₦airaland Forum

Grouppoint:
Would you say that people like Peter, Paul, James and John were not 'Sole Authority Pastors' in their respective fields/regions/churches?

That is exactly what I would say and I don't believe the Bible suggests otherwise. For starters, Peter & James were both at Jerusalem. So to suggests they were at once SAP's at the same time and place is contrary to your own thesis.

Grouppoint:
James was clearly regarded as the leader of the Jerusalem Church.

He was highly regarded certainly. That would be as a consequence of the maturity and wisdom he possesed. There was nothing clearly suggesting He was a SAP. That is nothing but supposition.

Grouppoint:
Pauline epistles rarely seemed like Paul sought the opinion of a fellow elder or deacon. Scripture shows that Paul it was who dished out the instructions to these other Bishops. Why?
The same cuts across when you read James, or John.

Please read Galatians chapter 2. Although Paul had a unique commission received directly from the Lord, he still conferred with the other Apostles. And withstood them (not commanded or deferred mind) when they erred.

Who was the leader of the Apostles?

Grouppoint:
Furthermore, the dark events which occurred in the history of the church: e.g. The spanish inquisition, could hardly be blamed on a 'sole authority papacy'. You obviously are aware of the influence that cardinals weild even today.
Hence whether there is a celebrity pastor up there or a group of celebrity elders, the focus should be on God rather than Man/Men.

Please don't confuse church history with Roman Catholic history. The bogus structure of RC and the power that went with it facilitated the evil that took place. Rev king is just a smaller scale occurence. In lots of churches with such set-ups & structure, there are similar things happening. Maybe not as blatant and in some ways more benign, but wrong none the less. Enforced tithing and false authority/submission precepts are basic examples.

Grouppoint:
Your serve,

Double fault. Try again  !

God bless

Dey is poor cos dey has not got any money innit? Cud be dey was mogged mugged !

mrpataki:
@ MOG TV01,

No scriptures to back your serve to me?

None required, I resorted to plain common sense .

mrpataki:
Yet another weak serve of yours TV01.
When the scriptures made note of the verse Making your calling and election sure, it was not talking about a selection sir!

I still insist if you aspire for the fruits of the spirit, you are entitled to be called a MOG.

Therefore, if all born again christians aspire for the fruits of the Spirit, they are qualified to be called MOG

Now again your weak serve

Ah, there you are.

Producing spiritual fruit is the call of all Christians. If all Christians are MOGS, then it cannot be applied to a certain elevated few. Thanks for making my point

Even when you play against yourself, you still take a beating .

God bless

Just default if you've had enough  ;D1

Double honour;
Goes to those “elders” who rule (lead by example, offer exemplary service) well and especially those who labour in the Word and doctrine. Quite simple really, eldership would be in addition to family and work commitments (no salaried workers). The extra commitment taken to study and share should be acknowledged (and not just with lipservice, but by othe means/resources at one's disposal). Further evidence that they are not recompensed monetarily for their efforts.

The Lord addresses;
The whole of the church. Elders, deacons, young old, male female. Or are you suggesting your “leader” caste have no need of this message/instruction? Funny given the way many of these “MOGS “succumb to all types of questionable (read sinful) practice.

And you miss the import of the 7 regions addressed. The message was to all churches through all time and in every place. Even the 7 who were sent messages should take heed of all.

Not everything in OT times is carried over into NT practice. Notable amongst these is temples, a mediatory priesthood (MOGgery), physical sacrifices, holy days, human kings (MOGgery). And on and on!

By their fruits? Okay, please answer this. After 3 years of unrepentant homosexual behaviour and indulgence in illicit drugs, was Ted Haggard ever a Christian? Was he a fallen one, or had he departed from the faith?

Again emphasise, if people did not subscribe to the SAP model it would have been much harder for Rev King to abuse his followers. Falsely spiritualising authority leads to a form of bondage, which people find it hard to be delivered from. Evidence the very recent saga at Victory church here in London.

There is structure in church. Overall authority is the Lords. This is devolved in a church setting to elders.

Church in a Virgin Land;
Again you miss the essence of church. Probably because you have confused it’s very nature. In the book of Acts, the church spread organically as believers were “scattered”. There was no set pattern. As people moved the church spread. A home-led, community-based church will spread through society. The Ethiopian eunuch, what would have happened to him on his return? The woman by the well, to whom did she first witness?

If mature believers happen on to virgin territory they witness to unbelievers, and teach/pastor any converts. They will use the pattern already laid out and as the Bible clearly describes T&T doing. The focus being on raising up suitably qualified men to function as elders/deacons in the local church. When that is done, they either remain and function as elders (Like Peter and the other apostles who remained in Jerusalem), return or move on.

Tithing;
Is not outlawed per se. But it is redundant as an applicable command to NTC. Your organisational approach sees a management structure and a payroll! That’s why your game lacks inventiveness and creativity  . A rigid org/hier approach. That is not NTC. Offerign is just that. Offered from the heart. There’s a thread for tithing already. I’ll meet you there if you wish. But be warned, it’s boxing and I’m warmed up, gloved up and ready to rumble  .

Peoples acceptance of Pauls is neither here nor there. The Bible testifies to his calling as a “foundational apostle”. Others of his type in this age would suggest omissions in scripture.

You have still failed to provide a biblical brief for the SAP or elder. How counter intuitive is it to say that only the most junior and the most hands-off roles are outlined, but the requirements and outline for those who run the day-to-day affairs (in your construct) were omitted?

When one draws together the instructions and outlines, the requirements and charges addressed in Acts, the pastoral epistles and other NT letters, one receives a unified whole for the elders mandate. Trying to force it to read hierarchy means you have more than the indicated functions and they all (except deacons) lacks fullness. The missing parts are then forcefully imputed by those who adopt this approach, and  exactly as they please. A bishop is an overseer, elders oversee. A pastor is a shepherd, elders shepherd.

I can see that fatigue is setting in and the game is absolutely beyond your reach.

A plucky effort, but nobody rerally expects much from lower ranking players  . Talking of which, where is the unseeded mrpataki?

God bless

Ivan

Analytical:
I have used the example of Christ and also the focus of His messages to the 7 churches in Asia directed to the minister/pastor in charge of each church and not to the elders, as TV01 would have us accept.

The Lord sent messages to 7 individual churches by His angel/messenger. The messages were sent to the whole body. Not to digress, those letters were for all the believers. Your relentless insistence that it was sent via a SAP is nothing more than a wilful implication. I never said or implied it was sent via the elders. It was equally addressed to them along with all believers.

While I'm heres, let me nail another plank.

Philippians 1:1 ~ Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

If indeed, there is an overseeing/presiding bishop for each region and bishop =/= elder, why does Paul adress the Bishops in plural? Surely there would be only one OB in Philippi? Like in Ephesus & Crete (as you claim)? Does'nt it seem odd? Additionally, why would he address the bishops & deacons, and not the SAP(S) and elders?

^{Analytical working tirelessly but fruitlessly to return these thunderous but pin-point returns from TV01. It's only a matter of time now  !}

God bless

Rod

Grouppoint:
One would suppose that the present day church structure, which mirrors the vatican structure in some respects is born out of imitation of the example set forth by Christ himself.

Would one? WHat is wrong with the clear leading of scripture? The Lord specified the church blueprint through His Apostles (Cornerstone & foundation). He never left an example of a "church". Furthermore, I don't think He intended His actions to be worked into the church structure, but rather into individual walks.

The Vatican structure and the whole Pope thing is not attested too by scripture. If by God's grace we progress the tournament, we shall touch on the outworking of structural doctrine on day to day Christian life.

Grouppoint:
-Christ is the head of the body. The 'sole authority pastor' if you may.
-He had Peter, James and John as the 'elders, pastors or deacons'
-Then He had the 12, who may be seen as ministers.
-He also had the 70 and 120, who can be seen as evangelists.
-Finally the 5000 may be seen as the congregation, who need to be fed physically and spiritually.

I don't deny anyone the right to interprete things as they will. I only ask that if they profess Christianity, that they show it in relation to the scripture. Point in question, apart from your first point here, I see none of what you have postulated. It also demonstrates how easy it is to "force-fit" anything and claim biblical validity.

Grouppoint:
So without going into what Paul, Peter and James interpreted or directed a certain church, one may look unto the examples left by Christ himself.

One may, but do all things according to the pattern shown (Hebrews 8:5)

Grouppoint:
Your serve.

Actually, I think it's your second serve. The weakness off your first meant it failed to clear the net !

lafile:
I am really enjoying the atmosphere in which this debate is being conducted. wish all debates on nairaland could go like this. Thumbs up to TV01 and Analytical (also Mrpataki and 4get_me). And the tennis baseline of the debate keeps everything calm (after all its just a game). Love u guys.

I love God, I love His Word. I could do this all day. The tennis metaphor is apt, as it really is like play (fun) to me. Thanks all for playing in a gracious spirit. Otherwise I'm taking my ball and going home  !

God bless

Mac

Analytical,

As ever, you have no recourse to scripture, unsurprising really as you are merely regurgitating wholesale notions that cannot be found in it.

If my position is wrong, at least I have carefully referenced it by indicating supporting scripture. If you would have me adjust my position to be in line or more inclined towards yours, I would expect you to do the same.

You keep skipping the very simple questions posed and try to sweep away the scriptural facts under an avalanche of rhetoric. Please answer the question/s as posed.

I note your latest attempt to overlay wholesale OT precepts into NTC.
It’s an old ploy and it won’t work. The NT is both complete, and replete with instruction and examples of the church’ proper functioning structure and offices.

There was no celebrity circuit in the early church. Any attempt to exalt them was sternly resisted by the apostles. Peters calling himself a “fellow elder” demonstrates the leveling that true fellowship in Christ engenders.

To compare Rev King to Simon is just wrong. And to further say that He was never a Christian is not your call. Many so called Christian leaders fall. Truth is, maybe some of them were never Christians, but it is equally likely that some fell into error and others departed from the faith, but not the church.

Pride is not the preserve of the novice. Anyone can succumb to it and being venerated by your fellow man will only increase the likelihood of it happening. Even Paul had a thorn to keep him humble.

Trying to imply that the completed canon obviates the need for plurality of elders is wrong.  First it’s that very canon that prescribes such. Second, the exaltation of men means some introduce extra-biblical precepts, which are swallowed wholesale by followers who don’t look into the bible in the way they should. Why? Because their gaze is on the MOG. A vicious circle  .

I have nothing against organization. The church is indeed organized, but along simple lines. And please don’t try and cloud matters by resorting to semantics. Yes, people are sent out in this day and age, to spread the gospel and start church, but that does not make them Apostles in a foundational sense.

You keep insisting on offices & positions that scripture does not attest to and then resort to the same scripture to validate your error. It simply cannot work. I have shown that Bishop = Elder, kindly show otherwise. I have demonstrated that Elder = Pastor/al, please show differently.

I have stressed that doctrine & structure go hand in hand. Faults in one often lead to error in the other. The very structure of many of today’s churches lead to this veneration of men (and the cursed “trust in flesh”) which the correct structuring of church would avert.

Martin Luther had truth revealed to him regards faith/works. The truth came because he sought it. I sought God, and something I saw clearly was that “tithing” was not for NT Christians. I share this with anyone that cares to listen or wants to hear. It doesn’t make me an Apostle in the mould of Paul or Peter. It just makes me a believer sharing his walk. What ML received was not a new precept it was something that had previously been twisted or obscured.

Not everyone needed to know it and not everyone has accepted it. Likewise tithing, it was never a tradition in some denominations, so what to me was revelation was already knowledge to them. And even now, many who practice it refuse to abandon it on hearing the truth. And just like the faith/works understanding, many look to MOG’s for confirmation instead of to the Word.

You have used all the ploys in the book. Feigning injury, time-wasting, excessive toilet breaks and even praying for rain interruptions. It will avail you nothing.

I am more than happy to continue this match, but on a point by point basis. This will prevent you hiding under a torrent of words and enable us to discuss this in detail.

I have asked you a question, please respond to that directly. Of course I am also willing to field any specific posers you may have

You do realise that whatever the duration of this match your crushing defeat is inevitable? 

God bless

Bjorn

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

Taking a closer look at the scripture goes to show what we as Christians also Men of God are to follow after. It is not a title, nor an office, calling, but what every True Born Again Christian should aspire to attain.

A MOG is expected to follow after the fruit of the Spirit. So if I aspire after the fruits of the Spirit, and I am called a MOG, I have no problem with.

You have (probably unwittingly) shown just how much a nonsense the usage of the term "man of God" has become in much of contemporary Christianity.

The term MOG is used to signify something (usually a higher/calling/station/authority/anointing). It has a specific application. Not everyone is lauded as a MOG.

You have quite clearly pointed out that a MOG is supposed to aspire to the fruit of the Holy Spirit. But sir, that is the remit of every believer, so inserting a distinction by calling a select number MOG's cannot be biblical, as those not aspiring to the fruit hardly qualify as Christinas and if all are then everyone is a MOG. QED

Go back to your seat in the stands as I polish off your buddy Analytical

God bless

4 Play:
It is one of the things preventing our society from disintegrating

Enter religious delusion. Religion is one of the most malevolent phenomena in Nigeria right now. Along with it's brother, politics it proves something that men have known for centuries. Religion and politics are the source of most of the worlds problems.

Spiritual codswallop !

"Must My Pastor Rake Me To Fall In The Name Of Deliverance"?

No! but,
1. They like to put on a show and encourage audience participation.
2. Those at the show somehow feel they are getting value for money.
3. It makes for good spectacle/television/testimony/gist.

Listen carefully;
1. God never assigns a Pastor to anyone. Why?
2. In a real scriptural/technical sense, there is no such thing!


Beware of Wolves in Sheeps clothing!!!!

God bless

Genial:
What religion are these assertions from Nella? Certainly not christian.

Yes 0! Somebody please query all these posts. This thread is becoming more and more scatalogical

More ad-libbing than at a soul-singers convention !

Analytical, your latest return is no more factual or scripturally based than your previous ones. You are in serious jeopardy of defaulting  .

Prior to responding to the points you have raised, may I clearly state that you have in no way answered the simple question I put to you in my previous post. If it’s there in scripture, please show it.

Analytical wrote;
The crux of my position is not the 'pastor' title/office.  Rather, it is my disagreement with the plurality and parallel nature in which your model functions that makes everybody equal and in charge and doesn't make them accountable to any.  I cannot find any such type or pattern in the scriptures, anywhere.

My response;
Plurality is exactly what the Bible prescribes. Again, I challenge you to show from the scriptural narrative anywhere, time or place that elders are addressed or referenced individually (in a functional or operational sense).

One clear reason for this is abundantly clear when casting a glance over today’s religious landscape. The sleazy celebrity circuit & personality cults that predominate arise largely due to the focus on man in a hierarchical paradigm.

Plurality of Elders stops the focus resting on one person and also acts as a check against error or abuse. If a single person with sole authority falls into error/heresy, the whole flock are likely to follow. Debacles like the Rev. King Saga arise due to that very reason.

Analytical said;
I have made my position as plain as I could.  Call him whatever you want, there is a bishop/overseer/superintendent/minister-in-charge/Senior officer/pastor in a church ably assisted by elders/leaders/ministers and supported by deacons for the purpose of administering the flock over which the Lord has made them leaders.

My response;
Sir, your position could not be clearer. Unfortunately, your efforts to provide a scriptural foundation for it haven’t really gotten of the ground.

Analytical said;
The qualifications/criteria for the office is well spelt out and well discussed already in Timothy and Titus and in your post #53 above.  The same office the Lord addressed in His messages to the churches.

My response;
I can’t really argue with a nod to my input, but that in no way buttresses your premise, which is simply wrong. The office is for bishop/elder/presbyter/overseer etc, which are one and the same as I have severally explained by recourse to the scripture.

Who exactly did the Lord address? Was it the SAP or the OB? (You also wrong foot yourself here if you subscribe to the false “pastors are called elders are chosen” notion)

Analytical wrote;
The robustness and number required on the structure varies depending on the size and maturity of the church.  In a baby church, the pastor/teacher is the elder and deacon.  As the church grows in size and maturity and spreads, it calls for more structure to be put in place to carry and share the burden.  Hence the emergence of the deacons and more elders, to be put in place by the pastor (now bishop) overseeing the church.

My response;
Clear evidence of an organisational and hierarchical approach. Church in it’s primitive form is home-led community based. It just keeps replicating, not growing endlessly in size. Due to said approach, you mistake size/numbers for maturity. A typically wrong emphasis in much of todays badly structured church. The Bible gives no leave or makes any provision for an endlessly growing organisation. That is an organisational imperative. Hence Pope’s, Primates. Superintendants, Metropolitans GO’s and the like.

Analytical wrote;
This leads me to the unfinished business of apostles and others and how they fit in the NT church.

My response;
The business of Apostles is finished!
Ephesians 2:20 ~ having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone,

Analytical wrote;
Let me state briefly how it fits in in the contemporary.  It is still the same way it was in the early church.  The apostles and prophets lay the foundation.  They are what I refer to as the earth-moving equipment (or the bulldozers) in preparing a virgin land or a site for construction.  The evangelists are the harvesters or the rakers that proclaim the good news and bring in the souls.  The Pastors stay with the souls to feed them and nurture them to maturity like a good shepherd does.  The teachers break down the word and brings it down to the level of each member of the flock, baby to adult.  Some times pastoral and teaching grace combine in the same person.

My response;
The foundation is laid already. We are merely building on it. Your use of the word “construction” is both apt & ironic. As that is exactly what you are presenting here. A man-made construct with no foundation (pun intended  ) in scripture!

1 Corinthians 3:11 ~ For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Please see verses 10 & 12 also.

You omitted the OB (or “Presiding Bishop” as some religionists refer to it nowadays ).
Every believer proclaims the good news, and even those specifically gifted do not have to minister to large groups using costly (and relatively unproductive) crusade/program formats.

Elders as I have detailed severally shepherd (pastor) the flock. The pastoral is a function of eldership. The pastoral and teaching grace is often combined in the elder.

Analytical wrote;
The NT prohets are not to be confused with the OT prohets of old that primarily does foretelling and are sometimes called seer.  The NT prophets exhorts.  Each office have their peculiar giftings and unctions that make their functions effective as the Holy Spirit enables them.

My response;
Your first point here has already been stated. As for “NT Prophets exhort”, you are lunging at thin air here. Two quick passing shots as your hope of retrieving this match slowly slips away;

Hebrews 3:13 ~ but exhort one another daily, while it is called "Today," lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

1Peter 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:

We are all called to exhort. Exhortation, edification and comfort are the whole basis of Christian fellowship. The Hoy Spirit gifts and enables all believers “severally as He wills”.

Analytical wrote;
The 1st category apostles- the original 12 apostles that were chosen by Jesus.  These have all died and are no more.  You cannot add to their number again.

The 2nd category apostles- like Paul, Barnabas, Apollos etc that are mostly itinerant. These plant churches and establish structures and raise the leadership.  We can also add Timothy, Titus to these as examples.

The 3rd category apostles- are those that establish the truth or re-establish a lost/forgotten truth of the word or sent for a particular mission, to a specific people
To the 2nd and 3rd categories, the Holy Spirit still gives men even in our contemporary days. To take the gospel to virgin lands, plant the churches and establish them, apostles are required.  They may not wear the tag, but they can still be identified.


or sphere of operation.  These are seen in their operation like Paul was the Apostle to the Gentles, John Apostle of Love etc.

My response;
You have retreated into making it up as you go along? One post it’s in, the next it’s out? I repeatedly stressed the Apostolic nature of T&T work earlier. You insisted they were OB’s. You are now backtracking and calling them Apostles?

Your 1st & 2nd Categorisations are needless. Paul was called & commissioned by the Lord. T&T were not Apostles per se, but the work they undertook was apostolic in nature. Again with your 3rd category you are ad-libbing like Jacko! Your are on dangerous ground when you somehow imply that some of the truth has not been established? No truth is lost or forgotten, just warped or ignored by deceivers. But the truth cannot be hid.

Pray give me an example of these latter-day apostles. As the apostolic carries with it a foundational authority, which truth or foundational precept has been revealed to us in this age that was not fully revealed to the early church? An apostolic mandate has to be writ large as the body has to accept apostles utterances as foundational. So an apostle cannot be incognito. Please think about these things sir.

I could go on and on. Even the religious colloquialisms you use betray your received tradition. Churches are not planted. Church is where believers gather/are. We don’t open branches. In your rush to codify you fail to see that even, gifts, functions, commissions and office could all be temporary and changing as the need arises.

I’m not really being exercised here. On second thoughts, don’t even think about getting into the ring with me  !

God bless

Pete

donnie:
The number of angels assigned to you depends on the responsibility you have in God's kingdom.

So how many do you personally have? (WOW! Think of how many pastor Chris must have!!!)

donnie:
While others have only the guardian angel sent with them when they came into this world, some others who are doing great exploits in God's kingdom have battalions folllowing them around to ensure that the work of God is accomplished without delay or hinderance.

Battalions ke? You must be tripping over them

donnie:
Angels differ in strength and the strength or greatness of the angels you have depend on your assignment in the kingdom. While some have dangerous worriors such as Micheal following them to ensure that the devils kingdom is plundered and souls are set free, heald and delivered, some just have two:goodness and mercy following them around.

Please advise angel ratios per assignment. I want to plan my career trajectory in the KOG to ensure I retain the maximum number. And I don't want any non-dangerous or weak angels .

So who is angel Michael assigned to at the moment? Presumably some naija MOG as they are undoubtedly doing the most exploitation, I mean exploits

donnie:
They also do what you order them to.

How? By remote control? Text?? Or does one just speak into the air?


Please, is this generally accepted doctrine? It's just that I noticed that nobody had anything to say about this?

Which Bible exactly

Lord have mercy!

I'm back. New balls please  !

Analytical;
The crux of your position is the “pastor” title/office. You have (and quite creatively I admit), built your whole thesis on this point. However, you did so without actually showing it as extant in or mandated by the scriptures. I have repeatedly stressed that it is simply not to be found. Further, I have shown how it is wrapped up within the Eldership function, which is (and I have) extensively detailed.

So I’m serving with this, and please reply to this directly. No digressional tactics or   ploys to obfuscate.

~ Kindly show directly from scripture the Sole Authority Pastor office/role, as distinct from that of elder and overseeing bishop (if you can, please detail that of the OB as well as the SAP). Not by inference or by implication. After all, if the junior and less weighty role of deacon is clearly outline (not inferred or implied), one would reasonably expect that of the senior roles to be also. ~

4get_me;
Here is your opportunity to make a cogent argument, and one that’s thread-relevant. I’m sure you fully realise that no one would start a thread just to prove that the term “man of God” is not in the bible?

However, since you are grasping firmly to it having some sort of tangible form and application, please articulate in your own words ~ How this MOG concept works out in practical NTC. Is it an office/title/rank/position/ministry/calling? How does one worthy of or who aspires to be a MOG qualify? How do MOGS differ from non-MOGS? Or those who are not deemed qualified or worthy of MOGship ~  A short thesis with pertinent scriptural back-up would be greatly appreciated and edifying to all. Thanks.

Mrpataki;
How about a few cartwheels and back-flips during the toilet break  !!!

I sense an ace (actually, 3 aces)  !

God bless

Boris

Analytical:
This tournament is about ending. . .

Not so fast. Looks like a hard 5-setter (and in the absence of an impartial umpire you have introduced tag-teaming ). No probs, I worked hard in the off-season to build up my stamina. I going to revert to a grinding point by point game .

mrpataki:
@ Analytical,
I will watch from the sidelines for now, then chip in my own service oce in a while!

Yes I am game with you.

Dude, your cheeleading efforts will not affect the outcome of this match !

I'll be right back after this time out!

God bless

Roger

Analytical:
This game is surely getting too hot for you to handle now, hence your desire to end it by all means by taking over the job of the umpire. . .

I knew you were never going to return that last drop shot.  I told you I'm an all-court action player.  It surely is a winner. . .

Revelations 2 vs 1,8,12,18 and 3 vs 1, 7 & 14:

'To the angel of the church in . . .

Here is the exegesis of this-I sure like analysis!

The Lord Jesus Christ was sending a messages to the 7 churches in Asia at this time.  John, the last of the original 12 apostles was banished to the island of Patmos.  Jesus was glorified at this time, so He was not a human being, but Spirit.  He, as such, had no need to send John, a human being, to deliver a message to a spirit.  That will be absurd!  Jesus could have delivered the messages to the angels himself since they are always at his beck and call in the spirit realm.

The angels in these verses are not spirit beings!  Also, the messages were for the churches and were to be written down.  They are certainly messages meant for human beings and not spirit beings.

Secondly, the word 'angel' in the 7 instances was always in singular meaning they are messages for a single person in each instance.  This is coming from Jesus Christ himself!  There goes you plural and parallel model of authority!

Checking the Greek word translated 'angel', you find 'aggelos'.  What does it mean?  From Strong Greek dictionary:

aggelos-  a messenger; especially an angel; by implication, a pastor -- angel, messenger.

The Chief Shepherd and Bishop Himself was giving messages to the churches through His last of the 12 he commisioned and He addressed them to the pastor and not the elders of each church.  The pastor is the messenger (that gives messages) to the church.  You may also interprete it as the 'minister' or shepherd of the church.  What does this tell you of authority and hierarchy?  The revelation was the last book (in choronological order) and the visions happened when the church was well established and not just embryonic.

I said earlier that Jesus believes in hierarchy and order.  Tell me where in the OT or NT, human or spirit realm, where there is no hierarchy.  In the pattern  in OT there is structure and hierarchy,  even in heaven there is hierarchy, among angels you have arch-angels.  Why would the church of the Living God not have structure and hierarchy?  The end-time army of Joel (talking prophetically about the church) is one that doesn't break its ranks!!

What it then means is that operating according to your model, while not a sin, simply robs you of the fulness of the blessings of building according to the pattern, and that of spiritual parental oversight and mentorship that makes for guidance and maturity!

I will respond to the last part of apostles tomorrow.  I gotta rush somewhere.

Meanwhile it's Game, Set & Match (for Analytical) and it will be Tournament tomorrow  !!

Blessings!

The inference that Aggelos (Angelos) => Pastor is one strongs does not make. That is your own forceful interpretation of it (and slightly fraudulent is the manner you attempted to ascribe it to Strongs  ). I will show you why it is tenuous at best. Strong denotes as follows;

"a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger from God"

The word is used numerous times in scripture. Some instances include John the Baptist (Luke 7:27), the messenger of Satan (2 Cor 12:7), and even Satan himself (2 Cor 11;14). Pertinently, Paul also uses it in Galatians 1:8 to specifically refer to an angel from heaven bringing a message. And it means just that!

I will not even take you to task on your "Jesus as Spirit". The Bible clearly portrays The Lord as having a glorified body. You have used lots of verbal sleights, erroneous inferences and tenuous connections in an attempt to make your point, but you cannot clearly trace any of your claims from scripture alone, as I have gone to great lengths to do severally.

The old trick of quoting a verse (usually out of context) and then going on to weave a whole (read totally wrong) dissertation around it is favoured by many in an attempt to justify their back to front (set-up to scripture instead of vice-versa) approach.

In as much as the messages where meant for the church, it means just that, all the church. You also reveal your belief that God speaks through mediators other than The Lord, Who as scripture shows speaks directly to His sheep. Presumably it's the same MOG who fed you this bunkum that told you that?

It speaks nothing of hierarchy, you just insist on implying it does. Please enunciate the hierarchy you are so fond of refering to? How many levels? What is the geographical area? How about numbers? Non of this works in practice. From the Pope down to the Catholic faithful, there are something like 14 different levels! Is that scripturally mandated? How exact is it?

Even the reference to The Lord as the Chief Shepherd & Bishop makes a nonsense of your stance. That is one person (office), clearly carrying out the different functions. 

Your "Spiritual Parent Oversight" remark further betrays how your error is compounded. There is no such precept validated by the scripture! Please show it? Humans do not cover humans. That's flesh covering flesh. Nor do they give "spiritual birth" to other believers. Your fixation with a fleshly hierarchy leads you to place men between believers and God and usurp the roles of The Lord & The Holy Spirit. Mentorship & Leadership comes from Elders. The word rule is better understood as "lead by example". As the Lord (& Peter) Himself said, believers are not to rule/lord it over each other.

Your shot variety and selection are both poor, and your on-court movement limited 

Join 4get_me on the challenger circuit   .

God bless

First to answer your question;
Who were being addressed in the message of Jesus Christ to the seven churches of Asia in Revelations 2 vs 1,8,12,18 and 3 vs 1, 7 & 14:

'To the angel of the church in . . .

The angel or messenger of the church. Please don't attempt that old ploy of translating the word angel/messenger into pastor. It doesn't wash, neither is it corroborated by any other passage of scripture. I have shown variously that the SAP role is nowhere to be found or substantiated in scripture. Not even the shoddiest scholarship can attempt to infer what is simply not there!

A poorly executed drop shot, merely enabling me to reply with a clean winner of my own .


All references from the NKJV.

There is only 1 reference to pastor in the NT (more later). There are 2 pertinent references to the overseer in the NT, both in conjunction with and inseparable from eldership. There are 4 for Bishop 3 of them pertaining to the qualities requisite for the position (which is undeniably synonymous with eldership) and one (Phil 1:1), which is used in exactly this synonymous way. There are over 20 references to elders. To a large degree church-based activity and dynamic turn on this pivotal role.

The other 3 references to Bishops are all in the pastoral epistles as follows;

1 Timothy 3:1 ~ This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop,* he desires a good work.

1 Timothy 3:2 ~ A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behaviour, hospitable, able to teach;

Titus 1:7 ~ For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money

If as you have claimed, Timothy & Titus were “Overseeing” Bishops, why would they be asked to appoint other OB’s? It makes no sense unless you see that bishop = elder. Even if they were setting up a hierarchical church, why would they replicate their roles, which you have claimed to be the singular head of the hierarchy? Surely you must see that your inferences are all flawed in this regards?

Likewise, the overseer is not distinct and senior to the elder, they are synonymous. Note the following two relevant instances where it occurs;

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;

Acts 20:17 From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church. 28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

These passages clearly show that both shepherding & overseeing are indubitably eldership functions. Claiming that all offices/functions are first of all elders and then different levels and offices is simply not borne out by the scriptural narrative.

The word “pastor” is used just the once. Nowhere is a mandate or remit outlined for this role. Nowhere is the role shown as having sole authority over a church, or reporting into an overseeing bishop. The word best translates shepherd as you yourself pointed out. The shepherding (pastoral) function is carried out by elders as is the teaching role. As I have shown clearly from scripture.

Ephesians 4:11 ~ And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers,

Here is a verse quoted variously to validate an organisational hierarchical approach to church.

Apostles under divine inspiration helped found the church after the OT prophets had heralded the coming of the Founder and Chief Cornerstone.

The church having been founded and established has no more need of Apostles. The Lord having come and left has fulfilled all the preceding prophetic utterance. Goodbye OT style Prophet.

As ever, if as you clain the roles of Apostle & Prophet still exist in the original types, please outline the following;
1. How they fit into the NTC and work in align with other “leadership” positions.
2. Exactly what they do

The church now only requires evangelists to propagate the gospel and pastors & teachers to help it to mature from within. That simple.

Closed with an ace. Game, set & match methinks !

Analytical, do you like boxing ?

God bless

End game coming up  !

Analytical wrote;
For the umpteenth time, I repeat the elders refer to the group of leaders in the church, and not an office.  Anyone called to a leadership position based on the criteria set in Timothy and Titus qualifies as elder.

My response;
And for the umpteenth time, please outline your scriptural understanding of what these different leadership positions are and how they align to operate as “leadership”

Analytical wrote;
This group will include the heads of the various units/departments/groups depending on the usage, and those ministers in the speaking ministries (preaching and teaching) like the pastors, teachers and evangelists within the church.  Note that it's not all with pastoral gifts that are in charge of a church.  These all consititute the elders of the church, with the overseer in charge.  This is why the scriptures in speaking about elders quickly followed with the particular office of the bishop who oversees the work.

My response;
As ever you are institutionalising church. Units? for what? departments? what for? It is not an organization. The error stems in part from a failure to properly understand exactly what church is and what it is for. Believers come together for two main reasons (1) For mutual impartation/edification leading to growth and maturity (2) body welfare. It’s why just the two offices Elder (Bishop) or deacon are required.

You continually insist that elders in turn are under a bishop. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest this. Again, and as any concordance will show, pastor/bishop/presbyter/shepherd/overseer etc are all facets of eldership. In all his travels, Paul always addressed Elders (as did Peter), as they were charged with leading the flock. Further, no one can show from scripture a mandate for SAP the way it is manifest in many churches today. That's an invite for you to do so by the way.

Analytical wrote;
So how do you force something that has been there all the while or doesn't the simplistic reading of the two books of Timothy and Titus even point to the fact that these were individuals having a higher authority to rebuke, teach, exhort, ordain, set things in order, oversee, appoint, denounce, organise etc?

Why do you think the books were not addressed to the elders in Ephesus and Crete if everybody was in charge?

My response;
The above quote and ensuing question are both misguided and disingenuous. At Ephesus, Paul did address the elders, repeatedly. At Crete, there were no elders. Indeed the church was embryonic, and what Titus was commissioned to do, was strengthen and establish it by raising up mature believers and men qualified for eldership. In their apostolic capacity, Timothy & Titus would have had to have been jacks of all trade until such time as the church matured.

Analytical wrote;
How do you then honour them?  What then have these elders, in your definition, been doing that to study and share the word is now additional burden on them?  What are their functions apart from wearing the tag?

My response;
As we have both stated, not all elders share the Word. The bible simply states that those that do (and those that lead well), should be given double honour. The role of elder is not a paid position. So in addition to family and career/business responsibilities, they have the additional burden of eldership. And as such should be honoured. 

Analytical wrote;
From the insitutions ordained by God Himself (home, government and the church), which one of these have the pattern where everyone is in charge and no one is the head?  Certainly not the home, for the husband is the head, and not the government where there are the kings and thos eplaced in authority.  Why then the church having a parallel model where no one is responsible and accountable but all?

My response;
The Head of the Church is The Lord. All are personally accountable to "Him to whom we must render account". In the body, some have more responsibility.

I will post some references to eldership and ask that you do likewise for sole authority pastors or overseeing bishops.

Acts 14:23 ~ So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

Elders clearly appointed to oversee churches.

Acts 15:6 ~ Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.

No sight or sound of OB or SAP luminaries?

Acts 15:22 ~ Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren. 23 ~ They wrote this letter by them: The apostles, the elders, and the brethren, To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia: Greetings.

Still no OB or SAP??

Acts 20:17 ~ From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church. 18 ~ On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.

Wey them? Hmmm, Paul appears to be addressing elders and at Ephesus!!!

Philippians 1:1 ~ Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

Wait a minute, here they are at last! Bishops. Hold on, where are the elders? Can they have been excluded for some reason? Or addressed elsewhere? No dude, the terms elder & bishop are simply synonymous. They just happen to be different renderings of the same role. QED

1 Timothy 5:17 ~ Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.

Surely it’s the Pastor/SAP who labours in doctrine?

Titus 1:5 ~ For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you.

Things lacking in Crete would suggest an as yet mature church that needed building up. Which task Titus was charged with! Apostolic not SAP or OB!

James 5:14 ~ Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

One would have thought the SAP or OB would be called into action here.

Truth is there are no such offices. Nowhere found, outlined or mandated in scripture. Please feel free to apply such paradigms to your own construct if you wish, but please don’t misrepresent them as scripturally inferred.

I'll  end the final game to love and with a flourish  .

God bless

Grouppoint, what are you playing at ? That piece of overly pious input will effectively kill this thread! Just watch. What were you thinking

We are all used to the cut and thrust of debate and it never gets so personal as to derail the discussion! Even people that keep it resolutely impersonal when posting rarely complain and for the most part everyone self-moderates. I don’t hear anybody whining! This kind of post is a big dampener.

Analytical pulled that one on me in the Christians & Politics thread and I’m still recovering. If you are so set on being “Class Monitor” I suggest you mosey on over to the “Pastor Chris Oyaks” thread, where lysaa and shahan are set on mauling each other. But even there you can see they are calming things down, and with no outside intervention.

If people want to call a spade a spade, let them. Don’t insist they call it a hand-held garden implement. Leave off dude!

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=37590.msg899954#msg899954 date=1171893000]you're right. I got carried away, I apologize. [/quote]Trini what’s with you? Don’t fake. Odds are that a dozen posts or two days later (whichever comes first), you’ll be lambasting someone who has caught your ire !

mrpataki:
I most humbly apologise, if my post has been deprived of any reasonable points. As well I apologise for not maintaining any decorum of sanity in addressing goodguy

Mrpataki, you pretender you. Your particular brand of input adds something (I hesitate to say what exactly ), to the mix. A constrained mrpataki wouldn’t be the same! I sometimes read your posts and wonder (don’t ask). Anyway sha, like trini, you’ll soon revert back to type. No shaking.

I’m off to the Church Structure thread to summarily deal with Analytical and at the same time take a cursory swipe at that time waster called 4get_me.

davidylan:
We are trying to expose "holy scam" by forming "spiritual EFCC" in order to catch "spiritual Atikus" masquerading as pastors.

Ah  ! I hope you realise what you are up against? Perpertrators of "holy scam" will try and confound "spiritual EFCC" by claiming "spiritual constitutional immunity" aka "Touch not my anointed". Thereby bypassing "spiritual due-process" and the "ecclessiastical rule of law". Works every time!

I'm cracking up. This thread is 2nd only to "Why must my Pastor rake me to fall in the name of deliverance" for overall laugh value  !

Ey yah!

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

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=30552.msg899722#msg899722 date=1171885729]I think there's a limit to stretching your tennis game over Scripture. A more appropriate place would be the Recycle Bin.[/quote]Typical. Can't defend your position, so your resort too rubbishing the opposing one.

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=30552.msg899722#msg899722 date=1171885729]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.[/quote]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?

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=30552.msg898608#msg898608 date=1171835090]I Tim. 6:11 >> But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.[/quote]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.

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=30552.msg893449#msg893449 date=1171636451]so you are still beating this dead horse thread. kai! [/quote]Actually, I aim to utilise this thread in my avowed mission to put the MOG myth to bed once and for all.

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=30552.msg893449#msg893449 date=1171636451]i still remember you sent me to my room on this one. i'm not allowed. [/quote]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

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35449.msg897003#msg897003 date=1171760891]abeg doh kill de messenger! [/quote]Eeerrr, who sent you?

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=23029.msg893560#msg893560 date=1171640330]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. [/quote]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