₦airaland Forum

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} ?

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=36661.msg843611#msg843611 date=1169772390]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. [/quote]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

@Analytical.

Thanks for you post and attempt to clarify and focus the discussion.

I note the dictionary definitions of politics you appended.

I am not referring to "civil service", but to "the pursuit of elected office and the authority/power that goes with it". Nothing to do with modes of governance, administration, organisational behaviour or any of that. If anyone is discussing at odds with that please say, so we can re-focus.

Additionally, one has to view these things from a scriptural/spiritual perspective. Thers's only one God. Sovreign, Omni(p,p,s), but there are two sources of power. Yes, indubuitably, God ultimately ushers everything towards the ultimate conclusion of His own will, but one must not fail to see the kingdoms of this world (and the ensuing authority are under  the sway of the evil one).

Luke 4:5 Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6 And the devil said to Him, "All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. 7 Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours."

John 14:30 - I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me.

1 John 5:19 - We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.

Ephesians 2:2 - in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience,
 
So I feel those claiming that God rules in the affairs of men and thereby assuming that all things political are expedient to Christians are missing the nuance of scripture.

So for example, did God raise up Idi Amin? How about Pol Pot? Or the crop of war-mongering megalomaniac leaders in many states today? Or Herod (who killed only God knows how many babies and toddlers to eliminate the Messiah?) And what of Nebuchadnezzar? No, no, no! Even Pharoah was ultimately used for God's purposes, but that doesn't mean he was primarily seeking to serve or glorify God. But ultimately God used Pharoah for His purposes, just as He used Nebuchadnezzar to judge Judah and the surrounding nations, prior to judging Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar.

The systems, authority and power in this world are under the sway of the wicked one. His great tool is deceit. He divises a problem, then he offers you solutions. So he has you chasing red herrings. Deceit is a many headed snake.

Political power is not the mandated way for Christians to advance the kingdom. The dominionist (and totally erroneous) thinking that says Christians will take dominion of this world (thus preaparing the ground for the 2nd coming) and then hand over power to The Lord, is an example.

Christians further the KOG one soul at a time. The world is passing away and our mandate is to save souls out of it. Notice the parallel of Sodom & G. Did Lot ask for time so that he could seek elective office and legislate against gay-homosexuality? Did he form a lobby group, did he petition his local member of parliament? No he rounded up his brethren and fled. Just like S&G, the world is not for refurbishing or salvaging.

If you can serve and excel in civil service, by all means do so. But a grab for political power to further so called Christian ends, while laudable on the face of it does not bear scrutiny.

Nowhere does the Bible mandate Christians using the prevailing power structures of the time to advance the KOG.

John 18:36 - Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here."

Acts 1:6 - Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?"

It's a misunderstanding even the disciples had. Our kingdom is not from or of this world. We don't need neither can we use the power structures in it to further the KOG.

Psalm 94:20 - Shall the throne of iniquity, which devises evil by law, Have fellowship with You?

God bless

back again.

I'm seeing that some of the erroneous thinking is very much down to drawing conclusions from the application of the "Power & Might" of men and subsequently trying to justify it by "seemingly corroborating scriptures.

First of all, your quoting of the eldership selection in the OT is a point in question. That had nothing to do with politics. They were called to service on the back of their integrity, experience and maturity. Full stop. Their selection was not as a result of agitation.

It's also patently obvious how fuzzy such thinking is when you say things like this:
A Christian in politics does not represent unbelievers. He represents his constituency which include both believers and unbelievers alike. Of course we can stiop abortion if we have enough Christians in power to vote against it.

True God fearing, Christ following Christians will never be able to take political power, simply because in numerical terms there will never be enough of them. Most people (including many who profess religious beliefs, including many who claim to be Christians), are walking the broad path. There are few that find the narrow way. Please ponder that.

There is no countrry (constituency) anywhere, that has a majority of true professing Christians

Neither is there any country (constituency), where you can campaign on unabashed Christian values, and be duly elected. Even in parties that claim to be "Christian" spiritual imperatives are always marginalised or way down the list of priorites. Even then, none of them dare to couch their manifestoes in scripture or unashamedly Christian prose. Please show me one.

You are also entirely missing the corrupting influence of the state on pure Christian witness. There are 16 (I think), Christian Bishops in the House of Lords, and not a few professong Christian MP's. Please show me one piece of legislation that has the imprimateur of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ on it.

In fact, the day after (the very next day!) a piece oflegislation was passed favouring homosexuals (2005 summer or so), the Church of England, amended it's bye-laws to reflect same! It's why you have Bishops argueing about changing the limits on abortion and not for it's abolishment. It's hypocrisy and compromise and leads those who do not know better to think that is the official Christian position.

Again you fail to plot the natural outworking of this kind of thinking. Imagine for a moment, that Christians did assume political power. Would they legislate righteousness. No, that is not possible. Our Gospel is theological not idealogical. Often with Political power comes military might. The natural carnal outworking is to then enforce militarily what you can't legislate for. Welcome to the crusades!

It's such warped thinking that has got the so-called Christian right, blindly following a war-mongering president!

I'm not sure if there's so much you can't see or it's just sheer doggedness (or should that be dogmaggedness   ). Like I said "Might & Power" doctrine, utterly bogus.

I remain to be persuaded.

God bless

TayoD:
Can you separate divine favour from human effort? Have you seen where God elevated a novice to the position of a professor? My point is that while I believe in divine favour, it is not independent of the human vessel that God has favoured. Joseph went through different stages of administration, Daniel was schooled and well learned, Esther went through beauty classes - all these were human efforts. What you term divine favour is God crowning their human effort with success. Divine favour is when man's ordinary is complimented by God's extraordinary.

Please stop using slight of hand to buttress your position. We are discussing "Christian participation in party politics" here. I did not say we sit around and wait for divine intervention. The novice to professor thing is false. You are taking as read that God wants us to engage in poloitics and will crown our efforts if we do so. Where is that notion in the Bible? Please show me. The learning that Joseph went through was not political tutelage. Ditto for Daniel and Esther. To make the arguemnt for Christians in politics, you have to try and align uncorrelated events and misapply the biblical narrative.

Who amongst those mentioned was actively seeking political power? God elevated them in order to fulfil His own purpose. The fact that He used earthly rulers to assign the authority or influence to them was His plan, not theirs. What they went through was to prepare them for the roles.

TayoD:
It appears you do not have a problem with exerting political influence, rather you are totally against the process of attaining political influence. Let me ask you a question. In that parable I cited in Luke 19, how many of those people were told what exactly should be done with their talents? How many were told how to multiply their resources? The master expected them to use their common sense without violating their conscience to negotiate and multiply their resources. So while the destination is certain, the means is left to the individual.

This is a variation of your oft cited "by any mean necessary approach". Which effectively enables you to overlook scripture and point to the end as a means of justifying unbiblical practices. (Like trying to justify divorce because of the calling on a persons life ~ please! Again, this passage does not speak to overt agitation for political power. It seems a lot of your doctrine is merely theoretical. As I answered mr pataki above, please detail how you will wield political power (let alone obtain it without compromise), to the glory of God. A politician purports to serve those he represents. Could you ban abortion, stop wars, banish gambling? You are representing unbelievers, so even if you manage to ascend any kind of political height, if you don't work to their (evil) interests, they will soon be shot of you. It's a work of the flesh, so your position either becomes untenable, or you are forced to compromise to stay in power. If the whole process hasn't corrupted you already.

TayoD:
God uses men in different positions to get His will done. Through Government (politics), God delivered the world from famine through Joseph and delivered the Isrealites from genocide through Esther.
Daniel may not have practiced politics the way it is done today because such establishment wasn't in place during his days. The only government in the world during those times were dictatorship and monarchies. Democracy as we know it today was never in place. The question we need to ask is does politics contradict the spirit of the New Testament?

God uses whom he will when and as he pleases. He used Nebuvhadnezzar to judge Israel and all the surrounding nations, then judged Babylon & Nebuchadnezzer. Their has always been political intrigue and conspiracy. It flourishes wherever their is an earthly seat of power. it may be more genteel these days, but the bible is full of examples of kings being usurped or conspired against, even by their own flesh and blood. That's how it was done in those days. Daniel et al did not employ those methods. You revisionist history and extrapolation to contemporary times are both whimsical at best. And again a prime example of the kind of sophistry rampant in some denominations these days.

Gotta go, back later

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

Apologies.

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

Happy now?

Analytical:
Since you require examples of people that affected governments horizontally by being involved (doesn't have to be agitation as you put it), where then do you place Joseph, Daniel, Esther, Nehemiah, Ezra etc.

None of the people mentioned above were politically active or agitated for power. Indeed every single one of them was in some sort of servitude. It was divine favour and not human effort that elevated them. Again I believe you are using unrelated terms and events synonymously. So, being led, favoured and exalted by God (using human vessels, regardless of their beliefs, regardless of the govermental/political situation on the ground), and being used to fulfil Gods purpose and Glorify His name does not equate to being politically active, even if it leads to you having political influence.

Analytical:
While we pray, there also has to be God's people in place to affect policies and decisions that will serve to bless people. What shall we say of Daniel, the 1st of 3 presidents in Babylon, through whom an unbelieving king passed a decree that only the God of Daniel shall people worship. Would you know that Daniel and his 3 friends went through a rigorous selection process before they could be part of that government in a foreign land. Their exploits we all know.

I don't agree with your premise. Which is essentially saying, God needs believers to be in certain positions before He can effect His will. Who placed Daniel? did Daniel arrive in Babylon (as a captive slave) and join a political party, begin networking, articulating his political agenda and building a well defined constituency .

Analytical:
Or is it Joseph we should talk about, as the prime minister of Egypt, through whom God preserved the world in time of famine? If more than anything else, I think we need more of such set people for our time- people that will carry the banner of Jesus high in the high echelons of power and politics and bear their influence upon a crooked world and establish righteousness and justice in the land.

Joseph, the one in whom the "Spirit of God was". That is the key. When they see that in Christians, the uncommon wisdom, the moral probity, the unflinching righteousness, they will give God glory.

No, a Christians testimony, is his/her witness. We testify to the saving work of Christ (Gods goodness, mercy and grace) by our conduct in a corrupt and evil world, adopting it's mores to assume power which we then hand over to God. That is unadulterated "Dominionist" thinking. I personally don't see any scriptural foundation for it. Trying to effect the same end as mentioned Biblical figures mentioned, but by different means is error. As Paul said to the Galatians. You can't finish in the flesh that which is started in the Spirit and vice-versa.

God bless

Analytical:
I agree that the word democracy was not mentioned in the bible, but that does not remove the fact that God insituted government. I am of the opinion He also gave us free will to determine how we want to be governed as a people, as long as truth and justice according to His will are not compromised.

Exactly. Government does not necessarily mean democracy! And God effects His will whatwever system is in place, regardless of what the sons of men will to do. God is Sovreign!

TayoD:
Politics is about negotiation and not compromise. Maybe that is the fountain of your problems. A ruler/politician/government/administrator or whatever must be well taught and knowledgeable in the art of negotiation. You negotiate based on your values. Compromise sounds like a valueless player who seeks to get whatever he/she desires without recourse to a set of moral values.

Really? please show me where (how even!) politics is played without compromise  .

And if all politicians are not righteous, morally upright and selfless, than any supposed values are compromised. As politics is played out in a worldly arena, to worldly rules under the aegis of the god of this world, politics is not just compromising, it is utterly corrupt.

TayoD:
Luke 19:13 - And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. The word 'occupy' in that verse is synonymous with negotiation. The Lord makes it clear from the parable that we are to trade and negotiate with what He has given us in other to obtain more. And before you jump to conclusion that it is all about commerce (which you also condemned in an earlier exchange), please read about how the parable was tied to the kingdom and government.

Please feel free to to continue to use scripture to validate your two overarching imperatives. Politics(power) & Money (financial prosperity). Why do some people think that God can only provide on the back of their material success, or reign when they have delivered political power to Him? Personally, I think they are just using the scriptures to validate their lust for and love of the earthly.

TayoD:
Are we not told that what happens in Govenrmnet can affect whether we as Christians will live a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty? That should give you an idea how His will can be established on earth as it is in heaven. There are many examples of that today which I can make available to you as we go. Infact, the political negotiations of Jesus' day was instrumental to the scriptures being fulfilled.

Like I just said  ?

We are told to affect governments vertically (by our prayer upward), not horizontally (by political agitation).

Go on then, provide yor examples. I'm right here!

God bless.

Analytical:
I think you got it all wrong!  Mrpataki has just blessed us with a verse that showed us some truths about the very nature of our God, for which we bless him.  I don't think we need to dwell on this for long, except if you don't believe in that scripture.

Maybe I did get it all wrong.
However, even if I did, why do you conclude that "I don't believe in that scripture". I could just have a different interpretation. So, we only need dwell on it if I don't believe as you do, and if I don't, then I don't believe?

I'm sorry, I didn't realise Christianity had "guru's"! Oh silly me, of course you call them G/MOG's!

Analytical:
No one has said He is not the Sovereign.  In fact, as the Sovereign, He decides what He wills as He wills.  All mrpataki said was that He instituted democracy and has been involved in politics, except if you don't believe that there is no power except ordained of God.  There is surely a God in heaven who still rules in the affairs of men.

If He's sovreign, then there can't at the same time be democracy.
If you are referring to democracy amongst men, please show me where He instituted it.

You are simply bunching up and using different terms (biblical & no-biblical) synonymously.
"Instuituted democracy","Involved in Politics", "no power except ordained of God", "Rules in the affairs of men". It just makes for a "dogs dinner" of an analysis (no pun intended).

There you go again, questioning my beliefs! Questioning my beliefs in no way proves your arguement, plus it's bordering on the ad-hominem. Don't let's go there!

Analytical:
Going through the scriptures, you will find various accounts of how God showed His Sovereignty in diverse ways.  Sometimes, He speaks, sometimes through his prophets, at other times through lots.  Remember the heads of the tribes that worked with Moses were chosen (Deuteronomy 1 vs 6-13), Saul was chosen as king by lot (1 Sam. 10 vs 17-21).  Even the 12th apostle to replace Judas was by lot.  The first deacons were selected by the congregation out of many.  But it's still the same God in all.  He appointed the kings, set up the prophets and priests and instituted the judges.  For short, He instituted government.

Did I question God's sovreignty?
Your various examples have no bearing on the point in question. God is not a politician. He doesn't go to anyone to request for a mandate, for instruction, for counsel, for understanding or for power.

The fact that God instituted order, hierarchy and government. Does not mean he instituted democracy or is involved in politics.

I must say, I've quite enjoyed your posts in the past, but I don't see this as one of your better efforts.

God bless

mrpataki:
Agreed. I may approve the idea that God is not a politician if given the understandinging of knowing that you are viewing it from the Nigerian context.

1. Whoever it was seeking mrpataki's approval of their idea, you got his vote (no pun intended).
2. I would consider it folly to view God or scripture from "the Nigerian context". What is that anyway?

mrpataki:
Thanks again for your response. we will both understand this issue very soon. Again let me stress further that, no man has the monopoly of knowledge.

1. By Gods grace. Please share on
2. A tautology. In return, a verse; 1Corinthians 13:9 - For we know in part and we prophesy in part.

mrpataki:
I believe the Kingdom is a Goverment Institution, whether you like that statement or not, or why would Lucifer want to overthrow God in his own foolish thinking.

1. Believe what you will sir, your doctrinal positions are not on my immediate lists of likes or dislikes.
2. Pray tell us!

mrpataki:
The Scripture I quoted here was just to show that even in our present day circumstance, God still rules and the 3 tiers of Goverment upon which any sustainable country thrives on is actually derived from the Bible.

1. Another tautology!
2. Pray show us!

God bless

Hi Shahan & TayoD (and anyone else who is interested or following),

Thank you for your responses to my take on[b] Hebrews 9:27[/b]. To be honest, it was probably a good thing that I didn't respond immediately. I've taken time to think a little and realise that if I had responded likewise (hastily & dismisively?), there's a good chance the discussion may have degenerated.

Shahan, the hastiness of you last post makes me think you answered totally out of your preconcieved notions and without recourse to scripture. Likewise TayoD, who did not even bother to question my post. Which in some ways may be better than Shahan, who questioned it on the basis of her own seemingly unretractable position.

The point (to answer your question after my posting of the 8th chapter), was to post  the chapter in question & the preceeding one, and try and make headway from there. I have no problem, if you do not want to continue the discussion, or even if you'd like to do another (just say) way. I just thought this way we could literally walk through it and anyone else who was so inclined could follow.

Our initial point of difference seems to be the frame of reference of the immediate scriptural narrative. I see it as a contrasting of the earthly and heavenly High Priesthoods. And in stating so, I don't see any reason for verse 27 of chapter 9 to suddenly switch tack and launch into a one verse discourse about the "commonality of death the once to all men". I feel this is out of step with the Epistle, chapter and narrative, while it also appears to contradict other parts of scripture (as you yourself have posted regards Enoch and Elijah and anyone else can see from the numerous accounts of people dying and been brought back to life).

So based on the chapters posted or any other from the epistle (for focus), or even the scriptures as a whole, please feel free to ask the first question.

God bless.