birdman,

Exactly.

I wish some people on here would learn to summarise.

I also would like to see certain people back up some of their claims. Not just make a statement.

This is what Satan enjoys. He makes us put our trust in the arms of flesh, and when they fail us we curse and swear. As much as I am affected by this man's deception, and lies, I cannot allow my feelings to get in the way.

Jesus died for him too, and there is hope in Jesus. Don't forget that! Jesus saves to the uttermost those from the guttermost.

We do not know what personal suffering Haggard went through, and all this may have happened in order to save his soul. let us not write off anyone.

Bless.

Asi-oqua:

one might wonder, how did he so far in the christendom without being noticed? was he true christian in the first place?

Yes he was, but like many people, he was a hypocrite and a pathetic troubled Christian.

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,

@TV01,

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  

This statement can only come from one whose dogged stance to his position can never cause him to see the obvious.  Perhaps you should begin by asking yourself what does the word Pastor mean and what are the innevitable concomitance of that name?  Let me help you here.   Going by the Greek word Poimen, a Pastor is a herdsman, he is one to whose care and control others have committed themselves, and whose precepts they follow.   For you to know the job description of a Pastor (shepherd), you will need to understand the revelations of a shepherd as revealed in scriptures.  When you do, then you will begin to understand what Jesus had in mind when HE called some to be Pastors and Teachers.

And one of the things the Apostles took great care to do was leave a blueprint for proper church functioning.

To imply that the Apostles established a "fixed" administrative structure for the church that is meant to be adopted by all is uncorroborated by scripture.  To begin with, the first of two offices you claim is only relevant in the church today was established not because the Lord instructed it to be, but due to necessity.  Remember the situation that necessitated the election of Deacons?  Even the Apostles realise the need for dynamism as the work of the Lord demands.  They set forth a principle in that situation.  Every administrative structure that will ensure that the clergy is focused on the ministry of the Word is very much welcome!  

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?

Your selective amnesia is beginning to kick in here.  So you no longer remember that I said that Pastors can be, though not necessarily elders?  There is no proof to the composition of those elders and for all you know, Pastors will likely be part of them.  Besides, aren't you the one that said and I concur, that Pastors and Elders are used interchangeably in the NT?  Please swap the word Elders with the Word Pastors in your statement and tell me if you are making any sense.

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.

Now this is beginning to turn into a situation of "How readest thou"?  1 Timothy 5:17 definitely lays emphasis to the fact that the primary role of an Elder is RULING.  Going by the Lord's plan, what we call the five-fold ministry is actually four-fold.  The Lord called some to the ministry of Pastoring and Teaching.  The Pastoral ministry is meant to be the teaching ministry as well.  That makes sense when you realise that the Shephard (Pastor) is supposed to FEED the sheep with the Word of God.  Now can you show us where the Lord called some to be Elders?  Ephesians 4:11 And he gave some, (1.)apostles; and some, (2)prophets; and some, (3)evangelists; and some, (4)pastors and teachers;  Clearly it was the Lord's intentions that the job of teaching should fall to the Pastors.  This is also one of the reasons why I mentioned before that the "Elder" thing is just a carry-over of the judaism tradition into Christianity.  Perhaps that is the Christian Culture you alluded to in our other discussion.

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 amaze me by your words without knowledge.  The pastor aint important, yet it is one of four ministries that Jesus calls His own into.  It is not that important yet Jesus told Peter 3 times He wants His sheep fed (obviously by a shepherd - Pastor).  If we apply this faulty logic of yours, then we will also thrash the office of the Evangelist.  Now I am beginning to see no point in engaging in this discussions with you.  You claim others are wallowing in the deep waters of tradition, yet you are trying to make an obvious tradition into a commandment of the Lord.  I surely can't wish you God-speed when you embark on such a futile journey.

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.

Here is your answers in Titus 1:5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:  The elders of the Nigerian church will be found in the organisation called PFN or CAN.  Issues that affect the church universally are discussed and prayed about in that forum.  Such an organisation in London will fit the same bill.  But wait a minute, these people are performing the role that Elders perform in the Book of Acts, but they only go by a different nomenclature.  That should be understandable when we realise that the Elder concept is one that was obviosuly local to the Jewish community.

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.

If the church remains within the confines of your home, then it obviously requires little administration.  On the other hand if it is the church of the last days that the Word prophesies that ALL nations shall flow into it, then we are talking about a whole new level of administration.

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.

Please alsways put an addendum behind your own definitions.  Reading through the entire context of 1 Corinthians 9, Paul made it clear that everyone (not missionaries alone), who sow spiritual seeds into our lives have the right to expect to receive carnal rewards from us.  Besides, Missionaries are supported in most cases by people who do not receive ministry directly from them.  In this you show complete ignorance again.  You sure love to go beyond that which is written isn't it?  What is wrong with having a private jet that gets you around to preach the word?  Tell me, who has the potential to reach the unreached better, a preacher on horse back or one with a plane?  I wonder why you are even on the internet whne Jesus never used one during His days on earth.  Arent you compromising your faith?

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!

Perhaps you are blinded to the part of the scripture in 1 Corinthians 9:13 that says Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.  That Paul wasn't receiving of the Corinthians does not mean he wasn't receiving elsewhere.  He just sensed that the Corinthians will take it in bad faith like you are doing with others right now.  This is an indictment on the church as much as it is a show of maturity on the part of Paul.  The Phillipians who gave to Paul were witnessed to be blessed and fruitful and were a participant in the grace of God upon the life of Paul.   As usual, you have witnessed to your lopsided and narrow-mindedness as regards the teachings of the scriptures.

Dear TV01 ,

You got it right- kachifo is the Igbo word for good night. Literally, it means 'may the day break/dawn'

I don't believe you are without compassion. I believe that in all this, we will all have different approaches- some with the compassion and nothing else approach, some with the rod and staff approach and so on; so I respect everyone's approach so far as it reflects the Lord. Remember, He did not hestitate to 'bulala' people out of His Father's house when they were mis-using it!

However, I still insist that theological arguments of the kind between the two Ts- TV01 & TayoD, cause us to derail. Yes, your points are salient and pertinent to the matter at hand but they are not, at this point in time, the matter at hand!

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.

Hope that makes sense

Ka Chineke mezie okwu (May God fix/adjust/make well the talk)

LAWDIE!!!i didnt knoe this post will incite all this
                     
                   i feel it goes to show that we are after all Human
                     Homosexuality is as Wrong as Murder and shouldnt be condoned at all
                     
                  But the fact is Ted Haggard was a Christain who sinned and has asked God for forgiveness
                     We cant even say "hey he misled us" cos we arent to  look unto man as Christians but Jesus Christ o! in the first place"

                   All we have to do is;
                    live according to the bible and the Holy Spirit,
                    pray,
                    pray in tongues,
                    praise and thank God always
                    Fellowship with believers when needed
                    Help people out
                    Basically let Jesus be ur example not any Human!

That's thoughtful and human sis,
What's good?

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.

Now, I've seen some pretty ignorant posts on this here message board but this one, this one takes the cake:

Homosexuality is as Wrong as Murder and shouldnt be condoned at all

Wow. Just wow.

u know Exu i can see how degenerate ur mind is
my statement is as true and real as that , in ur pants, lol

Gamine:

Homosexuality is as Wrong as Murder and shouldnt be condoned at all

my statement is as true and real as that

Why and how?

It is a Sin.

Gamine:

It is a Sin.

Why? Is it also just as bad as lying to save a child's life? What about stealing to feed an entire country?

KAG:

It is a Sin.

Why? Is it also just as bad as lying to save a child's life? What about stealing to feed an entire country?

I think your arguments from moral relativity are lost on Gamine, but who knows, maybe you are interested, Gamine.

I think your arguments from moral relativity are lost on Gamine, but who knows, maybe you are interested, Gamine.
[quote][/quote]

i dont understand this at all

Hello guys,
I find this exchange of vituperations totally unnecessary. Why do we Christians like fighting ourselves? Why do we like proving we are right and better than others? I think it is nothing but a show of self.

I mean we are talking about a fallen general here and we go on arguing with ourselves when we should be praying for him and discussing what we learn from the whole saga.

Well, I am learning my lessons and so are Nigerian Pastors. Please find out what they have to say and learn from Haggard's fall from on grace in The Nation on Sunday(Page 50). Let's remember we are all in the same boat and as vulnerable as Haggard.

Thanks

I hope its not too late to contribute to the discussion.
I find it sad (almost in tears as I read his letter) to learn about the scandal surrounding Pastor Ted.
I have been blessed by his ministry,as I have sat under his ministration  3 years ago.
His words on the sin of the flesh, that day still rings in my ear,and it all the more makes me remember the words of Paul,that has been quoted here;'Let him that thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.
There is also words of admonition from Peter(who should know better):
  Wherefore the rather,brethren,give diligence to make your calling and election sure:for if ye do these things,ye shall never fall2 Peter1:10)
God's grace is available to help us as we daily encounter temptations.
Let the believers pray he's restored like David,Peter were after moments of failings, and leave the accusers to savage him as that is their job.
The word of God stands forever despite one of his saints, that missed the mark.

Gamine:

nferyn link=topic=29802.msg705892#msg705892 date=1163629182:

I think your arguments from moral relativity are lost on Gamine, but who knows, maybe you are interested, Gamine.

i don't understand this at all

All true morality is relative. For example, you cannot just say that killing is wrong, period. Killing a murderer who is about to slaughter hundreds of people is morally justifiable. Ar elativistic morality is based on a few principles and these principles are then applied to a specific case. I for example subscribe to a form of utilitarian ethics where two actions should be judged and weighed against each other by looking at their effects, more specifically, you should choose the action that maximises the happiness for the largest number of people.
At least it's better than maxims such as "do not suffer a witch to live" or "an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth"

@Nferyn

From reading your posts, I can see you have a deep understand of ethical philosphy. I like that, I took a course in business ethics last year and I absolutely loved it even though I was uncomfortable with the idea that no idea is absolutely right in that field of study. I'm into Kantian Ethics which you should have a good idea of and I subscribe to that idea without a doubt.

"I am never to act otherwise than to will that my maxim should become universal law."  which is the categorical imperative and
"Act to treat humanity, whether yourself or another, as an end-in-itself and never as a means." which is the practical imperative. He also believed that if you do something because you are required to or you're inclined to do it due to your upbringing then that action has no moral worth. I do not entirely subscribe to that idea for reasons too long to enumerate now.

The categorical imperative implies that killing is wrong and lying is wrong no matter the consequences. Ethics/Morality should not be based on consequences like the Utilitarians will want you to believe because more often than not, the outcomes are not within our control. With the Utilitarian point of view, it may be considered "right" to do alot of things we will not want done to us. To Utilitarians, the motive for an action does not matter which is just wrong. That line of reasoning will justify taking away a kid from the mother and giving it to a richer family if it makes everybody else happy except the mother. I belive in "Do unto other as you want other to do unto you", I would not want to die if it's going to make 1 million people happy and neither will I support killing a man if it's going to make a million people happy.

Utilitarian economics is great, utilitarian ethics on the other hand? Nope!

oh [b]Nferyn[/b]i get u
[size=5pt]*whut sort of name is tht^^nerfyn, lol[/size]

Donzman:

@Nferyn

From reading your posts, I can see you have a deep understand of ethical philosphy. I like that, I took a course in business ethics last year and I absolutely loved it even though I was uncomfortable with the idea that no idea is absolutely right in that field of study. I'm into Kantian Ethics which you should have a good idea of and I subscribe to that idea without a doubt.

I doubt everything, but hey, I'm only a liberal pussy, so I can't have any convictions anyway

Donzman:

"I am never to act otherwise than to will that my maxim should become universal law." which is the categorical imperative and
"Act to treat humanity, whether yourself or another, as an end-in-itself and never as a means." which is the practical imperative. He also believed that if you do something because you are required to or you're inclined to do it due to your upbringing then that action has no moral worth. I do not entirely subscribe to that idea for reasons too long to enumerate now.

I do not subscribe to Kant's vision because it's basically essentialism and builds too much on the classical Greek worldview. Even though I believe all morality should be relative, that doesn't mean that that relativity has no foundations. Actually, our human evolutionary history gave us some behaviours that point to a universal moral sense (e.g. the golden rule). Reciprocal altruism and kin-selection hard-wired that moral sense into our behavioural patterns. So, I'm not advocating unrestricted utilitarianism as it contradits our universal moral sense.
When considering most of theistic morality, I would follow Kant in proclaiming it to be of no moral worth, as:
1. accepting a theistic moral maxim is based on blind obedience
2. the reason for accepting such a moral maxim lies in the fear for pubishment rather than in a desire to do good.

Donzman:

The categorical imperative implies that killing is wrong and lying is wrong no matter the consequences. Ethics/Morality should not be based on consequences like the Utilitarians will want you to believe because more often than not, the outcomes are not within our control.

I don't mean to imply that it's a perfect system or that one should come a fundamentalist utilitarian/consequentialist. People constantly make decisions on imperfect information because inaction can be just as harmful and is a position in itself.

Donzman:

With the Utilitarian point of view, it may be considered "right" to do alot of things we will not want done to us. To Utilitarians, the motive for an action does not matter which is just wrong.

I intuitively agree, but i have not seen any convincing explanation for why it's wrong.

Donzman:

That line of reasoning will justify taking away a kid from the mother and giving it to a richer family if it makes everybody else happy except the mother.

In a sketchbook version of utilitarianism maybe, the effects of such an action on society as a whole aren't taken into account in your example

Donzman:

I believe in "Do unto other as you want other to do unto you", I would not want to die if it's going to make 1 million people happy and neither will I support killing a man if it's going to make a million people happy.

That's our natural, evolutionary morality that surfaces and I agree, even though rationally speaking it's a wrong position to take.

Donzman:

Utilitarian economics is great, utilitarian ethics on the other hand? Nope!

Why single out utilitarian ethics? Utilitarian economics is subject to the same kind of problems.

@ Donzman,

You might be interested in this:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,315,Morality,Radio-Lab--WNYCorg

Gamine:

oh [b]Nferyn[/b]i get u
*whut sort of name is that^^nerfyn, lol

I already explained the orgin of my username here

Homosexuality is as Wrong as Murder and shouldnt be condoned at all

If your pastor turns out to be homosexual, it's the same as being murdered by your pastor!
Good thinking!! Ted Haggard should be sentenced to death for this murderous crime!!

In the sight of God,sin is sin.

@Seun, u made no sense at all in :If your pastor turns out to be homosexual, it's the same as being murdered by your pastor!
Good thinking!! Ted Haggard should be sentenced to death for this murderous crime!!
End Quote.

ITS REALLY A CONFUSING FRIENDS. I GUESS THIS IS NOT TRUE BUT IF IT IS, THEN WHAT ARE WE GOING TO SHILOH TO DO ? TO DRINK FROM A CORRUPT SOURCE OR WHAT ? I HOPE MEMBERS OF WINNERS CHAPEL ARE READING THIS ?

GOD HELP OOOOOOOOOOO, ANY WAY, LETS WAIT TILL JESUS COMES

goshen,it is true but God is all forgiving.
A friend emailed me from Naija asking if it really did happen.
Lets keep praying for Pastor Ted.

Gamine:

@Seun, u made no sense at all in If your pastor turns out to be homosexual, it's the same as being murdered by your pastor!
Good thinking!! Ted Haggard should be sentenced to death for this murderous crime!!

If homosexuality is as bad as murder, and Ted Haggard is involved in homosexuality,
shouldn't he be punished the same way a murderer is punished? I.e. life imprisonment or death sentence?

Seun:

If homosexuality is as bad as murder, and Ted Haggard is involved in homosexuality,
shouldn't he be punished the same way a murderer is punished? I.e. life imprisonment or death sentence?

The laws of God are different from the carnal laws of man.