₦airaland Forum

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

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=315268.msg6672268#msg6672268 date=1283257950]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.[/quote]- 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.

newmi:
but be that as it may many of those who have stood out in the support for parents have not in anyway made any pleasant or gratifying remark to at least justify the office of the pastor, l hope this is not an attempt to discredit it.

The "office" of "Pastor" needs to be properly understood. What for the most part obtains in many churches in Nigeria/Black/Pentecostal churches is nowhere to be found in scripture. Not just discredit, but also dispel and disabuse (we call it "deliverance" in the trade  ). If you can find it - and hence "credit" it - in scripture please do so, and kindly share with us here.

newmi:
because there are some people in this forum who have never said anything good about the office of the pastor and you wonder if they have pastors over them or the same Bible they claim to expain in the defence of their view points doesn't say anything about the place of the pastor in the life of the christian in the church.

In a sense, but I don't think its in the way you are alluding too. But like I said - If you can find it - and hence "credit" it - in scripture please do so, and kindly share with us here.

Thanks
TV

Hi @Joagbaje,

I actually started by asking you various questions - all detailed below - and I would appreciate answers. But in truth, I see your position as being based on the commandments and traditions of men, which have no basis in scripture or are at best woefully erroneouss misapplications of same.

You have made numerous assertions, based very much on what obtains in many "churches" today, but none of which you have supported scripturally.

As you can see from some posts, its a very emotive subject. Relationship are being strained and influenced, by this "nowhere to be found in scripture" (I speak of both the "role of pastor" as generally practiced and "pastoral authority" as typically proclaimed). How many wives have I heard answer their husbands (or worse still potential husbands) with "pastor says" regards their personal matters. Or children respond to their parents about other "superceding" parents in the Lord?

This mandate for "Pastors" to bless, curse, command is nowhere to be found in scripture. "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?

Eldership authority is limited to church and church affairs, it is not a "whole of life" issue. Church and church affairs are a part of the Christian life - and not even the primary part of that. Marriage is a divine institution, but a civil matter. Church involvement is optional at best. Of course counsel and wisdom from Xtian elders is great, but not obligatory or mandated by scripture.


My questions;

Joagbaje:
Parental authority is not forever , when you get to the age of accountability, you are responsible for you life.

I agree with you here. Parental authority is not forever, but parental honour is. And the authority is still in place regards "family" as opposed to "personal" issues.

And that accountability you mentioned,  is to whom?

Joagbaje:
Okija jujuwe should not arrogate to parents the role or responsible that is not theirs.  You respect , honour them by gifts(honorarium). Children are encouraged to obey the parents in the lord.

Children are to honour, respect, submit to, obey and account to their parents. By the time a child is able to give "gifts" surely thats the point they are most likely to have reached the age of "accountability"?

^{Would it be wrong to suggest Honour is equated to cash in essence as it bolsters the notion that "double honour" for elders is also erroneously read to mean money by many?}

Joagbaje:
Parents can only play pastoral role in the lives of the children if they have such calling.  That makes them the spiritual head over them . If you are born again , what dealings do you have with unsaved parents? They don't have any spiritual part to play in your life. You only have the responsibility of honouring them. This honour for parents has nothing to do with their status. That means , even if your mother were a witch , you must still honour her. But that doesnt give such parent spiritual headship over you

What is spiritual headship sir? Who has spiritual headship?? Over whom? When??

Joagbaje:
[your problem is ignorance of scriptures. How long will you make your son a mummy's boy?. Timothy was raised in the word of Go. By his mum , but did she continue to dictate the course of his life. He submitted himself to his pastor, Paul , who guided him in Gods plan.

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?

Joagbaje:
parental authority is not spiritual authority. But pastoral authority is spiritual. Marriage is a spiritual institution and not a social one. That is why we have the traditional one where the parents are honoured but, in church? It is the pastor that they are submitted to that has the power and anointing to bless them.

Please explain the difference between spiritual and non-spiritula authority sir, and particularly the dynamics of "Spiritual Authority"

Joagbaje:
Even the traditional wedding, parents that are unspiritual have nothing to impart to a saint.Theres exception for Christian parents who are spiritual. These are the first spiritual authority over the children. I asked in my first post. What blessing can a juju man pronounce on you?. All parents are not the same . Parents that are not spiritual have nothing to offer. The pastor is Gods representative to bless.

So all non-Christian marriages (before and after the advent of Christianity) are somehow missing any parental blessing?

More importantly the bolded part of your statement, could you show any sort of scritural attestation to support that assertion.

Joagbaje:
We can't deny the authority the parents have over the children, but at the same time , we must recognize , their authority has limits.
1. When they reach the age of accountability.
2. When the parents take a stand against the word of God.

Is there ever an age of accountability for a Christian, or must he/she always be under Pastors headship or authority?

Joagbaje:
When a man is born again, he's Gods property, there's God purpose to fulfil. The person that has spiritual authority to bless them is the pastor. The parents have parental authority for a period in their lives, but the pastors spiritual authority to bless supersedes the parental . If parents are not born again, they have no blessing to offer a Christian . Because there's a rule in blessing. You can't bless your senior! The lesser person is blessed by the greater person.

Heb 7:7
The less is blessed of the better.

If ones "Pastor" has a broken communion with God, how does that impact things? If the communion of a GO with say 5'000 churches, 10'000 sub-pastors and 2'000'000 members has broken communio, how are those under his "Spiritual Authority/headship" impacted?

nuclearboy:
[4] This pastoral "spiritual" authority - what happens to it where the pastor falls by the wayside? Is it transferred or kept "in holding" till another submission to another pastor. Like in the case of such as Jimmy Swarggart, perharps?

Joagbaje:
I don't know exactly what you mean by spiritual authority .
We have the believers authority, we have the authority of the word and the holyghost. And we have pastoral authority .
All has to do with spiritual authority.

Maybe you should simply state what you mean by "Spiritual Authority", and we'll take it from there.

Thanks
TV

KunleOshob:
By divine design children are placed under the authority of their parents and their parents(in most cases) genuinely love an d care for them, they bless their children with material and spiritual needs and would even sacrofice their lives for their children.

You know I'm not partial to the exclamation "GBAM". But High Velocity Armour piercing GBAM, "Out before he hit the floor" GBAM, "Rocket launched volley from 35 yards at 85 mph into the top left hand corner GBAM, ^{I'll stop now, I don pioneer am  !}

KunleOshob:
On the other hand most pastors are only interested in their pockets and would never lift a finger to bless you materially, they claim to bless you "spiritually" whilst they you to "pay" them for their services materially. Simply there is no basis for comparision, would stick to my parents anyday, at least I am sure their love and care is genuine.

Motivation apart - and that is a critical aspect - as a "model" how does it even work? If you change locations, is there a "transfer process" - like when one changes GP or school. If "Your Pastor" has his (even her nowadays sef?) communion with God impaired, is yours also? Who is Spiritual authority over "Your Pastor" and onward up the chain? where does this hierarchy end?

Oya Joagbaje, you seem very emphatic on your earlier declaration, perhaps you would care to expansiate here. Thanks.

TV

I knew a topic of this type would smoke certain people out !

@Joagbaje, I have asked you several questions now, all of which you have failed to reply. Please surprise me in this instance.

Regards "Spiritual Authority", please explain - however briefly or however long - its working, how it is exercised, how one subjects oneself to it and more pressingly, its specific place in Christianity.

Thanks

TV

Yes 0! and for a while now.

KunleOshob:
The truth is that "chritians" and the church have long abandoned Christ (They claim to know God but by there actions deny him titus 1:16) most churches and christians do not teach or practise the core teachings of christ, they only use his name to project their various church establishments, their worship is a farce cos they deny christ by their actions so yes you can stop being a "christian" and still belong to christ. I all ready wrote a thread titled "The church has rejected christianity" you can search for it, I can't provide the link now cos I am browsing with a mobile device.

I differ slightly here. The "True Church" cannot and will not abandon Christ. "He will build His Church", emphasis on His. Lots of others are also building churches, and appropriating - some would say mis - Christ for their own ends. The Lord knows those who are His. The Lods Church will not be prevailed against. So in discussing Church, one should try and make the distinction between the "True Church" and all the others. He is coming back for a Church - Bride - without spot, blemish or wrinkle.

nuclearboy:
Welcome, Anne Rice, to the gathering of those that worship God in Spirit and in Truth

"Those" full ground. The Lord knows "those" who are his.

skyone:
Is it possible to say "i am not a Nigerian but my ethnicity is Nigeria" of course it's impossible.

Yes its possible. In my case its also true. I am British, but ehtnically, I am Nigerian. To be proper "Nigerian" is a nationality, not an ethnicity. Apologies, but your choice of analogy is rather poor, as is your use of terms. Apologies again "Essex boy"  !

skyone:
" Followers of Christ are called christians" therefore as we have illegal Nigerians so we have fake christians so move on from this idealogy and continue to do the will of JEHOVAH.

Nope, followers of Christ are called "Disciples". The Lord knows those who are his. As we have the "True Church", so we have "all the others". Grays abi? Chafford Hundred sef??

You're probably not a sportsman are you?

Enigma:
OK as the person who started this thread I think I should reveal my own hand and express where I stand.

I totally understand, appreciate and respect my brethren (& sistren) who find themselves no longer able to stomach organised church assemblies and prefer to look for alternatives. Unfortunately the church has been invaded, not merely infiltrated, by anti-Christs, charlatans and fraudsters; sadly, they are carrying along honest, well-meaning but misguided people as well.

Nevertheless, I believe it is possible to remain part of an organised assembly and yet true to Christ and sound christian doctrine. That is why I am still part of an organised church assembly. As a matter of fact I can worship in almost (stress almost) any church assembly where I believe there is at least one (just one) person who honestly and genuinely is putting his trust in the One and Only, the Wonderful Counsellor, the Prince of Peace, the Everlasting Father, the Mighty God, the risen, ascended glorified, the Glorious Lord Jesus Christ. Believe me, I will even worship in such an assembly of WoFers! I will probably never become a member or a regular though!

On one occasion, I was in the US on a Sunday; I went to the church assembly most local to my hotel. It turned out it was a service involving feet washing. I promptly joined in with gusto! I had my feet washed and washed other people's feet. Even today, I do not know/remember what 'denomination' they were. On another occasion here in the UK I went into a Baptist church which turned out to be a strict Baptist church that would not let other Baptists, let alone me, take part in their "Holy Communion". And after the service they expressed hope to see me again in their 'church'. Na so!

In the same token, I will continue to call myself a Christian. I will not let the anti-Christs, charlatans, fraudsters etc deprive me of that appellation by which the apostles (including Peter, James, John Paul etc), the great Church Fathers of gigantic intellect, and countless people throughout history have been known.

And you are free to do so. There are "those who are His" in false churches. They will be led, mostly out I believe. But as nuclearboy alludes too in the post previous to yours, how long do you remain a part - and possibly spiritually tied - to something that is corrupt and perverted and not partake of the potential consequences. "Come out of her My people".

But I agree about being called a Christian. Its niether here nor there to me. Although these days there are as many species of Christian and varieties of Christianity as there are adherents.

TV

KunleOshob:
TV01 twas really good to read from you again after a long while, trust you are doing great.

I'm well 0 mbrofam, how far?  I keep close check on your indefatigable and relentless MOGmyth slaying work. You are performing valiantly, but lemme know if you need me to unsheath my sword and discomfort any errant IRD's or MOGW' !
_{Thats "Institutionalised Religion/ous Drones" & "MOG Worshippers" for those that don't know. Oh sorry, didn't know you meant that, it means "my brother from another mother". Nice huh? Like it? I coined it myself}

No plans for Naija at the moment - even the thought sef just wearies me - but I'm sure ther'll be reason in the not too distant future. If you are ever at my end, make you holla 0!

TV

Jessie & KunOsh, my two - some would say only - bestest friends on NL. Salute 0!

ogajim:
These guys are still at it under one "assumed name" or another

Chei, I am sooooo naive & trusting, it didn't for once cross my mind that our new buddy MickeyC might be an extant NL'er. And there I was extending brotherly loff and a hearty welcome to NL, when he prolly get plot for here !

Oya Bro' MickeyC, confess, who you be? No matter sha, next time we engage its gloves off. So "Scrap Iron" it is then. _{My discernment is screaming "scroll-searcher" Hmmmmm.}

TV

MickeyC:
Ha ha! I enjoy the banter.

And I appreciate your humour and demeanour in comprehending that. No offense was intended and  I'm glad non was taken. May I unoficially recieve you to the NL religion board.  Welcome sir!

MickeyC:
Maybe we should define our terms!

So you can't play tennis but fancy yourself at semantics abi? Ok 0!

MickeyC:
But I don't have a problem with saying that we are under grace so therefore that leads to us living in a certain way. Obligation is an "ok" word to use, meaning, moral constraint. To quote Romans, "So then brothers we are debtors." Paul certainly thought we would be obliged or under constraint to live in a certain way. In fact he describes us as slaves to obedience. Again sounds like obligation.

I am loathe to  teach until I am unmistakebly called to - and not by man - but kindly permit me to share my little apprehension of grace with you.

Grace is a teacher and enabler, a tutor, and a transformer. So, far example, one previously hated giving; enter grace. Now such a one does not so much feel obliged or constrained to give - morally, legally or otherwise - it becomes his very nature. One does not do what comes naturally out of obligation. Or do you feel obliged to continuously net those weak first serves? No it's 'cos of your puny arm muscles, its your nature !

MickeyC:
(I'm waiting of the accusations of me "contradicting myself" but I am just quoting two scriptures

Not contradicting yourself in this instance, confusing yourself would be more apt here,  We are contrasting giving vs. tithing, grace vs law,  obligation vs. freewill. Not having established a position there, you then proceeded to needlessly throw in salvation, works, justification and a whole bunch of stuff. More thought, less haste. Shot selection again!

Indeed you "quoted two scriptures" and more, but needs must make sense of them and correctly contextualise, ok?

MickeyC:
I'm just waiting for the onslaught I'm going to receive, 

Ah, ah! Onslaught ke? Are you calling NL' wicked? After having a booming serve rained down on your head and your best shots effortlessly returned, we then relegated you from the main tour to the challenger circuit. No need for any onslaught again 0 !

MickeyC:
Well iron sharpens iron - to quote Proverbs (although I'm sure from your previous comments you wouldn't consider me as iron!!!)

Of course you are iron - of the scrap variety sha 0 ! So sir you have a choice of nicknames. Those being "Wild Card" or "Scrap-Iron Mike".

God bless
TV

MickeyC:
Thank you, I did read the thread and I felt what I said would help in the discussion, maybe I wasn't clear. But in response to your recent comment, I agree that a great emphasis was given to giving to the poor and needy but that doesn't negate passages like, 1 Timothy 5:17 "Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in preaching and teaching." The Church must have been giving well to support God's kingdom building, if we have all giving with no gospel proclamation we become a glorified social club. If you have a pastor / teacher who "doesn't peddle the word of God for profit" and who actually qualifies for the position (1 Timothy 3:3 - "Not a lover of money" then there shouldn't be a problem. Maybe by God's grace I've not had to suffer the type of teaching that you have been exposed to, so therefore am seeing things from the other perspective, I'm sure we are singing from the same "hymn sheet"!

Oh man!!!! I shoulda seen this coming. See as you jus' come scatter de whole tin'. Defaulted, retired, whatever. _{Have you considered a non-sporting career.}

Yours Concerned Bro'

MickeyC:
We are not required to give to gain access to God. Those who are in a real living relationship with God will see that God gave them everything in Jesus and therefore say, "Everything I have is only by the grace of God." That leads to sacrificial giving. Not 10%, not 20% but an attitude of everything belongs to Him and I will give accordingly. Giving proves to us that God is more valuable to us than silver and gold. Closing question, do you have money, or does money have you? Let's use our God given resources to see His Kingdom come.

Hmmm, and please don't think I overlooked the above. Valiant effort to be sure , but that your last sentence, ah, ah. See as you come fumble easy return

My advise? Work on your service, returns, shot selection and positioning. Some stamina work and strength training would probably go a long way as well. Omo, wild card no be beans 0 !

Yours Bro' Coach

MickeyC:
As Christians we are no longer under the law but under grace. But that doesn't reduce the obligation to "tithe" but only increase it.

Hi @ MickeyC, I do apologise, but your first two sentences contradict each other. One cannot be "under grace" and at the same time "obliged". First serve sails over the baseline  .

MickeyC:
But that doesn't reduce the obligation to "tithe" but only increase it. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 8:7-9 "But as you excel in everything - in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in all earnestness, and in our love for you - see that you excel in this act of grace also ("this act of grace" is referring to giving if you read the context).

Your third sentence then contradicts your second one. You appear to be making "Increasing Obligation" synonymous with "Increasing (Excelling) in grace". Not content with a poor second serve, you also proceed to make a foot fault., as your ending "act of grace is refering to giving", is clearly at variance with your earlier notion of "increasing obligation".

So dude you lose this one by a series of unforced errors. Your opponent barely breaking sweat. O boy, you no try at all at all.

First round exit.

Yours Bro' Umpire !