₦airaland Forum

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

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.

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

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

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

mrpataki:
You said it all without the interjection of slight slanders to TV01 as I would have done to his case.

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!

Analytical:
I stand corrected sir!  But still curious, where do you worship/fellowship?  Or do you have a church in your house?  

Curious about my religious affiliation hey? I haven't heard you boldly proclaim yours?
Maybe I do have a church in my house? Would you consider that a scripturally unsound thing?

Analytical:
I have made my point.  You are not right all the time, you know?  I wonder why you would single out the gift of an apostle (and leave the rest!) for abolishment, simply because you don't seem to understand their importance in this age!

Actually you haven't made any such thing. All you did was cut and paste scripture. Now I am offering you the opportunity to both correct me and make your point. I am more than willing to concede I may not be right, but to demonstrate a deeper understanding, please answer the question as posited. Your electing to apply bombast to end the discussion leaves me to doubt the robustness of your own understanding

I am fully aware of the scripture you posted. Anyone can C&P, but it takes more to enter into cogent discussion about theoretical doctrine. If you are unable, kindle return to the sidelines as a spectator, (or go back to shaking your pom-poms as a cheerleader), and let the players play.

Analytical:
In the spirit of Christ, one should own up to a mistake, especially one that's so glaring and scripturally baseless like this one, instead of further engaging in an exercise in futility, moreso when it is borne out of a desire to win an argument and not to edify.

In the Spirit of Christ one should be longsuffering enough to fully explain percieved mistake. I merely touched on something in passing without enunciating my full position. On the basis of that you launched into a wordy, overblown and off-topic rejoinder  All I did was offer you the opportunity to discuss.  LIke I said earlier, there are loads of people walking the streets in Arsenal kit!

God bless

Trini Trini_girl?? Where are you? Long time no see/hear/speak! Is all well

Analytical:
TV01, while deciding to side-step on this discussion and watch from the terrace, I was hoping the discussion will progress more constructively.  Moreso, when in one of your earlier posts on the thread 'Is God a politician', before the discussion was transferred here, you made a comment of fighting a war on many fronts!  I then decided to leave the discussion to between you and TayoD because he was speaking my mind as well, and as such, there was no need to duplicate efforts, so that the discussion could be more focussed.

Are you suggesting it is not progressing as you would have hoped? Please feel free to moderate.

My saying "I am fighting on many fronts" was not to meant to forbear anyone posting. On the contrary, the more positors the merrier. It makes for a robust discussion.

I don't think either TayoD or myself have ever considered this to be a discussion between just the two of us, or at any time suggested to others they merely "siddon look".

I read your points on "Apostles" and won't bother to respond in full here. But let me ask you this;
                "What does an Apostle do (how do they function) in this age"?

Analytical:
By the way, Sage your views tend more to those of Jehovah's Witnesses and TV01 more to those of the Brethren (Christ Churches).  Correct me if am wrong please.

You are wrong regards my denominational views. I don't belong to any denomination and I discuss each doctrinal position on it's merits, not on it's denomination or MOG endorsement! If I happen to have points of convergence or divergence with any tradition, rest assured it's merely coincidence. Stand corrected sir!

Analytical:
[P.S.  I don't intend to divert the topic, but to correct an error by TV01]

So as not to divert the topic and at the same time fully correct my error, please open a thread answering my question above and I'll be happy to engage you there.

God bless.

Neither, they are both human constructs. Keep movin' 

This is very relevant to the whole discourse, on politics, temples, etc. etc. Does anyone have anything to say

Hi TayoD, you said

I have more questions for you:

1. Melchizedek was refered to as the King of Salem as well as the Priest of the Most High God. Why didn't God have a problem with his kingship? Please keep in mind you have stated specifically that the only earthly kingdom ever approved by God is the one of Isreal and Judah (after the break up of Isreal). And please be reminded that Melchizedek was a gentile King.

2. What was Paul talking about when he said And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.

3. And what are the limitations imposed or implied on the scriptures that says: all things are yours?

I have some answers for you. In turn using your nomenclature

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.

God gave a theocracy (thanks syrup!). It was the will of the Israelites to have a king like the surrounding nations. In as much as God acceded to their request, He warned them of the cost & consequences (I Samuel 8 I believe). During that discussion (and I still do) I saw this as a form of judgment (and a warning to all that would have/enthrone kings over them other than the Lord ~ MOGwipesuckups take heed!).
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!

As for referring to Melchizedek as a “gentile king” yet at once as “Priest of the Most High God” suggests you need to think this through. 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?

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.

In context it may be primarily about things that we celebrate/pursue socio-culturally (even though marriage is divinely instituted, it is also a social imperative). I certainly don’t see it as supporting in any way the point you are attempting to make, if anything the contrary. However, if you have an alternative explanation, please say on.

3.
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 fail to see thorough end-to-end thinking here. Neither do I sense a willingness to subject your position to scrutiny, not to mention the usual back to front (adopt a position and try and make the scripture fit!) approach you appear to favour. No gainsaying, but if you have a deeper revelation, I am eager to hear it

God bless

I often stress the importance of extrapolating the practical outworking of any doctrinal position. After all, it’s a living faith. A doctrine that on the surface sounds plausible, but does not translate when reality bites, is nothing more than religious procedure.

I think we’ve had some great discussions/debates on this forum, but I am often left with a sense of disappointment as (whether by default, design or dedevil) we never seem to progress to the point of articulating how our various positions work in the real world, be it in our individual walks, or in Body dynamics.

So whilst we are on the practicality of uncompromised XT involvement in the political arena, I'll have a stab at it.

I’d like to draw everyone’s attention to the current polemic around “gay/lesbian adoption” in Britain.

I want to briefly outline my understanding of the roles and positions of some of the major parties in this imbroglio (best knowledge at the time of writing and correction if required is welcome) and use it as a fillip to re-start and progress the debate.

The Roman Catholic Church ~There are currently a number of Roman Catholic adoption agencies, who at this time (due to their religious beliefs) do not consider gay/lesbian couples for adoption.

New legislation is being passed, which will mean the RC agencies compromising on their beliefs and being legally forced to allow gay/lesbians to adopt through them (or possibly shutting down).

The Anglican (CofE) Church ~ Adoption agencies for this denomination currently allow gay/lesbian couples to adopt. I believe they have for some time now. I have pointed out severally, that the wholesale yoking of the CofE to the state has left it so compromised, that it is little more than a QUANGO. A church in name only, whose light is deep underground and barely flickering.

Weirdly enough, they are championing the RC right to act according to their beliefs. A clear-cut example of their hand-wringing indecisiveness, inability to articulate a clear, uncompromised faith based or moral position, and desire to please everyone but the One they purport to serve. Sadly these days, the CofE seems more comfortable mirroring prevailing societal/cultural trends than witnessing Gods judgement and the love of Christ to them.

The Government ~ Since the advent of the Labour party to power, Britain has been gripped by a weird, virulent form of PC. This has seen their barely disguised humanist manifesto (truly ideology is the new theology), wreak havoc on the family, empower the gay lobby and dispense with any pretence of a moral compass this country might have.

The Labour party’s relentless drive for universal “equality” and “human rights” for all, whilst sounding plausible on the surface (much like the doctrine of many on this forum !), is contrary to Gods divine order. The logical outworking of this has been to insist on legislating equal rights of adoption for gay/lesbian couples.

It seems likely now that by a quorum (that's democracy for you) within the cabinet this law will be passed wholesale, without a clause for the RC church to act according to their faith/religious/philosophical conscience. That is, they will be forced to compromise or close.

Very interesting, are the positions of two of the major players in this saga.

1. The Right Honourable Tony Blair PM ~ An Anglican (with a Catholic family?), if not a devout one or even a dilligently practicing one. The PM had made it known via various information sources (leaks!), that he was personally in favour of a religious clause, which would have made special allowance for the churches, exempting them on the basis of their religious beliefs.

2. The RH Ruth Kelly MP Cabinet Minister for Communities ~ Forced into the limelight when she became minister for education at 35. Extra focus due to the issue of “Faith Schools” and her own devout Catholicism and membership of Opus Dei, a Catholic fraternity(?), whose activities are well documented. Her position was more or less the same as the PM’s.

The wishes of both (theological) have been subsumed to that of the party (ideological). So what I see here is an example of the futility of Christian Politics. It can only lead to all round compromise and blighted witness.

Would anyone here consider TB to be a Daniel? Or RK an Esther? You'll play "spot the Nehemiah" in vain. Is anybody expecting resignations henceforth? So, while you may ascend to the highest echelons of political power, will you be right? rarely, honourable? unlikely. Politically correct? maybe, but religiously? I think religion would have ceased to be your motivation a long time ago.

As ever I look forward to hearing different perspectives.

God bless

TayoD:
Can you prove to us that none of these vices was present in the early churches? If you can do that, then I will begin to take you seriously.

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!

TayoD:
Have you ever wondered why Jesus never mentioned politics in His message to the seven churches in the Book of Revelation? If it is the underlying cause of all these vices, don't you think He would have made mention of it? Or do you think He was planning that TV01 will be the Great Apostle of our time

Answered severally (again!) in my previous post. Worldly political engagement is an outworking!

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".  

TayoD:
Mmm. I guess we can now have Abraham, Isaac, Mordecai, Esther, Nehemiah, David etc removed from our list of true believers based on TV's new revelation. What effrontery! You sure convinced me that brashness and ignorance are an indivisible twin.

Don't forget Joseph & Daniel!

Keep on distorting scripture and context to justify naked lust for money and power. I wonder how you can have the same imperatives as mobsters, punk rockers, gangsta rappers and the like and think such notions are XTian?

I discovered that whilst engaging you on "tithing", "SAP & Church structure" and numerous other posts. As ever, you are always way behind the pace!

TayoD:
The Bible was not specific with regards to the leaven of Herod. If however the Bible lumps the leaven of the Pharisees with that of Herod, I guess the leaven of Herod wont be too different from hypocrisy.
What scripture is that again?

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?

TayoD:
In any case, you have still not provided us with a contemporary example to prove the outworking of your doctrinal position. Not only have I provided scriptures, I have pointed at Michelle Bachmann as a contemporary example of the practical outworking of my doctrinal position.

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

God bless.

TayoD:
@TV01,
Half-baked deductions? I think not. You have failed to tell us any vocation or association in this world system that provides no compromise opportunities for the Christian, yet you say the christian should stay away only from Politics (though you also sited culture and commerce). So why not have us stay away from all instead of singling out politics? What evil do you see in poltics that is not manifest in other areas of life? You are yet to make this known, and I trust you will provide scriptural refernces as I have provided for mine.

I went to great lengths to dinstinguish between the temptation to compromise in some situations or arena's  and the wholesale corrupt and evil nature of others. The one you chart using biblical wisdom and discernment. The same biblical wisdom and discernment suggests one is best served by fleeing the other. Enough said.

TayoD:
No thanks! My 14 month old son is already doing that. Doubt your ability to do a better job. I'm glad you at least know the Lord is not teaching me any scriptures from you 'because there is no revelation from what you've been saying.

Apologies here, my bad. I meant to say "God is using you to teach me patience". I found the error as soon as I read the posted reply and modified immediately, but you had already replied. Sorry again, but's it's good to know you hang around eagerly awaiting my posts  .

TayoD:
Compromise is due to a failing of the flesh not participation in politics. So what do you say of Christians who are not in politics but condone and practice homosexuality?

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.

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.

The people to be found ascendng denominational religious hierarchies are of exactly the same nature as those who lust for worldly political power. It's no wonder they cosy up to one another so much, with the ultimate reality being that they become one flesh! Shameless, unabashed harlotry!.

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?

TayoD:
The above is the 'gospel' according to TV01. Now let us hear the Gospel according to Saint Paul: Romans 1: 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
I do not see politics amongst the list that Paul made. Do you think he forgot to include it? There is more in that scripture which I will point at as we go. I guess your statement here only proves my earlier submission right, that you believe politics and church structure is the root of all evil. May I ask what evil and fruits of the flesh that is manifest in the church today that was not manifest in the early churches? Please itemise them for us to scrutinize and bring up before the light of scripture.

The posted scripture merely serves to buttress my point above.

And like I said, politics is not the cause, (that is flesh), it's an outworking/manifestation! Likewise IC structure. The desire to sit over, control and exploit God's people is driven by the flesh. As ever TayoD, you get us so bogged down in entry-level stuff that we cannot go on to dig deeper. All of this ties into church structure, use of redundant OT precepts, the Nicolaitian error and such. But you never let us get there.

Let me digress a little. It's important that doctrine/theology is end-to-end. That is to say the doctrine must not contradict or nullify other doctrine, must not only comply, but also not be contrary to the scriptural narrative and must at the same time bear the right fruit in practice.  There must be a unified whole in perfect alignment, otherwise the Bible is wrong or the interpretation is incorrect. Discarding the possibility of error in the scripture, then our interpretations must be re-examined.

You appear to adopt a "back-to-front" approach. Champining tradition and them justify it by cobbling scripture from any and everywhere! A point blank refusal to consider or reappraise positions that may be mistaken is an obvious sign of deep traditional religiosity.

You stymied the discussion on tithing by encamping semantically around the word "gift" and refusing to budge. That was after all your other postulations (including the esoteric "decalogue" exposition), where systematically shredded by a host of very patient contributors. We never got to discussing, how the tithe supports control and exploitation (along with false submission and authority precepts) of Gods people. How it finances the fixation with temples in a NT era (If you are party to the £10 million pound exercise in vanity by "Jesus House" tell the charlatans behind it that Jesus doesn't have a physical house and God no longer dwells in temples built with hands!). How it supports the totally unbiblical notion of a paid and professional clergy (mediators other than our Great HP) and derides the priesthood of all believers. We could go on and on, but with a focus firmly on carnal man-made tradition & precepts (which is too say "on men", TayoD keeps the discussion grounded. Which truly is nol onger a surprise, as your whole basis has remained unrelentingly earthly!

God bless

TayoD:
Well, the Bible said the love of money is the root of all evil. Going by the principle of nuances and symbolism which you have been shoving down our throats, I cannot but conclude that you view politics to be the root of all evils.

More convoluted thinking here. A mixture of sloppy half-baked deductions and nonsensical conclusions. I have talked through the literal Word, shadow and fullfilling types and drawn a comprehensive and unified understanding from different perspectives. All this while humouring your "painting by numbers" approach to this whole exercise.

Surely The lord is using you to teach me patience (although I am yet to figure out the point of some of the other gainsayers on this site  !).

TayoD:
You said: the compromise of the COE was bsically due to their participation and endorsement of politics.

Perhaps you have an alternative explanation for the COE' total lack of spiritual credibility?

TayoD:
You regard homosexuality in Churches as a bye-product of the governing structure of the churches. Not only is that notion laughable, it has no scriptural basis.

Again, please provide an alternative understanding. Additionally, Sexual Immorality generally (and not homosexuality alone or specifically) is the physical outworking of the spiritual adultery engaged in by many churches (by seving other gods). It's also compounded and evidenced by the man-made hierarchical structure of the Institutional Church. The fact that they are carnal and flesh driven is evidenced by their fruits;

Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

All the above are abundant in the IC. Where does one begin. The paedophillia of RC, the excesses of Pentecostalism, the weakness of Anglicanism.  Is it the discarding of scripture, the abandonment of doctrine? or the "other Gospels" being peddled. See it in the power rifts, the empire building (jealousy, contentions and dissensions leading to denominationalism). The control, the manipulation (witchcraft by, tithing, submission false authority and submission precepts). The selfish ambition (that's right, the lust for riches & political power are just that, dress them up all you want). It's literally endless and blindingly (no pun!)obvious even to unbelievers.

Did the Rev King story not unfold before your eyes? Your ignorance and spiritual simplicity drove you and other Nairaland "MOG apologists" to view the Ted Haggard incident as a "the devil is attacking leaders" issue. Delusion at it's fullest.The devil wants every believer dead in sin. He decieves, tempts and accuses, the rest is down to your lusts and your flesh. And the IC's reek of it. Nasty, smelling, creeping (uncrucified) flesh! None of you had the spiritual cojones to ask the fate/standing of someone steeped in 3 years of unrepentant homosexuality and drug abuse. Remember he was outed! If it had been an unbeliever, you would have summarily condenmed him in your heart. Hypocrites, devourers of widows houses, vipers!

TayoD:
You have not shown where the Bible condemns it my friend. this is still nothing but your opinion. In any case, even David and Solomon employed politics to get to their throne. You may want to read how each one came to power. Check out how David entered into league with others to become the king of the 12 tribes and also how Solomon became a king only after lobbying.  And can you give us an example of a Christian in the Civil Service who never lobbied for that position one way or another?

David agitated for power  ? Only if God didn't ordain it!

TayoD:
For every example of the State arraigned against the believers that you give henceforth, I will provide you another example of the State in league with the true believers. I wish you'd quit making reference to the beast in Revelation 'because it is subject to varying interpretation. Your first submission on this suggests you are aware of this dilemma which made you use the phrase, "I believe".

True believers will never be in league with the state. Period! Even where there appears to be common cause or unity of purpose, it's not to the same end! There are two kingdoms at play here. It's madness.

The beast of Revelations maybe subject to varying interpretation, but only to which states/thrones/powers/nations it consists of, and not to the fact that it is earthly govermental power of some sort. Please advise of any varing interpretations on this point.

If I say I believe (and it should generally be taken as read anyway), it's just me saying I am open to additional understanding or hearing other interpretaions. Or perhaps I have not fully concluded on a particular position. I never claimed to know it all, in whole or in part. I just haven't swallowed anything wholesale like some appear to have done.

Lord, grace as well please!

TayoD:
The answer is in Luke 12:1 - Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

Apologies for not being more specific. I was specifically referring to Herod here.

TayoD:
One thing is for sure. God will never ask you to be involved in or owe allegiance to a person or instituion that compromises our faith in Him. God has no problem with Ceasar, and that is why He encourages our obedience and allegiance to Him. If He feels allegiance to Ceasar will compromise our faith, He will not be shy to say: "Come out form amongst Ceasar and be ye separate."

Another glaring demonstration of your counterintuitive exegesis!

1. You can only have allegience to one. Please take time to figure out to whom you owe that allegiance. God does not ask us to pledge allegiance to any other.

2. What God will demand is that you don't compromise your faith what ever person of institution you join yourself with. God only demands we obey laws that do not violate our obedience to Him. Your counter-intuitive and circuitous logic is exhausting! Is it all "blind faith" with you? No reason or understanding? Even a smidgin of common sense? In a country (and there are quite a few) that offers abortion on demand, is a A Christian medic right to perform such operations in "allegiance to Caesar and accordance with the law", or does such a one refuse on the grounds of allegiance to a higher authority!

Needless to say your allegiance is obviously not to the clear reading of the Word or scriptural narrative!

TayoD:
I am still waiting for your scriptural backing of your position.

I believe I have amply provided it, and added depth. Please feel free to query specifics or ask for more detail.

I however am not waiting for backing for yours, because there simply isn't any  .

Lord have mercy!

sage:
TV01 u have a very good insight on this topic.

Thank you Sage. But it's by grace. Seek His heart and He will reveal it to you. It was once my default view as well, but truly God's goodness is salvation.

sage:
Sometimes i wonder why people can't even see what is very clear.

Most of them have a big log MOG in their eyes  !

Fight the good fight.

God bless

Easily enough done.

1. I never said that. The Bible doesn't say that about anything! Please quote me or the Bible
    (if you can!)

2. Participation in government (as an end result of agitating for worldly power), is no where shown
    or endorsed in scripture. Being called in a "puplic service" capacity is another matter.

3. I have outlined variously examples of the States being arrained against true believers. The
    climax of scripture in Revelations outlines the role of the Beast. Hence, with hindsight or forsight
    identyfying types and shadows of symbolism throughout scripture is quite straightforward.

4. Whose servant is Satan? You are being particularly obtuse here. If I talked about God
    sovreignty once, I've talked about it a hundred times. Your consistent failure to appreciate
    context in the bible and see the "big picture" is quite disappointing. You also fail to make sense to
    any degree of Biblical symbolism. Your whole deployment of scripture appears to be in support of
    your own (G/MOG's) construct.

Permit me to ask you a question, or two.

1. What was the Lords meaning in this verse?
Mark 8:15 ~ Then He charged them, saying, "Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod."

2. And this one
Luke 20:25 ~ And He said to them, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." If Caesar is God's servant, why is there an apparent dichotomy in rendering to them?

Anybody?

God bless

TayoD,

TayoD:
Don't be deceived by the intellectually plausible argument that you need to understand an outworking of a doctrine before you take it for truth. The things of God don't work that way. You have to believe His Word first, then step out in faith to accomplish that which He has pre-ordained for you.

As ever, I am amazed at your willingness to mis-contextualise any statements that oppose your positions and then point to some totally unrelated truth to make your point .

One wonders where you find the time, energy and resources to mutilate Gods holy Word and at once savagely hack through her majesty's English. Dogmaggedness indeed!

Please allow me to clarify. Thank you!

Take for example the following two questions; Should churches have "Sole Authority Pastors"? Is a 10% tithe mandatory for Christians? These are not doctrinal positions of faith as such, they are related to church structure and dynamics within the body of Christ. Likewise, the question of "CP" concerns the practicalities of our everyday walk.

So when I talk of the "practical outworking", even the "Sunday Schoolers" (hi mrpataki ) amongst us should be able to make sense of what I am saying. I notice that you seem to disassociate faith from any sort of understanding. Hopefully, ascribing the belief that "faith is a force" to you would be mistaken?

Not to digress, even faith positions have a practical outworking. I'll take the point in question as muted by TayoD (by the way, do you prefer the appellation, Ripper, Butcher or E'leran? How's about "slasher" ).

The three Hebrew Princes had faith in God to work out thier situation. God would either deliver them physically, or eternally. That is the practical outworking of their faith (trust) in him. Where faith is required, have faith, how else would you please, let alone approach God?

In living out the day to day modalities of the Christian walk I think even the "short knicker" brigade (Hi Havila ), would agree that a modicum of understanding is to be desired.

To insist that one should just "step out in faith" on any doctrinal position (especially based on a faulty exegesis of scripture), is not altogether surprising coming from you. Your discarding of large portions of guideline from the scriptural narrative is easily understood based on what I have discerned to be three of the central tenets of your faith;

"whatever seems good/best in the circumstances"
"By whatever means necessary"
"the end justifies the means"

It's why you can't marshal a cogent scriptural arguement for tithing or SAP, but insist on them, (perhaps because they seemingly work?). It's why you justify "divorce for calling" when all the scriptures regards position and authority in the church demand marital probity. It's why you see only the acquisition of power and not the inherent compromise in CP.

It's why it's hight time you relinquished the orificial, apologies, official position with(in) the G/MOG and learn't to go to God for yourself.

God bless.

Okay, I'll post something.

I often stress the importance of extrapolating the practical outworking of any doctrinal position. After all, it’s a living faith. A doctrine that on the surface sounds plausible, but does not translate when reality bites, is nothing more than religious procedure.

I think we’ve had some great discussions/debates on this forum, but I am often left with a sense of disappointment as (whether by default, design or dedevil) we never seem to progress to the point of articulating how our various positions work in the real world, be it in our individual walks, or in Body dynamics.

So whilst we are on the practicality of uncompromised XT involvement in the political arena, I'll have a stab at it.

I’d like to draw everyone’s attention to the current polemic around “gay/lesbian adoption” in Britain.

I want to briefly outline my understanding of the roles and positions of some of the major parties in this imbroglio (best knowledge at the time of writing and correction if required is welcome) and use it as a fillip to re-start and progress the debate.

The Roman Catholic Church ~There are currently 8 Roman Catholic adoption agencies, who at this time (due to their religious beliefs) do not consider gay/lesbian couples for adoption.

New legislation is being passed, which will mean the RC agencies compromising on their beliefs and being legally forced to allow gay/lesbians to adopt through them (or possibly shutting down).

The Anglican (CofE) Church ~ Adoption agencies for this denomination currently allow gay/lesbian couples to adopt. I believe they have for some time now. I have pointed out severally, that the wholesale yoking of the CofE to the state has left it so compromised, that it is little more than a QUANGO. A church in name only, whose light is deep underground and barely flickering.

Weirdly enough, they are championing the RC right to act according to their beliefs.  A clear-cut example of their hand-wringing indecisiveness, inability to articulate a clear, uncompromised faith based or moral position, and desire to please everyone but the One they purport to serve. Sadly these days, the CofE seems more comfortable mirroring prevailing societal/cultural trends than witnessing Gods judgement and the love of Christ to them.

The Government ~  Since the advent of the Labour party to power, Britain has been gripped by a weird, virulent form of PC. This has seen their barely disguised humanist manifesto (truly ideology is the new theology), wreak havoc on the family, empower the gay lobby and dispense with any pretence of a moral compass this country might have.

The Labour party’s relentless drive for universal “equality” and “human rights” for all, whilst sounding plausible on the surface (much like the doctrine of many on this forum  !), is contrary to Gods divine order. The logical outworking of this has been to insist on legislating equal rights of adoption for gay/lesbian couples.

It seems likely now that by a quorum (that's democracy for you) within the cabinet this law will be passed wholesale, without a clause for the RC church to act according to their faith/religious/philosophical conscience. That is, they will be forced to compromise or close.

Very interesting, are the positions of two of the major players in this saga.

1. The Right Honourable Tony Blair PM ~ An Anglican (with a Catholic family?), if not a devout one or even a dilligently practicing one. The PM had made it known via various information sources (leaks!), that he was personally in favour of a religious clause, which would have made special allowance for the churches, exempting them on the basis of their religious beliefs.

2. The RH Ruth Kelly MP Cabinet Minister for Communities ~ Forced into the limelight when she became minister for education at 35. Extra focus due to the issue of “Faith Schools” and her own devout Catholicism and membership of Opus Dei, a Catholic fraternity(?), whose activities are well documented. Her position was more or less the same as the PM’s.

The wishes of both (theological) have been subsumed to that of the party (ideological). So what I see here is an example of the futility of Christian Politics. It can only lead to all round compromise and blighted witness.

Would anyone here consider TB to be a Daniel? Or RK an Esther? You'll play "spot the Nehemiah" in vain. Is anybody expecting resignations henceforth? So, while you may ascend to the highest echelons of political power, will you be right? rarely, honourable? unlikely. Politically  correct? maybe, but religiously? I think religion would have ceased to be your motivation a long time ago.

As ever I look forward to hearing different perspectives.

God bless

mrpataki:
I intend to bring in another dimension

Oya, we are waiting. Or are you spiritually constipated _{pigs will fly} ?

trini_girl:
I don't know about you guys, I was having a good time, but when Seun locked/unlocked the thread it kind of just killed the buzz. I found it disappointing. After all, even if the topic was covered already it was by different people, and the flow of the debate was on an entirely different level, as is obvious in the Christianity and Politics thread. Kind of turned me off. I don't get it. Good way to kill a thread.

No probs girl, we can ressurect it. Laxatives for the brother? Or maybe someone can post something?

God bless

davidylan:
there is a gulf of difference between denominations and cults!

Technical/dictionary definitions apart, I'm not sure that I agree with that. It's usually a matter of perspective. And probably depends on who's doing the labelling.

Why do you say that?

God bless

Wey dem?

Hi Seun,

Analytical's right, please don't close it. The thread has not derailed, just progressed. We have picked up a head of steam and it would be a shame to terminate the discussion now (especially as I am in the midst of dealing severely with those who would "bleach me white" or "politicise" me ). There isn't even a need to re-title it.

Thanks

The voice of one cryin'

sage:
Il rather be in the sports thread talking about AC Milan

AC Milan? What church/denomination is that?
Do they subscribe to "Moggery" (not unlike gay-homosexual buggery! ~ Please see Havila, TayoD, et al about that  )

mrpataki:
My Prayer:

Father Bless me for I have not the patience of TayoD, Analytical, Shahan et al.
Father Bless them, TayoD, Analytical, Gwaine, Shahan, et al for the patience they seem to exhibit here.
Father Bless TV01, for his quest to understand you in another dimension the more!

Amen to that.
Now go to your room and stay there !.
And whatever you do, stop clogging up the thread. You don't have to post you know  ?
Oops. Sorry, I forget you initiated this thread! I do apologise. Actually, I was right the first time.
The thread don pass you! Just siddon dey look  !

And next time remember to pray for understanding to go with your patience  .

God bless

Hi TayoD, I would've thought you'd be in bed (or at a night vigil  ),

I said:
I believe that the nature of  political discourse and the underlying spiritual dynamic make it all but impossible for a Christian to seek political authority via the normal worldly channels without compromise. I believe this is borne out by scripture.

TayoD responded:
By quoting scripture saying God can do anything?
Presumably you read (if only cursorily) what I wrote? If you are hell bent on making a nonsense of the conversation, I am happy to desist.

With that in mind, I press on.

TayoD said:
Arent you shooting yourself in the foot here? How can you say politics is under the influence of the devil and you expect a Christian to serve as a Civil Servant under that same influence!!! It's like saying stealing is wrong, but it is okay to receive money from a thief. As you rightly said, Christains have great influence which we can exercise in a greater way through political power. Are we not here to influence our world? Isn't salt supposed to influence and preserve its environment? And by the way, Civil Servants are subject to political votes (and they lobby for votes) before they are confirmed to their positions.

My response:
A XT civil servant diligently serves his/her country within the limits of government legislation. As Daniel did, you can act in this capacity and refuse to compromise your faith where the state/it’s laws demand otherwise. Which is the choice Daniel wisely made.

“XT influence”? I prefer “XT Witness” And I distinguish between influence & power!

A XT civil servant has no political agenda. Seeking or accepting promotion based on skills and experience is one thing. Lobbying (if it means pandering in any way) is another.

TayoD said:
Your arguments seem very laudable and will easily deceive those self-righteous Christains whose focus is purely on heaven and forgetting they are here for a reason. The State a force arranged against Christians? I think not. I'd rather believe the Gospel according to Paul than the 'gospel' according to TV01 - Romans 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
The State is A Minister of God. How can the Minister of God be a force arranged against us. The history I see indicates the State doing the will of the 'church' and calling attention to Jehovah based on the witness of the Believers who participated in that government.
Daniel 6:26 - I make a decree, That in every dominion of my kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel: for he is the living God, and stedfast for ever, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed, and his dominion shall be even unto the end.
Esther 8:17 - And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king's commandment and his decree came, the Jews had joy and gladness, a feast and a good day. And many of the people of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them.

My response:
Firstly please articulate why XT’s are here! Please, not the "Occupy" chestnut! And tell me where is your focus? Colossians 3:1 - If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. An obsession with political power is a very real outworking of worldly values

Secondly, if the state is a servant/minister of God, why are you seeking to attain power,or to “influence”? Surely they are God’s servants and thus already influencing according to his will. Do you consider state sponsored wars, legalized gambling, prostitution and abortion to be God’s will? Using scripture in a “painting by number” exercise rarely produces cogent arguments!

Thirdly, The edicts in Dn6 & Es8, came about as a result of unabashed witness by those who feared and served God. Not by worldly means.

TayoD said:
How do we challenge the status quo? By flouting the constitution of the State and imposing theocracy on the State? Where did you get this notion from and at what stage are we to go on this confrontation? How many believers effected the changes during the times of Daniel and Esther? The entire biody of believers or just a few? Please answer these questions.

My response:
I think everyone (especially myself), who has contributed so far, whatever their persuasion, has eschewed the notion of a theocracy! Your arguments are appearing somewhat disjointed. A pure, unadulterated, uncompromised Christian witness, is what the world really needs. This will be in stark contrast to the deception of left/right democracy, or various other man-made ideologies, which are essentially different heads of the same snake. This witness is to be outside and separate from the state and not in competition for it’s authority, as our authority is from another (heavenly) source. Your reading my position as “imposing theocracy” clearly demonstrates your understanding & articulating things from a purely carnal/worldly mindset.

TayoD said:
So Daniel and Esther did not have a great witness for the State to have supported them! Infact your submission leads us to believe that even Jesus did not have enough Christians witness since Pontius Pilate and Herod knew little to nothing about him and never persecuted him. Was it not the religious body of his day that brought their influence to bear on the State to kill Jesus? Another believer used his influence on the State to obtain Jesus' body and give it a proper burial as required by scripture. In other words, politics is just a tool that can be used for good or for evil. It all depends on who weilds that political influence.

My response:
The state did not support Daniel & Esther. Indeed, wielders of state power were all out against them. But they both stayed true to the faith, God glorified Himself in response and the heathen bowed down!

Jesus is a type of true witness. The Pharisees are a type of compromised religion, whilst Herod and Pontius Pilate typify the state.  Haven’t I said this already? Haven’t I enumerated the scriptural instances/references to this scenario severally  .

The true witness of the Lord, was contrary to the establishment (of religion & state). A threat to religion as it undermined the privileges which they had from Rome as long as the populace was under control (John ch11 v8). A threat to the state because it signified another kingdom and another king. You say Herod knew nothing about Jesus? Did I or did I not refer earlier to the infanticide by the Herod lineage at the thought of another King? Keep clutching dude!

God bless

I’m (unwisely according to conventional wisdom) fighting a battle on many fronts. Please don’t be upset if I don’t respond to each post individually. I will answer some/parts of some, and seek to add the depth to ensure a response to all. (This does not apply to mrpataki  !).

Analytical said:
TV01, thanks for restating your position.  As much as I respect your right to have your opinion, however, I still have a problem with the position.  Statements like these are part of my concern for this your gospel of segregation (no pun intended)

My response:
I don’t preach segregation. I champion Christian engagement on Christian terms, as mandated by the scriptures. I also made it very clear that in this instance I am addressing the specifics around Christians engaging in the political process with the aim of seeking worldly power/authority”

Can I say to all at this point, that I am more than willing to discuss, and will gladly state my case and my defense for it. I don’t mind a little bluster, caustic remarks, ad-hominem attacks, or even outright abuse. But could all rejoinders kindly desist from either mis-quoting me, or mis-ascribing things to me. Thanks.

Analytical said:
Whatever is wrong in influencing the world through and being a witness for Christ via political positions?  It is this kind of reasoning that has rendered us so ineffective and waned our influence to truly be a salt and a light in the world, according to our calling!

My response:
I thought I clearly spelt out what I thought was wrong, why it was wrong and what I feel the end of it will be. If there is anything specific you would like me to outline or discuss further, just ask.

No, it’s not this kind of reasoning that has rendered us ineffective. What has rendered us ineffective is an adulterated gospel, an impure witness and a compromised church.

Analytical said:
May I ask, what does it even mean to be a christian?  Does it mean we are some kind of aliens who had no business being in the world? Should a christian remain so aloof and unconcerned with the world around him, while on his way to heaven?  That will not be the gospel. A christian is someone who was blood bathed and redeemed, translated from the kingdom of darkness into that of light, thereby removing the world from him, then put back into the world to affect and occupy till the One who purchased him comes back.

My response:
The greater part of this section is the reason I made my earlier plea.

As for “affecting” “influencing” (as some have put it) and “occupying till He comes”, It’s beyond creative how a line from a parable can be interpreted (mis-?) to mean wholesale engagement in the world, on the worlds terms. To assume dominion over governments, territories and industries. Or to put it another way, it lets you do/pursue all the things unbelievers do, but guarantees success because its “in the name of Jesus, it glorifies God”. A sly way of pandering to fleshly/worldly desires (which also goes some way to explaining the religious organizational hierarchy in most denominations. Contrary to what is mandated in scripture, but a reflection of worldly values and mores).

The world and the form of it is passing away. It’s beyond salvaging, and past refurbishing. Our mandate, is to retrieve souls from the kingdom of darkness and into the kingdom of light. Not to assume positions of authority or control in it. I believe I mentioned that the source of real authority in the kingdom of darkness is it’s ruler, whatever outward appearances may say. Like God, he does not share his glory, unlike God, he is happy to deceive you into thinking he will if it means you further his plans.

Analytical said:
While He still tarries, we are under a mandate here to occupy.  We have relinquished this mandate long enough and that is why the enemy keeps deluding us that it is not possible to do.  I am not preaching a theocracy here- you cannot have that until He comes to establish his earthly kingdom- but an involvement in everyday affair on planet earth.  The early church had so much impact because of it's everyday influence in the market place, waterside, politics, business, even in prison yard!

My response:
That old occupy chestnut! Please see above.

The mandate the church has relinquished is one too bear true and pure witness and too win souls. Again, please see previous.

You may not be preaching theocracy in the immediacy, but isn’t that’s an obvious outworking/goal of political engagement? Say you have (not that I think it’s feasible on worldly terms) a majority XT parliament, maybe a XT Prime Minister. Pray tell, how would you wield this power to the glory of God? The KOG is advanced by converts to the gospel, not conformity to the law

Analytical said:
Don't let us submit to the lie of the devil, thereby cheating us of what is ours by being indifferent, after all our Lord is the One that has the government upon His shoulder, whether through the civil service or political participation!  We are the people of His pasture and constitute His body.  Who then are we to say otherwise.  (By the way, the shoulder is part of the body!)

My response:
Submitting to the devil’s deceit comes when you play on his terms.

I note the reference to Is9:6. Misunderstood, misapplied, misinterpreted. If the government is on His shoulders, then presumably the governments of Iran, Korea, Russia etc, etc, are all part of the body? Or maybe you are saying that those govt’s should rightfully be run by XT’s somehow making that verse fit (but then again, only into dominion theology!)

Analytical said:
He has not told us our walk (wether in business or government) is going to be easy.  It wasn't easy for Esther who said if 'I perish I perish' nor for Daniel who purposed in His heart not to defile himself.  But these stood, even in the midst of opposition and mischeivous plots, as shinning lights in their generations.  Please note that participation in government is not synonymous with the apostasy of a state religion.

My response.
Easy walk? I guess it will be when we take control of state? Like I said, see China, where the state is persecuting XT's for a separate and uncompromising witness. If they were to endorse the government. They would cease to suffer persecution.

For the umpteenth time Neither Esther, nor Daniel where engaged in agitating for or actively seeking worldly politcal power/authority.

No actively seeking to gain and wield worldly political power is not synonymous with the apostasy of a state religion. It’s the horse to the state (which is false/compromised) religions rider. The Beast to her LovePeddler.

Thanks for engaging.

God bless

For the benefit of all (including myself), let me restate my overall position.

I am not suggesting all Christian engagement with the world is by mandate as such, but a clear reading of the scriptural narrative gives very strong pointers on certain areas. I believe that the nature of  political discourse and the underlying spiritual dynamic make it all but impossible for a Christian to seek political authority via the normal worldly channels without compromise. I believe this is borne out by scripture.

I am not in any way suggesting this is a universal template for all Christian activity or engagement with the world. Neither am I saying  passivity is the one size fits all answer. Again, let me stress I am being very particular about politics as I defined it earlier. Civil service is not politics. Christian social participation is not politics. And Christians/Christian bodies need to be wary of the fact that politicians/the state/governments, often court them, with a jealous/wary eye on the influence they exert.   

To keep our witness pure, I don’t see us aligning or making common cause with them. It will ultimately compromise us and damage our witness. Let me just add, I see the state as one of the forces ranged against Christianity. I see this in scripture, history and contemporary times. The establishment of state churches (in democracies, monarchies, dictatorships etc etc), is a way to control, compromise and oft times co-opt Christian witness for the benefit of the state. As long as the state can do this, they are content to let us play church.

As soon as we become a clear voice (light on a hill), with an uncompromised gospel message (salt & seasoning), we challenge the status quo and the prevailing power structure. That is to proclaim God and His Christ, a new, different and better kingdom. It’s at this juncture that the State (noting the underlying spiritual dynamic I mentioned earlier), turns on Christianity. Oppressing and persecuting the saints.

The situation in China is a point in question. Let me say something categorical here. Where there is pure Christian witness, there is oppression of the saints/church by the state (which is a different, contrary kingdom, in direct confrontation to the one being proclaimed by the true witness of the church). Do you really believe that there is strong Christian witness in any Western nation? Or in any African one?

This is true through scripture and through history. Look for the three players. The State, compromised/false religion, and the true witness. Think Ahab, Jezebel and Elijah. See Herod/Herodias, the Jewish religious establishment & John the Baptist.

I think if one can see the “big picture” scenarios as spelt out in scripture, then ideas such as “influencing the world” and “being a witness for Christ via political position” will be understood as being misguided at best. What the enemy wants is for us to engage him/the world, on his/their terms, using his/their structures.

I see the ultimate outworking of this typified by the LovePeddler & the Beast of Revelation. The Beast I believe represents various aligned states/seats of power/thrones/governments. The LovePeddler is compromised/false/ecumenical religion. At first partnering (that is committing adultery) with the state and finally being devoured by it.

That is my position. But of course I stand to be corrected in part or whole!

God bless

TayoD:
Your argument falls flat on its face when we realise that Jesus made the following statement after His resurrection: Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 

If power in that sense is already The lords, what exactly is "Christian politics" agitating for?

TayoD:
And why have you forgotten 1 Corinthians 3: 21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; 22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; 23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.

John 15:19 - If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

James 4:4 - Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

1 John 2:15 - Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

I must say TayoD, mindful of the fact that the World comprises of different elements and means different things in context, you butchery of scripture is still quite painful to read .

TayoD:
I will answer you with scriptures here:

Daniel 2:37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.

Daniel 5:18 O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour:

Daniel 7:18 But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.

Daniel 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

Daniel 4:32 And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.

Again you miss the nuance. It was only because it was within God's plan and suited His purpose that he allowed Nebu to ascend to the throne. You are pulling the rug out from under your own feet. If God indeed raises up all kings/rulers, it begs the question I asked earlier, "What is the point of political christinaity? All your pointers to the righteous being in power & righteousness exalting a nation are also invalidated, as this would mean God doesn't always want the righteous in power, so again where does that leave "CP"?

I'm here.

God bless

TayoD:
No wonder you are paralysed in your thinking. You have already accepted a conclusion that has limited your ability to see beyond a particular dogma. Not only are you ideologically wrong in your conclusion, there are modern day examples to show that you can be the salt of the earth (a city set on a hill) without dragging yourself in mud. And by the way, please share the source of your statistics with us. Or are we to accept your conslusion just because it came from TV01? The "way" talked about by Jesus in that scripture is nothing but Himself. Don't go stretching it to mean something else.

My bad sir, please remind me of the nation-state that is a majority bible believing and professing country. One that is governed according to Christian tenets. Or a Christian theocracy perhaps!

Ideologically wrong? So as not to mistakenly ascribe anything to you, kindly clarify exactly what you mean by that.

How is being the salt of the earth synonymous with being in politics. Did you post in haste? I'm struggling somewhat to understand the points you are trying to make here. The only muddy thing here is your thinking mate!

TayoD:
I shared with you recently the case of Michelle Bachmann who in public said she was a fool for Christ in pursuing her elective office. She was taunted and persecuted over this statement and her stand against abortion and homosexuality (even though her sister is a lesbian). During the debate, her opponent mocked her belief (faith) that a wife should be subject to her husband. She has been called all sorts of name for her uncompromising stand. Infact she lobbied and wrote a legislation to limit marriage between a man and a woman. Despite all this, she won convincingly in a Democratic State. She won in a State that is so non-Christian biased that a muslim was elected during the same election season. Doesn't that put paid to your uninformed statement? Michelle Backmann has shown herself to be an exemplerary public servant who practices what she believes based on her faith. She has shown that abortion isn't necessary. That alternatives abound and that there is hope even for an unwanted child. To prove this, she adopted 23 children into her home proving she is indeed a child of the one we refer to as the Father of the fatherless.

Persecution is potentially the lot of all Christians. Her being mocked for her faith does not validate a political position.
Presumably unbelievers were previously unaware that abortion is "not necessary"? (your words!).
Again, election validates nothing. A vote for her was not necessarily a vote for Christianity. Like you said a Muslim was elected to. Is it a Muslim state, was the Muslims election an endorsement of Islam? Votes are on the basis of shared values/common cause, not common faith. Don't mistake these as being synonymous. A vote for a "Christian politician" does not equate to a vote for Christ or a soul won.

Again you are trying to twin unrelated events. You don't have to be a politician to adopt children. But it is laudable Christian witness.
You are arguements are sounding desperate

TayoD:
You are getting things totally wrong. How many of the Catholic Bishops who molested the young boys in their care ran for elective office? You are putting the blams on politics when you should be targeting the 'flesh'. And by the way, that the legislation to favour homosexuals was passed does not mean the Bishops were compromised. You just need to find out what they voted for to come to that conclusion.

Again you are arguing off-point, or maybe just not seeing the point. In reverse order. The bishops are compromised by making common cause with those who have a different agenda and a different Lord. Your point is particularly feeble, as you overlooked the mention I made of the COE changing their bye-laws to conform with the very same legislation. Does that not speak volumes to you? Clearly signifying who their Lord is. I have said severally, the whole hierarchical structure found in most denominational churches is a work of the flesh. It's outworking in the Catholic church is mirrored in other denominations. The underlying structure and doctrinal weakness are evident are present in them also. Name your denomination and we'll show you similar outworking.

In sporting parlance I'd say you need "More strength work in the winter months"

God bless

TayoD:
In the mean time, can you tell us what area of our day to day life is not a source of corruption to Christians. You single out politics as if it is the only vocation that will corrupt a christian absolutely. Please tell us what endeavour you are involved with that is above corruption.

"I work in the porn industry. But that doesn't compromise my faith in Christ" The dynamics of worldly power, access to and labouring for the same are inherently corrupt. Geddit?

mrpataki:
In a bid to slap out a point, you may begin to profess heresy and errors if caution is not heeded to.
Where did you get that concept out from in the bible? Let me start from there.

Bone up on Christianity in it's historical context. Examine global events today in the light of history and scripture!

God bless