₦airaland Forum

trini_girl:
Wellll,

If I am headed for hell for such a small thing as an opinion, I will be last in line behind those of you guys who watch porn, lust after the chick in the choir, lust after the chick on the street, lust after the MAN on the street, masturbate, have sex outside of marriage, masturbate, lie, slander your brothers and sisters, curse, neglect to pray, judge others, don't forgive, offend others (whew! getting tired), and yeah, did I mention masturbate, you hypocrites!

Sister trini_girl, surely your utter confusion is manifest? Don't you realise you are gainsaying yourself by this statement

Lord have mercy.

shahan:
Lol, TV01. . . my posts are still clear, I pressume. Women can and are encouraged to preach; they are also encouraged to teach according to the settings in God's Word - as in the case of Tit. 2:3-5.

The issue many of us may not have grasp is that the Bible does not recommend women teaching in the church. That would be an abuse of the recommendations in God's Word.

No Probs Shahan. I totally agree with the distinctions you've made.

But like I said, the order is set in the home and follows on into a full church setting.
All things being equal, women are not to assume authority in either. The Biblical injunctions naturally follow through, restricting eldership (same as pastor) to men.

Are we agreed on this? I realise some of the more strident sisters do not .

Thanks for your responses.

God bless

Hebrews 13:4 - Honor marriage, and guard the sacredness of sexual intimacy between wife and husband. God draws a firm line against casual and illicit sex.

Bible says (even in a version I don't normally have much truck for ~ The Message)

shahan:
I support 1000% - please Nne trini, preach am well-well as you're doing to Seun!! Don't let anybody hold you back o jare! Who knows?? Perhaps a woman will convert him! Amen and Amen!!

Shahan, presumably you are making the distinction between preaching & teaching/taking authority. If so, no problemo. If not, you know I have to withstand you.

God bless

trini_girl:
what are you going on about now? so you are still stalking me I see.

Usurping authority, pre-marital sex, bellicose behaviour, unrelenting attention seeking! Truth is you can still repent and be forgiven of those.

But now you're being boring and that really is an unforgivable sin. Like the irish say "wise up and catch yourself on"

trini_girl:
*** yawn ***

trini_girl, go to your room. And stay there. You are grounded till further notice for unruly behaviour and scatalogical posts! Naughty girl.

Sister trini_girl,

You are starting to sound preachy. Please stop, the holy scriptures forbid it !

Hebrews 13:4 - Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.


Bible says

trini_girl:
Let me then spell it out for you then, since you can't seem to grasp implied expressions.  Pre marital sex is NOT a sin.

So that's your stated position.

So let me ask you this;

If as a consequence of pre-marital sex a girl becomes pregnant and delivers a child, as long as marriage is the stated aim, then no sin has been committed is that right? In fact, said couple could have a number of children right trini?

trini_girl:
Pre marital sex, is sex before marriage, but it is not fornication.

Okay, lets humour you.
Lets for arguments sake agree that entymologically speaking Pre-marital sex is not fornication.

Question: Is premarital sex a sin?

trini_girl:
So my brother, what makes you think I don't have the sweet character of which you speak? Hmm??

I could be totally wrong, but so far you are yet to demonstrate such. By their fruits my sister.

trini_girl:
So because I have strong opinions that I am passionate about (and sometimes change once I am convinced), you are saying that I'm not sweet and do not have the grace of God ??  **sniff**

Strong opinions good, passion excellent. Please don't confuse these with the aggression and belligerence you sometimes portray in your posts. They are more masculine traits and not necessarily becoming even of men.

But I take heart that you responded to the charge laid against you. Like I said, it takes the grace of God. We are none of us perfect Sis', least of all myself. It's why I took a self imposed sabbatical from posting on Nairaland. During the last two months I've  followed everything with keen interest. I noted when you first joined (or maybe become more active?) late last year, and I've read your posts with interest and dare I say it, for the most part I've been quite impressed.

I particularly like the fact that you realise that law bound religion (tithing temples etc etc) is not synonymous with heart-felt faith. But in throwing off religious shackles and taking the full liberty to be found in Christ, please don't let your liberty turn into licentiousness (with particular regard to your post on pre-marital sex and fornication).

So sis' I speak not just as a blogger but as someone who in cyber terms knows a little about you and wants the best for you.

About the pic, I don't know what the Yahoo list is? Just show me yours and I'll show you mine  .

God bless.

Okay, lets play
red or blue, home or away?

Let me kick off with this.

" The contemporary structure much beloved in many churches whereby a "pastor" has sole authority" is without scriptural basis, thoroughly unbiblical, and a man-made contraption"

Game on

Your serve sir.

Picked up from the BBC. Any news on this from Nigeria?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6252463.stm

trini_girl:
The floor is now open.

And you are going to get wiped with it .

This one won't even take the "A-Team", any sunday schoolers in the house to disabuse sis' trini of her totally erroneous underastanding?

You're taking a drubbing. So far you haven't managed to hold serve and you've lost all games played to love !

trini_girl:
Only real man can tame this tempest storm!

Please post a pic so the real men can see if the effort will be worthwile  

trini_girl:
I am not impressed.  

All those trying to impress trini_girl please raise your hands  

1 Peter 3: 3 Do not let your adornment be merely outward--arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel-- 4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.

It takes the grace of God to acquire the sweet character outlined above  .

God bless you Sis' trini_girl

While trini_girl feverishly studies the scriptures and comes to the realization that there is no scriptural basis for her position  , may I say this.

ufanIma in post #18 said
Women that are ordained as pastors are not in anyway usurping  authority - it is God's  gift that is not partial to male or female.  The gifts of the spirit and the ministerial gifts are not based on men or women.

Shahan post #23 said
So, while I agree that there are women pastors indeed according to God's Word, it still stands that women are "not to teach or usurp authority over the man as we read in I Tim. 2:12.

Pursuant to the fact that women cannot teach or take authority over men is the fact that they cannot be ordained pastors noting that;

1. Ordination is not anything in itself, and
2. There is no such thing as a pastor different from an elder and no single person is given charge
   over a body of believers. Eldership is always to be in plurality.

To say that women cannot take authority, but say they can be elders is counterintuitive. The body of Christ submits to (the authority) of elders.

We raised this earlier in "Church Structure & Sole Authority Pastors" . I outlined it as  I believe the scripture reveals it, but till now, no one has come back with an alternative or contrary rendering of scripture.

Lets keep talking

God bless

The debate rages.

The argument by trini-girl (and to a lesser degree ufanIma) while quite plausible on the face of it, is one that I find deeply flawed, for the following reasons.

The conclusion is that the scripture is not valid for us today. redundant. Pray tell, how many other portions of scripture were written with others or unique situations in mind? And are therefore also redundant and not applicable to us in this age? The NT is addressed to believers in all places for all time until the end.

It also suggests that one cannot understand scripture without an understanding of the cultural setting of the time it was written. It lends credence to the “Bible needs updating for our times” and “contextual interpretation” schools of thought, which have been largely responsible for the denial of the truth of the scriptures. Please don’t go there.

It is the same argument used by the gay-homosexual lobby in reference to the scriptures relating to same-sex relationships. It the thin end of the wedge. Again, please don’t.

Feminist arguments have no place in the body of Christ, no matter how PC they may sound.

Morning All,

A very emotive issue.

When I first become a Christian, my instinctive (and most certainly “worldly”) reaction was given the greater proportion of women in the Church, they were grossly under-represented in leadership. Being a rookie, I held my peace.

However, over time and in searching the scripture, I came to essentially the same view as held by angelz and shahan above, noting the difference between preaching and teaching/having authority in church over male brethren.

I believe scripture outlines Gods heart on order and authority in the church quite clearly. It is also essential to note that order starts in the home and is then built on in the church. Families are the building block of Christian community.

The order in the home is clearly spelt out, 1 Corinthians 11:3. This order is replicated in the church, albeit on a larger scale. In light of this, the commands in 1 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Corinthians 13:34 are quite understandable.

God bless

Neither.
He's asleep like every other dead person, awaiting either the first or second ressurection.

Bible says.

Morning All,

lafile:
There is something i have noticed in Christianity these days. Everywhere, in churches, at home, you find christians praying against their enemies. Asking God to kill their enemies (or for their enemies to die by fire, as the saying goes). They will always find a bible scripture (usually a psalm) to back up this prayer point. So whats your take on this? is it scriptural?

Imprecatory prayers? Not for New Testament Christians.

Matthew 5:44 - But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,

It's also worth noting that the real enemy is not other human beings. In as much as others are conspiring to do evil against Christians, the proper response is to pray for such people, as they have been blinded and taken captive by the evil one to do his will. By directing your efforts against such people you are unwittingly (I hope) doing exactly what the enemy wants you to do, and exactly what God does not want you to do (which makes sense right?).

2 Peter 3:9 - The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

Heb 10:30 - For we know Him who said, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. And again, "The Lord will judge His people."

I would enjoin anyone professing Christian who engages in such a practise to repent. And if you belong to a church/organisation that centres it's preaching on your personal situation and circumstances (as against God's overarching purpose) please reconsider in light of scripture.

God bless

mrpataki:
Do you want me to show you where God even was present in Politics from the bible?

1. Yes please
2. And please also show what you are inferring from God being active in politics?

God bless

Hi Peeps,

Denominationalism is one of the banes of the Christian faith, and being a denominational apologist is one of the easiest ways to build a sige mentality and make yourself unreceptive to correction or deeper truth. I write as one who was almost snared in that trap until God in His mercy pulled me up so sharply it left all my preconceived religious notions in tatters.

I appreciate the contributions to this thread. I think for the most part the posts have been well thought out and well articulated. That's not to say I agree with them all, but I acknowledge the effort and the passion. What I appreciate even more is someone who really want s to know the heart of God in Christ jesus, even if that means questioning tightly held traditional beliefs.

Claims by any particular denomination to be the true church or the remnant church are not new. I had a JW on my doorstep not long ago trying to prove just this. Funnily enough, most denominations start in the truth, but all to often, man-made tradition and error creep in. Sometimes to such an extent that even the original truths are deeply shrouded. Or as the Lord Himself said, "Made of non effect"

There are something like 37'000 so called Christian denominations. And a few hundred major ones. All with claims, be it of their doctrine, size, succession, revelation, signs etc etc. Truth is, most of us will come to faith in Christ through one of these denominations. The key is to then go on to faith directly in Him and in Him alone, not via membership or association.

The Church of God is all who through time have put their faith in Gods salvation in the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ. "The Lord knows those who are His" [/color][color=#990000][/color][color=#990000]

I honestly believe that if we ditched the adversarial approach, put our heads together and pooled our understanding a lot of areas of misunderstanding, and error would be cleared up. At the very least we'd all be significantly edified.

God bless everyone

TayoD,

Pick on someone your own size  

What's going on sir? How are you? I trust all is well with you.
Belated seasons greetings.

Now whose serve was it?

God bless

TV01:
You know the T's serve fast and play hard.

TayoD served off court 

Dr. Tee:
I understand Leveticus contains mosaic laws but we still follow some of those laws in mordern day Christendom, or don't we? I need clarification.

If by "we" you mean those saved by "faith in The Lord Jesus Christ" the answer is "no we don't".

I hope that is clarification enough for you sir.

God bless

chistiana:
I rather go for 4

Pastor Williams Folorunsho Kumuyi
Pastor Oyedepo
Pastor Adekoya

Sorry to be pedantic Sister Chistiana, but that was only 3 ?

God bless

Hi KDK and others,

Sometimes I just like to follow a thread and hear what people have to say. I figured from the length of this one that there was something worth hearing.

I can't say I've been diligent to read it all, but I am posting because I see that "Universalism" has cropped up.

Now, I don't claim to be a Universalist (The notion that everyone will ultimately be saved), but on the course of study and research, I have come across writings about it, and particularly L. Ray Smith.

To be honest like many (most?) Christians, I had a default position of eternal heaven and hell. After stumbling across Universalism and studying some and praying a bit, I wasn't convinced enough to make a wholesale change.

I am always the first to say that with the plain Word of scripture and leading of the Holy Spirit, I am willing to re-appraise, not being tied to any denomination or yoked by tradition.

I realise it's a walk, and one makes it personally, not by proxy or via 3rd parties. Universalism may well be 100% true, maybe I'm just not there yet, or not mature enough to see or handle it.

Having said that, I have a few questions to start, specifically for KDK, but open to all.

1. KDK are you an avowed Universalist? Do you subscribe to L. Ray Smiths teachings on the doctrine in their entirety? Are their any other subscribers to this doctrine out there?

2. The whole doctrine to a great degree turns on the theory of free-will, specifically mans free will.
I have never had any issue with God's sovreignity or His omniscience. I believe the whole of history and the universe is steadily moving towards a consumation that He has proposed and nothing can change that. I believe that nothing happens without His knowledge. But the Bible clearly shows that God does not tempt men, nor cause them to sin. How does one explain that within Universalism, which seems to suggest that our every desire is initiated and our every action precipitated by God- regardless of whether it is good or evil?

Thanks

God bless

enugu:
Having said that, I will ask about the early christians who 'went from door to door, breaking bread'? There was none of the structure we see today. I'm throwing this in before I get my bible out and join in on the discussion but until then, can any of you Ts comment?

I see a church that works how I believe God intended it too.
The whole essence of the "door to door" theme I believe speaks to community.

Church starts from individuals, then families, then whole communities. It's why the church is always adressed by location and not denomination or anything else. Church is where the body gathers.

There is no real structure required. Church is a living, breathing thing. A family an organism. Religion would force it into organisational mode and effect an unecessary and unscriptural hierarchy over it.

TayoD:
Thanks for joining in the conversation. We still go from house to house breaking bread. I'm sure you've heard of house fellowships and Cell fellowships. Those are the kind of things that happen there.

In contemporary times, House fellowships are effectively subsidiaries of a centralised church organisations. In early Bible times, they were considered as nothing less than churches in their own right. It is really just a way for the central organisation to retain control.

Church today is ghettoised. People are taken out of the community and gathered together in one place. All house fellowships effectively do is mimic the activities of the larger church intra-week.

No fellowship of believers is subject to any other (as so called cell fellowships are). Locals are supposed to minister to one another. It will engender the Christian Spirit right there where you live.

Get your bible out Sister Enugu.

God bless

enugu:
Thanks for opening the thread as I suggested. I appreciate it.

No problem, it's for the discussion and edification of all.

enugu:
Now I hope it's not going to be a two Ts affair (you know, TV01 & TayoD) with the both of you going back and forth like a tennis match and not leaving room for a word in edgewise.

Before  I opened, and in introducing this thread, I welcomed all to participate. You know the T's serve fast and play hard. But that is'nt to exclude anyone. There are no stupid questions and no unquestionable positions. Game's on and all are welcome to play or to watch, to comment or contribute.

God bless

Hi TayoD,

You said;
I never said having elders in the church is not relevant, rather, I mentioned that the Lord never gave a specific instruction as to appointing elders in the church.

My response;
Are you implying that in lieu of specific instructions from the Lord (and regardless of what the Apostles prescribed?) a “What seems good to us and does not violate the conscience” rule applies? Perhaps this will help;
Ephesians 2:20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone

As I have mentioned as various times across threads in this forum, what the Apostles did was foundational and as such, not to be considered as optional extras, which we can change/discard as we see fit. 

I don’t believe you are unfamiliar with the depth of revelation given through Paul. I am not about to give in to the notion that his epistles omitted the weighty matters and focused on the not very important? Where Paul gave guidance on the basis of his own judgment, he was quick to say so.

So, to answer your question, no Jesus did not specifically instruct Eldership directly, He did so through Paul an Apostle.

You said;
I do not believe anything must pass for "law" in the NT except it comes directly from Jesus.  If there is no direct instruction from Him, He expects us to follow the principles laid down and not violate our conscience and the law of love.  For instance, the early disciples were known to gather on Sunday which is what we do today.  But the fact remains that this was not a direct command from the Lord.  They did what they thought was "good to them and the Holy Ghost" and the Lord has no problems with it.

My response;
Of course you make an obvious exception for the erroneous “tithing” notion.

You say “he expects us to follow the principles laid down”. Following on from my immediate previous response, are you saying that the Apostles worked solely on a “what seems good” basis? And that the principles had to be solely from the Lord?

You said;
Everything is prone to abuse including the Eldership thing you are talking about. You feel the nomenclatures we use to day brings undue visibilty to some, but the fact is even the use of the word Elders for some and not all will result in the same problem.  Nomenclature is not the problem, though it should not be used in a way that violates the Spirit of the NT.

My response;
TayoD please, this discussion is about structure (and as a corollary function, and not nomenclature). Eldership in plurality and equality will see a lot of the abuse currently seen disappear. I have noted severally the benefits of this. Please let’s keep it tight.

You said;
It is clear that their primary role is "ruling" and some that rule might also labour in word and doctrine.  That is what 1 Ti 5:17 is all implies - Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine.  Are you implying that Timothy was considered an Elder?  You got to be kidding me.  The word itself implies you have to be advance in years to be one.  Don't stretch it my friend.

My response;
Now your “Principals laid down by the Lord” theorem comes back to bite you in the butt.

You over-reliance (and in my view misapplication/misunderstanding) of the word “rule” is also apparent here.

Please hear the Words of THE Lord Himself on this;
Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave—(Please also see Mark 10:42 & Luke 22:25)

By your reckoning this totally nullifies anything the Apostles may have said later, as there is a principle laid down directly by the Lord.

A better way would be to accept both as scripture, and applicable, and reconcile the two. The word translated rule can also mean “to go on before” that is to show the way, to model. Which is the essence of eldership in NT Christianity. In a church setting, nobody rules (as in Lords), has authority or provides covering for anyone else.

You are demonstrating an organizational, hierarchical approach to church which you are not willing to submit to question. Instead you are reading your paradigm into the scripture when it should be vice-versa, or better still simply let The Word speak.

As for Timothy being an elder, again you miss the essence of the narrative. Timothy was working in conjunction with the Apostle to establish the church. He was acting under apostolic authority, not as a SAP. Eldership in NT Christianity is a function of maturity, not age/achievement as in Judaism (which is what I was alluding to before when I spoke of adopting OT precepts wholesale as NT mores). He was to source and/or raise men who would be able to function as elders. Timothy more than possessed the requisite qualities, albeit he was somewhat youthful, which would have been a bar in traditional eldership. You even fail to understand that “Shepherding” is not an end in itself. The essence of that is to raise believers to maturity, so they also can help nurture and edify others. It seems that very little of your understanding of roles, functions and aims of the church and fellowship are informed by the bible or scriptural narrative.

Your appear to have missed the whole thrust of “Apostolic Authority”. When he needed to establish his credentials Paul always described himself as an apostle, and one called by God. This because he was charged with foundational work. That’s why when Peter settled into an established church in Jerusalem he described himself as an Elder.

You said
To you, administration may be no big deal, bu to God, He considers it such a BIGGIE that one of the gifts He bestows specially was the gift of government or administration:  [color=#990000]1 Corinthians 12:28  And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. [olor]Do you want to take that back?

My response
Please see for yourself it's relative importance in the list. Maybe I was wrong to call it trifling, but in a maturing body of believers, it is not that important.

You said;
This is very simple.  The Lord has a message for His church in several cities.  He thought it best that He would address the message to ONE person who is called the Messenger of that Local Assembly (See Revelations 1 to 3).  He never addressed the message to a group of people but only to one person.  So tell me, doesn't that tell you that the Lord recognises only one person that is ultimately responsible for the "walk" of that body of believers?  Since He has called Pastors to shepherd and to teach His people, is it not only logical to conclude that the messenger must be the Pastor?

My response;
Again you fail your own “principle laid down by the Lord” test and talk of logical conclusions. Well  the conclusion is not as logical as you attempt to make it seem.

I never said messenger could mean elder, what I said, was it did not mean Pastor. It meant what it said, messenger. No where in scripture is the word translated messenger used to mean elder/pastor or any of the variations, bishop, overseer etc. The word can also mean Angel and that is it. Trying to parley this to mean SAP is totally disingenuous. Neither is it directly or indirectly corroborated by any other verse of scripture.

Just as in the tithing debate your whole position rests on an interpretation of one word/verse which can be described as highly debatable at best. On this foundation (Not on Christ or the Apostles) you then proceed to build a whole superstructure? Brother please!

I'm here.

GOd bless