₦airaland Forum

KunleOshob:
Ahh!!!!!! TV01, nice to see your post, how have you been?

I'm well thanks Kunosh. Hope you are also.How's the walk?

KunleOshob:
You can see your friend is back to harrass us whilst continously twisting scripture to promote her tithing agenda. I really wonder what keeps her going.

I posted on the "Once saved always saved" thread initiated by Gamine. Coincidentally - or not? - she was right behind me. After one post I pretty much sussed. Motive? inspiration?? I have my thoughts.

tayotoyin:
I loooooooooooooove your courtesy man!

It'll never last and he is a she.  !

God bless
TV

hmmmmmmmmmm Pilly!

viaro:
Now, that's problematic for me. I don't think that 1 John 1:8-10 holds that a Christian 'does not' or 'cannot' sin. If that were so, why then does it say in verse 9 that "if we confess our sins"? Who are the "we" in that verse? And if the "we" points to those who are saved, does that not immediately show that Christians do sin and can indeed sin?

Thanks for your response @viaro. I also appreciate the differing viewpoints and they do give pause for thought.

Firstly, I qualified the type/state of the Christian.
Secondly, would you be so kind as to state your reading of 1 John 3:5-10.

viaro:
The point is not that we should go on sinning - Romans 6:1-2 expressly forbid that idea.

If the point is that "Christians  should not go on sinning", how and when does a Christian get to that point? Is it not contradictory to say do and will sin, but in the same breath say they should not go on sinning?

Did the Lords work only make atonement for past sins and any we may commit in future, or is it efficacious in delivering us from the sin nature. Yes, no? How, why?

viaro:
However, in our experiences, we find indeed that some may sin in one way or another. although as Christians it is not the experience we should desire. Does this help at all to put things in context?

What a Christian - and I talk in the discipleship sense - should desire is to be like His Master. Is there atonement for sin and deliverance from the sin nature, or just atonement, even if in  a present continous sense?

What is the difference between one who willfully sins - and maybe does not even believe - and one who believes and sins, even if its with regret?

God bless
TV

Time constraints and other priotities make it hard for me to keep up.

But let me add this to the mix.

A truly/fully saved Christian does not sin. Cannot Sin. Why, because once truly saved you have discarded the nature of Adam and taken on the nature of Christ. True salvation means you become like He was on this earth. No sin in Him.

Quoting 1 John 1:8-10 is only part of the story, the beginning of the journey. The Lord makes atonement for sins, but the true beauty of the salvific work is to rid us of the sin nature. That is the point that one truly experiences the fullnes of salvation.

But if you don't understand and believe that how will you wait on and trust the Lord for it?

The end of the Journey is stated clearly in 1 John 3

5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him. 7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. 10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.

Doctrine is good and needful, but let it be end-to-end. Why stop at 1 John 1:8-10. It speaks of the journey. Then live the journey.

So if you sin willfully and inverterately, or just have the once in a decade occurence, its because you have not laid hold of the fullness of salvation. In fact, we have harrumphed about about exactly when one is saved. Read the passage above and tell me, when is one actually born again?

Read the gospels, the Lord clearly said "He who sins is of the Devil", as in verse 8 above. Is that absolute, relative,does it mean often or infrequently?

I detest the oft quoted "while we are in the flesh (this body) we will always sin. Its a lie. Christianity is first and foremost about death. His then yours. Die to self (mortify the flesh, or more technically its driving lusts and passions so you can be Spirit-led ) so that He can live in you. That is what takes time as you carry your cross and it slowly but surely kills you, and He can be enthroned.

Someone quoted this earlier.

Hebrews 9:28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

Yes 0! True salvation means you will know Him and you will See Him Please read in conjunction with 1 John 3:6 above. Don't be sold a pup.

Let God be true and every man, every organised religious entity, every ritualised corporate body and all institutionalised man-made religion a liar.

Apologies if I started to veer into rant. Ain't got passion for nowt else. Your cordial discourse is in itself a blessing.

God bless
TV

Zikkyy:
I just need to clarify something here, say . . . a sick unbeliever on his death bed. If he believes and accept christ at this point, does he need to perform any other act/work after this to be saved? considering this might be his last act.

If that acceptance is more than mere mental assent or belief. The Lord knows. I could ask the same question thus; "What if a sound, sane and healthy 21 year old believes and accepts Christ, is s/he saved right there and then.

Does everyone on the path to salvation live to the end? And if they sleep whilst walking that path, then what? I have my thoughts, but the Lord knows.

Works do not in and of themselves save. Faith produces works and "Spirit-ledness" produces fruit.

God bless
TV

Gamine:
So even if we have become a part of Gods kingdom,
we arent quite there yet, we still need to wok out our salvation.

Does believing or acceptance make you part of Gods Kingdom? My position is that entering the Kingdom and being saved simultaneously happen along with the fullness - return? - of Christ in one's life.

Gamine:
Another question is, What exactly does Jesus dying mean. why did he have to be 'sacrificed'
why him and not the goats, i need this to be really clear.

- To reconcile us to God
- To deliver us from sin
- That we may have abundant life
- To destroy the works of the Devil

The blood of the lesser cannot atone for the sin of the greater. Not sure how this informs your position, perhaps talk us through your thinking here some more.

What are we saved from? what are we saved for?? What is God after, Christs purpose and we to attain to. Salvation is not just delivery from, it is also translation to.

Once one can get a grasp of the point of being a Christian - as in a disciple of Christ, not a mere church goer or believer - then one can better, even if not necessarily perfectly appreciate the fullness of salvation.

God bless
TV

ttalks:
The highlighted above isn't exactly right. one isn't "saved" at that point of accepting Jesus; rather one begins the journey towards being saved.

I'm pretty much in accord with this point here.

- One is not saved merely because one believes in Jesus Christ or assents that He is Lord. Many believe and do nothing, or act - even the devil - contrary to that belief. Many believe and make it to organised church or some religious organisation, but still do not make that wholesale commitment to The Lord.

- I agree that salvation is a journey, not one of works or earning credit, but an experience - walk towards and with God that culminates in salvation.

Maybe the term "accepting Jesus" is somewhat misleading. Does "accepting" imply "believing" or something deeper?

One other point, I have every sense that salvation and the experience that leads to full salvation can and does happen here and now and doesn't have to wait until some end time culmination of all things. That is throughout the ages up until now, people have been and are being fully saved. That I believe is the return of Christ to those who eagerly await Him and entry to the Kingdom of Heaven.

God bless
TV

I've tried to read through, but the thread has been derailed on occassion. So let me start by posting my own position.

The short answer is "Yes".

The longer "put in perspective, with added background and placed within the right context" is still yes, but points where I find difference are;

- what constitutes saved?
- when is that point reached?
- what if anything happens prior, at that point or after
- how does one know

others include

- do you earn it
- work to keep it
- can possibly lose it after attaining it.

Whats the board saying?

God bless
TV

Hi All,

Interesting thread. Can anyone join?

TV

(Bo & Mo in the commentary box )

Bo - the smart money was always riding on Pilgrim 1 in this bout. Well schooled though Lady is, Pilgrim has mixed it at a higher level of opposition and as we enter the later rounds her experience is starting to show.

Pilgrims stamina is legendary and her ability to ride storms in the early rounds and come on strong is standing her in good stead.

Lady came out firing, but the wily Pilgrim 1, tucked up tight, defended well and waited for Lady to slow down. Pilgrim 1 is definately turning up the heat now and Lady appears to be wilting. Will she get a second wind and come out fighting? I think she needs to as we enter the championship rounds. What says Mo?

Mo- True talk Bo. Opponents often think that Pilgrims one dimensional approach and not very creative shot selection can easily be dealt with.But once in with her they realise its easier said than done. Apart from her stamina which you've already mentioned, she's actually a lot cuter on the inside than many give her credit for. And don't lets overlook her tight defense.

Lady's the new kid on the block, brings a lot of support, a decent pedigree and truck loads of glamour to the sport, but maybe she's in too deep on this one. There's been a lot of unanswered punches in the last round or so and the ref maybe thinking of calling a halt to this one.

But so far it's been a helluva fight. The kind of tear-up the fans love. One for the ages - Mo & Bo will rejoin you for the next round. Seconds out.

Afternoon all,

Please forgive my posting ad-hoc, and without reference to scripture.

Paul the Apostle was a man seperated unto the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ by God. At that point it was his reality, his life.

Furthermore, for the most part he was a missionary-preacher, essentially involved in only two things;

1. Spreading the gospel
2. Strentghening those who had recieved it

He did nothing else and was consumed by what he was called to do. Not only was he far from seeking riches for it, he was more than happy to do it without pay - "woe is me".

His point to being supported by the gospel was for those whose whole lives  - along with any personal ambition, aspiration or will - were given up for it. Even so, he was not dogmatic about it in practice. He made no demands & always appreciated assistance/offering in regard his need as "gifts".

He was a Pharisee and trained lawyer. Tent making was not his profession, it was a side job undertaken when and as he could to provide for his needs, whilst maintaining focus on his calling. In as much as he took anything from anyone, it was always for his immediate physical need or that of others.

He was not a Sunday.Sunday congrgational elder (pastor or whatever your preferred option is) like most are today. That role is not meant to be "salaried" or funded by the church as a whole. That is why the ideal is "a plurality", so the burden of eldership can be shared.

If elders do recieve anything, it is based on their need, like it is for everyone else. Only that they should perhaps be prefered, due too their labour of love to the body.

He was not one to let the gospel be slandered or the Lord to be blasphemed because of filthy lucre.

_{Please note that he was never a self-styled "GO" or "Presiding Bishop" or "Covering Apostle" of those congregations he started or ministered to. Once strengthened and elders raised up they were self running/governing local communities. But don't let me derail the thread sha!}

God bless
TV

So, is it a structural/formation issue or one of doctrine/practice? Is it the provenance of those within?? Are these factors all related, perhaps fuelling each other Indeed, are there other causal factors or root issues. Could there be a deeper spiritual pattern playing out here?

emiemi:
Glad to hear this Kunle. But I will honestly tell you this, most young church usually start off right but
get distracted along the way or follow the saying ''if u can't beat them, join them''. I have been to
many churches too and have seen this phenomenom a lot of the times.

Sadly!

emiemi:
Remember to stay focused on your desire and whom u seek.

I'm not a big fan of this word, but GBAM!

KunleOshob:
My bro how you dey? Trust you had a blessed weekend.

Kunosh I dey 0! how far?

I'm spoiling bro'. What say we stand back to back and smite some of these ICD's with the edge of the sword ! Probably wouldn't stretch us overly much or last more than a few minutes, but it'd be fun while it lasted.  . We could probably carry on a edifying fellowship while we play .

fyneguy:
Ok Kunle

And if you are convinced, you will fully become a member and probably mature in spiritual things and quit rubbing religiousity on our faces.

May be this will put u on the positive side of progress in your christian life.

Much love, bro.

It takes a certain kind of proud - unthinking and unfeeling - religious hypocrite to post the kind of disdain and abuse that you have done above, subsequently labelling or proclaiming it as love, inherently suggesting it's "Christian" love.

Unfortunately this type abounds on NL.

_{does anyone actually discuss issues or topics anymore? is anyone capable. Lord, pray  save us from the invasion of the "Institutionalised Church Drones" ICD.}

Hi All,

I tust this finds everyone well.

I haven't posted for a while and the frequency of my posting is greatly reduced. Having said that, I still visit as often as I ever did, following any thread that catches my attention, but for the most part being content to reflect on the views of others.

I have followed this thread from the beginning and was again planning  - and happy -  to remain on the sidelines and hear other express their views.

I'm neither seeking a high profile or attention, so I would really rather I was personally left out of this. Having said that I took no issue with Kunle making mention of me during the discourse, after all I have no reason to believe his intent was in any way malicious. Neither will I object to anyone referencing anything I've published or even personally discussed, as long as it is accurately quoted and contextualised.


So I'm posting for two reasons;

The first is to respond to $osisi' post - #158 - earlier today.

Hi $osisi,  I hope you are well. We have had very little interaction on NL and not directly for some time. We both have a body of postings and I'm sure have had occassion to read each others entries. I must say I'm rather saddened by your post earlier today and I'll explain why.


[quote author=$osisi link=topic=282213.msg4021319#msg4021319 date=1244858081]It's interesting that KunleOshob mentions TV01 another individual with a form of Christianity.[/quote]As an entre intended to both wound and calumnise, could you have done much better? Your pointedly referencing and ascribing a "form" of Christianity to both Kunle and myself is at best religiously censorious.  Which would suggest you are an arbiter of what are "true" and "form" strains of Christianity. At the very least if you are allowed to express you opinion  - wrightly or wrongly - about individuals, does not Kunle have the same right to express his opinion about strains of denominationalism or worship traditions?

[quote author=$osisi link=topic=282213.msg4021319#msg4021319 date=1244858081]Believers should be careful about any Christian who tells you he has read the Bible thoroughly and now knows the mind of God  concerning every issue and everyone else is in error.[/quote]I can only shake my head in wonder here, as I have never once suggested anything remotely like that. Wonder as you cannot fail to understand exactly what you are doing here, by falsely ascribing to me a stance I have never taken.

And for the record I will state here; simply I'm still on my journey. Neither do I believe that doctrinal excellence or scriptural supremacy is key. I am always ready to be disabused of any wrong notions I may hold, but please address the notions and refrain from ad hominen invective.

[quote author=$osisi link=topic=282213.msg4021319#msg4021319 date=1244858081]Or one who spends time critizing virtually everything in "his faith" and has a ready answer for all questions.[/quote]Again, you maliciously ascribe something to me that cannot be verified. I have my understanding and position on certain religious or faith practices and doctrine, but would you disallow me that? Or am I obliged to confer and agree with you on every point?

[quote author=$osisi link=topic=282213.msg4021319#msg4021319 date=1244858081]That is  the beginning of heresies and cults[/quote]Not content to falsely ascribe things to me and take issue because I have expressed an opinon, you progress to labelling me heretical and a probable cultist. Are you trying to flatter me ?

[quote author=$osisi link=topic=282213.msg4021319#msg4021319 date=1244858081]Could these be the people the Bible tells us have crept into the fold ?
I am not impressed
I am not deceived.[/quote]Both wierd and funny?? - In a sense, isn't Kunle on the verge of leaving your "fold"? Why not encourage him/us? Shouldn't you be glad?

And in all the religious landscape, are you sure its TV and Kunosh the Bible is warning you against? Two individuals without profiles, no following, no platforms, no power, influence and dare I say wealth. Who are not soliciting for followers or seeking to establish - neither belong too - a denomination or institutional church?? Or asking that you subscribe to their beliefs/doctrines or follow their paths or asking for your resources? Please don't take my word for it $osisi, but I'd say no! !

Eeeerrr, my desire to impress you exactly matches my desire to decieve you. No prizes.

[quote author=$osisi link=topic=282213.msg4021319#msg4021319 date=1244858081]May I never come to a point in my life where I feel like I have arrived in faith and now  know all there is to know about God and his ways.

That is the point Kunle and his best friend seem to have come to.
That, my friend,is a dangerous position to be in.
I do not envy them at all.[/quote]So then, is perdition your prognosis?

[quote author=$osisi link=topic=282213.msg4021319#msg4021319 date=1244858081]They may be on a quest to seek out a perfect gathering of non tithing believers meeting under a mango tree under an umbrella of love
But the moment they join it becomes imperfect because they are imperfect themselves[/quote]Lots has been said on the word "perfection" in relation to believers and the church in this thread and I was briefly tempted to write on that very point. I yet may.

All Kunosh has said - and please correct me if I am wrong - is that the various forms of institutionalised religious christianity are in his view so far removed from the scriptural blueprint that he has doubt if they are still in essence the true church refered too. Ergo, he may no longer worship in that setting.

He did not say he no longer believed, he did not say he would no longer fellowship, he did not say he was seeking perfect people or a perfect church. If your view is that he is in error or danger, why not show him scripturally why that is the case? Why not address the issue, possibly delivering him and others in the same position.

[quote author=$osisi link=topic=282213.msg4021319#msg4021319 date=1244858081]The Bible says that those who are led by the Spirit,are the sons of God.
Every believer should pray to be led
The letter kills but the Spirit gives life.
Let him who has an ear,hear.[/quote]I missed the bit where you actually referred to the topic or addressed the issue? Your intent becomes even more obvious. The effect? On me personally zilch. Some may be wrongly coloured in their opinion of me - but again for my own sake, no qualms.


$osisi I bear you no malice or ill-will, indeed my desire for you remains the same as for everyone - that we all seek and find the truth of God in Christ Jesus.


The second is to say if anyone would like to quote me, please take time to do so faithfully. Or just ask and I'll happily answer as best I can.


Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

God bless
TV

Sorry for my absence after my initial post, I got lost in the thick bush of SW Nigeria  .

Kunle, I'm now back in Lagos for a few days before heading home. I'll mail you as noted.
Pastor, I live in the UK as well, maybe on my return.

Best
TV

And I'd like to meet up - paticularly with KunleOsh and Pastor AIO. God bless TV.

Gamine:
I think im passing through the second stage,

Thanks TV01, true words.

Ey yah Sister Gamine,

It has been abundantly clear from a lot of your posts. I never commented as we'd never really talked and every walk is personal. I gaurd mine jealously, but if you ever want to talk or share your journey.


Is this familiar;

It's a wrench to come out of organised religion. It's comforting, one is validated, accepted, lauded even. You would have felt at home, spiritual and like you were truly serving God. For a while you'll be a little lost, but hopefully the clarity of truth you've understood will stop you going back. In fact the move out can be an epiphany - accompanied by a better understanding and more clarity of that truth you grasped - and a sense of release.

But the withdrawal can be painful and protracted. Exacerbated by the length of time it was so overwhelming a part of your very existence. Not to mention the realisation that having left what is wrong, doesn't immediately mean you have laid hold of, or even know what is the true path of righteousness. It can be a little like a bereavement. Patterns, habits and schedules all askew - Sunday mornings for starters! A sense of loss, anger, frustration, helplessness and it can be knackering.

The road is narrow and there are few that find it.

There may be ostracism and slander to deal with. Many of those you thought you had an unbreakable bond with not only have no time for you, they will have a combination of pity and disdain for you, if they don't openly revile you. Finding people of similar leaning can seem nigh on impossible. Close relationship can be changed. If you are lucky maybe those who love you unconditionally, will still do so, but not really understand. Some perhaps will appreciate your passion, even if they don't get it.

You'll want to share this with everyone, but they'll be few that see what you have, or understand what too you may seem be obvious truth. Trying to explain will be mostly fruitless and frustrating. You see, belongong to a cult - be it the largest denomination or the smallest sect - is accompanied by a degree and form of spiritual bondage, blindness and stupor.

Additionally, there's the fact that you have some truth - enough to see the falsehood of organised religion - but not all, or possibly not enough to determine what next. Please keep trusting Him.

Narrow, hard and lonley. I wish there was a roadmap, but I suspect not. At least not in anything but the very broadest sense. Salvation is personal, as is the walk. But if it's Him you are after, I trust you will rejoice in the end. I don't know how long it's been or how long you've journeyed, but I wish you Godspeed and may the Lord be with you.

TV

Pastor AIO:
I think it is a bit too damning to state that they cannot be redeemed. Yes, the situation looks daunting from our perspective, but it doesn't happen by our powers, no matter the strength of the arguments.

Perhaps we should stop relying on our own understanding and our abilities to argue. The Truth cannot be arrived at via rhetorical arguments. The important thing is that you say what you have been inspired to say. The job of convincing anyone is not ours.

I agree with Pastor here.

I was once a fully paid up - rabid even - card carrying Pentecostal. But my heart was always to know God for myself. I believe Christ offers an intimacy with God that no other religion/philosophy or faith does, and I yearned and sought that with all my heart.

As I sought I saw and had to make some hard choices, the primary one being seek God or serve man. I thank God for His grace in leading me out of man-made religion, but 3 things;

1. When I was in the throes of organised religion, no one could - by argument or rhetoric - have forced me out. I was once the most fervent proponent of tithing. I even condemned those that practised it, but had the termerity to debate whether it was net or gross. But I sought God and He spoke to my about tithing when I wasn't even querying its validity. Tradition or Truth? That choice will have to be made at various points of one's journey. It was the start of a series of revelations that led me out of menc churches.

2. Having come out, I had a phase of exhorting everyone about the dangers and railing against religion. You know what? most people are exactly as I was in 1. above. For a while, I became almost religiously anti-religious. I see that as another phase I went through.

3. All I can say is that "The Lord knows those who are His" and they hear His voice and follow Him. God is way beyond. Anyone that truly seeks Him He will lead. But it can be a hard and lonely path. Being anti-religion does not in itself make you pro-God or to know Him.

There are lots of people out there who may not worship like we do, practise what we preach, but be fervently seeking God. I for one believe He will make a way even for those.

Lots to say, but it's more about seeking than speaking.

Pastor, Kunle et al, hope you are all well, if anyone has intimacy with God to share I'm all ears.

God bless
TV

H2O2:
How did you arrive at this conclusion? It didn't say that anywhere in the passage.

Hi H202,

I agree that it is not "explicitly written", but please refer to verses 12 & 13.

12 But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing
to live with him, let him not divorce her. 13 And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him.

If your intendeds religion was an issue why would you marry them in the first place? The church was still nascent at that time and many converts were new.

Listen to Paul in chapter 9 of the same epistle - 5 Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

Conversion after marriage is not grounds for the new believer to depart, but the still unbeliever may well seek to leave on that basis. One who believes and is unwed is not to enter into a marriage union with an unbeliever.

^{Having said all that, please note that that is more of a doctrinal statement. I don't believe that the fullness of the Christian life is lived by written rules. Marriage was instituted before religion - and whilst God obviously does not want religious differences to precipitate divorce, it is clear that deeply held but differing beliefs can be all but impossible to reconcile after the fact, so it's best not too in the first instance.}

God bless
TV

KarmaMod:
I'm confused

How is this possible if you're not allowed to marry a non Christian in the first place?

Hi KarmaMod,

It speaks to a situation where neither party was a Christian prior to the marriage. If during the course of the marriage, one converts, divorce is not consequent,or at least not to be pursued by the converting party. You - for a while at least - have a situation where there is one Christian believer and one unbeliever in the marriage.

Hope that clarifies.

JJYOU:
BREATHE IN AND OUT. THINK DEEPLY IT WILL BECOME CLEARER.

SOME PEOPLE LOVE FOLLY AND HEAD ACHES

Hi JJYOU,

1. Rather than discourage seekers, please exercise some forbearance.
2. Caps lock indicates shouting/yelling - would you give us all e-headaches ?

God bless
TV

debosky:
I agree with your surmise TV01,

Actually, I don't think you do, but no problemo!

debosky:
but you cannot neglect the fact that, in large groups of people, it becomes cumbersome to deal with everything simply on a 'family basis' - there are church finances to be managed, buildings, provisions and the like - to properly achieve this, you will require some level of formalisation to have proper accountability in those areas.

And here's why; My underlying premise is that church should not be "institutionalised". I believe that is what you are suggesting, or maybe I should say what you are suggesting will inevitably lead to.

debosky:
I believe there shouldn't be heirachial operation in the church, but you do require functionality and delegation of responsibility to manage things properly.

Elders and deacons only. Church assembly is to equip and care for believers.

debosky:
It's all well and good to say it is all a family arrangement, but there is also responsibility as well.

As above. Elders and deacons, give the assembly of believers enough structure, without forcing it into an organisational mould.

debosky:
As to your last bit about 'pastoring' a church, I think it depends. If one goes to a new area and starts off a church, will he immediately form an 'elders council' from his new converts? There will be some level of formal leadership from one person at some point, even if it's not a be all, end all person. The elders are required as well, but in a case where someone gets to know Christ and grows, moves to a new area and forms a fellowship of believers - which body of elders will he report to? We do not have a single structure of elders to which all christians can agree to as the leading body, so inevitably, till there is growth within a particular fellowship for that to occur, individuals will have to take on that role.

I made that caveat in the subscript - all things being equal, i.e. in normal circumstances. Contingent situations will have to be dealt with on that basis. What if there are 3 or 4 believers in a female prison? I'm not being religious about it.

In most "normal" situations these days, what could be considered the norm does not obtain. It's usually a hierarchy of pastors, with a "sole authority pastor" atop. Everything from associate, assistant, co-head, head, conference, regional national overseer, G.O and variations thereof. Attendant in most denominations it may be, but it's not the biblically prescribed norm. IMO.

debosky:
Even in the household of God, there is still a need to submit to authority/leader in certain aspects.

I agree. In certain respects, to certain degrees, in certain ways and perhaps for certain times.

debosky:
People do need to be weaned off needing to see the Pastor so often, but in the interim, administrative measures are needed to ensure that all members of the family get their desired audience with the shepherd.

God never gave anyone a pastor, nor is there anyway to discern what obtains for the normal "SAP" mandate from the biblical narrative. The audience of Christianity is with the "Most High". If you would allow, God would place exactly who you need in your path when you need them. And it may not be a "pastor". No administration required. Can a pastor be with you - or promise to go with you - wherever you go, even to the ends of the earth?

I don't deny people the right to exercise or fellowship in anyway they see fit, I am merely enunciating what I see outlined in the biblical narrative.

God bless
TV

Pastor AIO:
The question on my mind now is - What does one do?

Nothing.

Pastor AIO:
We know the situation but how should one react?

Don't react. Just observe. Share your concerns with Him, pray if you like. Mourne, lament even. But be very still and in His presence. That I believe is where everything is to be found.

Pastor AIO:
Should we go on a crusade against these churches?

No. They have their place in the eternal scheme of things. Everything is under control. And without His bidding and hence empowering, even with the best intention it is best not too.

Pastor AIO:
Or should we just mind our own business? Our own business being serving christ.

Exactly.
In truth any action you take must be clearly instructed by the Master.

Pastor AIO:
Is there any point in denouncing them as not True christians when every denomination and their grandfather is already denouncing everyone else as not true christian?

No. And it would be an essentially fruitless task. In fact, it could well be counter-productive to your own walk. You'll in all liklihood add to the mindless cacaphony out there and potentially tire/frustrate yourself doing so.The Lord knows those who are His. He will build His church.

Pastor AIO:
How would you set yourself apart?

You don't have to. He will. All you have to do is "Come out of her", as He says to His own. Leave what you percieve to be false religion and set your sights on Him. Don't worry about the labels, anyone can call themselves anything. He knows, His church.

Pastor AIO:
It is one thing to moan and complain and produce arguments but it quite another thing to propose a plan of action.

And what do you suggest? A plan of action - of your own devising anyway - is the last thing you want. That could very easily lead to the building of the very thing you lament about. Many denominations and sects started that way. A little truth, a small revelation, some structure around it and boom, next thing you're G.O'ing your own sect. Careful sir.

God bless
TV

Believers & Priesthood

In the Body of Christ, there are no class or hierarchical divisions. The only real distinction is maturity in your walk and time spent in His presence (Acts 4:13). There is no mandate or requirement to have some believers differentiated (i.e. elevated) by ordination or theological/seminary training (John 7:15).

The bible clearly attests to the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9, Revelations 1:6). More mature believers if they fulfill the criteria may serve as elders (this role is the same as pastor/shepherd/bishop, the different renderings merely describe various facets of the same role). Likewise, others may serve as deacons. The personal qualities for both are clearly spelt out in the pastoral epistles (Timothy & Titus). These are the only roles required in NT Christianity.

Furthermore, the ethos is one of servant-leadership;
Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave-- 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

Hierarchies, reporting lines and corporate structures are simply not necessary in the Body of Christ (and I believe that authority stems primarily from the family and not the Church. 1 Corinthians 11:1-3).

1 Peter 5:1 The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: 2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; 3 nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock;

Christian leadership is a sacrificial service aimed at providing an example to the less mature and guidance, counsel and direction for the whole flock of God. The aim of our collective fellowship, the various gifts and all the offices, so beautifully enunciated in Ephesians chapter 4, is to bring all believers to maturity in Christ.

And just as the interaction between the Head and members of this family is relational, likewise, fellowship between the individual members of the body of Christ is clearly meant to be relationship based and not functionally ordered. It’s corporeal and not corporate, a body not an institution. It is edification by knitting together through love. He’s a Father not a Chairman/CEO.

As long as a hierarchical (religious) divide exists between clergy and laity, this will never be the case. Ironically, it takes both sides to both justify and perpetuate. To do this they have to foster spiritual dependence by the laity (so called) on the clergy (so called). For this unscriptural state of affairs to continue, certain truths have to be suppressed or misapplied. The situation is further compounded by the cult of personality, which grows up around certain religious figures. Please, don’t let the fallen nature (and it’s lust for Power, Profit, Position & Prestige) along with your affection for human culture and love of religious tradition to rob you of intimacy with God.

The new covenant appoints a new royal priesthood comprising of ALL BELIVERS (1 Peter 2:5, 9, Revelations 1:6), and a new High priest, sworn by an oath according to the order of Melchizedek. (Hebrews 6:20, 7:26, 8:1, 9:11). Hallelujah! Praises to God most high. It’s that simple.


God bless
TV

^{note: the mandate assumed by so called pastors in most churches today is a self-arrogated one and nowhere found in scripture. Eldership in a church setting is always by a plurality of qualified male elders (all things being equal). Nowhere in the biblical narrative is there leave or example of a single person "pastoring" a church. I acknowlege the right of all to make kings over themselves if they so wish.}

debosky:
@ Pastor AIO

What do you say about Matthew 23:23?

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former."

Jesus here is clearly endorsing tithing as a valid practice - so why should we not do it (each deciding in his heart), with understanding of course, that God loves a cheerful giver?

I don't buy the former argument that this was 'directed at pharisees' or simply 'fulfilling the law'. When other issues in Mosaic law such as 'an eye for an eye' came up, this is what Jesus said:

Matthew 5:38-39
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'But I tell you not to resist an evildoer. On the contrary, whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well.

What this implies to me is this: If Jesus wanted to abrogate tithing, he would have done so at this point, the same way he abrogated an eye for an eye. Jesus does not condemn the practice, neither do subsequent New Testament authors - it is definitely de-emphasised due to the wider audience involved now, both Jews and non-Jews. but that in no way negates the practice in my view.

The only caveat is this - all giving must come from a cheerful and grateful heart and not out of compulsion. Do not give the tithe if you feel compelled to, but only out of a right heart condition.

As to the matter of Malachi 3:10, We need to see things in context - there is no doubt that 'whatever a man sows so will he reap'. The core of our belief is (or should be) love and gratitude to the Saviour, but that does not negate the divine principle of sowing and reaping.

Jesus was endorsing tithe as a legal requirement under the law as it stood at that time.

The key is understanding the “weightier matters” and what they refer to – it also answers Romans 3:31 – about “establishing the law”.

The law of God is eternal and unchanging – He changeth not. There is in effect only one law. Love God and your neighbour as yourself.

To circle around number of laws, whether The Lord did or did not specifically abrogate tithing like in the eye-for-an-eye quote, or why there is not clear repeal as there was for circumcision, or why the Apostles do not appear to have condemned it, is totally needless.

The way the law is effected is what has changed. Previously it was by written laws, physically codified, by self righteousness.

Now, it’s written on hearts and by grace through faith in God.

So is the law established? Yes and Amen! Does that mean that a written code is still in place and to be slavishly followed? No and amen!

It is why one could break the written code if it meant fulfilling the “weightier matters” and be found blameless.

No non Jew was ever preached or spoken to about the tithe.

And one other thing, what was the promise for keeping the law?

God bless
TV

Pastor AIO:
This is brilliant! May I forward it to some of my contacts? I think more people need to read this that are on Nairaland.

Thank you. And please, be my guest.

DavidDlyan likes to say "God deals with us as individuals" or words to that effect. I totally agree. I feel a form of fellowship that has been crowded out by commercialised religion, is the simple "coming together" of believers to share the experiences, insights and developments of their walks, as we all press towards the upward call of God in Christ Jesus - Intimacy with God and Christlikeness. That's is what this is about right?

God bless
TV

I often wonder if this discussion will ever reach an end point? After all, surely doctrine is not intended to remain purely theoretical without any practical value or application? And if not, one must always ask “how consonant is the practical outworking of any doctrine with what we would consider Christian behaviour or character?” How indeed, does doctrine affect notions of worship and church structure.

So, how does “the tithe” play out in everyday practical Christian living? As one who confesses –as I believe the bible clearly shows – in simple Christian giving to meet physical need, how do believers in the tithe, Gods ordaining, distinguishing and blessing it, explain the outworking of tithing, even in the simplest terms?

~ How does a Christian worship God with money, or any other physical thing in this dispensation? And in the NT biblical narrative, can any such instance be found?

~ Who is the tithe given to/received by? And what subsequently happens to it?  With the saints as priests and The Lord as High Priest, how does this
tithe thing work?

~ Please, can somebody explain “Gods covenant secret/mystery for prosperity?” as some term it. And in the kind of plain English the spiritually simple can understand. Thank you kindly.

~ Is there anything in the biblical narrative – without reference to the Law & Prophets – that upholds the notion that God has ordained, distinguishes and blesses a tithe by New Testament Christians, which is clearly separate from needs based giving?

Attempts to monetise worship are not new. One need only look back to the era of indulgences. I think most of you will be aware of this practice and period in history and what it entailed, for those that are not I would urge you look it up. It was nothing more than extortion, regardless of the good intentions or the attempted justification by lending it the imprimateur of the religious establishment or attempts to normalise it by quoting scripture.
I’ve already alluded to my belief that the tithe is at best an erroneous form of “temple tax”, which is rather odd as temples or dedicated physical places of worship are at best an optional extra, and by no means normative. God has clearly stated that His temple is no longer of stone and His dwelling place is no longer buildings.

It’s not too complicated to see the need for some form of subtly coerced giving, no matter how spiritualised, when religion is institutionalised and physical structures are integral to worship. In fact its simply a way of raising funds Organisations have to be funded somehow. Organisations cannot first survive without funding.

Organisations need to be busy, churning out goods and keeping a captive consumer audience. It’s why there are “programs” more or less daily and why non-attendance is frowned upon. It’s about growth, hence the emphasis on members (not converts and certainly not discipleship). It works to foster dependence and control of your time and resources (mostly money).

It  also helps justify a salaried leadership hierarchy, aka clergy. No where does the bible prescribe such. It’s man made tradition. The church is never a business opportunity career path or even vocation.

As ever there is branding. And franchising for the more solid brands. As it evolves, it becomes commoditised. The physical product offering is wide ranging. From programs, including, crusades, deliverance sessions, power nights, dominion evening, conventions, vigils, singles outreach, marriage seminars and the like. Workshops, with specialists and product experts in each field. Secondary product based revenue streams kick in and the organisation is no longer solely dependent on coerced giving, although for the most part the source of their funding is the same.

Then there are the smaller consumables, anointing oil, snake oil, handkerchiefs, chains, branded and customised literature, tapes, CD’s, personal prayer/visits and even cruises. Multiple revenue streams kick in, still from mostly the same source demographic, but the net is wider and consumers don’t have to be local or members.

Like any organisation/institution, they have reflective defensive mechanisms, aimed at eliminating opposition and threats. Try to change or challenge from the inside and you will be branded insubordinate, rebellious, suffer calumny or be ostracised. Do not judge, do not touch the Lords anointed, or talk against the “man of God” – which is pitifully laughable, as almost all such are self styled.

With the doing away with of a physical structures of worship in the form of temples, a mediatory priesthood, physical/burnt offerings and the observance of holy days or otherwise ritualised religion, worship of God is in spirit and in truth. Without physical/ritualised religion, men cannot control it or each other. To do so, the things that have been done away with have to be re-instituted. 1 Corinthians 7:23 - You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

How does money come into it? It’s pretty simple really, as the bible warns severally, one way of identifying wolves will be their emphasis on gain, lucre and riches. Openly citing it as the very reason for Christianity - prosperity anyone - and it being implicitly obvious for their involvement in ministry. One of the biggest myths in Christian religious circles is “the gospel needs money for propagation”, no it don’t. Organisations and institutionalised religion need money to survive. Take that to the bank! Whenever there’s a crime, a major line of inquiry is always the money trail.

Politics and religion they say are twin evils. I used to hate that phrase, but false and man-made religion, which is very evident in many strains of Christianity and directly opposed to true faith and undefiled God kind religion – caring for orphans and widows, sounds needs based to me?  - is exactly that, a great evil. Who can spot the difference between many so called MOGS and the political rulers in Nigeria, in many, if not most respects. Indeed, aren’t they in many instances willing bedfellows?

In many countries with a longer historical “Christian tradition”, religious funding even comes from the state. Now that’s what they talkin’ about. Tithe ke? That’s small time for auditoria and planes. This thing get levels. Money and power and greater dominion, come with political liaison. Ultimately the institutionalised church would like to be a political force in it’s own right , and it once was. These days, it has to make do with a wary liaison with the state. In many ways the aims of religion and politics are the same, so it makes a certain amount of sense. Again, this is not new. The biblical narrative is replete with examples of the religious establishment in bed with the state.

But that’s just the “physical stuff”, dig deeper for the "spiritual".

Seek truth people.

God bless
TV

Point of correction,

Earlier, I said this;

God served notice long ago that he no longer dwells in physical – houses, temples – buildings , in fact, almost  immediately we entered this current dispensation.

Acts 7:48-49 - However, the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands, as the prophet says: 'Heaven is My throne, And earth is My footstool. What house will you build for Me? says the Lord, Or what is the place of My rest?

Acts 17:24 - God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands

If anything, the point was actually made - earlier - intra-dispentianally;

John 4:19 The woman said to Him, "Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship." 21 Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

My bad, I apologise, if I wasn't as clear as I could have been.

But seriously, that's part of the reason why He gave His life. Not just to free us from sin, but also mindless ritual and law-bound institutionalised religion. Which not only could man not abide by, didn't actually afford true intimacy with God - that is what this is all about right?

And lest I am remiss and forget, freedom from the religious terrorists who would not go to Him and stop you from going to Him also. As He said, thy'd make you twice a son of hell as they themselves.

Matthew 23:15 - Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.

How many times did the Lord have encounters with satan? But think of the amount of time He spent railing against the hypocrisy and abuse of the religious establishment. Those are the one's to watch out for. There the one's that'll fool you with their hyper-religiousity and fake piety.

They're pretty easy to spot, they often come with temples attached and try and chain you to it, whilst binding you to them. They'll claim spirutal authority, over you. And demand your obedience. They'll control your time and money, busy you with programs and "the work of God". Tragic. They certainly won't leave you time for Him or point to Him. They'll name "ministries" after themselves and put their imprimateur on everything.

John the Baptist sought decrease, that "He may increase", not with this bunch, hell no! They'll claim to be holier than the early saints and more knowledgable, point out the errors of the apostles, increasing only in filthy lucre and there denial of Him. Paul was clear that the Lords strength was magnified in his weakness. Not these ones, they brag about their worldly accomplishments and accroutements as they plan their dominion, their reign and their territorial advancement. Don't be fooled His Kingdom is not of this earth, His love, not for the things or those of this world. Seek truth, that you may enter His kingdom and not be caught up in their carnal ambitions.

And please don't get me wrong, I have no beef with those that want to build temples, hire priests - 10 shekels a suit of clothes and sustenance - write themselves laws, subject themselves to men and assign themselves spiritual badges or even fund their fancy at whatever percentage they so choose. But why do they have to drag the name of Jesus into it

Good evening.

God bless
TV

Ilelobola:
It's interesting I was watching a programme on how foreign aid is used in Africa (well mainly Uganda and Sierria Leone) 2 days ago and with the poverty shown on TV, I thought to myself, what is the role of the church in all this? And I come across this today.

Before the TV programme, I had been seriously reconsidering what I do with my tithes i.e. pay it to the church or actually pay it to an orphanage in Nigeria where I know it will make a positive difference. I still haven't been able to decide and whilst the original article does make score a few points; I am still unclear. I have started paying the equivalent of my tithes to a Nigerian orphanage caring for underprivileged children and still pay my tithes to the church but one has to give way at some point as I cannot afford both for long.

I certainly am not happy when we are shown the church's annual reports that shows that more was spent on visiting guest ministers and other types of hospitality than was actually spent on charity. Something like 10:1! The reports suggests what is given to charity is an after thought. Half the time we are asked to make special contributions for charity if it is Xmas presents for underprivileged children or to build a refuge in Uganda when visiting pastors stay in the best hotels with funds taken from the church's accounts. We build the largest churches in the world but our people languish in poverty.

One day the church has bought a building with the building funds, another day, they say we are renting the building. Do they think people forget? I believe in God but I can't help but feel some pastor's just see tithes as free money.

One of my friends is a treasurer at a new start-up church in London (she's unpaid but it just so happens that she is the only one with a finance qualification in the church and the responsbility fell on her). It was started 5-10years ago and the pastor's bought 2 properties (fully paid up) in London and more in Nigeria in that time. Question is, where did he get the money from , she always reserves her comments.

I do agree with some parts of the original post but if we don't tithe where will the maintenance of the church come out from? Where will pastors and church staff be paid from if we don't pay tithes and would it not be hypocritical to be part of something and not contribute towards the upkeep? These are the questions that I still have no answers to that make me pay my tithes still.

All of these have left me very disillusioned.

Hi Ilelobola,

Very pertinent questions. I’ll post what I believe to be some pointers to the questions you raised. It was a cause for concern for me also at one point, but I looked to God and searched for truth, being willing to follow wherever it led. So whilst I’ll post my thoughts and discuss if you so wish, I’ll heartily exhort that you do likewise. Don't take my word for it, seek truth for yourself.

God served notice long ago that he no longer dwells in physical – houses, temples – buildings , in fact, almost immediately we entered this current dispensation.

Acts 7:48-49 - However, the Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands, as the prophet says: 'Heaven is My throne, And earth is My footstool. What house will you build for Me? says the Lord, Or what is the place of My rest?

Act 17:24 - God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands

Along with physical building, out the window went a mediatory priesthood between God and His own. Oh yeah, and observance of holy days and mandatory sacrifices. Welcome to liberty in Christ.

But men won’t have it; they love their rituals, traditions, position, power, pomp and pageantry. Religion by any other name. The Lord spent a lot of time railing against it and them.

One has to have a clear understanding – from the biblical narrative – of exactly what church is. It’s not buildings made with hands, it’s one of living – people – stones. It’s not an institution, it’s a family. Alive! It’s not an organisation, it’s an organism – a living breathing thing.

As a facade for their love of religion, men will build temples and tell you God lives there. No He don’t. Like the organisation they’ve made it, it’ll need a hierarchy, staff, a board, steering committees etc. If it gets large enough, it’ll make sense to have them full-time and salaried. Like all organisations, it’s reason for being will be itself, it’s own survival and growth, overcoming or eliminating threats to it’s existence. This long stopped being about God by the way, although His name will be used liberally to justify it. Along of course with other religionese such as, “my ministry”, “my pastor “, “my church”.

So don’t wonder why money is spent on the “leaders” or visiting “ministers, rather than the needy, it’s just organisations doing what comes naturally. Did you mention “annual reports~?” Yes O! Organisational/ Institutionalised religion.

Churches don’t require “maintenance”, buildings do. People require care, nurture love and their physical needs met.

And lest I forget, the tithe. A necessary but mostly fraudulent re-introduction by the same religionists – along with temples, mediatory MOG’s, set worship times and “programs” – to fund this delusion or madness, or evil; take your pick.

Without the mandatory tithe and other forms of coerced giving, the “church” – in the space we are talking about namely African/Nigerian/Black Pentacostal type would almost certainly never have got off the ground, or it would cease to exist in it’s current form.

But take the mandatory tithe away, coerced giving away and imagine the shape the church would take. Look no further than the book of Acts.
I’ll stop now, but like I said, happy to discuss further, but you don’t really need me. Seek the truth with all your heart.

Your dissilussionment is almost certainly not with Christ, it's with needless, empty religion.

I wish you well

God bless
TV

Hello Pilgrim.1,

Hope alls well.

You ended your last post thus;

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2983451#msg2983451 date=1224787066]When I see a moment inviting me to share, I'll do so.[/quote]Let me see, 12 posts ago - between the two of us - I asked if you'd be willing to answer some questions, you replied in the affirmative. Ten posts back, I posed a question. In the subsequent posts since then, you have asked various questions of your own, which I have answered and clarified as best I can where requested. However, for some reason you have singularly refused or been unable to answer my original question.

The sheer relentlessness with which you have pursued this course has itself intrigued me. I decided that on that basis alone I should try and see if I could at least understand your reasoning, hence my decision to see if you would answer some simple questions. Whilst I said "not purely" doctrine, I was by no means saying it shouldn't be resorted to, but I really wanted to get an idea of the dynamics of this from your view.

You now come out with the point above? Like I said, I don't want to be tedious. No offence Miss, but if I'm wasting my time, mine or yours, pray tell and I'll bother you no further.


Thanks again.
TV