₦airaland Forum

Hi Syrup,

As ever I have to commend you for the academic rigour you bring to the discussion. I particularly appreciate it in light of the fact that it is in many ways a contradistinction to my approach. Fond memories of how you dealt with me on my use of the term “theocracy” a while back.

Likewise Bobbyaf, thanks for the scholarly depth you bring it lends to the robustness of the discussion.

Now back to said discussion.

Syrup wrote;
Not so; the wicked do not have to be given eternal life so as to suffer eternal punishment. The gift of eternal life does not mean merely 'continued existence'. The Bible shows that many who do not have 'eternal life' yet are in a state of conscious existence beyond the grave even though they are described as "the dead". I have made that clear once and again.

My response;
So you are necessarily saying some or all of the following;
~ All humans already have eternal life? Surely it’s required to suffer eternally?
~ The eternal life offered by God in Christ is not in contradistinction to perishing?
~ Also note John 3:16 which states everlasting life. You are of a necessity saying that those who perish already/also have everlasting life
~ The eternal punishment is perhaps spiritual in nature (conscious existence), or do the wicked also get resurrected bodies?
~ Does this suggest immortality of the soul? Not that I have any deeply held position on that point as yet, I’m just clarifying.

When you say that many have a state of “conscious existence beyond the grave”, please clarify that. Is the bible not clear that those who sleep do so until the first or second resurrections? Who are those who have this “deathly state consciousness”? Is resurrection purely a physical experience?

Syrup wrote;
Judaism verily had the concept of eternal punishment, although it may be argued only in terms that it was not a fully developed theological concept until the NT. Whatever understanding anyone derived from the concept of eternal punishment, at least Dan. 12:2 speaks of a rising from the dead unto "everlasting contempt." The contempt was punishment, no doubt; and its duration was there declared to be "everlasting."

My response;
My understanding is that Judaism does not teach or believe in eternal punishment. In Judaism, death is final. I am not talking about Christians developing a doctrine through new and old testaments. The verses you quoted from the OT are not read as eternal punishment in Judaism and by some in Christianity I might add).

So again, no matter how much you insist that the eternity is in the punishment and not the irrevocability/finality of the judgment, this has not yet been clearly illustrated from scripture.

Syrup wrote;
You would recall that the blood of bulls and of goats never took away sins (Heb. 10:4), else Christ would not have needed to die on the Cross afterall. At best, the Bible teaches that the blood of those animals only served in the sense that it "sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh" (Heb. 9:13).

It was only in Jesus Christ that the "one time death" satisfied the question of sin (Heb. 9:12). This is underscored again in Rom. 3:25 ~~ "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God."

My response;
Here you have shifted focus somewhat. My point was that punishment for sin (the wages of) was death. I was not referring to the taking away of sin, or sanctification, just the penalty for.

Syrup wrote;
#1. Not only the Psalms employ poetic language; but other books as well. However, that is not to mean that the Psalms are only poetic.

#2. The parables may be figurative; but then they express solid literal truths - for that is why the Lord often interpreted and explained them.

#3. The expressions perish, destroyed, consumed, no more, burnt up, etc. are all variously expressive of judgement, and not annihilation. Yet, Rev. 20:10 furnishes us with graphic detail of the nature of eternal punishment.

My response;

#1 Same difference here, which is no difference at all!
#2 Likewise
#3 Agreed, they are expressions of judgment - and presumably the consequence of the judgement

Taking verses that read different to Rev 20:10 and insisting that they buttress it or it somehow adds depth to them, just  doesn’t give a unified clear-cut whole. It’s a force-fit. If the Bible teaches it, it should be clearly and variously outlined.

Syrup wrote;
What other interpretations are there to the parable in Luke 16 about the rich man and Lazarus? The issue is not whether or not anyone is in heaven or hell right now; but rather, the solid truth expressed in the parable that hell is a real place of torment.

My response;
Please note, I am not arguing against hell, or against torment for the wicked in it, which is why I feel no need of introducing (and complicating) alternative renderings. My point remains that I don’t see a clearly defined (and non-contradictory) doctrine of eternal punishment.

What I am hearing is scripture that speak to the finality and irrevocability of the judgment being read to insist eternality of punishment.


Syrup wrote;
#1. We are told that the incidence as reported in Jude 7 is "set forth as an example"; which clearly means that the final judgement spoken of in Revelation had not taken place. Rather an example of what is to come was meted out in the case of the judgement that fell on Sodom and Gomorrah; and that is a figure of the lot that the wicked will experience.

#2. Also, Jude 7 should not be taken in isolation apart from a study of other verses. The tense used in Jude 7 is a present continuous tense ("suffering"; and its meaning certainly does not suggest that Sodom and Gomorrah iare still suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Rather, Jude puts the case perculiarly in contrast to what ungodly and wicked people will experience when the final judgement takes place.

Notice that the whole gist begins from verse 6 - " And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." And then he opens verse 7 with these words: "Even as. . ." It therefore becomes obvious that until we open the read the graphic nature of the eternal punishment in Rev. 20:10, we would never be able to understand what exactly the wrath of God entails.

My response;

#1 An example of what? Surely it’s of the total destruction after the final judgement of the wicked? It does not speak directly or indirectly to eternal torment.

#2 The tense changes nothing. And we could even read from verse 5. Unbelief is rewarded with destruction. Verse 7 qualifies verse 6 and emphasises verse 5. We can look long and hard, but there is no eternal torment explicitly or implicitly cited here.

Nothing speaks of eternal torment until Rev 20:10. Proponents of eternal torment  back-read all the other scripture to somehow mean the same thing.

Syrup wrote;
The term "destruction" only strengthens the warning of the Lord; rather than conflict with declaration of Rev. 20:10. Further, the Lord Jesus elsewhere warned about the severity of God's outpoured wrath in other terms: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. . . And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." (Matt. 25:41 & 46)

My response;
I will agree that in isolation verse 46 – everlasting punishment – could be read as just that; the punishment is forever.

But then again, verse 41 buttresses claims that it is the fire that is unquenchable, everlasting (and in the sense that it burns until everything is consumed – as in S&G). So, verse 46 could be equally and validly read as the punishment being everlasting in application. That is, no more resurrection, no possibility of repeal or of the sentence being commuted.

Bobbyaf, I have heard the discussions around the use of aion/eon before. But one must confess, that it must in some instances mean eternal/forever, especially in light of Deity. Or are you implying that ages apply differently to different beings? Or perhaps ages are overlapping or run concurrently as opposed to being distinct and separate.

It would help if you could outline a clear concise end-to-end doctrine that speaks to annihilation or at least overwhelms eternal torment by sheer weight of scripture.

Could Revelations 20:10 be referring solely to the unholy trio?

So, my position remains unchanged. I have not seen a clear unforced exposition of the doctrine of eternal torment. I still await a convincing explanation for the few scriptures that seems to fly in the face of (or could be read as opposing) a doctrine of eternal destruction (annihilation). I am yet to be fully convinced either way, but on the balance of probabilities and for sheer weight of scripture I’d go for the latter.

Thanks everyone so far.

God bless

Have you thought about asking God yourself ?

syrup:
At the end of the day, I don't think it is happier for anyone to lose their ministry regardless.

Syrup, I believe the idea that one has a ministry as a construct, franchise, or entity in it's own right is erroneous thinking.

NT Christianity is about salvation and serving. Children of God serving their Father. You are either a vessel meet for His use or you are not. If you are God can/may use you, if you are not, He won't.

For emphasis, God doesn't need any of us to get His will done. It's His work, we are fellow labourers, if we choose to be and He chooses us.

The error of "my ministry" is evident when people look to it and it's results to justify what the Bible abhors. You can't lose a ministry because you don't have one. What you lose or keep is your salvation.

^{This is not about anybody per se. Just a word for believers.}

God bless

Hi Syrup,

I appreciate your input so far and your approach to this discussion, but I am yet to be convinced. That is not to say that proponents of eternal, unyielding, never-ending torment are wrong. It’s just that I see as equally plausible the case for "eternal destruction" of the wicked.

The NT teaches “Eternal Life”. Now Eternal Life is clearly outlined as being In the Father son and given to whom He wills. It is a reward for the righteous (John 10:28), and those who receive it will not “perish”

Now, for the wicked to suffer eternal punishment, they also must be given eternal life so as to suffer eternal punishment, as opposed to eternal destruction.

As for the OT references, first, my point was that Judaism does not have the concept of eternal punishment. Secondly, punishment for sin was obtained by the one time death of the animal type not torture or endless punishment. Thirdly, the impenitent sinner in the OT was “cut-off” that is destroyed from among the people.  Fourthly, there are literally dozens of references to the fact that the wicked perish, are destroyed, consumed, no more, burnt up like stubble etc, etc and not just in the poetic Psalms. I note your referring to the Psalms as “poetic”. The parables are often figurative and not literal

So, to parable of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16. We should note that this is just that, a parable. Are there any people in heaven or hell right now? Where is Abraham bosom? I won’t overly make an issue of your interpretation of this, however, it is pertinent to note that there are other interpretations.

Cross reference Luke 17, immediately after the Lazarus parable in 16.

Luke 17:29 but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.

How does one explain the fate that S&G suffered? Especially in light of Jude 7.

Jude7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

It was noted as being by eternal fire, and indeed, the judgement was final (everlasting), but is it still burning?

Likewise, the broad way (Matthew 7) leads to “destruction” not to eternal burning

So what the case for eternal torment essentially boils down to is the verse in Rev 20:10 (which I am not denying and will not overlook) and the Lazarus/rich man parable (which is debatable). But neither can I overlook the equally cogent proposition by proponents of eternal destruction meaning just that.

So can anyone reconcile the two?

God bless

Hi Everyone,

Syrup, I appreciate your considered responses so far. However, regards the quote  below;

kmcutez:
If the wicked are tormented forever and ever, then we can rightly say Jesus did not pay the price for our sins. For if he had paid the price for our sins then he should have been tormented forever and ever in the context which you describe forever and ever(that is without an end) and should be in hell right now still being tormented. But since the only price he paid for our sins was to die for us, then it makes sense that the wicked should only die in the context which Bobbyaf described die(that is cease to exist). The bible says God is a just God. If his son cannot pay the price of being tormented forever and ever, then why should we pay that price.

I am not sure you answered quite as posed.

If the wages of sin = death (not eternal anihilation, but eternal torment). How was that price paid at the cross. And how can it be satisfied short of the "propitiator" suffering eternal torment?

And you wrote this;

syrup:
and there is no need for anyone to introduce a foreign interpretation of "cease to exist" as the Bible nowhere teaches the doctrine of annihilation.

That is I believe the heart of the discussion at this point. Is the punishment eternal or is it the finality of the judgement that is thus termed?

The Bible says this;

2 Thessalonians 1: 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.

So if one replaces the "anihilaton" or "cease to exist" with "eternal destruction", what exactly is the difference? We are still at the same point.

Can anyone point to a type of eternal torment in the OT that corresponds to the new. I understand that the Jewish religion has no concept of eternal torment.

God bless

Hi Syrup,

syrup:
I haven't changed my views on that as long as Rev. 20:10 remains unchanged: "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."

Okay. It could be read as meaning the three only. The devil, the beast and the false prophet.

I'd really appreciate if you could buttress the concept of eternal torment for all the wicked with other scriptural references (if indeed you feel this is the case).

I also note verse 14 which reads; "and death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death"

This would suggest that death, hell and the lake of fire are all seperate? Could anyone give an in-depth explanation here?

Bobbyaf, please don't dissapear (as if ), I'd appreciate some added depth to this.

God bless all.

babaearly:
This thread will surely die quick.

Amen!

mubowa:
@TV01, you are absolutely right, but remember that something you don't know is still a secret to you.

True!

mubowa:
like my pastor use to say

Ah, a "MyPaS" girl. I should have guessed. Hint; God would like to speak to you personally. Please allow Him.

mubowa:
like my pastor use to say, ''the lord will show up from you according to the name you call him''

I like "Father" personally. Please ditch this your pastor kia kia!

mubowa:
and the fact that when you get to heaven God will show you what you should have become on earth if you did not fullfill your purpose of coming to this world. ask God and he will tell you that am not lying about that.

If you get to heaven, you have fulfilled your purpose on earth. LiKe I said, no tears, no sorrows, no regrets and no recriminations. What would be the point?

Luke 12:15 - And He said to them, "Take heed and beware of covetousness, for one's life does not consist in the abundance of the things he possesses."

Matthew 16:26 - For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?

God bless

Hi Syrup,

syrup:
@Bobbyaf,

Your spiritual eyes have really helped you confuse my gender - keep slobbering. If your lullaby is about winning an argument on the Forum, it is no wonder you sweat it up and still take such thorough beating.

Pray go easy on Bobbyaf 0! We all take a few licks, and sometimes Bobby is really under fire .

Bobbyaf:
I am sure you didn't mean for it to come out this way, did you? Of course syrup with his spiritual eyes was ready to show both of you toppling over each other, without reading between the lines, just to win an argument.

Bobbyaf, open your physical eyes now. For how long and how many times on how many threads have you engaged Sister Syrup on this forum? We don't want anyone to think you are punch drunk do we !

After me, Syrup na lady 0! (echo)

syrup:
The Bible actually teaches that there is a literal place of eternal punishment for the wicked dead; and this is described in various appellations throughout Scripture.

So Syrup my sister, do you still hold to this?

God bless

35 Reasons Why The Organisational- Hierarchical Model Of Church is Wrong

1. There are no qualifications outlined in the bible for anything other than the eldership and the deaconate.

2. There is no biblically prescribed ranking order within the remit for elders. Which is to be plural and equal. As such, they are always addressed as a group in the scriptural narrative.

3. It introduces a clergy/laity split which is patently unscriptural and particularly hated by The Lord. It’s called the the Nicolaitan heresy.

4. It will become top-heavy and deny the fullness of communion and impartation available too and between all believers in properly prescribed body fellowship.

5. It denies the Priesthood of all believers and re-introduces the OT mediatory priesthood model. Mediators other than the Lord are introduced.

6. It gives “headship” to a man. And takes the focus off The Lord. The scriptures are unambiguous in Christ’s Headship of His church.

7. As the model is organisational instead of familial, it becomes bureaucratic, political and flesh-driven instead of Spirit led.

8. It blunts and denies the ministry of the Holy Spirit. He leads those who seek Him into all truth. He points to Jesus (as do the scriptures), not to MOGS.

9. Gifts are given to all as the Spirit wills for the profit of all. But the ordained/no-ordained split focuses attention on a certain subset and consistently on a certain few. This means that in almost every gathering, the main focus is on the one person, instead of the whole body.

10. It denies that Sons of God are led by the Spirit of God. To often the focus becomes on the SAP, MOG or Mentor (Guru'ism).

11. It means that prophesy from non-titled, non-ordained believers without ministries, churches, religious organisations or other platforms (or high profiles), can be ignored.

12. It unbalances scripture by focusing on “feeding” at the expense of “maturing”. God is after sons. The leader/follower split requires that some remain babes (dependant) on others. Please note, babes are no more than servants, and servants do not inherit, sons do!

13. It leads to an ever worsening personality cult/sleazy celebrity circuit problem. It means those titled “MOG” foster (and often downright fabricate) an image of their own hyper-spirituality in order to burnish their own legend, raise their profiles and increase their following.

14. Did I mention the ridiculous outfits?

15. Or the ludicrous (and often blasphemous) titles?

16. It engenders pride (whether you agree or not), as man are not built to handle that kind of authority or adulation that MOGGERY inculcates. Please ask rock-stars how they feel when performing to an adoring audience.

17. It allows error and heresy to become entrenched as there are virtually no checks or balances on the MOG. Followers are prone to reverencing MOGS (hence unbiblical titles such as “reverend”). See 12 above.

18. In a primitive house led, community based church format, error would be contained and checked locally. As congregational autonomy and absence of hierarchical top-down enforcement would stop spread or dissemination.

19. It would be easier to confront error. It’s why Paul could confront Peter. Peter was not his senior and had no authority over him. It’s hard to challenge someone who you feel is in some way spiritually senior to you. How much more so, when there are others senior to him who are re-enforcing the very same thing.

20. It changes Christianity into a “mass march” instead of an individual walk. The focus on hierarchy figures instead of the one-to-one relationship means that everyone is fed the same thing at the same time. Every relationship with His children is at a different stage The Holy Spirit is able to meet every single believer at their unique point of need. It further means that believers are kept away from the Word, either by policy or practice. Further deepening the split and the dependence.

21. The structural flaws lead to doctrinal aberrations and vice-versa in a vicious cycle. Examples are unbiblical covering and warped authority & submission precepts. In attempts to reform or correct the institutional church, many look to doctrine. The truth is that structure and model are equally responsible for its flaws.

22. Because the model is increasingly carnal, worldly mores are introduced into the body. Political correctness, PR budgets, Feminism, etc.

23. Introducing Worldly mores has as a consequence, the application of worldly measures of success. So it becomes about numbers and not disciples. The splendour of the temple as opposed to the maturity of the body. It focuses on things men will applaud, not what will please God.

24. As rampaging flesh is given its head, the church becomes more and more like the world instead of witnessing against it.

25. Like any organisation, it becomes an end in itself and needs money to survive. Hence the propagation of lies like “enforced tithing” (you have to fund this thing somehow!), and that oft repeated lie “It takes money to spread the Gospel”. It does not.

26. It perverts the true use of Christian resources. Money only ever moves in response to need in the body or outside it, but the basis is always true physical need. Instead funds are diverted to paying salaries, temple construction, building empires (ministries) and the like, for which there is no requirement.

27. Working for a salary makes you a hireling. It also means many are motivated by the temporal reward. Note worship leaders for hire and the revolving door policy for many salaried pastors (doubtless there are specialist recruitment agencies for church staff these days). It further gives head to the fixation with temporal things, such as temple building. After all, every CEO wants a shiny new corporate headquarters (and the phalanx of staff/offices/departments to go with it), as a focal point for the enterprise.

28. Ultimately it leads the church to partner (read fornicate) with, endorse and become subject to the state/world. Hence misguided (at best) initiatives such as “Political Christianity”

29. As it goes deeper into the world, it loses the sure anchor of the Word of Truth. Scripture has to be discarded or adulterated to ensure worldly acceptability. Hence re-interpreting or questioning the inerrancy of scripture. (The leaven of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Herod). Disastrously compromising pure Christian witness. Female and Homosexual bishops are a case in point. 

30. It abounds further to contextual criticism & reinterpretation. Attacking the very foundations of the faith. Leading to the erosion of core Christian belief both within and without the body. Calling parts of the biblical narrative myth or fairy tale. Denying or re-ascribing the authorship of certain books.

31. It brings imbalance to the family/church alignment as outlined in the bible. Undue authority and influence is ceded to the church and its authority structure.

32. Because in truth, there is no remit or requirement for these “management” positions, they have to create work to justify their salaries/positions/titles. Hence the daily, weekly, monthly, annual rituals (vigils, power nights, anointing nights, youth conventions, dominion hours etc.). Which are really in order to justify the salaried/titled bureaucracy.

33. The deviation increases and morphs into a product led approach to Christianity. I have a ministry of/to – singles, deliverance, prosperity, marriage, family, healing, witchcraft etc – All these things are incidental to Christianity. As a Christian grows and matures, wisdom, experience and discernment increase to enable them to tackle any problem and be delivered from any issue, which are first and foremost a product of an unconverted spirit and un-renewed mind. Keeping them babes, means they are always looking for a product expert in the form of the SAP or MOG.

34. So people are “Deliverance ministers”, instead of deliverance being something that may be required in certain instances and God being able to use any vessel available.  Or take prosperity preachers. In truth, true Christianity is oblivious to wealth or lack thereof. And in any event riches would not be meant for all, all the time, depending on the stage of their walks, calling and purpose.

35. So eventually the MOG, the ministry and the church are all institutionalised. It becomes wholesale idolatry (my pastor, my church, my ministry) and a legalistic human construct that brings men into bondage to the very thing Christ came to set them free from, ritual religion!

A tragic mix of the unscriptural the blasphemous and the carnal. All wrapped up in the idolatrous and the adulterous. It’s why He says “Come out of her my people”.

Let God be true and every man a liar!

God bless

Analytical:
Or do you have a flawless one?

Please feel free to critique it !

syrup:
Right. I was waiting for the moment when you gentlemen would start falling on each other!

Synthesis:

sage: "Nothing like hell exists!"

TV01: "I agree."

. . .then:

TV01: "Hell is true!"

sage: "Em. . . nothing like hell exists!"

sage: "Don't get me wrong. There IS hell!"

Thanks for pointing that out Syrup.

I should clarify that the existence of hell-fire is not my dispute, but that the wicked will spend eternity tormented in it. I believe Sage meant the same thing (and that's what I was agreeing with). Apologies if that was not abundantly clear from my previous posts.

So if there are no more questions on that point, could we proceed to discuss. I'd appreciate if someone could respond to my questions in post #7.

Regards

God bless

mubowa:
but if you don't know the secret to wealth or you don't apply some kingdom rules, you will die poor and when you get to heaven, God will show you what you would have become if u had applied the rules and you will now be sorry and saying ''oh had i know''

When and if one gets to heaven, tears, sorrows, pain along with all recrimination, regrets and such like will be totally forgotten. Our time here is nothng more than a staging post, and has no glory or promise that can be compared with that which is to come.

Some people will never take their gaze of worldly things. "Jehovah Jireh" doesn't have secrets He expects you to unearth. He's a Father who provides for His children. Keep on subtely tying wealth to works!

mubowa:
why is Bill Gate one of the richest person we know on earth? i know some people will be thinking because he invented computers. but that is not the answer, the answer is because he has a divine idea

Pray tell, where do divine ideas come from?

God bless

Hell-fire is true, but is it the fire that burns without quenching, or those in it?

syrup:
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matt. 10:28)

He destroys both body & soul (of the wicked) ~ Can they be at once destroyed and burning?

Indeed, God will punish the wicked, but how?

syrup:
"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched." (Mark 9:43).

Eternal life, absolutely, for the righteous. So, for the wicked Eternal death or Eternal punishment?

What does anyone think? What sayeth the Scriptures?

God bless

Analytical:
From my very first post on this thread (#29), I did make it clear that I'm not comfortable with that appellation of 'sole authority'. It connotes a case of someone who is power-mongering, control-seeking and position-drunk!

I don't agree it connotes that. What you are unwittingly saying, is that that is what it tends to become in these times. Don't let us confuse the office, with the conduct of the officer.

And let me say this, "position-mongering/control-seeking/powerdrunk" is a spectrum. All eyes tend to be on the obvious Jim Jones/Rev. King type instances, but it is no less evident (if more subtle, stylishly sold and better masked) in all instance where power evolves into the one position.

Analytical:
Authority has to be delegated for it to be optimally effective, except the pastor wants to kill himself before his time with too much burden and responsibility. This is unwise and unnecessary, especially as the church grows. Jethro advised Moses about it in the wilderness and what a sound counsel it was!

Well said. And in the model I see clearly outlined in the Bible it is. Again you are muddying matters. To much authority never killed anyone. Authority is not synonymous with burden. I feel you are confusing authority with workload here. Either there is one SAP or there isn't?

I like your reference to Jethro & Moses, but that was for their time. We have a differnt blueprint for ours. Not to mention that scripture testifies that Moses was the most humble of men.

The model is either true to scripture or it isn't. You shouldn't need to qualify it. The personal qualifications are outlined in scripture. Your model should stand on it's own merits. The flaws in your model are both obvious and numerous, as the discussion progresses, I will detail them.

God bless

sage:
My Guy, i am really skeptical about having a discussion with the zealots here who rather than accept clear truths try to say that somebody is advocating the teachings of a cult , just like they did in the politics thread

Hi Sage, You ran off and left me to fight the "Christians in Politics" battle by myself. I don't know if you saw, but Analytical , TayoD et al used style to scupper the debate, called it a draw, then ran off

sage:
I know that by saying the truth ie that nothing like a fiery Hell exists i am setting off a storm but the truth remains what it is.

I agree with you on this one. Will you fight the good fight if the storm rages?

Backslider:
THIS IS THE SECOND DEATH.

If hell is eternal burning, then surely it can't be death?

Contenders ready!!!!!!!

Hi everyone,

Could we please have a discussion about this. I'm very much interested in hearing peoples scripture based views.

God bless

Analytical:
There is no SAP in my model! Nobody with sole authority. That model is yours. The leaders/elders still provide the checks, advisory roles etc.

So, are you categorically stating that there is no "Sole Authority Pastor" over an individual church?

Okay, we'll work with your model exactly as you describe it.

Are you saying;

1. How ever many churches there are in an area, there is just an increas in the number of SAP's and there remains the 1 overseer for that area?

2. At whatever level of office above SAP, the position will always be filled by someone who is a SAP at church level?

3. You've tapered it into a regional overseer. What happens if the regions are multiplied say 100 fold?

4. What do those above SAP in your model do?

The reason why Paul did not put Timothy in charge (your word not mine), would be because they were two different regions/two different works.

Regards

Analytical:
Here is an illustration of my position using your scenario:

The structure of the different mature churches will look like the one in the attachment (Church Structure) and the administrative structure for the region is also as attached (Admin Structure).

Note:

[list]
[li]There could be variations. Also nomenclature may vary depending on preference (e.g. overseer=superintendent=bishop, shepherd=pastor etc).

[/li]

[li]The overseers are also shepherds of their respective churches in addition to their supervising offices[/li]
[/list]

Hope this explains your question.

Yes, absolutely. Not to misascribe anything to you, I thought I'd let you outline it first.

This was my extrapolation of the model;

If each area has say ten mature churches, then you’d require say, 1 OB for each one. That would be 32 OB’s for the whole of the south. Now according to your model, those 32 OB’s would have to be further overseen. Let’s say by PB’s. How many would one need? Lets say 1 per 8 OB’s. That gives 4 PB’s. This of course leads us ever upwards as your authority pyramid always tapers to the one person. So we would require a higher ecclesiastical authority, say a Senior PB.

If one were to replicate this in all four areas N. W, E & S, we would require someone to oversee the 4 SPB’s. Say an Overseeing SPB (OSPB) And that’s in one region. Lets say they are hundreds of regions. You can see that all your model does is add never ending layers of ecclesiastical bureaucracy which tapers into one man.

Next I'll post my thoughts.

God bless

charm01:
Poverty is a trap.

Riches are a snare. For a christian to break away from this snare,he has a great need of knowledge,revelation knowledge about the promises of God for His children as spelt out in his word.

TayoD, Welcome back 0! I don't even mind that you came with that your wooden racket !

I was hoping you'd have taken the time off to work on your game. Unfortunately that does not appear to be the case  .

TayoD:
Nice exchanges so far. Keep it up.

Thank you bro!

TayoD:
Analytical, I'm 100% with you on this. It appears that TV01 is more obsessed and polarised by the MOG concept and the so-called SAP than the people directly influenced by it.

I'm not obsessed by men or material things. I am not subject to undue or abusive MOG influence. My desire is to see all partakers of the liberty in Christ and freed from being slaves to men.

TayoD:
Elders are as susceptible to every vices that the SAP (using TV's terminology) are susceptible to. The mega-star status that he has trouble with was also a problem with the early Disciples. [/color]

We are all susceptible to those vices, but proper structuring of church and believers communion, will ensure that an atmosphere for such vices is not engendered.

TayoD:
No wonder Paul said: Romans 16:7 - Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
Galatians 2: 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship;

Ah, I remember now, wilful misrepresentation of scripture was always your preferred first service  . It beggars belief for any one to think that Paul, "Apostle Paul" would laud anyone for pride. The context and wording in no way suggests that in any of the instances mentioned. Note also that the same Cephas who was a pillar (not the roof or the head mind you), was "withstood to his face" when he stepped out of line". Plurality and equality is key to proper Christian leadership.

TayoD:
The plurality of leadership will never eliminate the 'Mega-star' concept that our dear TV01 is so averse to.

Whilst flesh will always mess up, Gods blueprint will certainly nix the mega-star/personality cult rubbish that is endemic nowadays. Talking of which, how's Chris O, aspiring Presido !

TayoD, Please feel free to respond to the questions posed in posts 62 & 91.

God bless and exalt those who humble themselves in His sight.

Hi Analytical,

Please feel free to question the specifics of my model in anyway you choose. I feel my position is Biblically mandated, self-explanatory and practical. It remains for opposers to critique it.

Have a good weekend.

God bless

Hi Analytical (and anyone who cares to comment),

I'm back as promised.

I’m not sure how best to articulate this, I’d like to use a pictorial representation, but for now, let me try this.

Lets say we have a region, and in the region 4 areas. Let’ call them North, West, East and South. Now, let’s take the south.

Let’s say they are 32 areas in the south. S1 – S32. And let’s say that each area has a number of mature churches of a reasonable size with plurality of mature elders and a SAP. Please explain briefly, how these mature churches would be overseen.

Thanks.

God bless

Analytical:
Not all church leaders/elders are full time ministers. Those that are should be the responsibility of the churches. They should be supported in everyway possible by the church (wages and other provisions) so as to concentrate on their duty. Even those that are not should still be partaker of the carnal provisions since they provide spiritually for the flock. This is the prescription of the scriptures.

I see no biblical warrant for this full or part time split. Christian ministry is part of everyday life. A mindset and a lifestyle. In a church setting, ministry is only during the gathering. Outside, it's in everyday fellowship and as a response to individual need. Anyone mature or well-resourced enough can attend to need.

Analytical:
Thank God we are getting these things sorted out. So it's agreed that God still calls apostles and prophets in our days. Halleluyah to that too!

I didn't say that in the sense you are implying it. Please don't knowingly mis-quote or mis-ascribe things to me.

Analytical:
I don't support the 'caste-system' of 'holier-than-thou' and 'I-am-not-accountable-to-anybody' too. Every steward will give accounts of his stewardship to the Owner. It is not to say there are no people given authority as ministers of our God.

I never said I-am-not-accountable-to anybody", my point is that church authority is devolved into a plurality of elders.

Let me ask a few questions;
1. Who does the SAP report too?
2. Who does the OB/PB report too?
3. And so on and so forth?

Analytical:
An elder that seems to have the final say, after a thorough deliberation of the matters by the others. Not too far if we call him the leader of the Jerusalem church. This is further implied in Acts 21 when Paul took the offerings from the churches to the christians in Jerusalem:

Acts 21:
17 After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brethren received us gladly.

18 And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.

19 After he had greeted them, he began to relate one by one the things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.

You keep resorting to "implication". He did not have the final say, he just happened to have what everyone considered the final word on the matter.

One could equally imply that James was not even an elder. Or that the the significance of referring to him is the place where they met. Implication is a manybranched road. Sir.

I'll be back with refernce to your structure.

God bless

Grouppoint:
James was clearly the leader of the Church. This was displayed clearly in the Jerusalem conference. During which Peter, Paul and Barnabas were present also.
James made a ruling, as in a final decision concerning circumcision.
Acts 15:19-20
It is my Judgement,

Note the Greek word used by James here is krino, a term meaning "I decide", "I rule", "I judge" and not "I advise" or "I recommend".

I reffered to Peter as a sole authority, not of a specific church per se. I reffered to him as an apostle or evangelist, in view of passages in acts which describe his speeches to the jews and conversion of 3,000 in one day. He did not seem to confer with the other diciples before making those speeches.

You would also notice that Paul 'withstood' Peter,  because Peter was being hypocritical in the presence of emmissaries of his church leader, James.


- Roger Federer

~ James was not the leader of the Church in Jerusalem. Please show it clearly it from Scripture.

~ James made a sound judgment call (not a binding ruling) and all assembled agreed to it.

~ I’m not sure what you are saying about Peter?

~ Yes, Paul withstood Peter. What as? his junior? senior? equal?

~ If James was the SAP, surely Paul should have referred it to him and he should have done it?

~ Who was the SAP over Paul?

~ When Paul and Barnabas had a difference in Acts 15:36, why didn’t one use his SAP?

Rafael Nadal

fadenike:
@lafile & tv10,
can u please explain your points?
thanks

Yes I can. Based on your elucidation below.

fadenike:
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?

You requested to know who was to blame? Sin dwells in the flesh, don't let it rule over you.

lafile:
ah ah Fadenike, you didnt answer TV01's questions.

Yes 0! And I'm still waiting .

Hello All,

Maybe it would help if we approached it from a different perspective.

In one sense, the incarnation of God in the flesh had nothing to do with Mary. God fully knows why he chose Mary, but this much we do know, she fulfilled certain criteria.

One of those was her lineage back to David. Remember the promise God made to David? Jesus was severeally referred to as both "the seed of David" and "the son of David"

Seed;

John 7:42 - Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the seed of David and from the town of Bethlehem, where David was?"

Romans 1:3 - concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,

2 Timothty 2:8 - Remember that Jesus Christ, of the seed of David, was raised from the dead according to my gospel,

Son;

Matthew 1:1 - The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham:

Mark 10:47 - And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out and say, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"

Luke 18:38 - And he cried out, saying, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"

Would we then insist that David was the father of God? Or even more ludicrously the great, great, ---------- great, grandfather of God?

Mark 12:35 Then Jesus answered and said, while He taught in the temple, "How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the Son of David? 36 For David himself said by the Holy Spirit: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool." 37 Therefore David himself calls Him 'Lord'; how is He then his Son?"

The only way to properly understand this is to see that in the flesh he was the son of David (likewise Mary) but in a higher divine sense He was not.

The bible is a unified whole, no matter how one looks at it, if one does so honestly, the truth will be consistently reinforced.

God bless

Hi Syrup,

Hope you are well. It's good to have you back.

syrup:
If the gift of tongues is a supernatural gift (as surely it is), then the interpretation of tongues is equally a 'supernatural' gift of the Spirit.

I pretty much agree with your post. But could I ask this. Tongues manifested both as known(human) and unknown languages. Would you say that "Interpretation" could therefore be of a known (but unspoken by the interpreter) lanuguage, or a unknown one?

God bless

Grouppoint:
Some Christains are poor because they have not done what it takes to get rich e.g. Hard work and Smart decision making.
This has nothing to do with their christianity.

This is true, but only applies to some.

Grouppoint:
Some other christians are poor because God is taking them through a phase of earthly poverty, like a wilderness, after which they wouild come into their promised land.

This is true, but only applies to some.

Digiman:
You have a point there, a lot of christians pray, fast, give tithes and offerings but still struggle financially, they believe and confess Gods promises daily yet it is not manifested in their lives on the other hand non believeres seem to be prospering around them. - Maybe its because they ask amiss

Applies to some, so this is partly true.

jagunlabi:
Prayers will never guarantee financial success in this life,take it or leave it.

This is true and so applies to some.

[quote author=cute-ass link=topic=41046.msg910256#msg910256 date=1172187246]I love you for taking those words out of my mouth, people are so fund of looking at the surface of quotations without understanding the biblical/deep meaning. Mind you, poor in your eyes/eyes of man is not poor in the eyes of God. Now we say that God's time is the best, and in God's own special time everybody will definitely get what is rightfully theirs.

Now i'm sure all you "bible readers" just like to read what suits you or maybe your own bible lost the pages that taught us that there's time for everything "time to weep and time to laugh" and all the rest, afterall even the "rich" go through hard times atimes.[/quote]This is true and so applies to some.

The simple truth is that not every Christian will be rich! Great wealth in itself should not even be a motivator or desire for Christians!

God bless (not necessarily with cash-money !)

Hi Analytical,

As ever, you reveal glaring technical gaps in your all-round game. At this level they will be cruelly exposed. Don’t worry, you will surely emerge as a better player .

First a discussion on to pay/not to pay warrants a thread in it’s own right. However, it ties in with the whole authority/structure thing so I’ll start to answer here.

1 Tim. 5
17 The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.

18 For the Scripture says, “YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”

I repost your scriptural references above. The reference to wages is direct from Luke 10:7. Here you can see that sustenance is to provided for those who devote their lives to “spreading the gospel”. As you can see they were not paid in cash, it was food and board. I have made this distinction before on this thread. Such itinerant ministers can and should be catered for, even if it means a wage. But in a local congregation, there is no requirement for paid ministers. If ministers receive money it is for the same reason that any member of the congregation receives money. They have a physical need that money can answer to. This statement reflects that. As they devote time to feeding the flock, if the flock can devote resources to them “as they have need”, they should do so. It can be anything, from baby-sitting to hosting them. It can be blessing them with money. But it does not speak to a church payroll. If you wish I can further enunciate from the scriptural narrative.

Analytical wrote;
Ted started well, but has ended badly. Demas (and some others) started well and ended badly too in scriptures.

My response;
You totally ignored the nuance of my questions. And how are you sure it’s the end for Ted?

Analytical wrote;
The church spread organically as people moved. It also spreads as missionaries (another synonym for apostles) take it to virgin fiels in Asia, Europe etc

As for Peter, he did not always remain in Jerusalem. His epistle was written from Rome (I don't infer as a Pope!)

As for James, this Apostle James is not the James of the 12 Apostles, mind you. This James was the brother of Jesus! So he too became apostle evidently.

Part of the work of apostles is missionary and church planting. We still have them today!

My response;
Agreed the church spreads and grows organically.

If we consider the work of apostles to be foundational and/or constructional, you may have some semblance of a point. But only if we understand that the foundational is no more. But even that semblance of a point is disputed (net court!), if one considers the following;

Acts 8:4 ~ Therefore those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the word.

Acts 11:9 ~ Now those who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to no one but the Jews only.

Wherever people went, they took the gospel. Church was started. Does that make them all apostles?

If the eunuch Philip witnessed to started church back in Ethiopia (which incidentally claims to have the oldest Coptic tradition), would that make either of them apostles?

Listen to me clearly. Am I saying God cannot move in the Apostolic or Prophetic (a la Isaiah et al)? No I am not. God is sovereign. He does as He wills. And I say Hallelujah to that. But the pattern we see in NTC is a devolution of sorts. Witnessed by the Spirit filled/led life, priesthood and anointing of every believer. There is no caste-system or multi-layered hierarchy.

Peter was not itinerant in the manner Paul was (also, he was sent primarily to the Jews, whilst Pauls remit was primarily to the Gentiles). He made some trips and was at times sent for (Lydda etc). That was no doubt to give Apostolic oversight to believers in a fledgling church without a canon to refer to. But he was based at Jerusalem. His family and work where there.

James was no more than an elder. Respected for his wisdom, true. Very mature and of sound counsel, certainly. But he was still only an elder.

A decent effort, but to my mind, your case is actually weakening.

I have a proposal for you. I would like us to illustrate our different propositions, or our view of the others stance, so we can progress the discussion by reviewing the practical outworking.

What do you say/think about this.

God bless

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=30552.msg910051#msg910051 date=1172182388]so this is what it has come to eh? TV, I thought you were waiting for me to ride shot gun with u on this topic. na wa.
it is ok. you already have 4 players and it seems like you are doing ok on this set. [/quote]That's not to say I wouldn't appreciate the company and the support !