Is Christendom's Advance Best Served By Liberal Revisionism Or Conservative Fundamentalism?

[Dave_n_Tenn]

Originally Posted by DewDropInn

Christendom is best served by being Christ-like.

Were more Christians actually Christ-like churches would be JAMMED on Sundays. You can't advance a religion when others see its followers not walking the walk.

I tend to agree. Motion produces emotion.

Serving has a very tacit quality and the simple fact that Jesus said I didn't come to be served but to serve kinda says it all for me. I tend to be led by dirt road logic a bit more than others.

...just sayn'

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

No, it was not and is not an individual decision. It is incumbent and obliging if one is a member of the Body of Christ. It is an abomination of the intention of Jesus for the Body of Christ to implant modern Enlightenment and American concepts of individuality and privacy upon what was a Middle Eastern concept of group accountability, group reliance, and group inter-dependency.

Actually it was an individual requirement according to ones ability and will, and in fact was directed at the other members of the body to receive such aid first. What Gov'ts may do is up to them, what A Christian will do is up to Him/Her.

But, just as much, Jesus' intention of the Body of Christ was that it exist physically within but economically and culturally independent from human governments, as an embassy of one nation exists within but economically and culturally independent of the government of a host nation.?

It was to be separate as we see the early congregation/ekklesia was. Paul appealed on legal grounds, but no Christian was involved in politics of the day at all as they followed Jesus clear example when confronted with such questions. In act history tells us they left office upon conversion if they served in any capacity. If one were involved then the "group" aspect would mean such would be judged by God on the basis of the actions of the group they were a voluntary part of and it's deeds. Sooo, here you would be viewed by God as guilty of voting to overturn his view of immorality, divorce, etc. Not a good thing. Be ye no part of the world, means just exactly that.

That is actually the way resources are supposed to be handled within the Body of Christ: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." That is the basis of good stewardship, that's what we see of the early church in Acts 2 and Acts 4, with more information in 2 Corinthians 8.

In Acts 2 it was individual preaching to non believers and in Acts 4 it lasted for a short period and then ended as no directive from God was involved. They though the return of Christ was to occur very, very soon and when it was seen it would not occur, they also saw it wasn't God's way.

Individual responsibility is key, others can't do it for you.

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Actually it was an individual requirement according to ones ability and will, and in fact was directed at the other members of the body to receive such aid first. What Gov'ts may do is up to them, what A Christian will do is up to Him/Her.

Nobody had no responsibility. Every member of the Body of Christ was expected to be working for the benefit of the Body of Christ. That might not be money--in fact, "giving" was specified as a special gift itself--but everyone was expected to be working in some capcacity for the Body.

That was the flip side to the fact that the Body of Christ was also expected to make sure everyone's needs were met if they could not accomplish that themselves, with those having excess providing for those who suffered a lack.

It was to be separate as we see the early congregation/ekklesia was. Paul appealed on legal grounds, but no Christian was involved in politics of the day at all as they followed Jesus clear example when confronted with such questions. In act history tells us they left office upon conversion if they served in any capacity. If one were involved then the "group" aspect would mean such would be judged by God on the basis of the actions of the group they were a voluntary part of and it's deeds. Sooo, here you would be viewed by God as guilty of voting to overturn his view of immorality, divorce, etc. Not a good thing. Be ye no part of the world, means just exactly that.

I'm not exactly sure what point you're making. I don't think you and I have the same concept of "group."

I did not make up the Body of Christ analogy, the Lord did in His scripture.

In Acts 2 it was individual preaching to non believers and in Acts 4 it lasted for a short period and then ended as no directive from God was involved. They though the return of Christ was to occur very, very soon and when it was seen it would not occur, they also saw it wasn't God's way.

Individual responsibility is key, others can't do it for you.

Decades later, Paul was still preaching group support and group responsibility, and so was James. So was Peter, even after acknowledgeing that Jesus might be a long time in returning.