₦airaland Forum

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

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35449.msg810774#msg810774 date=1168525081]The floor is now open.[/quote]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 !

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35349.msg810736#msg810736 date=1168524220]Only real man can tame this tempest storm! [/quote]Please post a pic so the real men can see if the effort will be worthwile  

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35349.msg810736#msg810736 date=1168524220]I am not impressed.  [/quote]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 

[quote author=Dr. Tee link=topic=30758.msg706766#msg706766 date=1163692377]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.[/quote]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

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.