₦airaland Forum

Hi Syrup,

syrup:
"Godocracy" is not a word at all, nor does it decsribe what you've tried to explain. "De facto ruler" and "really Lord of the nation" say just about the same thing;

God is the ruler of all the nations.
When a nation responds to God and honours Him as such , He is Lord of that nation.
I see a theocracy is just a state with is governed by the rules of a religion.
I hope that makes the distinction clear.

Apologies if my mathematical ineptitude appalled you. The point I was making was not arithmetical. Suffice to say, given lower, standard and higher rates of tax (and I'd say pretty much everywhere today as well) 23.33% would be about typical for your average earning, basic rate tax payer.

I would also like to share views, which is what I did.

Please don't apologise, I never accused you of warmth or graciousness.

Will you be kind enough to point out my error?

God bless

Hi Syrup,

syrup:
You're sounding like you've been badly hit sometime ago.

I do? Whatever gave you that idea? And why do you feel it was some time ago?

syrup:
A gentleman should be willing to take corrections where he's been shown to err.

I agree. Please point out my error and if I respond taking correction, you'll know if I'm a gentleman or not.

"Godocracy" - Used to describe when God was not just de facto ruler but really Lord of the nation. I know it's not a dictionary word, it was to emphasis my point. I believe Afghanistan would pretty much serve as an example of "Theocracy" today, I wouldn't equate that with Israel at the time the law was given.

I reviewed the link you so kindly supplied, thank you for that.
The link shows that basic income tax for an average wage earner is 22%. I'd say that was pretty "bang on".

"God does not tax His sons" ~ We don't live in God's Kingdom, so I pay taxes like the Bible instructs. The outreach of God's kingdom on the earth is the Body of Christ. I don't pay taxes there. I practice freewill giving.

I do apologise if my use of bold font distressed you.

syrup:
And by the way, you're not obliged to tithes

I know I'm not obliged to tithe. Tithing is not a NT Christian notion.

syrup:
in just the same way that you're not obliged to a "heartfelt, voluntary giving."

If something is hearfelt & voluntary, would you be so kind as to explain how it can be obliged?.

You can tell a lady by the graciousness of her speech and the warmth in her tone.

Thank you for taking the time to share.

God bless

Hi Allonym,

Lots of pertinent points.

God does not demand tithe from NT Christians.

The OT law of tithing was introduced in what was a essentially a "Godocracy", and there were various types of "tithe" payable. Essentially it was two annual 10% and one tri-annual 10%. Comes to about 23.33% a year. A pretty bang on figure for income tax wouldn't you say?

NT Christians are living in a Kingdom that they are not of. So we pay taxes to it's rulers. The body of Christ has it's own economics. Money moves in response to need and the vehicle is heartfelt, voluntary giving.

God knows this.
Matthew 17:25 - He said, "Yes." And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?" 26 Peter said to Him, "From strangers." Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free.

There's a certain legalistic way of reading the scriptures, which is no better than a first step. Sure, it'll enable you to deal with some issues, but when it comes to the intent of the Word you can so easily get it wrong. That's why to some the above scripture has nothing to do with tithe,

Just like Allonym, appears to be asking, doesn't God know that we have family to provide for?
Yes He does, and He insists that they are provided for first.

1Timothy 5:8 - But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

You see, God's building block is the family not the Church (whatever your mode of worship), and certainly not the church as organisation which tends to churn out "technocrats", whose hearts are set in defense and preservation of the organisation they serve. That in turn leads to the the legalistic interpretation of scripture I mentioned above.

And Allonym's obvious "common sense" reading of the situation is totally supported by scripture. Pity some can't see that.

God doesn't tax His son's, whose son are you?

God bless

Hi 4get_me,

To be honest, when this first cropped up you were probably right to pick up on it. However, since then, I've repeatedly stressed my making a distinction between "Church" as institutionalised religion and "Church" the body of Christ. Not only did I go to great lengths to clarify, I did so on a number of occasions and across posts. I also apologised.

Now, you may not make that same distinction, you may not even agree with my use of words, but you know exactly what I mean.

I've copied some of 1 Samuel 8 below.

4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, 5 and said to him, "Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations." 6 But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, "Give us a king to judge us." So Samuel prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord said to Samuel, "Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. 8 According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day--with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods--so they are doing to you also. 9 Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them." 10 So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who asked him for a king. 11 And he said, "This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. 12 He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. 14 And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage, and give it to his officers and servants. 16 And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men, F21 and your donkeys, and put them to his work. 17 He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. 18 And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you in that day." 19 Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, "No, but we will have a king over us, 20 that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles." 21 And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he repeated them in the hearing of the Lord. 22 So the Lord said to Samuel, "Heed their voice, and make them a king." And Samuel said to the men of Israel, "Every man go to his city."


I think it's quite straight forward. The people demanded a king, which was in effect a rejection of the Lord. God pronounced the consequences of their action through Samuel. Now if you think my labelling that pronouncement curse/wrath/judgment too strong, that's you prerogative, no problem.

You can see the effect of this pronouncement through the kingly lineages in both Judah & Israel. Neither part ever truly had real peace.

Now my point being in this dispensation, if you make for yourselves a King other than the Lord, you will suffer the same consequences. Feel free to disagree.

In the church, the body of Christ, the Lord is always King no problem.

In an apostate church the Lord is not King, I see these same consequences applying.

Again, feel free to agree or disagree, but please don't insist that I'm cursing the "Body of Christ".
I apologise again for any misunderstanding, my initial error. But if you still do not agree with me, fine, but at least you understand my use of words and distinctions

Now, I personally think we've pretty much exhausted this particular point, and it will soon start to border on inanity. I'd like to nail it and move back to the main discussion.

If you insist on still taking issue, and that there is still a problem, please say, but as this subplot goes, I'm not sure I have anything to add, or that there is any point.

Thanks

God bless

Hi 4get_me,

4get_me:
I was never Roman Catholic and my attitude towards them was equally unbalanced. But when I saw that it was not my place to censor or judge anyone in the various denominations, I repented and held my tongue from that very day. True, I may still question most of the practices that are clearly extra-Biblical in them; but questioning those practices does not give me a right to be pejorative to the extent of judging and/or cursing anyone.

Okay, so you are not and never have been  Roman Catholic, yet you question most of the practices that you say are "clearly extra-biblical"

May I ask why?

4get_me:
Tell me something - these "religious abomination falsely called Christianity" have come under your incessant scathing in almost all your posts: do you see any thing of God's grace to appreciate in them? Nothing at all?

This grace that I apparently don't see and you obviously do, how does it work? Doesn't it obviate the need to point out "extra-biblical" practices. Why not just let them get on with it? Surely it's just a difference in approach, or maybe an alternative way of practicing their religion? Does this grace you speak about, not cover up or carry over these practices?

If most of the practices are in your considered opinion "extra-biblical", how much extra-biblical practice is acceptable before there's a problem? before error, before apostasy? So presumably, you are somehow more pious, because you point it out as wrong, but fail to point out or warn of possible consequences. Or maybe there aren't any?

Why point it out? If there is no consequence, no curse, no judgment?
Is it just a point scoring exercise to you? Or maybe you are just trying to establish the superiority of your own tradition or knowledge?

You see someone, unaware that they are headed towards a precipice, and you comment on the weather? I'm sure they'll be please too know you are in no way censorious or judgemental.

Did I say you "wimped" out earlier?
I express my heartfelt, unreserved apologies to any wimps out there.

I hope you had a good weekend.

God bless


ps ~ you adopt a dispensationalist view to Revelations? That quite quaint!
        (non-judgemental me  )

Hi 4get_me,

I've read you rejoinder. Thanks.
Your insistence that I "put myself in the place of God and judge and pronounce curses where none are" is becoming somewhat of a bore. I should also mention, that you are ascribing things to me that I didn't say and positions that I don't hold.

Firstly, I clearly outlined what I saw to be a pronouncement of God. I find it funny that with your stance on the role of the prophet (and no, I'm not saying I am one, at least not in the sense you mean. And yes, I will be posting as promised), who essentially said "God says if you do/don't do such and such, then the consequences will be as follows". So for example, The Bible Say's this

2 Thessalonians 2:11 - And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,

We may agree/disagree who this is directed at, but it's a pronouncement of God and if I echo it, what's the problem? As for your references to the 7 churches in Revs 2/3, point noted, but I'll say there are other readings of these chapters, and I could equally quote chapters 19 and the judgment therein, but so as not to overly digress I'll leave that for now.

Secondly, as we both know "who can curse whom God has not?" which I believe you quoted earlier. In that case if I was cursing the church, would it not be utterly futile and sheer folly on my part? In which case, why don't you just have a good laugh at my expense?

And no, it's not worrying if I occasionally attend traditional church. For example, I went to a wedding in one yesterday. If I was totally censorious, hating or judgemental, would I ever step into one? If I was judging those in them would I celebrate with them? The only reason I didn't list the "any number of reasons" was to keep it short. If you insist on reading what I don't write and ascribing positions I don't hold it takes us away from the discussion. I don't know that I want to spend every post endlessly debunking some of the things you lay to my charge.

While I'm there, may I say that I find it a little worrying that you always pick and cavil on non-essentials. In your rejoinder to my article on tithing, you went to great lengths to rebuke my tone and my admittedly throwaway line about communion. You've since endlessly harped on this curse on the church issue. But sir, you never, ever responded to the meat of the essay, which was about tithing. In fact at the end, you wimped out and in the interest of peace I let that slide.

And you have the temerity to accuse me of dodging? Please.

As for your stance towards traditionalism/denominationalism, it's just that, your stance. I don't share it.

If you want to discuss, I'm here. But I have to ask that you consider your responses in future and stay on message or else! (no dude it's not a curse ).

God bless.

And following on from Enigma's post, a couple of things could be asked?

1. Are they true leaders? (why do I so detest that word leader/s?)
2. Is it true church??

God bless

Hi 4get_me,

Thanks for your response and apologies for my late reply. I am pleased we have persevered and I hope it'll be worthwhile.

Please, about this "curse on the church" business. From my definition of "true" church, I hope you can see that for me to say that is counter intuitive. Let me simplify, I see the curse/judgment thus, corporately on "systems" that claim to be of God and are not and individually, on people that claim to love God and don't. So to me, those coporate entities are not true church and those individuals are not true Christians. So the curse is not on God's people, but on things and people who claim to be, but are not. I hope this satisfactorily clarifies. Please let me know if you require more of an idea of where I'm coming from on this.

(You previously asked about this under the "Tithe or not to tithe" thread, and I responded thus on 27th April)

"Curse on the Church"
Do I mean God's "elect/chosen/set apart ones"? No. I mean the Institutionalised, corporate man made religion that masquerades as Christianity.

I hold the view that not everything or everyone called "Christian" is. I believe it's clearly outlined in scripture. I do not know your views on this, but maybe we differ on that point.

As to my traditional/denominational position, I used to be a staunch traditionalist, but I was led (actually, dragged kicking and screaming might be a more apt way of putting it!) "out". I currently attend a few small fellowships, but not in the sense of an "institutionalised church" or "organised religion" (and yes I use those terms somewhat pejoratively). I occasionally go to traditional church for any number of reasons (Also, could I please refer you to my response to a question you asked on May the 4th on the "Proper role of Money In The Church" thread.)

So that would make me a "Bible believing Christian". Not "Non-denominational" More like ex or extra-denominational, but those are not labels I'd personally use, as they'd probably mutate into a system in their own right.

I'll respond to the question in another post, and probably ask a few of my own.

Speak soon.

God bless

4get_me,

This is proving harder than it ought, but I'll persevere.

I try not too moderate, I was not accusing you of such, apologies if it sounded like I was.

As for my pejorative use of the word '"church", I hope you can see the distinction I made, but if not, I can't offer you much solace as to my use of words.

I thought I made it clear that it's the "religious systems" themselves that are false. God's true church, the Bride of Christ is comprised of individuals, who "repent towards God and put their faith in Jesus Christ, nothing added or taken away", wherever they are. I remember making this point yesterday. Are some of these individuals in those "religious systems"? yes.

Suffice to say, look for the women. "The Bride" and the "harlot". One represents the true church. The other looks, acts and pretends to be the real thing. God calls her a harlot, an abomination and her promise (curse) is desolation. He also advises those who are His to "come out of her". If you don't agree, like I said, fine.

If you have the position that as long as it's labelled "church" its "Christian" and God's grace is on it, I can disagree can't I?

As to my questions about apostles. I'm sorry, I can't quite figure out your responses. I'd appreciate a quick summary, such as what they do, how, how they are commissioned etc etc. You spoke about Peter and about Paul, but nothing that I could see that speaks to current day apostolic work/practice.

Elders/Pastors/Bishops/Shepherds are all facets of the same role.
Is teacher an office? Or teaching a gift? Read the end of your last post.
Likewise the Evangelist, Prophet, Apostle, or is it the evangelistic, prophetic, apostolic?

Like I've asked please explain how you see it/them operating. in the body of Christ today.
Since you won't say, how do I know that you are not just justifying your "denominational" bias? Maybe you can, advise what the apostles,or prophets in your church/idea of church do?

You are on this thread questioning "Catholic" teaching aren't you? but like I asked, what is your "Tradition"?  For the sake of fullness and a sense of integrity why don't you say?

As ever, I'm happy to talk, but if you are offended, I'd rather it not be because of me.

God bless

4get_me,

Did you really read my last post?

I said "I try not to moderate" and you launch a full scale offensive in denying that you do so yourself? I never said or insinuated that you did. I didn't accuse you of anything. If I don't do it, why would I let anyone do it to me? All I did was express how I see the tone of the discussion and "my" approach. There is absolutely no reason for your defensiveness.

If you find my assertions untenable, like I said, no problems.

But please don't ascribe things to me. Was there a misunderstanding about the curse thing? Possibly, did I clarify? Yes, did you indicate dissatisfaction with my clarification? No. But again, to keep things current, I'll clarify again.

I use the word "church" in one of two ways.

1. The institutional/traditional/denominational church (especially as it relates to the religious abomination falsely called "Christianity"

2. The body of Christ.

I believe I made it very clear (as does the bible) that the "church" in 1. above, is cursed and more besides. Feel free to disagree. If you are still uncertain, I am as ever, willing to elucidate.

If your position is "as long as it's called church it flies", fine. Like I said, I don't moderate, I share. Feel free to accept or reject. Hear Paul say, "We do not have dominion over your faith"

If you "don't understand what I mean by moderating others walk", why not ask   ?

If there's anything you feel requires clarification. Please do ask.

In the meantime, can we get back on topic?

My questions remain the same;

How does an "Apostle" operate in daily church in this day and age?
Is what present day apostles do in anyway foundational?

Later

God bless

Jags dude,

How are you? I recall enquiring in an early thread if you were a seeker or a stirrer. I honestly wish you well, but the most futile of endeavors is attacking the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Like I noted, you have some pertinent questions, but your conclusions and subsequent action in reviling the gospel are sadly misguided .

Peace dude.

God bless

Enigma, 4get_me, Morning ,

Read your comments with interest.

4get_me, let me say this, it's obvious (and good, I think), that we take/have different approaches to our common faith. One thing I hesitate to do, is moderate anyones walk with God. Share? yes, influence and inform to some degree? Of course that'll happen. But moderate? no way, otherwise it's not really their walk.

Now, about tithing, please don't take it personally, a lot of what I see and indeed where I am in my walk, started from my coming to the understanding that it is simply dead work. You may or may not agree, no problem, I used to withstand those who didn't tithe and rail against those who argued for net as against gross income. But 2 things;

1. I found that a conclusion for or against tithing, is but the beginning of a deeper discussion. Whenever there's a crime, of whatever nature, good police will always investigate the money trail. I'm sure you'll continue your personal search, but please consider that.

2. The debate is not strictly between the two of us, it's open forum. No one else has complained or even mentioned my bundling this in with other threads. If I feel the discourse will deepen our understanding of the tithing issue as well, why not? However, as a mark of goodwill and the fact that I treasure our sharing, I will desist.

On to the question of Apostles, gifts and offices. Please don't take this personally, but, although I really applaud your research, sometimes I feel it gets very technical and doesn't speak much to the "outworking" of real live Christianity.

So for example, you insist on quantifying numbers and identifying names. No problem. Now my question was "How does the apostle operate in church today. You respoded with the quote from Ph 4 about edifying etc. etc. Yes sir, I know that is the reason for all Christian ministry, office, gifts, but my question was very specific. Not why, but what & how. You've mention "apostolic commission and capacity". Please sir, elucidate. Commissioned, how?, capacity, what?

As I stressed repeatedly, God is sovereign, He can do whatsoever He pleases. I quoted the opening of Hebrews 1, about how God once spoke through the prophets, but has now spoken to us through His Son. Does that mean prophets no longer exist? That's a pick 'em question. But does it mean that if the prophetic is required, God can't/won't use someone for the purpose? Likewise the apostolic.

We can argue the point endlessly. Paul said "last of all" in referring to himself as an apostle. How technical do you want us to be? It's why I said numbers are a mute point to me. I am not so much interested in scoring points or winning arguments, as in being better informed and hearing how other believers are living it.

I think this insistence on delineating offices, functions, hierarchies, is typical of one who sees the Church as organisation. I sense that you sometimes research to prove a point, or maybe validate what is practiced in your mode of worship. Maybe it would help if (as I feel I have tried to do), share your denominational leaning or mode of worship. After all, surely that's as important as sharing doctrinal positions?

Apologies for having to reference scripture off the cuff in this one, can't really access my resource just now.

Let the dialogue continue.

God bless

4get_me,

TV01:
To be honest the number of NT Apostles would be a mute point to me.
I consider grasping the "how & why" of the apostolic to be sufficient.

Paul walked/worked with a whole group of people.
Both Timothy and Titus, where to "appoint elders". I see that as "establishing" the church/churches, so in a sense it's definitely apostolic. Are they to be considered apostles?
Are they to be considered Apostles like Peter? or maybe like Paul? All good questions, but I'm not sure how important it is.
I must say the True Apostles were personally selected by the Lord himself, even Paul as "one out of time".

So perhaps we can make a distinction between an "Apostle" a title/position/selected, and "the Apostolic" as a function?

As you can see by my use of the term True Apostles, I am fully aware that not only the Apostles of the Lord moved in the apostolic. What about Timothy? or Titus? But does that make them Apostles like "The 12"?

Andronicus and Junia were notable among the apostles (not as apostles) is a possible reading of this.

But lets not get bogged down in semantics, others moved in the "Apostolic". Let me ask you this,

How does an "Apostle" operate in daily church?
Is what present day apostles do in anyway foundational?

When Peter wrote giving instructions (especially to those in the dispersion), he was talking things foundational, and as was sensible he lent the weight of his apostolic authority to his missives

As for the tithing references. You have long promised a rejoinder, but so far none has been forthcoming. So as far as I am concerned that conversation is ongoing, and I find it convenient to buttress my position, where the turn of any discussion allows.

The Lords supper? Pray tell, what has that to do with Jews? or the Law?

Say on sir,

God bless

Hi TayoD,

Like I said "your plan" based on "your walk"
All I meant was, it's no one's place to tell you how to plan or walk. That's something everyone should do themselves

Who in their right minds chooses to be poor? I believe this is the "mature Christian" position.
Philippians 4:11 - Not that I speak in regard to need, for I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content:

No I don't believe poverty  equates to righteousness, is there any reason (Biblical or otherwise) why I should?

Prayers are not granted just on desire, there is also a question of motivation.

If you are content, why do you desire to be super rich?
1Timothy 6:9 - But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition

Poverty is not my "heartfelt conviction"
I pray and thank God for meeting my needs.

Besides, if one wants poverty, why pray? you can simply give everthing away and quit work   !

Over to you sir

God bless

Hi TayoD,

TayoD:
Okay, let me say this unequivocally. I plan to be rich, infact, super-rich. Though Jesus said indeed that "the poor you will always have with you," but I don't plan to be amongst those. I plan to be amongst those that cater to the need of the poor instead.

As you said, "your plan". If that's how your walk with the Lord is developing, who is to say otherwise?

Money is not the only need of the "poor". Plus the term itself is relative.

TayoD:
Not that I am super rich now, but I know I don't wake up each day wondering where the next meal is coming from and not knowing where to sleep tonight. That is a great blessing.

As Christians, I don't think we can ask for anything more.

1 Timothy 6:8 ~ And having food and clothing, with these we shall be content.

God bless

Hi 4get_me,

Me, dodge? If only you knew.

There were 13 Apostles in the NT. The 12 and Paul.
Or I could say 12, as one, Judas, fell by transgression.

That's foundational.

Now sir, whats your position and what are you saying?

God bless

Why am I  starting to detest that word leader/s?
It's such a buzzword in some cirlcles. Whole conferences  .
Used only 3 times in the NT (NKJV) and never to describe Christians

Sorry, just rambling.

4get_me,

As far as I can make out I have answered all the questions posed.
If you think not, could you please specify very clearly what I have omitted.

I asked at the end of my last post "why".
A response can be more precisely worded if the question is more specific.

Yes the Bible is very specific about those called "Apostles".
I spoke to that, as those selected by the Lord.

If there is a hierarchy, why would Peter an Apostle refer to himself as an elder? And what "Apostolic" work was he performing in Jerusalem? When the question of Laws to be obeyed came up (the conference in Acts 15). Then they came together and discussed matters that were foundational to the church and hence acted in their capacity as Apostles. What is the need for an Apostle in the day to day running of a church?

And I won't get tired of stressing this, note how the gentiles who were turning to God where to abstain from only three things. The law of Moses was in now way, shape or form to be enforced on the Gentiles - NO TITHING! (Acts 15:19-25)

Later.

God bless

Hi 4get me,

By number and in turn.

1.
If there is a "lack" that can be answered by money.

1John 3:17 - But whoever has this world's goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?

James 2:15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?

2.
You are right in that my use of the term is narrow. I use it in a pejorative sense at best and as evil at worst. I realise that is not a pure dictionary or even biblical definition. The bible is neutral in it's use of the word, and maybe I have been remiss in not clarifying how I use it.

However, I don't ascribe the term religious to those who do not "fall into my system". I don't belong to any system. I am simply a Bible believing Christian. I have some default positions, some literally taken ones, some researched ones and some revealed ones. All are subject to change if I come across a deeper understanding. No dogma, and no forcing my views on anyone. So for example,  I see this as sharing and not teaching, but we can all come away taught, sharpened and edified.

Religion (still in the pejorative sense) is essentially a system, and there various "systems" within Christianity. Please don't get me wrong. I do not subscribe to, champion or rail against any tradition, I believe there are God's people in them all (but not all in them are God's people). My posts are always on a position by position basis and not a denominational one. So, I agree with certain parts of most traditions, but am bound by none. I see some truth in all and varying degrees of error in all. One thing is that "error" when codified can be/become heresy, if that abounds, then when does error become outright "apostasy"?

Interesting to note, you can trace religion (again in it's pejorative sense) in the Bible right back to Cain and Abel. Simple faith and religion are never compatible. It's why Cain slew Abel. Trace it all the way to the Lords day, and it's why the "Religious system" of the day killed the Lord. And of course it's still with us. I can even see it here on this forum. Religion as dogma, ritual, obligation, temples, priesthoods and all that entails is deadly. It's where the evil one does his best work. That's why he goes to church (as in the religious system) like everyone else! Maybe we'll have opportunity to share on that sometime.

3.
I see the church of God as all those who "repent towards God and put their faith in Jesus Christ". Nothing added or taken away. Wherever they are.

4.
I didn't say or mean that money is evil in God's eyes. Just noted, it wasn't originally of God
It's a human invention and perhaps a needed one given the way we live.

God's "currency" was gold silver, precious metals etc. Inflation proof, a real store of wealth and unchanging value. Our paper money is debt driven. But again, it's a whole other topic and one I'm still on (although not currently, as I don't see it as that important).

Hope it clarifies things somewhat.

Your observations where on my take. Pray, share yours with us.

God bless.

Hi again 4get_me,

To be honest the number of NT Apostles would be a mute point to me.
I consider grasping the "how & why" of the apostolic to be sufficient.

Paul walked/worked with a whole group of people.
Both Timothy and Titus, where to "appoint elders". I see that as "establishing" the church/churches, so in a sense it's definitely apostolic. Are they to be considered apostles?
Are they to be considered Apostles like Peter? or maybe like Paul? All good questions, but I'm not sure how important it is.

I must say the True Apostles were personally selected by the Lord himself, even Paul as "one out of time".

So perhaps we can make a distinction between an "Apostle" a title/position/selected, and "the Apostolic" as a function?

Why do you ask?

God bless.


Aren't I rambling today? See how passion is dealing with a brother .

TayoD, hello and well spoken,

Scripturally, in the body of Christ, money only moves for one reason. That reason is "Need". Be it to those within or without the household of faith. It's a form of Christian love and witness.

One of the biggest lies in Christendom today is the saying "It takes money to spread the Gospel". No it doesn't. It didn't in the book of Acts did it?

Can anyone show me one scriptural example (NT) where money moved for anything other than personal need?

It takes money to build temples, pay salaries, host programs. It takes money to create a religious system. Religion is a devourer of widows houses!

The "prosperity Gospel" is not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. It's "Another".
A place where it is preached may well be called a church, doesn't mean it's a church of God.

Money is not evil, the love of money is!
I think the example was more about not taking thought or paying undue attention to material things.
Material abasement or abounding should make absolutely no difference to a true Christian.
There will always be poor people, ergo there will always be poor Christians.

My starter for 10.

And one last thing, God didn't invent money!

God bless

Morning Gentlemen,

Hope the day finds you well. Great weather here. Now, to the business at hand.

~ Apostle: Sent one. Presumably one is sent to do something? Establish something? The church
   has been established.
~ Evangelist: Evangelism is the outworking of being a Christian
~ Whats a pastor? show me from the Bible a pastors remit/mandate.
~ Brother 4get-me, haven't I taught you a lot? But I don't demand you call me teacher  . I've   
   enjoyed learning from you, but it's still Bro' 4get-me. Learning is by being with. That is what
   Ephesians 4 is really speaking to. Our coming together means transference of gifts,
   knowledge,  experience. We are thus edified. We grow, we mature, we become more Christlike.
   Hebrews 5:12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers

The way these offices/functions/titles tend to play out in denominational Christianity is to foster a dichotomy (the totally unscriptural clergy/laity split), and make some dependent on others. Some never really mature and stay carnal, like at Corinth, legal, like at Galatia, or babes, like the "Hebrews". (small wonder many labour under this nonsensical "MOG" fixation). It becomes rigid and develops an "organisational" feel. Christian interaction is relational and not functional. "I Paul, an apostle" a brother first, acting in a certain capacity, charged with a particular role (at that time). I meet people today and they always introduce themselves as Pastor this or Reverend that (often without even a first name!), immediately establishing functionality and not relationship.

Let me say this, God is sovereign, if He chooses to work in certain ways, at certain times, through certain people and mediums, who am I or anyone else to question that?

The living Christianity I see is way beyond the functional paradigm that so many try and squeeze it into. Offices, functions, positions, titles? It's a family not an organisation.

A 10 year old, the second of five kids. His chore is to take out the trash. Does he assume the title/office/role of "waste disposal expert"? No, it's just a function. He'll grow, the task may be reassigned, he'll do other things, as and when necessary and according to his maturity. Remember the apostle Paul grew and worked through different roles, as was needed, as was beneficial and as God willed.

Why did Peter call himself a "fellow elder"? Because he was based in Jerusalem. The church there had been established. He took his place amongst the comity of elders. No senior, no better. That's living, practical Christianity. Paul was being used to establish the church outside Jewry, an "apostolic" role (plus he was itinerant). After pioneering is done, you either (1) go and pioneer in another virgin territory (2) stay and become part of the locally established church or (3) return whence you came, job done, no need to be called an apostle.

What's a Prophet? I'm sure most are beyond thinking of it as a"predictive" ministry. Prophets where always first and foremost about warning and repentance. Prophets are used to speak to people.

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son,

I could go on, but hopefully you get my drift. Ephesians 2:20 from my post of yesterday, you can see that some roles are foundational. The foundation has been laid, just take care how you build on it.

TayoD
A bishop is the same as an elder/shepherd/pastor. They are just different facets of the same role.

God bless

Brother TV01 

Apologies for rambling a bit today. It's summer, and a young mans thoughts turn to love. She's got me going!  , please remember me in your prayers.

4get-me,

How are you sir?

You know I have been eagerly awaiting this promised post for some time now. I appreciate your busy work schedule and packed social diary permit little time for web posting. At your convenience sir.

Some have insinuated that your posts are overblown & wordy. I on the other hand greatly appreciate your research.

I would suggest that you apply the KISS principle. But as ever, anything less than sterling work will meet with my strenuous rebuttal.

"Faith & good sense", presumably that is the 4get_me doctrine of "No it's not a law, but we do it because it's madness not too". I said research sir, but I meant research leading to sterling not shoddy scholarship. And please non of that jumping through hoops to maintain a denominational position nonsense!

BTW,
As for "Tithing preceding the law", so did circumcision. Don't even!!!

God bless

Hi,

Would any of the 3 people who voted "something else" in the Creation or evolution vote, kindly like to share what that is?

Just interested.

Regards

Yes and no!

In the sense that The Lord used the apostles (all of them) to found and propagate His church. Well, yes!

1Corinthians 3:11 - For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ

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

But in the sense that Peter was solely charged with the office of high leadership, whose lineage was to be maintained by dynastic succession! Please!

There are only two offices in the church today elders (always in plurality) and deacons.

Everything else is needless religion.

God bless

Hi again biggjoe,

biggjoe:
U can't prove its wrong.

No I can't, but the Bible surely does.
A mediatory Priesthood is the epitomy of "religion" (I use religion in a pejorative sense here. As ritual, obligation, man-made tradition, laws etc. etc.).

A few verses from Hebrews chapter 7, one of the most wonderfully expository of Bible books should help!

Chapter 7
11 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. [/color]

[color=#990000]A change of the priesthood & the attendant law (tithers take note!)

19 for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. 20 And inasmuch as He was not made priest without an oath 21 (for they have become priests without an oath, but He with an oath by Him who said to Him: "The Lord has sworn And will not relent, 'You are a priest forever* According to the order of Melchizedek' ",+ 22 by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant. 23 Also there were many priests, because they were prevented by death from continuing. 24 But He, because He continues forever, has an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. 26 For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people's, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.

biggjoe:
why were there titles like deacons, disciples and even apostles in the bible.

Sir, not everything is a title? What you have enumerated are a function, a name and an office. Even the word "Mr." is a title. What already?

An obsession with titles and office is a sure sign of religious obsessiveness. Isn't it startlingly clear that the "religion" of Temples, Priests & hierarchies, sacrifices & ritual, laws and such like is exactly what the Lord died for. All that stuff is nailed to the cross.

God bless

Morning biggjoe,

Kind of a weird way of defending your position.  

Every so often, our politicians over here trot out a similar line after an right royal screw-up. It goes a little something like this

"Yes we made a right pigs ear of the situation, but if the opposition had been in power, things would have been even worse"

Is that the best you can do?

For you information, I am not a Pentecostal, and many of the teachings of that particular religion, which adopt equally bogus terms, such as "Daddy GO" Apostle "this" and Reverend "that", are every bit as unscriptural as the Papacy and all it entails.

Although I must say Catholics have better outfits. The Pentecostals have not quite got the hang of "ecclesiastical chic". Cheap suits and bad hair just don't cut the mustard against finely embroidered robes and a decent mitre.  

biggjoe:
Whether you call it catholicism or pure biblical christianity, the dinstinction is all your invention.

Wrong sir, the distinction is as clear as glass. "Catholicism (a man made religious system) is the invention.

So in summary, you are not wrong about your criticism of Pentecostalism, what you are, is every bit as bad!

God bless

otolorin hi,

Re your quotes below

otolorin:
truth is, the bible say "touch not my annointed and do my prophets no harm"

Yes it does! Twice. In 1 Chronicles16:22 and again in Psalm 105:15. Both in the OT. Does that mean we simply disregard all the NT has to say about "testing", "judging" (judging as in critically appraising) and "discerning"?

otolorin:
and this includes ow we talk about these annointed ones.

Is that too say some are "anointed" and some are not?

otolorin:
whether true or not, we have no right watsoever, as christians or any-other individuals, to question these MEN.

Please listen to yourself? "Whether it is true or not"?

Let me attempt to summarise what I am hearing;
~ They are anointed
~ They therefore have carte blanche to say anything
~ We should be aware of that and therefore check our brains at the door?

Christianity did you say? Surely not the Biblical kind?

otolorin:
i hope we get to see things clearer, by the day.

I wouldn't hold out much hope of that if you keep your eyes tightly shut, and simply follow blindly!

God bless

You guys are really making this difficult for me. Same thread with two titles. Moderator, what's with that?

Hi 4get_me,

I note with interest your arguing that obsolescence of the law removes the requirement for a fixed sabbath. We could of course go on to discuss how the NC spiritually fulfills the physical aspects of the OC. And of course, I'd absolutely agree.

I find it a little odd though, that when it comes to tithing you conveniently forget this.

At least virozuru has shown some degree of consistency in holding to the law (however futile I personally believe that may be).

Have a good weekend sir.

God bless

You guys are really making this difficult for me. Same thread with two titles. Moderator, what's with that?

Hi 4get_me,

I note with interest your arguing that obsolescence of the law removes the requirement for a fixed sabbath. We could of course go on to discuss how the NC spiritually fulfills the physical aspects of the OC. And of course, I'd absolutely agree.

I find it a little odd though, that when it comes to tithing you conveniently forget this.

At least virozuru has shown some degree of consistency in holding to the law (however futile I personally believe that may be).

Have a good weekend sir.

God bless

Hi virozuru,

virozuru:
you are supposed to tithe.

No you are not supposed to tithe (not as a Christian anyway).

virozuru:
I don't understand why people feel that you aren't supposed to.

Simply because the Bible does not anywhere, at anytime demand it of NT Christians.

I appreciate your stance on this, but I do not share it as I believe it is quite wrong and in a sense very dangerous.

God bless

Hi virozuru

Apologies for my belated response.
Re your response to my post below, I'm not quite sure if the bit you found insulting was also the bit you did not understand, or it was parts of both?

Please don't take offence, I realise I can be facetious at times.

Quote from: TV01 on April 28, 2006, 11:06 AM
Hi Nwoke,

Thanks very much for your last post.

Christians, some of you love the law so much, you've morphed into Jews. Beware the leaven of the pharisees  .

My advice (which you are not obliged to follow); don't burn yourselves out ushering at three services on a Sunday, carrying the "MOG's" bible, or otherwise working yourselves into the ground serving those religious institutions that some pranksters call church.

I rest my case (pun intended  ).

God bless

We are having an intelligent conversation which does not call for insults. i don't even understand what you said.

The essence of my post was as follows;
Sabbath keeping is not required of NT Christians.

Presumably you are aware that there are other Sabbaths besides the 6pm to 6am Friday/Saturday one. Do you keep those as well? Why/why not?

God bless

Hi biggjoe,

I was, and have been following this thread with passivei nterest until I came across your quote below;

biggjoe:
Even though all priests are not  Pope, a Pope is a priest. A pope is a high priest.

Can I take it that you are making a distinction between "Catholicism" and pure biblical Christianity? If so, my point becomes a mute one and I apologise up front.

If however, you take them as synonymous, I'd just like to point out that in true biblical Christianity, there is currently only one eternal holder of the office of "High Priest" and that is the Lord Jesus Christ, not some German bloke!

To ascribe that office or title to any other is at best utter blasphemy and at worst plain "Antichrist.

And please, don't think I'm "Catholic" bashing, I say it as it reads.
The priesthood is of all believers. There is no longer an intermediary priesthood (outside of the High Priesthood). No human mediators between man and God are required. The "Papacy" and all it entails is not a Christian notion.

Have a nice day.

God bless