***I don’t want to use the Bible for political decisions, I made the arguments that you answered because it is what flood the comments against Bro.Eddie. Should I exclude you on that part?
>>>Yes, please exclude me. At least we agree on this one: we don’t use the Bible for political decisions.

>>>And if my rejection of theological/biblical bases for choosing a national leader invalidates all other people’s accusations against the person, then so be it. But I don’t think they will agree with me.

***As of now… just like all other Christians who joined the forum against Bro.Eddie, you still haven’t given me your chosen candidate and your reasons why you are voting for him. And so I am giving again the challenge to post your best choice and let’s see if he has your qualifications.

>>> I am for Noynoy.
Here are the reasons why.
1. He is aiming for transformational leadership.
2. He has a good economic plan.
3. He plans to improve government service.
4. He is promoting gender equality.
5. He has a good action plan for permanent peace solution for Mindanao.
6. He cares for the environment.

For a detailed description of each kindly go to
http://www.noynoy.ph/v3/platform.php

And for the action plans:
http://www.noynoy.ph/v3/action-plans.php

And here’s a blogpost about why Filipinos should support Noynoy in May. I agree with him whole heartedly:
http://arnold.gamboa.ph/2010/03/im-going-for-noynoy-aquino-and-heres-why/

So there. I hope that I did not disappoint you.
.-= Michael Janapin´s last blog ..The Desktop Challenge =-.

Let us get back first with the hermeneutics stuffs. Now, you also have hit the jackpot k.Mhac. Now that you admit that we really cannot make sound judgment in using the Bible for choosing these political leaders of our nation, I believe you have just invalidated all the theological accusations against Bro.Eddie.

I want to make this clear with you; the only thing that I quoted up these people is because Christians who are against him have been using the Bible for that while neglecting it with their own choices. I believe that it would be unfair right? If you are going to make a research, you should treat all the specimens in the same environment and measurements. This means that I don’t want to use the Bible either in politics. But why is it that the flood of comments from other Christians about Bro.Eddie is all about faith, religion and Bible? Are these Christians ignorant to what they are doing?

Is it because he is a pastor? Come on… let us all stop using the Bible and look at them at different perspective.:) Or, let us use the Bible for all the candidates and not just for Bro.Eddie. 

Now for the analogies, you are indeed right in saying that you should not get one part and then ignore the rest. However, what I have seen is that you yourself ignored my points of comparison thus, you also ignored some few things especially the most important things to learn. Ok, I will give you credit, at least you have said that there can really be no comparison in our political system and the Biblical political system.

>>> I don’t use the Bible for political decisions. So we don’t agree here. You use the Bible for political decisions. I don’t. I want to just rely on platform, convictions, and credentials when I make a political decision. So If I vote for Noynoy, I do not have to quote verses to support my choice. Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar. However, if I choose a pastor for our church, then one needs to be theologically and biblically right for the ministry.
***So at least we can come into conclusion that we should not use the Bible as the measurement. Let us not care to whether or not Bro.Eddie will use the Bible. After all, you see him as a carnal, and probably not a Christian right? So we can stop saying all about the sinning in faith and all things that concerns about religion and prophecy. As I said, you have made a jackpot here. I don’t want to use the Bible for political decisions, I made the arguments that you answered because it is what flood the comments against Bro.Eddie. Should I exclude you on that part?

***So what will make you vote for Noynoy?

Let us go to their qualification and let us look at them as secular people. Agree?
>>>Let me just get this one out of the way. It’s not surprising for the other candidates to live and act the way they do now. It’s part of their nature. So it’s okay if they are idolater, etc. But what is revolting is someone who is supposed to be a new creation and yet acts as if he was still the old.
*** The main thing that is also revolting on the other side of the river is when Christians try to exempt the non-Christians and judge the fellow Christians heinously. I would extremely disagree with your “So it’s okay if they are idolater, etc” Sorry k.Mhac, this isn’t just acceptable for me. I cannot take to be extremely critical with a carnal and then would say “It’s ok” with these people (non-believer) especially that we are talking about choices of leaders. We can leave this here, but I strongly disagree. I find this extremely unjust.

>>> The reason I said this is because of the criteria I use for my selection of president. They all do stand on equal grounds on my list. The reason why you “strongly disagree” is that one of them, based on his claim of moral integrity, stands out. Well, he’s at the bottom of my list.
***So here we are, at least we are clarified on our standards. Sorry, but I use track records k.Mhac. It’s not only based on claims, but based on readings and watching news. You should read more and watch more.:)

***3. If Bro.Eddie cannot be the best to administer the nation, then who can it be?
>>> I think Villar has proven his administrative skills. However, I’d like to give Noynoy a chance to prove his in the executive Department. However, in the church, someone called by God and empowered by God should administer.
***Hmmm… as I said, you should read more and watch more news.:) Administration skills? To what? Manipulating government projects for his benefit? Let me tell you this, at first, I don’t see anything wrong with Villar. But the more I read about C5 extension and his other projects; it just shows that it is for his personal benefit. Am I being biased for him? No. I just watch investigative journalism and exposes.

The more he spends for the election, the more I believe for his skills in manipulating projects for corruption but not for the economy and national administrative skills.

***Let me give you my standards for a right leader.
1. Fear of God – well, religion aside, as long as it is not an atheist, almost all people fear God. It only depends on the “how much” they fear him. So Bro.Eddie would still stand out to be the best choice.
2. Track record of corruption.- There are only 4 candidates who can stand out well, Bro.Eddie, Noynoy, JC de Los Reyes, and Nick Perlas. Who among them is the best? I think, all of them are equal on this.
3. Political morality.- I include here their participation and agreement with the current administration who are politically immoral. So, sorry for the supporters of Gordon and Bayani, I believe both of them fell on this by being silent to the corruptions of the Arroyos. But surely, I still admire them both to be outstanding in their managerial skills. Several names would come out, Bro.Eddie, Noynoy, Nick Perlas, and JC de los Reyes. I believe all of them would come out to be equal on this.
4. Political will. – Noynoy will come out to be mediocre on this. He already waved some of his stands on some issues. Gordon is outstanding, and of course Bro.Eddie. The fact that he ran for government position not based on machinery, and a strong conviction in the implementation of the law of the land. I believe Bro.Eddie posses this.
5. Background in economy and management skills. – There are only few of them who have background in economy. Bro.Eddie is a political economist by the way, and also a professor of economy in PUP.
6. Hard work etc. – Well, I would say all of them except Estrada are hardworker.:)

Now, most probably you have a different standard based on what you have said in your comments. But this is just me.

Economic ability for me is not the most needed one in this country simply because we have probably the best economic leaders in the world my dear friend. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo herself is a graduate of Harvard University majoring in economy (just in case you don’t know her profile). Was she able to solve the stinking poverty of the nation? No my friend! Watch the news again.

Poverty my friend is just a product of greed, wicked manipulation and corruption among the rank and file of our government offices. And if you are involved in a ministry outside the seminary, you will see that even the school teachers teaches the students to cheat on interschool contests. That is why we really don’t need another brilliant economist. But of course, I am not saying that we “Don’t really need an economist”, what I am saying is, we don’t need a too brilliant economist.

By the way, Bro.Eddie again my friend is a political economist. He’s not too brilliant probably, but he is good and knowledgeable in that matter.

But what do we really need? Big question. We probably have a different answer based on our criteria. We the “ Bangon Pilipinas” believe that the best and ultimate solution is: Takot sa Diyos, Pagmamahal sa Bayan (just in case you are not watching the commercials).

Bible and religion, aside, all people fear God or god (except the atheist). Whether it is a Muslim, SDA, Baptist, etc, all of these fear someone. Morality wise, almost all kinds of religious groups in the Philippines, usually maintain a moral standard. And almost all of these are the same. These are undeniable facts my friend.

Let’s come to “Pagmamahal sa Bayan”. If we love our country, we will do our best to work honestly in government offices. We will promote honesty, just like in the family. It is called patriotism.

Now, if these two core things will be applied in the platform, then, wouldn’t it be a good start for our country to rise up again? It is called leadership by example.

It’s not Utopian in nature, but simply practicing the freedom to do the right things.

All the candidates speaks the same things and platforms my friend, “no to corruption” “hasten the economy”, “implement the law” etc. but it’s only the Bangon who have genuinely showed the uniqueness of the fear of God and love of country. Try to visit some Bangon forums my friend, so that you will see the difference in how we support our chosen candidate.

As of now… just like all other Christians who joined the forum against Bro.Eddie, you still haven’t given me your chosen candidate and your reasons why you are voting for him. And so I am giving again the challenge to post your best choice and let’s see if he has your qualifications.

Guess what, in a forum that I was in, almost all Christians there are against Bro.Eddie, only 2 or 3 of us were pro Bro.Eddie. These Christians have been judging Bro.Eddie in theological terms to which you said we really cannot measure them based on the Bible which I would agree. But then that’s the situation. So I challenged them to post their candidate and prove it theologically as well that their candidate would come out to be the best choice. And as you answered, it can’t be done. So far, there is only one who is brave enough answer the challenge yet hasn’t proved theologically that he has a better candidate. And it came out to be a mediocre choice if we based it on the Bible. Again, it is because it cannot be done.

Ok if it cannot be done, let’s work on our qualification and standards. Let us stop talking about Bro.Eddie based on the Bible and religion, and let us of course talk about your chosen one for president. 

Blessings K.Mhac!!! I won’t forget that 100% discount! hehehehe….

***4. I strongly disagree that they stand on equal grounds.
>>> The reason I said this is because of the criteria I use for my selection of president. They all do stand on equal grounds on my list. The reason why you “strongly disagree” is that one of them, based on his claim of moral integrity, stands out. Well, he’s at the bottom of my list.

***Else, there could be no choice and preference
>>>Yes, there is. It’s called personal preferences. Each candidate will present their platform. Each candidate will present their focus be it economics, security, nation-building, ecology, technology. Pick your choice. Productivity and Righteous governance ranks below my preference list so I’m opting for Noynoy.

>>>Now, whether the candidate will be true to his platform is another story. There is no way we can get a guarantee that an elected candidate will back up his words by works.

***nor there is hope for our country.
>>>Yes, there is still hope. Just define what hope is. Hope of utopian rule? Hope of economic progress? Hope of a better environment? Hope of a poverty-free country? There’s still hope.

>>>However, do not confuse this hope I just enumerated above with the kind of hope we find in the Bible. It’s different in our sacred text. The hope we find there do not lie in this realm. No, it lies in a different realm. If I use Einsteinian language — it lies in another multiverse.

***Why should we even mind to vote then if they are all equal. The fact that you will choose someone, is a fact that you believe that someone is best among the rest.
>>>This is the heart of a democratic process. It is the voter who must decide in his mind as to who is the best. It is also the voter who will establish the criteria for choosing the best. The majority voters will then be followed — and corollary to that is that the criteria they have used becomes the valid ones; invalidating the minority’s criteria.

***I would rather be more positive for hope rather than to be negative.
>>>Again, define positive hope here. Are you referring to temporal hope? Here’s a good definition of biblical hope from Paul:
“I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. For in hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what is seen? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.” Romans 8:18-25

>>> So for Paul, creation (that includes the Philippine Republic) was subjected to futility. It is groaning in labor pains. And it is the revealing of the children of God that will usher in the final redemption of the believers’ bodies as well as creation itself. This is hope. And we need to be patient as we wait for it.
.-= Michael Janapin´s last blog ..The Desktop Challenge =-.

***I have some additional questions that you might like to answer. I haven’t got any answer on this from any other Christians and forums who will not be voting for Bro.Eddie. So perhaps you will answer these.
>>> I’ll try my best.

*** 1. If Bro.Eddie cannot be the best Biblically and theologically, then who is the best then Biblically? Please justify that he is the right person as you have justified that Bro.Eddie “cannot be the right person” biblically and theologically. It is because we have to use the same measurement. It’s like a research, you have to put them in the same test.

>>> I don’t use the Bible for political decisions. So we don’t agree here. You use the Bible for political decisions. I don’t. I want to just rely on platform, convictions, and credentials when I make a political decision. So If I vote for Noynoy, I do not have to quote verses to support my choice. Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar. However, if I choose a pastor for our church, then one needs to be theologically and biblically right for the ministry.

***2. If Bro.Eddie is not the best to bring moral change who then is the best? And please justify again.
>>> I don’t think moral change is a critical criteria in my choice of president. Economic change ranks #1 in my list. However, in the church, moral change is a very critical criteria.

***3. If Bro.Eddie cannot be the best to administer the nation, then who can it be?
>>> I think Villar has proven his administrative skills. However, I’d like to give Noynoy a chance to prove his in the executive Department. However, in the church, someone called by God and empowered by God should administer.

***4. If Bro.Eddie is a compromiser and was indeed detestable in the eyes of the Lord, was idolatry, corruption, and immorality a lesser evil? If these are all the same, then who among the candidates are not guilty of any of these?
>>> Again, I do not use “morality” as a criteria for my choice of president. They all are immoral. And I don’t think you need morality to run this country. What a leader needs are a clear vision and dogged determination. However, if you pastor a church, then you need morality.

***5. Prove theologically and Biblically that pastors are prohibited to become political leaders.
>>> The truth is, I don’t have to prove it. But let me just give you what I think. However, let us agree to stay in the New Testament because there are technically no pastors in the Old Testament in the sense that we know it today.
Here’s one from the apostle Paul:

Endure hardship with us like a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs—he wants to please his commanding officer. 2 Tim. 2:3-4

***If you can prove it to be absolute, the better. Follow-up question, would a pastor running for a government position reducing his credibility and integrity?
>>> Not necessarily. The problem is, as a president one will face the difficulty of “serving two masters.” There are times that Christian convictions will go against popular vote. Democracy requires rule by the majority.

>>>Credibility means the quality of being trusted and believed in. No problem for pastors there. They can be trusted and believed in. It’s the integrity that will really be hard to maintain. Integrity means you are what you say you are. So, if popular opinion goes against Christian convictions, which will he choose? As a president, he must side with the will of the people even if it is clearly against the will of God.

***This is just an observation. I haven’t seen so far that Catholics and other religious sects have been so critical against Bro.Eddie. Bro.Eddie has been receiving a pound for pound criticism against him from evangelical christian group.
>>>This is because Mr. Villanueva still calls himself an evangelical christian. So, those who are TRUE evangelical Christians are revolting. If he calls himself a Baptist, all the more that I will criticize him.

>>>He should stop pretending to be one and just say “Hey guys, I’m a universalist, non-sectarian, people-pleaser, vote-hungry-candidate. Here’s what I’ll do when I win as president.” That is a hell of a speech if he likes it. And guess what? The TRUE evangelical Christians will not be criticizing him anymore. Just remove the pretensions and concentrate instead on his programs and platform. That is more beneficial. But to call all Christians to unite under him is just madness.

***Blessings to you too K.Mac. I am really enjoying this discussion.:) Learning a lot.:)
>>>Thank you. And I’m glad that you do not shy away from this kind of fiery discussion. You are a thinking person. Do not let others tell you what you need to believe.

***To be honest, I am almost convinced to pull out my vote for him. But so far, nobody is answering me with those questions above. I just wonder why.
>>>I did my best to answer them. But I don’t think you’ll change your mind.

***All I am receiving is that Bro.Eddie is this… Bro.Eddie is that… etc… Without giving me and justifying an alternative. Now perhaps, if someone can convince me for a better alternative answering those questions theologically and Biblically since that’s how we dealt with Bro.Eddie, then sige… But if not, would rather stay and support Bro.Eddie.:)
>>> I don’t think anyone can convince you theologically nor biblically. It’s because most theologically-sound-minded people do not use it to justify their political decisions. Nor those same people would use the Bible in this political exercise.

Blessings to you and your family.
My advice is: Keep on thinking and asking!
.-= Michael Janapin´s last blog ..The Desktop Challenge =-.

>>> First, a point of clarification. I think we got off-tangent here. It doesn’t add to the discussion, but I wanted to clarify this first so we can move on to the more important matters.

***A Christian would ‘never’…” you mean “would never, ever…???”

>>>And what’s the alternative? “A Christian would sometimes abandon his convictions…”

*** So would it be a non-Christian who is an idolater? How about immoral? How about a convicted plunderer? How about an obviously corrupt official? Or probably it can be someone who just bow to corrupt officials? Are they really a better choice?

>>>What I meant by alternative is not alternative candidate, but alternative to “would never” in my previous statement that you just questioned for clarification. The alternative to “would never” is “would sometimes.” So I’m really saying is, yes, I mean “would never, ever…” because the alternative “would sometimes” is just as bad.

>>>Let me just get this one out of the way. It’s not surprising for the other candidates to live and act the way they do now. It’s part of their nature. So it’s okay if they are idolater, etc. But what is revolting is someone who is supposed to be a new creation and yet acts as if he was still the old.

>>> Now that is done with, let’s move on to the next part.

B. “How’s Peter, who denied our very own Lord Jesus Christ,” This was before Pentecost. Still a disciple who does not fully understand the new age Jesus has brought. So he did not really abandon his convictions, rather at that time his conviction was Jesus was the political messiah they were expecting (sounds familiar?). So Peter is not a good analogy for abandoning one’s convictions just to get men’s approval. And later on, after Pentecost, he died as a martyr for Christ.

*** I would disagree with what you said to be a bad analogy. We are talking about convictions, not a particular situation. There is no such thing as election during the early times. As we all know, most of the government is monarchy. If we stand therefore that it is a bad analogy, then I suggest let’s not put election issues with theological and Bibical basis else, we have to to concentrate on one issue which is “abandoning/wavering conviction”. And I am convince that this is a valid issue and example.

>>> Vince, you just hit a jackpot here. I would like to thank you for saying this yourself, and not me. Let me ask you, who dragged these biblical characters into these discussion. Surely not I. In defense of Mr. Villanueva, you enumerated these characters from the Bible to prove that even them, wavered in their convictions. And I say, bad analogy. Why? It’s because there is no comparable particular for today. You yourself said “We are talking about convictions, not a particular situation.” And I say, this is wrong. Whenever you try to apply a principle from the Bible, make sure that comparable particular situations exist. In this way, your application of a principle to the contemporary time is safeguarded and will not be astray. So I say, we need to talk convictions in the context of a particular situation.

>>> Yes you are right that there are no election during early times. And you are 100% correct. That’s why it is bad to drag Peter, David, Jonah, and John Mark into these discussions because they do not apply. Mr. Villanueva wavered his convictions for votes. The other four wavered convictions (which is debatable) for other reasons. There is no comparable particular situation that applies.

***Furthermore, I deny that the Bangon sees Bro.Eddie that he is a political messiah.
>>> Are you reading the minds of the Bangon people? If not, how do you know that they do not see Mr. Villanueva as a political messiah? Let them do the denials. However, you may want to say, “I assume that Bangon …”

***I believe he simply is the best candidate who is more credible than the rest of the candidates even if he did sinned in the church of Quiboloy.
>>> So you concede that he sinned.

***There are only two things that we can do, talk about election without the Bible as basis, or talk about election and accept the analogy.

>>> I think you meant: There’s only one thing we can do…
>>> You gave an “EITHER-OR” statement.

****In hermeneutics (you are my teacher in that subject by the way, hehehe), there is only one interpretation, but there can be several application. This is just one application, abandoning/wavering conviction or faith. We are still talking about the sinful nature.

>>> I hate to take back your grade. Hahaha… But let me explain again. You cannot just zero in or focus on “wavering convictions” and ignore the rest. It must be qualified. Mr. Villanueva wavered convictions for men’s approval. Now find an example from the Bible who wavered convictions for men’s approval. When you find that, then it is the exact biblical example for Mr. Villanueva’s actions. I’ll give you a hint: He Kissed Jesus.

E. How’s Jonah who even run away from God???….
You have to take OT 152 with me. Hehehe… Jonah actually DO NOT WANT to abandon his convictions. In fact, he is so stubbornly attached to it! So wrong analogy again. And Jonah is a true prophet of the LORD whereas Mr. Villanueva was a false prophet (thanks to 2004 elections).

*** Hmmm… “Do not want?” So he doesn’t want it, but just stubbornly attached with it, so he disobeyed?
>>> Yes, Jonah’s conviction is: GOD MUST PUNISH THE WICKED. Nineveh is wicked. Therefore God must punish it. But God wants to proclaim judgment that Nineveh might repent. Jonah knows this and doesn’t want Nineveh to be forgiven. So, he run away from God because he could not part with his conviction.

***Again, I would disagree. We are not talking about a particular situation, but application of abandoning/wavering conviction/faith issues.
>>> Again, you need to be sensitive to the particular situation. Go ahead and grab your Hermeneutics book “How to Read the Bible For All Its Worth” pages 71-87. One of the topics there is finding the “Comparable Particulars.”

***But you may have a good point of in this.
>>>Thank you. I really do have a good point.

***This is why those who are so attached in the faith, tends to judge and becomes unhappy, when God starts to work in the life of others.
>>> That is the main message of Jonah. But comparing Jonah and Mr. Villanueva is stretching the text too much. I almost vomited when you attempted to make the connection. So please, leave Jonah alone.

***False prophet, I think it was Ms. Jacobs who made that prophecy and not Bro.Eddie. May I suggest that you watch some of his interviews other than those controversial videos? hehehe:) It would help a lot in understanding about the prophecy issue. That was I thought before. I thought that he was the one who prophecied it, but no, its Ms. Jacobs.
>>> How convenient. Poor Ms. Jacobs. But if you say so, then I’ll take back what I said about Mr. Villuaneva the false prophet. But let me remind you of command responsibility. The least Mr. Villanueva could do is rebuke that lying spirit. And focus on his platforms instead.

***Oh by the way, if ever God will permit me to come back to seminary and take that subject again, would really love to be your student again.:)
>>> I’ll give you 100% discount on OT 152.

G. Now you see, the Bible itself has presented many examples of Christians who abandoned their own convictions in exchange of their lives, of their comfort, of their pleasures.
Actually, I don’t see it. As I mentioned above, all of your examples are (and I hope you just picked them at random and from your memory) irrelevant and bad analogy to our present discussion here. Mr. Villanueva abandoned his convictions in replacement of votes, period.

*** Oh yes, I just picked them at random.:) Should you be thankful? Hehehe… Just kidding.:)
>>> Actually, yes, you should be thankful that it was at random. It just saved you.

***But then again, I would really disagree that it is a bad analogy.
>>> See above notes.

***If you insist that it is irrelevant, then Biblical basis for election and our current form of choosing leaders is irrelevant.
>>> Again, you hit the jackpot here. This is what we need to do. Keep politics and spiritual life separate. It’s like water and oil.

***After all, they are not in the Bible.
>>> 100% correct, again.

***Lest, let us not use the Bible with this disagreement.
>>> Who dragged these bible characters in the first place? LOL.

***We should be concern and focus on the “application” of abandoning/wavering faith/convictions and not to a particular situation. The Bible cannot cover all particular situation with its details. But these people abandoned their convictions for some reasons, for personal desire, lust, for being so attached to it that they forgotten the other areas of it, for safety. They are all the same thing, they abandoned their convictions for something that will benefit their own selves. This is why I totally disagree saying that these are bad analogies.

>>> See above notes.

*** And you will probably not vote for these people if they still lives in our time and run for government office knowing that they did these.:)
>>> I don’t think they will run for office. Why did I say that? It’s because they understood cleary the Kingdom plan of Jesus. It’s not through world governance. It’s not through military might. His kingdom is not of this world. And they understand that as a Christian, their primary duty is not to better the government nor establish peace through temporal powers. A Christian’s primary duty is to change the world by making all nations his disciples. The Kingdom Agenda is not pushed the way the world does. Let me quote Paul:

“Indeed, we live as human beings, but we do not wage war according to human standards; for the weapons of our warfare are not merely human, but they have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to obey Christ.” 2 Cor. 10:3-5

*** Thanks for this very detail hermeneutical exposition.:) Really appreciate it. I agree with you. I may be wrong in considering this to be of the same classification of Bro.Eddie’s case (pls note: with statement I and J only).
>>> You are welcome.

***I will also refrain from saying that it was premeditate because Bro. Eddie went there because of the invitation and not because of voluntary appearance.
>>> He has two choices: Accept OR Deny.

***As a politician (not as a pastor) it is only logical that you are always seen by the public.
>>> 100% correct.

***Of course, you will not agree with that because he should be a pastor first, right?
>>> What is his vocation? He should pursue that.

***In fairness with him. Bro.Eddie have stated even before (a year before candidacy) that JIL is a non-sectarian movement.
>>> A very good political move. He is a professor before he founded JIL.

***And if you are invited to give an address to an anniversary celebration of any religious groups, what would you say then? Magsitigil kayo, mga kulto kayo? Or how about wag nyo na akong imbitahin kasi hindi nyo ako kapatid?
>>> And this is the very predicament of those who run for public office. You have to please everybody. That’s why, pastors are advised to just focus on what they are called to do — shepherd God’s people.

***I think Bro.Eddie fell further from the border line. This is why I would disagree a little bit lang naman if you say its premedidated.
>>>Premedidated means he thought through it; which you cannot deny. He got the invitation, yes. Did he think whether to accept or deny? Probably. So he thought through it. It was not an accident that he was there at the anniversary, right? So he thought through it. So therefore, he premeditated it.

*** Yes you are definitely right in quoting that in Matthew. But we have to remember that it was stated in hyperbole so as the rest of the sermon of the mount. To justify my argument, how about you answer this very simple question with a yes or no answer, “Did you live a perfect life?”
>>> I can say yes to that (basing on the hermeneutical principle you mentioned above).

***What I am just pointing out is that, yes it is rightful that we aim to live perfectly. Unfortunately, we can’t. Kaya nga sa 1John 1:8 “If we claim without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” And note, this passage gave us hope as well, (v.9) “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.”
>>> I agree that there is forgiveness for those who confess.

***Simple lang even how evil we are and how long we stayed in the sin, there is always forgiveness that waits.:)
>>> There is a theological problem there. If one stays long in sin — that’s a problem. Maybe that one is not really a child but a mere pretender. [See my exposition on 1 John 3:9]. If one stays long, he is continually sinning.

***But of course, hindi naman din ako agree na dapat sadyain. Or else it will be like living a carnal life and not enjoying the salvation that God gave.:)
>>> Carnal christianity is an invention by those who wanted to still have Jesus as Savior but not as Lord. Those who are true believers find it hard to be Carnal if they submit to the Lordship of Christ. [This is getting off-topic. I'll stop right here.]
.-= Michael Janapin´s last blog ..The Desktop Challenge =-.

>>> First, a point of clarification. I think we got off-tangent here. It doesn’t add to the discussion, but I wanted to clarify this first so we can move on to the more important matters.

***A Christian would ‘never’…” you mean “would never, ever…???”

>>>And what’s the alternative? “A Christian would sometimes abandon his convictions…”

*** So would it be a non-Christian who is an idolater? How about immoral? How about a convicted plunderer? How about an obviously corrupt official? Or probably it can be someone who just bow to corrupt officials? Are they really a better choice?

>>>What I meant by alternative is not alternative candidate, but alternative to “would never” in my previous statement that you just questioned for clarification. The alternative to “would never” is “would sometimes.” So I’m really saying is, yes, I mean “would never, ever…” because the alternative “would sometimes” is just as bad.

>>>Let me just get this one out of the way. It’s not surprising for the other candidates to live and act the way they do now. It’s part of their nature. So it’s okay if they are idolater, etc. But what is revolting is someone who is supposed to be a new creation and yet acts as if he was still the old.

>>> Now that is done with, let’s move on to the next part.

B. “How’s Peter, who denied our very own Lord Jesus Christ,” This was before Pentecost. Still a disciple who does not fully understand the new age Jesus has brought. So he did not really abandon his convictions, rather at that time his conviction was Jesus was the political messiah they were expecting (sounds familiar?). So Peter is not a good analogy for abandoning one’s convictions just to get men’s approval. And later on, after Pentecost, he died as a martyr for Christ.

*** I would disagree with what you said to be a bad analogy. We are talking about convictions, not a particular situation. There is no such thing as election during the early times. As we all know, most of the government is monarchy. If we stand therefore that it is a bad analogy, then I suggest let’s not put election issues with theological and Bibical basis else, we have to to concentrate on one issue which is “abandoning/wavering conviction”. And I am convince that this is a valid issue and example.

>>> Vince, you just hit a jackpot here. I would like to thank you for saying this yourself, and not me. Let me ask you, who dragged these biblical characters into these discussion. Surely not I. In defense of Mr. Villanueva, you enumerated these characters from the Bible to prove that even them, wavered in their convictions. And I say, bad analogy. Why? It’s because there is no comparable particular for today. You yourself said “We are talking about convictions, not a particular situation.” And I say, this is wrong. Whenever you try to apply a principle from the Bible, make sure that comparable particular situations exist. In this way, your application of a principle to the contemporary time is safeguarded and will not be astray. So I say, we need to talk convictions in the context of a particular situation.

>>> Yes you are right that there are no election during early times. And you are 100% correct. That’s why it is bad to drag Peter, David, Jonah, and John Mark into these discussions because they do not apply. Mr. Villanueva wavered his convictions for votes. The other four wavered convictions (which is debatable) for other reasons. There is no comparable particular situation that applies.

***Furthermore, I deny that the Bangon sees Bro.Eddie that he is a political messiah.
>>> Are you reading the minds of the Bangon people? If not, how do you know that they do not see Mr. Villanueva as a political messiah? Let them do the denials. However, you may want to say, “I assume that Bangon …”

***I believe he simply is the best candidate who is more credible than the rest of the candidates even if he did sinned in the church of Quiboloy.
>>> So you concede that he sinned.

***There are only two things that we can do, talk about election without the Bible as basis, or talk about election and accept the analogy.

>>> I think you meant: There’s only one thing we can do…
>>> You gave an “EITHER-OR” statement.

****In hermeneutics (you are my teacher in that subject by the way, hehehe), there is only one interpretation, but there can be several application. This is just one application, abandoning/wavering conviction or faith. We are still talking about the sinful nature.

>>> I hate to take back your grade. Hahaha… But let me explain again. You cannot just zero in or focus on “wavering convictions” and ignore the rest. It must be qualified. Mr. Villanueva wavered convictions for men’s approval. Now find an example from the Bible who wavered convictions for men’s approval. When you find that, then it is the exact biblical example for Mr. Villanueva’s actions. I’ll give you a hint: He Kissed Jesus.

E. How’s Jonah who even run away from God???….
You have to take OT 152 with me. Hehehe… Jonah actually DO NOT WANT to abandon his convictions. In fact, he is so stubbornly attached to it! So wrong analogy again. And Jonah is a true prophet of the LORD whereas Mr. Villanueva was a false prophet (thanks to 2004 elections).

*** Hmmm… “Do not want?” So he doesn’t want it, but just stubbornly attached with it, so he disobeyed?
>>> Yes, Jonah’s conviction is: GOD MUST PUNISH THE WICKED. Nineveh is wicked. Therefore God must punish it. But God wants to proclaim judgment that Nineveh might repent. Jonah knows this and doesn’t want Nineveh to be forgiven. So, he run away from God because he could not part with his conviction.

***Again, I would disagree. We are not talking about a particular situation, but application of abandoning/wavering conviction/faith issues.
>>> Again, you need to be sensitive to the particular situation. Go ahead and grab your Hermeneutics book “How to Read the Bible For All Its Worth” pages 71-87. One of the topics there is finding the “Comparable Particulars.”

***But you may have a good point of in this.
>>>Thank you. I really do have a good point.

***This is why those who are so attached in the faith, tends to judge and becomes unhappy, when God starts to work in the life of others.
>>> That is the main message of Jonah. But comparing Jonah and Mr. Villanueva is stretching the text too much. I almost vomited when you attempted to make the connection. So please, leave Jonah alone.

***False prophet, I think it was Ms. Jacobs who made that prophecy and not Bro.Eddie. May I suggest that you watch some of his interviews other than those controversial videos? hehehe:) It would help a lot in understanding about the prophecy issue. That was I thought before. I thought that he was the one who prophecied it, but no, its Ms. Jacobs.
>>> How convenient. Poor Ms. Jacobs. But if you say so, then I’ll take back what I said about Mr. Villuaneva the false prophet. But let me remind you of command responsibility. The least Mr. Villanueva could do is rebuke that lying spirit. And focus on his platforms instead.

***Oh by the way, if ever God will permit me to come back to seminary and take that subject again, would really love to be your student again.:)
>>> I’ll give you 100% discount on OT 152.

G. Now you see, the Bible itself has presented many examples of Christians who abandoned their own convictions in exchange of their lives, of their comfort, of their pleasures.
Actually, I don’t see it. As I mentioned above, all of your examples are (and I hope you just picked them at random and from your memory) irrelevant and bad analogy to our present discussion here. Mr. Villanueva abandoned his convictions in replacement of votes, period.

*** Oh yes, I just picked them at random.:) Should you be thankful? Hehehe… Just kidding.:)
>>> Actually, yes, you should be thankful that it was at random. It just saved you.

***But then again, I would really disagree that it is a bad analogy.
>>> See above notes.

***If you insist that it is irrelevant, then Biblical basis for election and our current form of choosing leaders is irrelevant.
>>> Again, you hit the jackpot here. This is what we need to do. Keep politics and spiritual life separate. It’s like water and oil.

***After all, they are not in the Bible.
>>> 100% correct, again.

***Lest, let us not use the Bible with this disagreement.
>>> Who dragged these bible characters in the first place? LOL.

***We should be concern and focus on the “application” of abandoning/wavering faith/convictions and not to a particular situation. The Bible cannot cover all particular situation with its details. But these people abandoned their convictions for some reasons, for personal desire, lust, for being so attached to it that they forgotten the other areas of it, for safety. They are all the same thing, they abandoned their convictions for something that will benefit their own selves. This is why I totally disagree saying that these are bad analogies.

>>> See above notes.

*** And you will probably not vote for these people if they still lives in our time and run for government office knowing that they did these.:)
>>> I don’t think they will run for office. Why did I say that? It’s because they understood cleary the Kingdom plan of Jesus. It’s not through world governance. It’s not through military might. His kingdom is not of this world. And they understand that as a Christian, their primary duty is not to better the government nor establish peace through temporal powers. A Christian’s primary duty is to change the world by making all nations his disciples. The Kingdom Agenda is not pushed the way the world does. Let me quote Paul:

“Indeed, we live as human beings, but we do not wage war according to human standards; for the weapons of our warfare are not merely human, but they have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to obey Christ.” 2 Cor. 10:3-5

*** Thanks for this very detail hermeneutical exposition.:) Really appreciate it. I agree with you. I may be wrong in considering this to be of the same classification of Bro.Eddie’s case (pls note: with statement I and J only).
>>> You are welcome.

***I will also refrain from saying that it was premeditate because Bro. Eddie went there because of the invitation and not because of voluntary appearance.
>>> He has two choices: Accept OR Deny.

***As a politician (not as a pastor) it is only logical that you are always seen by the public.
>>> 100% correct.

***Of course, you will not agree with that because he should be a pastor first, right?
>>> What is his vocation? He should pursue that.

***In fairness with him. Bro.Eddie have stated even before (a year before candidacy) that JIL is a non-sectarian movement.
>>> A very good political move. He is a professor before he founded JIL.

***And if you are invited to give an address to an anniversary celebration of any religious groups, what would you say then? Magsitigil kayo, mga kulto kayo? Or how about wag nyo na akong imbitahin kasi hindi nyo ako kapatid?
>>> And this is the very predicament of those who run for public office. You have to please everybody. That’s why, pastors are advised to just focus on what they are called to do — shepherd God’s people.

***I think Bro.Eddie fell further from the border line. This is why I would disagree a little bit lang naman if you say its premedidated.
>>>Premedidated means he thought through it; which you cannot deny. He got the invitation, yes. Did he think whether to accept or deny? Probably. So he thought through it. It was not an accident that he was there at the anniversary, right? So he thought through it. So therefore, he premeditated it.

*** Yes you are definitely right in quoting that in Matthew. But we have to remember that it was stated in hyperbole so as the rest of the sermon of the mount. To justify my argument, how about you answer this very simple question with a yes or no answer, “Did you live a perfect life?”
>>> I can say yes to that (basing on the hermeneutical principle you mentioned above).

***What I am just pointing out is that, yes it is rightful that we aim to live perfectly. Unfortunately, we can’t. Kaya nga sa 1John 1:8 “If we claim without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” And note, this passage gave us hope as well, (v.9) “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.”
>>> I agree that there is forgiveness for those who confess.

***Simple lang even how evil we are and how long we stayed in the sin, there is always forgiveness that waits.:)
>>> There is a theological problem there. If one stays long in sin — that’s a problem. Maybe that one is not really a child but a mere pretender. [See my exposition on 1 John 3:9]. If one stays long, he is continually sinning.

***But of course, hindi naman din ako agree na dapat sadyain. Or else it will be like living a carnal life and not enjoying the salvation that God gave.:)
>>> Carnal christianity is an invention by those who wanted to still have Jesus as Savior but not as Lord. Those who are true believers find it hard to be Carnal if they submit to the Lordship of Christ. [This is getting off-topic. I'll stop right here.]

>>> First, a point of clarification. I think we got off-tangent here. It doesn’t add to the discussion, but I wanted to clarify this first so we can move on to the more important matters.

***A Christian would ‘never’…” you mean “would never, ever…???”

>>>And what’s the alternative? “A Christian would sometimes abandon his convictions…”

*** So would it be a non-Christian who is an idolater? How about immoral? How about a convicted plunderer? How about an obviously corrupt official? Or probably it can be someone who just bow to corrupt officials? Are they really a better choice?

>>>What I meant by alternative is not alternative candidate, but alternative to “would never” in my previous statement that you just questioned for clarification. The alternative to “would never” is “would sometimes.” So I’m really saying is, yes, I mean “would never, ever…” because the alternative “would sometimes” is just as bad.

>>>Let me just get this one out of the way. It’s not surprising for the other candidates to live and act the way they do now. It’s part of their nature. So it’s okay if they are idolater, etc. But what is revolting is someone who is supposed to be a new creation and yet acts as if he was still the old.

>>> Now that is done with, let’s move on to the next part.

B. “How’s Peter, who denied our very own Lord Jesus Christ,” This was before Pentecost. Still a disciple who does not fully understand the new age Jesus has brought. So he did not really abandon his convictions, rather at that time his conviction was Jesus was the political messiah they were expecting (sounds familiar?). So Peter is not a good analogy for abandoning one’s convictions just to get men’s approval. And later on, after Pentecost, he died as a martyr for Christ.

*** I would disagree with what you said to be a bad analogy. We are talking about convictions, not a particular situation. There is no such thing as election during the early times. As we all know, most of the government is monarchy. If we stand therefore that it is a bad analogy, then I suggest let’s not put election issues with theological and Bibical basis else, we have to to concentrate on one issue which is “abandoning/wavering conviction”. And I am convince that this is a valid issue and example.

>>> Vince, you just hit a jackpot here. I would like to thank you for saying this yourself, and not me. Let me ask you, who dragged these biblical characters into these discussion. Surely not I. In defense of Mr. Villanueva, you enumerated these characters from the Bible to prove that even them, wavered in their convictions. And I say, bad analogy. Why? It’s because there is no comparable particular for today. You yourself said “We are talking about convictions, not a particular situation.” And I say, this is wrong. Whenever you try to apply a principle from the Bible, make sure that comparable particular situations exist. In this way, your application of a principle to the contemporary time is safeguarded and will not be astray. So I say, we need to talk convictions in the context of a particular situation.

>>> Yes you are right that there are no election during early times. And you are 100% correct. That’s why it is bad to drag Peter, David, Jonah, and John Mark into these discussions because they do not apply. Mr. Villanueva wavered his convictions for votes. The other four wavered convictions (which is debatable) for other reasons. There is no comparable particular situation that applies.

***Furthermore, I deny that the Bangon sees Bro.Eddie that he is a political messiah.
>>> Are you reading the minds of the Bangon people? If not, how do you know that they do not see Mr. Villanueva as a political messiah? Let them do the denials. However, you may want to say, “I assume that Bangon …”

***I believe he simply is the best candidate who is more credible than the rest of the candidates even if he did sinned in the church of Quiboloy.
>>> So you concede that he sinned.

***There are only two things that we can do, talk about election without the Bible as basis, or talk about election and accept the analogy.

>>> I think you meant: There’s only one thing we can do…
>>> You gave an “EITHER-OR” statement.

****In hermeneutics (you are my teacher in that subject by the way, hehehe), there is only one interpretation, but there can be several application. This is just one application, abandoning/wavering conviction or faith. We are still talking about the sinful nature.

>>> I hate to take back your grade. Hahaha… But let me explain again. You cannot just zero in or focus on “wavering convictions” and ignore the rest. It must be qualified. Mr. Villanueva wavered convictions for men’s approval. Now find an example from the Bible who wavered convictions for men’s approval. When you find that, then it is the exact biblical example for Mr. Villanueva’s actions. I’ll give you a hint: He Kissed Jesus.

E. How’s Jonah who even run away from God???….
You have to take OT 152 with me. Hehehe… Jonah actually DO NOT WANT to abandon his convictions. In fact, he is so stubbornly attached to it! So wrong analogy again. And Jonah is a true prophet of the LORD whereas Mr. Villanueva was a false prophet (thanks to 2004 elections).

*** Hmmm… “Do not want?” So he doesn’t want it, but just stubbornly attached with it, so he disobeyed?
>>> Yes, Jonah’s conviction is: GOD MUST PUNISH THE WICKED. Nineveh is wicked. Therefore God must punish it. But God wants to proclaim judgment that Nineveh might repent. Jonah knows this and doesn’t want Nineveh to be forgiven. So, he run away from God because he could not part with his conviction.

***Again, I would disagree. We are not talking about a particular situation, but application of abandoning/wavering conviction/faith issues.
>>> Again, you need to be sensitive to the particular situation. Go ahead and grab your Hermeneutics book “How to Read the Bible For All Its Worth” pages 71-87. One of the topics there is finding the “Comparable Particulars.”

***But you may have a good point of in this.
>>>Thank you. I really do have a good point.

***This is why those who are so attached in the faith, tends to judge and becomes unhappy, when God starts to work in the life of others.
>>> That is the main message of Jonah. But comparing Jonah and Mr. Villanueva is stretching the text too much. I almost vomited when you attempted to make the connection. So please, leave Jonah alone.

***False prophet, I think it was Ms. Jacobs who made that prophecy and not Bro.Eddie. May I suggest that you watch some of his interviews other than those controversial videos? hehehe:) It would help a lot in understanding about the prophecy issue. That was I thought before. I thought that he was the one who prophecied it, but no, its Ms. Jacobs.
>>> How convenient. Poor Ms. Jacobs. But if you say so, then I’ll take back what I said about Mr. Villuaneva the false prophet. But let me remind you of command responsibility. The least Mr. Villanueva could do is rebuke that lying spirit. And focus on his platforms instead.

***Oh by the way, if ever God will permit me to come back to seminary and take that subject again, would really love to be your student again.:)
>>> I’ll give you 100% discount on OT 152.

G. Now you see, the Bible itself has presented many examples of Christians who abandoned their own convictions in exchange of their lives, of their comfort, of their pleasures.
Actually, I don’t see it. As I mentioned above, all of your examples are (and I hope you just picked them at random and from your memory) irrelevant and bad analogy to our present discussion here. Mr. Villanueva abandoned his convictions in replacement of votes, period.

*** Oh yes, I just picked them at random.:) Should you be thankful? Hehehe… Just kidding.:)
>>> Actually, yes, you should be thankful that it was at random. It just saved you.

***But then again, I would really disagree that it is a bad analogy.
>>> See above notes.

***If you insist that it is irrelevant, then Biblical basis for election and our current form of choosing leaders is irrelevant.
>>> Again, you hit the jackpot here. This is what we need to do. Keep politics and spiritual life separate. It’s like water and oil.

***After all, they are not in the Bible.
>>> 100% correct, again.

***Lest, let us not use the Bible with this disagreement.
>>> Who dragged these bible characters in the first place? LOL.

***We should be concern and focus on the “application” of abandoning/wavering faith/convictions and not to a particular situation. The Bible cannot cover all particular situation with its details. But these people abandoned their convictions for some reasons, for personal desire, lust, for being so attached to it that they forgotten the other areas of it, for safety. They are all the same thing, they abandoned their convictions for something that will benefit their own selves. This is why I totally disagree saying that these are bad analogies.

>>> See above notes.

*** And you will probably not vote for these people if they still lives in our time and run for government office knowing that they did these.:)
>>> I don’t think they will run for office. Why did I say that? It’s because they understood cleary the Kingdom plan of Jesus. It’s not through world governance. It’s not through military might. His kingdom is not of this world. And they understand that as a Christian, their primary duty is not to better the government nor establish peace through temporal powers. A Christian’s primary duty is to change the world by making all nations his disciples. The Kingdom Agenda is not pushed the way the world does. Let me quote Paul:

“Indeed, we live as human beings, but we do not wage war according to human standards; for the weapons of our warfare are not merely human, but they have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to obey Christ.” 2 Cor. 10:3-5

*** Thanks for this very detail hermeneutical exposition.:) Really appreciate it. I agree with you. I may be wrong in considering this to be of the same classification of Bro.Eddie’s case (pls note: with statement I and J only).
>>> You are welcome.

***I will also refrain from saying that it was premeditate because Bro. Eddie went there because of the invitation and not because of voluntary appearance.
>>> He has two choices: Accept OR Deny.

***As a politician (not as a pastor) it is only logical that you are always seen by the public.
>>> 100% correct.

***Of course, you will not agree with that because he should be a pastor first, right?
>>> What is his vocation? He should pursue that.

***In fairness with him. Bro.Eddie have stated even before (a year before candidacy) that JIL is a non-sectarian movement.
>>> A very good political move. He is a professor before he founded JIL.

***And if you are invited to give an address to an anniversary celebration of any religious groups, what would you say then? Magsitigil kayo, mga kulto kayo? Or how about wag nyo na akong imbitahin kasi hindi nyo ako kapatid?
>>> And this is the very predicament of those who run for public office. You have to please everybody. That’s why, pastors are advised to just focus on what they are called to do — shepherd God’s people.

***I think Bro.Eddie fell further from the border line. This is why I would disagree a little bit lang naman if you say its premedidated.
>>>Premedidated means he thought through it; which you cannot deny. He got the invitation, yes. Did he think whether to accept or deny? Probably. So he thought through it. It was not an accident that he was there at the anniversary, right? So he thought through it. So therefore, he premeditated it.

*** Yes you are definitely right in quoting that in Matthew. But we have to remember that it was stated in hyperbole so as the rest of the sermon of the mount. To justify my argument, how about you answer this very simple question with a yes or no answer, “Did you live a perfect life?”
>>> I can say yes to that (basing on the hermeneutical principle you mentioned above).

***What I am just pointing out is that, yes it is rightful that we aim to live perfectly. Unfortunately, we can’t. Kaya nga sa 1John 1:8 “If we claim without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” And note, this passage gave us hope as well, (v.9) “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.”
>>> I agree that there is forgiveness for those who confess.

***Simple lang even how evil we are and how long we stayed in the sin, there is always forgiveness that waits.:)
>>> There is a theological problem there. If one stays long in sin — that’s a problem. Maybe that one is not really a child but a mere pretender. [See my exposition on 1 John 3:9]. If one stays long, he is continually sinning.

***But of course, hindi naman din ako agree na dapat sadyain. Or else it will be like living a carnal life and not enjoying the salvation that God gave.:)
>>> Carnal christianity is an invention by those who wanted to still have Jesus as Savior but not as Lord. Those who are true believers find it hard to be Carnal if they submit to the Lordship of Christ. [This is getting off-topic. I'll stop right here.]

Now let me move on to your 5 questions.

Christian would ‘never’…” you mean “would never, ever…???”

And what’s the alternative? “A Christian would sometimes abandon his convictions…”

*** So would it be a non-Christian who is an idolater? How about immoral? How about a convicted plunderer? How about an obviously corrupt official? Or probably it can be someone who just bow to corrupt officials? Are they really a better choice?

B. “How’s Peter, who denied our very own Lord Jesus Christ,” This was before Pentecost. Still a disciple who does not fully understand the new age Jesus has brought. So he did not really abandon his convictions, rather at that time his conviction was Jesus was the political messiah they were expecting (sounds familiar?). So Peter is not a good analogy for abandoning one’s convictions just to get men’s approval. And later one, after Pentecost, he died as a martyr for Christ.

*** I would disagree with what you said to be a bad analogy. We are talking about convictions, not a particular situation. There is no such thing as election during the early times. As we all know, most of the government is monarchy. If we stand therefore that it is a bad analogy, then I suggest let’s not put election issues with theological and Bibical basis else, we have to to concentrate on one issue which is “abandoning/wavering conviction”.And I am convince that this is a valid issue and example.

Furthermore, I deny that the Bangon sees Bro.Eddie that he is a political messiah. I believe he simply is the best candidate who is more credible than the rest of the candidates even if he did sinned in the church of Quiboloy.

C. and has become hypocrite himself in dealing with the gentiles in front of other Jews. I have to admit that this is post pentecost. However, this is a false analogy to what Mr. Villanueva did. Peter wanted to be as true as
possible to this convictions. And what were those? For 30+ years he grew up as a Jew. The Kosher law is ingrained to his identity for solid 3 decades. So those convictions as a Jew was deep within him.

But after Paul rebuked him, Peter learned his lesson. Unlike Mr. Villanueva, he never learned from the 2004 elections. So wrong analogy here.

*** Again, I would disagree that this is a bad analogy. I believe that no matter how long he lived as Jew, by using your statement with some substitution, “he is an apostle, a direct disciple of Christ, someone who should have learned something from his denials, he should know better.”

But of course he repented after the rebuke. Did someone rebuked Bro.Eddie publicly? Of course, he should not be waiting for that. But the analogy remains the same, abandoning/wavering convictions.

Furthermore, did other apostles relegate Peter to be the least among the unbelievers? Nope, they did not. They still accepted Peter as brother.

Now here, you can see that we also have something to do in respond to what Bro.Eddie did, rebuke or correct him, and not relegating him to be the least among the unbelievers. Question, did we do something to correct him?

D. How’s David who murdered his own trusted soldier and take get the wife for himself???…

You don’t want to drag David’s name here. This analogy is again wrong because David did not abandon his convictions just to get votes (or men’s approval, if you may).

*** Again, will strongly disagree that this is a bad analogy. Election is not in the Bible. There are only two things that we can do, talk about election without the Bible as basis, or talk about election and accept the analogy. In hermeneutics (you are my teacher in that subject by the way, hehehe), there is only one interpretation, but there can be several application. This is just one application, abandoning/wavering conviction or faith. We are still talking about the sinful nature.

E. How’s Jonah who even run away from God???….
You have to take OT 152 with me. Hehehe… Jonah actually DO NOT WANT to abandon his convictions. In fact, he is so stubbornly attached to it! So wrong analogy again. And Jonah is a true prophet of the LORD whereas Mr. Villanueva was a false prophet (thanks to 2004 elections).

*** Hmmm… “Do not want?” So he doesn’t want it, but just stubbornly attached with it, so he disobeyed? Again, I would disagree. We are not talking about a particular situation, but application of abandoning/wavering conviction/faith issues. But you may have a good point of in this. This is why those who are so attached in the faith, tends to judge and becomes unhappy, when God starts to work in the life of others.

False prophet, I think it was Ms. Jacobs who made that prophecy and not Bro.Eddie. May I suggest that you watch some of his interviews other than those controversial videos? hehehe:) It would help a lot in understanding about the prophecy issue. That was I thought before. I thought that he was the one who prophecied it, but no, its Ms. Jacobs.

Oh by the way, if ever God will permit me to come back to seminary and take that subject again, would really love to be your student again.:)

F. How’s that one who deserted Paul???… etc…
That would be John Mark. For whatever reason, we cannot really say for sure he abandoned his convictions. He abandoned Paul and Barnabas, but not for votes (or men’s approval). Unlike Mr. Villanueva who resigned as a Pastor in order to run as President.

What does that tell you? What is the message here? That Presidency takes priority over pastorate? Darn!

*** So how will you state what John Mark did? Afraid of the ministry? Afraid of the persecution? Would this be again a bad analogy? Hmmm… I already answered it, election is not in the Bible. Lest we cannot make analogies concerning it nor we can discuss theological values about it. I rather would stick with abandoning/wavering faith/convictions. “Focus” as you have said.:)

G. Now you see, the Bible itself has presented many examples of Christians who abandoned their own convictions in exchange of their lives, of their comfort, of their pleasures.
Actually, I don’t see it. As I mentioned above, all of your examples are (and I hope you just picked them at random and from your memory) irrelevant and bad analogy to our present discussion here. Mr. Villanueva abandoned his convictions in replacement of votes, period.

*** Oh yes, I just picked them at random.:) Should you be thankful? Hehehe… Just kidding.:)

But then again, I would really disagree that it is a bad analogy. If you insist that it is irrelevant, then Biblical basis for election and our current form of choosing leaders is irrelevant. After all, they are not in the Bible. Lest, let us not use the Bible with this disagreement.

We should be concern and focus on the “application” of abandoning/wavering faith/convictions and not to a particular situation. The Bible cannot cover all particular situation with its details. But these people abandoned their convictions for some reasons, for personal desire, lust, for being so attached to it that they forgotten the other areas of it, for safety. They are all the same thing, they abandoned their convictions for something that will benefit their own selves. This is why I totally disagree saying that these are bad analogies.

And you will probably not vote for these people if they still lives in our time and run for government office knowing that they did these.:)

H. But still they have found forgiveness in the eyes of God.
This is exactly what I wrote above.

I. The truth is, Christians commit mistakes sometimes, so are you and me who are pastors…
I totally agree.

J. so as Bro.Eddie.
No. This is cannot be classified simply as a ‘mistake.’ That’s too simplistic. And this is an insult to all of our intelligence if you insist on that. It is a willing act on his behalf. He premeditated it. He made the association on an election year, for the purpose of
collecting votes from Quiboloy’s group. I will not be surprised if he

jumps on to the next group and make the same association. So no, this

cannot be simply a mistake. What do you call a sin that is being done

repeatedly (sustained for a long period of time)? The answer is: living in sin continuously.

Here’s 1 John 3:9 for you:
“Those who have been born of God do not sin, because God’s seed abides in them; they cannot sin, because they have been born of God.”

The focus is on “do not sin (continually)”

In Greek:
ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
the third word is in the present, active, indicative which means:

continuously doing (something)

Also, “they cannot sin (continually)”

In Greek:
οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν
the second word is present, middle, indicative which can be

translated “ever capable of”

the third word is present, active, indicative infinitive which can be rendered “sinning (continually)”

So, what now? Continuous abandonment of Christian convictions between now and May 10 is tolerable to you? When will he repent? After May 10?

Should be keep on sinning because we are under grace? By all means, no!

*** Thanks for this very detail hermeneutical exposition.:) Really appreciate it. I agree with you. I may be wrong in considering this to be of the same classification of Bro.Eddie’s case (pls note: with statement I and J only).

However, we have to remember that his presidency (granted he wins) is not only for evangelical Christians but for the whole Philippines.

I will also refrain from saying that it was premeditate because Bro.Eddie went there because of the invitation and not because of voluntary appearance. As a politician (not as a pastor) it is only logical that you are always seen by the public. Of course, you will not agree with that because he should be a pastor first, right?

In fairness with him. Bro.Eddie have stated even before (a year before candidacy) that JIL is a non-sectarian movement. And if you are invited to give an address to an anniversary celebration of any religious groups, what would you say then? Magsitigil kayo, mga kulto kayo? Or how about wag nyo na akong imbitahin kasi hindi nyo ako kapatid?

I think Bro.Eddie fell further from the border line. This is why I would disagree a little bit lang naman if you say its premedidated.

K. Living a righteous life doesn’t mean living a perfect life sir.:)
I will let Jesus answer you on this one:
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matt. 5:48

*** Yes you are definitely right in quoting that in Matthew. But we have to remember that it was stated in hyperbole so as the rest of the sermon of the mount. To justify my argument, how about you answer this very simple question with a yes or no answer, “Did you live a perfect life?”

What I am just pointing out is that, yes it is rightful that we aim to live perfectly. Unfortunately, we can’t. Kaya nga sa 1John 1:8 “If we claim without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” And note, this passage gave us hope as well, (v.9) “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.”

Simple lang even how evil we are and how long we stayed in the sin, there is always forgiveness that waits.:) But of course, hindi naman din ako agree na dapat sadyain. Or else it will be like living a carnal life and not enjoying the salvation that God gave.:)

L. There were times that our minds have been clouded with evilness that we fall into temptations. Is falling to the temptation a total association with darkness that there is no forgiveness in it?

See my above exposition on 1 John 3:9.

*** Already been dealt with.

I have some additional questions that you might like to answer. I haven’t got any answer on this from any other Christians and forums who will not be voting for Bro.Eddie. So perhaps you will answer these.

1. If Bro.Eddie cannot be the best Biblically and theologically, then who is the best then Biblically? Please justify that he is the right person as you have justified that Bro.Eddie “cannot be the right person” biblically and theologically. It is because we have to use the same measurement. It’s like a research, you have to put them in the same test.

2. If Bro.Eddie is not the best to bring moral change who then is the best? And please justify again.

3. If Bro.Eddie cannot be the best to administer the nation, then who can it be?

4. If Bro.Eddie is a compromiser and was indeed detestable in the eyes of the Lord, was idolatry, corruption, and immorality a lesser evil? If these are all the same, then who among the candidates are not guilty of any of these?

5. Prove theologically and Biblically that pastors are prohibited to become political leaders. If you can prove it to be absolute, the better. Follow-up question, would a pastor running for a government position reducing his credibility and integrity?

This is just an observation. I haven’t seen so far that Catholics and other religious sects have been so critical against Bro.Eddie. Bro.Eddie has been receiving a pound for pound criticism against him from evangelical christian group.

Blessings to you too K.Mac. I am really enjoying this discussion.:) Learning a lot.:)

To be honest, I am almost convinced to pull out my vote for him. But so far, nobody is answering me with those questions above. I just wonder why.

All I am receiving is that Bro.Eddie is this… Bro.Eddie is that… etc… Without giving me and justifying an alternative. Now perhaps, if someone can convince me for a better alternative answering those questions theologically and Biblically since that’s how we dealt with Bro.Eddie, then sige… But if not, would rather stay and support Bro.Eddie.:)
.-= Ptr. Vince´s last blog ..I PROMISE by Jaci Velasquez With Lyrics and Chords =-.

And what’s the alternative? “A Christian would sometimes abandon his convictions…”

B. “How’s Peter, who denied our very own Lord Jesus Christ,”

This was before Pentecost. Still a disciple who does not fully understand the new age Jesus has brought. So he did not really abandon his convictions, rather at that time his conviction was Jesus was the political messiah they were expecting (sounds familiar?). So Peter is not a good analogy for abandoning one’s convictions just to get men’s approval. And later one, after Pentecost, he died as a martyr for Christ.

C. and has become hypocrite himself in dealing with the gentiles in front of other Jews.
I have to admit that this is post pentecost. However, this is a false analogy to what Mr. Villanueva did. Peter wanted to be as true as possible to this convictions. And what were those? For 30+ years he grew up as a Jew. The Kosher law is ingrained to his identity for solid 3 decades. So those convictions as a Jew was deep within him. But after Paul rebuked him, Peter learned his lesson. Unlike Mr. Villanueva, he never learned from the 2004 elections. So wrong analogy here.

D. How’s David who murdered his own trusted soldier and take get the wife for himself???…
You don’t want to drag David’s name here. This analogy is again wrong because David did not abandon his convictions just to get votes (or men’s approval, if you may).

E. How’s Jonah who even run away from God???….
You have to take OT 152 with me. Hehehe… Jonah actually DO NOT WANT to abandon his convictions. In fact, he is so stubbornly attached to it! So wrong analogy again. And Jonah is a true prophet of the LORD whereas Mr. Villanueva was a false prophet (thanks to 2004 elections).

F. How’s that one who deserted Paul???… etc…
That would be John Mark. For whatever reason, we cannot really say for sure he abandoned his convictions. He abandoned Paul and Barnabas, but not for votes (or men’s approval). Unlike Mr. Villanueva who resigned as a Pastor in order to run as President. What does that tell you? What is the message here? That Presidency takes priority over pastorate? Darn!

G. Now you see, the Bible itself has presented many examples of Christians who abandoned their own convictions in exchange of their lives, of their comfort, of their pleasures.
Actually, I don’t see it. As I mentioned above, all of your examples are (and I hope you just picked them at random and from your memory) irrelevant and bad analogy to our present discussion here. Mr. Villanueva abandoned his convictions in replacement of votes, period.

H. But still they have found forgiveness in the eyes of God.
This is exactly what I wrote above.

I. The truth is, Christians commit mistakes sometimes, so are you and me who are pastors…
I totally agree.

J. so as Bro.Eddie.
No. This is cannot be classified simply as a ‘mistake.’ That’s too simplistic. And this is an insult to all of our intelligence if you insist on that. It is a willing act on his behalf. He premeditated it. He made the association on an election year, for the purpose of collecting votes from Quiboloy’s group. I will not be surprised if he jumps on to the next group and make the same association. So no, this cannot be simply a mistake. What do you call a sin that is being done repeatedly (sustained for a long period of time)? The answer is: living in sin continuously.

Here’s 1 John 3:9 for you:
“Those who have been born of God do not sin, because God’s seed abides in them; they cannot sin, because they have been born of God.”

The focus is on “do not sin (continually)”

In Greek:
ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ
the third word is in the present, active, indicative which means: continuously doing (something)

Also, “they cannot sin (continually)”

In Greek:
οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν
the second word is present, middle, indicative which can be translated “ever capable of”

the third word is present, active, indicative infinitive which can be rendered “sinning (continually)”

So, what now? Continuous abandonment of Christian convictions between now and May 10 is tolerable to you? When will he repent? After May 10?

Should be keep on sinning because we are under grace? By all means, no!

K. Living a righteous life doesn’t mean living a perfect life sir.:)
I will let Jesus answer you on this one:
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Matt. 5:48

L. There were times that our minds have been clouded with evilness that we fall into temptations. Is falling to the temptation a total association with darkness that there is no forgiveness in it?

See my above exposition on 1 John 3:9.

I’ll go to number 4 when time permits.

God bless you and your ministry Vince! Keep rooted in his Word!

And ikaw na rin nagsabi, “there is nothing wrong with that.”

But yeah… probably in the case of Noynoy vs. Mr.Villanueva, the two deciding factors that I considered is Christianity and leadership. And Christianity has bigger weight. Weaker kasi leadership ni Noynoy as far as experience is concern e. And when it comes to reality, Noynoy is an idolater and Villanueva is a compromiser. I think both are evil and a serious problem in the eyes of God. But I think idolatry is more evil than compromising.

Ok… let’s go to #2:)