₦airaland Forum

@ TayoD, as promised.

Firstly your definition of the “World”

TayoD:
I can't believe how you have used the scriptures 'unscripturally' to arrive at your conclusions. I will show you what I mean:Is your definition of the 'world' here yours or the Bible's? According to my Bible the 'world' consists of the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life.

Really? You have reduced the Biblical concept and usage of the term “world” to Human lust. Misguided at best my brother. But let’s go to the Word.

Matthew 4:8 - Again, the devil took Him up on an exceedingly high mountain, and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.

Mmmm. That would suggest that the world consists of kingdoms (states maybe?). That should nail it for any open minded observer. If a kingdom doesn’t consist of politics, commerce and culture, pray tell, what does it consist of?

Luke 9:25 - For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and is himself destroyed or lost

That would suggest that the world is not merely the lusts of men, but something much more tangible. No offence, but I would go as far as to say your definition is just plain wrong. You appear to have confused the desire/appetite/hunger or lust for a thing with the thing.

Even an ad-hoc response to your definition would totally blow it out of the water. So, for example, “He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” – would suggest the world is also a body of people .

How about this;

John 12:31 - Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out

This world has a ruler. So if you try and work in its systems/kingdoms/politics, guess who you’re taking orders from?

The Bible also mentions we are not to be conformed to it!

Romans 12:2 - And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

That would suggest its a system of things, a thought/reasoning process, behavioural patterns, mores, concepts, ideas. Need I go on?

And finally, THE WORLD HATES CHRISTIANS

John 15:18 -"If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. 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.
(also see John 17;13-21)

TayoD, not your customary insightful analysis.

But lets keep talking. I'll respond when I have more time, probably on a point by point basis.

God bless

Bro' TayoD,

How now? Hope you are well. As ever you know I love to engage with you about our shared faith. And as always I take it you are up for the cut and thrust of the debate. Needless to say I continue to appreciate your willingness to discuss, time, effort and maturity in knowing that nothing is meant to be taken personally. And if we help each other along the Way all the better. With that in mind, I want you to know that I take your labelling me ignorant & terming my use of scripture  "unscriptural" in good humour. I'll take time to post a specific response to your last post later.

God bless

@ Havila, howdy. Two words for you sir - Heat & kitchen!

I will answer you in turn (please bear with me while I go get my fly swat ).

Havila,

This seems to be going nowhere fast, but let me persevere.

Right from the off, I figured you had your doctrine. No problem, we all do. But I don't hear you answering specific questions.

I initially noted my difficulty with your doctrinal exigesis and now it seems to be your analysis of the points that I raised.

Pray tell, how do you liken a Christian involved in mission with one involved in politics?

Havila:
And to your 2 scenarios, it's really funny because: how will the position of the Christian involved in politics with peoples of other faith and believes really be different from the position of the Christian missionary on the field who needs to minister to peoples of different faiths and beliefs, again in an increasingly permissive world, when it comes to facing compromise? Both of them must be principled enough and prayerfully approach issues and peoples of other faith; but ultimately believe and rely on the convicting and convincing power of the Holy Spirit to actually bring about a change.

It's so clear that this "political approach" draws it's motivation from mens strength and wisdom. Folly. Sheer foolishness. Not by power, neither by the wisdom of this world. Little wonder so many so called clergy like to nosey up to big shot politicians and world leaders. Don't even begin to deceive yourself that you are taking the gospel to them. All you are doing is cuddling up to the throne of wickedness which legislates iniquity by law (Psalm 94:20), essentially endorsing them (the world), and at the same time weakening true Christian witness.

In the UK we have had bishops in the House of Lords for centuries, yet still experienced a steady descent into wickedness.

The Bible is crammed with warnings foretelling that lawlessness will abound, wickedness will increase and the like. Yet your considered (Christian?) response is legislate against it? Please.

The misguided belief that Christianity can prosper via politics is one of the enemy's biggest lies.

No, nobody went to sleep, what happened is the institutional church started to take it's lead from worldly trends. Hence political correctness, feminism and other such rot in the IC. The true church of God stands as a light in the World. By our godly conduct and righteous behaviour, we witness for Christ and glorify God.

Take a big picture view sir. I have cried long and hard against "religion" on this site. If only you could see that what you are championing will have its  ultimate outworking as a perverse form of Christian Sharia. Listen carefully, adherence to the law (forcefully or voluntarily) does not avail against the sin nature.

Sir, you thinking (to me at least) is a little muddled. Homosexuality is an outworking of human perverseness and God giving men over to their wickedness (Romans ch1). Can't you comprehend that you don't/can't legislate against what is judgement from on high.

So what if homosexuals can't marry? How many of the heterosexuals that can bother these days? So what if they've temporarily or permanently stymied stem cell research? between 500'000 and 1'000'000 people have been killed in Iraq II and in the UK estimates are that about 25% or 200'000 pregnancies per year are aborted.

The devil is throwing tiny red herrings sir. And the Christian political lobby is a big Seal, clapping it's flippers in glee.!

God bless.

Havila (& TayoD, as this is a discussion we have been having in an off, on way for a while now).

Look, I don't for one moment doubt that for the most part many Christians believe that they can make a genuine difference through political activism. Indeed, on the face of it, it makes obvious sense.

The Christian mandate is not too influence the world by activley participating in it. It's to save those on whom the wrath of God abides from out of it. Trying to battle the world using the worlds systems, infrastructure and ways just won't work. Politics is about many things, but firstly, it cannot save souls and secondly, any impact will be hampered by those you purport to serve.

Let me advance two scenarios as we advance this discussion.

1. Take for example abortion. It's a commonly accepted "womans right". The Christian position is abortion is murder (right?). A Christian politician, legislator etc. etc. is scripturally bound to have it repealed from the statute books. But what do we find? Chritian politicians (and clergy men) arguing for in a reduction in the time lilmits for abortion, but not against it. Compromise. And that's where politics always leads you. Think about it a bit more. The people you purport to serve (and as a politician you would serve a constituency that is not necessarily all Christian), want you to serve them. Not your faith ideals. So for example, if a true Christian Prime Minister ascended into power here in the UK how could he/she repeal abortion? Not when 80% of the poulation think there's nothing wrong with it and consider it a basic right? Again, he/she would be compromised. Apply this reasoning to gambling, fornication, adultery (which I believe is still on the statute books, but who ever gets prosecuted for it? Indeed a woman can commit adultery and then divorce her husband, taking him to the cleaners in the process!)

2. Politics as law making. You cannot legislate against wickedness and unbelief. Gay homosexuality (and the lesbian variety) where once illegal and it was still widespread. You can legislate all you will. Laws do not change people's nature. Indeed, the Bible says "the Law is not for the righteous". Whatever the state position on homosexuality, it will not stop the practise or more pertinet to Christians, make any converts.

And one question.

1. Please show me where Christian politics (as opposed to a Christian culture) has made a true difference in any nation in the world.

While I appreciate your reasoning,  my position remains unchanged. The Christian mandate is not to partner with, consult, endorse or join forces with the world. It's to save the lost out of it. Where is it written "Go ye into all the world and engage in party politics"? People who know and love God do not need politics or politicians to keep them in the way of righteousness. Neither can politics or politicians keep people off the path of wickedness.

I'd like to take this discussion a little deeper, but lets clear this hurdle first.

God bless.

Julee:
I am only saying what is right .

Actually Sister Julee, you are saying what you think is right (or maybe what you were told is right). Some may beg to differ.

Nobody is complaining about those who choose to tithe, we are merely stating our position on the scriptural basis for doing so, or not doing so as the case may be.

Glad to hear you have better things to do with your time than argue. Feel free to continue with the discussion.

God bless.

Mr. Havila,

So, “He had political clout through His ministry” did He?

That would explain why he was ridiculed, condemned and crucified by local state politics (Herod), federal politics (Pilate) and religious politics (the chief pries, Pharisees, scribes etc etc). Since it was the Jewish crowds who bayed for His blood, that would suggest He did not have a lot of grassroots support either.

Politics as it exists, is a way to gain state power. The kingdoms/states of this world are under the sway of the evil one. Try sitting on an evil throne and see if it won’t corrupt you or persecute you to the uttermost. When the church apes the world, it ceases to be the church.

The Christian charge is to spread the gospel and serve/minister to the needy.

It the same carnal thinking that introduced hierarchical/political structures into the church, that somehow thinks gaining political power on the earth is the way to usher in Gods kingdom.

I said we are not of the world (not to misunderstand that we are most definitely in it), and you called that escape theology? Does your reading of the scriptures honestly teach you that the way to engage the world is by using its own apparatus and infrastructure? That the Bible gives Christians a political mandate. Please don’t refer to the stories of Joseph and/or Daniel. They were not career politicians, but servants, despite the lofty heights they reached.

God bless

Hnd-holder:
Read the postings before now, since you look new on this topic you  just arrived so that you can know details.

Thank you Brother HND-holder.

Sister Julee,  Welcome. May I also add that received tradition, force-fed doctrine and MOG veneration don't go down very well on this forum. Please bring what you've read, researched or received direct.

He said "Who do men say that I the Son of Man am?
He turned to His disciples and said, "but who do you say that I AM"?

God bless

Hi Havila,

Havila:
Matt Chapter 20: (25) But Jesus called them unto him, and said, You know that the rulers of the world lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. (26) But that is not what you are to do: He who would become great among you shall be your minister;  (27) and whosoever would be first among you shall be your servant: (28) even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

You can see that Jesus DID NOT tell us NOT to be great or not to be leaders, he did NOT say that desire is wrong. Instead He told us how to get there, what it means to be a great leader and how to be a great leader. What we see in our politicians today are leaders who do not wish to serve the people, but want to be served or rather worshipped. That does not mean politics is wrong but that the politicians are wrong since they do not know what it means to be a leader. I will await responses and counter arguments before showing other evidences in support of our being actively involved in the affairs of our nation politically. Peace.

Please don't take offence, but I don't see how you can read scripture enjoining Christians to serve one another, as a mandate to enter the worldly political arena. The Lord said "The Leaders of this World" - We are not of this world! The reason we are to conduct ourselves differently is because we are under a different rule, in a different kingdom.

And please, arguing that because He did not preclude certain actions/activities therefore they are encouraged is somewhat weak. Furthermore, the Lord equated greatness with serving, while you are applying the literal worldly use. If you are serving the needy, the poor, the downtrodden and disenfranchised, worldly greatness is not your bag. The "Son of Man came to serve". When did He seek fame, political clout or celebrity?

This has dominion theology written all over it.

Your say mate.

God bless

Hello Havila,

Havila:
@TV01,
Seriously and with all due respect, I think you have a limited understanding of the scriptures

With all due respect, I agree with you. We all have a limited understanding of the scriptures.

Havila:
@TV01,
I read some of your contributions on the Tithes discussion, etc.

So? And? Are you a proponent of mandatory tithing? Like I said, we are all limited.

Havila:
@TV01,
Let's leave Chris Okotie for now

I never went there in the first place. I don't discuss people. Issues, principles, doctrine, concepts, ideas maybe, but not people.

Havila:
I will recommend you attend some Christian leadership seminars, read leadership books written to actually know the role of the "Ecclesia" in politics and the world affairs. I have sat down with Myles Munroe among many others at many teachings where we used the Bible Scriptures to investigate the role of the body of Christ in politics/world affairs and I am telling you, we need to get out there, and get into politics.

I read a great book on leadership, it's called the Bible. As for sitting down with whomever, please refer to my comments above about people. Name dropping is at best a bore, but if you have anything to share, please do.  I am always eager for the chance to reduce my "Scriptural Limitedness" Like I said, aren't we all scripturally challenged?

Scripture? "My kingdom is not of this world", would be a good start. May I point out the symbolism of those that represent the state in scripture. I'm sure your close to unlimited scriptural knowledge means you know exactly who they are. "The Leaven of Herod".

Sounds like a tithing dominionist is telling me where to get off. But I accept your offer to come and reason together. Please invite a few of your big name friends along.  Like I said, I'm right here, happy to be humbled if it means being enlightened.

ps - TayoD, you aint mad at me are you? Please take my tail comment as light-hearted joshing, but if offence is taken, I sincerely apologise.

God bless.

Bro' TayoD,

Point taken. The EFCC should not go willy nilly (or for dubious political reasons) into investigating churches. But if the evidence leads them there (as per your example), they should investigate to the full extent of their powers.

Above and beyond EFCC activity, what I am saying is, given the structure and set-up of many church institutions, they should be subject to well defined government imposed laws regarding how they collect and disburse money from the public. And any true Church of the Lord Jesus Christ will have nothing to fear, as transparency should be evident in all our dealings. Will we not have a good report amongst those who are without the church?

Your point about Paul and "judging in the church" is I think a slightly different issue. A dispute between Christians (individually or collectively), is best subject to the Word and discernment of other mature Christians. But mis-application of funds within Churches is of state as well as religious concern.

Take for example the ongoing allegations against the CPA MOG, "Rev King". Should those charges be dealt with by the church? If the Church where to judge and return a guilty verdict, what punishment would they impose? Just like the Jews under the Romans had no right to put anyone to death (I love the Bible, it always aligns perfectly), neither is the Church, charged with imposing sanctions for crimes that are punishable under criminal law. Maybe civil law cases in some instances. Please don't lets creep towards a Christian form of Sharia.

Say on sir,

God bless

Mmmmmmmmm, let me think,

lafile:
What do you think about christians participating in politics.

Bad idea, we have a divine mandate to fulfil and enough to keep us occupied. Politics, commerce and culture (the world) are effectively under the sway of the evil one.

lafile:
And what about Rev. Chris Okotie? What happens to his church while he is serving as president?

I don't know what will happen to his church while he is serving as President, but the "Church of Jesus Christ" will be just fine. Not that I think he will make President, or even care.

lafile:
don't you think the calling of a pastor is higher than that of a king?

If you mean a secular king, no. If you mean a spiritual king, no. So that's a no then.

TayoD started a similar thread, but turned tail when he realised how misguided and contra scriptural the whole idea is. Let's end this real quick.

God bless

Hi TayoD,

Why should anything have to be defined? In any ordered society, there are laws subjecting institution that take money from the public to full accountability to the rule of law. And yes, money laundering and corruption are obvious concerns. Money collected by church institutions effectively disappears into a "black hole".

May I remind you that the Bible asks Christians and hence Church to be subject to the rule of law. If churches are collecting and using money according to Biblically mandated principles, how can they fall short of mans laws? What could they possibly have to fear?

Hi Crazykid,

Could you please educate me about how the work the Church was asked to do involves collecting money?


Hi Akintos_o,

Presumably you are aware that "Divine Obligation" subjects Christians/The Church to the secular rule of law. Additionally, God uses the secular state to punish wrongdoers. I find both your reasoning and theology somewhat puzzling


My particular fellowship welcomes any level, degree or number of probes from the authorities under whose jurisdiction we reside  !


"The Law is not for the righteous"

God bless

In my best Naija accent ~ Yes O!

, so we are all agreed then?

Hi All,

Akintos_o ~ Firstly, a proper reading of the Bible clearly shows that the role/position/office of "Pastor" as currently used in many Nigerian churches does not exist.

Listen carefully, God does not assign a pastor to anyone, or anyone to a pastor.

With that in mind I'll share a little of what I believe the Bible instructs on this delicate issue.
Parents are responsible for raising their children to adulthood/maturity. Giving their offspring away in marriage is the final step in releasing them into full adulthood.

Prior to marrying children are under their parents authority. The choice of who to marry is ultimately the childs, but it should be done with the utmost regard to the judgement and in consultation with the parents. In fact I would go as far as to say that if good Christian parents object for solid reasons thy can show scriptural backing and discernment for, the marriage should at least be put on hold. It's the parents who are charged with preparing and readying their children for marriage (knowing God's will, understanding the roles, responsibilities, the personal and societal import, the characteristics of a suitable spouse etc. etc).

"For this reason a man shall leave his father & mother"

Pastor who? for what?? what for

notes:

1. Quite a few of us are first generation or "immigrant" Christians. As such the well developed christian family structure, that arises from generations of Christianity may not be in place. Many become Christians late in life. They may be orphans or the children of unbelievers with different values and marriage traditions. There is obviously need for remedial action to ensure that Christians marry in a Christian manner. This is to some degree captured by marriage/ singles forums. But the truth is these should not be the norm.

2. It makes absolute sense to broaden consultations and incorporate a wider body of knowledge/experience into the process. Mature Christians, elders and long married couples should be consulted to help prepare the couple in the aspects of and changes wrought by marriage. But again the best model is always upright Christian parents. The Lord knew that Abraham would command his family after him. In the absence of these, see point 1 above.

I hope this helps. But please feel free to diasgree or otherwise comment.

God bless

Hi Missy,

Thanks for the response.
Again quite lengthy, and again I took my time to read through it all.

Let me reverse quote some of the post to you;

Study 1
From this information, researchers concluded that if in fact there was a "homosexual gene", it appeared to be passed down from mother to son. This means that heterosexual females are carriers of this gene, and when it is passed down to a male child, there is a chance that the child will be a homosexual. While this study did not come up with any hard core facts about the genetics of homosexuality, it showed that a connection very well could exist.

Study 2
Keep in mind though, that this is just a region of the X chromosome, not a specific gene. Although researchers are hopeful, a single gene has not yet been identified

Hamer's study also acknowledges the fact that while it does suggest that there is a gene that influences homosexuality, it has not yet been determined how greatly the gene influences whether or not a person will be homosexual (4). In addition, Hamer attempted to locate a similar gene in female homosexuals, but was unsuccessful

Study 3
Another study took place in 1993 by Macke et al. This study examined the same gene locus as the Hamer study, but found that it had no influence on homosexuality. As you can see, the results on this topic are still extremely varied and reasonably new, so it is difficult to come to any lasting conclusion.

And so on and so forth. Blind me with science and dizzy me with words, but your sources themselves admit that there is as yet nothing conclusive.

So as you can see its at best conjecture, supposition and hypothesis, nothing concrete, nothing absolute. If there is a gene, a sequence of genes or even a readily identifiable gene locus, it would be clamoured from the rooftops.

Did I say conjecture? supposition, and hypothesis? That's just diplomatic me. The Holy Bible calls it vain imaginations, the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge.

Man is a fallen creature, body and soul/spirit. The fall has caused physical (genetic) as well as spiritually corruption. Even if such a gene could be identified, it would change nothing. Man in his original God created estate did not have homosexuality in his make-up.

Doubtless the search will go on for this elusive gene. And doubtless the homosexual lobby will deploy all the "scientific", sociological and any other kind of evidence they can muster to force their case for normalising what the bible calls a perverse lifestyle.

The Lord Jesus Christ died to free us from the power of sin. Homosexuality is sin, The Lord can and will free those who believe from the power of sin.

God bless.

Hi Missy,

MIZIEYA:
tv01,
If you're too lazy to read the whole post, and yet expect me to qualify a query, think again Missy.

I did read the whole post. As I thought I made clear, I did'nt have the time to research and answer everything point, but in order to kick off the discussion, I started with my first point of difference.

Do I detect evasive action?

God bless

Yes you most certainly did, now repent kia kia! 

Hi MIZIEYA,

Lengthy post and I don't have the time to respond to it all just at the moment.

MIZIEYA:

Modern genetic science has shown that homosexuality is the natural state of being for some human beings. If that is truly the case, and I believe that it is, based upon the scientific studies posted upon the Internet by actual genetic scientists connected with prestigious Universities, then it is God who is responsible for the condition of homosexuality just as it is God who is responsible for the condition of heterosexuality. To say that homosexuality is deviant behavior is to say that God made a mistake.

But with reference to the portion quoted above, "Modern Genetic Science" has done no such thing. Nor has it made and substantiated any such claim. Unless of course you can show differently.

God (in Chrst) bless

Hired. Oops, deepest apologies my Lord, that should read enthroned. Forever!

Hi 4get_me,

Perhaps it’s perspectives that differ.

I think to some degree we are in agreement. I don’t subscribe to the notion of Christians being freelancers. Nor of enslavement, nor of “rule = control”.

I often hear Hebrew 13 v7 & 17 wheeled out when the question of obedience, rule, and submission are brought up. However, I think I see Drusilla’s point particular in reference to her earlier post speaking about the “Nicolaitan” issue in the church.

As ever it is good to seek the whole counsel of God.

Mark 10:42 But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, "You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 43 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. 44 And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all.

Or

Matthew 20:25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant.

Or

1 Peter 5: 1 The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: 2 Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; 3 nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock;


I see God’s house as a family, with the only difference between believers being essentially the degree of maturity. Some of the more mature believers (provided they fulfil certain criteria) are charged with certain functions and it’s in everyone’s best interest that they are obeyed and submitted to in exercising their duties.

The bible outlines 3 areas of authority, the home, the church and the state. Just like the branches of government, these are not to be subsumed or otherwise compromised by each other.

So any control or rule is in a church setting. It is also pertinent to note that the phrase translated “rule over you” is used only 3 times in the NT and all in Hebrews 13 (7,17 & 24).

The word actually means “to go before, and thus to lead or guide”, which is entirely consistent with a sense of maturity (being led by an elder brother, I guess its why they are called elders!).

Agreed, the word can also be used to convey a sense of ruling and governing. But to my mind, this translation is wrong for 2 reasons.
1. It would contradict the opening scriptures I quoted and
2. It would actually mean that rule did mean control.

I believe that interpreting it as rule/control is what leads to the heretical doctrine of the Nicolaitans.

Further, the whole point of our coming together as believers is for two reasons
1. To care for one another
2. For edification and maturing of all (Ephesians 4)

So again, while we will probably always need and should take counsel. And maturity in absolute terms and certain areas will always vary, I don’t see a pupil/tutor relationship, rather a fellowship of maturing siblings.

Again, maybe it’s perspective. Does God set particular people as leaders? Or is leadership a function of maturity and say gifting. Now all are gifted and all should grow in maturity. Do I eschew preaching/teaching? No, but I believe that it is primarily a work of the Word and the Spirit. So we are all taught, can be taught and can teach.

I don’t see a clergy/laity or leader/follower split, which I see as part and parcel of the Nicolaitan error.

Lot's of common ground I think.

God bless

Hi All,

It's renegade me, posting off topic again. My defence is wherever the discussion leads.

Hi 4get_me, long time. I noticed (and dare I say it missed your absence), presumably you where on vacation/sabbatical/caught up etc. etc. Whatever sir, welcome back. Now to business;

Drusilla said;

Drusilla:
No preacher or church should have control over you and your life.

And in response 4get_me said;

4get_me:
Again, the Bible you believe in says:

"Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you" (Heb. 13:17).

"Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble" (I Pet. 5:5).

So 4get_me, please forgive me if I've misread you, but are you saying that a preacher or "church organisation" should have control over a born again believers life? And further insisting that that is what the Bible teaches?

I await and appreciate your response.

God bless

Ha!

BabyOsisi, you too?

Milks_Baby & BabyOsisi, you are two of the three girls (along with Syrup) I like to listen to on this forum. Yet you both seem to be diametrically opposed to me on this one!

babyosisi:
And have you all noticed how "God always seems to lead" the not too fine bros to the very cute sisters from a rich home and hardly the other way round.

If you feel no butterflies when you think of or see the person,he ain't the one. Period.

I am not legislating against physical attraction, but please, can that really be the basis of a lasting relationship? I see physically attractive girls every day!

So once again, BabyOsisi, may I ask, are you married? (and no, I am not being led, I am just curious. Unless of course you are really cute from a wealthy family, then I'm serious   !).

Sis' Syrup where are you? and what are you saying??

God bless

Hi mlks_baby,

Why do I always feel I'm being over familiar when I use your name? anyway!

As ever I like listening to your views, likwise this time around. But I must say, in this instance I beg to differ somewhat.

mlks_baby:
Don't let anyone 'mumu' you trowey. If you're not in love with someone, God can't lead you to spend the rest of your life with him. The chemistry has to be established between the both of you. I've had friends - many of them real gentlemen; even though some of them have asked the 64 million dollar question, it didn't go anywhere - and some of them are still friends with me today in more ways than I could ever have discovered in them. What is called 'God's leading' has today been abused by many to apply to just about anything - 'God is leading you to smile for me, God is leading you to come to my house, God is leading you to touch my shoulder, God is . . .' Haba!

My dear, if you can't feel your knees buckle for him when you look into his eyes, don't leap into his arms. Any adventure you take outside a conviction in yourself that God is actually leading YOU will be signed 'O-Y-O'. . on your own.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be rendering love primarily as a feeling?
I thought that mature Christian thought considered love more as an act or a gift?

Your emphasis seems to be mostly on "chemistry", surely that should be "character"?

Whist I agree that strong physical attraction is good, whether as a starting point or as a development, that should never be the primary basis for a comittment to marriage. Feelings blow hot and cold, are subject to changing circumstances and in all probability will never be equally matched at all times by both parties.

I won't touch on your personal experience, but even the references to "God leading" seem to suggest that plays little or no part for you? I realise that some take this to extremes or flagrantly abuse it, but being led by "The Spirit" is the prerogative of the sons of God. Surely any God fearing Christian (is there any other kind?) would at least subject potential spouses to scrutiny, by the Word and heartfelt prayer? and not just physical indications?

I believe that marriage is something Christians can be proactive about, but to make that choice (or any other) based primarily on physical indicators? Surely not?

Love is what you do after you are married, love can be built, grown, developed. Prior to marriage it's lot's of things, but it's not yet love, love becomes an imperative once married.

If "knee-buckling" chemistry was the pre-requisite, we'd all be lusting after Halle Berry or Taye Diggs (who would probably be married to each other, leaving the rest of us to burn in unrequited lust). I don't see it like that. Love based solely on looks and physical attraction is always at best temporary.

As for the original question. Can God lead you to someone? Yes!, but will you necessarily love them at first glance? No. The choice to marry and love them remains yours. God sees not as we see. The key is to "Have the mind of Christ" apply Godly wisdom and discernment and judge rightly whether the person in question is spouse material. If you decide they are, then marry and work at Lurve (a lot !),

Mlks-baby, may I ask if you are married?

God bless

Hi All,

My tuppence worth.

Christianity is a complete lifestyle (culture), and a holistic faith. To preach that one should, “respect God by dressing modestly in church”, but dress according to “personal desire” (and that desire is obviously carnal no matter how you dress it ~ or UnCloth it ~ pun intended  ) out of church, is too demonstrate fundamental misunderstandings about the faith and to reduce it too a religious exercise, which is ultimately futile.

The Bible is unambiguous about this. Revealing or form hugging clothes and outré bling-bling effects, are simply not Christian and totally unbecoming of the Saints of Christ - male or female. Not only should attire not be revealing, neither should it be “flashy”.

1 Timothy 2:9 ~  in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10 but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.

1 Peter 3 ~  1 Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. 3 Do not let your adornment be merely outward--arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel-- 4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.

We are further enjoined too (paraphrased)
~ Let our moderation be made known to all
~ Do nothing to make our brothers stumble
~ Put the needs of others before ourselves
~ Do nothing to cause offence (to God, the brethren or even gentiles)
And one could go on and on. There is nothing in scripture to support indecent dressing or the notion of “a personal choice” if it engenders behaviour contrary to the Word. True Christianity is death to self, a life lived for Christ (or indeed, where Christ lives through you), as your life is not your own or lived by your own strength.

Deep down that kind of attire is all about self. True an exception can be made for the newly saved, but to elevate a doctrine of “personal choice” to being the rule (rather than an exception for anything other than newborn Christians) is simply not supported by the Bible.

A Christians wardrobe should be an outward reflection of the work of the Spirit in them. Self-Control as a fruit of the Spirit comes to mind. Someone said something about “dictating decency”. Christians don’t dictate or need to be dictated too, they are led by the Spirit. Indecent dressing is unmistakeably a dictate of one's flesh.

Why would a mature Christian have different dressing standards, at least in term of decency? Activity or function, maybe, but regards decency no, and it should be universal not just at church. Modesty and self-control is always flattering, whatever your natural endowments.

Be not deceived, if you dress no differently from the world, you are of the world.  I must say, I am becoming increasingly convinced that most of the “deceived” are at best self-deluded and at worst love being deceived. The Word of God is simple.

God bless

Hi @ Dearie,

Please do not worry yourself unduly about any monetary significance of "firstfruits", there isn't one, especially not in the NT dispensation.

Firstly, it has a deeper spiritual significance and refers more properly to the harvest of the people of God.

Secondly, along with the mis-interpretation and mis-application of the modern day "tithing" doctrine, is another instance of merchandisers twisting scripture to suit thier ill founded purposes.

God loves a cheerful giver. Give to the needy, not the greedy, and to your hearts content.

Hi @Dennylove,

In the first month, one would have to pay all the salary & a tithe. Totalling 110%
Please explain this apparent conundrum. Thanks.

God bless

TayoD,

Regards the "gift aspect" of the priestly duties ~ I have to say, you throw out a premise with no biblical basis, i.e. gift = tithe. You then take something that is nowhere shown in scripture and refuse to budge until we disprove it. If I did'nt no you better, I'd say you were just being willfully obstructive, or perhaps sensing the futility of your position, trying to force a technical draw.

But lets go back to scripture to see if we can resolve this conundrum.

Maybe Hebrews 9:9 and the surrounding verses may help;

9 It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience--

Gifts where only ever symbolic. The cost of total atonement, a perfect conscience and access to God (that's the whole point sir), was the blood of the Lamb. It speaks better things my brother. The one time offering,

And how about this;

Matthew 5
23 Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25

Would you equate the gift referenced here with the tithe? Surely the correct place for the tithe is the storehouse?

Or indeed this;

Matthew 18
18 And, 'Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obliged to perform it.'

Since when did the gift (or tithe by your definition) become something placed on the altar, or sworn on?


God bless

Bro’ TayoD,

Thanks for your response, I almost missed it under the avalanche of posts on the main topic.

I must say I appreciate your backing up your position with reference to scripture. It means the discussion can be focused.

You wrote:
It is obvious from the letters that Timothy was Pastor over the church at Ephesus.

My response:
Actually it is not. Although without looking at the bigger picture, it is easy to see how one could draw that conclusion.

First a little background. Paul and most of those who laboured with him where very early Christians and the work they undertook pioneering in nature (quite often in places where the “Church” had not previously existed). They were responsible for setting up the church structure. So what we are talking about here is the apostolic, not the pastoral. 

The church was in its nascent stage and the instruction was how to set up and structure the church, not how he should run it as pastor. If there are only a few people who understand how church should be structured, ordered and run, the first task will be to raise up suitably qualified men to perform the necessary functions, hence the outline for eldership/bishoprics laid out in the epistles to Timothy & Titus.

Once a church was up and running the apostolic element is no longer required, which underlines why Peter referred to himself as an “Elder” (and a fellow one at that, not qualified by a term denoting seniority of any kind). The church was established, and as he was not in the business of advancing the church into new territory (say like Paul), his role would have been as one of a number of elders. Likewise James, whose obvious maturity and insight marked him out as such. If he was a “Pastor”, it would have been in the sense that bishop, shepherd, pastor and elder are all synonymous, not in the current day (mis)interpretation of a pastor having authority over elders. As mentioned in my previous post, nowhere does the bible suggest this. Not directly, not indirectly or by an explicitly outlined mandate that aligns with the current day (mis)interpretation of the so called pastoral role.

That is why elders is almost always referred to in the plural. A plurality of co-equal (although possibly varying in areas of activity or expertise), would be a great guard against the excessive celebrity cults and demi-god status of some modern day pastors.

You said:
It is obvious from these scriptures that the elders were well under Timothy's authority, and that is the way the church is set up.

My response:
Correct in the sense that it was Apostolic and not pastoral authority. And in the sense that is not the way the church "is set up", it’s the way the church "was set-up". Once established the only two church functionaries are elders and deacons (plural and male).

And yes, I agree all chains of authority peak into one person. “All authority is from God, and the sole head of the Church is the Lord Jesus Christ.

God bless

TayoD:
Historically, James is known to be the Pastor of the church in Jerusalem of which Peter was a member. Peter was obviously an elder in that church, and since an elder is still subject to a pastor, then we can safely deduce that Peter was subject to the authority of James within that local assembly.

TayoD,

Since we have discussed quite extensively and I am sure you know I hold you in high regard, let me be upfront with you.

Your inferences as stated above are simply not scriptural, nor indeed are they historic fact.

Granted James was of note amongst the saints, a mature and respected Christian and a voice that was often heard. But your calling him Pastor exposes what is nothing more than recieved tradition.

Firstly, James was not Peters Pastor, or for that matter anybody's pastor.
A Pastor is simply a variation on the word (and function of) Elder (likewise, Bishop, Presbyter, Shepherd etc, etc). So whilst your tradition/denomination may effect a hierarchy with elders subject to pastors, there is no biblical warrant for such an imposition

Secondly nowhere in scripture is a local assembly headed by the one man, it is always plurality or elders.

Thirdly, the word "pastor" is scarcely to be found in scripture, and neither is there contained therin the kind of remit or function ascribed to pastors in certain denominations these days. What I am hearing is the "traditions of men" and I'm sure you know where that leads. But if you can show otherwise from scripture, please enlighten me.

God bless.