The Bishop of the Redeemed Pillar of Fire Mission, Lagos, Paul Obinwaogu has urged pastors to adhere strictly to the laid down laws of Christ as contained in the Holy Bible.

Obinwaogu who gave the advice in an interview with the News Agency of Nigeria on Sunday in Lagos, said this had become necessary because many pastors had deviated from the laws and doctrines of Christ win large congregation.

“Pastors nowadays don’t answer ministers of God, they now answer ‘Men of God’, which is not right at all.
“Christianity has only one book of laws and doctrines which is the Holy Bible, but pastors have left out these laws in their pattern of worship.
He speaks further on
http://palshub.com/blogs/post/3

So, where is the bombshell?

PBTOYO:

“Pastors nowadays don’t answer ministers of God, they now answer ‘Men of God’, which is not right at all.

Where did he get this idea from?. "man of God " was the official way by which ministers were addressed in the bible. When you criticise , you should back it up with facts. Who says it is not right.

^^^

official way? Please don't introduce the Nigerian or black man's penchant for titles and recognition into the Bible. I've not seen anywhere Peter, Paul or James was addressed as Men of God, much less officially. It's really sad to see that today you can hardly walk into a church and address anybody by their names. That would be considered disrespectful, even though the young man that went through 6 months of classes in his church and is now a pastoral assistant, is way younger than the person addressing him by name. How ridiculous!

And, I was expecting a response to my question about the spiritual principles upon which tithing is based. Some of us are eager to learn. Also, we expect those who make claims to back them up, just as you admonished the pastor here.

His church must be really strong since its a hybrid of mountain of fire and redeemed.

nlMediator:

^^^
official way? Please don't introduce the Nigerian or black man's penchant for titles and recognition into the Bible. I've not seen anywhere Peter, Paul or James was addressed as Men of God, much less officially. It's really sad to see that today you can hardly walk into a church and address anybody by their names. That would be considered disrespectful, even though the young man that went through 6 months of classes in his church and is now a pastoral assistant, is way younger than the person addressing him by name. How ridiculous!

And, I was expecting a response to my question about the spiritual principles upon which tithing is based. Some of us are eager to learn. Also, we expect those who make claims to back them up, just as you admonished the pastor here.

1 Timothy 6:11
11 But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.

1 Samuel 2:27
And there came a man of God unto Eli, and said unto him, Thus saith the Lord. .

2 Kings 1:11
11 Again also he sent unto him another captain of fifty with his fifty. And he answered and said unto him, O man of God, thus hath the king said, Come down quickly.

2 Timothy 3:17
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


You should know that we don't usually use such term in CEC . But nothing is wrong with those who use it. And I don't think anyone has ever said it is a taboo to address a MOG as pastor "John" or pastor "chris"

Of course, I know that the expression "man of God" is used in the Bible. It's simply descriptive, not ta title. Moreover, I simply disagree that it is the "official" way of addressing ministers in the Bible. As I said, you can't find that as a way of addressing many leading servants of God like Peter, Paul or James. And btw, neither is pastor an official way of addressing anybody in the Bible. People today, especially among Nigerians, are obsessed with title, including "pastor." There's absolutely no reason why a christian cannot be addressed by his name. Yet, it's near-sacrilege to do so in many churches today. While it's more tolerable to accept in the case of senior ministers or resident pastors, I simply find it ridiculous that churches organize a few training sessions for committed members, graduate them after a couple of months, and from that moment everybody is obliged to address them as 'pastor'. Ditto, deacons, etc. Simply doesn't make sense to me.

.

nlMediator:

Of course, I know that the expression "man of God" is used in the Bible. It's simply descriptive, not ta title. Moreover, I simply disagree that it is the "official" way of addressing ministers in the Bible. As I said, you can't find that as a way of addressing many leading servants of God like Peter, Paul or James. And btw, neither is pastor an official way of addressing anybody in the Bible. People today, especially among Nigerians, are obsessed with title, including "pastor." There's absolutely no reason why a christian cannot be addressed by his name. Yet, it's near-sacrilege to do so in many churches today. While it's more tolerable to accept in the case of senior ministers or resident pastors, I simply find it ridiculous that churches organize a few training sessions for committed members, graduate them after a couple of months, and from that moment everybody is obliged to address them as 'pastor'. Ditto, deacons, etc. Simply doesn't make sense to me.

I don't see any point of argument here. A minister criticises  another for being called MAN OF GOD . And I said it is not unscriptural. It is left for individuals what they want to be called. Either it is "brother" hagin o or "pastor" chris or "prophet"tb or "bishop"td jakes.

You were not there to know what brethren call the early apostles.  They must have addressed them according to their offices. Paul many times emphasised his apostleship .

In Jesus days , teachers were called. Rabbi, master, etc. Jesus also was addressed as master many times. I don't know know why people are just on the cases of servants of God for condemnation. Is that a message? Let's leave off petty matters.

“Pastors nowadays don’t answer ministers of God, they now answer ‘Men of God’, which is not right at all.

Is there any place in the bible where people addressed them as "minister" of God?. What we have in the bible is "man of God" .And the funny thing here is that the person criticising MOG here himself is addressed as "BISHOP" what contradiction? The issue with critics is the idea of "I am better than others" yet they don't see the hypocrisy .

Joagbaje:

I don't see any point of argument here. A minister criticises another for being called MAN OF GOD . And I said it is not unscriptural. It is left for individuals what they want to be called. Either it is "brother" hagin o or "pastor" chris or "prophet"tb or "bishop"td jakes.

You were not there to know what brethren call the early apostles. They must have addressed them according to their offices. Paul many times emphasised his apostleship .

In Jesus days , teachers were called. Rabbi, master, etc. Jesus also was addressed as master many times. I don't know know why people are just on the cases of servants of God for condemnation. Is that a message? Let's leave off petty matters.

Is there any place in the bible where people addressed them as "minister" of God?. What we have in the bible is "man of God" .And the funny thing here is that the person criticising MOG here himself is addressed as "BISHOP" what contradiction? The issue with critics is the idea of "I am better than others" yet they don't see the hypocrisy .

Remember, my initial quibble was with your claim that people were addressed “officially” in a particular manner. You have no support for such an outlandish claim. Resorting to ‘you were not there in the Bible days to know what happened’ is a cheap ploy often employed when it’s convenient and quickly discarded when it is not. That is, you start demanding for chapter and verse when it is in your interest and when it’s not, you ask us to accept or be bound by a practice not in the Bible because it “must” have been so. Interesting.

Paul emphasizing his apostleship does not mean people were addressing him, officially or not, as Apostle Paul. Even when he confronted Peter, he referred to him as Cephas, while reporting the incident. If it’s the church today, especially among black people, it would be “I confronted Bishop Peter”. Hagin’s official title was Rev. or Dr. and people also called him Bro. But I’m sure somebody could call him Kenneth and he wouldn’t jump off a window. Imagine that with any Nigerian pastor today. I’m not sure if their wives while mentioning them in church ever omit their title. Even in their absence, people can’t even refer to them without titles. If a high school friend stops by, he can’t call him by his first name as in school days without attracting attention or seeing members around roll their eyes. And you tell me that must have been the case in the Bible because Paul emphasized his apostleship?

I agree with you about critics and “I’m better than you” attitude. But you need to look at the mirror more often because it applies readily to you. An example is your constant reference to “lesser truth” or that churches are operating at the level of their understanding, in a way that drips of “I’m better than you.” BTW, that’s part of why I point out when you’re copying the teachings of American pastors, not because I want to show America is competing with Nigeria. Point being that you can’t go about “oppressing” others with what you copied or establishing your “specialness “with something you know is available outside your circles. That may be good for marketing, but something about it is not right.

nlMediator:

Remember, my initial quibble was with your claim that people were addressed “officially” in a particular manner. You have no support for such an outlandish claim.

Read the bible for yourself dear. Ministers were called , man of God , prophet , teacher, master. Etc.

Jesus himself was called master , by people of his time . Because that was the way to address leaders. I don't know why you guys just have bad belle for ministers . The fact that paul and Peter address each other by name doesn't mean they were addresses by their followers likewise. Theres difference. Paul himself taught many times about respect for leaders.


1 Thessalonians 5:12-13
12 Dear brothers, honor the officers of your church who work hard among you and warn you against all that is wrong. 13 Think highly of them and give them your wholehearted love because they are straining to help you. And remember, no quarreling among yourselves.

Resorting to ‘you were not there in the Bible days to know what happened’ is a cheap ploy often employed when it’s convenient and quickly discarded when it is not. That is, you start demanding for chapter and verse when it is in your interest and when it’s not, you ask us to accept or be bound by a practice not in the Bible because it “must” have been so. Interesting.

Paul emphasizing his apostleship does not mean people were addressing him, officially or not, as Apostle Paul. Even when he confronted Peter, he referred to him as Cephas, while reporting the incident. If it’s the church today, especially among black people, it would be “I confronted Bishop Peter”. Hagin’s official title was Rev. or Dr. and people also called him Bro. But I’m sure somebody could call him Kenneth and he wouldn’t jump off a window. Imagine that with any Nigerian pastor today. I’m not sure if their wives while mentioning them in church ever omit their title. Even in their absence, people can’t even refer to them without titles. If a high school friend stops by, he can’t call him by his first name as in school days without attracting attention or seeing members around roll their eyes. And you tell me that must have been the case in the Bible because Paul emphasized his apostleship?

This long Tory. Question, is it wrong to call ministers men of God? Answer = no it is scriptural to call them so. Case closed.

I agree with you about critics and “I’m better than you” attitude. But you need to look at the mirror more often because it applies readily to you. An example is your constant reference to “lesser truth” or that churches are operating at the level of their understanding, in a way that drips of “I’m better than you.”

That's your personal bias. I never said I knew more than any person. But I'm glad to share what I know. Of a truth different ministers function at different levels of understanding. That's true. Paul obviously had deeper revelations than Peter and co. It's not a compettition. Peter himself acknowledged it.

BTW, that’s part of why I point out when you’re copying the teachings of American pastors, not because I want to show America is competing with Nigeria.

That is carnal of you to use such language. Can you copy truth. Truth is truth . Did they write their own bible? We believe and teach what the bible say. Was paul an American ? Or John? . Even smith wiggles worth known as apostle of faith is not an amerrican. Why over exalting American preachers. I think you still have what they call the slave mentality. (not an insult but observation). Those who believe nothing good is in africa. I quote scritptures and not american man dear.

Point being that you can’t go about “oppressing” others with what you copied or establishing your “specialness “with something you know is available outside your circles. That may be good for marketing, but something about it is not right.

Let who has been "oppressed" by me make that complain.

There in nothing unscriptural about addressing ministers as Men of God like Jo as said its also right that sometimes people over do this title thing, to many titles like Dr, Rev, Bishop attached to a name, anointing is not in titles.

nuella2:

sometimes people over do this title thing, to many titles like Dr, Rev, Bishop attached to a name, anointing is not in titles.

I agree , but thats a different issue. But when someone says it is unscriptural for a minister to aswer to "man of God" I wonder which scripture he is referring to. That's my issue with the op.

^^^
I get your point, also said its scriptural but can be abused. There is absolutely nothing wrong in addressing someone as Man of God.

Joagbaje:

Read the bible for yourself dear. Ministers were called , man of God , prophet , teacher, master. Etc.

Jesus himself was called master , by people of his time . Because that was the way to address leaders. I don't know why you guys just have bad belle for ministers . The fact that paul and Peter address each other by name doesn't mean they were addresses by their followers likewise. Theres difference. Paul himself taught many times about respect for leaders.


1 Thessalonians 5:12-13
12 Dear brothers, honor the officers of your church who work hard among you and warn you against all that is wrong. 13 Think highly of them and give them your wholehearted love because they are straining to help you. And remember, no quarreling among yourselves.


This long Tory. Question, is it wrong to call ministers men of God? Answer = no it is scriptural to call them so. Case closed.

That's your personal bias. I never said I knew more than any person. But I'm glad to share what I know. Of a truth different ministers function at different levels of understanding. That's true. Paul obviously had deeper revelations than Peter and co. It's not a compettition. Peter himself acknowledged it.

That is carnal of you to use such language. Can you copy truth. Truth is truth . Did they write their own bible? We believe and teach what the bible say. Was paul an American ? Or John? . Even smith wiggles worth known as apostle of faith is not an amerrican. Why over exalting American preachers. I think you still have what they call the slave mentality. (not an insult but observation). Those who believe nothing good is in africa. I quote scritptures and not american man dear.

Let who has been "oppressed" by me make that complain.

1. Again, nothing you have said shows that people were "officially" addressed that way. People recognized that they were ministers, men of God, teachers, etc. Doesn't mean that's the way they were officially addressed. Possible exception is Jesus but that's outside the discussion.

2.  Respect and titles are 2 different things. People respect their parents and siblings everyday without using titles. Even in Nigeria. Among non-Africans, people respect their bosses and pastors while addressing them by their names. If your argument is that it is a cultural thing, stick with that and don’t claim it’s Biblical.

3. So unless those you oppress complain, it is not oppression? It can be discussed on its own without anybody coming out to cry.

4.’ Slave mentality’ is another in your bag of marketing tricks. It’s only effective for people at certain levels. Not me.

5. Funny enough, nobody wants to copy America or foreign things more than some of you – from the way you look to the way you speak to the way you organize your things –even when you’ve never lived or worked there. Yet, you have the nerve to think it’s others that have the slave mentality. Harriet Tubman was right after all: that some slaves were unaware they were slaves and that’s why she could not free them.

6. Never said that any truth originated from America. But if you study the law of gravity or the law of relativity and do not acknowledge Newton or Einstein, after reading them and getting the ideas from them, you’ll be treated as an academic fraud. Claiming that the law of relativity is the truth regardless of who says it will not absolve you. Worse still, when you pretend that you discovered the truth by reading the bible when there is every indication you borrowed it from known authors. I’m completely surprised that you’re trying to claim that God actually revealed these truths to you when you clearly got them from others. Nothing wrong in learning from others – I do that all the time -  but my quarrel is pretending this knowledge either originated from you or is peculiar to you when you *know* for sure that’s not true. I consider that dishonest.

7. Worse still, to use the so-called knowledge to put down others or claim 'specialness'.

@NLmediator

6. Never said that any truth originated from America. But if you study the law of gravity or the law of relativity and do not acknowledge Newton or Einstein, after reading them and getting the ideas from them, you’ll be treated as an academic fraud.

True

Claiming that th e law of relativity is the truth regardless of who says it will not absolve you. Worse still, when you pretend that you discovered the truth by reading the bible when there is every indication you borrowed it from known authors.

Very funny post. Who is claiming originality. Does Gods word have copyrights. When I quote pastor chris article ,I always acknowledge the source. And when I quote bible ,I didn't claim to write it, I acknowledge the book. Wetin remain?

I’m completely surprised that you’re trying to claim that God actually revealed these truths to you when you clearly got them from others. Nothing wrong in learning from others – I do that all the time -  but my quarrel is pretending this knowledge either originated from you or is peculiar to you when you *know* for sure that’s not true. I consider that dishonest.

Where did i make these funny and petty claim of yours? Somebody must be missing something here. And Which preacher I'm I copying?.

Joagbaje:

@NLmediator
True


Very funny post. Who is claiming originality. Does Gods word have copyrights. When I quote pastor chris article ,I always acknowledge the source. And when I quote bible ,I didn't claim to write it, I acknowledge the book. Wetin remain?

Where did i make these funny and petty claim of yours? Somebody must be missing something here. And Which preacher I'm I copying?.

It was a generic "you" - not you in particular.

Yes, God's Word does not have any copyright. But not everybody comes up with the same interpretation. If a preacher uses another's interpretation, he doesn't necessarily owe him any acknowledgments or copyright respect, since the other preacher freely received it from God. But what the copying preacher should not do is deny that he received it from the other preacher or indicate that he got it some other way. Also, he should not see reference to the fact that somebody preached the message earlier as a claim that the message could only have originated in a certain country. The printing press was invented by a German. Pointing that out is not asserting German superiority or inferring that Africans couldn't have come up with that or some other invention. The facts do not change.

nlMediator:

It was a generic "you" - not you in particular.

Yes, God's Word does not have any copyright. But not everybody comes up with the same interpretation. If a preacher uses another's interpretation,

There can only be an interpretation for scriptures. Stop privatising interpretations.

2 Peter 1:20
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

. But what the copying preacher should not do is deny that he received it from the other preacher or indicate that he got it some other way. Also, he should not see reference to the fact that somebody preached the message earlier as a claim that the message could only have originated in a certain country.

I still maintain that this "copy" utterance is carnal. Do you copy the word of God? .  There is difference between Inspiration and copy. I can be influenced and inspired by another man. In different ways. If you teach truth and it agrees with my heart . I accept based on the word. Not because Mr A says so. But because the word says so. Anybody can quote truth from scriptures . I will take it because it is in the scriptures like the bereans.  For that I don't need to quote a man.

But if I'm quoting a man teaching. Or principles, nuggets ,quotes etc . Of course courtesy demands we make references to such sources. And I do where applicable.

.

Ephesians 4:11 says it all

Joagbaje:

There can only be an interpretation for scriptures. Stop privatising interpretations.

2 Peter 1:20
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.


I still maintain that this "copy" utterance is carnal. Do you copy the word of God? . There is difference between Inspiration and copy. I can be influenced and inspired by another man. In different ways. If you teach truth and it agrees with my heart . I accept based on the word. Not because Mr A says so. But because the word says so. Anybody can quote truth from scriptures . I will take it because it is in the scriptures like the bereans. For that I don't need to quote a man.

But if I'm quoting a man teaching. Or principles, nuggets ,quotes etc . Of course courtesy demands we make references to such sources. And I do where applicable.

.

Generally agree. For me, it's not even necessary to make reference to the source, unless asked. The point remains that what many Nigerian preachers share (again not necessarily "you" the poster on nairaland) is influenced by foreign sources. Nothing wrong with that. Just do not pretend it was not. And that the Holy Spirit revealed it to you at night. Such pretence makes the members rever the preacher the more and that may be the only motive behind hiding the influence and you even hear people "quoting" those pastors when they're actually quoting the foreign preacher or motivational speaker the pastor borrowed from). Which is the real carnality, not your fixation with the word copy. The private interpretation scripture is irrelevant to the discussion, as you already confirmed my main point - which is influence.

BTW, it could also be the major reason you hardly hear preachers sharing their reading lists.

nlMediator:

. Just do not pretend it was not. And that the Holy Spirit revealed it to you at night. Such pretence makes the members rever the preacher the more and that may be the only motive behind hiding the influence and you even hear people "quoting" those pastors when they're actually quoting the foreign preacher or motivational speaker the pastor borrowed from).

What are people borrowing? I still don't know what all these has to do with the thread .

q