The Bible does not give one person authority to govern a local church.

I commend him for being responsive to the debate and eager to share his views with those who would review this debate. ESOTERIC NONSENSE Opponent, throughout this debate you have engaged in what I call esoteric nonsense. You claim that no one but you can see the truth because it has not been revealed to our "corrupt" minds. You are using a brainwashing tactic called "dismissal". It is a tactic that seeks to convince the target of the brainwashing that he is unable to discern truth from fictions, reality from falsehood. You claim that I cannot "gain access to the Holy Spirit", therefore I cannot understand things in the proper context. In reality, that could not be further from the truth, and the burden is on you to prove otherwise. THE USE OF WIKIPEDIA Wikipedia is an open source, edited encyclopedia of knowledge. I am not married to it. I compared many definitions and used it only to define two concepts: theocracy and dictatorship. You may use any reference you like to refuse the definition I put on the table. What you cannot do is dismiss them simply because of the source, especially one that proves the same level of accuracy as the Encyclopedia Britannica. (BBC News, Dec 2005) In reference to, "Also I was not asking you if it was a dictatorship I was telling you that it is a dictatorship. " That is not a justification for such an errant view. I am TELLING you that you are wrong. So, I guess we end that point there, with you being incorrect. LEADING PEOPLE WITH THE WILL OF GOD What you are describing is the Old Testament pattern of the priests, kings, judges, Pharisees, and Sadducees, not the Church Jesus Christ instituted. Nowhere in scripture can you justify this type of leadership. I challenge you to do so, which is the basis of this debate. MY "DISLIKE FOR BAD LEADERSHIP" While it is true that I do not like abusive, ineffective, arrogant leadership, I am not against leadership at all. I am against unscriptural authority over the Body of Christ. Plain and simple. What you are proposing is exactly that " a few chosen who dictate God"s orders to the people, who blindly follow because the leaders are the ones who hear God. That"s not Christanity. That"s a cult. OPPONENT: "Now when Jesus corrected Peter and told him to get thee behind me Satan that shows the need for leadership and the power to govern. " This statement literally has nothing to do with what you are saying. Jesus was clearly telling Peter that he was not going to serve as a hindrance to the work of the cross. Nothing to do with Church leadership whatsoever. OPPONENT: "When Paul corrected Peter when he was being a hypocrite that again shows the need for leadership and the power to govern. " If this was so, then why was Paul going against his "leader". Peter was one of the Apostles, not a layman. The answer is that Peter HAD NO AUTHORITY over Paul. You just gave a perfect example of the OPPOSITE of what you are trying to prove. OPPONENT: "When Paul wrote the letter to the Corinthians that again shows the need for leadership and the power to govern. Paul did not write a joint letter, he wrote a letter directly from himself telling them what they could and couldn't do again that is a clear example of leadership, authority and the power the govern. " Nothing of the sort. It shows influence, love, and mentorship. He wasn"t telling them what they "could and couldn't do. " He was giving them advice and admonishment, as a big brother in the faith. OPPONENT: "Nothing in the bible supports your idea that the leaders of the church do not have authority or the power to govern over the people. " Nothing has to because nothing GIVES them that authority in the first place. You are working backwards with a presupposition that does not exist. This is the hallmark of your approach " a very tangible twisting. STUPID SHEEP My opponent prides himself as being above the "stupid sheep" he claims are real. He says that "people" (of course, not HIM) are like lost sheep, even those who have found Christ. Even those who have come into communion with the Holy Spirit. This is why they need HIM. He"s not lost. He"s not confused at all. He speaks on behalf of God. He leads people where to go on behalf of God because they are too stupid to hear. Opponent, it is YOU who do not have a clue as to how awful of a person that makes you. You arrogantly believe that you are needed to lead people because you hear God more than everyone else. Meanwhile, the Bible says NONE of that. It does not even give pastors that role! It doesn"t assign them authority, nor purpose, nor position. It doesn"t order the church to be subject to them, led by them, or to even listen to them. It clearly states that the Holy Spirit is to lead in Christ"s stead. Period. LETTERS OF INSTRUCTION Not only have I read every word of the Bible, I have studied them and have actually written about every book and letter contained within them. I have expounded them and studied their origin, meaning, and history. Yes, these letters were written by one person to, sometimes another person and sometimes an entire assembly. However, what you are missing is that early Christianity had MANY such letter circulating around. So many, in fact, that early church fathers had different reading lists for believers. This is what led to canonization of scripture. So, although Paul was writing to a church, his letters were not the only ones they heeded. There was a PLURALITY of influence and teaching, distributed among the believers. Learn your Church and Bible history. You are going down the wrong path. 1 JOHN 2:27 My opponent wants to use insults and foolish talk to dissuade the conversation. 1 John 2:27 proves that pastors and spiritual teachers are not necessary leadership. Let every teacher teach. But, there is no authority over the life of the student that comes with that. Pastors are not appointed over people for life. John clearly states that there is a time in a believer"s life when outside teaching is done, and it"s just time to live and do as the teachings instruct. As far as my position, I am CERTAINLY in a leadership position. More than one, in fact. The problem with my opponent is that he honestly believes he understands spiritual things, and that everyone else doesn"t. The fact of the matter is that his view is delusional at best, and his theology twisted beyond recognition. OPPONENT: "In the book of Corinthians Paul is the only person teaching, the same is true in countless other books of the New Testament. " Once again, just because someone writes a letter with instruction does not provide them with any sort of authority over the recipient. Paul has no more authority over the Ephesians as he did any other assembly. But, his letters were read for 2,000 years for their inspiration and teachings, AS WERE THE LETTERS OF THE OTHERS. THE NEED TO LISTEN TO GOD My opponent is twisting what I stated. But, it"s fair enough " I did not disclaimer my statement. I thought he would be educated enough to understand it. So, let me explain it. His view that a leader must be "hearing from God" is based on his false belief that a Christian leader must lead people in what the will of God is calling for. In fact, that is NOT the role of Christian leadership at all. It is to, as I stated: (1) be an example, (2) teach and defend the doctrine of the Apostles, (3) and preserve the unity, helping believers resolve disputes among each other instead of the courts. For that, we are given clear guidelines and qualifications for such leaders, none of which is that they must people able to hear the will of God on behalf of the local assembly. That was my point. CLOSING REMARKS You are quickly running out of rounds. Demonstrate clearly where the scripture appoints one man over a local assembly or you will lose this debate. You are making this too easy.