₦airaland Forum

My excellent serve volley game enables me to play beautiful approach shots, keeping the rallies short and frustrating even the most tenacious of baseliners  .

^{I won’t let this discussion be bogged down in semantics. The proper order is clearly outlined in the biblical narrative  .}

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

TV01 replies;
I have repeatedly asked you to outline the other members of the management/leadership team apart from elders. Specifying their function and how they work in tandem. Trying to forcefully overlay an organizational model and ignoring the detail won’t wash sir. Paul never described himself as an elder as he was mostly itinerant. If you meant Peter, I will speak further to his position later in this post.

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

TV01 replies;
There is no hierarchy. Peter who had been an eye-witness of His glory, called himself a “fellow elder”, and beseeched the others. Eldership is at once in plurality and equality. Peter appealed to other elders as equals (which all elders are even if functioning in different capacities), he did not command as senior.

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

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

Analytical wrote;
1 Tim 3 vs 17 The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.

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

TV01 responds;
How? Why? This merely points out that those elders who demonstrate exemplary leadership & labour in doctrine should be especially honoured. It doesn’t denote them as senior. Taking the time to study and share the word is an additional burden on such elders and should be acknowledged.

As for types/categories, you toss something in that you cannot validate from scripture, or can you?

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

TV01 replies;
You are still reading something into the narrative that is simply not there. A male believer (novice), who aspires to eldership has to mature and qualify, simple.

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

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

TV01 replies;
Again, the narrative shows that elders minister to the flock they are a part of. What is a Bishop as described above needed to oversee? In a fully functioning church the incumbent eldership is responsible for the functions (previously outlined). Granted there may be need or desire for inter-church counsel in a metropolis, but that does not prescribe a hierarchy.

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

TV01 replies;
As was Paul’s practice, he would often remain in area until the church was mature enough to function without his oversight. He would then move on. Visiting when possible to strengthen and encourage. Timothy and Titus merely replicated this pattern. If they “settled” in a particular area they would have functioned as elders in their local congregations.

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

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

I’m sensing another straight sets victory  .

God bless

Okay,

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

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

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

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

First saying they are different, and then claiming they are the same?

The Bible clearly shows that the pastoral function is carried out by elders.
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; 4 and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away.

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


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

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

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

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

Serve returned.

Thunderous return  !

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

TV01 replies;
Absolutely.

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

TV01 replies;
More good stuff, but I think I've spotted a "foot fault". Please go to the rules (bible) to categorically show the distinction between Elders & Pastors. And claiming a "hierarchical authority/structure pattern" in the NTC, is to me a double fault. Again, please show it from the good book

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

TV01 replies;
Would one not assume that gifts and offices work in tandem? If church structure revolves around the eldership and a deaconate per 1&2 Timothy & Titus, where and how do the other gifts/offices fit in?

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

TV01;
I am not sure about your transalation of the word "presbuteros". I would have though the word was a transliteration in English, being rendered "presbyter". However, I can see no scriptural support for a Clergy/Laity (leader/Follower) split in NT Xtianity. Further to my immediately prececeeding point, please outline who in addition to the "eldership" would be included in the "leadership" - you may want to briefly outline how they function and compliment the elders and deacons.

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

TV01 replies;
In a very loose sense and in rare instances, this analogy may well be appropriate. But trying to force the NTC into such a paradigm will lead to all sorts of problems. God is a "Father", the Head of a Family. Trying to overlay a corporate model will strip the church of much of it's essence.

Lets see how long this rally lasts!

God bless

4get_me:
I think there's a limit to stretching your tennis game over Scripture. A more appropriate place would be the Recycle Bin.

Typical. Can't defend your position, so your resort too rubbishing the opposing one.

4get_me:
That just about describes you; for these days you seem to be losing your grip on God's Word to the extent that Biblical teaching has become first a myth; and now "a nonsensical, man-made, religious construct." Well done; the Lord sees it all.

As ever, the religious always stamp "God" all over their religiosity, in a lame attempt to  validate it.

"Show clearly from scripture that the MOG concept as used in contemporary church organisations is scripturally mandated"

But as it's not there and you can't do it, I expect you'll resort to your usual obsfucating wordiness and girlie ad-hominem barbs.

Come back when you are seasoned enough to play hardball, otherwise keep travellin'.

^{Or play at your usual level, which is too buttress already well-established and generally-accepted doctrine. Second stringer!}

Ah! Mr "travelalot", I figured you'd visit my world at some point. What's your mission?

4get_me:
I Tim. 6:11 >> But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.

So then, an older more mature XTian calls a younger brethren a "man of God". How on earth does that marry with the contemporary usage to venerate and exalt certain people?

You won't make it past immigration with that kind of input (highly skilled migrants only!) .

You were right on one point though, it's not a myth, it's a nonsensical, man-made, religious construct  .

God bless.

trini_girl:
so you are still beating this dead horse thread. kai!

Actually, I aim to utilise this thread in my avowed mission to put the MOG myth to bed once and for all.

trini_girl:
i still remember you sent me to my room on this one. i'm not allowed.

And after that enforced sabbatical, I subsequently asked you to ride shotgun with me on this. Are you up for it.? It'll be fun .

^{I actually plan to switch sports on them. When they show up (finally?) all kitted out for tennis, they'll find it's 12 hard rounds of boxing. Doubtless there'll be cries of "You cannot be serious" as I lay into them with hurting combinations .}

God bless

Hi Goodguy, Thanks for taking the time to post, I can see you are besieged  .

I won't bother pursuing the point about the law, as I think we can progress without it. I have quite a few points of difference with regard to your stated positions.

goodguy:
I guess I should have cleared this up earlier.  Anyway, my stance on this issue of divorce has been concerning the Believers.  Since a true believer is expected to have the Spirit of God for guidance in everything he/she does, that means whomever he/she chooses to marry is indeed the right person.  (That's why I've been emphasizing on "marriages based on proper foundation", "marriages with God's consent", etc).  Therefore, if they eventually get married and begin to have problems, they should not divorce under any circumstances because once a man and his wife are joined together by God, they are now ONE flesh (Mark 10:7-, and are meant to be together forever (Mark 10:9).

I believe we are all discussing this in relation to being professing XTians. However, in a universal sense, marriage in itself has Gods sanction. The institution/covenant/sacremant _{(take your pick)} of marriage was given to man before religion and before the law. One can consider it "creational". It is in and of itself a Godly estate.

That's not to say that there isn't a XTian way to go about it. The blessing of XTity is to marry with His guidance, and to work out your union with His grace. Lots of believers fail to do this, that is not an excuse to opt out using worldly notions like "meant to be together" or scricturally flawed ones like " it was without Gods consent". Not to mention plain blasphemous ones like "God's calling on my life as a pastor means I have to leave my wife  " (TayoD  are you listening?)

The logical conclusion of your position is that any marriage covenanted outside XTianity is (a) not of God (b) invalid if one or both partner s become XTians. Again this is wrong as the Bible says not to leave the unbelievers if they are willing to remain married (1 Corinthians 7:12).

Being that marriage is in the flesh, there will always be problems. Again, the Bible states exactly that (1 Corinthians 7:28). And being in the flesh, one has to apply sound XT judgment in one's choice of spouse. The proper foundation is to understand the essence/import of marriage. To God, to society, to family and to the couple and then to commit to it. All this being done via committal to God. Being XT means we have a higher wisdom available to us with which to understand, address and resolve any problems.

I'm sorry, I for one see myriad flaws in that particular statement no matter how I look at it. You may choose to disagree or shed more light on how you reached your conclusions.

goodguy:
But as for the marriages not sanctioned by God, would the divorce even mean anything at all to God?  Afterall, it didn't have His consent in the first place.

I repeat, marriage already has Gods imprimatur. God has given us this already. The only marriages not sanctioned would be those that are not lawful for some reason. Primarily the fact that one of the parties was already betrothed/married to someone else, as the marriage union is till death do part. As marriage is a universal given, God's hatred of divorce is likewise universal.

There's a religion that teaches something akin to that and it's not XTianity. I don't want to digress, but I've noted your belief that another religion can be reconciled with XTianity at least in terms of their Deity. Not so, that may go someway to explaining the error here.

goodguy:
I was using it to emphasize my point about couples that are not meant to be together in the first place.  But then, what do you really think Jesus was insinuating by making her realise that she was not supposed to be with the person she was with at that moment?  That seems to me like He was asking her to leave the marriage.  Or maybe I'm wrong?

I have stated that I don't see scripturally (or agree with) the "meant to be together notion".

She was not supposed to be with the person she was with at the moment as she was legally married to another.

He wasn't so much asking her to leave it, as to point out that legally she couldn't be in it. It was a sinful/adulterous union.

There are at least two examples of this in scripture.

1. Bathsheba could not become Davids wife until Uriah was dead. Even then, the Bible alludes to the initial illicitness of that relationship by the reference in Matthew 1:6. Also pertinent to note, is that when Michal was forcibly taken from David and given to another man, he took her back, no shaking, she was his wife.

2. Herod took Herodias his brother Philips wife. This was unlawful and JTB was unambiguous in telling him so.

goodguy:
Or maybe I'm wrong?

I would say so, but let us allow scripture to drive this discussion, with a willinglness to hear God's truth. You have really helped me crystalise my thoughts on quite a few aspects of this issue. not to say that I have attained.

Thanks again for responding.

God bless

trini_girl:
abeg doh kill de messenger!

Eeerrr, who sent you?

trini_girl:
In any event, since you asked what I want you to say, how about an admission of folly and a retraction of the statements on this and that other thread where you posted a 6 part book.

Ah!!!
Pigs will fly .

fadenike:
@TV01
let me just elucidate my point , xtains believe is that at courtship there should be no kissing, hugging, pecking or sex till d joining day. for those dt engage in doing such, who is to be blame?

Let's try multiple choice (in an open book examination) shall we?

1. God
2. The devil
3. Them (Those)
4. Pastor Chris 
5. All of the Above
6. Nobody

lafile:
Somebody! Anybody!! Gift of the interpretation of tongues pleeeeeeassssssssssssse

Speaker in tongues must be able to interprete, or keep silence;

Interpretation ~ On the contrary my friend!

God bless

Wey dem

trini_girl:
Anyway, ranting aside , TV,  While I understand your openness to things concerning God, I hope you were joking about  seriously considering the bull shite ( yup, I said it) bull shite that KDK posted or that Universalism, a spin off of Humanism has anything to do with true christianity.

Hi Trini, Thanks for this post, I've been waiting for a reply to this, but the thread seemed to go quiet immediately I posed my question. I considered Universalism (or aspects of it), like I try to do most doctrine I come across. The usual questions - Do I feel a Spirit led resonance? Does it fit into the unified whole? - I was never quite convinced by Universalism as a whole, but it did pose some interesting questions.

trini_girl:
In the first paragraph alone the author equates free will to free moral agency when one is completely separate from the other.

This is a very complex theology that you really have to think about openly, study, and eventually the error will break through, as it did when I took on Jen33 about Reincarnation.

Not being convinced, I never really delved deep into it. Like a lot of stuff, I parked it until an opportune moment, so when it cropped up here on Nairaland, I followed a while and then posed my question. I particularly like the distinction you made between free will and free moral agency. It's not one I made. Seems to suggest some sort of "verbal sleight of hand" being used to make this stick. It's a common ploy in trying to make deception sound like the truth. Using the same phrases, but having different meanings, or language that sounds familiar to mask heresy.

Thanks again, and I'd appreciate anything else anyone has to share that conclusively nail this.

God bless

goodguy:
I thought you said you had just one question for me. Anyway, this issue of freewill has been debated already and there's no point restating my stance here. Notwithstanding, I will try to answer your questions in a nutshell.

Sorry to butt in here guys.

Goodguy, true the issue was discussed, but it was never concluded. In post #160 of that thread I queried the fact that an absence of freewill somehow suggested that God was the author of our evil acts. I asked for this to be explaine in the light of universalist doctrine. Nothing ever came back. There were a few more posts and it came to a grinding halt. So I'm happy to meet you back there so as not to derail this thread. Thanks.

Y'all can carry on now!

God bless

trini_girl:
What the hell is happening here? TV what are you doing? Please come back and give meaningful contributions to this forum. I miss arguing against your views!

I think the thread initiator need to articulate the proposition better. Otherwise it just gives leave to jokers (like me) to mess about .

Apologies for the momentary slip from my usual high standards, but hey, like everyone else, I have my monments .

lafile:
@ TV01
Badd Mind

Au contraire mon frere, innocent heart, pure eyes, renewed mind!

God bless

Have you considered changing prayer warriors? _{He who pays the piper calls the tune}

Hebrews 7:3 - without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life

The Bible says!

God bless

lafile:
haba TV01 i just want her to give a more detailed explanation. chei

Exactly my fear  !

lafile:
can you be more explicit?

Ah!!!!

trini_girl:
I am back! I don't think this forum is the same without us

Welome back my sister! I noted your re-appearance and I was truly gladdened. (Just in time for Vals day too  ). How far? How de go dey go? I trust all is well with you and yours!

Your return is timely ma'am. some gunslingers who go by the names of bari_kade and analytical are looking for a shootout on a thread titled "Church Structure & Sole Pastor Authority". When they finally show up, I was hoping you'd be kind enough to ride shotgun with me!

trini_girl:
Anyway, you are right! Church is not a building or religious affiliation. I see some people say they are a proud Anglican. I hope someday we as christians will realise that our pride should only be in Christ as being one of his born again spirit filled, spirit led, saved by grace disciples.

A claim to be a proud [insert denomination here], is very worrying. It is engendered by a combination of religious pride and spiritual deceit, and is almost certain to make people miss road (the broad way instead of the narrow path).

Stressing allegiance to any other than Christ and claiming membership of something other than the true church/one body, could in a very real sense disqualify one. Christ is coming for His Bride. There's a LovePeddler out there and to the undiscerning eye , not only does she look, talk, speak and act like the real thing, she is a lot more seductive.

_{A word for the wise and those who are proud of Him, boast in Him and love Him in truth.}

God bless

Church is not something you attend. Church is not a "go to". Asking the question "what church" is nonsensical, as there is only one. The earth has only one moon, and as such no one ever bothered naming it.

The church is something one is a part of a "belong to", so any question of "which one" is inherently flawed and betrays an inherent mis-understanding of the nature of the church. ^{Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger !}

God bless

goodguy:
Lev 20:10 - Penalty for Adultery is Death
Deut 24: 1 - Spouse can be divorced on the basis of Adultery

The Leviticus verse most certainly refers to the law regards adultery, but the one from Deuteronomy does not. That is the addendum which specifically captures the "hardness of heart" condition of some men.

So would we not conclude that adultery is still grounds for divorce, and cross-testament at that?

goodguy:
If the marriage was sanctioned by God, despite being boxed into it, the couple should work it out by all means.However, if the reverse is the case, they should go their seperate ways because they were not meant to be together in the first place. Even God will be glad at this. Remember the case of Jesus and the Samaritan woman? (John 4:16-18)

Could you please expound more on this portion you posted previously. Earlier in the thread, you seemed to be insistent that divorce (even in the case of adultery is not permitted). You then appear to be saying thet "if the marriage was not sanctioned by God", it is. I'd appreciate your reconciling what appear to be divergent positions. Also, I'd really appreciate a fuller expatiation regards your take on the "Samaritan woman by the well", as you seem top be suggesting that the Lord was endorsing seperation/divorce?

Thanks again.

God bless

goodguy:
If the marriage was sanctioned by God, despite being boxed into it, the couple should work it out by all means. However, if the reverse is the case, they should go their seperate ways because they were not meant to be together in the first place.

Instictively that just doesn't sound right! I find that wrong from so many perspectives.

When a couple (XT) take their vows, Who exactly is sanctioning the marriage. We have all heard testimonies from every end of the spectrum about how people met and the degree of divine intervention. But pray tell, how many people every said God said you must marry that man or woman?

The choice/decision to marry (although I personally consider marriage the norm), is ultimatley a personal one and in itself has no eternal bearing.
If God is in it? How would "boxing" occur? The mere fact that marriage is liived out in flesh & blood means there will always be issues. The difference is that in a proper XT relationship the dealing will be Word based, Spirit led, God fearing.

The "God did not sanction this union" clause sounds suspiciously like the "God asked me to divorce for ministry purposes" opt out as espoused by some.
_{Seems I have been overly influenced by PC, man-fearing XT's to stop calling a spade a spade. I'm going back to the old ways, the narrow path.}

One last thing Goodguy, previously we kind of paused on this, but as I was meditating a question came up. I didn't want to push it as I though the discussion had been good and more or less run it's course anyway, but let me ask you this.

You previously said divorce was only permitted under the law of Moses due to the "hardness of some mens hearts". Pursuant to this and under grace, it would appear that divorce even in cases of adutery were due to that same hardness (or unforgiveness). This seems quite plausible at first glance, but thinking about it, the penalty for adultery under the law was death. Therefore "divorce" would hardly have been necessary would it? How would you factor this into your thinking. i hope I haven't missascribed/quoted you, apologies if I have and please ignore me. it's how I seem to recall things.

Regards

God bless

I'm here. Flexin' my muscles, keepin' warm. Bring it on y'all!  .

Walkover  !

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

In quite a few "Nigerian" churches/denominations, Pastors are seen as the apex of a hierarchical authority structure ( guess that makes them overlords of sorts?). My premise is that there is no such pattern in NT Christianity. That it's nowhere to be found or even alluded to in the scrfiptural narrative. Any rejoinders should agree/disagree (with references and illustrations of the practical outworking of thier positions.

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

I'm not sure that you do see my viewpoint of the role of Elders, as I have stated quite clearly, it encompasses the "Shepherding" (care of souls) role usually devolved and assigned to "Pastors", who have authority over them. Regardless of the OT type, the NT is clearly spelt out and not at all convoluted in any way.

Maybe you could return serve (we are having this discussion using a sporting metaphor, tennis in this case ~  TayoD has called time out as he is cramping up from dehydration  ) by showing from the NT scripture the "Mandate" for a single/senior/sole authority pastor over and above elders.

Regards

God bless

Matthew 6:7 - And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.

I am not saying that it is wrong either  .

God bless

chessito:
As i was studying my own life i discovered that there's something called an Holy Partiality,God has been so good to me and i discovered that i has really been partial about me,what some people wont escape when they do it,i escape it!

Hi Chessito, In response to your initiating post, could I say one thing please? Wrong! wrong!! wrong!!!

One of the most oft repeated proclamations in the Bible is God's unwavering partiality. The refrain appears accross both Testaments and I have personally noted around 13 odd verses clearly stating this truth. I post a sample below;

2 Chronicles 19:7 - Now therefore, let the fear of the Lord be upon you; take care and do it, for there is no iniquity with the Lord our God, no partiality, nor taking of bribes."

Job 34:19 - Yet He is not partial to princes, Nor does He regard the rich more than the poor; For they are all the work of His hands.

Acts 10:34 - Then Peter opened his mouth and said: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality.

Romans 2:11 - For there is no partiality with God.

Ephesians 6:9 - And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.

1 Peter 1:17 - And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear;

And if you think you will escape judgement, please take note;

Colossians 3:25 - But he who does wrong will be repaid for what he has done, and there is no partiality.

1Timothy 5:24 - Some men's sins are clearly evident, preceding them to judgment, but those of some men follow later.

Alexos:
There is nothing like Holy Partiallity, Its called GRACE.
You are just enjoying the grace of God in your life, and please don't let it get into your head just keep praying for more.

Alexos, please don't be offended, but I feel your response misses the point somewhat.

Grace is an enabler - to do those things that please God - not to be confused with mercy.

One of the wierdest teaching's nowadays is that grace covers or excuses sin, no sir it does not, or at least I don't see the bible teaching such. However, I remain to be corrected.

chessito:
Please what do you think?

Chessito, I suggest you stop counting the Lord as slack or partial and take sharp advantage of His longsuffering. (And study more thoroughly in future )!

God bless

_{I need to get back to my truth hurts/tough love style of ministering, this softly, softly thing leaves me cold} 

bari_kade:
If for argument sake you want to run a race-course and be headmaster, no wahala! You have your reasons why CP/Xtity/XP. . . or whatever else, is a plague in the Christian faith, as much as everyone else have theirs for applauding it. At the end of the day, no one may have made sense to you; and in my mind it is very doubtful that your arguements have served a good persuasion across board (just my opinion, however disagreeable you may be to that).

~ No, not for arguments sake.
~ I have no problem with you not being persuaded by my arguments.
~ However, I have invited you to outline the reasons for your position in response.
~ After all, if I am to modify or change my position, it must be on a sound basis.

bari_kade:
Let me tersely say that Christians in political vocations play an important role in influencing legislations that reflect godliness against the backdrop of ungodly agenda. If this is idolatory or witchcraft, I'd rather let God be the judge, and not the passive spectators who cry foul at this vital exercise.

I can state my position in an equally terse way. But I have gone on to show as well as say. I have repeatedly asked you to detail the hows and why of your position. You can demonstrate it's validity from scripture, history, contemporary events or any other way that will make it's soundness apparent.

If you would really like God to judge, you would not speak perjoritively of those who hold a different view, neither would you "self-validate" your own position.

God bless

TayoD:
Thanks for the Analysis . You are so right. that should be the conclusion of the whole matter.

Conclu wetin? Hell no!

TayoD don't you dare use that as an excuse to high tail it! Bari Kade don't run O! Talk never finish! We will conclude at the end, not midterm (sorry politicos  ) midway!

Now where was I?

Oh yes, I was about dealing with TayoD' latest post, while awaiting a response from Bari Kade, and taking the opportunity to have a quick dig at mrpataki  , I mean demonstrate my new, improved and ever so felicitous literary style.

Still cryin'

God bless

Analytical:
I chose to refrain from trading words and exchanging tantrums. I’m sure you know I can hold my own when it comes to debate and theoretical doctrines based on my study and personal convictions, and not on any MOG’s according to you

Please feel free to share your views!

Analytical:
I wonder what’s wrong anyway in submitting to a teaching from an MOG that has more understanding and depth than one.

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

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

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

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

Analytical:
I love you all, TV01 inclusive, sincerely.

Me too!

God bless

Bro' TayoD, How now? Whassup?

TayoD said;
You are so wrong I could scream. A XT's mandate is not just conversion of souls. We are meant to preserve the earth as well. What is the purpose of salt if not preservation? Haven't you read that God will destroy those who destoyed the earth? What do you think He will do to those who preserve it? In responding to one of my questions, you said: "There may even be a hint of being environmentally sensitive if you like." So does this bear the notion of all spirituality to you and not a physical responsibility and change? Your futile attempt to justify your unscriptural position is making you so confused.

My response;
Oya scream! Then read this!

1 Corinthians 7:31 - and those who use this world as not misusing it. For the form of this world is passing away.

1 John 2:17 - And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.

Preserve wetin?

Revelation 21:1- Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.

For what? What for?

TayoD said;
It seems you are bent on bringing unrelated issues to this topic. No one on this forum has ever advocated for Theocracy so I wonder who you are arguing with here.

My response;
I believe I answered this in a response to bari kade, but to clarify, I meant countries that attempt to rule by religion, not necessarily XT nations. Also, as I see theocracy as a “religious exercise”. I feel that what happens there will happen if XT try to impose it as a consequence of gaining political power. Whether you see it or not, the natural out working of your position could well lead to such.


TayoD said;
The purpose is to govern with righteousness and justice which are the foundation of God's throne. It is doing on earth, the will of God in heaven (breaking news: there is no evangelism in heaven).

My response;
To properly govern with righteousness and justice, to do God’s will on the earth via political means will mandate a theocracy! Again, all you are demonstrating is full-blown circular reasoning! You will have to literally introduce the 10 commandments and legislate the worship of just the one God (funnily enough, I see this happening at some point, but it won’t be the will or the worship of the God of the Bible).

TayoD said;
The purpose of a Christian in authority is to ensure that laws that are equitable and just are made for the good of all.

My response;
You don’t have to be XT to make equitable & just laws.

TayoD said;
A christian in power serves as a light on a mountain to be seen by all. Bachmann was still on national T.V. 2 nights ago. She was introduced as one who calls herself a fool for Christ. Can you tell me if you've witnessed to as much people as she did in that few minutes?

My response;
Pray tell, did she proclaim the cross? Did she tell viewers of their sin and impending, judgement from God? Did she broadcast the fact that she would not rest until everything contrary to NT XT was legally abolished? Did her light shine so brightly that people confessed their sins, repented towards God and put their faith in the saving work of Jesus Christ? She may be sincere, but I see it as misguided.

A person of any religious persuasion would see her and think, “I would like my religion to have political representation”. A person with any cause would think,
“ maybe I can advance this cause politically”. The witness is to “politics” as much as it is to anything else. Go deep dude, go deep!

Please tell me how many people she witnessed too, so as to enable me too respond to your final point.

TayoD
A christian in power also looks out for the needs of his christian community at home and abroad. Christians have negotiated laws that favour the propagating of the Gospel. Do you think it is the non-christians in the American Government that are pressuring China and Korea etc against the discrimination of the minority Christians? What about the Christian that was delivered from death in Afghanistan recently. Was it just prayer that saved him or did it include political pressure? That is Church and State working together to bring about God's will on the earth.

My response;
You cannot ascribe any laws to XT’ as the numbers demand they collaborate with non-XT to get any legislation passed. The propagation of the gospel is in no way dependant on legislation. Unless of course you are still surreptitiously proclaiming a theocracy. All decent, civil and well-ordered nations along with human rights/welfare organisations work to end discrimination and oppression on any basis. This is not the sole preserve of XT’. As for the case of the Afghani believer, many and diverse voices decried this, and not just XT’

Your naivette in thinking that the state (of it’s own volition) works to effect God’s will on earth beggars belief and is also quite sad (not to say delusional). The state is a power/institution/kingdom in it’s own right. Such entities work to aggrandise and self-perpetuate themselves. They will work to subsume, counter or nullify any threats, collaborate or compromise to further their aims, but their primary working directive is as stated. That by the way clearly explains the death of the Lord. The Jewish religious establishment & the Roman state aligned in common purpose (not in order to do God’s will), to neutralise a perceived common threat. A an aside, let me also educate you on the fact that most so-called XT denominations & ministries also work on that principle. By now you are not only screaming, you are also foaming at the mouth. One mo' I'll call the men in white jackets ! Enter mrpataki, havila & analytical - OMG, the lunatics are running the asylum

Tayo D said;
You have failed to produce a single example or witness of a Civil Servant or governor who attained that position by the principle you have been professing. Thus, there is no practical outworking of that which you have claimed is biblical. And if there is no practical outworking of faith, then the faith is all but moribund.

My response;
I have responded to this point severally. Firstly you have failed to demonstrate or show an example of a XT using political office to advance the KOG. Secondly, I outlined the way the biblical narrative patterns how one could wield political power without agitating for it. The fact that I don’t mention anyone who has trodden this path in contemporary times, does not change the scripture? Neither is that to suggest that God is, is not or has too work this way at this, or any time. That’s why He’s sovereign. Thirdly, you have conveniently ignored, the repeatedly posted, contemporary treatise I posted clearly demonstrating the gaping holes in your position on a practical level. Please respond to the issue of “homosexual adoption” as I outlined it on post #85. Thank you!

TayoD;
You have only proved my point further here. Politics appear sinful because we have left it in the hands of sinful men. Once the players change to the righteous, the game (politics) will reflect the nature of the players: righteousness.

My response;
No I haven’t as ever your one dimensional rhetoric is befuddling you. The power that worldly politics pursues is in the hands of the evil one. To acquire, wield and retain worldly political power, you have to bow the knee to another.

No beef dude!

God bless

Hi Bari kade,

Okay dude, read you post. Now the small areas are cleared up, lets talk. I’ll first clarify some points on my part.

When I talk about a spiritual conversion, I am referring to the effect CP agitation will have on “unbelievers”. My point being that we cannot use physical/worldly means to effect this. Hence my insistence that as the Spiritual change precedes and produces the physical (inward & then outward), political agitation is a back-to-front and hence futile exercise.

I have repeatedly stressed that I don’t see Joseph, Daniel, Nehemiah or any of the other oft cited OT figures as having agitated for political power. They were to a man slaves. Almost certainly barred from aspiring to any real “political” position, due to their caste, status etc. I see clearly portrayed in scripture, divine favour raising them to prominent heights to fulfill Gods purpose. That God used the ruling/prevailing seats of power to do so, and that they physically derived power from those thrones, does not make it any less a divine move (by God) rather than an earthly one (by men).

I see this as the pattern that can be derived from the narratives around the aforementioned biblical figures. If in this day, an XT’ in civil service is, by dint of their God-given gifts or abilities, appointed to a position of prominence by the ruling authorities (and not via political lobbying), no problem. I would expect such a one to steadfastly witness to his faith by eschewing partisan politics, and glorifying God by his conduct.

bari kade wrote;
And that is the crux of the matter. Granted that political cannot legislate the righteousness of God - as long as that is not the instrumentality that believers depend upon as the sole ingredient for that effect.

my response;
Please outline how political engagement will synergise with other instrumentalities.

bari kade wrote;
Godly men and women holding political offices in the past and present have been greatly used of God to effect causes for His glory. The case of Nehemiah, who was employed in the political corridors of his day and was used of God to effect a revival among God's people (Neh. 1:11 - For I was the king's cupbearer); Daniel and his three friends also were godly men in political appointment much used of God to affect the ungodly and precarious culture of their day for good and to the glory of God (Dan. 2:49; 3:30; 4:37 & 6:1-2).

my response;
I have detailed severally my view on this. I don't see it quite the same way. Working in the corridors of power is not synonymous with he quest for it. Presumably President Bush' driver is a civil servant and comes with the job. Although Mr. Driver is obviously in a great position !

bari kade wrote;
I don't remember anywhere in the Law where Jews were expressly forbidden from taking up employment in political settings; nor is there a law commanding them to pursue such vocation. My persuasion is that some Christians find themselves in political vocations (either by career or conviction), and most have sought to influence the cultures of their various constituencies. It doesn't seem that God gave a specific NT command expressly forbidding Christians from such vocations; on the contrary, I'm more persuaded to believe that the Bible makes a weightier case in favour of such than a foreboding againt the case.

my response;
I don't think the law would need to stipulate any such thing. The Jews lived variously under forms of Theocracy, (Ecclessiocracy?) or Monarchy. Depending on lineage or tradition, they could be called to serve in various religious or civil capacities. All the incidents of agitation for such positions were treated as rebellion/treason.

Where the Jews were captive/enslaved, I think my treatise re Joseph et al fits. They were essentially in servitude, but in some cases divinely elevated.

As for XT', we live in different times & circumstances. Please buttress your persuasion via the scriptural narrative.

Apart from the above, I have a few questions I'd appreciate your taking the time to post replies too.

First of all ask that you kindly explain what you mean by “political Vocations”
Secondly can I ask you to illustrate how you see it working in practice.
Thirdly, please provide an example that we can all clearly appreciate.

I’m also interested in the “influencing culture” concept you mentioned, with reference to the fact that I subscribe to pure XT witness, by our conduct in the world and witnessing the cross to same. And not by engaging it in it's own structures, on its own terms

I’m here.

God bless