@faboIus @danitreweek @CBMWorg It came across to me as a subset of single men: those specific caricatures.
I would agree alongside OP, my reasoning would be the fixation upon poor examples often because of a lack in ability to establish proper examples even though the article tries to get around to it.
@faboIus @danitreweek @CBMWorg The introduction rather establishes the target audience, probably none of the people in the comments, a conversation between two persons of name about means and influence.
It doesn't address my household at all, but it might address quite a few.
@faboIus @danitreweek @CBMWorg We are raising our children in the direction of celibacy, with the option for marriage and the necessary instruction on relationship regardless.
This, as *family transcends the nuclear family in the flesh and ultimately depicts the kingdom of heaven.
@faboIus @danitreweek @CBMWorg None of them should enter Covenant with a spouse if they are ignorant of God's Covenant with man as one is a passion play depicting the other.
If they remain celibate, they should be equally edified of both God's Covenant with man and husband's Covenant with wife.
@faboIus @danitreweek @CBMWorg One does not need to be a parent, a husband, or a wife in order to serve the assembly of God, not only can these lessons be learned in an indirect manner, but God teaches and edifies His family both experientially and anecdotally.
My family's sanctification has been dynamic and high tempo over the last 5 years, our former selves being unable to recognize our current selves and surely vice versa.
When it began, we only had one word of testimony and that was knowing what we had done was called repentance.
Previously we were taught a false definition of this.
The first 6 months there was sort of a calm, we were completely alone and didn't know where to go apart from waiting for our next instruction; we did wait dependently, expectantly, and faithfully.
Then He started speaking.
At this point I look back and consider that enough of our own commotion had subsided to where we were first able to begin hearing what He consistently speaks from outside of time.
He has gestured lots towards scripture, but the edification is greater than the words on the page.
@faboIus @JayTibbs23 He wrote some youth oriented books that helped bridge biblical perspective with modernity
He created the "Christian thriller" genre
"This present darkness" & "Piercing the darkness" are sequential & realize the obvious workings of evil forces/agents most would prefer to dismiss
@faboIus @JayTibbs23 "Prophet" is not sequential or part of the same literary universe, but carries a lot of the same mechanisms and conveys the 'shock and awe' of being immediately connected with spiritual stimuli those who have actually been born again will immediately recognize.
@faboIus @JayTibbs23 "The Oath."
This was the first of his I came across.
If it were a movie, you could cover your eyes, plug your ears, dive under a blanket; this one, sometimes it would take days for me to come back & read the next page.
Not dripping with terror, but surely eerie for an adult.
"What shall be done unto the man whom the King delighteth to honour?"
Because of his pride, Haman thought it was himself to be honored; this, notwithstanding the curse of his ancestry
He was also cursing/despising the hidden/true identity of the Bride in whom the King delights.
If you are *guessing* it is you whom the King intends to honor, you are not the bride.
Esther received her favor directly from the King, by virtue of her purity and humility in complete submission to Him.
Haman guessed at his own preeminence, in his own council.
Oops.
With all the radiant beauty of a pig having a gold ring in its snout, nearly 1/3 of the world claims/brandishes the obvious/vain Identity/Name of the Bride for themselves without hearing a word from their self-intended Husband.
I've been resisting a lengthy thread on the mal-intention of language & manipulative/opportunistic usage of terms within the institutions, namely: brother.
I've been resisting, because there is a small percentage of people out there who genuinely use the term affectionately.
Sometimes they use it instinctively while they are being sanctified from the old ways and it doesn't come with baggage.
What started off on the playground as an innocent:
I like you, do you like me back, can we be friends?"
is often in adulthood communicated by brotherhood.
It is the affirmation of one man to another of their approval, amicability, observation of sameness or compatibility.
It is the affirmation of the flesh.
It mimics a much more natural and robust institution(formerly anyways): the family.
Do you remember when your pastor gave you the gospel about the New Covenant mentioned in Jeremiah 31, where no longer does God use intermediaries but He teaches you Himself, you received it with gladness and became a disciple of Jesus?
This, absent the need for a giant extension of the pagan roman empire manifested as the institutional Church Protestant/Catholic nondescript?
And people knew of your shared paternity by way of doing the will of God, also themselves having the unction?
And your unity was not through forced catechesis, domineering and the forbidding of others to speak, but the unity was æthereal and coordinated by spiritual witness and the follow-through in the flesh, abiding here by things and Authority unseen by human eyes?
It is easy to create anecdotes from our own rationalizations & expect God to *ascend to them, it is the only thing those-without are capable of
You can't fear what you don't know, fear is the introduction, you can't be a servant if you don't fear & Sons are promoted from within.
The old 'if I had a nickel' for every time someone said "it seems to me that God, therefore God is..."
They completely lack the wherewithal to realize what they are doing is molding an image that only exists because they created it, making themselves the *creator* of God.
If humanists would just be honest, christianity would disappear.