Real Church

[ItinerantPreacher]

The usual divide here, once again rears its ugly head.
It appears most evangelicals read the Scripture, like that lawyer 2,000 years ago, seeking to justify themselves rather than adapt to God's way.

We have had such a corruption of Western politics, that the words "checks and balances" have become empty classroom rhetoric, rather than urgent self defense mechanisms.

Thankfully, to Native Americans:
Everyone seated in a circle, with only the elder men speaking, in turn, is normal, so ICor. 14 makes perfect sense to us.

Earnestly Contend.

prophet, there are more than a couple of divides here on the issue.

You advocate that there must be a plurality of elders for the church to exist.

I advocate that a plurality is fine, but not necessary, and that the plurality must have a reason to exist, in other words there needs to be a reasonable ration regarding leadership, and within the plurality there must be a focal point.

But there are others here who advocate that there must be a plurality, they say that they do not desire to be in leadership, but in practice they themselves must be part of that plurality because to deny them the right and opportunity to be included in the plurality is lording it over them, and in practice the group must remain small enough for them to control it without being in leadership. The truth is that mentality is far more destructive and counter productve than the MOG mentality that many here are vehemently against.

I can't find any place in Scripture where Jesus or any Apostle overturned the plurality of leadership that Jesus established when He first called out the Church.

You are looking from a post RCC takeover position, saying (for all intents and purposes) :"show me in Scripture where it says I have to overturn Rome's error".

R.T., and I , and others, are saying, "if God never told us to anoint a single leader, than we shouldn't, and o, by the way, we see where we are told not to".

prophet, I am aware you and I do not see eye to eye on the issue, my response was to point out the you and RT are likely further apart than you are closer together.

IMO

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

prophet, I am aware you and I do not see eye to eye on the issue, my response was to point out the you and RT are likely further apart than you are closer together.

IMO

Divide and conquer.  What an evil strategy. 

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

prophet, I am aware you and I do not see eye to eye on the issue, my response was to point out the you and RT are likely further apart than you are closer together.

IMO

Divide and conquer.  What an evil strategy.

Noting evil meant by it. Just pointing it out.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=ItinerantPreacher]I advocate that a plurality is fine, but not necessary, and that the plurality must have a reason to exist, in other words there needs to be a reasonable ration regarding leadership, and within the plurality there must be a focal point. [/quote]

Give me a Mog!

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

[quote author=ItinerantPreacher]I advocate that a plurality is fine, but not necessary, and that the plurality must have a reason to exist, in other words there needs to be a reasonable ration regarding leadership, and within the plurality there must be a focal point.

Give me a Mog!
[/quote]

Give me a Grog!!  Arrrrh. 

 

[prophet]

The usual divide here, once again rears its ugly head.
It appears most evangelicals read the Scripture, like that lawyer 2,000 years ago, seeking to justify themselves rather than adapt to God's way.

We have had such a corruption of Western politics, that the words "checks and balances" have become empty classroom rhetoric, rather than urgent self defense mechanisms.

Thankfully, to Native Americans:
Everyone seated in a circle, with only the elder men speaking, in turn, is normal, so ICor. 14 makes perfect sense to us.

Earnestly Contend.

prophet, there are more than a couple of divides here on the issue.

You advocate that there must be a plurality of elders for the church to exist.

I advocate that a plurality is fine, but not necessary, and that the plurality must have a reason to exist, in other words there needs to be a reasonable ration regarding leadership, and within the plurality there must be a focal point.

But there are others here who advocate that there must be a plurality, they say that they do not desire to be in leadership, but in practice they themselves must be part of that plurality because to deny them the right and opportunity to be included in the plurality is lording it over them, and in practice the group must remain small enough for them to control it without being in leadership. The truth is that mentality is far more destructive and counter productve than the MOG mentality that many here are vehemently against.

I can't find any place in Scripture where Jesus or any Apostle overturned the plurality of leadership that Jesus established when He first called out the Church.

You are looking from a post RCC takeover position, saying (for all intents and purposes) :"show me in Scripture where it says I have to overturn Rome's error".

R.T., and I , and others, are saying, "if God never told us to anoint a single leader, than we shouldn't, and o, by the way, we see where we are told not to".

prophet, I am aware you and I do not see eye to eye on the issue, my response was to point out the you and RT are likely further apart than you are closer together.

IMO

RT and I are arguing the exact same point from Scripture.

 

[Recovering IFB]

[quote author=ItinerantPreacher]I advocate that a plurality is fine, but not necessary, and that the plurality must have a reason to exist, in other words there needs to be a reasonable ration regarding leadership, and within the plurality there must be a focal point.

Give me a Mog!
[/quote]

Do you think the focal point he is talking about, is Jesus?

Nah! me neither.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

[quote author=ItinerantPreacher]I advocate that a plurality is fine, but not necessary, and that the plurality must have a reason to exist, in other words there needs to be a reasonable ration regarding leadership, and within the plurality there must be a focal point.

Give me a Mog!

Do you think the focal point he is talking about, is Jesus?

Nah! me neither.
[/quote]

Hell hath no fury like someone whose phony baloney job is threatened. 

Seriously, like I said before, all assembly models can go wrong.  But putting one man at the focal point of the assembly, even in many cases identifying the assembly with that man (Sign: So-and-so Church, Pastor Mxtplk) is not conducive to putting Jesus at the center. 

 

[Bruh]

We don't speak over each other.

Oh, so you do sit there passively listening to one man, as long as it's his turn.

And I'm sure every time he disagrees he stands and fixes there wrong interpretation of Scripture.

 

[Bruh]

prophet, I am aware you and I do not see eye to eye on the issue, my response was to point out the you and RT are likely further apart than you are closer together.

IMO

Divide and conquer.  What an evil strategy.

Noting evil meant by it. Just pointing it out.

Yes, because he has been trying to "CONQUER" the FFF for some time now. 

Good catch, RT.  lol!!

 

[Ransom]

And I'm sure every time he disagrees he stands and fixes there wrong interpretation of Scripture.

Well, if Not-A-Pastor #1 is sharing, and Not-A-Pastor #2 disagrees, we've been informed that 1 Cor. 14 says that #2 can interrupt #1 and #1 has to stop talking. Because church is a democracy, or something.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

And I'm sure every time he disagrees he stands and fixes there wrong interpretation of Scripture.

Well, if Not-A-Pastor #1 is sharing, and Not-A-Pastor #2 disagrees, we've been informed that 1 Cor. 14 says that #2 can interrupt #1 and #1 has to stop talking. Because church is a democracy, or something.

1 Cor 14 does not say anything about "Not-A-Pastor #2" disagreeing.  You're conflating that with a point I made that if a preacher in today's churches does teach error, nobody is allowed to say anything because only the preacher is allowed to speak. 

In a 1 Cor 14 assembly, you wouldn't have to interrupt.  You could simply say your piece when the opportunity presented itself.  And, as scripture says, "let the others judge". 

 

[prophet]

And I'm sure every time he disagrees he stands and fixes there wrong interpretation of Scripture.

Well, if Not-A-Pastor #1 is sharing, and Not-A-Pastor #2 disagrees, we've been informed that 1 Cor. 14 says that #2 can interrupt #1 and #1 has to stop talking. Because church is a democracy, or something.

1 Cor 14 does not say anything about "Not-A-Pastor #2" disagreeing.  You're conflating that with a point I made that if a preacher in today's churches does teach error, nobody is allowed to say anything because only the preacher is allowed to speak. 

In a 1 Cor 14 assembly, you wouldn't have to interrupt.   You could simply say your piece when the opportunity presented itself.  And, as scripture says, "let the others judge". 

You are causing the "Alpha males" to have a nose bleed right now.

They can't conceptualize a "service" that they can't control, so all the Scripture in the Epistles is falling on deaf ears.

Earnestly Contend.