enough already wrote: Amen CES, the religion of 'do's and don'ts' is nothing more than modern day Pharisee-ism. They trot out their opinions as though they were inspired. They are most miserable of all, continually working at their 'religion' to satisfy their 'god'....'22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." matt. 7. They think themselves presentable based on their 'works'. How tragic their end will be...
My, my, as usual when things get tight the legalistic judgementalists turn up in guised monikers to give out the stick to those endeavouring to stand for disliked truth.
Joel wrote: Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that they are wrong. Nor does it mean that they are against you in any way. They may rightfully be against your faulty position or view.
Hold on your peace, please, if you do not understand what the meaning of the word strife is, a concept which comes associated in Scripture with carnal wisdom.
To speak out for strife, it looks like, but it is not the same as seeking to commend truth.
Joel wrote: Personally, I donâ€™t see any deceit or evasion in quoting Scriptures that apply to a particular topic. They were not only within the context of our discussion but were also being quoted in the context of their positions in Scripture. Yes, they were contradictory to Sister B.â€™s position on the definition of boasting but were not deceptive or crafty in any way. They were in fact very out in the open, clear, and to the point.
They were biased using an exceptional sense to the common rule and use of the word boasting to contradict the stand taken, and this for no good reason explained. This is cunning craftiness, Joel. Sophistry in disguise.
Mike wrote: ... In any case, I know we approach Scripture differently, so I won't say much. They are secondary issues in reality, not worth long struggling with brothers or sisters over. A short story: I admit to reading literally unless it can be clearly, simply shown to be otherwise. It's how I was brought to leave the RCC after spending my first 29 years with it. I just could not make sense of what I spent my life believing, when the Bible clearly said said that which was contradictory to my upbringing. The Lord saw fit to let me find a 200 year old Bible in the attic of a house we bought, led me to read some of it, and led me to believe what it said. No coincidence. Where was truth? I could believe what it said, or I could believe what was taught by the RCC. Choosing the Scripture had no alternative, or more correctly, the Lord made it obvious by leading me to those chapters and verses which I needed to see truth. I looked for no hidden meanings. And here I am, warts and all.
This is a tremendous testimony of God's grace, Mike, for which we rejoice. Thank you He brings his own to himself in his own way granting saving faith. Blessed be God. The way you believed is the way forward. Take care
US Cunning craftiness can be explained as "having or showing skill in achieving one's ends by deceit or evasion." Your post where you say you showed mere scripture subtletly attempted such by timing, content and style.
Challenges contrary to personal thinking are received in good will.
Joel wrote: Sorry, but I think I am also reading between the lines. I also try to think about what you are saying and not just swallowing it hook, line, and sinker.
Please, read and digest aright. No problem with this. It is commendable to examine all things.
Bro. US Pleasant communication without guile, which stays away from personal bullying, is profitable, edifying and welcome, and any challenge presented, as a norm, will serve to generate enlarging understanding in the receiver.
However, interaction characterized by butting against character is not going to be entertained, as in this case, wisdom will advise to postpone personal interaction till we are wholly sanctified.
Joel wrote: 1. Yes, humanism ruins it all ... But ... ancient modes of government were fraught with problems
2. What mode of civil government do you propose?
3. You say that the generic term â€śrulerâ€ť is better than â€śkingâ€ť
1. Definitively where man is, sin comes along, which in governement it shows either by excess of control, negligence, oppression, ... However humanistic based forms of government tempt citizens into believing they are in control wasting much time in politics which eventually drain a lot of intellectual and emotional energy. Besides, the powers to be run double agendas upon which the average citizen has no say, e.g. in the USA the use of the evangelical vote to secure numbers, or in Ulster the gimmicks of twisted deals to uphold the nationalist status.
2. What it has been stated already: The Biblical emphasis centers rather on an entity or body of government with its head/ leader leaving politics to the internal realm of temporal powers of which Christ exempted his followers by example: "If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight"
3. I said the opposite: "the term ruler is better than a generic title as Herod, King, Pharaoh, Prince, etc"
Please, it seems you are reading fast missing content.
Joel wrote: 1. I didnâ€™t say that the king shouldnâ€™t have advisors or listen to counsel
2. â€śAbsolute monarchyâ€ť is the name for a particular form of government
3. You still have not shown me how an â€śabsolute monarchyâ€ť form of government is unbiblical. Like a king ruling a country, you know. I donâ€™t mean dictatorship either.
1. No issue with this, Joel
2. The historical connotation of that term is negative and with much reason, hence it needs clarification if using it
3. Never said that. Perhaps the term ruler is better than a generic title as Herod, King, Pharaoh, Prince, etc... The Biblical emphasis centers rather on an entity or body of government with its head/ leader.
The problem with modern modes of government is the humanistic foundation they sustain, and its humanistic slant making man the demigod that controls tyranny.
US Truth crosses the boundries of nationalities. Against truth we measure all situations, America included. Again, true to your past record, smearing character is what one resorts to when you have not a valid argument to bring to the table.
Mike wrote: An absolute monarchy will be a good thing, only when Jesus is the absolute monarch. Until then, a representative republic with term limits for our employees is the best we might expect..
An absolute monarchy and a representative republic both will be a good thing as far as Jesus is the absolute monarch.
Both are made of sinners. The only difference is that in the second case we are convinced we are in absolute control to remove individuals from office, which is half a fallacy, considering the huge amounts of bureaucracy this takes and the many secondary aiders we do not have control upon moving the strings behind the corridors of power.
We have blindly made 'gods' of our forms of government to which we dedicate half of our strength, (proof of this is seen in this forum), and the other half we reserve to our God believing he can conviniently come in at any time to fix or aid the first. We might well realise we have placed the cart before the horse.
Joel, 'absolute' power corrupts, but in the multitude of advisers there is wisdom.
"Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counsellors they are established"
Absoultes should only be placed with God and his truth, not in kings/democracies.
Joel wrote: I believe that an absolute monarchy with a good king is the best form of government.
The book of Proverbs runs important verses about the topic declaring how all a ruler has to do to govern aright is to execute righteousness in wisdom.
See, "A wise king scatters the wicked, and brings the wheel over them."
"The king by judgment establishes the land: but he that receives gifts overthrows it."
"A king that sits in the throne of judgment scatters away all evil with his eyes."
"Take away the wicked from before the king, and his throne shall be established in righteousness."
"Mercy and truth preserve the king: and his throne is upholden by mercy."
"The king that faithfully judges the poor, his throne shall be established for ever"
Solomon asked for wisdom to rule his people with righteousness and this is all is needed when government leaves social issues with the population providing them with this ample opportunities to serve each other in love.
John UK Cromwell had to dismiss 'politicians' from his army and even Parliament as all they were interested was in faction not common good. It is known that in his dismissing speech he told them that their presence 'desecrated this house', (Parliament)
The Quiet Christian wrote: 1. What you are describing as the ideal, Mrs. McC, is how ancient Israel was supposed to operate after Joshua but didn't, couldn't due to their need for a Redeemer and Savior. It is a picture of the government of the New Jerusalem, that city not made with hands
2. In the interim, we have this imperfect set of systems. The US is a representative democracy which was supposed to prevent great abuses. But there is no perfect system here
1. No, it is not an ideal. This is the way government functions. Even the most tribal or pagan governments on earth since ancient times have functioned by the concept of 'fear', what Ro. 13 says about fearing the one in charge, the one carrying the sword.
2. Your representative democracy is no better than a fair pagan form of government where politics being absence, rule is established by the principle of law and fear, not necessary fear of God, but of the authority in place. Only the later is cheaper to run.
After all if democracy was so sacred as modern thinking holds, there should be antecedent of instruction in Scripture. But realisticly for a government to function is not gymmics of votes and politics that is needed, but decency, and this is what comes biblically established.
John UK wrote: ... "What makes you think that Christians should influence and impact the political system?" What have Christians to do with politics?
Nowadays we confuse politics with government, but they are two different things. The bible instructs the believer to submit to government but never commands him to play politics because governments are a given from God: "He sets up one and brings the other down"
However humanism believes man should be in control always, hence it is asserted that 'government should be by the people and for the people' which is half a lie.
Politics deal with activities aimed at improving status, influence, control or power between factions.
Dictatorships take away politics from the population reserving it to an elite.
Democracies make a mock of politics believing they improve government. Yet they only increase demagoguery, protocols, waste and bureaucracy.
What a country needs is the fear of God established as the final rule of government instead of giving in to appease or appeal to the desires or prejudices of people.
However, as a society takes God out of the picture its citizens take to going down into the battle ground of politics, believers engaging many losses of time, energy and focus.
Joel wrote: Thatâ€™s why many people who see themselves as very righteous wonâ€™t celebrate birthdays or express appreciation or commendation to those who have done well in something except to God only. They think that acknowledging someone or something as good or kind is stealing glory from God.
... Allegedly, even the Puritans struggled with this. I hear that some of them would purposefully make a small defect in a hand-crafted item to show that they were not perfect like God
We can go over board in most things all right if unchecked , because we do really have a sinful strong tendency to boast about things by ourselves ...
However we are exhorted to think on things of value, see Philippians 4:8, and rejoicing in God's goodness is never prohibited:
"Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; this is the gift of God."
To balance our sinful tendencies aright can take more than we are willing to admit.
"... let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's."
Unprofitable Servant wrote: For if I have boasted any thing to him of you, I am not ashamed; but as we spake all things to you in truth, even so our boasting, which I made before Titus, is found a truth.
Wherefore shew ye to them, and before the churches, the proof of your love, and of our boasting on your behalf
For I know the forwardness of your mind, for which I boast of you to them of Macedonia, that Achaia was ready a year ago; and your zeal hath provoked very many Yet have I sent the brethren, lest our boasting of you should be in vain in this behalf; that, as I said, ye may be ready:Â Lest haply if they of Macedonia come with me, and find you unprepared, we (that we say not, ye) should be ashamed in this same confident boasting
Yes, unprofitable, true to your true nature you seek to find a gap to butt in to contend ...
The concept of boasting above is about to celebrate, or commend. However, conveniently you have omitted the many verses in scriptures were boasting or its related term, to 'glory', which comes from the same root word, is rendered in the negative as reverting *merit* toward oneself.
Seeing you are interested in the topic a word search study would be helpful.
Pride includes without doubt personal boasting about some kind of merit in a matter, and boasting is not recommended as a biblical trait.
The idea of being proud of something, comes not from the bible but rests on atheistic humanism where all is attributed to personal merit, chance, or 'luck' and never to an ultimate cause.
We never read off, or it would be hardly imaginable, to see Christ in his ministry boasting about things, or saying I am extremely proud of you, or of this, or of that. He simply stated truth in humility honouring who honour was due to.
Our arrogant society has made us swallow up this perverse concept into our lingo which is by time Christians should spew out of their conversation.