@Gombs, as listed in chapter 6, can you kindly list the ones you have been practicing?

I recall you telling pickabeau1, that "in your church they dont boast"(i recalled this because if you could tell her you folks dont boast, you should be able to also say which one your church practices )


kindly list those that are being practiced in your church

Thanks

PS:welldone, I know it wasnt easy to post all of that, the little I did wasnt funny. the highlighting on that particular pdf file isnt smooth

nannymcphee:

@Gombs, as listed in chapter 6, can you kindly list the ones you have been practicing?
I recall you telling pickabeau1, that "in your church they dont boast"(i recalled this because if you could tell her you folks dont boast, you should be able to also say which one your church practices )
kindly list those that are being practiced in your church

Tithes, firstfruits, offerings, seeds (offer7, etc) partnership etc

Thanks
PS:welldone, I know it wasnt easy to post all of that, the little I did wasnt funny. the highlighting on that particular pdf file isnt smooth

Thanks, e no easy o!

On a side note, I get that churches reach far extremes in a particular thing, sometimes, the church is not at fault but a particular teacher in that ministry. Like Bidam rightly pointed out, some like my friends here (trustman, shedemidemi, Drummaboy aka WinsomeX, Kunle etc) discovered these excesses in whatever way either from concern or spite, and they too wanting to correct these excesses, took theirs to the other extreme too, they must have thought since too much of this is terrible, why not we just get rid of it altogether?

They took it to the extreme, and their communication was not from the spiritual, their weapons of warfare were carnal, I wish they were spiritual enough all these years. Hagin did all the corrections but never called anyone a thief or fraud or other insultive adjectives. Now, I am not saying I was right too, because I just thought these folks didn't like givings and are out to deter others, though alot of their team mates (atheists, pagans, etc) made them even look worse.

This created a large gulf. We who were for givings and maybe due to the fact we didn't address those who take it to the extremes, became team extreme givings, and those who took theirs to the other extreme side of the road, who seemingly would want these givings to stop entirely, hence the gulf. We then always had disagreements and animosity was created. We all got so engrossed in the disagreement, that we forgot the original motivation, which is to do good and bless folks and move the gospel. In our overzealousness, we may have lost the original truth.

I am not perfect, I may have been wrong in time past, but now, I've a balance, thanks to Papa Hagin. Even though in my church, my Pastor and Pastor Chris do not take givings to extremes, neither do they cook up gimmicks to raise funds. I had already know about cheerful giving during my NYSC, and I learnt from Pastor Chris that God is not a money doubler, you don't give because you expect, you give because you want to, and you love God ... I am aware, in some CE Churches, some pastor's take it to the extreme. But that's why we pray, right?

I must thank you for this book, you don't know how I've thanked God for the book, and prayed more for churches and ministers of the gospel. I've got a message now, the download site has increased traffic too, it has gone up more than 650, 000, but I feel bad, Hagin or his ministry deserves to benefit from the book, it's worth far more than free. I must be a partner in their ministry, I should give towards their work.

Folks, this is it... no more wars on biblical prosperity, I was never In support of extreme givings, but my not speaking out made me culpable, I have repented. God bless you all

You highlighted the part in blue from page 134. i want to hazard a guess you intend passing the notion accross that Hagin was making a case for God-hood of mog (I stand to be corrected pls!!!)

"Someone might ask, "What about the fivefold ministry? Aren't they priests? Don't those in fivefold ministry represent me to God?" No, they're not priests. [size=20pt] They don't represent you to God; they represent God to you! [/size]"

However, i believe Hagin wasn't trying to prove God-hood of mog there (If you say that's what he was trying to do, i will further ask how harmonius it is with your famed 'god-hood of all believers' unless you want to say mog are a higher class in the 'god-hood of all believers' hence the capital 'God' to depict them). I say Hagin wasn't preaching that idea because see what he wrote on page 128

"I'm reminded of Paul and Barnabas. When they ministered in the city of Lystra, a lifelong cripple was raised up, leaping and walking. When the people of the city saw what had happened, they cried, "The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men." They called Barnabas Jupiter, and called Paul Mercurius. The Bible says the priests of the city brought oxen and garlands to offer a sacrifice to them (see Acts 14:8-18).
In order to restrain the people from worshipping them, [size=14pt]Paul and Barnabas had to run among the people and testify that they were[/size] [size=20pt]just men in the service of the Living God[/size]. [size=18pt]It seems there is something about human nature that wants to elevate certain people to god-like status.[/size]
The Greeks had a mythical legend about a king named Midas who lived in the eighth century B.C., from the same general area as Lystra. You probably remember his story as the king with the golden touch; everything he put his hands on turned to gold.
Well, just as the people of Lystra asked if Jupiter and Mercurius had come down amongst them, today it seems some people are asking, "Is Midas in our midst?"
Unfortunately, too many are ready to believe that if they put money into the hands of a preacher with the Midas touch, so to speak, he will somehow, magically, bring increase and multiplication of their finances. This can quickly degenerate into wrong motives or covetousness."

He clearly explained how Paul and Barnabas [size=20pt]rejected[/size] the notion of being called gods and he infact went ahead to caution against exalting people to ''god-like status''


other observations will come in later

Gombs:


Tithes, firstfruits, offerings, seeds (offer7, etc) partnership etc



Thanks, e no easy o!

On a side note, I get that churches reach far extremes in a particular thing, sometimes, the church is not at fault but a particular teacher in that ministry. Like Bidam rightly pointed out, some like my friends here (trustman, shedemidemi, Drummaboy aka WinsomeX, Kunle etc) discovered these excesses in whatever way either from concern or spite, and they too wanting to correct these excesses, took theirs to the other extreme too, they must have thought since too much of this is terrible, why not we just get rid of it altogether?

They took it to the extreme, and their communication was not from the spiritual, their weapons of warfare were carnal, I wish they were spiritual enough all these years. Hagin did all the corrections but never called anyone a thief or fraud or other insultive adjectives. Now, I am not saying I was right too, because I just thought these folks didn't like givings and are out to deter others, though alot of their team mates (atheists, pagans, etc) made them even look worse.

This created a large gulf. We who were for givings and maybe due to the fact we didn't address those who take it to the extremes, became team extreme givings, and those who took theirs to the other extreme side of the road, who seemingly would want these givings to stop entirely, hence the gulf. We then always had disagreements and animosity was created. We all got so engrossed in the disagreement, that we forgot the original motivation, which is to do good and bless folks and move the gospel. In our overzealousness, we may have lost the original truth.

I am not perfect, I may have been wrong in time past, but now, I've a balance, thanks to Papa Hagin. Even though in my church, my Pastor and Pastor Chris do not take givings to extremes, neither do they cook up gimmicks to raise funds. I had already know about cheerful giving during my NYSC, and I learnt from Pastor Chris that God is not a money doubler, you don't give because you expect, you give because you want to, and you love God ... I am aware, in some CE Churches, some pastor's take it to the extreme. But that's why we pray, right?

I must thank you for this book, you don't know how I've thanked God for the book, and prayed more for churches and ministers of the gospel. I've got a message now, the download site has increased traffic too, it has gone up more than 650, 000, but I feel bad, Hagin or his ministry deserves to benefit from the book, it's worth far more than free. I must be a partner in their ministry, I should give towards their work.

Folks, this is it... no more wars on biblical prosperity, I was never In support of extreme givings, but my not speaking out made me culpable, I have repented. God bless you all

This is a step in the right direction. However, Its just not about extremes, its about some practices that are [size=20pt]TOTALLY ALIEN TO CHRISTIANITY[/size] being bandied about in almost all churches today which Hagin pointed out e.g First fruits which you graciously admitted CEC does.

I'll find time to point out the others later.

@Nannymcphee, when i first encountered you on WOF thread, i assumed you were there to push trustman et al off course hence my offer to discuss with you on that thread (you know, like lead the bull out of the shop before it destroys things ). However, on that same thread, before long i realised you were at the point i got to in 2011 as in you were simply seeking truth desperately. Thanks for all your questions. thanks for bringing up this book. i have the E-copy now but will be looking for the hard copy to keep in my library.

I too have learnt a lot and will surely be making some adjustments. even though i do not agree with Hagin on some things, i'm the better and wiser for reading this book.

Thanks once again and also to Gombs, thanks.

Edit: Pls don't play this card

though alot of their team mates (atheists, pagans, etc) made them even look worse.

there's nothing like team mates with atheists and pagans otherwise í can also accuse you of a pact with a satanist who has been defending your course and that of Jo in the past few weeks

Candour:

This is a step in the right direction. However, Its just not about extremes, its about some practices that are [size=20pt]TOTALLY ALIEN TO CHRISTIANITY[/size] being bandied about in almost all churches today which Hagin pointed out e.g First fruits which you graciously admitted CEC does.

Hagin was not against firstfruits, he was against folks ie preachers saying they are priests now and the firstfriuts belongs to them.

I'll find time to point out the others later.

alright

I too have learnt a lot and will surely be making some adjustments. even though i do not agree with Hagin on some things, i'm the better and wiser for reading this book.

same with me, just that i totally agree with Hagin

Thanks once again and also to Gombs, thanks.

Edit: Pls don't play this card
there's nothing like team mates with atheists and pagans otherwise í can also accuse you of a pact with a satanist who has been defending your course and that of Jo in the past few weeks

Huh? Satanist ke? Ok o, i won't play the card... i am glad the book came around, i too will find the book for my library.

@Gombs

I'm grateful to God that our nerves have come down, things are a bit calm.

I saw ur points & also the things you listed that are being practiced in CE.

remember I'm still there, I'll give my position on tithe & first fruit

but just want to ask(no offence intended)

in CE, we practice

1.giving to get
2.naming your seed
3.hundredfold return
4.debt breaking/money multiplying anointing

I don't agree with all Hagin wrote in that book & I also know u might have ur own disagreement but what's your take on these 4 points I raised above, am I wrong or I'm exaggerating?

Do you agree with me that once there is challenge in any area of our life, the first response any CE member will give is "have u sown seeds?"

yes we pray but without the seed aspect, any leader will tell you it's not yet complete

Am I correct to say that it's a shame to say you don't have in CE & that we are taught & encouraged to live a live of wealth & opulence?

am I correct that there is too much emphasis on money, giving, Patnership in CE?

What's your take on "miracle money"(lol, you know what I'm talking about), in your opinion is it biblical?

with all the "too much money" u know na, "too much grace" how come the ministry still has needs, sometimes owe staffs salary, still have uncompleted church projects, owe for rhapsody etc

Will you agree with me that the needy/poor in our midst(pls don't tell me we don't have them) are "sometimes" neglected, but there is much emphasis on inner city & regions beyond or sending bibles or relief materials to folks that are far away

Gombs, I'll appreciate if you give answers with explanation & invite others who are in house to answer this, maybe I'm the one missing it


These questions are not meant to cause strife & they are strictly meant for anyone in CE on this thread, I'll appreciate if this request of mine is honored. Thanks

Gombs:


Hagin was not against firstfruits, he was against folks ie preachers saying they are priests now and the firstfriuts belongs to them.

Haba we shouldn't start again na!!

What does the below quote from page 136 mean then?

[size=20pt]Making a New Testament application of Old Testament technicalities violates every principle of Bible interpretation, especially when there isn't a single New Testament usage of the word "firstfruits" in the context in which it is being preached by some ministers.

The concept of firstfruits is not used in the New Testament in reference to financial giving[/size]. There is not even the vaguest hint of it by any New Testament writer in reference to money or the support of ministers.

"Firstfruits" in the New Testament primarily refers to Jesus Christ. He is the Firstfruits—the first One to be raised from the dead—and represented all those who would follow after him.
Other New Testament uses of "firstfruits" refer to the "firstfruits of the Spirit" in the life of the believer. In other words,
"firstfruits" refers to the initial working of the Spirit in a believer's life—the first evidence of His indwelling us. It refers to those signs of His Presence in us now, as compared to what He will do with us later when we have our glorified bodies.

Another use of the word "firstfruits" is totally figurative. It has to do with the first individuals to be born again in a certain location.
After examining many teachings that have led to misunderstandings and hurtful problems in the Body of Christ, let's look at the Biblical way to prosper.

Pls, first fruits offering (in money or whatever form) as a doctrine for christians has no single basis in scriptures. We've always said it and now Hagin has confirmed it. If you still argue this, i'll be very surprised.

My position on tithing

similar to that of first fruit, I also see it as a thing of honor.

it will bug me if I receive 100 from God & I can't give him anything at all

at the end of the month, I check what I spent on myself & check what I spent on charity & ministry. It has to be commensurate, if it isn't, It pricks my heart

I'm not of the opinion that it must be 10%, it could be more, it could be less but becos there is a mention of 10%, in the scriptures. I'll peg it at 10

Bottom line for me, end of month give something back to God as an act of worship, honor,adoration & thanksgiving

after giving this 10%, do I rest on my oars or give more, it depends on the need & how buoyant I'm at that point

There have been times I didnt give my tithe for that month or any ministry need for that month, I don't really like such be becos I see it as indiscipline cos I didn't give excuse for other things but when it came to that of God, I'm giving excuses

CC:openmine

My position on first fruit

I see it as a thing of honor & not compulsion.

lord this is my first profit for my business or salary & I'm giving you half, quarter or everything or whatever amount you see fit

It could be at the beginning of the year, middle, quarter or anytime u set

It could be your first proceed from the house you leased out, anything & whatever that is the first of that thing you want to give to God.

Eze44:30
And the first of all the firstfruits of all things, and every oblation of all, of every sort of your oblations, shall be the priest's: ye shall also give unto the priest the first of your dough, that he may cause the blessing to rest in thine house.

The above scripture is what's used to preach first fruit on why it should &must be dropped on the hands of a minister.

In my opinion, this has no relevance to the NT Christian

I also believe that I can take this first profit or salary & use it in setting someone up in business or pay school fees

It's more or less, lord thanks for giving me this job, I'm using this funds to help someone get a job/setup business just as you have given me. To me that's honoring God too

CC:openmine

Gombs,

You are being derailed. I think you should just go on with the review and entertain the derailments subsequently.

As per the Coat and Garments debacle, I think the problem is caused by the wanton urge to speed-read scriptures with the notion of looking for possible ammunition to contradict the post.

The bible and bible history clearly states that Jesus wore a gown as well as a seamless coat over it even when he was arrested. When he was to be flogged and scourged the soldiers took both of him. After they were done they put the garment that was scarlet and the crown of thorns over his head and then took him to Golgotha. Obviously, when he was placed on the cross before it was raised they took of the garment provided by Herod and divided into four portions (possibly for memorabilia) but when it came to the aspect of coat they decided to cast lots for it (because it was a costly possession), hence they didn't want it torn. That they fulfilled scriptures while at it was purely coincidental to them for they didn't even know the scriptures (they were Gentiles). Besides, they didn't say "let us fulfil scriptures by casting lots for his coat"- it was the disciples recounting the story, that told people how that even the aspect of casting lots for Jesus coat proves he was the sent one.

So Kenneth Hagin was still spot on- Jesus was not a homeless bum, Pauper or what have you that had "no where to lay his head". Jesus wasn't also flamboyant or extravagant (both 2 represent extremes). Jesus was however not POOR and those who have written articles to that effect can be humble enough to make their adjustments now.

@Gombs please answer @Candour

Candour:


Haba we shouldn't start again na!!

What does the below quote from page 136 mean then?




Pls, first fruits offering (in money or whatever form) as a doctrine for christians has no single basis in scriptures. We've always said it and now Hagin has confirmed it. If you still argue this, i'll be very surprised.

Making a New Testament application of Old Testament technicalities violates every principle of Bible interpretation, especially when there isn't a single New Testament usage of the word "firstfruits" in the context in which it is being preached by some ministers. The concept of firstfruits is not used in the New Testament in reference to financial giving. There is not even the vaguest hint of it by any New Testament writer in reference to money or [b]the support of ministers. 

Candour, from the above bold, understand what he meant by that first sentence, then in the context as used by the preachers he mentioned in the above part of your quote ie firstfruits are preachers monies, if he wanted to condemn it, he'd had plainly said so. But if you believe he did, fine. I don't think he did. Let's not argue please. I do not intend to derail. Chapter 7 is loading

Gombs:




Candour, from the above bold, understand what he meant by that first sentence, then in the context as used by the preachers he mentioned in the above part of your quote ie firstfruits are preachers monies, if he wanted to condemn it, he'd had plainly said so. But if you believe he did, fine. I don't think he did. Let's not argue please. I do not intend to derail. Chapter 7 is loading

Gombs I'm sure you didn't see this coming
Sorry I had to laugh but if you had the slightest problem comprehending very plain sentences then all I can say is WAHALA DEY

@Gombs, what do you understand by "The concept of firstfruits is not used in the New Testament in reference to financial giving"

Hagin had to give ALL the context in which 'firstfruit' was used in the NT

There is not even the vaguest hint of it by any New Testament writer in reference to money or the support of ministers. 

"Firstfruits" in the New Testament primarily refers to Jesus Christ. He is the Firstfruits—the first One to be raised from the dead—and represented all those who would follow after him.
Other New Testament uses of "firstfruits" refer to the "firstfruits of the Spirit" in the life of the believer. In other words,
"firstfruits" refers to the initial working of the Spirit in a believer's life—the first evidence of His indwelling us. It refers to those signs of His Presence in us now, as compared to what He will do with us later when we have our glorified bodies. 

Another use of the word "firstfruits" is totally figurative. It has to do with the first individuals to be born again in a certain location.

Gombs:




Candour, from the above bold, understand what he meant by that first sentence, then in the context as used by the preachers he mentioned in the above part of your quote ie firstfruits are preachers monies, if he wanted to condemn it, he'd had plainly said so. But if you believe he did, fine. I don't think he did. Let's not argue please. I do not intend to derail. Chapter 7 is loading

Dont worry my friend. You can go ahead with chapter 7. I won't derail you. However, see another hint that First fruits has nothing to do with money in the new covenant. It's from the same page 136 and it's even embeded in your response to me

There is not even the vaguest hint of it by any New Testament writer in reference to money or the support of ministers

I wont be doing any injustice to the book if i break it down into 2 statements thus:

''There is not even the vaguest hint of it by any new testament writer in reference to money'' meaning first fruits has nothing to do with money

''There is not even the vaguest hint of it by any new testament writer in reference to the support of ministers'' meaning it has nothing to do with support for ministers

This is because the ''OR'' there is a conjunction that joins two statements together

Anyhow you choose to look at it, first fruits offering has no scriptural basis for a Christian

Lobeez:
@Gombs, what do you understand by "The concept of firstfruits is not used in the New Testament in reference to financial giving"

Hagin had to give ALL the context in which 'firstfruit' was used in the NT

There is not even the vaguest hint of it by any New Testament writer in reference to money or the support of ministers. 

"Firstfruits" in the New Testament primarily refers to Jesus Christ. He is the Firstfruits—the first One to be raised from the dead—and represented all those who would follow after him.
Other New Testament uses of "firstfruits" refer to the "firstfruits of the Spirit" in the life of the believer. In other words,
"firstfruits" refers to the initial working of the Spirit in a believer's life—the first evidence of His indwelling us. It refers to those signs of His Presence in us now, as compared to what He will do with us later when we have our glorified bodies. 

Another use of the word "firstfruits" is totally figurative. It has to do with the first individuals to be born again in a certain location.

Honestly i didnt expect Gombs to be arguing this. It's as clear as daylight.

Gombs

I am gettin confused

You are making too many interjections into the text and i cant recognise which is the book and which is your annotation

i also observe ur side remarks to others... why

Who made the mistake of the 100 fold teaching because it felt good --- you or the author


Now as per your annotations i find it hilarious that you are find some of the practices highlighted by Hagin. Are they strange to you

Have u not heard of 100 fold teaching
or sowing into my ministry rather than the poor
Anointing to break spirit of poverty or debt?
Pastoral giving has higher yield

Please stop annotating the book

let me know when u have chp 7

[quote author=nannymcphee post=27335879]@Gombs

I'm grateful to God that our nerves have come down, things are a bit calm.

I saw ur points & also the things you listed that are being practiced in CE.

remember I'm still there, I'll give my position on tithe & first fruit

but just want to ask(no offence intended)

in CE, we i think we practice

Fixed

1.giving to get

Not aware of this, not in my church nor I Pastor Chris messages, if you have any message about giving to get, let me know. However, like I said earlier, it is possible some CE churches teach that, would that mean CE as awhole practice that?

2.naming your seed

Hmm... can you give an example? Remember what Papa Hagin said some preachers preach; "When you get your offering out, give it a name. If a farmer wants to harvest corn, he plants corn. If he wants to harvest cotton, he plants cotton. So name your offering as seed for what you want to receive."

3.hundredfold return

Ha! Not in my church, nor in Pastor Chris' messages. Not in Rev Tom's messages nor Evangelist Owase or Pastor Siji's. Where is your zone again?

4.debt breaking/money multiplying anointing

Read Hagin, preachers demanded monies in this guise. I can pray for your debt to be cancelled, and the debtor just calls you and say "don't bother paying". That is a miracle. But again, my Pastor has warned, even heard Pastor Chris warn "stop borrowing monies, if you don’t have, be contented".

I don't agree with all Hagin wrote in that book & I also know u might have ur own disagreement but what's your take on these 4 points I raised above, am I wrong or I'm exaggerating?

I can't say you are wrong, it is possible it happens in your church, but generalizing it is total exaggeration. Have you ever hear pastor chris hint on the above, ever?

Do you agree with me that once there is challenge in any area of our life, the first response any CE member will give is "have u sown seeds?"

I don't, not in my church o... when you have a challenge here, we find ways of fixing it, Pastor here don't ask for your tithe records or such.

yes we pray but without the seed aspect, any leader will tell you it's not yet complete

I am a leader, and I tell my flock they are not under any compulsion to give offer 7 for example, neither are they forced tot tithe, but I give them reason why they should.

Am I correct to say that it's a shame to say you don't have in CE & that we are taught & encouraged to live a live of wealth & opulence?

IF you know how much I give out on TP during service days eh! Why were those ones not ashamed? I am not ashamed to say I don't have monies for offering atimes, and my fellow leader load me up...simple.

am I correct that there is too much emphasis on money, giving, Patnership in CE?

Na wa o... not in my church. My pastor talks more about the God-life, the supernatural, Faith, then he cast out demons like it's a hobby... we all learn from him, he hardly ever talks more on money, but when he says for example, we need buy a new generator (160kva), folks are falling on each other to buy it, not give towards it o.

What's your take on "miracle money"(lol, you know what I'm talking about), in your opinion is it biblical?

You shall decree a thing and it shall be established unto you... Job 22:28 sounds familiar? That's why it's a miracle, not money doubling.

with all the "too much money" u know na, "too much grace" how come the ministry still has needs, sometimes owe staffs salary, still have uncompleted church projects, owe for rhapsody etc

So, this means someone is lying? What's your point actually!?

Will you agree with me that the needy/poor in our midst(pls don't tell me we don't have them) are "sometimes" neglected, but there is much emphasis on inner city & regions beyond or sending bibles or relief materials to folks that are far away

Don't you have HELPS Department innyour church? Even if you don't, why do you think nwe have cells? My cell is planning on empowering the jobless folks, barbing salon, welding, etc. That is the responsibility of the cell ministry, that's why the cell is under PFCC. Check those poor and needy ones, they are 90% not in a cell, nor participate in church activities effectively

Gombs, I'll appreciate if you give answers with explanation & invite others who are in house to answer this, maybe I'm the one missing it

I havee, but you might think I'm covering up...why should I lie?

These questions are not meant to cause strife & they are strictly meant for anyone in CE on this thread, I'll appreciate if this request of mine is honored. Thanks

Me I think you should speak to your pastor o! Maybe your are there for such a time as this.

Candour:


Dont worry my friend. You can go ahead with chapter 7. I won't derail you. However, see another hint that First fruits has nothing to do with money in the new covenant. It's from the same page 136 and it's even embeded in your response to me


Y
I wont be doing any injustice to the book if i break it down into 2 statements thus:

''There is not even the vaguest hint of it by any new testament writer in reference to money'' meaning first fruits has nothing to do with money

''There is not even the vaguest hint of it by any new testament writer in reference to the support of ministers'' meaning it has nothing to do with support for ministers

This is because the ''OR'' there is a conjunction that joins two statements together

Anyhow you choose to look at it, first fruits offering has no scriptural basis for a Christian

Your opinion is Noted

pickabeau1:
Gombs

I am gettin confused

You are making too many interjections into the text and i cant recognise which is the book and which is your annotation

i also observe ur side remarks to others... why

Who made the mistake of the 100 fold teaching because it felt good --- you or the author


Now as per your annotations i find it hilarious that you are find some of the practices highlighted by Hagin. Are they strange to you





Please stop annotating the book

let me know when u have chp 7

Some are strange to me....and to be honest, I haven't heard of the hundred fold increase? I'd let you know of chapter 7

Gombs:


Some are strange to me....and to be honest, I haven't heard of the hundred fold increase? I'd let you know of chapter 7

Now I see why u r so defensive when you see comments highlighting the gimmicks being practiced by some church

Unfortunately you are an island in an ocean which is increasing in water level

I have heard of 60 fold and 100 fold
In so many churches.


It is real..you need to listen more

mbaemeka:
Gombs,

You are being derailed. I think you should just go on with the review and entertain the derailments subsequently.

As per the Coat and Garments debacle, I think the problem is caused by the wanton urge to speed-read scriptures with the notion of looking for possible ammunition to contradict the post.

The bible and bible history clearly states that Jesus wore a gown as well as a seamless coat over it even when he was arrested. When he was to be flogged and scourged the soldiers took both of him. After they were done they put the garment that was scarlet and the crown of thorns over his head and then took him to Golgotha. Obviously, when he was placed on the cross before it was raised they took of the garment provided by Herod and divided into four portions (possibly for memorabilia) but when it came to the aspect of coat they decided to cast lots for it (because it was a costly possession), hence they didn't want it torn. That they fulfilled scriptures while at it was purely coincidental to them for they didn't even know the scriptures (they were Gentiles). Besides, they didn't say "let us fulfil scriptures by casting lots for his coat"- it was the disciples recounting the story, that told people how that even the aspect of casting lots for Jesus coat proves he was the sent one.

So Kenneth Hagin was still spot on- Jesus was not a homeless bum, Pauper or what have you that had "no where to lay his head". Jesus wasn't also flamboyant or extravagant (both 2 represent extremes). Jesus was however not POOR and those who have written articles to that effect can be humble enough to make their adjustments now.

Thanks bro, nice counsel

Following...

pickabeau1:

Now I see why u r so defensive when you see comments highlighting the gimmicks being practiced by some church

Unfortunately you are an island in an ocean which is increasing in water level

I have heard of 60 fold and 100 fold
In so many churches.


It is real..you need to listen more

We sure have to pray for God's people.

Gombs:


We sure have to pray for God's people.

Yes we do....


If I may say you have not accepted the existence of this gimmicks in the naijan church

If we dont agree there is a question how can we find d answer

pickabeau1:

Yes we do....


If I may say you have not accepted the existence of this gimmicks in the naijan church

If we dont agree there is a question how can we find d answer

Oh! I have accepted the existence of these gimmicks in Nigerian churches, even in some CEC churches.

SirJohn:
Following...

seconded!!!

Gombs:
[size=20pt]Will There Be an End- Time Transfer of Wealth?[/size]

There has been quite a bit of discussion in the last couple of years about a coming transference of wealth from the world to the Church. The idea is based on part of a scripture that says,
" . . . the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just" (Prov. 13:22). Apparently, some have interpreted this to mean that the day will come when God's people will have plenty of money for the work of God—money transferred to us from the wealth of the worldly.

First of all, I really don't see anything about this in the New Testament, especially in terms of what we are supposed to be actively believing God for. And I'm always wary about building a doctrine or basic belief on a single scripture. Jesus said, ". . .in
the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may he established"
(Matt. 18:16).

I'm sure that as the Church does its job and gets people born again, there will be more people giving their tithes and offerings for the work of the Lord. But I think we need to be careful about coveting the world's money. We shouldn't be so concerned about getting sinners' money transferred into our hands. Our concern should be getting their hearts transferred into the Kingdom. We should be focused on their receiving what we have (eternal life), not on our receiving what they have (material goods).

Paul said to the Corinthians, "I seek not yours, but you" (2 Cor. 12:14). As a minister, he was not focused on their money, but on their souls.
The Apostle John said the following about some ministers who traveled with the Gospel: "Because that for his name's sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles" (3 John 7).

Other translations of this verse emphasize the point:

"... accepting nothing from the heathen" (Goodspeed)

". . . taking nothing from the people of the world" (Beck)

".. . and declined to take anything from pagans" (Moffatt)

"... and they accept no help from non-Christians" (Phillips)

Our job is not to try to get the wealth of the world. Our job is to faithfully use the wealth we already have to get the Gospel out. If all Christians would simply tithe and give offerings, the Church would have more than enough funds to accomplish whatever it needs to do. Statistics indicate that twenty percent of church members provide eighty percent of church revenue and that the average American Christian gives only six percent of his income to the Lord's work. Imagine where we would be if those percentages were where they ought to be! *** imagine where we would have been as a church if folks quit arguing tithes and seeds and offerings?

The Bible does teach that when the Church returns with Jesus after the Tribulation and He sets up His Millennial Kingdom on earth, we will be inheriting all of the wealth of the sinners at that time. I don't see anywhere in the New Testament where we are supposed to be focused on getting their money now. Instead, we should be concentrating on seeking the hearts of the unsaved and faithfully using the finances we already have.

The answer to the question heading of this post is no. I sure hope you agree with him and have corrected your thinking about it because see what you told me when we broached it during one of our discussions in time past.

Gombs:


Proverbs 13:22
Amplified Bible (AMP)
22 A good man leaves an inheritance [of moral stability
and goodness] to his children’s children, and the wealth of the sinner [finds its way eventually] into the hands of the righteous, for whom it was laid up.


It is mainly from
this one single verse that the “wealth of the wicked” is
conjured up for divine distribution to Christians living
today.

Tell Gates, Zukerberg, Seun etc it's a matter of time!

on this thread

https://www.nairaland.com/1189741/tithes-offerings/105#19933642

I'm glad Hagin mentioned this because this is the erroneous idea behind the ''dominion theology'' which is another branch of the WOF movement.

Candour:


The answer to the question heading of this post is no. I sure hope you agree with him and have corrected your thinking about it because see what you told me when we broached it during one of our discussions in time past.




on this thread

https://www.nairaland.com/1189741/tithes-offerings/105#19933642

I'm glad Hagin mentioned this because this is the erroneous idea behind the ''dominion theology'' which is another branch of the WOF movement.

This thread should and must be recommended specially to joagbaje and image123. How they need to see some of these things, it might just lead them to also repent.

Gombs:


Oh! I have accepted the existence of these gimmicks in Nigerian churches, even in some CEC churches.

Interesting.....


At least there is scope for more understanding

Yes it exists even aMong the bigger churches

The smaller ones...let's not go there

Candour:


The answer to the question heading of this post is no. I sure hope you agree with him and have corrected your thinking about it because see what you told me when we broached it during one of our discussions in time past.




on this thread

https://www.nairaland.com/1189741/tithes-offerings/105#19933642

I'm glad Hagin mentioned this because this is the erroneous idea behind the ''dominion theology'' which is another branch of the WOF movement.

my friend, try quoting things in full context. Now note what Papa Hagin thoght:

We shouldn't be so concerned about getting sinners' money transferred into our hands. Our concern should be getting their hearts transferred into the Kingdom. We should be focused on their receiving what we have (eternal life), not on our receiving what they have (material goods).

notice i highlighted it in the book as posted on this thread. I was not concerned or waiting to receive their wealth, or praying it to come to me.

you quoted me half way, ignoring your question and the latter part of my post.

you wrote:

Gates and Zuckerberg follow the principle of hard and smart work which God promises to bless(Prov 22:29) and its irrespective of belief or lack of. You claim to follow Tithing principle so tell us why the principle followed by atheists is more efficacious than yours?

there my friend is why i told you from scriptures "they are not efficacious than anything Godly, for they will always store up for the righteous "

this is no way meaning i am praying for Dangote or Gates or etc wealth to come to me. I was not taught so. Interestingly, you for some reasons skipped the latter part of my post;

Go study about men like Coalgate, heinz, Rockefeller, the above is still working for them...their companies are over a hundred years old and the companies are still rolling.

Gates and Zukerberg and Seun won't last 50yrs....take it from me.

I stand by these words, and my post is in no way in support of End-time transfer of wealth. Meanwhile in that post you quoted form the book, why on earth did you not see this?

Our job is not to try to get the wealth of the world. Our job is to faithfully use the wealth we already have to get the Gospel out. If all Christians would simply tithe and give offerings, the Church would have more than enough funds to accomplish whatever it needs to do. Statistics indicate that twenty percent of church members provide eighty percent of church revenue and that the average American Christian gives only six percent of his income to the Lord's work. Imagine where we would be if those percentages were where they ought to be!

any comments?

shdemidemi:


This thread should and must be recommended specially to joagbaje and image123. How they need to see some of these things, it might just lead them to also repent.

wait for chapter 7, i hope you will repent. Jo and Image has nothing to repent from. Provide what they need repent from ( i am well sure you are against divine healing, where you've claimed it ended with the apostles, and it is only a wicked generation that needs miracle ) , if you deny it, i'd dedicate today to fishing them out). Chapter 7 was specially written for you, and i hope you will be honest enough to admit... not that i expect you to by the way.