₦airaland Forum

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=24626.msg892081#msg892081 date=1171581825]Anyway, ranting aside , TV,  While I understand your openness to things concerning God, I hope you were joking about  seriously considering the bull shite ( yup, I said it) bull shite that KDK posted or that Universalism, a spin off of Humanism has anything to do with true christianity.[/quote]Hi Trini, Thanks for this post, I've been waiting for a reply to this, but the thread seemed to go quiet immediately I posed my question. I considered Universalism (or aspects of it), like I try to do most doctrine I come across. The usual questions - Do I feel a Spirit led resonance? Does it fit into the unified whole? - I was never quite convinced by Universalism as a whole, but it did pose some interesting questions.

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=24626.msg892081#msg892081 date=1171581825]In the first paragraph alone the author equates free will to free moral agency when one is completely separate from the other.

This is a very complex theology that you really have to think about openly, study, and eventually the error will break through, as it did when I took on Jen33 about Reincarnation. [/quote]Not being convinced, I never really delved deep into it. Like a lot of stuff, I parked it until an opportune moment, so when it cropped up here on Nairaland, I followed a while and then posed my question. I particularly like the distinction you made between free will and free moral agency. It's not one I made. Seems to suggest some sort of "verbal sleight of hand" being used to make this stick. It's a common ploy in trying to make deception sound like the truth. Using the same phrases, but having different meanings, or language that sounds familiar to mask heresy.

Thanks again, and I'd appreciate anything else anyone has to share that conclusively nail this.

God bless

goodguy:
I thought you said you had just one question for me. Anyway, this issue of freewill has been debated already and there's no point restating my stance here. Notwithstanding, I will try to answer your questions in a nutshell.

Sorry to butt in here guys.

Goodguy, true the issue was discussed, but it was never concluded. In post #160 of that thread I queried the fact that an absence of freewill somehow suggested that God was the author of our evil acts. I asked for this to be explaine in the light of universalist doctrine. Nothing ever came back. There were a few more posts and it came to a grinding halt. So I'm happy to meet you back there so as not to derail this thread. Thanks.

Y'all can carry on now!

God bless

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=40183.msg890681#msg890681 date=1171542116]What the hell is happening here? TV what are you doing? Please come back and give meaningful contributions to this forum. I miss arguing against your views! [/quote]I think the thread initiator need to articulate the proposition better. Otherwise it just gives leave to jokers (like me) to mess about .

Apologies for the momentary slip from my usual high standards, but hey, like everyone else, I have my monments .

lafile:
@ TV01
Badd Mind

Au contraire mon frere, innocent heart, pure eyes, renewed mind!

God bless

Have you considered changing prayer warriors? _{He who pays the piper calls the tune}

Hebrews 7:3 - without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life

The Bible says!

God bless

lafile:
haba TV01 i just want her to give a more detailed explanation. chei

Exactly my fear  !

lafile:
can you be more explicit?

Ah!!!!

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=1537.msg883004#msg883004 date=1171283200]I am back! I don't think this forum is the same without us [/quote]Welome back my sister! I noted your re-appearance and I was truly gladdened. (Just in time for Vals day too  ). How far? How de go dey go? I trust all is well with you and yours!

Your return is timely ma'am. some gunslingers who go by the names of bari_kade and analytical are looking for a shootout on a thread titled "Church Structure & Sole Pastor Authority". When they finally show up, I was hoping you'd be kind enough to ride shotgun with me!

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=1537.msg883004#msg883004 date=1171283200]Anyway, you are right! Church is not a building or religious affiliation. I see some people say they are a proud Anglican. I hope someday we as christians will realise that our pride should only be in Christ as being one of his born again spirit filled, spirit led, saved by grace disciples. [/quote]A claim to be a proud [insert denomination here], is very worrying. It is engendered by a combination of religious pride and spiritual deceit, and is almost certain to make people miss road (the broad way instead of the narrow path).

Stressing allegiance to any other than Christ and claiming membership of something other than the true church/one body, could in a very real sense disqualify one. Christ is coming for His Bride. There's a LovePeddler out there and to the undiscerning eye , not only does she look, talk, speak and act like the real thing, she is a lot more seductive.

_{A word for the wise and those who are proud of Him, boast in Him and love Him in truth.}

God bless

Church is not something you attend. Church is not a "go to". Asking the question "what church" is nonsensical, as there is only one. The earth has only one moon, and as such no one ever bothered naming it.

The church is something one is a part of a "belong to", so any question of "which one" is inherently flawed and betrays an inherent mis-understanding of the nature of the church. ^{Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger !}

God bless

goodguy:
Lev 20:10 - Penalty for Adultery is Death
Deut 24: 1 - Spouse can be divorced on the basis of Adultery

The Leviticus verse most certainly refers to the law regards adultery, but the one from Deuteronomy does not. That is the addendum which specifically captures the "hardness of heart" condition of some men.

So would we not conclude that adultery is still grounds for divorce, and cross-testament at that?

goodguy:
If the marriage was sanctioned by God, despite being boxed into it, the couple should work it out by all means.However, if the reverse is the case, they should go their seperate ways because they were not meant to be together in the first place. Even God will be glad at this. Remember the case of Jesus and the Samaritan woman? (John 4:16-18)

Could you please expound more on this portion you posted previously. Earlier in the thread, you seemed to be insistent that divorce (even in the case of adultery is not permitted). You then appear to be saying thet "if the marriage was not sanctioned by God", it is. I'd appreciate your reconciling what appear to be divergent positions. Also, I'd really appreciate a fuller expatiation regards your take on the "Samaritan woman by the well", as you seem top be suggesting that the Lord was endorsing seperation/divorce?

Thanks again.

God bless

goodguy:
If the marriage was sanctioned by God, despite being boxed into it, the couple should work it out by all means. However, if the reverse is the case, they should go their seperate ways because they were not meant to be together in the first place.

Instictively that just doesn't sound right! I find that wrong from so many perspectives.

When a couple (XT) take their vows, Who exactly is sanctioning the marriage. We have all heard testimonies from every end of the spectrum about how people met and the degree of divine intervention. But pray tell, how many people every said God said you must marry that man or woman?

The choice/decision to marry (although I personally consider marriage the norm), is ultimatley a personal one and in itself has no eternal bearing.
If God is in it? How would "boxing" occur? The mere fact that marriage is liived out in flesh & blood means there will always be issues. The difference is that in a proper XT relationship the dealing will be Word based, Spirit led, God fearing.

The "God did not sanction this union" clause sounds suspiciously like the "God asked me to divorce for ministry purposes" opt out as espoused by some.
_{Seems I have been overly influenced by PC, man-fearing XT's to stop calling a spade a spade. I'm going back to the old ways, the narrow path.}

One last thing Goodguy, previously we kind of paused on this, but as I was meditating a question came up. I didn't want to push it as I though the discussion had been good and more or less run it's course anyway, but let me ask you this.

You previously said divorce was only permitted under the law of Moses due to the "hardness of some mens hearts". Pursuant to this and under grace, it would appear that divorce even in cases of adutery were due to that same hardness (or unforgiveness). This seems quite plausible at first glance, but thinking about it, the penalty for adultery under the law was death. Therefore "divorce" would hardly have been necessary would it? How would you factor this into your thinking. i hope I haven't missascribed/quoted you, apologies if I have and please ignore me. it's how I seem to recall things.

Regards

God bless

I'm here. Flexin' my muscles, keepin' warm. Bring it on y'all!  .

Walkover  !

Analytical:
Maybe the problem I have with this thread is your use of 'Sole Authority' to qualify pastors, as though they are some overlords of sort.  That is not to say that pastors have not been set over assemblies of believers, to nurture and feed them.

In quite a few "Nigerian" churches/denominations, Pastors are seen as the apex of a hierarchical authority structure ( guess that makes them overlords of sorts?). My premise is that there is no such pattern in NT Christianity. That it's nowhere to be found or even alluded to in the scrfiptural narrative. Any rejoinders should agree/disagree (with references and illustrations of the practical outworking of thier positions.

Analytical:
I understand your viewpoint of the role of elders in the church.  However, someone has to be responsible for the care of souls- and that happens to be the pastor (or shepherd).  If you consider the type in the OT, the elders are always accountable to an individual.  This is necessary for direction and focus.Or what do you think?

I'm not sure that you do see my viewpoint of the role of Elders, as I have stated quite clearly, it encompasses the "Shepherding" (care of souls) role usually devolved and assigned to "Pastors", who have authority over them. Regardless of the OT type, the NT is clearly spelt out and not at all convoluted in any way.

Maybe you could return serve (we are having this discussion using a sporting metaphor, tennis in this case ~  TayoD has called time out as he is cramping up from dehydration  ) by showing from the NT scripture the "Mandate" for a single/senior/sole authority pastor over and above elders.

Regards

God bless

Matthew 6:7 - And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.

I am not saying that it is wrong either  .

God bless

chessito:
As i was studying my own life i discovered that there's something called an Holy Partiality,God has been so good to me and i discovered that i has really been partial about me,what some people wont escape when they do it,i escape it!

Hi Chessito, In response to your initiating post, could I say one thing please? Wrong! wrong!! wrong!!!

One of the most oft repeated proclamations in the Bible is God's unwavering partiality. The refrain appears accross both Testaments and I have personally noted around 13 odd verses clearly stating this truth. I post a sample below;

2 Chronicles 19:7 - Now therefore, let the fear of the Lord be upon you; take care and do it, for there is no iniquity with the Lord our God, no partiality, nor taking of bribes."

Job 34:19 - Yet He is not partial to princes, Nor does He regard the rich more than the poor; For they are all the work of His hands.

Acts 10:34 - Then Peter opened his mouth and said: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality.

Romans 2:11 - For there is no partiality with God.

Ephesians 6:9 - And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.

1 Peter 1:17 - And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves throughout the time of your stay here in fear;

And if you think you will escape judgement, please take note;

Colossians 3:25 - But he who does wrong will be repaid for what he has done, and there is no partiality.

1Timothy 5:24 - Some men's sins are clearly evident, preceding them to judgment, but those of some men follow later.

Alexos:
There is nothing like Holy Partiallity, Its called GRACE.
You are just enjoying the grace of God in your life, and please don't let it get into your head just keep praying for more.

Alexos, please don't be offended, but I feel your response misses the point somewhat.

Grace is an enabler - to do those things that please God - not to be confused with mercy.

One of the wierdest teaching's nowadays is that grace covers or excuses sin, no sir it does not, or at least I don't see the bible teaching such. However, I remain to be corrected.

chessito:
Please what do you think?

Chessito, I suggest you stop counting the Lord as slack or partial and take sharp advantage of His longsuffering. (And study more thoroughly in future )!

God bless

_{I need to get back to my truth hurts/tough love style of ministering, this softly, softly thing leaves me cold} 

[quote author=bari_kade link=topic=26936.msg858624#msg858624 date=1170364788]If for argument sake you want to run a race-course and be headmaster, no wahala! You have your reasons why CP/Xtity/XP. . . or whatever else, is a plague in the Christian faith, as much as everyone else have theirs for applauding it. At the end of the day, no one may have made sense to you; and in my mind it is very doubtful that your arguements have served a good persuasion across board (just my opinion, however disagreeable you may be to that).[/quote]~ No, not for arguments sake.
~ I have no problem with you not being persuaded by my arguments.
~ However, I have invited you to outline the reasons for your position in response.
~ After all, if I am to modify or change my position, it must be on a sound basis.

[quote author=bari_kade link=topic=26936.msg858624#msg858624 date=1170364788]Let me tersely say that Christians in political vocations play an important role in influencing legislations that reflect godliness against the backdrop of ungodly agenda. If this is idolatory or witchcraft, I'd rather let God be the judge, and not the passive spectators who cry foul at this vital exercise.[/quote]I can state my position in an equally terse way. But I have gone on to show as well as say. I have repeatedly asked you to detail the hows and why of your position. You can demonstrate it's validity from scripture, history, contemporary events or any other way that will make it's soundness apparent.

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

God bless

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

Conclu wetin? Hell no!

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

Now where was I?

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

Still cryin'

God bless

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

Please feel free to share your views!

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

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

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

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

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

Analytical:
I love you all, TV01 inclusive, sincerely.

Me too!

God bless

Bro' TayoD, How now? Whassup?

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

My response;
Oya scream! Then read this!

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

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

Preserve wetin?

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

For what? What for?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No beef dude!

God bless

Hi Bari kade,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m here.

God bless

[quote author=bari_kade link=topic=26936.msg855966#msg855966 date=1170262739]Your use of "mandate" actually established your reasoning to be partially intoned.[/quote]Did you mix up the quote and response here? As I honestly can't make head or tails of this?

[quote author=bari_kade link=topic=26936.msg855966#msg855966 date=1170262739]Again, this only shows that you simply do not understand the subject of Christians engaging in political vocations.[/quote]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.

[quote author=bari_kade link=topic=26936.msg855966#msg855966 date=1170262739]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?[/quote]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?

[quote author=bari_kade link=topic=26936.msg855966#msg855966 date=1170262739]Shows you're struggling with simple statements. Here again is my quote on both the spiritual and the physical:[/quote]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.

[quote author=bari_kade link=topic=26936.msg855966#msg855966 date=1170262739]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".[/quote]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"

[quote author=bari_kade link=topic=26936.msg855966#msg855966 date=1170262739]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??[/quote]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