₦airaland Forum

Carlosein:
to get this back on course, i just want to ask you a question which i think is a summary of all these postings and squabbles. it is this: from your understanding of the bible (or with reference to the word of God), WHAT IS THE PILLAR AND SUPPORT OF ALL TRUTHS- THE BIBLE OR THE CHURCH?

Quote
Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the CHURCH OF THE LIVING GOD, THE PILLAR AND FOUNDATION (SUPPORT) OF  THE TRUTH. 1ST TIMOTHY 3:14-15 (NIV)

A good attempt to biblically back up your stance sir, and I always appreciate that. But I humbly beg to disagree with your reading of this passage.

Firstly your original question does not align with the passage quoted. Please allow me to explain.

The Bible clearly states two things;

John 17:17 - Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth

John 14:6 - Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

As I said before, Jesus is the Living Word

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

So, Jesus = Word = Truth  QED.

One more thing,  IMHO, the scripture you quted to buttress your point is better understood as follows;

It is the pillar and support of the truth. Christ on earth was the Truth. (He is so always, but He was so on the earth.) He is now hidden in God. The assembly is not the truth: the word of God is the truth. His word is truth. Truth exists before the assembly; it is faith in the truth which gathers the assembly together. But the assembly is that which maintains the truth on earth.[The presence, then, of the living God, and the profession of the truth, are the characteristics of the house of God. Wherever this assembly of the living God is, wherever the truth is, there is His house.

So sir, kindly hold on progressing this discussion to "Which Church". At least till we are able to properly establish "Which Truth"

As ever, God bless

TayoD:
I guess my next question is somehow tied to the first one. Is there any place in the NT where the Spirit of God specifically mentioned that the affairs of the church must be manned by Elders and Deacons?

I believe my earlier reference to the letters to Timothy & Titus, and the Biblical narrative amply demonstrate the relevance of "Eldership".

I am not so much concerned with the deaconate hers, but suffice to say, I do believe that the relative profile of that particular function could wax and wane depending on the corporate or individual welfare requirements of the body. That is not to say that the scriptural outline is any less applicable.

TayoD:
[/i] This is very important to our discussions because a careful observance of the Book of Acts indicate that sometimes, the Lord gives specific instructions and atimes, the Disciples do what seems "Good to us and the Holy Ghost". In other words, without a specific instruction, they do what wisdom dictates for them to do as long as it does not violate their conscience and is not in contradiction to the will of God. This is what happened in the case of Deacons and I dare say, in the case of Elders.

I think a careful reading will delineate between the "structural" and "situational" in this sense.
For instance, someone was required to replace Judas. No blueprint for that. So prayer and leading from God by the Holy Spirit is the logical way to go. But if something is codified (specific instructions) in scripture and played out in the Biblical narrative, any addition sounds like the traditions of men. Believe me most traditions sounded good and reasonable to begin with, but as men we have an inclination to do what is good in our own sight and then co-opt God in or just get His sign-off.

Oft times the Apostles where pressed to travel somewhere by the Holy Spirit, even when previously commited to going elsewhere. That is situational and so we respond we discernment, prayer and Gods leading by the Holy Spirit. It's still God.

Again, an outline is given for the Eldership and the deaconate. A laid down procedure. It would only become situational if the need was there but the requirements were not met.

TayoD:
The Elder concept was adopted from their custom because they noticed that it works well as a means of administration. It's just like the church today adopting some means of administration that we noticed worked in the community we live in. As long as the principle that such administration ensures that the ministry of the Word and Prayer is not hindered, then the Lord will have no problems with it. And besides, the role played by elders in those days are well taken care of by people in the church today. The only difference is that we do not use that nomenclature; and at the same time we have young people, like Timothy who are not qualified to be called Elders but are functioning in that role.

We can agree to disagree about where it came from. The fact remains that it is codified in NT scripture inspired by God. If you want to consider it an appropriation from Judaism, that's fine. But trying to fit the Jewish form of Eldership "wholesale" into Christianity will always cause problems. I don't see how the "fullness" of NT Christianity will be captured.

Again, I don't see from scripture that NT Eldership is about the "administative function". It is about the spiritual welfare of the flock, by the spiritually mature. Neither is it dependent on age, hence Timothy. In fact the reason why his relative youth would have been a problem is because he would not have been qualified for an elder role under traditional Judaism.

The whole body works together, taking their lead from the Eldership, which is essentially a function of maturity/wisdom/experience. Hence the prominence of James in Jerusalem and Peter's respect of the deep insight afforded to Paul.

Not to stray, administration is a trifling concern in faith terms. However it becomes core when mans religious imperative starts to make headway. There are only 2 reasons for believers to come together in fellowship. For growth/edification & to care for each other (coporate worship is great, mass evangelism is commendable, but these are not the prime reasons for assembling). Learning/sharing/teaching (not preaching) the Word and mutual care.

Like I say, doctrine can sound great and be concieved with the noblest of intentions, but it must work itself out on practice and conform to biblically prescribed mores.

And finally, I also have a question for you sir;

TayoD:
I guess my next question is somehow tied to the first one. Is there any place in the NT where the Spirit of God specifically mentioned that the affairs of the church must be manned by Elders and Deacons?

Could you please answer your own question, only replacing the "Elders & Deacons" with "Sole Authority Pastors"

God bless

H TayoD,

Yes O! For growing lads space to spar and to roam is required. Too much time indoors gisting (celebrity gossip, fashion etc, etc), with the girls and youngsters is not advised.

I am aware of the “Eldership” tradition in early Jewish culture. It is referred to severally in both the new & old testaments. I think it’s pertinent to note that while a mainstay of the culture, it did not grow out of the religious tradition, but worked in conjunction with it. The lines are further blurred by the fact that Jewish religion, suffused most aspects of everyday life.

Now, as to the “Eldership” structure in the early church, the essential requirements for it are laid out in 1&2 Timothy & Titus. Reading from Acts and most of the letters following, it becomes very clear that lead for most church based activity is by the eldership. The narrative clearly reveals that it was always the elders that where charged with teaching, shepherding etc, etc. This was spoken of by Paul, Peter & James, especially when referencing an already existing and fully functioning church.

In as much as one believes that all scripture is Holy Ghost breathed, yes I do believe it was a commandment of the Lord. Whilst on the face of it they may seem identical or one a precursor for the other, I don’t believe the intention was to replicate the tradition wholesale. Incorporating Jewish traditional elements into Christianity was always a problem and served to hinder (especially Jewish converts), from fully embracing new life in Christ. It was something Paul fought bitterly against and drives much of the narrative in both Galatians & Hebrews.

God bless

enugu:
Dear TV01 ,
So while I will learn something from your arguments/debates, it would probably be more fruitful to make them succint and then focus on the issue at hand. Perhaps we can start another thread on your arguments because some of us are really interested in this church structure thing- how it came about, it's pros and cons etc. I believe you both are robbing us of the opportunity to enjoy a healthy debate by doing it here.

Hi Enugu and everyone else,

I have opened a thread titled "Church Structure & Sole Authority Pastorship" in response to your comments.

I hope to see you there.
Thanks.

All a fellowship of believers requires to function as church, are suitably qualified elders and deacons.

Elders are primarily responsible for the spiritual well-being of the flock, and facets of the eldership role include the pastoral (or shepherding if you will), teaching, counseling etc, which in a sense all overlap to some degree. The role of deacon is primarily concerned with the physical/material well-being of the flock.

There is no separate role of Pastor/Shepherd, distinct from and senior to that of Elder. All references to the shepherding, pastoring, teaching, counseling, doctrinal and even praying roles in the NT scriptures are always in conjunction with Elders.

Eldership is always to be in plurality and in no way delineated by grades or a ranking hierarchy, i.e. all elders are equal if different in maturity, understanding or experience. Indeed in hindsight, God’s foresight is great. This will stop undue focus on the one person, unbalanced emphasis on one area of scripture and error propagated by one person going unchallenged and possibly becoming entrenched.

The “Sole Authority Pastor” (henceforth to be referred to as “SAP”) concept as used in many “church organizations” in this age is not scripturally mandated and cannot be honestly inferred from sound (and honest) biblical exegesis.

Comments & questions welcomed. Could I ask that we quote scripture to back up our posts and help focus the discussion.

Thanks & God bless

TayoD,

I shall try to be as succinct as possible here. But really your position, (not at all corroborated by scripture,directly or indirectly) is very tenuous at best and and at worst, an exercise in religiosity gone utterly mad  .

Every reference you’ve made to pastors, pastorship or the sole pastoral authority has been by inference. You are so blatantly reading the Bible to fit your tradition that I am left wondering if you are really serious, or just having a laugh at my expense. Not funny dude  !

What I will do is go to the Bible and show references for everything that informs my understanding of elders in church.

As a corollary (not to be pursued here, but to help people better understand my position) I will first touch briefly on the so called five-fold ministry. Firstly, I do not believer that Apostles are extant in this dispensation. The work of the apostles and those of that time was foundational. Having being founded, the church is self-perpetuating. And one of the things the Apostles took great care to do was leave a blueprint for proper church functioning. The Prophetic is also no longer relevant in the sense of an Isaiah or Jeremiah. Hebrews opens with the declaration that God used to talk through prophets. Am I saying that God cannot move in the prophetic? No, God is sovereign, “He does whatsoever He chooses”. However, the erroneous, indulgent or simply fraudulent use of such titles (along with a host of others Cardinal, GO, Reverend etc) go hand in hand with the bogus structure employed by a lot of “Christian” organizations.

Now about elders. I’ll primarily quote scripture and hope that will persuade you.

Acts 15:2 - Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.
4 - And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them.
6 - Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.
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

Here the only people consulted where the Apostles and elders, no mention of Pastors. I remember earlier during our ongoing discussion, you tried to shoe-horn James into the pastors position in the church at Jerusalem. And all because he was commended as a person of note. I shouldn’t be surprised when you ascribe things to me really should I?

Still in Acts, Paul is on his travels;

Acts 20:17 - From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church.
21:18 - On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present.

Surely “Pastor” as having pre-eminence and sole authority should have been more prominently featured?

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.

Here it is evident that it is only elders (although not necessarily all elders) that are charged with the teaching function/ministry.

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

James who you labelled pastor here exhorts that elders be called. Is it beneath Pastor? Does it sound like an administrative task? Hmmmmm, still no mention, sight or sound of this “sole authority” pastor person from Paul, James or Peter as we shall see.

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.

This clearly shows that Elders shepherd (pastor) the flock as a comity. The word elders is almost always used in the plural to show this very thing. Nowhere is the word pastor used. It is nigh on non-existent except for the one mention in Ephesians 4.

Yet some people insist on embellishing this function/role to such an extent that scripture is subverted and church made dysfunctional. When it’s startlingly obvious to anyone who cares to look that it’s not biblically prescribed, and purely for self-aggrandisement.

I repeat, shepherd/overseer/bishop/presbyter/episcopos (and pastor if you will) are all different renderings/aspects of the eldership function. The only difference being that not all elders do or are especially gifted at all aspects. That is why I said "more or less synonymous". There are no variations or grades Elder = Elder = Elder = Elder, whether they teach, counsel, pastor or any other combination of eldership functions.

If the role of pastor was that important it would be mentioned somewhere. Highlighted even, at least emphasised, yet it gets barely a passing mentioned. You can only deny this by denying scripture. Go ahead, let me hear you. Unless you can show directly from scripture and not by convoluted inference and recourse to the scarily shoddy exegesis (no doubt based on tradition) that you always resort to.

You also came up with this “elders are appointed over cities” notion which just leaves me shaking my head. But please explain more. And pray tell who are the elders over London, I’m just curious sir. Further you claimed that elders are more given to administrative duties. The above scriptures should serve to disabuse anyone of that notion. The true church requires little administration, even deacons are charged more with attending to the physical welfare of the flock while elders focus on their spiritual well-being.

As for salaried workers sir, please listen carefully, a PREACHER is someone who carries the good news from place to place – Even unbelievers know you don’t preach to the converted – It was an itinerant ministry, where almost everything else (Private, jet, 80 grand chariot, big home, servants, adoring wife, loving kids, career progression, safety, security and stability etc) was sacrificed. I mentioned that there was a case for missionaries to be supported.

I always laugh when they cite Paul as reason why they should be paid. He said loud and clear “Yet I have used none of these things” He gave it all and asked nothing in return. Beheading is not a fringe benefit!

As for meeting places? homes would be a start. And your tiresome misapplication of OT references is enough to make one anti-semitic. Please stop it. I am a Christian, not a Jew. Accountability is more evidence of worldly paradigms gaining acceptance in the church. There is one to whom we shall all render account. Keep that in mind and you’ll be fine.

I must confess, I have an almost perverse curiosity to see exactly how far you are prepared to go on this  .

Later sir,

TayoD,

You said;
1. An elder might be a pastor, but not necessarily one; while a pastor might also be an elder but not necessarily one.

2. The elder concept was adopted by the church from the Mosaic tradition

3. This same young pastor had the sole power and responsibility to appoint elders and to rebuke them when they are out of line.

4. It is also curious that Jesus in the Book of Revelation had to mention just one messenger when addressing the churches.  Elders were conspicuosly absent in His messages.

5. And by the way, you mentioned Ted Haggard as an example of a victim of a failed church structure, yet you calim you know no man's reputation.  Now, that is a contemporary case of hypocrisy.

I shal respond point by point

1. First part correct, second part is not. The pastoral is a function, and in a church setting it is carried out by qualified elders.

2. Paul in (Primarily in 1&2 Timothy & Titus laid out the proper structure and functioning of the church). Firstly, Timothy was not a "Pastor with sole authority" in the sense it is used today. He was acting in conjunction with Paul to establish the church in that locale (it was foundational, not ongoing). Once a church is established it is led by suitably qualified elders. Paul got his revelation about this direct from the Lord (it wasn't the adoption of a well worn Mosaic tradition). New wine, new wine skins.

3. As above. Just as the Apostles etc, all settled into eldership roles once the church had been established, no one in any church (Not counting The Lord of course), is charged with sole authority. Something else you've obviously seen fit to adopt from judaism, along with tithing and a priestly hierarchy. 

4. So then messenger is synonymous with pastor? I'm sure you are aware that it could be (and would be under vigourous scholarship) translated somewhat differently. Pastor of course suits your tightly held traditions. One is hard pressed to find a translation that uses the word Pastor more than once. It has been made (by men) into what it was never meant to be. The Lord had little to say about church structure (not directly anyway, that's why He sent Paul). It's quite a stretch to fit "Pastor with sole authority over the church" into "messenger". Especially when you think that there where numerous churches in each geographical region. Look harder sir, with a sincere heart you will see it. I'd also appreciate it if you could critique my church blueprint as outlined in my earlier response to Lafile. Scripturally of course .

5. If tradition has become so overwhelming and entrenched, that it has made the commandments of God of no effect, then everyone who partakes knowingly or otherwise, is either a perpetrator or victim. That is not about Ted Haggard. May I refer you to Matthew 23.

I can see that you swallowed wholesale prevailing traditional thinking. I would urge you to read the Bible with unbiased eyes. I am glad that you are aware of the ministry of the Holy Spirit. May He lead us all into all truth. may we allow Him.

God bless.

enugu:
I believe the issue here is The Ted Haggard Scandal not the TV01/TayoD argument, with all due respect my brethren.

Quite correct to. I apologise if my ongoing dialogue with TayoD may appear to have swamped the dialogue at hand. (TayoD, outside, now!  )

enugu:
2) Compassion is the key thing in our walk with our Master. TV01, I know that you are not honing in on personalities and I quite agreed with your take on this issue but my bros, it was a cold 'take' . No matter what, compassion, compassion, compassion.

Point taken. I hope that people can see that in my effort to remain objective about the issues, I like to be dispassionate when I write. Please don't feel that means I am not compassionate. It's a salutory lesson when anyone who names the name of Christ finds oneself in such a place. However, before this thing broke, I can't honestly say I had any knowledge of the man. It would be hypocritical for me to feign anguish or distress. I am looking to the lesson. Please don't judge me to harshly.

Thanks for your counsel.

I know (I think?) just the one word of Igbo.

Kachifo.

God bless

BabyOsisi,

I quote you below:

"But here we are talking specifically of a man of God that has fallen",

The "we" here does not include me.
If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times, I discuss, scripture, doctine, theology, faith, practice, outworking, concepts ideas, events, but not people.

No where have I accused, judged, condemned, ridiculed or even commented on Ted Haggard or the "scandal". In fact I'll go as far as to say I am only vaguely aware of the details of the case and simply skipped the letter from him you posted earlier.

If I have, please quote/reference where and I'll respond accordingly. Either to apologise and repent, or clear up any misunderstanding.

After all, I am covering for no one and authority over none. No reputation to defend and no position to protect. I have nothing to hide or to lose  !

Thanks & God bless

Hi Lafile,

In response to your question about church structure, my response is appended below.

I wouldn’t say I’m against, what I am, is “for”. I am for proper, biblically mandated church structure.

The gospel is simple, nothing convoluted or high-falutin’ about “The Way”.

The Bible outlines a church which requires only 2 offices, that of elder and deacon. Bishops, Shepherds, Pastors etcetera, are all different renderings of the role/functions of an Elder and are essentially synonymous and interchangeable. Pope, Cardinal, Archbishop, General Overseer, Superintendent, Senior Pastor and the like, are all symptomatic of men playing religion (as is denominationalism, the notion of “body splits” i.e. clergy/laity or leaders/followers, and other variants of the sectarian spirit).

Elders should always be in plurality (one obvious reason for this is to stop any one person becoming the focus of, or bearing overwhelming influence on the assembly). There is no requirement for salaried workers (with the possible exception of far flung missionaries whose sole purpose is to spread the gospel in as yet unreached places). That is why Elders receive double honour, as in addition to caring and providing for their families, they also share the burden of shepherding the flock of God.

Furthermore, the church is to be local, with locals ministering to each other and elders to be chosen from amongst proven, mature local men. No church requires or derives “apostolic succession”? authority or covering from any other. Neither is networking on a conference or regional basis necessary. The Lord Jesus is “Head” of the Church (His church, His bride), wherever it exists. There is nothing in the bible to suggest that the church is either “hierarchical”, or an “institution”. Neither is God Chairman/CEO. The church is a family and God is our Father.

Keeping it local obviates the need for temples (God no longer dwells in physical ones anyway), and keeps fellowship size manageable. It places church right back into the community like I believe God intended. Instead of what current churches do, which is to take believers out of their communities, effectively ghettoizing the church (taking the light out of the world, and hiding it in a temple).

Tithing is not required (neither is it biblically warranted). So, with no salaried workers, no temples, and no tithe, money essentially ceases to be an issue, and is only required when there is a genuine financial need within in the body (As is the pattern throughout Acts & the NT).

The Bible demands that provision is made for one’s family first (again torpedoing that evil “tithe” notion), for the needy in the church second and the needy outside after that.

I’ll stop for now to enable further comment from interested parties. Like I said, simple.

God bless.

ghengis:
One of my favourite quotes remains: "the best of men are still men at their very best". the fact that a preacher "messes up" does not change the possible truth in the message(s) he's preached. If verifiable news about Pastor Adeboye of RCCG (or anyother preacher for that matter) filters in to reveal some sordid habits, does that change how many people God has blessed through them?

1. Yes they are still men at best, and thats why the exaltation and glorying  that man-made religious structure engenders will always prove problematic at best.

2. Absolutely, a preacher can mess up and still preach truth. Presumably the caution behind Mathew 7:15+. Please note the end of such. Does that mean that the preachers end is of no consequence?

ghengis:
My call is; follow God, pick his possible messages from men but don't wlak blindly behind them. I've headed a campus fellowship before and i sincerely know the times i was really on a low point in my life but was required to still encourage people in fellowship. I see it that most God help us all.

1. Nothing essentially wrong with picking "messages" from men, but why does it sound as if you are implying that's the primary or best way to hear from God? Nobody is called to walk behind any man. He said "Follow me", "My voice". Enough of this "man" thing already!

2. If by low point you meant sin, what would have been "required" is confession, repentance and your being encouraged and loved by the fellowship. It's nothing short of galloping hubris to suggest that those in an unrepented sinful state are somehow essential to the well-being of others, or their Christian walk will be halted without you. Well did He call them hypocrites. It's that same sort of warped thinking that led to this whole sorry mess. It stops you from dealing with the sin in your life and it thus abounds. It gives them cause to look up to you as somehow "holier than thou", engendering the kind of exaltation and veneration. And the obvious end? I guess you get your own thread  !

If however, you just meant low, as a feeling or situational thing, there are very few people who don't have a thorn or two at any given time. But we press on.

~ Sin doesn't just happen
~ The enemy has a plan and it's deeper than just toppling a few mogs.
~ Ever think that sexual immorality in the physical may well be a reflection of spiritual fornication?
~ There's a bride, but there's also a LovePeddler. Get understanding & discern the difference.

God bless.

Carlosein:
to get this back on course, i just want to ask you a question which i think is a summary of all these postings and squabbles. it is this: from your understanding of the bible (or with reference to the word of God), WHAT IS THE PILLAR AND SUPPORT OF ALL TRUTHS- THE BIBLE OR THE CHURCH?

i look forward to your answer, and once again say am sorry for the misunderstanding.

God bless

First may I commend you for the good spirited way you have engaged in this discussion. Secondly may I apologise if I have given you reason to take offence. Please believe me when I say that was at no time my intention. Apologies also for my sometimes rambuctious literary style.

Having said that, back to the business in hand, which is to answer your question.

~ "THE BIBLE"

Please say on.

God bless

gbade. x:
@TV01,

dude, i don't understand that personality thingy. If you say you ain't going after their personalities, then what are you going after? You can't speak en mass because this ain't statistics. And if you say you ain't personalities, then you are using that haggard brother as an example.
Look, the point is, sin is sin and we're all humans embodied in this flesh. So irrespective of status or authority, we all face sin. And i think the problem's not in a pastor sheperding a huge flock, i believe it's a matter of the flesh overcoming that homey, Period! And since we "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God", who are we to condemn?
I hope ya now get the picture?

The Ted Haggard issue is just a poinnt in question.
I have not judged nor condenmed him, I did'nt even read the letter posted. And I am not really that interested in the particulars of this case.

My point is that what happened to him is an outworking of faulty theology and wrong doctrine embodied in church structure and hierarchy and manifested as what you see.

My posts are about this.
Bogus platitudes like judge not or who are we to condenm are not answering my point.

So because we have all sinned, that makes it alright then?

Please don't take offence, but this sounds like you reciting what people in such positions tell you.

God bless.

Ndipe:
Ynot, we are all sinners in the eyes of God. It is only the Grace of God that has absolved us of our sins.

I don't know that I agree with this.

True Christians are God's righteousness in Christ Jesus.

When you say we are sinners, yes in the sense that we can stumble, fall even.
But no in the sense that we are inverterate sinners, habitual evil doers or lovers of iniquity.
Calling yourself a sinner when God calls you righteous is to me misplaced humility, or smug piety.

If one has a long term entrenched sin issue (and whilst I don't want to get into the issue of grading sin - edspecially if it's something that screams rebellion against God like homosexuality), surely this is beyond "taking heed lest you fall". I'd say the word "apostate" comes into play.

Further, my argument about church structure and how it engenders this sort of thing is apt.

A man is exalted, venerated even. He is looked on as somehow closer to God, more holy, more knowledgable, a mediator between God and man. Now he has a serious sin issue. But he is still jetting around the world assuming cover for hundreds of churches, thousands of pastors and millions of people. How does that figure?

He has been made to feel he is somehow crucial, to individuals and the body. Men have told him this, honour him for it, and surely his status testifies to it. So why does'nt he step down? take time out? In fact he preaches against the very thing he practices (Romans 2 anyone?).

Surely it's only the flesh that would let you risk disqualification and total shipwreck, for the glory that comes from men?

God bless

Hi TayoD,

Continuing our discussion.

You're in red I'm in blue. You can be the home team.

Even Christ understood the fact that it takes men to point others to Him, no wonder He said to Peter three times to feed his sheep.  

Pray tell, did the Lord expect these fed to remain in need of feeding forever? Would you expect a younger brother of yours to be dependant on your for the entirety of his life?

Going by your conclusions, are we then to condemn Apostle Paul for telling us to follow him as he follows Christ?   And I wonder why there are stories of other men who serve God in the Bible if all we are to do is just keep our attention only on Jesus and not on the heritage of faith that others have left for us and are living in front of us.

You really do believe that faith in Jesus Christ is at least in part predicated on a relationship with MOGS don’t you. The Lord said “My sheep” He also said “My voice”. He went on to say “follow me”. And further “Take up your cross and follow me”. Due mostly to your flawed understanding of Christian relationship and interaction (you probably – knowingly or unknowingly – cling to an organisational/hierarchical model of church), you really can’t see it can you? Paul met with the Lord. Have you? Have you even met with Paul? “The treasure is in jars of clay, that the excellency may be of God”. We all imitate our earthly fathers or elder brothers, but you have to be able to stand. You really feel that giving attention to men will aid your walk? Can you tell the difference between a sheep and a lemming?

Hebrews 13: 7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.  But of course, according to the Gospel of TV01, that is tantamount to the works of the flesh.

Follow their faith, not them. Their example. Daddy was a coal miner and worked hard. Is it about being a coal miner or working hard? Dude, get understanding!

So the Old Testament is now anachronistic, unprofitable for doctrine, for reproof, correction and instructions in righteousness?  A clear case of what our reactions should be to the fall of a brother as illustrated by David's attitude is not applicable to us as Christians?

Again, you fail to read and respond in turn. I said you were misapplying the OT, your response is to say I am declaring it redundant. Speaks volumes about your reasoning and thought processes. BTW, the NT says rebuke sin and restore a fallen brother in love. The OT is not a template for NT Christian life. BY trying to force fit it, and ham-fistedly misapply it, you are undermining the fullness to be found in the NT.

Men, I wonder what you will teach in your church when you eventually become an Elder (since you do not believe in pastorship).

Again your ignorance thunders. An elder and a pastor are to a great degree synonymous. Again, you wrongly ascribe and plain misunderstand. I believe in the Lord. “Pastorship” is not something one believes in, it’s something one understands (or fails to) and applies (or mis-applies)accordingly. I have said time and again, there is no scriptural mandate for a “Pastorship” as commonly used in many churches these days, and that would include the sort assumed by Ted Haggard (I’m 100% sure that you won’t attempt to validate your “pastorship” stance from scripture, as it can’t be done!).

Your conclusions baffle me about Ted being a victim of the church structure.  When are you going to understand that the things which defile a man come from the inside (the heart) unto the outside?  How come others in such a position are not Homosexuals.  We know of the heritage of faith left by Kenneth E. Hagin.  Not once was he caught up in any scandal.  And he was in ministry for 70 years of his 86 years on earth.  Again, you will tell us it is not about personalities, but you will see the personality in the instance of a fall, but wouldn't in the instance of a triumph.

Please see my immediate previous response. The flawed structure and unscriptural mandates speak to and feed the flesh. The outworking is what you see all around you. There is a difference between a man honoured and respected as an elder (scriptural), and one revered and deferred to as a MOG (not scriptural).

I have nothing to say about anyone, but please hear this -  “For I know nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord”. Paul could not even presume to declare himself guiltless. And here you are endorsing a mere man, whom I doubt you even met. But then again, you venerate those who you haven’t even seen. Working hard for that "Mogsbottom" title

I am eagerly awaiting your response. I am actually quite keen to see just how far off point you can go, and convoluted you will be, to try and sustain a losing position.

God bless

TayoD,

As touching personalities, I always have time for you, not because we share doctrinal positions or for any personal reasons, but solely because I sense you are somewhat sincere (even if sincerely wrong  ). I know from experience that if one truly seeks God for Himself, He will be found.

That said, I am quite dissapointed at your responses on this thread. You started by lambasting me for no coherent reason whatsoever. When I pointed this out (amongst other things) in a short six point reponse, your replying post failed (intentionally I take it ) to answer any of my points. Instead you again went on to erroneously ascribe things to me and then try and rubbish my person & doctrine. I thought you'd leave the ad-hominem invective to political spin doctors and presidential  advisors, but I do understand, given your amour for politics.

I am sore dissapointed by your failure to stick to the points in hand, keep to doctrine and scripture and not let your emotions dictate your responses.

I'll try and respond direct to the points? you raised later.

God bless

TayoD,

I can see you are focusing on me and not our shared faith. Let me save you the time. I am not worth it.

Truth be told, that's not entirely surprising, as you appear to think it's about personalities.

Firstly, as I responded to BabyOsisi above, its not about any man.

Secondly, please show me where I  gloated over, judged or condenmed Ted Haggard. In fact, having re-read, I did'nt even refer to the charges or allegations against him.

Thirdly, why do you insist on mis-applying Old Testament narrative to NT Christianity? I am not David to His Saul. And like I went to great pains to point out, willingly or unwillingly, knowingly or unknowingly, he is a victim (as well as a perpetuator) of flawed church structure and tradition, which was the whole thrust of my post.

Fourthly, like BabyOsisi did, after (incorrectly & blindly) ranting on about my judging, you turn around and question if I'm a Christian or if I have the Spirit of God. You could have admonished what you perceived to be my immaturity or chastised my erroneous reading/application of scripture. But you take it on yourself to deem me "not of the kingdom of God".  

Fifthly, you can weep and gnash teeth all you like, cry anguish and distress till kingdom come, but the fact remains (which I would have mistakenly backed you to repond to), there is something fundamental flawed here. Christians fall into sin every day, how many of them do you weep for? As I have previously stated the current day MOG concept and, application is part of the problem. But you have every right to choose delusion.

Sixthly, I seek not my own glory, eschew any need to have a reputation. So please say on.

God bless.

babyosisi:
Honey,judgment belongs to God almighty.
Let's not be quick in casting blame
With what measure ye mete it shall be meted unto you the Bible says.

No one made Pastor Haggard a god and he has never claimed to be above man,desist from conclusions you know nothing about. If indeed you're a Christian,choose your words with wisdom. Rejoice with them that rejoice and mourn with they that mourn. Take heed,you are but a mere man.

Sister BabyOsisi (Please forgive the Sister bit, it's just that I'd feel somewhat forward addressing you by your tag alone),

Now to business,

If you've read any of my posts, you'd know that I am not interested in personalities, neither am I a respecter of persons.

My post was to highlight what I believe to be a fundamental flaw in church structure/hierarchy/organisation. This is not about Ted Haggard. We will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ and be judged according to our deeds. To me it's irrelevant what Ted Haggard claims to be or what men make him out to be.

My position (and I reiterate), is that men are sitting in places they are not meant to, places that will always see them succumb. God does not call anyone to be covering for 14'000 people, or 45'000 pastors of 30 million Saints. Even if you are as humble as pie sitting in such an exalted position will see you glorying in your flesh.

God doesn't call or mandate such exaltation. And the church structures and traditions which give rise to such offices are not scripturally mandated. If you assume such an office, through ambition or even a genuine desire to serve, don't be surprised when your flesh gets the better of you. It doesn't even have to be to such a height before it gets you. See the outworking in Catholicism. Small parish priests succumbing to perverse sexual immorality. demi-God Nigerian Pastors in tin shack churches giving in to unrestrained excess, bigamy, money laundering, murder ad nauseum. It's at all levels. No flesh shall glory in His presence - what it will do is the only thing it nows to do!

How many people did Paul minister too? Yet God gave him a "thorn in the side" to keep him in check. And this is a man who suffered immense privation, was itinerant, sacrificed the joys of family life, was a fugitive, shipwrecked and beaten to a pulp amongst other things.

I don't judge because I cannot justify and I don't condemn, because I cannot save. I speak that which is glaringly obvious to those who really care to see. I could come in here all teary eyed  playing my violin, talking of mercy and spouting misguided "judge not" platitudes, but this is not the time to be overly pious (is there ever?).

As for questioning my Christianity - suffice to say (as I always do), "The Lord knows those who are His"

davidylan:
What of Job? Was the enemy feeding off his ignorance too? Is there no more room for trials and temptations?

The adversary is a tool in God's hands.
He is limited in what he can do .

The devil can only attack Christians if they step out from under God's covering (or break the hedge so to speak). It's possible that God may allow the devil leeway in order to fulfil His own will. Pehaps one requires trying (as The Lord was). God does not tempt anyone. Succumbing to temptation is down to man giving leave to his lusts (flesh).

1 John 5:18 - We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him.

James 1:13 - Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

God bless

Carlosein:
No way I'm shooting complex BIBLICAL teaching in your direction if you fail in the space of days (weeks really!) to understand SIMPLE teachings as all the above. St. Paul would not expect me to proceed since you are unable to chew these with milk teeth, i can not feed you with solid food.

Please help me leave my childish dietary habits behind and move on to solid food  .

Carlosein:
When you have seen the light and you know the truth and accept the truth, only then will you be saved

But that can't happen if you refuse to shed light (i.e. feed me meat) can it  ?

So sir, it all sounds a bit circular to me. You won't share your deep insights with me, as I am still on milk. But if I see the light, i.e if I come to understanding, then you will enlighten me?

If you have something to share, please feel free to do so. Maybe it will be good for edification, or hep one become more mature. Or maybe after growing some more one will come to the conclusion that  "Carlosein was right all along".

Those who hubristically believe they are the custodians of God's truth, sharing it with whom they see fit, promoting religious caste hierarchies and persecuting those who question or don't submit to them are at the root of all Christianity's problems  .

Thank God for the Holy Spirit. "He will lead me into all truth"

God bless.

You know it never ceases to amaze me? When will people wake up, when will people go to God for themselves and settle for nothing less than being recreated in the image of the Lord Jesus by the power of The Holy Spirit. Why are you so insistent on being mentored, covered, shepherded and taught by cursed flesh? Does no one have the desire for a personal encounter with their Creator? Is no one willing to make the sacrifice to get into His presence? You satisfy yourselves with proxies, human mediators, man-made organizational structures and religious activity in its most perverse form.

How long will you pin your hopes on personalities and venerate mere men? The really weird thing in all of this is that you set this man up to fall and many to fall after/with him.

Let me explain.

I am told that as head of the NAEA (North American Evangelical Alliance), this guy is the “cover” for 30 million Christians. I am told he is the cover for 45’000 pastors and personally pastors a church of 14’000. The truth is God gives that charge to no man. Men gave him that mandate. And it’s stealing Gods glory.

Such an exalted position and “covering authority” is not granted to men, period. Men cannot cover men, ‘cause flesh cannot cover flesh (that’s known as an orgy, check out the sexual immorality amongst your MOGS!) It’s trying to share the Lords glory, it’s sitting in his seat. He is the only mediator. All a man can do is glory in the flesh, but alas, in the flesh is no good thing. Exalt the flesh and it will do what flesh does, sin, and as wickedly as it can.

Why do you think you MOGS and GMOGS always fall so terribly, it’s because flesh cannot cope with the kind of exaltation you give these people. Why do you think they turn to pederasty, drugs, murder, wholesale malfeasance, grand larceny, and every evil imaginable? And when will you read deep and stop peddling out the same sorry excuses of the devil targeting MOGS/GMOGS. Listen, the devil wants every Christian wallowing and dying in sin.

If he targets them, it’s because he’s feeding off your scriptural ignorance. The devil can only touch you if you step out from under God’s covering. Period. He is a tool in God’s hands not some freelance operator. How weird is that? Exalting man and glorifying the adversary.

It’s not as if the Bible is not choc-a-block with warnings. Where does one start?

There are more to come and it will get increasingly worse. Look to Him from whence cometh your help, and don’t even bat an eyelid when you hear of these things. Many call Him Lord, but do not do the things that He says. The signs, wonders works (huge temples, massive crusades, etc etc) avail nothing. "The Lord knows those who are His, and let everyone who names the name of Christ Lord depart from iniquity". Period.

The voice of one cryin'

TayoD:
@TV01,

Looks like we finally have a topic to agree on.

What are you saying?
Read it again, more carefully this time, I'm sure there's something in there that is a gross perversion of scripture !

I'll do a complete about turn if that will help?
TayoD, please, it's essential we don't agree, no one else even starts to engage me on this site anymore.

Eureka. Ha!

This to me ties in with our ongoing discussion in "Christians & Politics"
Ceasar is the state. And politics is allying, consorting, partnering with the state - Ergo, there's no way we agree .

Phew, for a moment you had me going .

God bless dude

Hi Peeps,

Carlosein:
again i repeat to TV01 that the sincere and simple seeker after THE TRUTH, will come to the conclusions that there are divine revelations which are not in the bible

So? I'm am concerned solely with the truth of God in Christ Jesus.
The Bible contains all the pertains to life and Godliness in this respect.

The Bible itself says if all the miracles that Jesus did where documented, there probably wouldn't be space enough. Do I need to know every word God ever uttered to any/all of the Archangels? or the adversary? Or every angelic encounter? No! So revelation outside the Bible, be it of a divine nature is of no real import to my being a Christian/disciple of Christ.

The Bible testifies the Jesus Christ is the fullest revelation of God, The brightness of His Glory and the express image of His Person. The one through whom He now speaks unmediated (self-styled prophets, apostles etc etc kicked into touch right there!)

Carlosein:
but just as inspired as the bible but maybe you have not pondered this as i thought.

Like I said above, I see no point in "pondering" extra-curricular material. The Bible is complete, perfect for perfecting children of God in Christ Jesus.

Carlosein:
well this discussion is much too prolonged and i have only one more posting after this and
that depends on what i read here.

Go ahead, shoot!

Carlosein:
read all what is posted here from the word go and see how many actually make sense please stoop unnecessary bickerings (or what do u call this?)

On the one side (mine) a thoughtful attempt to engage, on the other (yours), a thinly veiled attempt to foister (and wholesale for that matter) you deeply entrenched tradition. Everybody say after me - No to Popery!! Down with man-made tradition!!

Carlosein:
again Dominus Vobiscum

And again, God bless you.

Hi All,

babyosisi:
Drusilla,I really thought you were a Christian until I saw your postings somewhere else.
The gospel is still the same.

BabyOsisi, that's not fair. "The Lord knows those who are His"

We problbably all have points of difference and areas of greater or lesser maturity. I confess to having made complete about turns on some previously held positions. It did'nt make me any less a Christian, just a growing one. I don't think that call is yours to make.

davidylan:
No she's just masquerading as one. Even the devil can quote the bible, it does not make him a believer! From several postings of her's that I've read especially on the racism threads, she's more of head knowledge than a genuine heart conviction!

Davidylan, same again. I don't happen to share what I discern to be Drusilla's position in her postings about race, but doesn't give me the right to label her a fraud. Presumably if you can find just the one point of difference between yourself and another self confessed Christian, then that gives you the right to label them a charlatan?

It's a walk that we all make individually. It's a relationship that we all have to nurture without proxies. None of us has full knowledge or understanding of anothers walk. The Lord does. And He knows those who truly love Him and leads them by his grace.

As to the post in question, I for one can see Drusila's point (In both her posts on this thread).

A LovePeddler is always a lot more obvious, than a bride.

God bless

babyosisi:
I said CHURCHES were tax exempt not christians.

That's not quite the point I was making.

Christians pay tax right?
Then come together, call themselves an organisation and claim the tax back. Why?
It's the state's way of making the church subject. The tax breaks come at a price, physically and spiritually.
It also raise questions about trust in our Lord if we look to the state for resourcing


What should happen is that Christians pay tax - and then dispose of their money as they choose, and it's no concern of the state. We don't need Ceasars tax breaks. The state funding is a sly way of making the church subject. We are subject only to the Lord, our Head & Husband.

Neither is the church an organisation (corporation, registered charity, legal entity etc etc).
We are the body of Christ and should in no way be yoked to the state. One of the big pointers to false religion is any kind of alliance with the state.

Nigeria's case is somewhat different. As I don't believe the churches get tax breaks or register as companies. As such they are not tied to the State. But that doesn't give them leave to break the law (ill-gotten gains as tithes/offerings).

God bless.

Eineje:
I think that EFCC should probe churches because of the way they are managed,finance and run at times are not really transperant.It should be noted that most religous if not all religous instituition in Nigeria do not pay any form of tax even though they handle a lot of monies which they do not account for

Yes and no, right and wrong (methinks anyway).

If members of a church pay their taxes, they are free to dispose of their earnings as they see fit. Like any other member of society. Having rendered unto Ceasar what is his. Disposal of legally acquired funds ceases to be any of the states concern.

If however a church yokes itself to Ceasar (by registering as a charity, incorporating as a business, or otherwise assuming a status that is sanctioned by and thus subject to the state), that puts a different hue on things.

Businesses and charities are subject to Ceasar, it's why they could ride roughshod into KICC and do pretty much as they pleased. Although a "registered charity" buying an 80 grand chariot for a pastor is government business. If a group of believers decide to do the same it's between them & God. Not that I am suggesting that it's a good idea, I am just making the point that, if you yoke yourself to Ceasar, he will deal with you on his terms

babyosisi:
Churches ad religious organisations are tax exempt.
They are non profit.

No, Christians are not tax exempt. By (counter-intuitively & contra scripturally) registering/incorporating, they are after Ceasars coin. All we need do is trust God with what we have and to supply what we need.

In whatever guise, how can the aim of Church be profit?

God bless

Hi Olex,

It is not my intention to prolong this discussion any further.
Unfortunately,


Christianity ‘can exist’ without the Bible.
Really? How?

The early church had no Bible. What we today call the Bible is a collection of the Hebrew scriptures and writings by the apostles of Jesus and Saint Paul.
So, if they had the Hebrew scriptures, they had some of the Bible (the old bits) right? And the new bits just required penning. By the Apostles of Jesus including Paul.

It is made up of books written by inspired men and women.
Inspired by whom (or what) may I ask? And which one's were written by women?

As I stated in an earlier post, in the Catholic Church there is the belief that God continues to reveal Himself to men and women all across the world till this day.
Believers beyond the Roman Catholic Church also believe this. But to some, it's not in the sense or revealing new truth. Just revealing and deepening His eternal unchanging ones.

Why don’t we all think about this—the Bible is the product of the church. The church is not a product of the Bible.
Does that mean God had nothing to do with it? Sounds strange to me when one calls to mind that without abiding in the Word, you can't be a disciple, whereas you can go to/attend/join a church and not be. To accept the above statement as fact means the church is subject to itself (men that is!) and not the Lord.

Thus, Roman Catholic practices have become refined over time.
And this refining is done by? Under whose Authority? For what purpose?

However, what matters most is doing good and following the teachings of Christ each day as well as loving our fellow human beings and living in peace with everyone.
Aaah, something we can agree on.

God bless

Dominobaby nailed it! Although I doubt "religious" people read their bibles, or at least not with an open heart. It's just to confirm their denominational traditions and doctrines.

You are absolutely right. "Only God can save us all"

Hi Donzman, Please have a read when you have the time. You may well have something insightful to add.

Hi TayoD,

Good w/e end I trust.

You said;
You sure have your way of running with a scripture without balancing that scripture with others.  I have emphasised in our discussion, the need to have the Bible explain itself, but it seems you are just set in your ways and your thought.  In any case, why not try and balance the referenced scripture above with the following:
Proverbs 29:2
Show me a righteous ruler and I will show you a happy people. Show me a wicked ruler and I will show you a miserable people. (GNT)
When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn. (KJV)
When the godly are in authority, the people rejoice. But when the wicked are in power, they groan (NLT).

My response;
I must say you almost have a half point here. But it doesn't bear out under close scrutiny. I know of no Godly rulers, but lots of relatively happy countries/states. How manage? Secondly, you need to understand that Judaism coloured everything the Jews did. To such an extent that the religion/culture and politics where pretty much one. The test of a ruler in Judah?Israel was not their miltary might or their economic prowess, it was how God-fearing they were.

You said;
This assertion can not be corroborated by scripture, nor by history.  With respect to history, Nigeria is what it is today basically because one man (Babangida) became the head of State.  Much of the corruption and lack of respect for lives and properties became the norm when he came into power.  In other words, the nation tends to take on the character of the leader.  Read through the book of Kings and Chronicles in the Bible, and you will see that Isreal either turns away or serve God based on the ruling King.  When the King is God-fearing, the whole of Isreal tend to be God-fearing and vice versa.

My response;
I don't know many people who have anything good to say about IBB, but you are the first person I know to lay the whole blame for Nigeria's woes at his feet. Your point here cannot be corroborated by history, as Nigeria's problems have their roots in distant history and where well seeded before IBB arrived on the scene, he merely upped the ante. As for scripture, please read on. Let me try and link this with my response to your insightful piece about Israel with the "Thrones" thing I mentioned earlier. When the Kingdom was split into Israel & Judah it essentially established two thrones. The one of Judah was of God and was always relatively peaceful. Israel was a bad throne, a throne of rebellion. It will almost always corrupt whomever sits on it if they are not corrupt already. Therein lies the danger of trying to sit on the thrones of this world by worldly means. Maybe I should have been using corrupt instead of compromise in my earlier posts.

You said;
Your error is still based on your assumption that the 'world' refers to politics, commerce and culture.  I have shown you scriptures over and over again that contradicts your view but you just won't accept it.  Claiming you have to be compromised to attain political power, yet stating that God can favour you to such a 'compromising' position is an affront on the integrity of Almighty God.  Mitchelle Bachmann was in church giving all the glory to God.  By her position in politics, she's gained such a visibility (a city set on a hill that cannot be hid), and through that visibility, her testimony of Christ is heard in more homes across the State than most preachers or believers will ever dream of.

My response;
I made it very clear (and showed scriptural references) that the world comprised of Kingdoms (amongst other things). A kingdom/State, comprises of Politics, commerce, culture and much much more. I don't know if I previously mis-stated, or you misread, but I have subsequently made it very clear that I don't lump all the elements together as one. Politics and its power, ways & means are what are under discussion here. Trying to ascribe things to me was not funny the first time you tried it. Now it's unfunny and tedious to boot.

You said;
Please tell this to God, and advice Him that His role as a King (Executive), Lawgiver (Legislative) and Judge (Judiciary) is ill-adviced.  Can't you see that America, founded on the biblical principles actually got the idea of democracy from God as revealed in Isaiah 33:22 For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.
So since when did it become 'wordly' and 'ungodly' to imitiate God?  Ephesians 5:1  Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children

My response;
I'm not sure if you misread what I meant if it actually matters given your ham-fisted way with the scriptures. Would you like scriptures showing that "Man" in his carnal state cannot be redeemed by law. Does God do it by law or by Grace. The riposte abouy God as King, lawgiver and judge sounds like you're out of ideas and thus "running to Daddy". Since when did Kings and democracy go together?

I won't reference (or research) the lady you mentioned. As I always maintain, it's not about personalities. But about "Giving glory to God". Half measures, compromise, pyhrric victories on bogus battle fronts and the mistaken assumption that God's kingdom is of this world or advanced by things of this world is in no way God gloryfying. Even if it's well intended, it's still misguided.

I won't argue about about America's founding principles ( I wasn't there  ), but please don't roll out that sorry old cliche about it being a Christian country. There are no Christian countries.

Say on sir.

God bless.

Endi:
The Issue is not the denomination in Christainity that is worth it, Its your personal relationship with Baba God and his Son that matters.

Maybe not how I would have worded it, but the above matcches my sentiment pretty much exactly.

Denominationalism (and the spirit behind it - which to my mind is no different from {or at least closely related to } the one behind, racism, sectarianism, apartheid etc etc) is one of trhe enemy's biggest tools.

The body of Christ (aka The Bride) is one. Headed by the Lord Himself (The Bridegroom). None of the 37'000 odd denominations can lay claim to all truth, knowledge or solely representing the Lord here on earth.

The Bible simply states "The Lord knows those who are His" No amount of convoluted scriptural exegesis will change that fact. There is no denominational tag, attendance or membership that validates anyone as a Christian. Or for those who don't like that tag, "A disciple of Christ". He said "If you abide in my Word, you are my disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free"

He is a rewarder of those who seek Him - unqualified. And there is no particular denominational vehicle nominated to do that.

All of the man-made dogmas, traditions, doctrines and precepts are futile in the pursuit of God.

There is only One Mediator between man & God, the Man Jesus Christ

My advice? Grab your bibles and fall to your knees.

Carlosein:
Finally, i find it out of place that u should have quoted that particular passage, i mean "The fullness of Christianity and everything that pertains to it is to be found in Christ" when u should be saying something like the fulness of christianity is to be found in the BIBLE! (your initial point)

Christ is the Living Word - same difference sir.

God bless.