@ TV01,

TV01:

What is it with the wierd mix of back-biting, gainsaying and spiritually (and grammatically) impacted nonsense that is confused for intelligent comment on this board sometimes

Lord have mercy!

I guess as well these are some of the "spiritually impacted nonsense" you have added to those church members of yours, with some of your baseless errors here!

Lord have mercy!

@Sage,

You keep lumping the Church into a scenario that unfolds after the Church age. Please get your facts and revelation straight. Your dogged grip on this apparent error is giving me serious concerns for you.

@TV01,

Please read me correctly. I never said politics is the root or cause of anything. I am however saying pursuit of worldly political power is a clearly outworking of carnal inclinations.

David, Solomon and the Saints whom the Bible said "subdued kingdoms" were carnal in their inclinations? Pursuit of political power is not the end for a christian. It is a means to an end. It provides the opportunity to effect great changes which would otherwise not happen. No matter how you desire and pray about it, abortion will continue for a s long as it remains legal. If it is made illegal through political means, you can be certain that more lives will be saved than is being done now.

Funny, in the world men say religion and politics are the cause of all the worlds woes. Religion (in the perjorative, building temples, mediatory priests, sacrifices etc. etc,) and politics are very much the same. Exploitative, manipulative, oppressive and controlloing.

Unfortunately for you, the Bible talks about good/pure religion in the letter of James. Even David acknowledged this about the government: 2 Samuel 23:3 The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. Is that a statute of general application or does it apply only to David and Isreal? Does god expect unbelievers to rule in the fear of Him or do you think He is refering to Believers? That religion and government is exploited does not mean it cannot be done right as proved by Nehemiah and a host of others: Nehemiah 5:15 even their servants bare rule over the people: but so did not I, because of the fear of God. This proves that it takes a believer who fears God to govern aright. I wonder how this will ever happen if we all stay away from it as advocated by TV01.

As for Christians who are not in politics but condone/practice homosexuality, I'd say the following;
1. Show me some
2. The politics of IC is at once with the World, but also within. Not only, but also !
3. God gives over to homosexuality those who have utterly rejected Him. That should make you think
long and hard about those who practise these things in the IC! Is it a coincidence that the older
and more carnal/perverted the religious tradition, the worse the form of sexual immorality?

1. Even right back to my days in U.I., I knew a "Christian" who was a homosexual. He was not in government and never did anything politics.
2. I guess you must be talking about the early church too who nominated and voted for an apostle as well as dDeacons.
3. At least, the scripture never said He gave them up to homosexuality because they participated in politics.

And like I said, politics is not the cause, (that is flesh), it's an outworking/manifestation! Likewise IC structure

I just went through the list of the works (outworking) of the flesh in Galatians 5 but unable to see politics listed there. Please look through this list and tell me if my version ommitted it anddo share your version with us: Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. or did paul forget to include it?

@Shahan

Your reasoning is completely faulty.

I posted up to 8-10 scriptures where it clearly states that all human rulership will be destroyed but i guess you clearly did not concern urself with that.

Y has Christiandom not been destroyed? its like asking why the world has not been destroyed in over 2000 yrs too.

Paul was well educated, and had Roman citizenship which he used as defense and preaching so the idea of Schooling and Visas, Citizenship does not even come to play. Paul never pledged alligiance to the Roman or anyother nation for that matter, did not pray for their survival nor PARTICIPATE IN THEIR POLITICS.

Paying of taxes was encouraged and Christians were not to resort to violence or try to subvert the State.

READ UP WHY THE ROMAN EMPIRE THREW CHRISTIANS TO LIONS.

The current so called Christianity has completely deviated FROM WHAT TRUE Christianity is.

Internet, fire service?

Let me tell you five things Jesus and Paul did that you cant do

1 Travel every day by horse and Colt back

2 Travel on roads paved with stone.

3 Make all long trips in a ship

4 Men wore skirts

5 Let their beards grow.


Your five listings are a mockery. Unlike the things that you listed that didnot exist in Jesus time, Politics did and ALL TRUE CHRISTIANS FLED FROM IT.

TRUE CHRISTIANS CAN ONLY PLEDGE ALLIGIANCE TO GODS KINGDOM NOT MANS RULERSHIP

@Analytical

My views represent what the early Christians did. If you are an avid bible student, you don't need to get views from anywhere. the early christians had already set the precedent for what Christianity should be.

@Tayo D and Shahan.
It might be intresting for you two to note that the Bible indicates that Satan and Babylon the Great are MISLEADING THE WHOLE WORLD. So its not some people hidden in Arabia like you might imagine.

And Tayo D you keep going back to isreal and judah. When Gods seed came, he abandoned earthly judah, so trying to say David waged a war is simply decieving yourself.
How many wars did early Christians wage . I posted this before and il post it again.

Tayo D

True Christianity has no part in the rulership from the devil.

See what participation in politics have achieved for so called Christians who Jesus explicitly instructed to keep seprate from the world, have love among themselves and proclaim the only Goverment that God supports of, that of Jesus.

"Christian" Legislators vote for war to kill fellow 'Christians' in another country

"Christian" President signs war act against "Christians" in another country

"Christian" Soilders killing "Christian" Soilders of another country.

"Christians" praying to God to help their Nation win and Kill the Other "Christians" in the other country who are also praying that God help their own country kill the other "Christians" that are trying to kill them

And who says that the Devil does not have the last laugh.

He rules the world and all the Nationalistic divisions come from him.

1. There were no denominational affiliations in primitive Christianity. The only grouping of believers was geographical (by location). And service, ministering were also local, no jet-setting hustlers!
2. There was no controlling hierarchy, only a modelling form of leadership by suitably qualified males.No carnal constructs like GO, Pope, Superintendant, Cardinal and the like.
3. There was no obsession with physical temples and the attendant mediatory ministry and sacrifices.
In fact no fixation with redundant OT precepts, which means most so called XT and IC today are in truth "wannabe Jews", which they can never qualify to be, and not really XT which they claim to be.
4. There was no worship of mammon through bogus "prosperity", "total health and well-being" and "next level" gospels.
5. No mention anywhere of religious hucksters or snake oil salesman with fried hair and cheap suits! And on and on!

All you've mentioned are failings of men and not of an institution or doctrine. Which doctrine or style of administration by the early church gave rise to a situation where some were drunkards, others were sleeping with their father's wives, many were filled with denominational sentimnents for Paul, house of Peter or Apollos etc. You have been deceived to think a harmless situation is the cause of all these vices when in the true sense, the vices (fleshly) are corrupting an institution. I assume you are aware of the recent spate of 'diving' in soccer. that some are bringing the game into disrepute does not mean the game is sinful. The players need to get their acts right and the game will reamin the beauty that it is. Same can be said of politics.

No, there are no more Apostles. What the Apostles/Apostolic is about is foundational. The foundations have been laid. Think "No other foundation can any man lay than that which is laid which is Christ Jesus" And "Being built on the foundation of the Apostles, Christ being the chief cornerstone".

Analytical answered you here already. Not only did you deliberately misquote the scriptures, you have proven by your rejoinders that you bring your thoughts and limited experiences into the Bible and not allow the Bible to shape your thoughts.

Actually it was, if you don't see it, ask for revelation, seek understanding, do the research. Don't just argue blindly or glibly discard the Bible as being "not specific". It didn't lump them together (it also mentions the leaven of the Saducees), but even if it did, is that not a clear warning against involvement?

You have said nothing here at all. What is the Leaven of Herod that you asked about? Please show us from scripture where it is explained as I have for the leaven of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy. Again, you have stretched the scriptures to fit your wrong conclusion. Jesus said avoid the leaven, not avoid becoming a Pharisee or Herod. Gamaliel and Nicodemus were Pharisees and even Paul called himself a Pharisee. You sure can confuse the scriptures to those who are ignorant of its sayings.

I'll obligingly re-post a previous submission after this.

You failed to produce what I asked for. I said I need a contemporary example of a civil servant or a person in government whom God raised to that office through the means you consider godly. I mentioned Michelle Bachmann as a contemporary example of the outworking of my doctrinal position. You sure can give us plenty negatives as this is all you focus on, but give us in your opinion, a godly example of how a civil servant is meant to attain that lofty heights without recourse to politics. Or could it be that you have no example to share? Could it be that there really is no way your hypothesis can be worked out for all to see? I'm waiting.

@Sage,

You are just arguing with yourself. I never said all those things you are claiming I said. Please highlight where I made such statements. Don't start manufacturing things here to sustain your unbiblical worldview.

@TV01,

1.
Assuming your assumptions here are correct (I am not saying they are), answer as follows. Why would God have a problem have Melchizedeks kingship? There are always going to be thrones, rulers and the like. The fact that God does not (has not yet) summarily anhilated them, means nothng more than the fact He is content to let them exist and seconds them to His will as He see’s fit.
Furthermore, I never said that the only earthly kingdom God ever approved of was Israel, be that as Israel as a whole or the split into Israel & Judah. I had a long running discussion with 4get_me about this, so let me just re-iterate my position.

If God does not have a problem with His priest being an earthly king, why then do you have a problem with Christians being one. Are you more righteous than God? And if we hold that kingdoms are not His perfect will, then why can't we make use of them? Even Jesus said we should make friends with the unrighteous mammon.

So, to summarise, although God has seen fit to allow (not approve) human thrones & kingdoms to be established, that’s not to say that I personally believe that he intrinsically approves of any of them (I don’t see it as His perfect will). And we all know that ultimately they will all be done away with and there will be only one!

God is never going to anihilate kingdoms. He created them in the first place. Even in the millenial kingdom, the nations are clearly defined and have their will which they could submit to Jesus or otherwise.

There is/was nothing ever stopping gentiles worshipping God (I stand to be corrected here). Furthermore, at that point in time wasn’t everyone a “gentile?

The point is the one who blessed Abraham represented not only the Church, but the State. The State and the Church co-existed in him without any contradictions. I'm sure if there was, God would have found another gentile priest to do His bidding. Everyone but Abraham and his family were gnetiles then. Abraham was already called out and separated unto God in Genesis Chapter 12.

2. I see this as nothing more than an exhortation to live simply in the world. Not to rapaciously consume, become enslaved, or set your store in the things of or in it. There may even be a hint of being environmentally sensitive if you like.

I will attempt to answer you also based on your definitions. You consider the world to be made up of the politics, the commerce and the culture. So for Paul to say those who use the world, he must be refering to those who use politics, commerce and the culture of the world. That is a very straightforward answer don;t you think?

Again, I think one needs to subject their application of scripture to 360 degree scrutiny. Does “All things are yours” mean everything? The good as well as the bad? The perfect and the flawed? All things are lawful, but are all expedient? Does it mean we can discard discernment, wisdom and any form of spiritual judgment and just lay hold of or engage in any activity?
In context, it’s an exhortation against division (denominationalism). The same verse says death is ours, should that be taken to mean we can kill or should commit suicide en-mass to facilitate our advent to heaven? Does money answers everything truly mean that money answers everything?

I believe ALL means everythig excluding nothing whether good or bad. If you agree that all things are lawful, so why are you trying to promulgate an 11th commnadment: Thou shalt not partake in politics? I have never said anything about discarding wisdom or anything like that. My submissions are partake in politics to the extent you do not violate your conscience or compromise your Christian witness. Of course death is ours in the sense that we use it to reach our heavenly destination. All things are ours which is why everything work together for our good. Can you tell me what money does not answer to? While it has its limitations, it affects everything and can influence everything under heaven.

@sage,

It really doesn't make sense that you're arguing against Scripture in a pretence to defend your preconceptions. If only you would read again the verses I offered, they may help you see things more clearly in your linear and antithetical reasoning.

TayoD wrote;
David, Solomon and the Saints whom the Bible said "subdued kingdoms" were carnal in their inclinations? Pursuit of political power is not the end for a christian. It is a means to an end. It provides the opportunity to effect great changes which would otherwise not happen. No matter how you desire and pray about it, abortion will continue for a s long as it remains legal. If it is made illegal through political means, you can be certain that more lives will be saved than is being done now.

My response;
Interesting how you perceive subduing by “warfare” as “not carnal”. It’s not too hard to see the natural outworking of CP to be theocracy and then military crusades to subdue unbelievers

Again and again I have stressed the XT mandate is spiritual conversion not physical change.

Abortion has been legal and illegal, that has never stopped it. Much like prohibition only served to create a flourishing, mafia-controlled black market for liquor. Adultery is still on the statute books of many nations. But the endemic nature and general acceptance of sexual immorality means it is now all but ignored. Likewise homosexuality, it’s been rightly stigmatized and legislated against throughout the ages. But as sin abound it has become more or less normalised.

Pertinent to note is that legislation recognizing homosexuality reflected cultural changes and not vice-versa. Also interesting is that the Gay political lobby is bashing the CP lobby all over the ring. Where theocracies exist, a lot of sins are either ignored, spiritualised or normalized. Sin itself will always find an outlet in an unconverted heart through uncrucified flesh.

A basic understanding of the spiritual dynamics of law and flesh will set anybody straight on this one. The law is always weak through sinful flesh. The flesh always serves the law of sin, as in the flesh dwells no good thing. The righteous requirements of the law can only be fulfilled by those who walk according to the Spirit. It’s spiritual conversion not legal change that effects the will of God.

TayoD wrote;
Unfortunately for you, the Bible talks about good/pure religion in the letter of James. Even David acknowledged this about the government: 2 Samuel 23:3 The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. Is that a statute of general application or does it apply only to David and Isreal? Does god expect unbelievers to rule in the fear of Him or do you think He is refering to Believers? That religion and government is exploited does not mean it cannot be done right as proved by Nehemiah and a host of others: Nehemiah 5:15 even their servants bare rule over the people: but so did not I, because of the fear of God. This proves that it takes a believer who fears God to govern aright. I wonder how this will ever happen if we all stay away from it as advocated by TV01.

My response;
This is a point I have made previously. The scripture qualifies religion with the phrase “pure & undefiled”. It also talks about “futile” religion. Clearly indicating that not all things called religion are acceptable worship offerings. I clearly qualified what I considered the bible views as examples of unacceptable religion.

It’s amazing how your blind quest to justify carnal motives leads you to incorrectly overlay OT precepts into NT XT living. And at once bring scripture into conflict with scripture. Let’s take your statute of general application. If unbelievers do not rule in fear of God (and indeed they don’t), then you are agitating for a theocracy, as you clearly imply all rulers should be XT. But if all rulers are servants of God (as you have repeatedly stressed), then you are agitating against Gods ministers and portray the KOG as a house divided? You are struggling, but only because you are reasoning and working in the flesh.

TayoD wrote;
I just went through the list of the works (outworking) of the flesh in Galatians 5 but unable to see politics listed there. Please look through this list and tell me if my version ommitted it anddo share your version with us: Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. or did paul forget to include it?

My response;
You have repeatedly refused to see either the clear import of the scriptural narrative or clearly enunciated reasoning on this thread. Worldly wisdom has been your only recourse, utterly ignoring the spiritual revelation, but allow me to persist.

~ Being yoked with or compromise by the state. Adultery
~ Building a man-made construct or following worldly mores. Idolatry
~ Denominationalism/Party Politics. Sedition, variance emulation
~ Agitation for power leads to wrath and strife
~ Control manipulation by church or State. Witchcraft
~ Perverting scripture to justify AOTA heresy
~ And on & on.

God bless

TayoD wrote;
All you've mentioned are failings of men and not of an institution or doctrine. Which doctrine or style of administration by the early church gave rise to a situation where some were drunkards, others were sleeping with their father's wives, many were filled with denominational sentimnents for Paul, house of Peter or Apollos etc. You have been deceived to think a harmless situation is the cause of all these vices when in the true sense, the vices (fleshly) are corrupting an institution. I assume you are aware of the recent spate of 'diving' in soccer. that some are bringing the game into disrepute does not mean the game is sinful. The players need to get their acts right and the game will reamin the beauty that it is. Same can be said of politics

My response;
Do institutions make men? Do doctrines? No men make both of these things. And when they do so in the flesh the outworking is clear. Doctrinal adherence and institutional membership do not in themselves convert men. In Acts, only truly converted believers dared join the church. Whereas in the IC, you can be anything other than holy, and not only join, but also progress within the ranks and lead.

All the issues arising were as a result of their pandering to fleshly inclinations. Whether you are in Church or not pandering to the flesh bears the same fruit. It’s why the sins of institutionalised XT are no different from those of politicians. It’s why they are often in league with one another.
Think Jesse Jackson counselling Bill Clinton for sexual immorality while engaging in the same. Think Ted Haggard offering spiritual advice to George Bush who engages in an unjust military crusade. It’s why your rotten politicians in Nigeria plead constitutional immunity while your corrupt MOG’s cry “touch not my anointed” a perverted spiritual type of the same. You are totally hoodwinked.

If you are referring as politics as a “harmless situation”, please add naïve to your resume. As you continually argue without focus and using flawed parameters, you sink deeper into a mess of your own making. However good the game, as long as there are inherently sinful protagonists, the game will reflect their natures. Even if you had two teams of XT’s playing, they would invariably succumb to the flesh unless you removed the corrupting influences (money, fame, power, unhealthy competition etc).

TayoD wrote:
You have said nothing here at all. What is the Leaven of Herod that you asked about? Please show us from scripture where it is explained as I have for the leaven of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy. Again, you have stretched the scriptures to fit your wrong conclusion. Jesus said avoid the leaven, not avoid becoming a Pharisee or Herod. Gamaliel and Nicodemus were Pharisees and even Paul called himself a Pharisee. You sure can confuse the scriptures to those who are ignorant of its sayings.

My response;
The scriptures variously warn us to be aware of the leaven of the Pharisees, the Sadducees and Herod. Your attempt to separate the leaven (hypocrisy) from the bread (Pharisees) is mistaken. How where the Pharisees hypocritical? What was the outworking of this hypocrisy? Your thinking here lacks depth. To become a Pharisee and adopt their religious habits is to become leavened. Likewise for the Sadducees. And the same goes for Herod. The three types of leaven have different out-workings in the body. Did Paul remain a Pharisee after coming to know the Lord? He discarded all of his religion in pursuit of the Lord. Please!

TayoD wrote;
You failed to produce what I asked for. I said I need a contemporary example of a civil servant or a person in government whom God raised to that office through the means you consider godly. I mentioned Michelle Bachmann as a contemporary example of the outworking of my doctrinal position. You sure can give us plenty negatives as this is all you focus on, but give us in your opinion, a godly example of how a civil servant is meant to attain that lofty heights without recourse to politics. Or could it be that you have no example to share? Could it be that there really is no way your hypothesis can be worked out for all to see? I'm waiting.

My response;
I clearly outlined a contemporary example of the outworking of your position, compromised and impaired witness, by XT’ in government.

My position remains. Joseph, Daniel et al, did not agitate politically, but where given authority through and for the glory of God. That is the only way I see it portrayed in scripture. I personally do not know of any example of that in contemporary times. But that is the only way it is portrayed in scripture. Furthermore, God is not obliged to do it, or publicise it if He does. You make His thoughts and ways just like carnal man’s. Given the utter corruption of what passes for “politics” these days, is it strange to you that God may choose not to place His Own in that arena?

God bless

@TV01,

After having patiently gone through your reasoning, I find your persuasions quite untennable simply on the basis that you represent very partial views, if not completely flawed.

TV01:

Again and again I have stressed the XT mandate is spiritual conversion not physical change.

How do you read the Bible expecting only a "spiritual conversion" that does not affect changes on the physical plane? To assume such a view is really contrary to the spirit ot the New Testament.

Does giving a cup of cold water in Jesus' Name affect merely the "spiritual" without any effect on the physical? (Matt. 10:42).

Was the Lord Jesus merely concerned about the "spiritual" and not at all about the "physical"? Matt. 23:26 - "Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also."

Strainuously stating issues in such simplistic terms as you do will only create misconceptions about your position; and so far, there's been this very linear emphasis in your dialogue. I would rather if someone didn't understand the vocation of Christians in politics, it were better to be reserved instead of offering partial views and running the risk of misrepresenting Biblical exhortations.

TV01:

Abortion has been legal and illegal, that has never stopped it. Much like prohibition only served to create a flourishing, mafia-controlled black market for liquor. Adultery is still on the statute books of many nations. But the endemic nature and general acceptance of sexual immorality means it is now all but ignored. Likewise homosexuality, it’s been rightly stigmatized and legislated against throughout the ages. But as sin abound it has become more or less normalised.

Sin is promoted in any nation where some Christians feel that the best thing to do is allow ungodly political processes to carry the day, while they sit as passive spectators in the idea that public issues "become more or less normalised".

TV01:

Pertinent to note is that legislation recognizing homosexuality reflected cultural changes and not vice-versa. Also interesting is that the Gay political lobby is bashing the CP lobby all over the ring. Where theocracies exist, a lot of sins are either ignored, spiritualised or normalized. Sin itself will always find an outlet in an unconverted heart through uncrucified flesh.

You have just managed to applaud the very same thing you tried to refute.

1. Any legislation will be enacted - even if it includes murder - becomes some Christians who are politico-phobic will sit idly and refuse to make an impact in the legislations of their day.

2. The Gay political lobby is not bashing the CP - rather, they are bashing everything that represents Christ! Get your facts right!

3. "Theocracies" do not exist today, if you understand the meaning of the term. Second, if God is in absolute rule (theocracy) over political entities without the influence of christians, don't you think it is an absolute contradiction in terms to state that "a lot of sins are either ignored, spiritualised or normalized"?? Does it make sense to you that such a case will exist where God is acknowledged as Sovereign?

4. Blaming the sin of "unconverted heart and uncrucified flesh" on theocracy misses the point of Christianity.

TV01:

The righteous requirements of the law can only be fulfilled by those who walk according to the Spirit. It’s spiritual conversion not legal change that effects the will of God.

And does the will of God remain only effective on "spiritual conversion" without  manifestation on visible outward changes as a testimony? When people push this idea of a "spiritual conversion" to the detriment of an attesting physical manifestation, it just begs the question because the same allegation they make about people "spiritualizing" issues happens to be what they themselves are engaging in.

TV01:

~ Building a man-made construct or following worldly mores. Idolatry

Are the various civil and political Governments in existence equal to idolatory then?

TV01, your persuasions must be just suited to you. So far, you haven't really held a balanced view of Scripture, and the fact that you're often too quick to condemn issues that you little understand is remarkable.

TayoD wrote;
If God does not have a problem with His priest being an earthly king, why then do you have a problem with Christians being one. Are you more righteous than God? And if we hold that kingdoms are not His perfect will, then why can't we make use of them? Even Jesus said we should make friends with the unrighteous mammon.

My response;
You insist on correlating unrelated metaphors and make havoc of the scriptures. Pray tell, how does one make friends with unrighteous mammon, but not end up worshipping him? Is that you claiming your ticket to pursue worldly riches unchecked. Do you truly understand that parable?

TayoD said;
God is never going to anihilate kingdoms. He created them in the first place. Even in the millenial kingdom, the nations are clearly defined and have their will which they could submit to Jesus or otherwise.

My response;
Ultimately there will be only one. The Kingdoms of this world will be come the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ ~ Rev 11:15. As narrated in Daniel, all man-made kingdoms will eventually be destroyed and replaced by the one made without hands. Your kingdoms, like your temples are all made with human hands. Error!

TayoD said;
The point is the one who blessed Abraham represented not only the Church, but the State. The State and the Church co-existed in him without any contradictions. I'm sure if there was, God would have found another gentile priest to do His bidding. Everyone but Abraham and his family were gnetiles then. Abraham was already called out and separated unto God in Genesis Chapter 12.

My response;
So, do we ordain all rulers as priests on this basis? Or do we say non-priests are ineligible for election? You are still arguing for a theocracy. The State had nothing to do with the narrative here. Why do you insist on force-fitting scripture to your doctrine?

God bless

Bari kade said;
How do you read the Bible expecting only a "spiritual conversion" that does not affect changes on the physical plane? To assume such a view is really contrary to the spirit ot the New Testament.

My response;
I never said that a spiritual change would not engender a physical one. What is quite clear scripturally is that physical change will not lead to a spiritual one.

The thrust of this plank of my argument is that XT political agitation is a quest to access and wield worldly power in order to legislate (via the flesh first) morality. It’s back to front and unworkable. It’s extreme outworking could lead to a totalitarian XT (theocratic) state and military crusades to advance spiritual imperialism. All carnal.

Please don’t ascribe things to me. Kindly refer to, or quote my submissions.

Bari kade said;
I would rather if someone didn't understand the vocation of Christians in politics, it were better to be reserved instead of offering partial views and running the risk of misrepresenting Biblical exhortations.

My response;
I have outlined my position and explained what I believe to be the consequences and contemporary ramifications. Please quit back-biting and do likewise

Bari kade said;
Sin is promoted in any nation where some Christians feel that the best thing to do is allow ungodly political processes to carry the day, while they sit as passive spectators in the idea that public issues "become more or less normalised".

My response;
You fail to understand the nature of sin and at once place the physical afore the spiritual. Sin does not abound because XT’ fail to legislate. That would at best tackle the fruit, not the root. The sin nature is not subject to legislation

Further you fail to apply common sense to the political process. True XT’ are not in a majority anywhere. For XT’ to gain political power it will have to be by force or by compromise.

Bari Kade said;
1. Any legislation will be enacted - even if it includes murder - becomes some Christians who are politico-phobic will sit idly and refuse to make an impact in the legislations of their day.

2. The Gay political lobby is not bashing the CP - rather, they are bashing everything that represents Christ! Get your facts right!

3. "Theocracies" do not exist today, if you understand the meaning of the term. Second, if God is in absolute rule (theocracy) over political entities without the influence of christians, don't you think it is an absolute contradiction in terms to state that "a lot of sins are either ignored, spiritualised or normalized"?? Does it make sense to you that such a case will exist where God is acknowledged as Sovereign?

4. Blaming the sin of "unconverted heart and uncrucified flesh" on theocracy misses the point of Christianity.

My response (in order);
1. Murder is already and has always been illegal. Yet it happens. Please explain how non-political XTity is responsible for this. Or how XT legislation will put an end to it?
2. In a straight tally of which lobby is making most ground, the GP one is way ahead of the CP one. However, whilst I agree that the GP is contrary to everything that Christ stands for, I don’t believe CP represents Christ or glorifies God.
3. There are no XT theocracies. And I should have been clearer on that. I was referring to those that come closest, i.e. Afghanistan under the Taliban. In places where state & religion combine i.e. Iran, you can see the outworkings I detailed. Further a true theocracy under the God of the bible would preclude politics or democracy.
4. I didn’t blame non-conversion on theocracy. Neither did I call non-conversion a sin. Sin is present where there is non-conversion, which is the whole point of arguing that legislation, which cannot cause conversion, is a futile exercise.

Bari kade said;
And does the will of God remain only effective on "spiritual conversion" without manifestation on visible outward changes as a testimony? When people push this idea of a "spiritual conversion" to the detriment of an attesting physical manifestation, it just begs the question because the same allegation they make about people "spiritualizing" issues happens to be what they themselves are engaging in.

My response;
This has been answered severally already. Although you claim to be up to speed on the discussion, your points suggest you are not. It’s either that or you cannot see the implications of your back-to-front approach? Which is it?

All together a rather weak response. The good bits are few and altogether wrongly focused, as they don’t re-but the scriptural validity of any of the points I made. It’s wordy and overblown, and doesn’t make any original points or bring fresh insight!

Next time please bring some relevance or join Analytical, mrpataki et al in the gainsayers corner!

God bless.

@TV01,

TV01:

I never said that a spiritual change would not engender a physical one. What is quite clear scripturally is that physical change will not lead to a spiritual one.

Your use of "mandate" actually established your reasoning to be partially intoned.

TV01:

The thrust of this plank of my argument is that XT political agitation is a quest to access and wield worldly power in order to legislate (via the flesh first) morality. It’s back to front and unworkable.

Again, this only shows that you simply do not understand the subject of Christians engaging in political vocations.

TV01:

It’s extreme outworking could lead to a totalitarian XT (theocratic) state and military crusades to advance spiritual imperialism. All carnal.

All guesses. Where has that fancy idea of yours occured? Your postulations about "could lead to a totalitarian XT (theorcratic) state and military crusades" simply highlights the fact that your words have not been carefully chosen to reflect a good grasp of the issues at hand. If you use of "theocratic" explains the preceding "totalitarian XT", does that reflect the Biblical definition of theocracy?

TV01:

Please don’t ascribe things to me. Kindly refer to, or quote my submissions.

Which is precisely what I've been doing by inserting the quotes.

TV01:

I have outlined my position and explained what I believe to be the consequences and contemporary ramifications.

Which is why the appeal that you consider other texts in Scripture instead of a linear treatment of this issue.

TV01:

Please quit back-biting and do likewise

What's biting you, TV01? I don't remember the last time you quit yours.

TV01:

You fail to understand the nature of sin and at once place the physical afore the spiritual.

Shows you're struggling with simple statements. Here again is my quote on both the spiritual and the physical:

How do you read the Bible expecting only a "spiritual conversion" that does not affect changes on the physical plane? To assume such a view is really contrary to the spirit ot the New Testament.

Now try thinking through - does that sound the same as what you alleged about my entry: "at once place the physical afore the spiritual"?? If it still doesn't click, please simply ask - in just the same way you requested of me.

TV01:

Sin does not abound because XT’ fail to legislate. That would at best tackle the fruit, not the root. The sin nature is not subject to legislation

Are you really reading issues, TV01? Since this was not what I said, best I don't bother you witha response.

TV01:

Further you fail to apply common sense to the political process.

What a laugh! How have you demonstrated common sense in all your theories? Not once have you applied a common sense approach to even your own push for theorcracy! And if you can neither be clear as to one, how do you qualify to explicate the other??

TV01:

True XT’ are not in a majority anywhere. For XT’ to gain political power it will have to be by force or by compromise.

If that is all you see, again you expose the fact that you have only a linear understanding about political processes.

TV01:

1. Murder is already and has always been illegal. Yet it happens. Please explain how non-political XTity is responsible for this. Or how XT legislation will put an end to it?

TV01. . . Lol. You simply amaze me with small views. How did I blame murder on non-political XTity or state that non-political Xtity is responsible for this? Remeber that my concerns have been tailored round the topic - Christians and Politics - and my emphasis has been more about "Christians engaging in political vocations".

TV01:

2. In a straight tally of which lobby is making most ground, the GP one is way ahead of the CP one. However, whilst I agree that the GP is contrary to everything that Christ stands for, I don’t believe CP represents Christ or glorifies God.

Your view, neither did I intone that at all. The point I made was that you get your facts right; now you did!

TV01:

3. There are no XT theocracies. And I should have been clearer on that. I was referring to those that come closest, i.e. Afghanistan under the Taliban. In places where state & religion combine i.e. Iran, you can see the outworkings I detailed.

Again, I'll like to remind you of the topic: Christians and Politics! I think that's what most people have been dealing with, and your tangent on the cases of Afghanistan under the Taliban stretches the topic beyond its sane context. Besides, the Taliban does not truly represent a theocracy, even under Islam - and this conviction is attested by Muslims themselves!

TV01:

Further a true theocracy under the God of the bible would preclude politics or democracy.

I respect your view; but I disgaree with that all the same. Much as the governments of each political unit exist by the benevolence of God (Rom. 13:1-2), I don't see how that translates into precluding politics and democracy.

TV01:

4. I didn’t blame non-conversion on theocracy. Neither did I call non-conversion a sin. Sin is present where there is non-conversion, which is the whole point of arguing that legislation, which cannot cause conversion, is a futile exercise

First, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you earlier. But there again, I don't know what to make of this line that you neither call non-conversion a sin on the one hand; and on the other, still intone that sin is present where there is non-conversion! I don't think either that I suggested that legislation could cause conversion; so what point were you trying to make??

TV01:

This has been answered severally already. Although you claim to be up to speed on the discussion, your points suggest you are not. It’s either that or you cannot see the implications of your back-to-front approach? Which is it?

Easy: I'm quite up to speed on the discussion, and my inferrence was that your point is linear and falls short of a balanced view on the subject at hand.

TV01:

All together a rather weak response. The good bits are few and altogether wrongly focused, as they don’t re-but the scriptural validity of any of the points I made. It’s wordy and overblown, and doesn’t make any original points or bring fresh insight!

It's not surprising that small minds who make no points will rather be verbose and sit to applaud themselves with their lullaby. "Wordy and overblown" - yours, you meant, after how many pages of your fine carping?? I had hoped you'd be more grown-up by now. . . alas!!

TV01:

Next time please bring some relevance or join Analytical, mrpataki et al in the gainsayers corner!

Already feeling small in yourself??

TV01:

God bless

Bless.

bari_kade:

Your use of "mandate" actually established your reasoning to be partially intoned.

Did you mix up the quote and response here? As I honestly can't make head or tails of this?

bari_kade:

Again, this only shows that you simply do not understand the subject of Christians engaging in political vocations.

I have asked repeatedly, please state it how you see it. Simply nit-picking at my position, no matter how unreasonable it may be, does not make for engaging or robust debate.

bari_kade:

All guesses. Where has that fancy idea of yours occured? Your postulations about "could lead to a totalitarian XT (theorcratic) state and military crusades" simply highlights the fact that your words have not been carefully chosen to reflect a good grasp of the issues at hand. If you use of "theocratic" explains the preceding "totalitarian XT", does that reflect the Biblical definition of theocracy?

As above, plead your case. Circling around semantics is tiresome at best. If the words were not a great fit - admittedly - the examples would have clarified my point. Theocracy is strictly speaking rule by God, but is used more loosely. Ecclesiocracy, rule by a priestly or religius class. But how frequently is that word used?

bari_kade:

Shows you're struggling with simple statements. Here again is my quote on both the spiritual and the physical:

Like I said, the pace and stage of the discussion. And again, please enunciate your position. And whilst doing so, please clarify how XT agitation for and wielding of political power will engender a spiritual change in unbelievers, leading to a physicall one.

bari_kade:

TV01. . . Lol. You simply amaze me with small views. How did I blame murder on non-political XTity or state that non-political Xtity is responsible for this? Remeber that my concerns have been tailored round the topic - Christians and Politics - and my emphasis has been more about "Christians engaging in political vocations".

Again, at this point I was saying that sin or criminality in society is not due to non-political engagemnt by XT. Sin the Bible says abounds. And again please feel free to expatiate your views on "Political Vocations"

bari_kade:

First, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you earlier. But there again, I don't know what to make of this line that you neither call non-conversion a sin on the one hand; and on the other, still intone that sin is present where there is non-conversion! I don't think either that I suggested that legislation could cause conversion; so what point were you trying to make??

An unconverted man on the one hand does not truly acknowledge sin and on the other is driven by it. Political power cannot legislate the righteousness of God. So how is CP going to make that happen? or otherwise wield the power to the glory of God? ~ Clear now?

And on and on.

It would be easier for you to state your view and well balanced position, so as to disabuse me of my linear thinking and unbalanced views.

If you don't follow the whole discussion, you can miss the tone and flow. It's why I didn't respond to ezeking earlier. It's tedious enough answering on a running basis, let alone attending to snipers popping up along the line. If you were on the pace, there would be less understanding.

So on that basis, please post and I'll respond.

God bless

@TV01,

Again and again I have stressed the XT mandate is spiritual conversion not physical change.

You are so wrong I could scream. A XT's mandate is not just conversion of souls. We are meant to preserve the earth as well. What is the purpose of salt if not preservation? Haven't you read that God will destroy those who destoyed the earth? What do you think He will do to those who preserve it? In responding to one of my questions, you said: "There may even be a hint of being environmentally sensitive if you like." So does this bear the notion of all spirituality to you and not a physical responsibility and change? Your futile attempt to justify your unscriptural position is making you so confused.

Where theocracies exist, a lot of  sins are either ignored, spiritualised or normalized. Sin itself will always find an outlet in an unconverted heart through uncrucified flesh.

It seems you are bent on bringing unrelated issues to this topic. No one on this forum has ever advocated for Theocracy so I wonder who you are arguing with here.

It’s spiritual conversion not legal change that effects the will of God.

What is the will of God? Something tells me that God wills that men rejoice and not mourn. Doesn't the Bible tell us that when the righteous are in authority the people rejoice? The purpose of a christian in politics is not to make laws that will lead to spiritual conversion. The purpose is to govern with righteousness and justice which are the foundation of God's throne. It is doing on earth, the will of God in heaven (breaking news: there is no evangelism in heaven). The purpose of a Christian in authority is to ensure that laws that are equitable and just are made for the good of all. A christian in power serves as a light on a mountain to be seen by all. Bachmann was still on national T.V. 2 nights ago. She was introduced as one who calls herself a fool for Christ. Can you tell me if you've witnessed to as much people as she did in that few minutes? A christian in power also looks out for the needs of his christian community at home and abroad. Christians have negotiated laws that favour the propagating of the Gospel. Do you think it is the non-christians in the American Government that are pressuring China and Korea etc against the discrimination of the minority Christians? What about the Christian that was delivered from death in Afghanistan recently. Was it just prayer that saved him or did it include political pressure? That is Church and State working together to bring about God's will on the earth.

You have failed to produce a single example or witness  of a Civil Servant or governor who attained that position by the principle you have been professing. Thus, there is no practical outworking of that which you have claimed is biblical. And if there is no practical outworking of faith, then the faith is all but moribund.

It’s amazing how your blind quest to justify carnal motives leads you to incorrectly overlay OT precepts into NT XT living. And at once bring scripture into conflict with scripture. Let’s take your statute of general application. If unbelievers do not rule in fear of God (and indeed they don’t), then you are agitating for a theocracy, as you clearly imply all rulers should be XT. But if all rulers are servants of God (as you have repeatedly stressed), then you are agitating against Gods ministers and portray the KOG as a house divided? You are struggling, but only because you are reasoning and working in the flesh.

There is no OT precept that is violated by the Spirit of the NT, neither is there any sin condemned in the OT that is permitted in the NT. That those who occupy offices that are to serve God's purpose refuse to do so does not make them less of what God calls them. That you do not evangelise despite being called into that office does not make you anything but an Evangelist (the gifts and callings of God are without repentance). However, a Christian with good undersstanding will realise that the office of Governemnt is a means to serve God's purpose and not achieve personal goals and dreams. That is the difference.

However good the game, as long as there are inherently sinful protagonists, the game will reflect their natures.

You have only proved my point further here. Politics appear sinful because we have left it in the hands of sinful men. Once the players change to the righteous, the game (politics) will reflect the nature of the players: righteousness.

The scriptures variously warn us to be aware of the leaven of the Pharisees, the Sadducees and Herod. Your attempt to separate the leaven (hypocrisy) from the bread (Pharisees) is mistaken. How where the Pharisees hypocritical? What was the outworking of this hypocrisy? Your thinking here lacks depth. To become a Pharisee and adopt their religious habits is to become leavened. Likewise for the Sadducees. And the same goes for Herod. The three types of leaven have different out-workings in the body. Did Paul remain a Pharisee after coming to know the Lord? He discarded all of his religion in pursuit of the Lord. Please!

This is one of your worst arguments to date. I'm sure you can see what makes those Pharisees bad is what they do and not what they believe. The differences between all those sects was their belief system. So what makes you a Pharisee is not what you do, but what you believe. Jesus instructed people to do what the Pharisees say (a product of their belief), and not what they do (a product of their flesh). Being a Pharisee does not make you leavened, but being hypocritical makes you one. Jesus was simply telling His disciples to beware of hypocrisy. There is no proof anywhere that the Disciples were trying to become Pharisees.
What same goes for Herod? What is that leaven? You still have not provided an answer. As I have stated above, the leaven is not the bread, they are 2 dinstict substances. I trust that you are smart enough to know that.
Paul called himself a Pharisee as a Christian. Acts 23: 6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.
Like I said, it is your belief that makes you a Pharisee and not what you do. See Acts 23: 8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both

@TV01,

I should say that you took my post on board and now seek dialogue rather than mere carping. On that note, let me offer you a few things to make issues clearer:

TV01:

Did you mix up the quote and response here? As I honestly can't make head or tails of this?

I have asked repeatedly, please state it how you see it. Simply nit-picking at my position, no matter how unreasonable it may be, does not make for engaging or robust debate.

Go back and read my first post. I focused on issues that were of concern to me and offered a few questions with verses initially. Rather than deal with them, you went on a jolly-ride  expressing bitter sentiments.

TV01:

As above, plead your case. Circling around semantics is tiresome at best. If the words were not a great fit - admittedly - the examples would have clarified my point. Theocracy is strictly speaking rule by God, but is used more loosely. Ecclesiocracy, rule by a priestly or religius class. But how frequently is that word used?

There is my point, and I wasn't amused with the loose use of theocracy; even less so with the frequency of use of the other, Ecclesiocracy. If Theocracy is strictly rule by God, I wondered how they applied in the contexts of your various entries.

TV01:

Like I said, the pace and stage of the discussion. And again, please enunciate your position.

In just a moment - I'd like to deal with the small areas in yours first.

TV01:

And whilst doing so, please clarify how XT agitation for and wielding of political power will engender a spiritual change in unbelievers, leading to a physicall one.

Again, I don't think what you are suggesting was hinted at in my rejoinders. I wasn't vouching for Christian agitation for and wielding of political power as a tool for engendering a spiritual change. I hope you caught the gist in my position, which I state here agian:

How do you read the Bible expecting only a "spiritual conversion" that does not affect changes on the physical plane? To assume such a view is really contrary to the spirit ot the New Testament.

To help clear the air: "spiritual conversion" is not the ONLY aspect of our daily living taught in the Bible - there should ALSO be a manifestation of that conversion on the physical plane. It would be preposterous for me to assume your suspicion that I might have been hinting at "political power engendering a spiritual change in unbelievers."

TV01:

Again, at this point I was saying that sin or criminality in society is not due to non-political engagemnt by XT. Sin the Bible says abounds.

Is it really necessary to restate the obvious? What was my response to this line earlier? See:

Sin is promoted in any nation where some Christians feel that the best thing to do is allow ungodly political processes to carry the day, while they sit as passive spectators in the idea that public issues "become more or less normalised".

. . . and then I went on to offer this question:

How did I blame murder on non-political XTity or state that non-political Xtity is responsible for this?

To put it less formally, I have not blamed non-political Christians or held them responsible for the abounding sins or criminality of any nation. However, I am concerned about the platitude that Chritians do nothing to influence the culture of their day.

TV01:

And again please feel free to expatiate your views on "Political Vocations"

In just a moment, as I don't want to get mixed up while dealing with the small issues.

TV01:

An unconverted man on the one hand does not truly acknowledge sin and on the other is driven by it.

No disagreements there.

TV01:

Political power cannot legislate the righteousness of God. So how is CP going to make that happen? or otherwise wield the power to the glory of God? ~ Clear now?

And that is the crux of the matter. Granted that political cannot legislate the righteousness of God - as long as that is not the instrumentality that believers depend upon as the sole ingredient for that effect.

Godly men and women holding political offices in the past and present have been greatly used of God to effect causes for His glory. The case of Nehemiah, who was employed in the political corridors of his day and was used of God to effect a revival among God's people (Neh. 1:11 - For I was the king's cupbearer); Daniel and his three friends also were godly men in political appointment much used of God to affect the ungodly and precarious culture of their day for good and to the glory of God (Dan. 2:49; 3:30; 4:37 & 6:1-2).

I don't remember anywhere in the Law where Jews were expressly forbidden from taking up employment in political settings; nor is there a law commanding them to pursue such vocation. My persuasion is that some Christians find themselves in political vocations (either by career or conviction), and most have sought to influence the cultures of their various constituencies. It doesn't seem that God gave a specific NT command expressly forbidding Christians from such vocations; on the contrary, I'm more persuaded to believe that the Bible makes a weightier case in favour of such than a foreboding againt the case.

TV01:

And on and on.
It would be easier for you to state your view and well balanced position, so as to disabuse me of my linear thinking and unbalanced views.

I just stated my persuasions; and my apologies for that allegation of linear thinking and unbalanced view. I take it back in hope of suing for an amicable deliberation on this profound subject.

However, on a wider application, I wonder about what would become of cultures if more Christians sit as passive observers of political processes in the various civil governments of our day. Publicly-affecting issues such as Women's Rights, Abortion, Domestic Violence, Economic Reforms, Religious Freedom, Immigration, Education Policies, Environment, and a plethora of others confront us daily. There are some Christians who have sought careers in politics and have used their various offices to promote godly influences that affect communities for God's glory. They may not always be successful and receive very little supposrt in their causes, as many Christians still feel that politics is a taboo.

At the end of the day, I take the position that Christians in political vocations is neither forbidden nor mandated/commanded in the Bible. I would rather rejoice that in God's benevolence, we have believers who are in influential offices and political positions to effect change for the good of communities and to God's glory.

TV01:

If you don't follow the whole discussion, you can miss the tone and flow.

True.

TV01:

It's why I didn't respond to ezeking earlier. It's tedious enough answering on a running basis, let alone attending to snipers popping up along the line.

I hope you see now that your reference about others doesn't serve you well. Snipers popping up - we are all guilty of it, and you count on that list.

TV01:

If you were on the pace, there would be less understanding.

Did you mean to say, "there would be less [b]mis[/b]undertanding"?? In anycase, I assure you that the gist was not lost on me, and my entries simply are to the point that were of concern to me.

TV01:

So on that basis, please post and I'll respond.
God bless

Just did. Regards.

Hi Bari kade,

Okay dude, read you post. Now the small areas are cleared up, lets talk. I’ll first clarify some points on my part.

When I talk about a spiritual conversion, I am referring to the effect CP agitation will have on “unbelievers”. My point being that we cannot use physical/worldly means to effect this. Hence my insistence that as the Spiritual change precedes and produces the physical (inward & then outward), political agitation is a back-to-front and hence futile exercise.

I have repeatedly stressed that I don’t see Joseph, Daniel, Nehemiah or any of the other oft cited OT figures as having agitated for political power. They were to a man slaves. Almost certainly barred from aspiring to any real “political” position, due to their caste, status etc. I see clearly portrayed in scripture, divine favour raising them to prominent heights to fulfill Gods purpose. That God used the ruling/prevailing seats of power to do so, and that they physically derived power from those thrones, does not make it any less a divine move (by God) rather than an earthly one (by men).

I see this as the pattern that can be derived from the narratives around the aforementioned biblical figures. If in this day, an XT’ in civil service is, by dint of their God-given gifts or abilities, appointed to a position of prominence by the ruling authorities (and not via political lobbying), no problem. I would expect such a one to steadfastly witness to his faith by eschewing partisan politics, and glorifying God by his conduct.

bari kade wrote;
And that is the crux of the matter. Granted that political cannot legislate the righteousness of God - as long as that is not the instrumentality that believers depend upon as the sole ingredient for that effect.

my response;
Please outline how political engagement will synergise with other instrumentalities.

bari kade wrote;
Godly men and women holding political offices in the past and present have been greatly used of God to effect causes for His glory. The case of Nehemiah, who was employed in the political corridors of his day and was used of God to effect a revival among God's people (Neh. 1:11 - For I was the king's cupbearer); Daniel and his three friends also were godly men in political appointment much used of God to affect the ungodly and precarious culture of their day for good and to the glory of God (Dan. 2:49; 3:30; 4:37 & 6:1-2).

my response;
I have detailed severally my view on this. I don't see it quite the same way. Working in the corridors of power is not synonymous with he quest for it. Presumably President Bush' driver is a civil servant and comes with the job. Although Mr. Driver is obviously in a great position !

bari kade wrote;
I don't remember anywhere in the Law where Jews were expressly forbidden from taking up employment in political settings; nor is there a law commanding them to pursue such vocation. My persuasion is that some Christians find themselves in political vocations (either by career or conviction), and most have sought to influence the cultures of their various constituencies. It doesn't seem that God gave a specific NT command expressly forbidding Christians from such vocations; on the contrary, I'm more persuaded to believe that the Bible makes a weightier case in favour of such than a foreboding againt the case.

my response;
I don't think the law would need to stipulate any such thing. The Jews lived variously under forms of Theocracy, (Ecclessiocracy?) or Monarchy. Depending on lineage or tradition, they could be called to serve in various religious or civil capacities. All the incidents of agitation for such positions were treated as rebellion/treason.

Where the Jews were captive/enslaved, I think my treatise re Joseph et al fits. They were essentially in servitude, but in some cases divinely elevated.

As for XT', we live in different times & circumstances. Please buttress your persuasion via the scriptural narrative.

Apart from the above, I have a few questions I'd appreciate your taking the time to post replies too.

First of all ask that you kindly explain what you mean by “political Vocations”
Secondly can I ask you to illustrate how you see it working in practice.
Thirdly, please provide an example that we can all clearly appreciate.

I’m also interested in the “influencing culture” concept you mentioned, with reference to the fact that I subscribe to pure XT witness, by our conduct in the world and witnessing the cross to same. And not by engaging it in it's own structures, on its own terms

I’m here.

God bless

Bro' TayoD, How now? Whassup?

TayoD said;
You are so wrong I could scream. A XT's mandate is not just conversion of souls. We are meant to preserve the earth as well. What is the purpose of salt if not preservation? Haven't you read that God will destroy those who destoyed the earth? What do you think He will do to those who preserve it? In responding to one of my questions, you said: "There may even be a hint of being environmentally sensitive if you like." So does this bear the notion of all spirituality to you and not a physical responsibility and change? Your futile attempt to justify your unscriptural position is making you so confused.

My response;
Oya scream! Then read this!

1 Corinthians 7:31 - and those who use this world as not misusing it. For the form of this world is passing away.

1 John 2:17 - And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever.

Preserve wetin?

Revelation 21:1- Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea.

For what? What for?

TayoD said;
It seems you are bent on bringing unrelated issues to this topic. No one on this forum has ever advocated for Theocracy so I wonder who you are arguing with here.

My response;
I believe I answered this in a response to bari kade, but to clarify, I meant countries that attempt to rule by religion, not necessarily XT nations. Also, as I see theocracy as a “religious exercise”. I feel that what happens there will happen if XT try to impose it as a consequence of gaining political power. Whether you see it or not, the natural out working of your position could well lead to such.


TayoD said;
The purpose is to govern with righteousness and justice which are the foundation of God's throne. It is doing on earth, the will of God in heaven (breaking news: there is no evangelism in heaven).

My response;
To properly govern with righteousness and justice, to do God’s will on the earth via political means will mandate a theocracy! Again, all you are demonstrating is full-blown circular reasoning! You will have to literally introduce the 10 commandments and legislate the worship of just the one God (funnily enough, I see this happening at some point, but it won’t be the will or the worship of the God of the Bible).

TayoD said;
The purpose of a Christian in authority is to ensure that laws that are equitable and just are made for the good of all.

My response;
You don’t have to be XT to make equitable & just laws.

TayoD said;
A christian in power serves as a light on a mountain to be seen by all. Bachmann was still on national T.V. 2 nights ago. She was introduced as one who calls herself a fool for Christ. Can you tell me if you've witnessed to as much people as she did in that few minutes?

My response;
Pray tell, did she proclaim the cross? Did she tell viewers of their sin and impending, judgement from God? Did she broadcast the fact that she would not rest until everything contrary to NT XT was legally abolished? Did her light shine so brightly that people confessed their sins, repented towards God and put their faith in the saving work of Jesus Christ? She may be sincere, but I see it as misguided.

A person of any religious persuasion would see her and think, “I would like my religion to have political representation”. A person with any cause would think,
“ maybe I can advance this cause politically”. The witness is to “politics” as much as it is to anything else. Go deep dude, go deep!

Please tell me how many people she witnessed too, so as to enable me too respond to your final point.

TayoD
A christian in power also looks out for the needs of his christian community at home and abroad. Christians have negotiated laws that favour the propagating of the Gospel. Do you think it is the non-christians in the American Government that are pressuring China and Korea etc against the discrimination of the minority Christians? What about the Christian that was delivered from death in Afghanistan recently. Was it just prayer that saved him or did it include political pressure? That is Church and State working together to bring about God's will on the earth.

My response;
You cannot ascribe any laws to XT’ as the numbers demand they collaborate with non-XT to get any legislation passed. The propagation of the gospel is in no way dependant on legislation. Unless of course you are still surreptitiously proclaiming a theocracy. All decent, civil and well-ordered nations along with human rights/welfare organisations work to end discrimination and oppression on any basis. This is not the sole preserve of XT’. As for the case of the Afghani believer, many and diverse voices decried this, and not just XT’

Your naivette in thinking that the state (of it’s own volition) works to effect God’s will on earth beggars belief and is also quite sad (not to say delusional). The state is a power/institution/kingdom in it’s own right. Such entities work to aggrandise and self-perpetuate themselves. They will work to subsume, counter or nullify any threats, collaborate or compromise to further their aims, but their primary working directive is as stated. That by the way clearly explains the death of the Lord. The Jewish religious establishment & the Roman state aligned in common purpose (not in order to do God’s will), to neutralise a perceived common threat. A an aside, let me also educate you on the fact that most so-called XT denominations & ministries also work on that principle. By now you are not only screaming, you are also foaming at the mouth. One mo' I'll call the men in white jackets ! Enter mrpataki, havila & analytical - OMG, the lunatics are running the asylum

Tayo D said;
You have failed to produce a single example or witness of a Civil Servant or governor who attained that position by the principle you have been professing. Thus, there is no practical outworking of that which you have claimed is biblical. And if there is no practical outworking of faith, then the faith is all but moribund.

My response;
I have responded to this point severally. Firstly you have failed to demonstrate or show an example of a XT using political office to advance the KOG. Secondly, I outlined the way the biblical narrative patterns how one could wield political power without agitating for it. The fact that I don’t mention anyone who has trodden this path in contemporary times, does not change the scripture? Neither is that to suggest that God is, is not or has too work this way at this, or any time. That’s why He’s sovereign. Thirdly, you have conveniently ignored, the repeatedly posted, contemporary treatise I posted clearly demonstrating the gaping holes in your position on a practical level. Please respond to the issue of “homosexual adoption” as I outlined it on post #85. Thank you!

TayoD;
You have only proved my point further here. Politics appear sinful because we have left it in the hands of sinful men. Once the players change to the righteous, the game (politics) will reflect the nature of the players: righteousness.

My response;
No I haven’t as ever your one dimensional rhetoric is befuddling you. The power that worldly politics pursues is in the hands of the evil one. To acquire, wield and retain worldly political power, you have to bow the knee to another.

No beef dude!

God bless

TV01,

Next time please bring some relevance or join Analytical, mrpataki et al in the gainsayers corner!

A an aside, let me also educate you on the fact that most so-called XT denominations & ministries also work on that principle. By now you are not only screaming, you are also foaming at the mouth. One mo' I'll  call the men in white jackets  ! Enter mrpataki, havila & analytical - OMG, the lunatics are running the asylum   

I chose to refrain from trading words and exchanging tantrums.  I’m sure you know I can hold my own when it comes to debate and theoretical doctrines based on my study and personal convictions, and not on any MOG’s according to you-  I wonder what’s wrong anyway in submitting to a teaching from an MOG that has more understanding and depth than one. I am, certainly too, not bereft of depth and understanding of cogent discussions, to answer you.  I merely responded to correct a misconception (contrast with this thread for an example of your own response!) and what has been your reply?  Further vituperations!

While not condemning, we are called to be our brother’s keeper.  You are my brother and it follows I shouldn’t keep silent where I sense a danger.  Your posts are too couched in pretense, pride and intolerance.  And the last time I checked they are not exactly virtues!

It is an offence on its own when you ascribe all knowledge and intelligence to yourself.  Anyone (and I’m not talking of those invectives) that doesn’t agree with your views, pretentious and debatable as they are, becomes your ‘sniper and gainsayer’ and are ‘naïve’, ‘not deep’ or ‘deluded’.  Their views become ‘misguided, more convoluted thinking, a mixture of sloppy half-baked deductions and nonsensical conclusions.’  Their submissions and posts are to you ‘overblown, wordy, off-point, bombastic, and spiritually impacted nonsense’, an ‘offense’ of which you are the first culprit.

Please show more grace, humility and maturity (as becoming of our calling as Christians), so your points don’t become too much ‘knowledge’ that wearies the soul of the reader.

Considering how the topic has been going round in circles, the best submission you have made in all your rejoinders and posts on it is just this simple sentence here:

Quote from: mrpataki on January 22, 2007, 06:30 PM

@ TV01,
Please answer my question, Is it wrong for christians to go into Politics?

TV01's response:

Apologies.

If one can do so without compromising their faith in anyway, go right ahead.

And I guess this can as well be the conclusion of the whole matter.

I love you all, TV01 inclusive, sincerely.

Analytical:

I chose to refrain from trading words and exchanging tantrums. I’m sure you know I can hold my own when it comes to debate and theoretical doctrines based on my study and personal convictions, and not on any MOG’s according to you

Please feel free to share your views!

Analytical:

I wonder what’s wrong anyway in submitting to a teaching from an MOG that has more understanding and depth than one.

I don't know that one ever "submits to a teaching"

Analytical:

It is an offence on its own when you ascribe all knowledge and intelligence to yourself. Anyone (and I’m not talking of those invectives) that doesn’t agree with your views, pretentious and debatable as they are, becomes your ‘sniper and gainsayer’ and are ‘naïve’, ‘not deep’ or ‘deluded’. Their views become ‘misguided, more convoluted thinking, a mixture of sloppy half-baked deductions and nonsensical conclusions.’ Their submissions and posts are to you ‘overblown, wordy, off-point, bombastic, and spiritually impacted nonsense’, an ‘offense’ of which you are the first culprit.

Bro' Analytical, you are absolutely right, I have gone to far. No excuses. I wholeheartedly and unreservedly apologise to all. That includes those I addressed directly and those who took offence at any of my remarks. Indeed, I repent. I should have demonstrated more XTian virtue than I have thus far.

I thank you for championing sound XT conduct, regardless of the slights to your own person. Glowing witness and excellent personal testimony. Thank you.

Analytical:

I love you all, TV01 inclusive, sincerely.

Me too!

God bless

I don't know that one ever "submits to a teaching"

Sorry for that .  I mean being taught.

Bro' Analytical, you are absolutely right, I have gone to far. No excuses. I wholeheartedly and unreservedly apologise to all. That includes those I addressed directly and those who took offence at any of my remarks. Indeed, I repent. I should have demonstrated more XTian virtue than I have thus far.

I thank you for championing sound XT conduct, regardless of the slights to your own person. Glowing witness and excellent personal testimony. Thank you.

Now, that's my brother speaking there!   That's the spirit, beloved and thanks for the compliments.  All praise and glory to God!

Love and Peace!

@TV01,

Pray tell, did she proclaim the cross? Did she tell viewers of their sin and impending, judgement from God? Did she broadcast the fact that she would not rest until everything contrary to NT XT was legally abolished? Did her light shine so brightly that people confessed their sins, repented towards God and put their faith in the saving work of Jesus Christ?

Again you miss the point. A Christian's role in politics is not to shove down his/her beliefs on someone else. It is to lead by example. It is being so righteously different that people will not but try to find out what makes her different - Christ. It is serving God by serving humanity. When opportunity provides itself, she will procalim her faith just like she did during the debates. And her platform was much larger than you can ever dream of. She was on a hill so high that all could see and hear her testimony.

So TV01, if the State is completely run by the enemy how come you are not in jail now? How come your witness is not so diametrically opposed to the laws of the land that you have not being locked up? Aren't you compromised not to becharged with gay-bashing and discrimination. Aren't you compromised that you could have the same objectives aand goals with your colleagues who are not Christains? If you could live and work amongst unbelievers, why can't a Christian do the same in government?

And by the way, if you consider as God's doing, a situation where a slave is made a Governor, how is it less a miracle that a Christian who proclaims her faith in public, authored a bill to ban homosexual marriage, and calls herself a fool for Christ be elected with almost 70% of the vote in a heavily Democratic State?

@Analytical,

Quote from: mrpataki on January 22, 2007, 06:30 PM

Quote

@ TV01,
Please answer my question, Is it wrong for christians to go into Politics?
TV01's response:
Quote
Apologies.
If one can do so without compromising their faith in anyway, go right ahead.

Thanks for the Analysis . You are so right. that should be the conclusion of the whole matter.

TayoD:

Thanks for the Analysis . You are so right. that should be the conclusion of the whole matter.

Conclu wetin? Hell no!

TayoD don't you dare use that as an excuse to high tail it! Bari Kade don't run O! Talk never finish! We will conclude at the end, not midterm (sorry politicos  ) midway!

Now where was I?

Oh yes, I was about dealing with TayoD' latest post, while awaiting a response from Bari Kade, and taking the opportunity to have a quick dig at mrpataki  , I mean demonstrate my new, improved and ever so felicitous literary style.

Still cryin'

God bless

@TV01,

Conclu wetin? Hell no!
TayoD don't you dare use that as an excuse to high tail it! Bari Kade don't run O! Talk never finish! We will conclude at the end, not midterm (sorry politicos ) midway!
Now where was I?
Oh yes, I was about dealing with TayoD' latest post, while awaiting a response from Bari Kade, and taking the opportunity to have a quick dig at mrpataki , I mean demonstrate my new, improved and ever so felicitous literary style.
Still cryin'
God bless

Do you have another hidden agenda? The underlying question of this thread is: Can Christians participate in politics? Here's a summary of people's responses:
TV01 - Yes with conditions
TayoD - yes with conditions
mrpataki - Yes with conditions
Analytical - Yes with conditions
bari_kade - yes with conditions

Shouldn't we then put in a Q.E.D. to the topic? Or arent everybody's views pellucid enough?

Well i see it is a waste of time out here

All the scriptures showing that God plans to destroy human rulership, the identifying marks of true Christianity and the example of Jesus and his followers does not mean a thing to all the people here. Well itz up to you guyz.

Tayo D says im arguing with myself, Shahan says i argue against the bible and am giving extreme interpretation.

Well i guess the Bible was correct when it said Satan is misleading the whole world. I cant even believe that a somebody could say that wordly politics is a way to achieve Gods kingdom on earth while the bible says a completely different thing.

Human rulership bring Gods kingdom on earth?
I guess than that its a futile exercise.

Christiandoms destruction will be fully deserved as she has let real truth seekers like Tayo D confused.

Rather than following Jesus and his followers example they teach their followers falsehood and then whats left. They come to this forum with bouts of self righteous vindication while clearly ignoring the more important things and the truths of the bible, wasting time on things like should a christian work in a bar, is it sinful, is christian wine alcoholic and other stuffs like that, self righteousness that is not going to acheive anything for them. Makes me feel like this .


Il add a few things later to this

@Sage,

The only person here who has shown traces of self righteousness is you. Okay I take that back, I should have included TV01 too . Your continued inference that the Church will be judged obviously indicates you see yourself more righteous than the body. I believe you see yourself and those in your circles to be the only once to escape that judgment. Your hope of escaping is obviously based on works and not faith. You have slipped into error my friend.

In anycase, I have shown you the conclusion of the whole matter as pertaining to the kingdom of men - they will become the kingdom of our God and of His Christ. As for your continued lumping of the Church with the harlot in revelation, I leave you to your muddled up theology which fails to recognise that the church of God is not on earth at that point. The harlot is a physical city which could be Washington, London, Mecca, New York for all you know. You have failed to acknowledge this because you know it turns your theology upside down.

As for the church being judged, you are simply on your own. Those in the First Adam have been condemned already but those in the last Adam have received the justification of life - Romans 5:18.

Well, it's interesting to read the various persuasions on this somewhat touchy issue.

@TV01,

TV01:

Bari Kade don't run O! Talk never finish! We will conclude at the end, not midterm (sorry politicos ) midway!

If for argument sake you want to run a race-course and be headmaster, no wahala! You have your reasons why CP/Xtity/XP. . . or whatever else, is a plague in the Christian faith, as much as everyone else have theirs for applauding it. At the end of the day, no one may have made sense to you; and in my mind it is very doubtful that your arguements have served a good persuasion across board (just my opinion, however disagreeable you may be to that).

Let me tersely say that Christians in political vocations play an important role in influencing legislations that reflect godliness against the backdrop of ungodly agenda. If this is idolatory or witchcraft, I'd rather let God be the judge, and not the passive spectators who cry foul at this vital exercise.

@TayoD,

TayoD:

@TV01,Do you have another hidden agenda? The underlying question of this thread is: Can Christians participate in politics? Here's a summary of people's responses:
TV01 - Yes with conditions
TayoD - yes with conditions
mrpataki - Yes with conditions
Analytical - Yes with conditions
bari_kade - yes with conditions

Shouldn't we then put in a Q.E.D. to the topic? Or arent everybody's views pellucid enough?

Brilliant - and thanks. QED.

Regards to all.

@Tayo D

Well for me this debate is over but il like to leave u with a few thoughts.

True first century Christianity was incompatible with politics. Constantine, a pagan emperor fused the two and produced a harlot of unimaginable proportions.

True Christianity was never mainstream, and true Christians were the scum of society, hated by mainstream religion and the nations which these Christians were citizens of, exactly as Jesus said because they chose to keep seperate from its politics. Probably to onlookers it was hypocrisy that these Christians were exhibiting by enjoying the benefits of a nations citizenship (for eg Paul) while at the same time proclaiming God's judgement on the Nations which gave them legal rights and all, refusing to pray for the nation, serve the nation nor engage in its politics. True Christians remained the scum of society for as long as they did what was required of them and refuse to glorify the Nations. They were fit for lions and horrible deaths. When christianity deviated, it accepted politics as mainstream.

They first century Christians realised that they could not take part in anyform of human political goverment irrespective of the consequences. Their masters return would bring reward to those who had spent their time advancing the only govt that God approves of and that their were commisioned to loud. Judgement also awaited all those who had deviated from the commision and have turned to promoting wordly human govts which are headed into destruction.

A DYING POLITICAL ORDER SET UP BY SATAN IS NO PLACE FOR TRUE CHRISTIANS. the first century Christians realised this and died for their beliefs.

If i have time il come and list out more passages from the bible

bari_kade:

If for argument sake you want to run a race-course and be headmaster, no wahala! You have your reasons why CP/Xtity/XP. . . or whatever else, is a plague in the Christian faith, as much as everyone else have theirs for applauding it. At the end of the day, no one may have made sense to you; and in my mind it is very doubtful that your arguements have served a good persuasion across board (just my opinion, however disagreeable you may be to that).

~ No, not for arguments sake.
~ I have no problem with you not being persuaded by my arguments.
~ However, I have invited you to outline the reasons for your position in response.
~ After all, if I am to modify or change my position, it must be on a sound basis.

bari_kade:

Let me tersely say that Christians in political vocations play an important role in influencing legislations that reflect godliness against the backdrop of ungodly agenda. If this is idolatory or witchcraft, I'd rather let God be the judge, and not the passive spectators who cry foul at this vital exercise.

I can state my position in an equally terse way. But I have gone on to show as well as say. I have repeatedly asked you to detail the hows and why of your position. You can demonstrate it's validity from scripture, history, contemporary events or any other way that will make it's soundness apparent.

If you would really like God to judge, you would not speak perjoritively of those who hold a different view, neither would you "self-validate" your own position.

God bless

Politics cud be a very dirty game. But was thnking should Christians really be involved in politics. Is it possible for christians to be involved in Politics and still uphold their values and not compromise their Faith.
Sure you guys understand what i mean now. Kindly sshare your views on this thread.

Godspeed!!!