The most awaited filing of the Bangon Pilipinas Movement, the filing of certificate of candidacy of Bro. Eddie Villanueva. I can’t help but to congratulate Bro. Eddie Villanueva for being so brave in filing his candidacy along with his running mate Perfecto Yasay and some other people like Kata Inocencio and Alex Tinsay.
This “PURE” political party has no money, lacks man power, and lacks some preparation. None the less, they will be meeting the rest of political parties in the battle field of politics.
The group is composed of undefiled new politicians who aims to bring a PURE government, a godly nation, and a dignified people in the government. I would say that Bangon Pilipinas Movement is the “Dream Team” politicians of the Filipinos.
The big question however remains, HOW WILL THE FILIPINOS ACCEPT THIS DREAM TEAM? As of now, Bro. Eddie is still at the tail of surveys. The cause is pure, the goal is clear, the vision is at hand, but will they win the election? Would they have the same picture from the video clip below?
There is a pressure in terms of political strategy for the Bangon Pilipinas. But as far as I assessed these people, Bro. Eddie along with his fellow candidates are not hungry for power so as they are totally different from the rest of politicians who runs under the opposition and under the administration.
Bro Eddie And Perfecto Yasay Filing their COC
Yours truly still remains in the middle. I am still trying to weigh the flow of politics. However, I must admit that my heart is still inclined with my fellow brothers in Christ. It’s just, it’s too difficult to convince myself that Bangon Pilipinas will stand a chance to win in this upcoming election since there are too many good contenders compared to the past presidential elections.
There is only one thing that I do not want to happen, that is for the administration to win. I am tired with the corruptions of the administration. And now, all their plans is slowly creeping in place. President Gloria Arroyo is running for congress, a very good example of a woman who really have the LUST FOR POWER. Never satisfied of what she’ve got. How about you guys? Would you allow the administration to continously rule our nation?
This decision won’t be too difficult for me if Bro. Eddie along with Perfecto Yasay run first for senatorial line which I believe they will stand a better chance of winning and more time for preparation for the next presidential election.
Will this move work? Nobody knows. But I am sure, everything is already at the hand of our Almighty.
Hello K.Mhac. Sorry for being a little late in my reply. I am have been extremely busy for the past couple of weeks.:)
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….
***Vince
>>>Mhac
***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 =-.
A. 2 & 3. Hmmm… I think this comes with the icky-wicky part. “A Christian would ‘never’…” you mean “would never, ever…???”
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!
A. 2 & 3. Hmmm… I think this comes with the icky-wicky part. “A
Please note that my response have three asterisks (***)
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 =-.
My replies have these >>> and I preserved your responses having three asterisks (***).
>>> 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.
My replies have these >>> and I preserved your responses having three asterisks (***).
>>> 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.]
My replies have these >>> and I preserved your responses having three asterisks (***).
>>> 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 =-.
(***) – Vince
(>>>) – Mhac
***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 =-.
Let’s see if after watching this video from YouTube, you’ll still vote for Mr. Eddie Villanueva.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vSzcE_7vaw
Vince, it’s time to wake up to the sad reality that he is one of those who slept with the whore of Revelation 17:1.
Hello K.Michael,
Yes, I will still vote for him. I have watched the video. I was disappointed a little bit. But after thinking for a while I think we will still stand a better chance with him. As far as I remember, he already mentioned in one of the interviews being thrown to him that JIL is non-sectarian organization, and that he is just “a Bible believing” Christian.
May I ask you by the way, who do you think among the presidential candidates is not an idolater, corrupt, compromiser, or let say, the cleanest among them?
If you can actually can pinpoint to me someone who is better than brother eddie, perhaps I would change my mind. I already have made a careful evaluation of all the presidential candidates. But if Bro.Eddie is a whore of Revelation, kawawa naman ang Pilipinas, lahat ng kandidato masama sa harapan ng Diyos.
Ok, let us say Bro.Eddie is a compromiser, a “whore” of Revelation 17:1 (though, I would rather be more careful in using this lest I will fall in judging people) do we have a better candidate?
Kuya Michael, I am already awake… But as far as I see things and as far as I measure these things, I do not see a better candidate than Bro.Eddie who prefers to turn to God (though compromises in faith in some occassions just like millions of Christian compromisers). To give you an overview:
Bro.Eddie (my best choice ………………. Christian but a compromiser, have strong leadership, no record of corruption, have a strong platform.
Noynoy (my second best choice) ……… Idolater, Weak leadership, no record of corruption,
Villar (2nd in survey) ………………………. Most probably corrupt with the scandals of C5 extension and other properties, Idolater
Gibbo (Admin’s choice) ……………………. Probably be a good one, but surrounded with a great cloud of corrupt politicians especially by the administration. Furthermore, if he will be the president, 2 things that can happen to Gloria, to be the Prime Minister or to be the House Speaker, Idolater, enough with the Arroyo’s scandal… magsawa naman tayo sa corruption ng mga yan.
JC De Los Reyes …………………………….. Probably good, but no power to govern, Idolater, no record of corruption, weak platform, weak leader
Gordon (my 3rd best choice) ……………. Idolater, compromiser, and tolerant to corruption as he exemplified by bowing down to Gloria’s administration during the time of corruption. Pareho lang sila ni Bayani. But they are really good administrators.
Nicanor Perlas ……………………………….. Probably good, but no power to govern, idolater, and have a very weak platform, no record of corruption.
Erap …………………………………………….. Convicted of extreme and vulgar corruption, idolater, liar
Now tell, me whom do you think is better. I rather pray for Bro.Eddie to stop sinning in his compromising, and that he will repent. Unless other candidates of my choices becomes a Christian, I will still vote for brother Eddie.
I think it’s time to wake up K.Michael that we do not have a better choice with these candidates… All we can do is to choose the best or the least evil among them. 🙂
Blessings and thank you for the video… I desire to have this video, so that I can have an impartial judgment of who will be the best choice. 🙂
“But if Bro.Eddie is a whore of Revelation, kawawa naman ang Pilipinas, lahat ng kandidato masama sa harapan ng Diyos.”
I did not say he is the whore of Rev. 17. What I said is that he is one of those who ‘slept’ with the whore.
At least, with the other candidates they come out clean. What I mean is, they are not using blatantly using the ‘righteousness’ slogan like Bro. Eddie does.
Bro. Eddie is intentionally linking his candidacy with righteous governance in the name of God!
And what is righteous about what he is doing? If compromising and whoring is not a big deal for you then there’s a big problem.
Again, I’m not against his running for office. Just let him not pretend that his election to office would bring righteousness that would exalt the Philippines. Far from it!
I think that he should run like an ordinary politician. Take away the pretense that God is behind his candidacy (which really He’s not). Take away all the God-talk in his campaign speeches. Take away the ‘I’m the righteous leader’ claims.
Anyway, I know that you will still vote for him. And I’m happy for you.
“Unless other candidates of my choices becomes a Christian, I will still vote for brother Eddie.”
This is where I draw the line. I don’t vote someone just because he is a Christian.
.-= Michael Janapin´s last blog ..The Desktop Challenge =-.
Ok… fine, he slepts with a whore… But still the same, he is evil in the eyes of God (at least to how I understand these statements).
Well, k.Mac, I am happy for you as well. As for the rest of those whom I have heard reasoning out for not voting Bro.Eddie, only 2 of you have reasoned out well, which I believe is highly respectable. Yah… I would agree with, better not use God na lang or else he will be falling to sin of sleeping with a whore. I would disagree though that other candidates that they would “come out clean”… No matter how I see other candidates, they are still dirty… especially that most of them are full of lies and political and moral compromises.
I just want to make it clear though that compromising and whoring is a big deal for me…. so as IDOLATRY, LIES, CORRUPTION, MORAL DEGRADATION. Now, what should I do with that? As I said, there is no choice but to choose the lesser evil then.
I believe we just have a different political views… and I certainly understand your line. But my line is, “choosing the least evil”. I still believe that we have a better chance for moving towards political righteousness and revival with Bro.Eddie than the rest of them. Even if bro. Eddie did not run, I will still choose the least evil. So Noynoy will be my next candidate.
Simple lang, all of them were idolaters. But Noynoy would come up as the cleanest among them along with Perlas and De Los Reyes when it comes to corruption. But Noynoy has a stronger political governance among the three.
Well, I believe you also have understood my point. 🙂
I respect your views k.Mac… Thanks for such a wonderful feedback and reasoning.:) You are indeed worthy to be a doctor and a professor.:) hehehee… How I wish I can get back to seminary and have some subjects under you.:) Blessings!!!
Vince, your blog has stirred my thoughts very well. Keep up blogging about this.
I understand (correct me if I am wrong) that you want righteousness to reign all over the Philippines. And I also understand (again, correct me if I am wrong) that you strongly believe that with Mr. Villanueva, there is a chance to achieve that righteous governance which cannot be achieved by the other candidates.
These two views of yours I genuinely respect. You are not alone in having these views. In fact, there are millions of Christians out there that may hold these same views.
I agree wholeheartedly with your first view. I give a resounding AMEN to that. Who doesn’t want righteousness to reign? We want to see righteousness established here on earth, right?
However, I would like to invite you to reconsider your second view. Is electing a Christian leader to a political post the WAY to achieve the first goal?
Is that the way of making God’s Kingdom come on earth?
.-= Michael Janapin´s last blog ..The Desktop Challenge =-.
Thanks for commendation.:) At least we are helping each other here to think deeper, which I like the most. 🙂
Ok, yes, I want righteousness to reign all over the Philippines. And partially yes, (just take away “strongly”) I believe that with Mr.Villanueva, there is a “chance” to achieve that righteous governance. However, I also believe that “some” can also “probably” achieve that… but that chance is way lot farther with them. Hope you have seen my simple table from my yesterday’s comment.
Going to your first question, is that the WAY to achieve the first goal? First, to achieve moral political revival, you need to have someone who has a stand in moral standard against corruption. The one that already exemplified it in the passage of time, the one that we can trust. I only have 2 choices here, Noynoy and Bro.Eddie. Between them, who among them have exemplified all the more? Bro.Eddie (that if you have read their short profiles at least).
Secondly, for righteousness, between them who do you think who has a more credible stand, a compromising Christian, but still believes in God, and fear God just like King David who is a murderer and adulterer, yet was called “A Man After God’s Own Heart” or someone who doesn’t really know the real God, do not worship Him, and even calls the help of goddess? I believe the best answer would be Bro.Eddie.
Third, is there another WAY aside from Bro.Eddie? Most probably yes, there could be another way. That if, at least one of the candidates repented and becomes a follower of Jesus. Unless there will be someone who will have a deeper conviction than that of Bro.Eddie (who compromises) has, then if not I do not know the answer anymore. But as of now, since it is only Bro.Eddie has a deeper moral political convictions among them, then I think, we stand a better chance with him.
Your second question, making God’s Kingdom come on earth.
Well, I think this question is with the religious and spiritual matters na rather than political agenda, which I believe out of topic. What I see so far especially in discussing the candidacy of Bro.Eddie, many Christians are mixing up politics and religious matters which I believe gives birth to misconceptions and misunderstandings. Bro.Eddie is running for political arena, not to bring “God’s Kingdom” perse like evangelism and converting other people to JIL. He runs so that we can have a “political revival” and “moral recovery” for our nation. This is why I can see that he is more credible to say this because of his background concerning morality and politics.
This is the same to what we are doing in our Church. Currently we are engage in True Love Waits. We partnered to an NGO who gathers the youth from different baranggays. This allows us, to introduce righteousness, and morality, so as the fear of God. Did these youth became a Christian instantly? No, but at least they were reminded about morality and introduced to them the fear of God and God Himself. Is our NGO Partner a Christian? Some, but most of them were Catholics.
People needs moral education program, so as a sense of fearing God. Look at other candidates, there are only two who talks about these very important values, Bro.Eddie and JC Delos Reyes. But again, JC has not been tested by time yet and is idolater (as far as I know). Simple analogy, we cannot give what we do not have.
Bringing God’s Kingdom here on earth is a difficult task to which all of Christians are bound to this ministry. Politics can “help to pave the way” for that but is not the way itself.
Now, here is something that I would like to ask in return. Concerning my second view (which I already corrected), do you know among the candidates who can best introduce righteousness, political revival and moral recovery? If you believe in someone better than Bro.Eddie to bring this, please justify that point. 🙂 After all, all these things are just expectations granted that they will win. Nothing can be certain. Just like what happens for the past 9 years. We expected to have a better President, yet comes out to be second to Marcos when it comes to corruption. 🙂
“Now, here is something that I would like to ask in return. Concerning my second view (which I already corrected), do you know among the candidates who can best introduce righteousness, political revival and moral recovery?”
Before I answer this, I just want to let you know that I’m proud to have you in this dialogue. You are one of the thinking types. 🙂 Others will just blurt out ideas without support. Keep up the good work Vince.
Now on to my answer. Yes, the other candidates are capable (=can) of introducing righteousness, political revival, and moral recovery. Actually, any of them could. Just because Mr. Villanueva is a Christian doesn’t mean that he is the best one among the group. That doesn’t automatically give him an edge. Add to the fact that he is not even faithful to his profession as a Christian. A true Christian would never abandon his convictions in replacement of votes. A true Christian would never associate himself with the forces of darkness. Saying AMEN to Quiboloy makes him partner with him. “What does have Christ have to do with Belial?” So Mr. Villanueva is no better morally nor ethically among the candidates. So for me they all stand on equal grounds. But being a pastor myself, I’d like to relegate Mr. Villanueva lower than the other candidates. He should know better.
I have also discovered our main difference in assumptions. Your basic assumptions are:
1. righteous governance is possible
2. political revival is possible
3. moral recovery can be initiated and sponsored by the government
Mine on the other hand:
1. there can never be righteous governance on this side of the rapture
2. political revival is a shot at the moon
3. moral recovery is ground-up (people->government); not the other way around.
So, we may never really find a meeting point unless one of us changes our basic assumptions.
.-= Michael Janapin´s last blog ..The Desktop Challenge =-.
Thanks again, for such commendation.:)
Ok to your comment against Bro.Villanueva. Yes I do agree that it can be probable with other candidates. But I don’t agree with the following comments:
1. He doesn’t automatically give him an edge.
2. A true Christian would never abandon his convictions in replacement of votes.
3. A true Christian would never associate himself with the forces of darkness.
4. So far they all stand on equal grounds.
5. Mr. Villanueva is no better morally nor ethically among the candidates.
6. You like to relegate Mr.Villanueva lower than the other candidates. He should know better.
My answers:
1. In this part, I agree little bit that being a Christian doesn’t automatically give him an edge. But it’s not only Christianity has become my basis of saying his the best. Track record and profiles is a big plus which just proves that he can indeed run a country, in contrast to others’ opinion that he cannot run the country. It did not make him automatically the best, but added with experience a reliability on the things they say, I believe he is the best.
2 & 3. Hmmm… I think this comes with the icky-wicky part. “A Christian would ‘never’…” you mean “would never, ever…???” How’s Peter, who denied our very own Lord Jesus Christ, and has become hypocrite himself in dealing with the gentiles in front of other Jews. How’s David who murdered his own trusted soldier and take get the wife for himself???… How’s Jonah who even run away from God???…. How’s that one who deserted Paul???… etc…
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. But still they have found forgiveness in the eyes of God. The truth is, Christians commit mistakes sometimes, so are you and me who are pastors… so as Bro.Eddie. Living a righteous life doesn’t mean living a perfect life sir.:)
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?
4. I strongly disagree that they stand on equal grounds. Else, there could be no choice and preference nor there is hope for our country. 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. I would rather be more positive for hope rather than to be negative.
5. I would again disagree with this. A religious leader would always be one step ahead when it comes to morality (maybe not ethically). The same is true even to other religious leader. Unless he practice immorality himself, he is still above than those who are not. Ikaw na rin nagsabi, Bro.Eddie “should know better.”
6. I would rather live by: Gal. 6:10 “As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.” But of course, unless you would believe that Bro.Eddie still belongs to the household of faith, he is equal with those idolaters.
If we believe then that we have not committed compromise in anyway, nor committed sin like that, then we can indeed say that to him. else we are equally the same.
Concerning morality and ethics, k.Mac, I believe you have been a witness to immoralities that happened inside our seminary committed by our friends, are they lower then than the rest of the believers who also have committed the same mistakes? They should know better as well right? 😉 After all, many of them are pastors and still serving up to now.
In summary for this part. I believe in grace, and I believe in forgiveness. Nobody is perfect, though Christians are trying to be. Living a righteous life doesn’t mean living a perfect life.
Hi Vince,
Allow me to deconstruct your argument one by one. 🙂
“1. In this part, I agree little bit that being a Christian doesn’t automatically give him an edge. But it’s not only Christianity has become my basis of saying his the best.”
But you said this earlier:
“Unless other candidates of my choices becomes a Christian, I will still vote for brother Eddie.”
You have just contradicted yourself. In your second statement above, the addition of “Christian” to any of the candidates will make him rise from the rest. All things being equal, Mr. Villanueva (for you) became the best because he is Christian.
And also earlier you said:
“Even if bro. Eddie did not run, I will still choose the least evil. So Noynoy will be my next candidate.”
So let’s take this hypothetical scenario: Noynoy converts to Christianity. Who will you vote then? According to your criteria, it will be Noynoy.
Let’s get back to reality: Noynoy is a devout Catholic like his mother. Who will you vote then? You already said it’s Mr. Villanueva.
Again another hypothetical scenario: Mr. Villanueva recants his belief and says he is an atheist or universalist. Who will you vote then? According to your criteria, it will be Noynoy.
Let’s get back to reality: Mr. Villanueva remains a Christian. Who will you vote then? You already said it’s Mr. Villanueva.
Let’s analyze this short mental exercise we just did.
So what made you shift votes? Clearly, it’s because one is a Christian and the other is not.
So in essence, you cannot say that “But it’s not only Christianity has become my basis of saying his the best” because what makes you swing your vote is the factor that one is a Christian. Vince, there is nothing wrong with that. All you have to do is accept that you are voting for Mr. Villanueva because he is a Christian. And that factor alone weighs a lot in your decision making for the next head of our country. Again, there is nothing wrong with that.
What is wrong is for you to deny that that factor does not have a substantial influence in your choice.
.-= Michael Janapin´s last blog ..The Desktop Challenge =-.
Most of your assumptions were true… However, you have put some bars to the arguments and you made it absolute. I do admit that being a Christian bears lots of weight in my decision. If I cannot trust my own brother in Christ, then how can I even trust someone who is “NOT” related to me at all even in Spirit?
But then again, the absoluteness of your conclusion makes a difference. You concentrated on being a Christian and being not, without considering their backgrounds. What if both of them were Christians or what if both of them were Catholics? What then will be my criteria of choosing? I shifted votes according to your hypothetical scenarios on the grounds that each of them shifted in their beliefs. But what if both of them were long time Christians or both of them were long time Catholics? Clearly I cannot decide based on being a Christian or not right?
Being a Christian has a substantial influence in my decision, yes. But what if Bro.Eddie is a Christian yet he has a program just like what Nicanor Perlas and JC de los Reyes have. What if he doesn’t have that experience like JC de los Reyes? Do you really think I will vote for Bro.Eddie? Reality check, all presidential candidates except Perlas and de los Reyes, have the same experience and reliable backgrounds to govern a nation.:)
Well, I do hope you get my point.:)
Vince,
Thanks for exchanging thoughts with me. 🙂 I was about to go to #2 and #3, but hey, I think I have to settle #1 first. 😉
A. “Most of your assumptions were true… However, you have put some bars to the arguments and you made it absolute. I do admit that being a Christian bears lots of weight in my decision. If I cannot trust my own brother in Christ, then how can I even trust someone who is “NOT” related to me at all even in Spirit?”
There you go. 🙂 The bars are there so that we will not wander off and keep our discussion focused. And it just did make our discussion focused. It’s not absolute. It’s focused. The statement I’m waiting from you is that: “I do admit that being a Christian bears lots of weight in my decision.” BINGO. Again, I commend you for your honesty in saying this statement. That statement is the proverbial nail to the coffin. (Bad metaphor? Sorry can’t think of a better one right now). There is nothing wrong in trusting your brother, Mr. Villanueva. 🙂
B. “But then again, the absoluteness of your conclusion makes a difference. You concentrated on being a Christian and being not, without considering their backgrounds.”
I think you missed it when I said: ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL. This means, with equal backgrounds and accomplishments and credibility and performance, those candidates who are Christians will rise to the top. So, I did consider the backgrounds. I’m just pointing out that WITH ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL (their background), the Christian candidate gets your vote. And again, there is nothing wrong with that deciding factor (which you have just admitted above anyway).
You are right that I concentrated on “being a Christian” because that is the deciding factor, given ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL (in their background). What I just did is zero in on the thing that makes them unequal, that “being a Christian.”
C. “What if both of them were Christians or what if both of them were Catholics? What then will be my criteria of choosing?”
Vince, I think I have covered this in my earlier scenario which I quote in full below:
“So let’s take this hypothetical scenario: Noynoy converts to Christianity. Who will you vote then? According to your criteria, it will be Noynoy.”
So to answer your question: Your criteria of choosing will be based on backgrounds now, because they are both Christian.
D. “I shifted votes according to your hypothetical scenarios on the grounds that each of them shifted in their beliefs.”
Uhm, no. That is not exactly my point.
E. “But what if both of them were long time Christians or both of them were long time Catholics? Clearly I cannot decide based on being a Christian or not right?”
Again I think I have covered this in my earlier hypothetical scenarios. See section C above.
F. “Being a Christian has a substantial influence in my decision, yes.”
And to this I commend your honesty. (See section A above).
G. “But what if Bro.Eddie is a Christian yet he has a program just like what Nicanor Perlas and JC de los Reyes have. What if he doesn’t have that experience like JC de los Reyes? Do you really think I will vote for Bro.Eddie?”
Already covered. (See section C above).
H. “Reality check, all presidential candidates except Perlas and de los Reyes, have the same experience and reliable backgrounds to govern a nation.:)”
Makes your choice easier doesn’t it?
G. “Well, I do hope you get my point.:)”
I actually do. You are voting for Mr. Villanueva because ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL (their background), he is a Christian.
Now let me respond to #2 & #3 in your earlier comment.
.-= Michael Janapin´s last blog ..The Desktop Challenge =-.
Heheheheh… Yes, I probably missed “All things being equal.” That would probably the case. The deciding factor will be “Christianity”. But then again, granted that we will base everything in the current reality, obviously, there is no equality among them for there is best and there is least.
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:)
(***) Vince
(>>>) Mhac
***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 =-.
Concerning our views…
Yah, I believe you have made a fair evaluation. Hehehe…
For me, I would rather be more optimistic of hope for our country than being pessimistic. It’s very hard that it’s almost impossible for political revival, yet there is hope. And it doesn’t mean that I would quit doing what I believe is right because it’s almost impossible to change.
About #3, moral recovery is ground-up people->government. I think this already have happened. That is why ordinary people who have less experience in politics run for government office because they already have come into their senses that our nation needs a moral change.
Just a question, would this be also true for churches? good moral standing should happen first among the people going up to the leadership??? Just asking.:)
Bilang isang Kristiyano (Filipinong Kristiyano) ay isa ako sa nananalangin at nag-aayuno para sa isang makatwiran at maunlad na bansa. Bagamat nanalangin, parang kay hirap isipin na uunlad pa ang ating bansa. Pero ako ay napahiya dahil kung tayo ay nanalangin dapat ay nananampalataya tayo na gagawin ng Diyos ang ating pinapanalangin at ang ating pananampalataya ay dapat ring may gawa. Kaya iboboto ko ang taong may pananampalataya at nagsuko ng buhay niya sa Panginoong Hesus. I am for righteous government, I am for Bro. Eddie!
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Church_of_God
Death of Armstrong and doctrinal reform
On January 16, 1986, Herbert Armstrong died in Pasadena, California. Shortly before his death, Armstrong named Joseph W. Tkach Sr. to succeed him as leader of the church.
As early as 1988, Joseph W. Tkach Sr. began to make doctrinal changes. Doctrinal revisions were made quietly and slowly at first, but then openly and radically in January 1995. They were presented as “new understandings” of Christmas and Easter,[12] Babylon and the harlot,[13] Anglo-Israelism,[14] Saturday Sabbath,[15] and other doctrines.
In general, Tkach Sr. directed the church theology towards mainstream evangelical Christian belief. It was extremely difficult for many members of the church to understand and accept the doctrinal changes.[citation needed] This caused much disillusionment among the membership and another rise of splinter groups. During the tenure of the Joseph Tkach Sr., the church dropped in membership by about 50 percent. His son, Joseph Tkach Jr., succeeded him after his death in 1995. Under Tkach Jr.’s administration, the church issued an apology for past errors in doctrine.[citation needed]
Eventually all of Herbert Armstrong’s writings were withdrawn from print by the Worldwide Church of God. In the 2004 video production Called To Be Free, Greg Albrecht, former dean of WCG’s Ambassador College, declared Herbert Armstrong to be both a false prophet and a heretic.[16] While the WCG leadership has apologized over false teachings, no overt move has been made towards publicly admitting the past doctrines of the church were in accord with the beliefs of the brethren.[clarification needed]
Name change of 2009
On April 16, 2009, the Worldwide Church of God announced the official change of name to Grace Communion International. [17]
A Seventh Day Adventist friend of mine related to me the story about Felix Manalo, founder of the Arian cult, Iglesia ni Cristo in the Philippines:
He was actually converted to Adventism, among its very charismatic founders of the Sabbatarian denomination in the Philippines, in their first church. He was so charismatic so that women fell in love with him. Then, after many disagreements with their church regarding doctrines, he came out and later started his cult.
However, after all their “successes” in propagating his erroneous cult, when he was lying on his deathbed, admitted in an Adventist hospital, he repented of his sins against the SDA, but said, he could never undo his errors, since they were irreversible, and that his new cult may not easily recant and repent of their errors (in relation to Adventism). More details of his story can be read at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Manalo
The point of this story is that people, persons, pope, prophets, priests, preachers, pastors, politicians, who may have some hidden agenda of prostituting prime principles for their personal and political profits, really give such irreversible influences and impacts on their fanatical followers, such that the blind can lead the fellow blind to perdition, just like what happened to Satan and his minions.
On the other hand, this denomination
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Church_of_God
is an example of a formerly heretical cult so impacted by their heretical leader, but later with the change of leadership, repented and became orthodox Christian denomination.
Popes, priests, prophets, preachers, pastors, politicians, and other whoevers are basically the same in the sense that they preach their ideological promises of utopian peace and prosperity. The question which would make distinctive differences among them is: What kind of “utopia”?
This is related and relevant to the cult of promising peace and prosperity by people, persons, pope, prophets, priests, preachers, pastors, politicians, who may have some hidden agenda of prostituting prime principles for their personal and political profits:
from: http://against-heresies.blogspot.com/2009_10_01_archive.html
The day I deliberately taught heresy
Back in the summer term of 2001 I was working with University and College Christian Unions across Wales. At that time we lived in Swansea, and as well as leading the team of workers in Wales, I got to spend some time with the Christian Union at Swansea University. I have very fond memories of that time, and some of the students from those years are among the finest young Christians that I know. I can’t think of them without giving thanks for them.
One of my weekly privileges was to lead the Bible study for the hall/small group leaders (who in turn would teach others also). We had spent some time studying Amos and decided to study 1 John for the summer term.
It was either during the first or second session of the new term that I decided, in the car on the way down to the beach, to teach them some heresy. Not to teach them about heresy, but to deliberately teach them serious error as if it were solid truth. I thought it best to do it with subtlety. I didn’t want to be too obvious about it. I also decided that the best point of entry would be to probe some areas of Christian experience where my dodgy ideas would get a sympathetic hearing. I decided to play on the sense of being defeated by sin and temptation and began to explain how John taught a higher spiritual dimension of Christian experience.
I talked. Pens were poised. Notes were taken. Some eager faces looked back at me. But, not actually being a heretic, I decided that I needed to thin out the plausibility of my teaching and to ham up the whole thing. In the end a discerning voice began to ask questions about my doctrinal lies and I confessed to being a deceiver. Trouble was, until I got to that point, at least one student suspended his questions about what I was saying because, well, I was saying it. And if I was saying it he didn’t think it could be wrong, even though it didn’t sound quite right.
I have thought over that incident several times.
1. Error often comes from a place where you least expect it to
It catches us unawares. It comes from people that we have grown to trust and in whose judgement we acquiesce. Our guard is down because we don’t think we will need to discern what they are saying. Now, I am certainly not advocating an overly scrupulous, suspicious, cynical approach to listening to preachers. But nothing seems more obvious than the entry of intruders where no guard has been posted. And of course we rationalise it based not on what they say (where discernment should focus) but on who they are, and how we feel about them.
2. Error often comes in small percentages
That is what makes it so subtle. Not only may it come from an otherwise faithful source, but it may make up, at first, but a small part of an otherwise orthodox whole.
This is a further reason why it seems so plausible to us. But a few tiny drops of arsenic should not be swallowed even if found in a large, tasty looking cake. This too is a test of our discernment. What ought to concern us is not the perfectly acceptable ingredients that make up the rest of the food on offer, but the precise nature of the unwelcome additives. It is not their size that matters but their nature. I’ve eaten a cake with some added garlic and chilli seeds, but I would hardly have eaten one with pieces of broken glass of the same size in it.
Labels: Pastoralia, The Defense Against the Dark Arts
posted by Martin Downes at 8:51 PM 5 comments
A relevant and related reflection on human leaders, particularly, on celebrity preachers:
From: http://against-heresies.blogspot.com/2009_10_01_archive.html
A Few Good Men?
Reforming the cult of the celebrity preacher (1)
If ever there was an area where individually and collectively evangelicalism stands in need of reforming it is in the area of the cult of the celebrity preacher.
Some years ago I had to write an essay comparing the ministries of Martyn Lloyd-Jones and John Stott. The answer required an evaluation of which one ought to have the most lasting legacy.
That is as provocative a question as one could wish for. How do you answer it without transgressing the apostolic warning in 1 Corinthians 4:5?
Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.
If there is one thing that has been a constant refrain in my experience of evangelicalism, even in its more Calvinistic expressions, it is the inappropriate assessment of leaders.
On the one hand this shows itself in a misplaced adulation of successful, gifted, prominent preachers.
It also manifests itself in a disdain, or suspicion, toward leaders outside of a particular circle.
The ones we love are shielded from criticism and treated with great favour.
The ones we are less well disposed toward are subject to the kind of criticism that makes you wonder whether the final judgement has already been ushered in.
At times there is very little to distinguish evangelical thinking and behaviour toward famous preachers from the kind of hero worship found in sports fans or in political parties. And with an Isaianic admission, in this regard, I am a man of unclean lips.
Whether it is by an excess of praise, or a spirit of judgement unbecoming to mere mortals lacking in omniscience, both approaches reveal a fundamental fault in our spiritual perception of leaders.
They are, after all, opposing responses really being played out from the same vantage point. Both assume that from where we are standing, from what we already know, we may act as arbiters attributing praise or blame. We find it so easy to stray beyond our creaturely capacities.
All of which shows that there are three great doctrines that we have failed to come to terms with rigorously enough.
The evidence for that will not necessarily show up in our beliefs, for there they remain firm and intact, but in bending our thoughts under their sway in the life of the church.
The doctrines in question concern the ascription of all glory to God, of all saving power to God, and of the final judgement of sinners and saints being exclusively in the hands of God.
Ask yourself if you are really willing to exercise godliness in this area.
A Few Good Men?
Reforming the cult of the celebrity preacher (2)
In the previous post we took up the issue of appropriate and inappropriate assessments of leaders, and asked if are really willing to exercise godliness in this area. This involves confessing and practicing three important doctrines.
The doctrines in question concern the ascription of all glory to God, of all saving power to God, and of the final judgement of sinners and saints being exclusively in the hands of God.
The great irony of course is that these truths have been believed in, preserved, and defended by evangelicals. In their most theological forms it is Calvinistic evangelicals who have led the way in these matters.
But we sometimes speak better than we know, and at times what we perceive to be our strengths, upon closer examination, turn out to be areas where we are surprisingly weak. We are simply not as God-centred as we think we are.
By way of excessive adulation toward our favourite preachers, we may fix our attention upon the instrument in the hand of God and not upon the Lord himself. In the process of doing this we stress the most peripheral, inconsequential matters, about them.
Even our misdirected praise can be misdirected. We treat them no differently than we do pop stars, and fawn over their mannerisms and other minor details.
In order to recover ourselves from this we need to listen to Paul’s session from his “Church leadership 101” course at Corinth entitled “Only God makes things grow” (1 Corinthians 3:4-9):
For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human? What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. He who plants and he who waters are one, and each will receive his wages according to his labor. For we are God’s fellow workers.
The Puritan Richard Baxter, responding to the praise given to him for his voluminous writings, said that he was only a pen in the hand of God, and asked “what praise is due to a pen?”
Thanking God for his servants who have been the means in his hand of our conversion or growth in grace is not inappropriate. What is inappropriate is to confuse what the servant can do and what God alone can do.
When we confuse these matters and treat preachers as celebrities we are showing that we are not as God-centred in our hearts as we are in our words. Ask yourself about your expectations at a conference when an unknown “name” comes up to speak at one of the sessions and see if you are not already guilty of confusing the powers possessed by a servant with those reserved for his Master.
I really don’t buy too much concerning criticism about famous preachers. And I really don’t have any problem in them running for public office. There maybe some dull areas where others criticize too much. But there are also some preachers who were proven false and proven to be hoax like Jimmy Swaggart with all the extra marital affairs that he has and Benny Hinn with all the hoaxes of healings he did.
But there are however preachers who where unjustly criticized because of jealousy in the ministry. Well, I would be rather be careful in criticizing those who are being used by God.
Concerning Bro.Eddie, again, the only thing that I hate about his candidacy is all about the prophecy. I believe he should be more careful in declaring prophecies for it is the name of our Lord that is at stake.
However, concerning his political desires, I would not rather judge him for I see a more dignified man than the rest of the candidates. Besides, he’s still my brother in the Lord.
.-= vince ´s last blog ..The Plan For The Great Flood =-.
Politicians like Constantine, Herod, and other historical figures (e.g., the popes)can always use God and religion for their pragmatic purposes.
Constantine only used Christianity to unite his crumbling empire, also threatened by the endless fightings between the orthodox versus heretical Christians. His conversion to Christianity was even doubtful, since some historians said he was a closet pagan who worshipped the sun. As a kind of showbiz ritual, he was said to be baptized only at his deathbed. Was his baptism really motivated by true conversion, or just to keep the facade so that Christianity would not crumble after his death? It was after he united the church by supporting the declarations of the Nicene Creed that the other heresies also infiltrated Christianity to devolve and morph into the heresies of Catholicism!
Comment for:
Michael Janapin says:
December 1, 2009 at 7:13 am
Where does power flow from? Divine right or skill?
Response:
Satan has power — is it by divine right or skill or both?
Actually, Bro. Villanueva is not the messiah of the Philippines, as can be read in this very related reflection below:
Pilgrim Reflections” (For the Week of December 9, 2009)
By Tom Smith
“America’s Only Hope”
It’s a very simple procedure.
The question is “Will we follow it?”
No one needs to tell us our beloved nation is critically ill. Her vital signs are weak. Her strength is diminishing with each passing day. Repeated “booster shots” (bailouts, stimulus packages, etc.) have done little to halt her downward spiral. And, the prognosis is pretty bleak—unless something happens for this once-great Lady who’s now gasping for breath on life support.
Thus, the question everyone’s asking is “Is there any hope?”
Doomsday prophets cry “No, she’s doomed. Stick a fork in her. She’s done.”
Wide-eyed, Pollyanna-faith, positive thinkers say, “Oh, don’t worry. We’re just in a bit of a downward cycle right now. We’ve pulled out of bad situations before and we’ll do it again. Let’s just keep giving it the good, ‘ole college try and we’ll be fine.”
Hmm. . .methinks the Bible had something to say about false prophets that said “Peace, peace, when there is no peace” (Jeremiah 6:14; 8:11).
So, again, the question is “Is there any hope?”
Believe it or not, I still believe the answer is “Yes”—IF we follow the Doctor’s Prescription.
“Which is?” someone asks with a note of sarcasm and skepticism in his voice.
“Which is II Chronicles 7:14: ‘If My People, Who are called by My Name, shall humble themselves and pray and seek My Face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from Heaven, forgive their sin and heal their land’.”
The One speaking there is the God of Abraham. Although His words at that time were given to King Solomon for the nation Israel after the completion of the first Temple, in reality that promise is given to anyone claims to be one of “His People and is called by His Name.”
And, since we know this same God is a Covenant-keeping God, cannot lie and will not change His mind (Hebrews 6:17-18; 13:5b; James 1:17), the key to our recovery—yea, our only hope—is following His Prescription.
Otherwise, we’re a goner.
So look at His words one more time:
“If My People, Who are called by My Name”—anyone who professes to know Him and is seeking to follow His Word and will. . . “shall humble themselves”—admit the problem’s within us and we’re “reaping what we’ve sown” through our rebellious pride and disobedience . . . “and pray”—praying like we’ve never prayed before, crying out to God for mercy like a woman in childbirth pains. . . “and seek My Face”—have a hungering-and-thirsting for Him and Him alone, realizing He’s our only Hope. . . “and turn from their wicked ways”—turn back to God by turning away from our idolatrous and immoral ways. . . “THEN will I hear from Heaven”—we’ll know God hears us. . . “forgive their sins”—we’ll experience inward cleansing because of His Mercy and Grace (Lamentations 3:21-23; Heb. 4:14-16). . . “and heal their land”—He’ll stop our downward plunge toward self-destruction.
Throughout the centuries there have always been those whose heeding these words helped avert destruction: Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Asa, the prophets, etc. In 1857 in New York it was a layman by the name of Jeremiah Lanphier, who was burdened over the city’s depraved condition. Through his efforts the Fulton Street Revival occurred and over one million persons (out of a national population of 30 million) came to Christ in one year.
In 1949 in the Hebrides Islands off the coast of Scotland the Lord led two sisters—each over 80-years-old and one of them stone blind and the other bent over with crippling arthritis—to pray unceasingly. And, later the convicting power of God fell across their land, bringing revival.
God wants us to experience another Great Awakening-type revival (Ezekiel 37:1-14; Joel 2:28-32). The question is “Do we? How desperate are we for revival? How desperate are we to obey God and delay His Hand of Judgment? And, are we willing to ‘pay the price’ necessary to do so?” I pray we are. And, may He have mercy on us if we’re not.
NOTE: If you’d like to contact Bro. Tom or receive his daily e-mail devotional, “Morning Manna,” you can write him at P.O. Box 582, Coushatta, LA 71019 or e-mail him at pressingon@hotmail.com).
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance and hawk-eyed discernment.
False prophets will lead us to false profits!!!
We should be very careful and discerning regarding people, persons, popes, prophets, pastors, politicians, and other whoevers who promise peace and prosperity when their underlying motive is to prostitute prime principles for their personal and political profits!!!
Indeed, indeed, indeed …
We must be very careful and discerning not only in listening and believing any person, be he/she a prophet, a politician, or whoever intends to lead but actually deceive as what we can learn from the Obamanation Deception as expounded in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw&feature=fvw
The New Testament clearly warns against them, as given in:
Matthew 7:15
Beware of FALSE PROPHETS, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Matthew 24:11
And many FALSE PROPHETS shall rise, and shall deceive many.
Matthew 24:24
For there shall arise false Christs, and FALSE PROPHETS, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Mark 13:22
For false Christs and FALSE PROPHETS shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if [it were] possible, even the elect.
Luke 6:26
Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the FALSE PROPHETS.
2 Peter 2:1
But there were FALSE PROPHETS also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
1 John 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many FALSE PROPHETS are gone out into the world.
Regarding prophecy in the OT here’s an example passage from
Deut. 18:18
I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet, who shall speak to them everything that I command. 19 Anyone who does not heed the words that the prophet shall speak in my name, I myself will hold accountable. 20 But any prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, or who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speak—that prophet shall die.” 21 You may say to yourself, “How can we recognize a word that the LORD has not spoken?” 22 If a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it.
This is from the TORAH. In the NEVIIM, it is expounded by the various prophets.
Very nice insight… I missed this verse and I believe this is a very good passage. That is why I believe that we need to be more careful all the more on prophecies. Hehehehe…
.-= Ptr. Vince´s last blog ..On Walking Worthy of the Lord =-.
Sometimes,we’re only left with only one choice:
voting for the least evil among many other evils!!!
This has been the kind of dilemma of choosing some good over many evils!!!
This quote below about Tim Keller is related to the problem of idolizing anything or anyone (not just messianic political leaders) more than God:
“Keller is on a promotional tour for Counterfeit Gods. Over the phone, in a car on the way to the St. Louis airport, he’s unpacking the Redeemer theology for me. His belief system is not the fundamentalist strain running through many of the Bible Belt megachurches—the “saved” us versus the “heathen” them. Nor is it the new-school “be a winner, praise the Lord,” Christian self-esteem-building ideology of Joel Osteen. Keller advocates something of a third option. He wants to call people’s attention to the emptiness of a way of living that overvalues worldly achievement and to help them see the spiritual benefits of accepting Jesus Christ, and all he stands for, as their savior. But Keller wants to do that in a way that’s not intellectually insulting or morally hectoring. What he refers to as “idols,” he says, are the things we’re so wrapped up in, it’s as if we worship them as gods, in place of the one true God. Traditional vices like sex and drink can be idols, he says, but more insidious can be traditional virtues like hard work and family—“good” things that we can mistake for “ultimate” ones. “The way you can tell your love for something has turned idolatrous is that you basically destroy the thing you love,” he says. “Overwork often leads to destruction—people who overreach and cheat or have health breakdowns. If you put too much on your children, your kids can be crushed by your expectations for their happiness and success.”
The idea of leaders, especially Christian leaders, can bring significant change, has some influences from these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumphalism
which put more faith and confidence on human leaders than on God’s escathological hope that only the Desire of the Ages can bring in the true utopia mankind has been desiring, as described by:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZKXUBomnAg
It’s dangerous to put too much reliance on present day prophets, who say prophesied like GMA or Bro. Eddie to win the elections. How do we really know which one is a true prophet? Or, both can be false prophets, only aiming for profits???
The test of a true prophet is when his words come to pass. Otherwise, he is just a prophet for profit. 🙂
Hehehe… I agree with the first statement. Pero hindi naman siguro lahat ng hindi nagkatotoo ay prophet for profit na. 🙂 heheheh
Okay, let me rephrase: Otherwise, he is a false prophet.
Now, both choices are bad if Bro. Eddie’s prophecy fails. 🙁
In the 2004 elections, he was already proven false. I don’t think he can afford to be proven false twice.
May I ask you a question, this is a real inquiry. In the Bible, do we have a subjective and conditional prophecy? Or all prophecy should come to pass where there is no “if’s” and no “conditions”.
If ever, Bro.Eddie can’t really save our country from God’s judgments — only God can save our country, as given in:
2 Chronicles 7:14
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
Actually, we should be very careful as to not put any leader on a pedestal as our kind of messiah who would bring in the peace and prosperity we have been desiring. The bible is so clear the even men of God who were leaders were so imperfect, but God still used them to bring out His glory. The human leaders and their followers should not be involved in some kind of idolatry, where the leaders would steal the glory from God. We are even warned in the bible by this:
Jeremiah 17:5
Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
We are to put our faith and confidence only on God, not on human leaders who are like the idol with feet of clay in Daniel’s vision, and would crumble when the flood of complex realities would hit the system being led.
Much clearer admonition in:
Psalm 118:8,9
8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
9 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in princes.
In some churches, GMA was also prophesied to win the election. She won. But does it really mean that she is God’s will to rule (or overlord) our country?? Does winning mean that God is always on your side?? Even when one would be so involved in grave graft and corruptions???
This is exactly what we wanted to avoid. If Bro. Eddie declares that God will make him win, then there is much at stake if he loses. Implications that are too costly for us.
This is the only thing that I hate with his candidacy. Yung prophetic side. Kasi yan din sinabi nya dati pero nag fail. Pero all other things, I admire Bro.Eddie’s boldness and guts. hehehe….
.-= Vince´s last blog ..Sermon Illustrations About Repentance =-.
Proverbs 14:34
Righteousness EXALTETH A NATION:
but sin [is] a reproach to any people.
There were many men of God who were also in politics, e.g. Joseph, David, Solomon, Daniel, etc… David and Solomon were not that perfect, since they were only sinners who received grace from God to lead their people!!!
Those are excellent examples from the Old Testament.
Would you care to give some examples from the New Testament?
Thanks.
I’m not quite sure if I can cite political leaders the same as religious leaders in the NT, since the focus of NT is more on the Church that Christ built and the love of God.
However, historically speaking, we can still see stability of nations that adheres to God’s word just like when Constantine rise to power.
Even Herod, when he rebuilt the temple (though we all know he did it for a wrong reason) experienced relative peace over Israel (which of course under the Roman empire).
What I am just saying is that, I strongly believe that if our government adheres to God’s word and follow his ways, the nation becomes stronger and more stable. The Bible especially the OT gave us examples.
.-= Ptr. Vince´s last blog ..Knowing His Will =-.
I’m glad that you hit exactly my point when you said, “the focus of NT is more on the Church that Christ built and the love of God.” 🙂
I don’t share the same optimism with you Vince. And I will stay away from Constantine as far as possible, if I were you.
Herod?! Come on, who said that the Temple needed rebuilding? That peace is brought about by the heavy iron hand of Rome!
Who said that a government CAN adhere to God’s Word? The pages of the Old Testament is filled with examples of what happens when power is given to mere mortals.
History? When power was given over to the (Catholic) Church, didn’t we call it “Dark Ages”? And that was the time when anybody who claims the world is round is declared a heretic. 😛
Anyway, If I were brother Eddie, I would stay away from religious motives to support his running as president. He’d be better off if he follows your advice: “Obviously, person like him (who is also formerly activists) got tired of this corrupt government and wants to make a change.” Change is a good term.
I am not saying Constantine is the reason of peace, but non-the-less, you have to admit that he has more inclination to godly matters than that of the previous emperors, come on church history 101.
Concerning the dark period of Israel, you also have to admit that it is a part of God’s plan from the OT. My only point is that, when there is a godly leader of a certain nation, the nation experience relative peace, and prosperity.
I always quote the time that I have lived. I started with Marcos, then Cory, then Ramos, then Estrada, and now, this government. May I ask you which time have you experienced relative prosperity of our nation with those presidents?
In my own personal view, it was during the time of Ramos. Who was the most godly among them? It was Ramos. I still remember that the Philippines was called, the “Tiger Cub of Asia”. I don’t say he is really godly and religious, but I believe he fear God the more than the rest. Just a personal observation based on experience. And compare it to other ruling parties that you have lived with.
Hehehe… yes, I am just more optimistic now. And I believe it does help a lot. It leads us in counting our blessings everyday. 🙂 I was formerly pessimistic, but I haven’t found it helpful in the ministry. It will only frustrates me.
Thanks for your deeper insight concerning this matter. I also believe in what you say. Bro.Eddie should avoid religious matters especially on the prophetic side. Nakasangkalan kasi ang name ni Lord e. Non-the-less, I admire Bro.Eddie and his desire for a change. And I “might” still support him. After all, Paul encourages Christians to help one another. And I strongly believe that this is a part of it. 🙂 More Blessings!!!
.-= Vince´s last blog ..Sermon Illustrations About Repentance =-.
Purity and righteousness are never popular!!!
Where does power flow from? Divine right or skill?
I believe that Bro. Eddie has all the right to run. I also don’t believe to what other pastors says that he was called to be a pastor and not to be a national leader.
Using the Scriptures to justify that Bro. Eddie is scripturally unqualified is just an assumption, but not theologically correct. Furthermore, Bro. Eddie DID NOT violate any provision from our constitution in contrast to what other Christians says about the separation of the STATE and Church.
What I just don’t like with his candidacy is the “prophecy side”, and the untimeliness. I believe this is not the right time for him to run for president.
The ultimate question is why run at all?
I’d like to hear his side on this one.
Obviously, person like him (who is also formerly activists) got tired of this corrupt government and wants to make a change. I think he already answered that. That is to make a change. All of us wants a change right? And what matters is what do we do to make it happen. I think Bro. Eddie is just putting into action what he believes is right to happen.
Sometimes, we are only good at complaining, but not in working to make it better. And I think Bro.Eddie just want to make it happen.
A better question is, why would he not run? If it is legal, if he believes he capable, if it is possible to run, why not run?
Just placing myself at his feet. 🙂
I suggest that you also try to watch his interviews so that you can see why would he run.:)
.-= Ptr. Vince´s last blog ..Alas Bro. Eddie Villanueva Filed His COC for 2010 Elections =-.
Obama also promised change, but look at how he caused bad changes in the US, contrary to what he promised!!!
Can a politician who promises change really implement them?
Didn’t Bro. Eddie declare prophetically in the 2004 elections that God will allow him to win?
Hahahaha… that’s one of the questions that he has to answer. And I think we also have to be very careful in declaring something claiming that it is a prophecy that will happen.
We have to be reminded also that there is a thin line between stupidity and faith. Ang nakasangkalan pa ay ang name ni Lord.
Michael there was no prophetic declaration that Bro. Eddie will win the 2004 Presidential Elections.