ihedinobi2: @BabaGnoni
@DrummaBoy

The list is actually incomplete. There is trustman whom I had requested you hold us all responsible for this thread. He has however responded to you nontheless.

ihedinobi2:

Can any of you give me some examples of places where Jesus was "naming and shaming" Pharisees and religious leaders of His day? Can any of you explain how and why He accepted their invitations to their homes and their hospitality and their own personal visits to Him? Can any of you show me parallels between what you're doing and what He did in His day?

trustman has supplied some scriptures that documented Jesus critical of religious leaders of his days. Since Q and A is not exclusively reserved for you, you might as well explain to us why what Jesus said in those scriptures cannot serve as a parallel for what we are doing here.

Also, I have no apologies for naming anyone in this thread. If a man is truly man enough he would show himself responsible for his words, actions and doctrine. This is what I did when I gave you a list of names to hold responsible for this thread. If however a man feels shamed when his words, actions and doctrine is brought under scrutiny, maybe he is not supposed to be doing it afterall. And his contining in this might be because no one has held him responsible in the past.

Jesus accepted the invite of Pharisees. Yes. But it didnt stop him from calling them hypocrites to their faces. The scripture BabaGnoni provided shows clearly why we shouldn't visit the home of a heretic. But if at all we will, we cannot compromise the truth. Thus we have this thread.

10If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. 11Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work.
2 John:10-11 NIV

ihedinobi2:

@topic

A lot has been and is being said and I find the thread a bit too tedious to read. I think I'll take things in bite sizes.

To start with, let me warn everyone who will judge my responses to be very conscious of my first post on this thread.

We are conscious of your first post, especially that part where you said you also have noticed somethings about WOF, like the true nature of faith. If you will persevere a little longer on this thread, I can assure you to learn more. But while you want us to be conscious of what you have written, you have not studied the thread that is just 4 pages (you say find it tedious to read) but simply rushed off to post. Is that being "conscious" of what others have written?

ihedinobi2:
Now, I have one question: Is it biblical to speak to the situations and circumstances that you face and command them to fit a pattern? Or rather, how does the Bible tell us to deal with the adverse circumstances of our lives?

[i]Edit: if this question has been answered in any form on this thread already, a quote or reference to the particular post where it was answered will do. You need not repeat yourself. If the post is a long one, a quote containing the answer, that is, a culling of the portion containing the answer, would be far more appreciated than a link or a quote of the whole post.

As for the remainder of your post, I believe BabaGnoni last post, directed at you, is a sufficient response. I have therefore edited my former post here to accommodate his submission.

Lol, some peope are angry for the expositions. .

Was wof activities supposed to have been a secret thing?

Hehehehe. Lol.

trustman:


Matthew 23: 29 - 33 "Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. 30 And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have participated with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 By saying this you testify against yourselves that you are descendants of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up then the measure of your ancestors! 33 You snakes, you offspring of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?"
Luke 13:32 "But he said to them, “[size=14pt]Go and tell that fox[/size], ‘Look, I am casting out demons and performing healings today and tomorrow, and on the third day I will complete my work."

For the first passage, I do not see any "naming". Nicodemus was a Pharisee that Jesus met personally and knew of. So was Simon and possibly a few others but I see none of their names or any others.

For the second passage, I remember that it was of Herod that Jesus spoke. Even at that, He did not name him directly.

I think that these are significant things to note.

See Luke 7:36 -50

I've just scanned it. What was I supposed to see here in answer to my question?

see Matthew 23:1 - 36

A parallel should have the same characteristics as the subject of examination. I see Jesus doing a lot of rebuking, that is, correcting by pointing out the errors of the religious leaders of His day and showing their gravity. I don't see much in the way of personal attacks.

No.

But Jesus did say that if we have faith we can say what we wish and it would be done according to our word. Matthew 21:19-21. And numerous times His response was to actually speak to the environment. One example is Matthew 8:26. Why then do you say "no"?

Pray

Agreed.

Mark 6:46

I don't see the adverse circumstance here.

Mark 13:18

I don't see the adverse circumstance here.

Luke 5:16

I don't see the adverse circumstance here.

Luke 6: 12

I don't see the adverse circumstance here.

John 17: 9

I don't see the adverse circumstance here.

Romans1: 10

I don't see the adverse circumstance here.

2 Cor. 13:7

I don't see the adverse circumstance here.

Ephesians 1:16

I don't see the adverse circumstance here.

Ephesians 6:18

I don't see the adverse circumstance here.

Colossians 1:3

I don't see the adverse circumstance here.

Hebrews 5:7

Agreed.

James 5:13,14

v.14 does it. I think the word 'over' in "pray over him" is very interesting though.

Claim promises.

You mean, basically, recite back to God what He has promised and ask Him to effect it in your life, have I got you right?







Per my main question, I was not asking merely how we are to communicate with God or how major an activity prayer is, bro. I was asking how to deal with the difficulties that we come up against in our lives, how a struggling young man can overcome his struggles to come into a place of rest, how a barren young woman can overcome her unfruitfulness and come into a place of rest too. Note that I said "rest" not "resignation".

BabaGnoni:

OK Sir, your questions rather might be simple
but consider for a moment, one might be slow on the uptake here

If I could simplify them any further I would. They are in the simplest forms I could express.

With all due respects sir, ignoring the fact that you didn't acknowledge the contents raised in the other post(s) above us,
please, can you now explicitly, clearly, directly and in simple words, state what exactly your grouse, so far, on the thread is about

I stated that reading through the thread is considerably tedious for me. The posts are all very long and texts shout at you. It's a bit too much for my eyes and I wanted to take issues one at a time for adequate handling. There are quite a few bones of contention from the posts I could read at all. I figured a simple discussion of one issue at a time would help everybody and possibly keep confusion, complication and unnecessary aggression at bay.

Sir, please SPELL OUT in no uncertain terms what so far has been unacceptable on this thread
so that it could be put under consideration towards correcting

If anything in my posts so far is unclear, ask me about them specifically and I will attempt to clarify them.

Furthermore sir, clearly advise how you would like future postings to take form or submitted

I can't presume to command other people's prefered methods of expression. What I like or dislike is not as important as what is right.

And also explain sir, what you mean by
"Is it biblical to speak to the situations and circumstances that you face and command them to fit a pattern?
Or rather, how does the Bible tell us to deal with the adverse circumstances of our lives?"

Who are "facing circumstances and commanding them to fit a pattern"
or who is "how does the Bible tell us to deal with the adverse circumstances of our lives" about
(i.e. what or who are you insinuating this with)

My question was intended to start an examination of one of the threads grouses with Word-of-Faith theology. It had no insinuations whatsoever.

Sir, your experiences and knowledge which you've kindly shared with all on the Religion forum have always been appreciated.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated replies sir

Thank you for engaging.

PS: Seems the thread is intentionally slow with steady and smooth paceline transitions,
this is likely so readers can keep up with it

I consider that a good thing too.

DrummaBoy:

The list is actually incomplete. There is trustman whom I had requested you hold us all responsible for this thread. He has however responded to you nontheless.

I just addressed the people I was immediately conscious of. That did not preclude anyone from responding though. And as my response to @trustman proves, even people I do not tag who respond to a tagged post of mine will get my attention.

trustman has supplied some scriptures that documented Jesus critical of religious leaders of his days. Since Q and A is not exclusively reserved for you, you might as well explain to us why what Jesus said in those scriptures cannot serve as a parallel for what we are doing here.

Also, I have no apologies for naming anyone in this thread. If a man is truly man enough he would show himself responsible for his words, actions and doctrine. This is what I did when I gave you a list of names to hold responsible for this thread. If however a man feels shamed when his words, actions and doctrine is brought under scrutiny, maybe he is not supposed to be doing it afterall. And his contining in this might be because no one has held him responsible in the past.

Jesus accepted the invite of Pharisees. Yes. But it didnt stop him from calling them hypocrites to their faces. The scripture BabaGnoni provided shows clearly why we shouldn't visit the home of a heretic. But if at all we will, we cannot compromise the truth. Thus we have this thread.

I think you may have gotten quite a ways ahead of yourself and even me in the above response. Questions are not an argument. I did not state in that post that Jesus's words can or cannot be used to draw a parallel to what this thread is doing.

If Jesus went to the homes of the people he denounced so terribly, does that not raise a question concerning the "not visiting a heretic's home" part? Bonus question, if you please.

We are conscious of your first post, especially that part where you said you also have noticed somethings about WOF, like the true nature of faith. If you will persevere a little longer on this thread, I can assure you to learn more. But while you want us to be conscious of what you have written, you have not studied the thread that is just 4 pages (you say find it tedious to read) but simply rushed off to post. Is that being "conscious" of what others have written?

I didn't rush off to post, bro. I attempted to read and apart from the difficulty in the visuals of each post, there were too many objections and whatnot to keep up with. What I have done is to try and take issues one at a time and enable simpler, less anxious and less aggressive discussion.

As for the remainder of your post, I believe BabaGnoni last post, directed at you, is a sufficient response. I have therefore edited my former post here to accommodate his submission.

Ok then. My response to him is my response to you as well, then.

ihedinobi2:
I just addressed the people I was immediately conscious of. That did not preclude anyone from responding though. And as my response to @trustman proves, even people I do not tag who respond to a tagged post of mine will get my attention.



I think you may have gotten quite a ways ahead of yourself and even me in the above response. Questions are not an argument. I did not state in that post that Jesus's words can or cannot be used to draw a parallel to what this thread is doing.

If Jesus went to the homes of the people he denounced so terribly, does that not raise a question concerning the "not visiting a heretic's home" part? Bonus question, if you please.




I didn't rush off to post, bro. I attempted to read and apart from the difficulty in the visuals of each post, there were too many objections and whatnot to keep up with. What I have done is to try and take issues one at a time and enable simpler, less anxious and less aggressive discussion.




Ok then. My response to him is my response to you as well, then.

^^^
Thank you
What of an unambiguous response to:
https://www.nairaland.com/1790500/word-faith-movements-doctrine-proponents/2#24492155

BabaGnoni:

^^^
Thank you
What of an unambiguous response to:
https://www.nairaland.com/1790500/word-faith-movements-doctrine-proponents/2#24492155

The post directly below it was and still is my answer. Was it too ambiguous?

ihedinobi2:

The post directly below it was and still is my answer. Was it too ambiguous?

Please sir, not just too but tree and three ambiguous it was
Let's cut to the chase, answer sir, whether or not you are advocating SHIELDING and PROTECTING personalities
or protecting sacred cows considered to be exempt from criticism or questioning
as opposed to PROTECTING the body of Christ (i.e. church) and her chastity
from the abuse, misuse and pummeling by whoever the caps fits

Where does your loyalties lie?
With Jesus and His bride; the body of Christ (i.e. your family) and so exposing the sham and the shady deeds
or with shielding or protecting those abusing the body of Christ

ihedinobi2:
For the first passage, I do not see any "naming". Nicodemus was a Pharisee that Jesus met personally and knew of. So was Simon and possibly a few others but I see none of their names or any others.

Okay. I gerrit now. The doctrine is NEVER NAME NAMES. You can call them brood of vipers. You can call them hypocrites. You can call them wolves in sheep skin. You can even label what they preach as WOF and vilify them as prosperity preachers but NEVER YOU NAME THEIR NAME. Because that will be unchristlike.

In Rev. 2:6, 14-15, Jesus referred to a sect and their teachings as doctrine of Nicolaitines. Church history tell us that this sect was named after their leader Nicolas.

In the same Revelation, this same Jesus condemned a woman called Jezebel along with her followers.

This Jesus had suddenly forgotten his practise of vague generalities and seem to have become more specific.

Lest we think it was only Jesus that named names, hear his apostles:

In 2 Timothy 4:14, Paul refers to one Alexander the Coppersmith who did him much evil.

In Titis 1:12 Paul refer to some Cretans as false teachers.

In 3John 1:9, John refers to one Diotrephus, whom he claimed loved to lord it over the flock of Christ.

And there are others.

THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE SCRIPTURE IN THE WHOLE BIBLE, PARTICULARLY THE NT, THAT SAYS CHRISTIANS MUST NOT NAME NAMES WHEN DISCUSSING FALSE PROPHETS AND THEIR DOCTRINES. IF THERE ONE, DO SUPPLY IT NOW.

The tendency in these days when we preach and do not want to offend is to preach and if at all we must criticize then we should use vague generalities. Never name names. Nonsense. That is the reason our preaching have no effect, move no one, causes no offense and changes no society. The preaching of the apostles that turned cities upside down, went to the root of the errors in those cities. Acts 16, Paul and Silas knew that their preaching will hurt idol making business. They preached anyway and the rest is history...

I am sorry to burst your bubble friend, this thread is not like others. It doesn't need popularity; its concerned with enunciating truth for posterity. Forget it, the names will remain.

BabaGnoni:

Please sir, not just too but tree and three ambiguous it was
Let's cut to the chase, answer sir, whether or not you are advocating SHIELDING and PROTECTING personalities
or protecting sacred cows considered to be exempt from criticism or questioning
as opposed to PROTECTING the body of Christ (i.e. church) and her chastity
from the abuse, misuse and pummeling by whoever the caps fits

Where does your loyalties lie?
With Jesus and His bride; the body of Christ (i.e. your family) and so exposing the sham and the shady deeds
or with shielding or protecting those abusing the body of Christ

You're quite determined to decide whether my name goes on your list of enemies, aren't you?

ihedinobi2:
I think you may have gotten quite a ways ahead of yourself and even me in the above response. Questions are not an argument. I did not state in that post that Jesus's words can or cannot be used to draw a parallel to what this thread is doing.

Maybe we should ask you why you asked those questions, if it is not to disprove the positions on this thread. Which are namely: do not names; Jesus visited his enemies, who eventually crucified him; and you guyz are not imitating Christ on a thread like this. If these are not the position you were seeking to state through your questions, I ask: what then are they?

ihedinobi2:
If Jesus went to the homes of the people he denounced so terribly, does that not raise a question concerning the "not visiting a heretic's home" part? Bonus question, if you please.

Apparently the above statement has only proven my last reponse above. You should realize that those discussing on this thread are not undergraduates. So you cannot come here, say something and think we do not know where you are headed. As per visiting heretics, I refer you to read my last response and 2 John 11-12.

ihedinobi2:
I didn't rush off to post, bro. I attempted to read and apart from the difficulty in the visuals of each post, there were too many objections and whatnot to keep up with. What I have done is to try and take issues one at a time and enable simpler, less anxious and less aggressive discussion.

It is commendable on your part. I do not deny that the volume of exhibits on the thread so far is much, however even a skip through will give you a clear idea of what we are saying considering the fact that we have provided bolds on some text that are important.

ihedinobi2:
Ok then. My response to him is my response to you as well, then

Actually you have not responded to BabaGnoni at all. All I see is you avoiding questions posed at you even though you have no trouble posing questions to others.

DrummaBoy:

Okay. I gerrit now. The doctrine is NEVER NAME NAMES. You can call them brood of vipers. You can call them hypocrites. You can call them wolves in sheep skin. You can even label what they preach as WOF and vilify them as prosperity preachers but NEVER YOU NAME THEIR NAME. Because that will be unchristlike.

In Rev. 2:6, 14-15, Jesus referred to a sect and their teachings as doctrine of Nicolaitines. Church history tell us that this sect was named after their leader Nicolas.

In the same Revelation, this same Jesus condemned a woman called Jezebel along with her followers.

This Jesus had suddenly forgotten his practise of vague generalities and seem to have become more specific.

Lest we think it was only Jesus that named names, hear his apostles:

In 2 Timothy 4:14, Paul refers to one Alexander the Coppersmith who did him much evil.

In Titis 1:12 Paul refer to some Cretans as false teachers.

In 3John 1:9, John refers to one Diotrephus, whom he claimed loved to lord it over the flock of Christ.

And there are others.

THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE SCRIPTURE IN THE WHOLE BIBLE, PARTICULARLY THE NT, THAT SAYS CHRISTIANS MUST NOT NAME NAMES WHEN DISCUSSING FALSE PROPHETS AND THEIR DOCTRINES. IF THERE ONE, DO SUPPLY IT NOW.

The tendency in these days when we preach and do not want to offend is to preach and if at all we must criticize then we should use vague generalities. Never name names. Nonsense. That is the reason our preaching have no effect, move no one, causes no offense and changes no society. The preaching of the apostles that turned cities upside down, went to the root of the errors in those cities. Acts 16, Paul and Silas knew that their preaching will hurt idol making business. They preached anyway and the rest is history...

I am sorry to burst your bubble friend, this thread is not like others. It doesn't need popularity; its concerned with enunciating truth for posterity. Forget it, the names will remain.

Lol @ popularity. There is no time that violence of any kind is not popular. Goshen360 and frosbel did not win poster of the year (one or both more than once) in this section for being docile and accommodating. Your positions are popular enough and so is this thread. You'll never lack for popularity when you make war against visible human beings. It's far less so when you fight the invisible.

Keep the names if you wish. It's "your" thread. I am here because I want to see whether there is any truth in the arguments here. I have already made clear that I do not consider the thread edifying. That is not an opinion that you are required to share. All I expect of you is collaboration in the examination of your views. If you cannot or will not give that, I totally respect your right to ignore me and my questions and observations.

DrummaBoy:

Maybe we should ask you why you asked those questions if not to disprove the positions on this thread. Namely: do not names; Jesus visited his enemies, who eventually crucified him, and you guyz are not imitating Christ on a thread like this. If these are not the position you were seeking to state through your questions, I ask what then are they?

The eyes are yours. You are free to see what you want.

Apparently the above statemdnt has only proven my last reponse above. You should realize that those discussing on this thread are not undergraduate. One of us would have married children. So yiu cannot come here, say something and think we do not know where you are headed.

Only one characteristic is my requirement for anyone on this thread: a willingness to engage me productively. It matters nothing their marital status or educational attainment.

It is commendable on your part. I do not deny that the volume of exhibits on the thread so far is much, however even a skip through will give you a clear idea of what we are saying considering the fact that we have provided bolds on some text that are important.

If it is difficult for you to read the short post I wrote (your mentioning the "bolding" of text in the posts in question suggests that you failed to see that I said that the posts were visually difficult for my eyes which in turn suggests that you did not read my post appreciatively), imagine how much easier it is for me to go through the verbose and very visually difficult posts you all made.

Actually you have not responded to BabaGnoni at all. All I see is you avoiding questions posed at you even though you have no triuble posing questions to others.

You failed to see also that BabaGnoni was himself dodging questions I asked with his own post. Like I said, the eyes are yours...

How about this on naming or never name names

Paul Rebukes Peter

Galatians 2:
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong. 12 Until certain people came from James, he had been eating with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself because he was afraid of those who were pro-circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also joined with him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray with them by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not behaving consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “If you, although you are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you try to force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

ihedinobi2:
Lol @ popularity. There is no time that violence of any kind is not popular. Goshen360 and frosbel did not win poster of the year (one or both more than once) in this section for being docile and accommodating. Your positions are popular enough and so is this thread. You'll never lack for popularity when you make war against visible human beings. It's far less so when you fight the invisible.

You would realize that the post you just responded to had more to say than "popularity", we were discussing naming names; remember? Let me assume that by nit referring to that subject, we understand each well enough along those lines. As for popularity, I had already said the thread "does not need popularity". So your suggestions on frosbel or goshen is really not needed.

ihedinobi2:
Keep the names if you wish. It's "your" thread. I am here because I want to see whether there is any truth in the arguments here. I have already made clear that I do not consider the thread edifying. That is not an opinion that you are required to share. All I expect of you is collaboration in the examination of your views. If you cannot or will not give that, I totally respect your right to ignore me and my questions and observations.

Actually the personalization of this thread with the use of phrases like "my" or "our thread" is intentional. In these days when people avoid any offence and seek only success, popularity and fame, I consider it wise to put my name on a thread like this that naturally will be called contentious and seen as ignominious becuase such is not what people usually do.

Your opinion that the thread is not edifying is also "yours". No one can deny you "your" right in that regard.

Actually the discussion with you is soon drawing to an end. The thread must soon proceed to the next item: F4. You have served well as an "interlude" to the discuss and for that I thank you.

@trustman and BabaGnoni

I believe I have provided all the exhibits I need to provide on F3. Please indicate when you are ready to proceed to F4. I have no more comments for now.

trustman: How about this on naming or never name names

Paul Rebukes Peter

Galatians 2:
11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong. 12 Until certain people came from James, he had been eating with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he stopped doing this and separated himself because he was afraid of those who were pro-circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also joined with him in this hypocrisy, so that even Barnabas was led astray with them by their hypocrisy. 14 But when I saw that they were not behaving consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “If you, although you are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you try to force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

I'm very glad you brought that up. Very glad indeed. Judging by how easily you put Scriptures up though I did expect you to be the one who would.

I beg you, is the language and tone of Paul in this passage comparable to the language and tone of this thread?

ihedinobi2:

I'm very glad you brought that up. Very glad indeed. Judging by how easily you put Scriptures up though I did expect you to be the one who would.

I beg you, is the language and tone of Paul in this passage comparable to the language and tone of this thread?

Language – ‘the words, their pronunciation, and methods of combining them …’

Tone – ‘style or manner of expression in speaking or writing’

Each individual is different in the way he uses words in speech or writing.
So it would be difficult to expect two individuals to communicate exactly in the same way.

DrummaBoy:

You would realize that the post you just responded to had more to say than "popularity", we were discussing naming names; remember? Let me assume that by nit referring to that subject, we understand each well enough along those lines. As for popularity, I had already said the thread "does not need popularity". So your suggestions on frosbel or goshen is really not needed.

Oh, I'd forgotten that part about naming names. You see, when there are too many issues being talked about at once, it's hard to keep track. About that, I'd meant to tell you that you'd totally missed the point about naming names. The point was whether there were personal attacks in Jesus's own example with the religious leaders of His day as there evidently are on this thread.

Of course, the thread does not need popularity. It already has it in abundance. That was my point.

Actually the personalization of this thread with the use of phrases like "my" or "our thread" is intentional. In these days when people avoid any offence and seek only success, popularity and fame, I consider it wise to put my name on a thread like this that naturally will be called contentious and seen as ignominious becuase such is not what people usually do.

Your opinion that the thread is not edifying is also "yours". No one can deny you "your" right in that regard.

Actually the discussion with you is soon drawing to an end. The thread must soon proceed to the next item: F4. You have served well as an "interlude" to the discuss and for that I thank you.

You are profoundly wrong about what people consider whatever. Everyone with some ax to grind tends to assume this victim mentality about how their just cause is unpopular and they are being so brave in fighting alone against some popular evil. You, sir, are popular. So are your views. Try to be honest about that with yourself.

I thank you for engaging me so far. It was not as productive as I'd hoped. I will see if anything comes of other engagements I have here. If not, I will wait for another opportunity to examine the truth in this anti-WoF theology.

trustman:

Language – ‘the words, their pronunciation, and methods of combining them …’

Tone – ‘style or manner of expression in speaking or writing’

Each individual is different in the way he uses words in speech or writing.
So it would be difficult to expect two individuals to communicate exactly in the same way.

Perhaps they are and yet the Spirit in believers is one. Mr Anony here on this thread used to be thought to be another moniker I use and vice versa because of the similarity of our persuasions. Style may vary, but the Spirit cannot. Either Paul made a violent attack on Peter's person as has been evident against so-called WoF ministers on this thread or he did not? That has nothing to do with style and everything to do with Grace. Which do you suppose it is?

ihedinobi2:
Perhaps they are and yet the Spirit in believers is one. Mr Anony here on this thread used to be thought to be another moniker I use and vice versa because of the similarity of our persuasions. Style may vary, but the Spirit cannot. Either Paul made a violent attack on Peter's person as has been evident against so-called WoF ministers on this thread or he did not? That has nothing to do with style and everything to do with Grace. Which do you suppose it is?

What is "violent attack"? How is it different from "I opposed him to his face"?

trustman:

What is "violent attack"? How is it different from "I opposed him to his face"?

Which of these ministers here mentioned is any of you "opposing to his face"?

ihedinobi2:
Which of these ministers here mentioned is any of you "opposing to his face"?

I will need your clear answer to:

What is "violent attack"? How is it different from "I opposed him to his face"?

before i can answer clearly.

trustman:
I will need your clear answer to:

before i can answer clearly.

If you people would stop thinking that every question is calculated to ensnare you, you would be able to see my answers. You ask how different opposing one to his face is from launching a violent attack on one's person after I've told you that personal attacks are what you have done on this thread to the ministers you've named. It is curious.

When you attack one's person, you are not attacking their errors, it is them you have issue with not their error. When you are attacking an error, it is only incidental that a person is involved. This is why we know nothing of any personal grouse Jesus had with Pharisees and others. He visited their homes and shared their meals because his fight was with the spirit that held them bound in their error not with they themselves. Paul challenged Peter in order to save believers who were seeing the whole thing and falling into error as well not because it was Peter.

You'll find in another letter of Paul's (his first to the Corinthians) that there was another issue with false apostles. How many of them did he name? The fight is never personal. It is always spiritual. You name people only under extraordinary circumstances. It is not foolishness that Jesus should pray mercy for the Pharisees et al even after all His "attack" on them.

The acceptable start is always that these people are your family. If they are in error, THEY need to be corrected. Not destroyed. The absence of mercy and compassion is strong evidence of the absence of Christ Himself.

ihedinobi2:

If you people would stop thinking that every question is calculated to ensnare you, you would be able to see my answers. You ask how different opposing one to his face is from launching a violent attack on one's person after I've told you that personal attacks are what you have done on this thread to the ministers you've named. It is curious.

When you attack one's person, you are not attacking their errors, it is them you have issue with not their error. When you are attacking an error, it is only incidental that a person is involved. This is why we know nothing of any personal grouse Jesus had with Pharisees and others. He visited their homes and shared their meals because his fight was with the spirit that held them bound in their error not with they themselves. Paul challenged Peter in order to save believers who were seeing the whole thing and falling into error as well not because it was Peter.

You'll find in another letter of Paul's (his first to the Corinthians) that there was another issue with false apostles. How many of them did he name? The fight is never personal. It is always spiritual. You name people only under extraordinary circumstances. It is not foolishness that Jesus should pray mercy for the Pharisees et al even after all His "attack" on them.

The acceptable start is always that these people are your family. If they are in error, THEY need to be corrected. Not destroyed. The absence of mercy and compassion is strong evidence of the absence of Christ Himself.

Thanks for your input.

[size=16pt]MY ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION ON F3: WEALTH/PROSPERITY[/size]


The Problem With The Prosperity Gospel

“Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.” Luke 12:15

“For here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come.” Hebrews 13:14

Word of Faith promises its followers wealth and prosperity. WoF preachers teach their followers that they can use their faith to acquire material abundance. According to them, financial blessing is a guaranteed result of faith in God.

To them man has creative power with our spoken words because we are “little gods” and God has delegated sovereignty to us. In their ‘theology’ God cannot act on His own; He needs man’s ‘faith’ expressed through words to act. In fact, they believe man is the master of his destiny and can get what he wants by applying the ‘right’ formula. So getting wealth too is hinged on ‘using’ the right system.

Kenneth HagIn said: "Believe it in your heart, say it with your mouth, that's the principal of faith and you can have what you say."

The following are from the website of Kenneth Copeland Ministry (www.kcm.org):

“Throughout the Word, God plainly shows that His will is for His covenant people to have a surplus of prosperity.’

“Physical prosperity is twofold—health and wealth. Jesus redeemed us from the curse of the law—sickness, poverty and death (Deuteronomy 28: 15-61). Health and wealth belong to the believer.”

Kenneth Copeland has also said:
- "The man who holds to poverty rejects the establishment of the covenant. The man who
holds to the covenant rejects poverty”.
- “Poverty is an evil spirit”
- "Prosperity is a major requirement in the establishment of God’s will,"
and "God’s will for His people today is abundance"


The following is from Joel & Victoria Osteen’s Blog

Don’t Settle for Beans and Rice
Posted by Joel Osteen on 3/28/2014
One time, I received a letter from a young couple. They had both been raised in low-income families. All they saw modeled growing up was lack and struggle. Their families had accepted this lifestyle, but not this couple. They had been coming to Lakewood. They didn't have a "not enough" mentality; they had an abundance mentality. They knew God had a Promised Land of blessing in store for them. So, they took a step of faith. … … …

According to Joel Osteen in his book YOUR BEST LIFE NOW:
- “God wants to increase you financially, by giving you promotions, fresh ideas and
creativity” (p. 5),
- “He wants you to live in abundance. He wants to give you the desires of your
heart…God is turning things around in your favor” (p. 78).

Does Scripture agree with these positions?
Another major issue is this: did the Lord Jesus and the Apostles put a lot of emphasis on financial prosperity?

The Lord Jesus warned in Luke 12: 15 –“Then he said to them, “Watch out and guard yourself from all types of greed, because one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.”
In Matthew 6:19 – 21, He also said: “Do not accumulate for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But accumulate for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also”.

Apostle Paul had these to say:
A true Christian leader must not be a lover of money (1 Timothy 3:2-3).
The Christian is to be content with whatever he has (1 Timothy 6: 6-.
The Christian is warned of the danger of the desire to get rich and to flee (1Timothy 6:9-11).

James tells us:
Being poor is a high position while being rich is a low position (James 1:9-10).

What we see is that, in sharp contrast to the WoF's emphasis on gaining money and possessions, the Christian is challenged to regard worldly riches as secondary to things of eternal value. The MAJOR REASON Jesus came was to take care of man’s greatest problem and that problem is not physical but spiritual. Concentrating on the physical issues of life belittles the work Christ came to do. A look at the life of Jesus, the apostles and the early church (a look at the book of Acts is a good starting point) and their stance on wealth and prosperity should show not only how they viewed these but also what the pattern for the Christian and church today should be. The focus of the Christian should be on who and what God is, not on the things we can get from Him. True riches are things money cannot buy; that is what the Lord and the Apostles encourage the Christian to seek for.

Now, did the disciples and apostles receive an abundant life the way the WoF preachers of today proclaim?
Was it that they somehow did not have the ‘revelation knowledge’ for prosperity gospel?
So where and how did these prosperity preachers of WoF get their understanding from? From “fresh revelations”, given to them by who?

Satan’s Strategy
One of the strategies of Satan is to get the believer to have his eyes on wealth and possessions. When he succeeds the believer becomes a casualty in his Christian life. Like someone aptly noted:
“Hastening for wealth is MATERIALISM – the excessive desire for things, whether for a more expensive car, a more ostentatious home, designer clothes, or just more money. … … … Much like an addictive drug, the snare of materialism amounts to a ceaseless roller coaster ride between exhilaration and misery”.

Lusting after material things is in reality shifting of focus from God to things. The WoF movement encourages this. It should be clear to any discerning Christian that that shift of focus is in fact sin.

The promise to make wealthy through a quick route excites the average person and the WoF preachers capitalize on this. The attractive viewpoint of divinely created wealth easy to get by all who will follow the ‘right formula’ is also a major subject matter of many a metaphysical school of thought to which WoF has been linked. The Bible teaches radically different things about what prosperity is, and how believers are to think of and go after material wealth.

There is certainly something wrong with building doctrines on twisted interpretations and applications of scriptural passages. This is what the WoF teachers do in order to support their erroneous position on acquisition of wealth. The Bible is full of passages warning about the deceitfulness of riches and money, yet the WoF preachers drive Christians down that same route.
A major problem with the wealth/prosperity gospel is that is seeks to apply a ‘theology’ that is really no theology at all. Instead it has incorporated metaphysical ideas into Christianity and with ‘Christian language’ lures many away from the true gospel into that which is not the gospel at all. Unlike what the WoF preachers teach, it is God, in the exercise of his sovereign will, who bestows on the believer what he wants. Ultimately we receive from him in GRACE and do not create our own world.

ihedinobi2:

You're quite determined to decide whether my name goes on your list of enemies, aren't you?

I am seriously struggling to fathom where this hyper imagination of putting names on a list of enemies came from

ihedinobi2:

The eyes are yours. You are free to see what you want.

Only one characteristic is my requirement for anyone on this thread: a willingness to engage me productively. It matters nothing their marital status or educational attainment.

You failed to see also that BabaGnoni was himself dodging questions I asked with his own post. Like I said, the eyes are yours...

The acceptable start is always that these people are your family.
If they are in error, THEY need to be corrected. Not destroyed.
The absence of mercy and compassion is strong evidence of the absence of Christ Himself

So it was because you thought I was dodging questions
that was why you failed to answer why you were against "naming and shaming"

You fail to recognise that naming names and mentioning antics attached to such mentioned names is unavoidable
and what you construe as "naming and shaming" is collateral damage whilst calling a spade a spade

When discussion like this nature is done, "naming and shaming" so long, as it is not, excessive or OTT, is necessary or allowed.

The thread is titled WoF -The Movement's Doctrine And Proponents and rightly just about that.
Now, surely along the lines whatever WoF, the Movement
or proponents of its doctrines have ever done will crop or pop up when studying or discussing their doctrines
and if there happens to be something WoF, the Movement or proponents have said wrong or did wrong,
then it is an opportunity to flesh it out, dissect and discuss it
obviously there will bound to be some gory details and unpleasantries
but then we use the discussion as a platform to highlight them
and send out messages to discourage continued perpetration of such kinds of ill activities
in addition to giving out warnings and advices to the body of Christ

Our loyalty first should be towards keeping the chastity of the bride of Christ
and protecting the body of Christ (i.e. the church)
It should not be for shielding or protecting personalities,
or protecting sacred cows who seemingly to you are beyond reproach

I sincerely did not understand where you were coming from, which was why I was stumped or perplexed
I did not understand which post you particularly found unacceptable
Did not know who the alleged animosity was shown to and how exactly was the animosity meted out

To my now best understanding of your question(s), I can say, if it is a parallel you where asking for,
then, if Jesus was here now, He would do same, just like He did in Matthew 21:12-13
He'll get hold of a whip, whup where the sun doesn't shine and drive many out of His Father's house or business

Clearly John 10:10, springs to mind but I now understand your sentiments are:
...these people are your family.
If they are in error, THEY need to be corrected. Not destroyed.
The absence of mercy and compassion is strong evidence of the absence of Christ Himself...

and this is in spite of what the Word advises:

Have nothing to do with the useless works that darkness produces.
Instead, expose them for what they are
- Ephesians 5:11 GOD'S WORD Translation

¹⁰If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching,
do not take them into your house or welcome them.
¹¹Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work.
2 John:10-11 NIV

One is still bewildered, why you are unable to acknowledge or comment on Ephesians 5:11 and 2 John:10-11 above

but hey, if it is a no-naming discussion you prescribe, then that is fine.
It is no biggie, I can live with that.

Let's get started then, let's kick the ball. The ball is now over in your court...

Some people are naturally cantankerous in a haughty manner , even on issues where the objective has been made clear.

trustman:

Thanks for your input.

Thanks for your responses. Do you suppose that we could examine your grievances now or not? The question that I am interested in right now is how a Christian is to deal with the difficulties that life brings their way.

So far you have said that it is contrary to the Bible to address our circumstances vocally. Judging by what Jesus said and did and what the apostles also said themselves and did, I am very much at loss why you say that. That is the last question I asked you. Do you have some answer for me?

ihedinobi2:
Thanks for your responses. Do you suppose that we could examine your grievances now or not? The question that I am interested in right now is how a Christian is to deal with the difficulties that life brings their way.

So far you have said that it is contrary to the Bible to address our circumstances vocally. Judging by what Jesus said and did and what the apostles also said themselves and did, I am very much at loss why you say that. That is the last question I asked you. Do you have some answer for me?

Both the humanity of Christ and the Apostles looked to God to resolve the difficulties they faced.
See Mark 14:36, Acts 4, Romans 5:3-5

trustman:

Both the humanity of Christ and the Apostles looked to God to resolve the difficulties they faced.
See Mark 14:36, Acts 4, Romans 5:3-5

I agree that they did. And I have pointed out that Jesus Himself addressed multitude circumstances directly too. And one does not have to look too far in Acts to find examples of the apostles doing the same. Does this addressing of circumstances that are adverse to you count as looking to God to resolve difficulties?

This is what I call deliberate distraction and being a distraction.

The sooner the posters/discussants remember that they are free moral agent the better for them and the thread, and the earlier this thread will move forward and faster and the interest kept alive.