XPost: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.religion.christian   
   roman-catholic, england.religion.christian   
   XPost: free.christians, hk.soc.religion.christianity   
   From: hayesstw@telkomsa.net   
      
   On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 08:31:12 -0000, "1st Century Apostolic   
   Traditionalist"  wrote:   
      
   >"Steve Hayes"  wrote in message news:   
   >"1st Century Apostolic   
   >>"Steve Hayes"  wrote in message   
   >"1st Century Apostolic   
   >>Traditionalist"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>"Steve Hayes"  wrote in message news:   
   >>>"1st Century Apostolic   
   >>>Traditionalist"  wrote:   
   >>>>"Steve Hayes"  wrote in message news:   
   >>>>"1st Century Apostolic   
   >>>>Traditionalist"  wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>"4 No man that warreth *entangleth* himself with the affairs  of this   
   >>>>>>>>life*   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>>>Which must include  'affairs of state'.....{;o;}   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>>So is THAT the "false doctrine" you mention?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>That's what I first stated:   
   >>>>>"A false doctrine is one that allows God's Elect to  participate  in the   
   >>>>>political Affairs of this life".   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>>>The 'one that allows   
   >>>>>>>God's Elect to  participate  in the political >"Affairs of this   
   >>>>>>>life"."'?   
   >>>   
   >>>>>And when I asked you for an example of such a "false doctrine"   
   >>>   
   >>>>I gave it to you, but you haven't seemed to have  'cottoned on'.   
   >>>   
   >>>>"A false doctrine is one that allows God's Elect to  participate  in the   
   >>>>political Affairs of this life".   
   >>>   
   >>>>A doctrine  is a 'teaching' which the overwhelming majority of   
   >>>>Christendom   
   >>>>allows  or persuades   professing Christians to partake  in  "Affairs of   
   >>>>this life"  such as affairs of the state.   
   >>>>Thus a false teaching or a "Doctrine of men".   
   >>   
   >>>>And I asked you for an example of such a false doctrine, and the only   
   >>>>excample you gave is this:   
   >>   
   >>>I just did.   
   >>   
   >>>"A false doctrine is one that allows God's Elect to  participate  in the   
   >>>political Affairs of this life".   
   >   
   >>Well, since no such doctrine exists, there's no point in discussing it   
   >>further.   
   >   
   >Such a doctrine/teaching does exist, just ask your own fellow Christians if   
   >they would agree with St. Paul in not taking part in the  "Affairs of this   
   >life" including the  secular affairs of politics and listen to their   
   >doctrine/teaching on the subject.   
      
   Since you have failerd, after repeated requests, to provide a single   
   example of such a doctrine, I conclude that it does not exist.   
      
   You say "A false doctrine is...."   
      
   I can say "A pushmi-pullyu is an animal with two heads, one at each   
   end of its body", but though the definition exists, the animal does   
   not, unless you can priovide an example, such as "There is one in the   
   London zoo, described in an article in 'Scientific American'", it does   
   not exist.   
      
   I think your definitiobn is wrong too, but I'm not arguing about that   
   for now. All I'm asking is that you provide an example of a doctrine   
   that fits your definition.   
      
   --   
   Steve Hayes   
   http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm   
   http://khanya.wordpress.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)