₦airaland Forum

Mmmmm, let me see

ell77:
Matthew 16:18
I am sure, everyone here is familiar with that saying. So I kind of get what Carlosein is saying. As Jesus did build the foundation for his Church he made his disciple (Peter) the rock upon which the Church would be built.

Yes I am familiar with it. But no, The Lord did not build the foundation for His church upon Peter.

I believe that interpretation is flawed, otherwise, Paul would have an equal claim.

1Corinthians 3:10 - According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it.

But that would also be wrong as the true foundation of the church is as follows;

Ephesians 2:20 - having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone,

(which nails all those who go around with the self-styled title Apostle & Prophet in this age!)

ell77:
Now one of the first Christian Churches was the Catholic Church, so it is the Church of Christ and no matter what, evil shall not change the Catholic Church (set up by Peter directly), and it shall not lose sight of the purpose of it being built, and I believe it has not. However, I don't think the Catholic Church is the only Church of Christ it is just the first one.

Again I don't agree.
There is only the one "True Church".
Peter never set up any Church. He was an Elder in "The Church" of The Lord Jesus Christ.
So, the Catholic church is not the first of many, it is the first of many to depart from the true church.

No heat sir, just truths. White hot truth

God bless

or causes grievous bodily harm to his followers nko? or murders members of his congregation nko??

Morning Peeps,

Some people will never get it? I guess some just don’t want to.

How long will you continue to spew such nonsense?
In praise of the flesh and carnal achievements?
Venerating men and making idols of created things!

Indoctrinated talking heads and well schooled religious mouthpieces.
Respecters of persons, payers of eye service, partial, men pleasers all.

John 7:15 - And the Jews marveled, saying, "How does this Man know letters, having never studied?"

Acts 4:13 - Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men, they marvelled. And they realized that they had been with Jesus.

1 Corinthians 1:26 - For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called

Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

The whole tone of the post suggests that the worldy achievements of these “Great Geniuses”
somehow qualifies them or means they brings something to the table. That is scripture upside down, back-to front and inside out. Or as Uncle Titus would say “Nonsense and ingre-dent”

The most high God will not share his glory with anyone.
Let no flesh glory in His presence.

Jeremiah 9:23 - Thus says the Lord: "Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, Let not the mighty man glory in his might, Nor let the rich man glory in his riches; 24 But let him who glories glory in this, That he understands and knows Me, That I am the Lord, exercising lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth. For in these I delight," says the Lord.

Jeremiah 17:5 - Thus says the Lord: "Cursed is the man who trusts in man And makes flesh his strength, Whose heart departs from the Lord.

Please note , I have no personal relationship with any of the so called “great men of God” mentioned (first it was MOGS, now its GMOGS!!). Neither do I know if they ever subscribed to or taught such doctrine. As such, this posts seeks not to challenge their persons, but the almost heretical underlying thinking that gave rise to this thread

The voice of one cryin’

God bless

Carlosein,

Thanks for your reply.

First, let me assure you that so far nothing you have posted leads me to believe that you are a religious freak. Listen, it took me numerous postings and many hard fought battles to attain that status - how dare you think you can simply waltz in here , make a few posts and join this elite club! But I see potential. Who knows, maybe one day, you too can have the letters RF after your name  .

Back back to the business at hand.

Would you be saying that the Bible is complete (for salvation), but does not contain everything (that pertains to Christianity)?

Further, you appear to be saying, that to facilitate the fullness of "Christianity" (not necessarily inherent in the bible), the Lord Jesus Christ set up an institution called the "Catholic church"?

You additionally seem to be saying that salvation does not require one to embrace Catholicism, but complete Christianity does.

I agree about salvation.

And I can see your point about fullness of Christianity. There are numerous debates and differences about non-core essentials (I won't even attempt to list any here), and things perhaps that the Bible hints at, touches on maybe, but does not explore in depth. But I must ask why any of these things pertain to or count towards the fullness of Christianity?

But I am not with you when you state that The Lord set up an "institution" to enable us to capture that fullness. Neither do I agree that the institution is the Catholic Church. But then I couldn't, if I don't believe there is one could I?

"The Lord knows those who are His! II Timothy 2:19

May I close by saying, "The fullness of Christianity and everything that pertains to it is to be found in Christ!

God bless

The brief answer is no.

Men are a different order of created being, at this point a little lower than angels.

Psalm 8:5 - For You have made him a little lower than the angels, And You have crowned him with glory and honor.

Hebrews 2:7 - You have made him a little lower than the angels; You have crowned him with glory and honor, And set him over the works of Your hands.

Hebrews 2:9 - But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.

Although those who make the kingdom will have glorified bodies which will make them (more?) like angels.

Matthew 22:30 - For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.

Mark 12:25 - For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Anything else anyone?

God bless

Hi Same410,

In appreciatiation of your insightful and well delivered post (never mind that last bit!)  .

God bless

Hmmmmmmmmm.

I think both Dru & Nferyn have a point, only I don't agree that the points are about true faith/religion, they are about men utilising religion (if you see the difference).

And whilst I am here, may I say an unabshed Yes Ooo! To the question posited. ~Christianity~

God bless

Hi Carlosein,

Whilst I am not holding brief for Wellborn or anyone else for that matter (Hi Wellborn, I hope all is well with you. Do visit us sometime), I'd like to post a response.

I speak as a Christian and not in regard to any other religion/faith, but pray tell why the Bible is not complete in itself for "instuction in righteousness". Also, if it is not what else is required? And who is to determine exactly what that is. (I disagree that the "point" you where attempting to make in the last paragraph of your post is an actual fact).

As to the question raised in this thread "Are Catholics really Christians", that a bit of a non question, in that it both misses the point and is somewhat misleading.

Simply put, Christians are those who put their faith in Christ Jesus. I suppose one could expand this a great deal, but lets keep it simple.

So any Catholic who does so is a Christian.
But that does not mean that all who denote themsolves Catholics are Christians.
And exactly the same could be said of Coptic, Orthodox, Baptists, Anglicans, Pentecostals, SDA, JW, or any of the other 37'000 odd denominations.

Your post also suggest certain things to me. But so as not to misread or ascribe anything to you, I shall allow the discussion unfold.

God bless

Hello Sir,

Grouppoint:
@TV01,
Paul referred to Timothy as his son in the lord.
John did the same.

So? Does that make it a doctrine?
The Lord said to call no one father (except our Father in Heaven).
Was he speaking of earthly fathers?

Grouppoint:
The Church of Jerusalem regarded James as their Man of God.

No they didn't . They esteemed him as a mature Christian. Amongst other mature Christians I might add.

Grouppoint:
Tell me, how did Paul regard his work in these churches as a one time task, and yet, you read 1st letter to the Corinthians, 2nd letter, 2 thesalonians, 2 timothy, You have 1 John, 2 John, 3 john.
I tell you that whosoever was being frequently ministered to at the time, must of a necessity, regard these apostles as their man of God.

Paul was personally dispatched by the Lord to introduce/establish the Church to the gentiles. Once founded, it is self-perpetuating no Apostles requied, only Elders and deacons. The current style "pastor" mandate as popularly employed, is not God given, but man-made. Pastor/Elder/Bishop/Shepherd/Presbyter/ etc etc are all interchangeable and different renderings of the one role (best filled by the Mature - "Elders".

Grouppoint:
I don't believe that God expects everyone to leave their daily vocation and dedicate the same level of time and resources to the word as is expected of pastors and preachers. Again, I ask' what is the purpose of the five fold ministry idf their is no more relevance of men of God?

I don't believe God expects anyone to leave their daily vocation (with the possible exception of far-flung missionaries). Every man is expected to work and provide for his family first. Eldership duties are in addition to this. That is why there are expected to be a plurality of elders to share the burden, and hence the double honour (not cash money) in recognition of the additional labour for the body in this way. Eldership is not a paid job. But seeing as how lucrative being a "Pastor" can be, many are making the career switch.

One last thing, Timothy was called a "man of God" by Paul. What would that suggest to you sir?

God bless

Hi Crazykid - God doesn't have a house (not a physical one built with hands anyways).

Hi TayoD,

You are dogged, I'll give you that and thru' all our debate I sense a zeal for God which I appreciate. That said, You have so far failed to make me reconsider one iota.

First. Joseph, Daniel, Esther (and anyone else you care to mention) where not politicians. In fact thay where all slaves/sevants. Trusted yes, highly placed, true, but still servants. They could never have aspire to any political office. What elevated them was divine favour. They did not seek, pursue or campaign for office. Is this some sly attempt to weary me ?

Pray tell, when the enemy offered to give The Lord the "kingdoms of this world" and their glory if he would worship him, what was he refering to? Can you rule a kingdom (indeed do any exist) without power (authority), armies, stc etrc. Will trade and the like not be subjest to you (duty, taxes etc). Stop skirting sir. In the same passage the enemy said "they had been delivered to him. In Revelations, where do the beast, dragon etc get their power from. I repeat? Power over the nations of the earth (currently and only in lien) is the devils. And he gives it to whom he wishes. Please don't be fooled.

So yes, we can trade, engage the culture, even serve the state in a sense, but not if it compromises our beliefs (as in anything), and not to seeking rule over it, or power from it.

Won't you desist fromm this shrink to fit theology? All things ar elawful, is followed by but not all are expedient. I'm not sure is faulty theology being compounded by dodgy grammar? If all children are Godly, why do they need to be saved? Am I mis-reading you? Gay homosexuals cannot breed (at least with one) another?)

Your say my brother.

God bless

The true Church of Christ cannot be probed by any government. However, the institutional
man-made imposter will always be the State's 'ho!

God bless

Hi Grouppoint  & Opal4real,

Thanks for responding, I'll try and answer in the one post.

Grouppoint:
Throughout the bible, you will see, especially in the new testament that God uses man to bless man.

If you read my post again, you'll see that I made that very point, twice  .

Grouppoint:
Those who are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God. But tell me, What then is the purpose of the five fold ministry?

That would be better addressed in another thread, but briefly.

The Prophets announced His coming - The Apostles established the Church - The current ministry of the church is evangelism, teaching and shepherding. Essentially the first two are now redundant (Although I am not saying God cannot move in the prophetic).

Grouppoint:
What was apostle Paul doing with Timothy? What was he doing with all the churches in Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, and Colosus? I tell you that he was their man of God.

No he wasn't. He was a more mature Christian edifying and imparting to them (remembering that he had a specific one time ministry, never to be repeated. He essentially "set the ball rolling" in churching the gentiles. Once begun another of his type is no longer needed.

Grouppoint:
Even after you have recieved the holy spirit, there is still the need for spirit filled counsellors. Because the Spirit of God can minister through some by prophecy, healing, revelation, teaching, and evangelism.

Please read my post again. I sure I used the words edify and impart, possibly minister also. These things are not restricted to a certain "anointed" member of the body. Anyone who fulfils the biblical criteria can minister.

opal4real:
Who leads the you to Christ to be d Son's of God?
The Man of God is the shephard.
What does the shephard do?

Eeerrrr? That would be the Holy Spirit.
It's pretty obvious why many run helter skelter seeking a word, a prophecy etc. The reliance is on man and not God. Utterly disdaining the ministry of the Holy Spirit. I repeat, "The Sons of God are led by the Spirit of God". Try cultivating the relationship for yourself. The mediatory priesthood of men is so Old Testament.

opal4real:
We are all annointed after receiving it from the Holy Spirit,but it does not make us Prophets.
D bible specifically spoke about his annointed prophets.Touch not my annoited(Son's of God) and do my Prophets(Men of God) no harm.

I'm glad you realise we are all anointed.
Prophets are redundant. The anointing speaks to the prophetic in any believer.
Again, blinkered OT understanding.

God bless.

Hi TayoD,

You said;
"Ther are so many issues that has been raised in this discussion and the fact that I tackle one at a time does not mean I'm running away from others. I did not accuse you of turning a tail when you refused to acknowledge the fact that Jesus indeed had political clout. Same can be said of John the Baptist, Elijah, Elisha and even Paul".

You're right, the conversation is developing in a way that makes it hard to cover all the points. Let's endevour to keep it simple.

All the five above were hounded by the political authorities of their time. And in the case of four of them, they were eventually killed by it. Hear this, the State is an organ of oppression and persecution for Christians ~ Played out time and time again in scripture. Maybe you'd like to advise brethren in place like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia how to advance their cause via politics or the apparatus of state!

You said;
For your information, I did not 'define' the world as you accuse. Rather it is the scriptures that defines it for you in 1 John 2:16. Your error comes when you ignore this definition and maintain the Bible is talking about politics, commerce and culture (can you show that from scripture?).

The scripture is talking of lust and pride in and of things of the world, not the world per se. Additionally, a fuller reading of scripture (and I went to great lengths to post and expound), will show that as a definition of the world, this scripture in isolation is at best limited.

You said
In your mind, we should stay away from anything political, commercial and cultural. That is interesting noting that you have to work to survive (commerce), your identity as a Nigerian was not changed when you got born again (cultural) and the same Bible refers to the government as God's servant (political).

So you know my mind now do you? Please don't be too keen to ascribe things to me. I am perfectly capable of expressing my own mind. Thank you. I never said Christians where not to work or be gainfully employed. I'm not a Nigerian, but on becoming a Christian (which is a self contained culture in it's own right), any earthly culture is subsumed to the Christian one, and when in conflict, discared without a second thought. TayoD, the Devil himself is Gods servant, shall we employ him in our cause? (actually thats the ultimate outworking of your CPL proposal, which is a double bluff as you play right into his hands).

You said;
I am baffled when you say we can't use tools to propagate the Gospel. You tell us that the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but spiritual. Please enlightene us how you intend to reach the unbelievers in the spirit alone without going through the medium of the flesh. Please tell us you only pray and not even talk to them at all since that is entering the flesh. I wonder what you are doing online sef when you are meant to be in the spirit. Why use the carnal tool of the www in the first place. You remind me of the Deeper Life Ministry who were so moved with zeal without knowledge, that they claim Television is sin. some even claim now that the internet is sin. But of course, same people are now on T.V and the www using that 'tool' to advance the Gospel. Politics, like the www, T.V., cars, airplane, church buildings etc are tolls that we use to propagate the Gospel.

I never said we can't employ tools, I just said politics isn't one of them. The way we advance in the Flesh ("Although we walk in the flesh" II Corinthians 10:4 - I believe), is through employing spiritual strategems. The flesh avails nothing sir! It sound good, it looks good, but it's worldly wisdom, the adversary must be beside himself. I'll ignore your dig about DL, TV etc (or I may choose to respond with one f my own , you know how we do it!). Must be said though I don't have a TV by choice. All things are lawful, but not all are expedient.

You said
1 Corinthians 7:31 And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away From my understanding of this scripture, we are told we can use this world as long as we do not compromise our christian witness. Politicians like every other professional are faced with the opportunity to compromise their christian beliefs in their daily activities. Unless of course, you have a job that does not bring you in contact with unbelievers and never gives you the opportunity to compromise. If such a job exists, please let us know about it.

Please show me an uncompromised Christian politician.

I hate making it about people/personalities, but suffice to say, George W. Bush, took the US of A into an unprovoked war. Excuse me, make that wars. How Christian is that? At least half a million dead and counting. Dine with the enemy, and if he doesn't get you one way he'll get you another.

You said;
And if you read 1 Timothy 2:1-4, Paul linked our abilitiy as christians to lead a quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty to what happens in our government. Please note how he said such efect has a direct impact on the salvation of the unbeliever. 1 I exhort 1 therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; 2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; 2 that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
You appear to be misconstuing praying for political leaders and being political leaders. In your ideal scenarion you'll simply be praying for yourself. What a hoot!

You said;
Again, you are giving us your ideas contrary to the scriptures. Here is that scripture again in another translation, since the KJV is a little mixed up there: Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.
You reasoning suggests that any non-believers should be legally barreed from reproducing.

I'm here.

God bless

Hi Grouppoint (interesting tag?),

Grouppoint:
Finally, I would like to add that your man of God, whoever God has placed in your life to lead you, guide you to a deeper level of understanding,

Whilst God may indeed bring specific people into your life to minister to you at various times and in different ways, He doesn't assign anyone to be responsible for "leading you" or "guiding you". Indeed, the "Sons of God are led by the Spirit of God". The whole purpose of Christian fellowship is for the edifying of the body through love. Impartation and edification can come from any member of the body. God loves His own so much, He doesn't charge "au pairs" with the reponsibility for raising His Children.

God bless

Hi TayoD,

You said
"I intend to show you that your thoughts on this matter can not be sustained throughout scriptures at all".

Really? I'm right here waiting. So far you have done no such thing.
Indeed, you've blatantly ignored the fact that your original definition of the "world" was totally wrong, and now moved on to draw a fallacious interpretation of scripture (why do dominationalists always do that ).

The Lord desires Godly seed. Yes He does, Godly seed can only come from Godly parents. Just like they tried to use Malachi to push tithing, here you are trying to make it fit something it wasn't aimed at. The scripture here speaks to believers in Holy Wedlock. One of the designs of Godly union is Godly seed. Your point here is fundamentally flawed and badly made.

You said;
"As Christians, we understand that we need to do all we can to save these people",

Spot on my brother. Your error arises as you believe "politics" is a Christian tool, it is not! The weapons of our warfare are not of this world, politics sadly is!

Surely the test of any doctrine (or at least the way it is being applied), is its outworking. I have repeatedly ask for examples of where Christian politcs is making kingdom gains. As yet no response from proponents of the Christian lobby (who are just as irrelevant as that other much loved lobby, the race one).

I repeat, Christians trying to establish a political beachhead in this war is misguided and a waste of resources. Reduced for simplicity, the spoils (not the wages) are souls. Christian politics is not a soul winning exercise, its a power grab. Only true Christian power is from above.

The homosexual lobby has almost kicked it's Christian counterpart into touch. Forget the world for a moment, look at the institutional churches. Homosexuality is sweeping all before it. Far from making gains in the world, the world has made gains in the Institutional Church. Methinks resources would be better deployed fighting a rearguard action on this one.

Look around, homosexuals are fighting on many fronts, in the media, education, culture, commerce and every which way. The current labour govt here in the UK has had at least 4 openly gay ministers, no Chritians last time I looked. The Church left it first love, abondoned it's mandate. Went for the wisdom of men and the ways of the world, and ultimately became just like it.

The True Church of Christ is pure, unfettered, unalloyed (without spot, blemish or wrinkle). Engaging with the world on the worlds terms and using the worlds methods is what has led to the current state of irrelevance and powerlessness of the IC. Which is why I make a distinction between the true church and that corrupt religious exercise that many mistake for it.

You said
i.e. children growing up in an environment that promotes godliness.

The reason why scripture enjoins believers to shine as lights in the world is because holiness is best promoted by modelling. It's spiritually naive to think it can be promoted by law (Sharia anyone?). When the unbelieving see the love, strong marriages, moral rectitude and radiant well-being of true Christian community, they will believe and clamour to join. Instead The IC is every bit as dysfunctional as the world, same issues, same problems, it fact, it's no different.

Say on sir,

God bless

TayoD,

Why do I get the impression that you are trying to use semantics to work your way out of this?

Never the less, I will persevere in trying to make my point. Allow me;

There are effectively 2 kingdoms (or two rulers if you please). Those submitted to theLord Jesus Christ and those in the devils kingdom and under his sway. All the kingdoms of the earth are under the sway of the evil one.

Trying to split definitions of the "world" may have it's place, but is pointless at this stage in this discussion. Let me explain;

The "world" (the place, kingoms of this earth), is inhabited by the "world" (the people who have not turned to the Lord, remember the Bible says they have been taken captive by the devil to do his will?). The lust for it and the pride of it are merely the manifestations of desiring this world and taking pride in being successful and lauded in it. There's nothing difficult about this.

Now back to the topic under discussion. How exactly can a christian be politically active, seek for office and remain uncompromised? What real change can they make? More importantly, how far can engaging in politics further the true mandate of the church (saving people out of the world and equipping them as saints of God in Christ?). What are the weapons of our warfare, because believe it or not, it's war, and you don't defeat the other side by becoming like them.

It simply cannot be done. Show me one example! I outlined in my previous post scenarios why this was so. Politics is ordered, structured and engaged in using strictures that are totally worldly. To be successful, you have to be worldy.

(I'm replying ad-hoc here so please bear with me).

You asked a question about the leaven of the Pharisees earlier. I was hoping that we could leave the elementary parts of this discussion and move on. But let me share a little of my thinking on this here and now.

Three warnings in the Bible about "leaven", pertaining to the;
1. Pharisees
2. Saducees
3. Herod

You asked this earlier;

Mark 8:15 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod, If we go by your interpretation, then Jesus must be telling us not to have anything to do with the Church as well. On the contrary, He is advising us to desist from the 'leaven' of the church and the state, and not to stay away from the church and the state itself.

Let me ask you this;
Is the Lords warning redundant for us in this day? Well, I don't think so. I see types interpreted as follows;

1. Legalistic law bound religion (tithing, authority precepts, the clergy/laity split etc etc)
2. Liberal religion (Rejecting the bible as myth, political correctness, ecumenism, syncretism etc)
3. Compromise with the state (registration/incorporation of the church, charitable status, political endorsement or involvement etc etc. All yoking the Church to the State and in essence making the church subject to the state. A body can have just the one Head. if it's the state, it can't be the Lord)

Let's continue if you will, but I repeat; Christianity is not served by political engagement, indeed the urge to be take charge politically is driven by the scripture on which you based your initial interpretation of the world, namely lust and pride.

As ever, God bless

I happen to be my own man of God. I don't require a proxy, and having tasted for myself, can never be satified with a vicarious relationship with my Creator, my God & my Father.

Akintos_o, are you related to Mr. H. Mogsbottom by any chance?

TayoD,

You know I take no offence whatsoever and understand that in heated passionate debate, things are sometimes said, but I trust that we are all well intentioned if only human ~ It is well.

Has anyone seen Mogsbottom? Mr. H. Mogsbottom??
Apt I think, since that's where he/she seems to spend most of his time.

Oi, Mogsbottom, if you find anything worth sharing while your up there, please let us know.

Personally, I prefer the "secret place"

TayoD,

Why do I get the impression that you are trying to use semantics to work your way out of this?

Never the less, I will persevere in trying to make my point. Allow me;

There are effectively 2 kingdoms (or two rulers if you please). Those submitted to theLord Jesus Christ and those in the devils kingdom and under his sway. All the kingdoms of the earth are under the sway of the evil one.

Trying to split definitions of the "world" may have it's place, but is pointless at this stage in this discussion. Let me explain;

The "world" (the place, kingoms of this earth), is inhabited by the "world" (the people who have not turned to the Lord, remember the Bible says they have been taken captive by the devil to do his will?). The lust for it and the pride of it are merely the manifestations of desiring this world and taking pride in being successful and lauded in it. There's nothing difficult about this.

Now back to the topic under discussion. How exactly can a christian be politically active, seek for office and remain uncompromised? What real change can they make? More importantly, how far can engaging in politics further the true mandate of the church (saving people out of the world and equipping them as saints of God in Christ?). What are the weapons of our warfare, because believe it or not, it's war, and you don't defeat the other side by becoming like them.

It simply cannot be done. Show me one example! I outlined in my previous post scenarios why this was so. Politics is ordered, structured and engaged in using strictures that are totally worldly. To be successful, you have to be worldy.

(I'm replying ad-hoc here so please bear with me).

You asked a question about the leaven of the Pharisees earlier. I was hoping that we could leave the elementary parts of this discussion and move on. But let me share a little of my thinking on this here and now.

Three warnings in the Bible about "leaven", pertaining to the;
1. Pharisees
2. Saducees
3. Herod

You asked this earlier;

Mark 8:15 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod,   If we go by your interpretation, then Jesus must be telling us not to have anything to do with the Church as well.  On the contrary, He is advising us to desist from the 'leaven' of the church and the state, and not to stay away from the church and the state itself.

Let me ask you this;
Is the Lords warning redundant for us in this day? Well, I don't think so. I see types interpreted as follows;

1. Legalistic law bound religion (tithing, authority precepts, the clergy/laity split etc etc)
2. Liberal religion (Rejecting the bible as myth, political correctness, ecumenism, syncretism etc)
3. Compromise with the state (registration/incorporation of the church, charitable status, political   endorsement or involvement etc  etc. All yoking the Church to the State and in essence making the church subject to the state. A body can have just the one Head. if it's the state, it can't be the Lord)
   
Let's continue if you will, but I repeat; Christianity is not served by political engagement, indeed the urge to be take charge politically is driven by the scripture on which you based your initial interpretation of the world, namely lust and pride.

As ever, God bless

Havila, are you a girl? It's only you said you'd made your last response?

@ 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

[quote author=Hnd-holder link=topic=272.msg661330#msg661330 date=1160994276]Read the postings before now, since you look new on this topic you  just arrived so that you can know details.[/quote]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.