₦airaland Forum

Hi mlks_baby, syrup, goodguy,

Thanks for taking the time to post responses and apologies for not replying earlier, I've been away and offline.

I'll try and answer as many rejoinders as I can. Maybe It'll help if I state a few positions. Please don't take offence at my failure to append chapter and verse, I'm writing ad hoc.

CHURCH
~ I don't subscribe to the notion that church is something one goes to. I am more of the mind that church is something one is a part of. Presumably some people at least understand (if not agree) what I mean, when they themselves state that church is the "body of Christ". I don't see it as location or destination. "When you come together as a church" 1 Corinthians 11. To me wherever Christians gather is church. Choosing not to attend a place/institution called church, does not mean one is forsaking fellowship or assembling.

~ As yet, nobody has been able to give numbers. As I said where two or three are gathered and glorifying Him. It is church. I also maintain that real intimacy/relationship between believers is simply impossible if the relationships/numbers are too numerous. It is simply not practical/possible.

~ And I am not saying that a Christian is a church. John Smith is a Smith individually and a member of the Smith family collectively. And if John meets with one or more other Smiths then it's the Smith family assembling. Smith is what John is, not somewhere John goes. I feel my simple analogy is more consistent than saying John is only a Smith when he goes to a certain place or in a certain location which is what I am hearing? Maybe it's our fundamental perspectives that differ?

TEMPLES
~ In Acts 7 and again in 17, the Bible clearly states that God is not interested in physical temples (It's why Stephen was martyred). In John 4, The Lord disabuses the "lady by the well" of the notion that worship of God is mandated to a place or location.

~ As for the point about Solomons temple, surely no one is arguing that as a basis for the obsession with physical buildings (by some) in this dispensation?

~ The Temple that the early Christians gathered in was a relic of Judaism. I don't believe it was the place, so much as the gathering. The physical temple was simply convenient. Please check the layout of the temple and the location of Solomons porch. From "House to House" appears to me to have been the norm for the early church. From the Tabernacle in the Wilderness all the way to the Temple rebuilt by Ezra, the intent was a physical dwelling place for the Lords Glory. Now we are that Temple, Christ in us is that Glory. There are two words translated Temple in the NT one refers back to the physical temple of the OT and the other to the Body of Christ of the NT.

~ So yes, maybe my use of the phrase "God hates" may not rest well with some, I apologise to anyone who is offended by my use of it or my appearing to legislate for God (pray have mercy Lord!). But again, is anyone arguing that physical temples in this day and age are somehow core/essential to Christianity and a delight to God?

RELIGION
~ Oft times we use this term differently. And yes, I tend to use the term pejoratively. But even where it is used in James, it is qualified with "pure & undefiled". So even the Bible recognises that there is religion that is not pure (works/appeasement based). When I say religion in the pejorative sense, I mean temples, mediatory priesthoods, rituals, sacrifices and the like. To my mind, when it comes to Christianity such things are simply needless. I read the posts in Religion vs Relationship and the difference was really in use of words. I saw that, essentially agreed and so so didn't bother posting.

If I've failed to state anything clearly or if anything remains unanswered, please let me know.

Good to be back.

God bless

TayoD:
I think the issue of wealth management should lie on the shoulders of the Pastor.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=11992.msg390678#msg390678 date=1149015755]Wisdom there, and I agree.[/quote]TayoD & Mlks_baby,

As noted in my previous post, I take fundamental issue with the whole "pastor" concept. But laying that difference aside, I personally still don't consider that statement about wealth management to be wise.

1. We are all stewards of whatever God entrusts to our care (1 Corinthians 4:1-2, 1 Peter 4:10)
2. We shall all individually give account for said resources Luke 16, Romans 13:12, Hebrews 4:13)

Personally (i.e just me!), I don't think equating pastors to Paul a foundational Apostle or Eli an OT Priest, is correct, or validates that kind of practice. NT Christians share each others burdens and minister to each others needs. By all means honour elders who labour, but I don't think that stretches to intimidatory and coercive appeals in order to shake down the flock. Why do people feel the need to be apologists for what is plainly unscriptural practice?


God bless

TV01

Hi Peeps,

I've been in Nigeria for a little while.
I purposely stayed offline and away from telly and the papers.
I felt blessed to fellowship with a few people, who where starting to lift up their heads
and question some of the practices and outworkings of "Christianity" as currently practised.

Otokx dude,

That kind of practice is to be expected where precepts like "bless the man of God and God will bless you" are callously rammed down peoples throats. Combined with distorted teaching on authority and submission, a lot of what is called "church" these days is nothing short of "cultic" in the nastiest sense of the word.

Personally my position is this - Money moves in the body of Christ in response to need (that is personal physical or material need, not temples, programs or other pointless religious activity).

The last few verses of Matthew 25 speak powerfully to this. Help the needy not the greedy.

Hope this helps.


God bless

TV01


ps.
As for the term/office/function "pastor", no one has yet been able to show me a pastors mandate (as widely practiced in the "church" today) from the bible. I can't find the pastor as head/leader anywhere in scripture. The word itself is a transliteration and appears once in the NKJV. Men make it what they like and they use it as they please! How sad. Pastor is like a first name nowadays. I ask peoples names and they say "pastor" this or that, just appending their surnames. A man-made functional approach to Christianity. Relationship anyone?

Hi mlks_baby,

Sorry you think I'm being needlessly semantic? let me clarify.

Is a good Christian a Church? No, that's not what I am saying.
A good Christian is church waiting to happen. Once gathered with fellow believers to/or in worship and glorification church is happening.

So please educate me,
when does the "whole" become church? How many? What exactly constitutes a collective in your view?

If you yourself say "Church is the body of Christ"
How does it become something you go to? instead of something you are a part of?

As for being semantic, you took the last five words of my post and (to my mind anyway) pointlessly quibbled over them, ignoring the body of the post which clearly outlines my position. Ultimately leaving me non the wiser as to what your think of my position, or indeed what yours is.

Please, if you disagree with or misunderstand anything I post, please say so. And if you have an alternative viewpoint I'd love to hear it. Presumably that why we call it a discussion?

God bless

Hi Syrup,

A huge effort. Well done, much appreciated.
I have copied to take away, study and come back with my comments and questions.

You may not make a tither of me, but you might just make make me a bit of an academic .

God bless

Good afternoon,

I suppose someday, people will come to the realisation that

"not forsaking our own assembling together" is not synonymous with "going to church"
Kind of like "going to church" is not synonymous with "being a Christian"

The "assembling" in the above verse is always married with "exhorting/encouraging"
Assembling is not an end in itself.

Deep relational type fellowship is the intent. I personally find that very rare in the "Institutionalised Church" that predominates in this day and age.

The kind of fellowship, where peoples burdens are shared, needs are met and growth fostered like in the book of Acts is virtually non existent.

Ask yourself, how many of the people in the church you attend really know your deep concerns? your pressing issues? and your infirmities and actually minister to you right there? (And likewise yourself to others?) In fact, most people go to great lengths to keep what really ails them well hidden, and put on a happy face along with their best outfits.

Only where that happens is there true fellowship and the whole point of assembling satisfied. Otherwise all you've done is gather a crowd.

How long before the simple truth of church not being "something you go" to but "something you are" truly hits home?

It's why people always trot out the assembling (in it's loosest sense) argument to support religious church attendance, and completely miss the fact that where two or three are gathered in His name, he is there.

Pray tell, if the Lord is truly in the midst of a gathering, what is missing? "and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ".

Assembling/Fellowship/Church is never mandated to a particular place or building. Infact, God hates physical temples (but that's another thread  )

A good Christian is church.

God bless

Hi Lunafish,

lunafish:
I am a theist (someone who believes in God)
I pray
I adopt a lot of Chrirstian values and characteristics into my life
I have a relationship with God

The basic essentials of Christianity (without writing a book  )
Repentance towards God, faith in Jesus Christ and rebirth by the Holy Spirit.

Think about it! Adopting Christian values is in a sense only something a non Christian can do?
(So for example an Indian boy adopting African values, remains an Indian. But an Indian boy cannot adopt Indian values, he is Indian. I hope I am making myself clear).

Christian (Christlike) characteristics don't come by adoption, they come by enduement.

For the relationship with God you mention to be the "God" of the Bible, please see my first point.

lunafish:
I am a theist (someone who believes in God)
How can I not be identified as a Christian?

Re  my point above, You haven't actually succeeded in identifying yourself as one.

lunafish:
Or does your spiritual superiority complex make you feel that I'm not?

No, my spiritual superiority complex (blast, is it that obvious?  ) is not what stops me from identifying you as a Christian. Your statements about yourself do that entirely on their own.

May the God & Father of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ bless you.

Hi Syrup,

I appreciate how busy you must be. The Lord is your strength.

I thought I'd made my position pretty clear on the whole "----cracy" question?
Is there something in particular you wish to bring my attention too?

You still haven't given me much idea as to what informs your position, both on the "----cracy" question, and regards tithe as a whole.

As time permits.

Hope all is well

God bless.

Why has it gone quiet all of a sudden? 

Is churchgoing necessary to be a good Christian?

No it is not.

lunafish:
I'm a theist because I believe in God.
I'm also a humanist. (Google it people-we all are)
Call me a Humanist believer.
I pray but do not do any other form of worship such as churchgoing.

I find that my God gives me strength, comfort and the motivation to go on- I feel these things without being in church.
I try to live my life being who I am trying to do right-I'm no angel but I have good intentions.
I am not judgemental and try to understand others.
These happen to be quite Christian values-therefore
If one is living a positive lifestyle with a relationship wth God, is church really necessary?

However, your statement above does not necessarily identify you as a Christian.

God bless.

lioness:
you mean this evolution crap is still going on?

Let's just say it's evolving .

To be honest, I'm quite enjoying the cut and thrust. Keep up the good work guys.

I'll remain non-participatory, keeping my obviously biased, yet totally unschooled opinion to myself.

God bless

Hi Syrup,

Back again,

1 Samuel 8:11 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."

Please not verses 15 & 17, they both say a tenth. That is what a tithe is. But what was it called? Tax, tribute, levy or custom.

Verse 19 "But we will have a king over us" A clear rejection of Theocracy, and for that matter ecclessiocracy (they refused to obey the voice of Samuel).

God bless

Hi Virozuru,

virozuru:
Why do you separate the New Testamnet from the Old?

I'm not quite sure how you mean, but it's more a distinction between the Old and the New Covenant.

God bless

Hi Syrup,

Good morning and thanks for your response. I quite appreciate how your views are forcing me to think mine through. So to business (I may answer in parts as time allows).

syrup:
Theocracy did not end in I Samuel 8 - else would David have been something other than God's gracious purposes for His people Israel (I Samuel 16:1 & 13). The people didn't ask for a king in David's case, but God Himself chose a king after His own heart.

Theocracy was God's way. I'm currently reading through the OT and I'm at Exodus right now. It's quite clear that God did not even desire a mediatory priesthood. That was introduced because the people refused to meet with Him as He desired. Please read Exodus 19/20 to clarify this. The people refused Gods offer of a universal priesthood. So God gave them a mediatory one. That was the introduction of the ecclessiocracy.

Likewise the monarchy. It was never Gods intention. His plan has always to be amongst His people as their King. A monarchy was never God's desire. And as I mentioned, the consequences of monarchical rule were clearly spelt out in 1 Sam chapter 8. The people demanded a monarchy, so God gave them one. It was indeed Gods graciousness that raised up king David, but again, please read the history of the monarchical lineages in both Judah and Israel. Are we to conclude that the almost universally line of evil kings (especially in Israel, which was not the true throne) was Gods will?

That is why there always had to be a new covenant.

Hebrew 8:6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.

Please tell me, was the fault Gods? No! It was the demands of men.
That is always the problem. Men insisting on worshipping God in a way they deem fit.
It's outworking is so prevalent today, that few can actually discern the difference. God does not mandate (and true worshipers do not require) mediators

The religion of temples, mediatory priests, sacrifice and the like was given to men because they demanded it. Does anyone think religion is God's idea?  God hates religion. In Christ Jesus, all those things are done away with. No more temples, no more mediators , no more rituals. But men won't have it. The Lord cries for and offers relationship. Many Christian tradions pay it lip service, but the hierarchies, cathedrals, traditions and the like always give the game away.

In a very real sense, the NC is God doing things the way they always should have been the way they were always meant to be. His way. His will is perfect.

Exodus 19:3 And Moses went up to God, and the Lord called to him from the mountain, saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: 4 'You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to Myself. 5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. 6 And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.'

So your references to taxes by the Kings of Israel/Judah are a consequence of the people demanding a monarchy. which I mentioned in my post prior.

TV01:
I am aware of the temple tax and of course that the Israelites would have had to pay taxes when subject to foreign rule. One last point, the kings of Israel/Judah would have demanded taxes, but that was a consequence of them asking for a king (at that point I suppose they ceased to be a theocracy and God did warn them in 1 Samuel ch8). If there is evidence of another relevant tax, I'll have to 'fess up to poor scholarship on this point.

So I disagree. True Theocracy ended in Exodus, with the advent of the ecclesiocracy. The introduction of the monarchy in 1 Samuel 8 just worsened matters. Before the monarchy, there was no other significant form of tax (minor levies maybe), just the tithe.

I'm looking forward to your reply and I trust all is well.

God bless

Hi Syrup,

As I said earlier, where faith/culture/government all merge, I don't see how the tithe could be seen as anything other than tax? The tithe was imposed by God. I am not aware of;

~ any other levy posed by God,
~ if any other person (in the priesthood?), would have been able to ask for a tax or   
   tithe or
~ what the reason for it would have been?

I am aware of the temple tax and of course that the Israelites would have had to pay taxes when subject to foreign rule. One last point, the kings of Israel/Judah would have demanded taxes, but that was a consequence of them asking for a king (at that point I suppose they ceased to be a theocracy and God did warn them in 1 Samuel ch8). If there is evidence of another relevant tax, I'll have to 'fess up to poor scholarship on this point.

I am not saying that tithes = tax.
I am saying that tithe in the OT dispensation equated to tax.
I am not saying Christians should'nt pay taxes.
I am saying Christians don't pay tithes

I am also hoping my position/reasoning are a little clearer now.

Thanks very much.

Maybe you be so kind as to share your insight. On tax as tithe, and tithe generally.

God bless

Hi Syrup,

Thanks for taking the time.

If I stressed that we are talking about two kingdoms here (as opposed to two dispensations),
would that help?

~ As citizens we live in the World, another kingdom - We render to Caesar his due.
~ As the Family of God our King, we are not of this world, and Kings do not demand taxes from
their sons, hence the reference to Matthew 17:25

Dispensationally, tithes were the tax of the OC. There are non in the new. Christians give from the heart, in response to need in the Body. God responds to that.

Hope this makes my position a little clearer, even if no more agreeable.

God bless

Hi Allonym,

allonym:
Ahh, here is an interesting question. The problem here is that you are assuming that all churches are supposed to survive. I don't think that God mandated that once any person decided to start a church, it MUST be kept alive through tithe and offering, or kept alive at all. Not all churches survive beyond a few years - this should not be a bad thing, and certainly, cannot just be attributed to tithing or a lack thereof.

Here I personally have a different viewpoint.

Yes, all churches are supposed to survive, simply because there is only One. One of the planets in our solar system, has I believe 11 moons? (Please don't stone me if I'm wrong here, I am simply making a point). All of them have names. The earth has only one moon. So why bother naming it? So no one ever did. Likewise the Church.

Again, a man starting a church? No need, the Lord accomplished that work (with His Apostles and Prophets). Church is something you are. You simply join fellowship with other believers in your locale. Wherever there are believers, there is church.

If a man decides to start an organisation and call it church, fine. If he decides to fund it with tithes, again fine. But I see no Biblical mandate for that. If such an organisation "fails" due to cash flow problems (like many other organisations do), that should not surprise. If "God" is indeed in an endeavor, how can it fail?

The bride of Christ will be here until her Lord comes for her.

God bless.

Hi Syrup,

I see now, you don't agree that tithing by religious diktat is in any way related to taxes?

My point being that the Israelites under Theocracy where commanded to pay tithes.
At that point, the Jewish/Culture/Faith/Government all merged, so my stance is that tithing was essentially taxation to them. (Used to run/care for the government; the priesthood. Used for social welfare; the needy. And as a form of worship; the feasting).

Christians are not governed by those same laws, all such laws being fulfilled by the birth, sinless life, death and resurrection of The Lord.

NT Christians simply give. God does not demand taxes or tithes (if you prefer) from His people.
Christians pay taxes as demanded by the nations in which they live.

I raised this particular point in response to Allonyms post.

I appreciate you may not agree that one can make a connection between tithing and taxation, but that in no way changes my stance on the fact that tithing is simply not a Christian imperative.

If you have anything to show to the contrary, please say on.

God bless.

Hi Syrup,

You are right, "Theocracy" it is. I'd never actually come across the derivation "Ecclessiocracy", and I took the first to mean the last.

Thank you for that and apologies for my improper word use  .

Now, about my error.

God bless

Hi Krysty,

The Christian walk is oft times hard and can sometimes be lonely.
But remember,  The Lord promises to be always with you.

I find it helps (and is important) to fellowship (and I mean true, close and  personal relationship) with other Christians (some who should be quite mature). The closeness of the relationship should mean they always have you in mind (intercede for you), will be available to give you sound biblical counsel (based on actually knowing you and caring about you), and will of course pray with you.

I hope this helps.

May the Good Lord lift up His countenance upon you.

God bless

Hi Syrup,

I don't want to get to far off topic, but I am happy to take the time to answer your questions.

When the Israelites came out of Egypt, through the time the law was given up until the time they demanded a king, God (through various prophets/judges etc) personally ruled the Israelite nation. That's what I mean by "Godocracy". True "Lordship" if you please. Whilst we have "Theocracies", I don't think that we have any nation in this age that has ceded rule back to God. I trust this makes my position a little clearer? If not please do say. However, if it makes better reading to you to use the word "theocracy", please feel free to do so.

I think it important to be precise so as to correctly convey my position. I do at times use words with my own distinctions in mind, neglecting to note that others may not make the same distinction. Apologies if I've done that here.

Now, can we please return to my error. I'm interested to hear how I have erred, so that like a true gentleman I can proffer an apology .

God bless

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,

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=11620.msg341790#msg341790 date=1146987338]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.[/quote]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?

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=11620.msg337957#msg337957 date=1146836415]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?[/quote]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