 6+ years. I was "church boy" and fully immersed in the religious life. I grew and advanced beyond my contemporaries and in literally no time had the traditions down to  "T". But I never ceased to cry to Him, saying, "I hear what they say, I listen to the MOG, I obey without question, but I need to hear You for myself. Then He spoke! And shredded all my doctrine and recieved notions. Block by block, He dismantled the edifice I'd built. Of course, I didn't fall easily. I went to great lenghts to explain to God how we "did church". But the merest glimpse of a revelation of Christ left me without appetite for men and their traditions. And I am happy to count it all loss that I may gain Him. Godspeed.

TV

_{to answer your question? I am "non-denominational", don't have church "membership" or a pastor "in authority" over me. No "physical" affiliations as such.}

And to respond to the OP, without meaning to sound off, my response to that is "whatever", as its a totally mute point. The Lord is building "His Church". Its positioned exactly how He wants it to be. What you do with or what is required by "your churches" is left to "you" to decide.

Sheesh! I'm going back on holiday already.

Life's a beach
TV

Tonye-t:
1 Cor 9:13-15
13 Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar?

14 In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel.

15 But I have not used any of [size=13pt]these rights[/size]. . ." NIV

Doesnt this tell your biase mindset that "Its a right for Men of God to get their food from the temple". . .whosoever does not use this right is still free to do otherwise.

- WRONG!!!!

Just back from holiday and still in a "loungin' kinda mood". But why oh why, can someone not rebutt the nonsensical interpretation of 1 Corinthians 9 13-14 used to justify tithing to support ministers?

“those who preach the gospel” refers to those who give up their livelihoods to propagate the good news of the gospel. Those whose devotion to this work precludes them working, usually because they are fully engaged in taking the gospel to places where it is unknown, to people who have not heard.

This is what Paul was doing. In such cases it is only right that “ministers” are cared for by those they minister too. But even this right Paul forsook, choosing to undertake menial work rather than give the gospel cause to be slandered.

It does not pertain to those who minister in local congregations. That is shepherding (of which a facet is teaching) and not to be confused with what Paul (who was working apostolically to give “foundational structure” to the church) was doing.

Every able bodied adult male is supposed to work – including ministers – except those who are displaced and unable to do so due to the reasons I outlined earlier. There is no salaried position in the local church.

God bless
TV

1. The word pastor is synonymous with elder, bishop presbyter and shepherd

2. The is no biblical prescription for a “The Pastor” or a “pre-eminent Pastor”

3. All things being equal, eldership in the body is always a plurality of co-equals, although they may have different roles, functions, gifts and talents

4. The function/office/role is one which any qualified believer may aspire to. The calling as it were, is not necessarily divine post conversion.

5. The “authority” is not spiritual. It is administrative related to the gathering of believers and related activities. It does not extend to “whole of life” over fellow brethren.

6. The Lord does not devolve the unilateral power to bless or curse to the “sole-authority-pastor”, who in any event is not actually found within the scriptural narrative, either prescriptively or descriptively.

7. Whilst wise counsel by elders is to be sought after, it is not mandatory, neither is it binding, where it pertains to believers personal lives

8. A believers whole life, whole existence is Christ – by His grace we shall get there – but this is not synonymous with church and being “under authority”. A bondservant of Christ is not to be slave to any man.

9.  Church is a facet of the Christian life, not the whole of it. And not even the main or the most important facet at that.

10. Believers blessings are not necessarily mediated or cascaded via the church, although there are of course blessings in fellowship.

11. True church is community based, in which sense eldership influence may be further reaching, where congregational fellowship and community life become intertwined.

12. Please don’t confuse this with the Sunday-Sunday pilgrimage to remote or distant places of worship, which is not community based or impacting, but rather a “mockery” of 11. Above and essentially “ghettoisation” no matter how affluent the church.

13. Marriage is divinely instituted recognised and sanctioned by God. Christian marriage should be coloured by 8. above. Marriage is ab initio a divinely sanctioned and honourable union.

14. If two unbelievers are married and one becomes a believer, the believer is enjoined to remain in the marriage

15. The children of a union described in 14. above are sanctified.

16. A marriage – Christian or otherwise - does not have to be transacted in church, or be considered in anyway incomplete or unsanctified if there is no Church – be that pastor or congregational – sign-off, laying off hands, prayer, anointing, offering, dancing to the altar or any other ritual or involvement. You can leave church single one Sunday and return married the next. As long as there is parental approval, scripturally “notin’ do you”.

17. Marriage is a family affair. Caveat emptor.

18. God hates divorce

Kindly stop calling yourself “Pastor”, unless it appears on your birth certificate. Sadly it’s as common as a middle name these days isn’t it? Please relinquish the self-arrogated authority over believers you have falsely assumed. Although it is not “spiritual” in that it is not divine, it is spiritual in the sense that it can dangerously bind and have spiritual consequences, for all concerned. Please humble yourselves and deny the desire for “pre-eminence that makes you even consider placing yourself as authority over believers. Could we please de-commission the terms “my church”, my ministry” and “my pastor”, they are about you, not Him.

Scriptural backing is available upon request. Where the statement is based on biblical silence, omission or absence, the onus is on the dissenter to evidence.

Have pleasant weekends all.

God bless
TV

JeSoul:
TV it was the spambot that tagged and removed your post. I've sent a msg to the Admin to restore it. So you can either sit back n wait or post again writing/organizing differently and shoot down some of the nonsense I'm reading on this thread.

Hi Jess, hope you are well.

Just seen this. Does this spambot not know who I am ? Abi na WOFer Spambot  ! Sorry, I can generally remember what I wrote, but I have several things to attend to now before I take off over the weekend. So at best I may get to it whilst away, but by then it'll be even more faded. Can I ask that you do the miraculous - as you routinely do - and retrieve it ? Or perhaps post the text under your tag, quoting me??

Thanks
TV

Joagbaje:
I didn't say they are not valid. I said they are recognised by the church, But they don't command the blessing of God. The blessing of God can only come through the name of Jesus.

The sun shines very day sir. The rain fals on all.

Joagbaje:
The court does not have access to the name of jesus. If two people marry in the mosque or shrine, it doesn't command Gods blessing. But they are legally married. Marriage is a divine institution, not just social or family affair. God has purpose for marriage. We can't deny the fact that many people this days just see it as a legal contract . But it is unscriptural.

The church is also a "Divine Institution" - albeit not as instituted by man - just as Marriage is. And sir, the divine ordinance of Marriage preceded the divine institution of church. But being a divine institution, marriage remains a cvil affair.

Joagbaje:
Then you don't understand the church. All the blessing in God are in christ. .

True, but thay are not necessarily limited to those who call themselves Christians. Unbelievers eat, wake-up, give birth, get jobs, are healed and although you wouldn't credit it, have great marriages every day.

Joagbaje:
John 14:6
6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

You are clutching here sir !

Joagbaje:
It is only the name of Jesus that can commmand blessing , it is only the church that is the custodian of the name of Jesus.

And this explains why  !! Ah, ah,  @ Joagbaje, Foul, offside, handball and penarity all at once. Umpire, refereee and judge!!!!! How on earth would you even have the liver to openly pronounce such an unscriptural statement.

Ok, sorry. Please show me from scripture how the church is custodian;

[size=4pt]1. To hold in custody as in Jailer
2. To hold in custody as in safekeep
3. To hold in custody as in parent as custodian of a child[/size]

Thanks
TV

toluxa1:
@second bold. Are you telling me that Marriages done in the court or magistrate are not blessed of God?

Joagbaje:
They are recognised by the government,by God , by demons , by angels, by the church. But the court has no power to bless marriage. If a Christian does that , he still needs to do marriage blessing or church blessing, to confer Gods blessing upon it.

@Joagbaje, your response above to toluxa1 is indicative of the danger inherent in the self-arrogated authority - spiritual or otherwise - of "The Pastor". You are pronouncing marriages transacted outside church "unblessed" and inherently invalid and unsanctified

Marriage is an honourable estate, ordained and blessed by God. All things being equal, all it essentially needs is parental go-ahead to be blessed. Church has nothing to do with it, Christian or not. Of course Christians - or not Christians sef, can wed in church, but that is an optional extra, not a mandatory requirement.

As ever you employ "cut and paste doctrine" and "cooked up cliché" to falsely assert an erroneous position. Which one is "Church Blessing"?

TV

@Joagbaje,

To summarise, I think I've outlined some fundamental differences to wit;

1. There is no sole-authority type or pre-eminent by status pastor prescribed by scripture, unless of course you can show it.
2. God does not take what he did not prescribe, anoint it and set it over a man with authority over that mans existence.
3. Church =/= Christ =/= Whole of Believers life

Further more, Paul was acting in the Apostolic. God gave Paul the blueprint for church gathering, structure and admin, and it was simply thus;
"Appoint suitably qualified elders in every church" easy as abc. With Deacons where required. End of. There is no where in scripture an example of a "pastor" or pastor type refered to as extant in NT Christian community. Y'all made that up.

Those who would take this man-made "pastor" construct and use it to decieve and bind others are doing great harm, however well-intentioned.

May the Lord lead us all.
TV

You don't graduate from pastoral leadership, a man that doesn't have a pastor over him is spiritually a vagabond. Except of course if his pastor dies and he becomes a pastor too. But one thing is clear, he had been raised by someone. As Paul raised Timothy . I'm not aware they set an expiry date for paul's leadership over Timothy.

Perhaps that speaks to the "V" in "TV" ! All round bad exegesis, flawed logic and faulty thinking. Poor math as well.

1. Do "Pastors" have other "Pastors" over them. And if not, who is over the "Pastor"?

The anointing to bless the sheep, is regardless of the disposition of the pastor . As long as he walks by faith .But a pastor can't break communion with God. It depends on what you mean by that. How can a man break communion with God ? If he cuts from God , he's no longer a Christian , not to talk about ministering to others.

I'd really like to respond to this, but da.y.um. I'm really lost for words. This is wierd on so many levels. Its not by mouth sha!

Parental blessing has it's place especially if they are saved. But it cannot take the place of pastoral blessing . The pastor is the man God has anointed over them.
and secondly
As much as you see fit to pronounce otherwise, God - who is afterall the creator of all - has instituted some things universally for all. Like rain for example. Marriage, parental authority/blessing are not limited or void if entered into by unbelievers, or non-believers for that matter.

Secondly, God does not "set a pastor" over you and further, does not give said pastor any special anointing. IMHO.

It may require a lot of explanation, maybe we spare it for another thread.But the first thing is to define the word " pastor"
It is not a title. He is a shepherd, guides, nutures,feeds, guards,etc. . It is an office and a calling. God has put authority in his mouth for the sheep. To edifying them.

Happy to discuss, but simple put its a function, that any suitably qualified brethren can aspire to. Spiritualising it avails nothing.

Honoring parents ( with gifts) is a divine law for longevity.( Mk 7:10,11)

Long life is tied to physical gifts  And if you don't have? Or they don't need? Is honour always monetised  ?

Headship is leadership. Who you follow spiritually.

Who you follow is presumably who you'll become like se?

Let's take Pastor Chris, for example. He started preaching the gospel from the age of about 12. He once said that those days when he goes on a fast, ( for soul winning)he locks his room to pray. The Mum complains to the father, the father comes and command him to open the door, and questions him for not eating, if he says he's fasting, he would still question the fasting by asking him , " what sin have you committed that you're fasting"?. By this the dad was bringing parental authority into spiritual authority. Jesus had to rebuke Mary too. Because parents even in their care don't know when to stop. You must take a stand. And with  pastoral guidance.

As a matter of policy, I'd rather not use a "human" measure and certainly not based on anecdotal evidence, but let me humour you just a little.

If as some of us suppose, "Parental Authority" is itself "Divinely Instituted" and as such, also to be considered "Spiritual Authority, then that would suggest the above is both contradictory and a sign of rebellion, would it not? I won't hazard a guess as to the veracity or basis of the story, but here is something similar;

Please note Luke 2 and particuarly verse 51. God is not the author of confusion. Not the God of the Bible anyways;

42 And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast. 43 When they had finished the days, as they returned, the Boy Jesus lingered behind in Jerusalem. And Joseph and His mother  did not know it; 44 but supposing Him to have been in the company, they went a day's journey, and sought Him among their relatives and acquaintances. 45 So when they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking Him. 46 Now so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. 47 And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers. 48 So when they saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, "Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously." 49 And He said to them, "Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father's business?" 50 But they did not understand the statement which He spoke to them. 51 Then He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them, but His mother kept all these things in her heart. 52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

Funny, I think we agree pretty much on Parental Authority. In a nutshell my point is;

1. You are under parental authority until you leave home/marry/reach accountability - not always synonymous, or totally clear cut.
2. Your parents authority over you and accountability for your actions diminishes as does their responsibility towards you.
3. They are of course on hand to counsel, support etc, but they have no "rule" over your immediate family/life decisions or reponsibility, although they would be grieved if you erred
4. In extended family decisions, patriarchy still has the rule.

I also see clearly outlined in the bible how eldership, works along similar lines.

May I also add that I see "Church" as community. That does not really obtain in these times. People come from far and wide - drawn to a temple or person - to "worship" together and then disperse, so there is no real continuity. In that context I would expect eldership influence to be more far-reaching, more proximate, but is does not afford them "rule" over your existence.

But not to overly digress.

Marriage for the Christian is not a civil matter. The mistake some people make is to divide the Christian life into two: 1. my Christian life , 2.my personal life. you have only one life. Christ is your life. And this life of christ ought to reflect in your job, marriage , business, ministry etc.
That's why The bible forbids Christian going to civil courts to judge matter. We need to understand the strength of pastoral ministry.

Marriage is a civil and a personal matter between believers or non-believers.

The mistake you are making is to equate church gatherings with the whole of life. A Christians faith is too colour everything he does in every sphere he operates in and Christ should always be in view, but youe so labelled "strength of pastoral ministry" does not stand scrutiny.

Does pastor follow you to work? And if he does, can he override your oga? ^{Not unless you are a full-time usher and your oga is a deacon.}
Does Pastor show up in tutorials and presume to teach class?

Even if you claim Pastoral ministry extends past church when its about welfare, please note that any brethren can attend to your wellbeing. And also note that ministry, is giving, hospitality and other such gifts/functions, which are not the preserve of elders/pastors

There's no church affair, christ is your life. Why would he tell Timothy to take a little wine, for his health challenge, why nit send him back to mama. After all Timothy was a youth.Moses involvement with the church in the wilderness, was it only in worship?  He was involved with civil, criminal,spiritual matters. The church is a world on it's own. Jesus says if your brother offend you, take it to the church. The church is not a social gathering . It is the pillar of truth.

Another fundamental difference here sir. Christ =/= Church. Church is a part of a Christians life, not the totality of it. And I go as far as to add not the primary or foremost part of the Christian life.

You confuse yourself? Christians can judge personal matters between each other, but can't give dietary advice?

If two Christians in community have a matter of contention, they should be satisfied for the ruling of an elder in the matter, or even to suffer loss. That does not mean the has "Spiritual Authority" over them, even if it means the parties in question are being submissive - per Hebrews quoted earlier.

Hebrews 13:17
17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that[ is] unprofitable for you.  

First note the "them" - as in plurality - and not "he".  Second, I could glibly quote scriptures which speak of "not lording it over the brethren", "all being brothers in the Lord", "humble, sacrificial shepherding" and many more, but let me ask that you dwell on the nature of Christian relationship and ask yourself if some a brethren are called to "rule" over others, and not just in church affairs, but over every aspect of their lives?

TV wrote;

Timothy submitted himself to Paul in "church affairs" and Pauls guidance/authority started and ended in that sphere. There is no record showing he submitted his life affairs to Paul. So again, did Paul have "Spiritual Headship" or "Spiritual Authority" over Timothy? And who in turn acted in  a like capacity over Paul?

Kindly respond to the question above

What do you say about Peter, when he sentenced annanias and sapphira to death.

That was a work of The Holy Spirit. The pronouncement may have come through Peter, but it was not his call.

There is authority in the church brother. That is why a minister must walk in love always, so that he can only bless.

In as much as love is a universal quality/attribute/action of the brethren, it is not specifically outlined oin the pastoral epistles as a requirement for elders. You are merely ad-libbing here.

TV wrote;

"The Head of every man" is Christ. That is sprititual headship. There is no longer an intermediary priesthood for believers. And there is no divine protocol that demands God always/only blesses via Pastors. Where do people get these notions?

Joagbaje replied;

If you are correct , then there will be no need of submission .

How did you deduce that? Submission in relationships, and sphere's is clearly outlined in the scripture.

You may not use the word "mandate". But the anointing works both ways. The pastor has authority in his mouth. It can bless and destroy.

The anointing is on all who are His. Nothing can be pronounced on a steadfast believer unless it is of The Lord. Even Balaam knew that. The authority is limited to church gatherings/affairs.

2 Corinthians 10:8
For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed:

- does not suggest that God gifted and authorised Paul to wilfully bless or curse. The charge and attendant authority/gifting/function are for edification and not destruction, which Paul plainly states

1 Timothy 1:20
Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

- What are you suggesting here? If the Lord sent Paul to edify per the above, would he unilaterally decide to destroy. This was to teach/scourge them, which every child of God is subject too. The destroyer is Gods tool. Otherwise deliver can only mean he left them to their choice, which was evil anyway

Hi @Joagbaje, I trust all is well and thanks for your response. Given the nature of my connection right now, I will have to respond a bit at a time. Please bear with me.

I have a better understanding of your position. I daresay of lot of our points of difference are based on fundamental differences, so I'll do my best to approach the discussion at those ab initio points of difference.

Nothing is wrong with that, so long as the "pastor says" is spiritual and scriptural.

Probably firstly - and a topic touched on frequentlyt in NL Religion board discourse - is the whole position, role of "Pastor". The Church of Christ in gathering is "Shepherded" by a plurality of co-equal elders. The term shepherd, is synonymous with bishop, presbyter, elder and indeed pastor. Equal in authority, although they may differ in gifting, role etc. None has "the pre-eminence" by way of status. In a nutshell, there is no biblically I see no prescribed office of "The Pastor", as a sole/overall senior authority figure in a gathering of believers.

And I don't see how using the cloak of a supposed hgher authority - PAstor - to undermine spousal or parental authority - which is scripturally outlined, is not wrong.