₦airaland Forum

@Bobbyaf,

Thanks for your input. You have put it rightly that the fire is nothing but a symbol or better still, a manifestation. Using fire in place of the Holy Spirit is just a means of telling the Holy Spirit to manifest in the way we desire. In the Book of Acts when the disciples were filled, wind was also present and not just fire, and as I said in the case of Jesus and John the Baptist, the Holy spirit manifested as a dove. He is not a manifestation and should not be addressed as such.


The major reason why I felt the need to make this clarifications here is that I have had such unfinished discussion before on nairaland.  I really can't remeber what topic it was or I would have referenced it.

Let me give us all something to think about. I personally believe the baptism of the Holy Spirit is done by Jesus to bring people into His Body. It happenes only once at the time of being born again.  In Luke 3:17, the Bible says the wheat will He gather into His garner and the chaff will be burnt with fire.  These are in reference to Jesus' dual role of baptism with the Holy Spirit and baptism with fire. The wheat are baptised with the Holy Spirit into a single garner which is what Paul expressed when he said in 1 Corinthians 12:13 - For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

The baptism with the Holy Spirit is done to bring a person into the Body of Christ.  What happens thereafter is just a filling of the Holy Spirit. The first filling of the Holy Spirit is evidenced by speaking in tongues while we can be constantly filled when we keep drinking into Him.

I hope I have made myself very clear now.  I do appreciate any inputs as well.

@babyosisi,

Thanks for your input. I understand very well the intention of the poster and I made that known in very clear terms.

However, there is this growing tendency in the Body of Christ to refer to the Holy Spirit as Fire. He is not fire, and will never be one. The scriptures you quoted in the Book of Acts said there appeared to be a cloven tongue of fire abiding on the Disciples. While some may say this was the Holy Spirit, it still does not take away the fact that it was just a manifestation. Why don't we refer to the Holy Spirit then as a dove, since He alighted on Jesus in the manifestation that John the Baptist saw?

In any case, going by the verse that most people refer to in Luke 3: 16 to 17, I am convinced the baptism of fire is not meant for the wheat but for the chaff. The wheat will be gathered into His barn, while the chaff will be burned up with unquenchable fire. That to me is what John was talking about when he said He will baptise with fire. If you have a contrary opinion or a different reading of that passage, please do share with us.

@TV01,

As usual, I am not surprised by your ignoring that which is written and going about to establish your own truths.

Knowing how well you are quick to dismiss everything that does not meet up with your narrow expectations, I copied and pasted scriptures which have obviously suffered the same fate in your hands.

As I once told you, when you start going down such self-destructive paths, you are absolutely on your own.

@Backslider,

There are two different groups of people Jesus will be baptizing. The first He will baptise with the Holy Ghost and the later He will baptise with fire. Needless to say, "it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God."  In any case, the passage explains itself. I believe you meant matthew 3:11 and not John 3:11.  Here is Luke's version:  Luke 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: 17 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.

I believe it is clear from the entire passage that the baptism of fire is meant for the chaff and not for the wheat. Those calling down fire on themselves have no clue what they are asking for.

@dkingsgirl,

see a dying man wey want context, even if he was'nt sick he looks too pale to play squash

Is everyone returning "shelling for shelling", or is it "fire for fire" on this thread? Never have I been so amused by the sheer butchery been dealt on the english language as we find on this thread.  let the shelling continue while I run for cover!!

@Backslider,

And what does Fire stand for in all those scriptures? You guessed right - JUDGEMENT!!

@Kintayo,

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but you are in manifest error by this fresh fire you are talking about.  Fire from indication of scripture refers solely to judgement. Why should I seek judgment on my life everyday?  The problem is that many in the Body of Christ have substituted the Holy Spirit with fire, and I see no scripture that backs up that claim. For your own good, please always use the phrase Holy Spirit when you desire His filling.  Asking for Fire is asking for judgement.

@lilvonz,

die! die! yar'adua die

Are you a member of the mountain of fire church? This your die, die pass me o. By the way, you left out the "by fire" that usually follows the die!

@TV01,

~ All humans already have eternal life? Surely it’s required to suffer eternally?

All humans do not have eternal life in the sense of the life we have as Believers. From all indication of scripture, a spirit being (except God) is one who has a beginning without an end. That is why fallen angels who ered in the time of Noah are held in chains of darkness until the judgement. Demons are also spirit beings without a body. All these spirits are not anihilated but subdued one way or another.  Eternal Life does not necessarily refer to longevity but on the qaulity of life.

~ The eternal life offered by God in Christ is not in contradistinction to perishing?

Like I said above, you eternal life is more than just longevity.

~ Also note John 3:16 which states everlasting life. You are of a necessity saying that those who perish already/also have everlasting life

The alternative to everlasting life is everlasting death and not anihilation. Jesus came to deliver us from the dead state we were in and offered eternal life in return. Those who perish remain in that state of death and suffer the repercussions of that state.

~ The eternal punishment is perhaps spiritual in nature (conscious existence), or do the wicked also get resurrected bodies?

Daniel 12:2 - And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.  The same Hebrew word is used for everlasting in refernce to those who receive life and those who do not. So if you relate everlasting with longevity, then I guess both camps will be around for as long as that word connotes.  And yes, the wicked also resurrects as this scripture points out.

~ Does this suggest immortality of the soul? Not that I have any deeply held position on that point as yet, I’m just clarifying.

I have stated this earlier. I believe the soul/spirit is immortal.

When you say that many have a state of “conscious existence beyond the grave”, please clarify that. Is the bible not clear that those who sleep do so until the first or second resurrections? Who are those who have this “deathly state consciousness”? Is resurrection purely a physical experience?

The Bible does not say what you are implying. There is indeed "conscious existence"in the grave. Why would the rich man ask that preachers be sent the way of his brothers who are still alive? The Bible only teaches that the dead are no longer a part of what the living do. Moses and Elijah were seen with Jesus on the mount of transfiguration. And Resurrection brings about the reunion of our spirits with our glorious bodies.

My understanding is that Judaism does not teach or believe in eternal punishment. In Judaism, death is final. I am not talking about Christians developing a doctrine through new and old testaments. The verses you quoted from the OT are not read as eternal punishment in Judaism and by some in Christianity I might add).

It all depends on which Jew you are talking to. The Pharisees believe in the resurrection of the dead (all dead), in spirits etc., while the Saduccees do not. I'm sure you know this.  Daniel 12:2 is clear as to the duration of the punishment.

Taking verses that read different to Rev 20:10 and insisting that they buttress it or it somehow adds depth to them, just  doesn’t give a unified clear-cut whole. It’s a force-fit. If the Bible teaches it, it should be clearly and variously outlined.

Please share with us your understanding of Revelation 20:10.  Here is what syrup had to say in this regard:  The term "destruction" only strengthens the warning of the Lord; rather than conflict with declaration of Rev. 20:10. Further, the Lord Jesus elsewhere warned about the severity of God's outpoured wrath in other terms: "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. . . And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." (Matt. 25:41 & 46). Is it not clear from these scriptures that everlasting punishment is meant to be received through the instumentality of everlasting fire?

Could Revelations 20:10 be referring solely to the unholy trio?

Not if Matthew 25:41 has anything to say about it - Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

So, my position remains unchanged. I have not seen a clear unforced exposition of the doctrine of eternal torment. I still await a convincing explanation for the few scriptures that seems to fly in the face of (or could be read as opposing) a doctrine of eternal destruction (annihilation). I am yet to be fully convinced either way, but on the balance of probabilities and for sheer weight of scripture I’d go for the latter.

No single scripture teaches annihilation. Please do share with us, those scriptures that you feel suggests this idea.

You can't lose a ministry because you don't have one.

2Co 4:1 - Therefore, since through God's mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart.

2Co 5:18 - All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation:

2Co 6:3 - We put no stumbling block in anyone's path, so that our ministry will not be discredited.

Ga 2:8 - For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles.

2Ti 4:5 - But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

2Ti 4:11 - Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry. [color=#990000]

@Syrup,

I must confess, I have not been this "tripped" by a lady on nairaland since I've been reading from babyosisi. Keep it up darling. You are doing a great job.

@TV01,

So, to parable of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16. We should note that this is just that, a parable.

I beg to disagree that the story about Lazarus is a parable. This was a reality. Jesus told the story of what actually happened. The characters in the story like Abraham are real.

@Syrup,

It appears I will be disagreeing with you for the first time on nairaland.

If I may ask, what do you think would have happened to that ministry if the crime commited happened in say, the U.K. For instance, Davidylan pointed at how Matthew Ashimolowo lost his minitry in the U.K. due to money. Why should the State have a higher level of integrity than the Church? is it not supposed to be the other way round?

The case of Judas and Jesus' ministry is different. Judas didn't steal money and put it into Jesus' ministry, rather, he stole money from Jesus' treasury to spend on himself. What do you think Jesus would have done if Judas stole N35 million naira and put it into Jesus' ministry? While Pastor Chris may not have received the money directly, do you think the branch didn't send a tithe of the money to the main branch? I think not.

Here what paul had to say with regards to himself and his ministry: 1 Thessalonians 2:10 Ye are witnesses, and God also, how holily and justly and unblameably we behaved ourselves among you that believe: I guess this scripture is not binding on Christ Embassy.

@Topic,

It's amazing how people interprete the scriptures. No wonder Jesus said in Luke 10:26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

One of the most ridiculous things I've read here so far is the time limit TV01 and his group have placed on the eternal punishment of those who refused to receive God's grace. If we should go by what they've said, I guess those of us who have received the gift of "eternal" life better watch out. That eternal might be temporal afterall.

It appears that this discussion is turning more to the duration of the punishment. Hell or Hades is temporal, but the Lake of fire is forever and ever. I hate to encourage anyone to fancy their chances of a temporal abode in the lake that burns for eternity.

I wish TV01 will show us how his theory is supported by the scripture. He has claimed the devil will receive more punishments than others and have suggested people will be punished to the extent of their sin. I would have agreed with him if I had found evidence to support this in scripture.  From what I know, all who find themselves in Hell will be because of one sin: they called God a Liar by refusing the testimony of His Son - Jesus.

@Bobbyaf who quotes Psalm 37: 20 - But the wicked shall perish; And the enemies of the LORD, Like the splendor of the meadows, shall vanish. Into smoke they shall vanish away.  Please be adviced that this scripture does not support the notion you are pushing forward. That scripture relates to the lifetime of those enemies. It suggests that all they do is only for a while and God Himself will be here after they are gone.  See James 4:4 - For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.  Does this mean that you will also be turned into vapour? These two scriptures only point to the temporality of our lives as humans.

And may I point to you that smoke is matter and is not nothingness which you and TV01 suggests the wicked will become.

@Backslider,

While your heart may be right about this matter, I think you have completely mistaken what the actions of the Body of Christ should be regarding matters like this one.

Love is not passive but active. Jesus never condoned sin in anyway. He forgave those who are contrite and acknowledge their sins, but He was vehemently against Hypocrites personified by the Pharisees.  When for love of money, someone preaches as right a clearly wrong thing, the Bible commands that such mouths must be stopped: Titus 1:11 T[b]hey must be silenced.[/b] By their wrong teaching, they have already turned whole families away from the truth. Such teachers only want your money.

Go through the NT and see how such situations are dealt with. First, Oyahks validated the ministry of that devil called T.B. Joshua; now he is telling the whole world that stealing is alright as long as you pay the tithe. What next is he going to teach?

As long as his congregation comes here to validate this "righteous stealing", then we will continue to oppose them and express our faith that of us, such actions should not even be once named amongst them who are regarded as Saints.

@Backslider,

I am pleading that we tone down our sounding the sins of a pastor and ask God to use his church members like Donnie to ask in love for the repentance of the "MOG"

It is challenging them to see the evil in the action and them using the grace of God to deal with it.

You have assumed here that the so-called members who claimed that their lives will never remain the same after the conference (not after meeting Jesus), see anything wrong with the action of that MOG. To them, the annointing covereth a multitude of sins and there is absolutely no chance of them doing what they need to do.

Secondly, the scripture is very clear about issues like this. When someone is caught in sin, those who are spiritual are to restore him. In this case however, he has distanced himself from those who could tell him the truth and surrounded himself with praise singers he calls his congregation, and by a charlatan called T.B. Joshua.

When someone gets to this point, the Bible clearly teaches for the Body of Christ to depart from such a person so the Holy Spirit can have the opporutnity to show him the error of his ways. From the way his flock sounds, that scripture will never ever be followed.

@Analytical,

It appears you have come to the same realisation I was awakened to when discussing with TV01. Thanks for all your inputs so far. they have been a blessing.

I particularly love this closing statement of yours which is amply suopported by the scripture I will quote hereafter:" A christian is not one by structures or models. Whether leadership by plurality of elders (as in congregational, some baptists etc) or hierarchical (as in episcopal, penticostal etc), everyone who has believed and accepted the saving grace of Christ is part of His one church, structure or not.".

Here is how Apostle Paul stated this same fact - 1 Corinthinas 12: 5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

@TV01,

When you prove yourself to be as paranoid of this mode of administration which you call the SAP, don't you think you are just as bogged down by the same system that you are so vehemently opposed to? You talk about clergy/laity split which is one thing I have no clue about and have never witnessed. Everything must be in your over-active imagination.

I grew up in a denomination where the 'elder' concept was in full operation. Guess what happens? Nothing gets done unless a vote is taken after a quorum is established. The same concept is what is giving rise to homosexual Bishops being ordained just because a body of elders vote such abominations into practice. The same clergy/laity split you are crying about manifests itself in the elder/laity relationship as well.

The eldership concept as I told you before came from jewish tradition based on the principles in Proverbs 11:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety. And based on Jewish tradition, the older you are, the wiser you are expected to be as stated by Elihu in Job 32:7 I said, Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom. 8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding

By definition and as revealed in scripture (1 Timothy 5:1 for instance), an Elder must be advanced in years and this contradicts the later statement of Elihu in the scripture I stated above. It is a reason why people like Timothy, though called, could never be an Elder which makes foolishness of the wisdom impacted by the Spirit of God and it mirrors the Sanhedrin concept developed by the Jewish people.

I don't expect you to agree with what I've stated. Infact, I'd be shocked if you do. But for goodness sake, do not be quick to make generalisations and judgments of things you know nothing about. God bless.

@syrup,

Good Word my sister, good Word.  I must caution you however that these folks are averse to truth. Of them it is written in Romans 1:25 - "Who changed the truth of God into a lie".

While we hold out the Word of truth in hope that they have been amply witnessed to, our efforts must be underscored by the knowledge that there are those who are weak of heart who need to hear the truth spoken by us for them to be established.  For such, we shall continually refute these lies and hold forth the banner of righteousness.

For those who care to read and understand, Deuteronomy 18 is very clear as to the race of the Prophet being spoken of. The same phrase used in verse 18 is also used in verse 2 to describe the 12 tribes. Here they are agains: verse 18: I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, verse 2: Therefore shall they have no inheritance among their brethren: the LORD is their inheritance, as he hath said unto them. . If you can stretch the phrase in verse 2 to include the Bedoiun tribe, then I guess you can begin to think of Mohammed as the one spoken of in verse 18.

If we choose to use just common sense, then we will realise that for anyone to be a brother to the 12 tribes, that person must be a direct child/son of Jacob. The Arabs are natural sons of Abraham and can only be refered to as distant cousins to the 12 tribes. I only hope that common sense will be allowed to prevail in the minds of these over zealous muslims.

Nice exchanges so far. Keep it up.

Analytical, I'm 100% with you on this. It appears that TV01 is more obsessed and polarised by the MOG concept and the so-called SAP than the people directly influenced by it.

Elders are as susceptible to every vices that the SAP (using TV's terminology) are susceptible to. The mega-star status that he has trouble with was also a problem with the early Disciples.  No wonder Paul said: Romans 16:7 - Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
Galatians 2: 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship;

The plurality of leadership will never eliminate the 'Mega-star' concept that our dear TV01 is so averse to.

@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.

@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?

@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.

@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?

@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

Orikinla,

I see nothing wrong in lobbying Nigerians in the U.S. to do business in Nigeria.

If the issue is that the contracts were awarded without due proces, then we can begin to batt an eyelid. The fact is Nigeria requires the collective efforts of those abroad and at home for it to move forward. And it is really going to take a lot of lobbying and I believe image laundering for a lot of people to think its safe and profitable to invest in the country.

I stand to be corrected on this.

@kaecy5,

well afam the problem with most of our pro American Nigerians is that they probably r only exposed to american press which off course would be pro bush just as NTA sees OBJ as a dermi god
then they r some what appreciative of the good life they r enjoying in the US so they believe that in supporting bush till the end should be a very good compensation for their liberty and stay
but least i remind every one bush is taking his highhandedness too far, and he is generating more enemies for the US
how come Clinton did not generate this amount of enemies- probably he was busy with Monica behind closed doors

Your statement smirks of deep-rooted ignorance. It appears OBJ has completely battered your psyche to the extent that you view every issue of life from your OBJ-tinted perspective. In any case, can you tell me what information has been used against the U.S. on this forum that wasn't taken from the so-called pro-Bush american press? Are you so much paralysed by the Bush Bashing Syndrom that you have failed to see that his biggest critics is the United State's press?

Na wa o. When one points out obvious lies and half-truths from your statements, all you can say in defense is that ou are opposed by American cum Bush Apologists. You need facts and truth to defend your stance than the sentiments you and others are expressing.

@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,

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.

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 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?

@The American Bashers,

Here is a piece from an article written by the New York Times: Mr. Qumi also acknowledged, for the first time, that two Iranians seized and later released by American forces last month were security officials, as the United States had claimed. But he said that they were engaged in legitimate discussions with the Iraqi government and should not have been detained. Please note that Mr Qumi is Iran's Ambassador to Baghdad.

This is the tactic adopted by these folks. They fight from and store weapons of war among civilians whom they claim are being targeted by opposing forces who legitimately hit such positions. At the same time, they employ security and military personnels for purely civilian roles in an attempt to carry on with illegitimate military actions against the U.S. And finally, they employ lying stooges like Afam, on places like nairaland to confuse the issues to the simple minded.

@Sage,

True Christianity and politics CAN NEVER MIX. It is no longer true Christianity if the two come together.
Politics of this world is up for destuction as well as all alliances including the Harlot that is scared of letting the Nations know of God judgement.
When the Bible says that Satan and the Harlot influence and MISLEAD THE WHOLE WORLD WITH FALSE PRACTICES AND BELIEFS it is not talking about some people hidden in some Arabian lands. It includes the billions of masses that think that they are following Christ.
If you take time and go through the Bible, you will see that Christiandom has deviated far away from what true Christianity should be and deserves every inch of the Judgement awaiting her.
This is a clear case and should not be confusing to to an avid Bible student.
THE NATIONS ARE FASHIONING OUT WEAPONS FOR THEIR OWN GAIN AND PURPOSES WITHOUT ANY REGARD FOR GOD'S KINGDOM UNDER HIS SON NOR GOD'S PURPOSES FOR THE EARTH. TO ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES THEY DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE JESUS RIGHTFUL RULERSHIP BUT SPEND ALL THEIR TIME IN FUTILE NATIONALISTIC PURSUITS.
TRUE CHRISTIANITY HAS NO PART IN THAT.

Politics of the world is for destruction? Paul said otherwise. He said Ceasar is a Minister of God to thee for good. so who should I believe, you or Apostle Paul?
As I said, the Church is already raptured at the time the Bible reveals the harlot. So saying the church is a part of that harlot is turning the Bible on its head.
For the church, mercy triumphs over judgement. and for your information, the Bible decalres that Jesus is coming for a glorious church without spot or wrinkle. So how such a church can be a harlot is beyond comprehension.
Nations are not told to acknowledge the rightful rulership of Jesus until the Millenial Kingdom. Individuals are the once required to be born again and not nations. It seems like you just can't wait to enter that Millenial kingdom.

Your response is part of the reason why Christiandom is going to suffer Judgement. It has abandoned teaching its followers truth from the Bible and left them wanting for truth.
You acknowledged that the rulership of this world is in the hands of Satan and that he gives it to whom he wants, that so called Christian politicians fight and kill each other, and that Jesus refused participation in human rulership and all early Christians avoided politics BUT still you are looking for a way to explain it away.

Wait, wait wait. That passage in Luke 4 about the kingdoms being delivered to Satan is not the end of the story o. Have you forgitten the cross? Do you think Jesus died so the kingdoms will remain with the enemy? I think not. See Hebrews 11:33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,  and Revelation 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.  Do yousee that He did not destroy the kingdoms as you have said, but rather took over the kingdoms?

Besides, the Nation of Isreal that later split into two had a purpose of producing the seed that was to redeem Mankind, and had to be kept pure of corrupting influences, both from the inside n outside, hence the law. Wars were waged with Gods approval to acheive that aim.  ISREAL WAS A THEOCRACY RUN BY GOD AND WHEN THEY REFUSED HIS MESSIAH, HE ABBANDONED THEM.
Trying to use that to justify participation in the politics and wars of this world is faulty reasoning.

I need to make this clear again. I am not advocating theocracy nor saying the church as an institution should take over government. Rather, I am saying Christians should as a matter of neccesity partake in government which is acheived through the means of politics. How are we to be the salt and light of the world if we leave out the single most important influence on the people?

Politics and being in government in not synonymous with the world or sin. Jesus didn't say "it is easier for a camel to enter the eye of a needle than for a politician to enter the kigdom of God. Neither did He say "you cannot serve God and Politics" in place of mammon.  Despite the fact that Jesus refered to mammon as unrighteous, He still asked that we use it and make friends with it to achieve our own godly means and end.  Luke 16:9 And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.

@donnie,

I tire for your shameless defence of that which isn't associated with anything called righteousness. If you felt nothing was wrong with the stolen money, why did they bother to remove the gen from the church? If the monwy doesn't mean much to Oyahks (I guess you are his accountant), why doesn't he return seven fold and be an example in righteousness? I guess greed won't allow.

Judas may have being a thief, but at no time did he give stolen money to further Jesus' ministry. Do you realise Jesus was responsible for Judas' daily living? Why are you bent on finding a scriptures to justify an unrighteous action? I am not surprised anyway, if scriptures could be used to justify his allegiance to that devil called T.B. Joshua, I shouldn't be surprised to what extent his admireres will go to justify his unrighteous actions.