Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
This means that as long as we are [receiving the little ones] “in His name,” it is the opening of oneself to both Christ and the Father. It would seem that this is most important in this are as it ushers in a present fellowship with the Father and the Son. And anyone who is refusing to take such actions because they think it is carrying them away from God’s purpose is actually denying God’s purpose and not inviting the Father and the Son.
|
I agree whole-heartedly. Whatever you do "to the least of these" you do to Christ. Should this doing unto others come in another age? Or today? I mean, think about it for a second.
I find this quote to be noteworthy:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ShepherdingWords
Just as the Lord Jesus never sought to reform the corrupt social system of the Roman Empire, neither did the apostles. Of the apostle Paul, Brother Nee commented, “Never once did he try to change the social order. He came only to solve man’s spiritual needs and settle the spiritual problems of the church” (179-180). Thus, Paul charged the Philippians to “be blameless and guileless, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverted generation, among whom you shine as luminaries in the world” (Phil. 2:15).
|
"Never once did he try to change the social order"???? Everything he did changed the social order. He didn't try - he did it - went to the wretched, the lost, the castoff, the demon possessed, the ones with no money and no means to repay. People with suppurating sores got touched, healed. Everything he did spoke revolution. Real revolution. Not just a new [political] Caesar, but Satan's kingdom gone and the Kingdom of God ushered in. And this continued in the Acts, and let's not pretend it didn't. They didn't gather and give life-study messages on obscure texts, puffing themselves up over abstruse "truths". No, they made tunics for the widows who had no means to pay for them.
Wake up, people.