₦airaland Forum

Joagbaje:
. . ."No. The only thing that takes away man sin, is not their works , but the blood of Jesus . Shed on the cross. It travelled back to Adam and also to our future

^
I see. The power of the Blood extends back all the way to Adam and also into the future. . .and yet you do not consider Abraham & others to have been saved by the Blood, when God makes it clear right from Genesis chapter 3 that without the shedding of the Blood, there is no remission of sins.

You lot go on and on about faith and yet by your theology; you deny the power of God. Again I ask you: What does this mean: Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness.? At Mount Sinai, when God spoke to the nation of Israel and said: "And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation."^{Lev 19:6} What did he mean? When David by the Holy Spirit said: "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered."^{Psalm 32:1} By what means then was his transgression forgiven and his sin covered when the scriptures lead us to understand this: "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins."^{Hebrews 10:4}

Your error lies in treating salvation from God as being separate from being born again; when the Bible makes no such distinction.
Consider this; In his discourse with Nicodemus, Jesus said: "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."^{John 3:5}
These two individuals, did they enter into God's Kingdom or not? Where did they appear from, bearing in mind that Jesus had not yet been crucified?
And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.^{Mark 9:4}

How did Abraham get into the Kingdom of God without being born again? If you acknowledge the scripture that those who are saved (born again) are the children of Abraham; how is it possible then that the father (according to God's word) is not born again but his spiritual descendants are?
Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. ^{Gal 3:6-9}

OLAADEGBU:
Who exactly are you referring to and can you quote those insults?  This is a pathetic sign of a drowning man grasping at straws.

Please do not allow him to distract you with his false accusations of "foul words and insults". He's always doing that when he's cornered. You yourself are witness to the fact that I have not insulted him in any way. It is just a diversionary tactic to draw attention away from the fact that he has not answered a single one of the questions he was asked on this thread.

The Word of the Lord is pure and beautiful and it's testimony is clear. The gospel of Jesus is declared in the scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. It is this very same gospel that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses etc all believed in. Indeed Abraham acted out the gospel with Isaac on Moriah.

What follows was posted earlier by me in another thread but I think is germane to the discussion at hand:

---

There is much richness and treasure in the Holy Scriptures: which careful meditation on them will yield.

God knows the beginning from the end.

Isaiah 46:9-10.  Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Since God is All-knowing; He knew even before He created Adam that Man would sin. You may argue that God could have created Man in such a way that Adam would not sin; but that would render the man an automaton, devoid of free will. Yet you need to remember that "Man is created in the image of God". . .to render him incapable of free will is to render him incapable of love and God is Love.

So knowing that Man would sin; God still went ahead and created Man with the free will and the ability to choose out of Love, but at the same time He set in place a plan to redeem Man and bring him back to God. God's character is that of Perfect Love; so creating Man in any way less than capable of exercising free will and choice would fall short of the perfection of love; and God cannot act out of character. And God's Love is further revealed by His fashioning out a plan of redemption even before creating the world.

For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5: 6-.

A common misunderstanding by a lot of people, even some Christians is to suppose that Jesus' death was accidental. No, it wasn't---it was a deliberate plan of God. God already planned for Jesus to die even before creating the world!

Concerning Jesus; this is written in Matthew.
Mat 13:35  That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Romans 16:25-26.  Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

2 Timothy 1:9-10.  Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began, But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:

Titus 1:2-3  In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;

Revelation 13:8  And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

The full details of God's plan of salvation were kept largely hidden until the fullness of time when it was gloriously revealed in Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Yet even though partly hidden; the pages of scripture from Genesis 1:1 onwards are replete with parables, prophecies, types and similitudes that foreshadowed God's redemptive plan.

That this is so is plainly revealed in Hosea: "I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the prophets" (12:10). And further elucidated by Jesus Himself: "Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself" (Luke 24: 25-27).

God's wisdom and foreknowledge is demonstrated for us to see in the scriptures right from the get-go, for even in Genesis Chapter 1, we begin to see foreshadowings of His plan. Consider for example:

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. (Genesis 1:4-5)

Of course you know that light and darkness are spiritual metaphors as well. Light then is a representative principle for God, while darkness itself represents sin and anything abhorrent to God. From the verse in Genesis, we see that quite early on God divides the light from the darkness, thus showing us that the light and darkness cannot abide together; showing us by way of metaphor and similitude that He is Holy and does not abide the presence of sin; showing us that sin separates us from the light of His presence.

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5).

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?(2 Cor 6:14).

Infact one could go back to the very first verse to demonstrate this principle.

Gen 1:2-3  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Remember Jesus said: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Verse 1 does say God created the heaven and the earth and then goes on to describe the state of the earth as without form and void and covered in darkness. One could read this as a metaphor for the universally spiritually void condition of men without God. There is an allusion to this in 2 Cor 4:6:  For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore; we could consider the cycles of the day as recorded in Genesis. "And the evening and the morning were the first day." This shows darkness preceding light. This once again hinting at the darkness falling upon the earth as a result of Adam's sin before the glorious light of Christ dawning upon the sons of Adam. To put it succinctly, the fall of Adam brought evening and darkness, while the triumph of Jesus Christ (the Last Adam) brought the light of day. It is no surprise then that Christ rose from the grave on the first day of the week at dawn:

Mark 16:2  And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.

Now consider this: God could have created the earth without night or darkness; but he choose to do it this way. I believe He did it to show us his foreknowledge of what was going to happen and to provide hints to us of his redemptive purpose in history. For we see this in the Book of Revelation in the new heaven and earth:

Rev 22:5  And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

Why is there no night in the new heaven and earth? Simple. There is no darkness of sin.

There are other foreshadowings and similitudes concerning Christ and God's purpose in Genesis; when we consider Adam, Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac & so on. . .but time and space constraints will not permit me to go into them now, but you can take out time to study them. The whole point of my discourse was to show that God did not make a mistake in creating Man. . .rather that He created Man because God is Love, knowing that Man would rebel against Him and because God is Love made a way even before creating Man for Man to be reconciled to Him.

Back to Genesis 6. If God had decided to destroy all of mankind then He wouldn't have saved Noah. Like I pointed out earlier the nuances of Hebrew words and most especially Hebrew names are lost in translation. As I said in my earlier post the same word for grieved is also the same word for comfort; and this dual meaning hints at the nature of God's redemptive plan while pointing at Noah, a similitude or type of Christ: While it grieved God that He had created Man, at the same time there was comfort because of Noah, that is to say the grief of Man's sin balanced against the comfort of Christ redemption. The first two bolded words are the same in Hebrew, while the third Noah is derived from them.

In fact another beautiful example that reveals God's plan is seen in Genesis 5: the genealogy of Noah.

There are ten names in that genealogy. Ten signifies the perfection of Divine order. When you consider the meanings of the ten names; something startling emerges.

[table]
[tr][td]Names[/td][td]Meaning[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Adam[/td][td]comes from adomah, and means "man."[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Seth[/td][td]appointed: (Gen 4:25) When he was born Eve said, "For God hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew."[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Enosh[/td][td]"mortal," "frail," or "miserable." It is from the root anash: to be incurable; used of a wound, grief, woe, sickness, or wickedness.[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Kenan[/td][td]"sorrow," dirge," or "elegy."[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Mahalalel[/td][td]from mahalal, which means "blessed" or "praise"; and El, the name for God. Thus, Mahalalel means "the Blessed God."[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Jared[/td][td]from the verb yaradh, meaning "shall come down."[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Enoch[/td][td]means "teaching," or "commencement."[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Methuselah[/td][td]comes from two roots: muth, a root that means "death" ; and from shalach, which means "to bring," or "to send forth." Thus, the name Methuselah signifies, "his death shall bring."[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Lamech[/td][td]"despairing."[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Noah[/td][td]derived from nacham , "to bring relief" or "comfort,"[/td][/tr]
[/table]

Now let's put it all together:

[table]
[tr][td]Hebrew[/td][td]English[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Adam[/td][td]Man[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Seth[/td][td]Appointed[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Enosh[/td][td]Mortal[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Kenan[/td][td]Sorrow[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Mahalalel[/td][td]The Blessed God[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Jared[/td][td]Shall come down[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Enoch[/td][td]Teaching[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Methuselah[/td][td]His death shall bring[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Lamech[/td][td]The despairing[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Noah[/td][td]Rest, or comfort[/td][/tr]
[/table]

^^
Do you see it?

Man (Adam) [is] Appointed (Seth) [to] Mortal (Enosh) Sorrow (Kenan). The Blessed God (Mahalalel). . .Shall come down (Jared). . .Teaching (Enoch). . .His death shall bring (Methuselah). . .The despairing (Lamech). . .Rest, or comfort (Noah).

Sweetnecta:
Jesus coming is part of end of time.

^

aletheia:
Even you Muslims believe that Jesus Christ will return again. Your misunderstanding just like Joagbaje is in not knowing the manner of his second coming.
Of course God is One. . .and His Son's name is Jesus Christ.

Sweetnecta:
those who will see him will see no rapture take place.

^
It is written: Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. [Revelation 1:7-8]

1) You agree that Jesus will return at the end of the age.
2) You agree that His return will be visible.
3) But you are sadly mistaken as to the manner and significance of his return.

Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. Acts 1:11

What a pity that you are so near. . .and yet so far away from Christ. As it is written: Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. [Revelation 3:20]

May the Lord Jesus have mercy on you and grant you knowledge of Himself.

^
What are you going on about? Even you Muslims believe that Jesus Christ will return again. Your misunderstanding just like Joagbaje is in not knowing the manner of his second coming.
Of course God is One. . .and His Son's name is Jesus Christ.

JeSoul:
Question. Where have you been hearing this from?

+1

@Joagbaje:

Joagbaje:
Enoch and Elijah are saved . Every saint of the OT got saved at Jesus death. The fact that they were taken to heaven didn't mean they got born again. Satan also gained access to heaven. Was he born again?
Job 1:6
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

^
Again these words of yours show that you do not understand the nature of salvation. The Kingdom of Heaven is not a matter of meat and drink but of righteousness. Because your understanding of the gospel is flawed and focused on materialism, you lack this understanding.

1) The new birth is not separate from salvation. Do you understand the import of David's words? "Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me."Obviously not! God it is Who does the rebirth as it is declared in John Chapter 1:13; Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
The preceding verse says this: But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Is there any temporal restriction on this believing stated here? No. Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, Moses etc all believed in Christ and so they were all given power to become sons of God. Of Moses: this is written: "Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt:" (Hebrews 11). And of OT Israel, it is also written: "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." (I Corinthians 10:4)

2) Like the Pharisees; you do not understand or comprehend the power of God. The Lamb of God was slain from the foundation of the world. Revelation 13:8 & 17:8. His Blood is efficacious through out from Genesis to Revelation and for all eternity for those who are being saved. Your confusion lies in not understanding the temporal progression of God's plan. Like the Pharisees you declare Abraham and the Patriarchs to be dead, but here is what Jesus said: "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." (Matthew 22:32)
If Abraham et al. were not born again then, it means they were dead; and yet here is Jesus declaring before his crucifixion that they were living. Obviously He's saying Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are spiritually alive. Can one be spiritually alive without being born again?

3) Angelic beings are in heaven as we see here: "But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect," (Hebrews 12). Righteous angels are of a different nature from the sons of Adam. They do not require to be born again before appearing in God's presence. Men on the other hand need to be made perfect as seen in the verse above. How are men made perfect? Through the Blood of Jesus. Your words "The fact that they were taken to heaven". . .should tell you that would only be possible if they were "just men made perfect".

Joagbaje:
That's how you rushed into the error of saying there is no rapture.

^
My friend, you really have to stop lying. You 'll have to show where I denied the sudden, triumphant and visible return of Jesus Christ and the catching up into the air of believers still alive into the air to meet him after those dead in Christ have risen to meet him.

Joagbaje:
I don't know why Foul words and insult must proceed from you people.

^
I see. You really have no answers to the questions put before you. Show a single foul word or insult in what I posted. . .please answer the questions. Or be silent.

^

aletheia:
Two questions for you:
1) What is the significance of Abraham's action on Mount Moriah? Was this action before or after God credited him with righteousness? Hope you realize that one is not credited with what belongs to him; but rather the one who has credits the one who lacks.
2) What is the significance of Yom Kippur and azazel (la-aza'zeyl) in Leviticus 16?

You have not answered these questions, please. As God told Job: "Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me." 

Joagbaje:
It still depends on what the op refers to as salvation. Legal salvation for OT saints was not connected to Jesus perse . All they require for salvation was good works according to the law.

^
Name just one OT saint for whom it was recorded that he was justified & declared righteous by keeping the Law. Just one. But of David we read this prayer:
[quote author=KJV: Psalms Chapter 51][9] Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.
[10] Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
[11] Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
[12] Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.
[13] Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.
[14] Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness.[/quote]Was it by the Law or by Grace that David hoped for salvation?

Again your footlose use of terms: "Legal salvation for OT saints was not connected to Jesus perse". What you don't understand is that salvation requires a legal act by God the Righteous Judge providing Himself a substitute as Abraham prophesied. Or what do you think justification means?

I'm afraid you have a poor grasp of the elementary principles (the milk) of the Faith; and are preaching another gospel. Salvation is meaningless without the Law. . .which is why in the Bible they are placed side by side.
[quote author=KJV: Galatians Chapter 3][24] Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.[/quote][quote author=KJV: Galatians Chapter 2][16] Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.[/quote][quote author=KJV: Acts Chapter 13][39] And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.[/quote]Job, whom you lot often vilify understood this far better than you:
[quote author=KJV: Job Chapter 9][20] If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.[/quote][quote author=KJV: Job Chapter 25][4] How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?[/quote]Who was Job refering to here: "For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me."
Who was the 3rd man that Abraham entertained just before Sodom & Gomorrah were destroyed?
Who did Jacob wrestle with at the Jabbok Brook?
Who did Isaiah and Ezekiel see in their visions?
Who did Adam & Eve hide themselves from in Eden? 

You do not realize that the whole of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation is the testimony of Jesus' dealings with us.

Joagbaje:
That grants them legal nomination. But nit the vital experience. Not all of them foresaw the salvation through christ except the prophets among them. I am not aware that Samson, Mordecai ,saw the coming  christ . Their salvation depended on good works. But when Jesus went into the region of the dead after the cross, the gospel was preached to them.

^
Vital experience? What does that vague and undefined term of yours mean? When Samson, Mordecai etc, celebrated the passover, what do you think they were doing? They were proclaiming the coming Lamb of God. When they celebrated "Jubilees"; they were proclaiming the coming 'setting at liberty those held captive'. When Jesus rebuked the Pharisees, what did he say: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." What scriptures was He referring to? Is it not the OT? Does this phrase: "The just shall live by faith" not occur first in the OT before it is echoed in the NT? Why is Abraham reckoned by God as the father of those who believe: Isn't it because he believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness?

Joagbaje:
1 Peter 4:6
6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

^
Firstly, I rather think you do not understand the significance of this verse you quoted. When was this gospel preached? Right from the Garden of Eden.
[quote author=KJV: Genesis Chapter 3][15] And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.[/quote]In fact; right from Genesis Chapter 1, we find the narrative of God's redemptive plan encapsulated in the 6 days of creation and the 7th day. And to live you in no doubt whatsover this is written for our benefit:
[quote author=KJV: Galatians Chapter 3][8] And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.[/quote]There is nothing in 1 Peter 4:6 to support your fanciful assertion that:

when Jesus went into the region of the dead after the cross, the gospel was preached to them.

Joagbaje:
Looking forward and looking backward to what? . His birth, his life or his death?. It is his death that ransomed man .

^
The diagram is clear. Only those without faith in Jesus Christ fail to see it.

Here is the testimony of one OT saint:
[quote author=KJV: Job Chapter 19][25] For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
[26] And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
[27] Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.[/quote]And here is what Jesus said of Abraham:
[quote author=KJV: John Chapter 8][56] Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.[/quote]Two questions for you:
1) What is the significance of Abraham's action on Mount Moriah? Was this action before or after God credited him with righteousness? Hope you realize that one is not credited with what belongs to him; but rather the one who has credits the one who lacks.
2) What is the significance of Yom Kippur and azazel (la-aza'zeyl) in Leviticus 16?

www.nairaland.com/attachments/258227_looking_to_jesus_giff283923377523e97123af700dc19d1bd

I doubt if Joagbaje and co will agree with you. This very same topic was discussed earlier here What It Means To Be "born Again"!

2buff:
nephilim? 

^
No. 
That's a sebaceous horn. It's rarely seen but quite striking. I recall from Medical School, the frontispiece of our Bailey & Love's Short Practice of Surgery had a picture of another similarly afflicted woman.

chyke27:
Jesus said we should lay up treasures for ourselves in heaven where thieves do not break in to steal and moth do not destroy.

^
This statement is okay, but the slant you are giving to it renders it man-centric and incomplete. Heaven is not a mutual fund that we invest into by buying shares by tithing or other good works.

John 6: [28] Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? [29] Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Rather:

Colossians 3: [1] If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. [2] Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. [3] For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. 4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.

Colossians 2: . . .and of Christ; [3] In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Psalm 73: [25] Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee. [26] My flesh and my heart faileth: but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever.

Christ is our treasure. And we are saved by grace. It is the gift of God. . .

Ephesians: [8] For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: [9] Not of works, lest any man should boast. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Whatever good works we do in Christ is not of us but from God, to Whom be praise and worship forever.

step1:
I keep asking :- WHY WAS POSITION OF THE SPEAKER ZONED TO THE SOUTH-WEST WHEN THEY DID NOT VOTE FOR PDP. Even as a south-westerner, I must say I am very surprise and disappointed at GEJ and PDP for such decision.

^
PDP is playing a long game. Keeping the speaker in the SW helps preserve the party base in the SW despite suffering a massive loss there. In terms of strategic thinking PDP is ahead of the opposition parties.

Gbawe:
If SE Governors perform well and development is tangible then that is what matters. Ditto for all other regions also . This di.ck comparison shyte is getting childish . Regions are not "winners" or "losers" based on the number of silly positions they have gained that , in reality , the PDP uses to enslave Nigeria while enriching a select few in the "inner circle". I would gladly accept the tag of "loser" for the SW if there is accelerated development everywhere instead of being praised a "winner" (because of a PDP SW speaker) while poverty, infrastructural decay, insecurity, poor healthcare and grossly inadequate educational provision is the lot of the people on the ground who are too concerned with the 'hard life' to even have the time or money for silly internet chest-thumping.

^
Sir, yours is one of the few sane voices amidst the mass hysteria of "zoning". Instead of holding the various governors (who are much more powerful, and are the key to development as exemplified by Fashola & Amaechi etc) accountable; Nigerians are once again playing the fools by obsessing over who gets what; when the truth is that the positions in contention have actual little power when compared to the powerful executive positions of President and Governor. Whoever is Speaker should not stop any serious governor from developing his state.

Joagbaje:
Because a man made an inscription on the wall many years ago, we won't let him rest? Is the inscritption still there? This action is typical of these religious people.

^

OLAADEGBU:
I don't think these guys you are referring to know the gravity of what is implied in that picture because if they know any better they wouldn't be sweeping this doctrine of satan under the carpet.  For them to be claiming that the qur'anic Allah and the RCC crucifix is the God that they are worshipping goes a long way in understanding why these people talk they way they talk.

@Debosky:
Let's agree to disagree. I have set forth my answers already.

That this is plainly an economic system is seen in verse 47. Why is the sojourner or stranger mentioned in this verse not taken as a bondman? Anyone with even a halfway knowledge of the bible will know that God does not condone slavery.
And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 21:16)
And when this is taken together with other commands like: "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself", the message is clear.

I don't want to keep repeating myself. I'll leave you with Deut 24:1. . .where you find God lay down rules for divorce even though you and I know that He says he hates divorce. The reason for this is elucidated by Jesus as i mentioned earlier. The human institution of slavery is treated similarly by the bible.

Deep Sight:
If you argue that Wilberforce's inspiration was the bible, then that only worsens your predicament as it begs the question as to why a distant European would derive that unction against slavery whereas the very bible writers themselves failed to derive such an unction from their very own words?

^
Firstly, there is no predicament to worsen. Acquaint yourself with William Wilberforce. The basis for his actions was grounded in the writings of the same Bible writers you rail against. If their writings were not against slavery, then William Wilberforce would have had no conviction to fight against slavery.

Wilberforce's spiritual journey is thought to have begun at this time. He started to rise early to read the Bible and pray and kept a private journal.[37] He underwent an evangelical conversion, regretting his past life and resolving to commit his future life and work to the service of God.[7] His conversion changed some of his habits but not his nature: he remained outwardly cheerful, interested, and respectful, tactfully urging others towards his new faith.[38] Inwardly, he underwent an agonising struggle and became relentlessly self-critical, harshly judging his spirituality, use of time, vanity, self-control, and relationships with others.

Wilberforce's conversion led him to question whether he should remain in public life. Wilberforce sought guidance from John Newton, a leading Evangelical Anglican clergyman of the day and Rector of St Mary Woolnoth in the City of London.[41][42] Both Newton and Pitt counselled Wilberforce to remain in politics, and he resolved to do so "with increased diligence and conscientiousness".[7] Thereafter, his political views were informed by his faith and by his desire to promote Christianity and Christian ethics in private and public life.

Secondly, William Wilberforce was a politician. The bible writers were not called to be politicians, their calling was distinct and clear but nonetheless their writing formed the basis for Christian politicians like Wilberforce to tackle the evil of slavery.

Indeed the truth is glaring. . .but as usual you fail to see it. "Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light."

^
What was the basis for William Wilberforce's active campaign against slavery. Or put another way: where did he find the moral justification for his struggle?
I am sure you know the answer to that! That will answer your question.

debosky:
aletheia can you comment on the following verses by Idehn in light of your assertion that slavery was an economic system backed by 'human' laws?

Why did men own slaves? Was it for prestige? Or was it because the slaves represented a factor of production (and thus wealth). From basic economics, we are led to understand that the factors of production are land, labor and capital. In modern societies, the labor is represented by the wage earning class (though in more "developed" societies like the US and UK, this itself represents a subtle form of indentured servitude). In the ancient times, this factor of production was largely represented in the form of bondmen/women and slaves. Following the overthrow of the Roman empire, the slave class evolved into serfs and villeins (Perhaps you should research the economic history of the medieval period). With the rise of mercantilism and the breakdown of the feudal system, this system more or less disappeared, though it would interest you to note that serfdom persisted in Russia up till the Bolshevik revolution.

Following the discovery of the Americas and the need for cheap labor for working in the plantations and mines, the slave trade was reborn. And slavery made a reappearance. The American Civil War and the abolishing of slave trade was as much driven by economic factors due to the industrial revolution which made it cheaper to use machines than humans for certain tasks.

Eli Whitney Museum: Whitney (who died in 1825) could not have foreseen the ways in which his invention would change society for the worse. The most significant of these was the growth of slavery. While it was true that the cotton gin reduced the labor of removing seeds, it did not reduce the need for slaves to grow and pick the cotton. In fact, the opposite occurred. Cotton growing became so profitable for the planters that it greatly increased their demand for both land and slave labor. In 1790 there were six slave states; in 1860 there were 15. From 1790 until Congress banned the importation of slaves from Africa in 1808, Southerners imported 80,000 Africans. By 1860 approximately one in three Southerners was a slave.

The passage from Numbers refers to a specific incident: a punitive expedition commanded by God by the Israelites against the Midianites for leading them astray from the worship of YHWH. I fail to see how that incident can be construed as Biblical support for slavery. The biblical records show that the Israelites did not routinely carry out raids on their neighbors to procure slaves. Other heathen nations may have done so but not Israel (at least not while they followed God's commandments).

As far as I am concerned, the passage in Leviticus that you quote is simply making allowance for those who because of economic reasons desire bondmen to be able to maintain them. It does not excuse nor approve of slavery. It is in the same light as laws that permitted divorce even while making clear that God hates divorce.

You arguments are skewed because you do not have a knowledge of the economic system as practiced in ancient Israel. Your presumption is that slaves were seized in the manner that Europeans seized Africans. How did most become bondmen in Israel? The answer you will find in verse 39 of the same passage in Leviticus; I guess you ignored that. Most of those who became bondsmen became so as a result of falling into debt or as punishment for crimes. Examples:

With whomsoever of thy servants it be found, both let him die, and we also will be my lord's bondmen. (Genesis 44:9)

Now there cried a certain woman of the wives of the sons of the prophets unto Elisha, saying, Thy servant my husband is dead; and thou knowest that thy servant did fear the LORD: and the creditor is come to take unto him my two sons to be bondmen. (2 Kings 4:1)

That this is plainly an economic system is seen in verse 47. Why is the sojourner or stranger mentioned in this verse not taken as a bondman? Anyone with even a halfway knowledge of the bible will know that God does not condone slavery.
And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 21:16)
And when this is taken together with other commands like: "thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself", the message is clear.

Idehn:
Not necessarily. That passage is telling the Hebrews/Isrealites/Judeans/believers not go slaving amongst themselves unless the individual is in debt or a thief.

^
This is your own interpretation. I find nothing in the verses immediately preceding or following Exodus 21:16 that makes this distinction between Israelites and non-Israelites. The command is clear and unambiguous.
And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 21:16)

Everything you have written here is just you arguing in circles. Slavery is a human institution, an economic system that was backed by human laws at the time it was widely prevalent but certainly not God's will for man. It is clear that you do not understand the biblical nous, which is why you ask me this:

Idehn:
Also are you saying marriage is man made institution?

Understand therefore that marriage is ordained by God but like Jesus told the Pharisees: He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. Matthew 19:8
In similar fashion, the bible laid out rules for managing this imperfect situation until the coming of the perfect Man Jesus. It's as simple as that. I understand the emotive connotations of the word slave (or bondman). . .but it was simply an economic system just like serfdom or villeinage that evolved from it and which in turn gave way to the more modern system of mercantilism and so on.

Idehn:
However, most Europeans purchased slaves from Africans not knowing how they were acquired.

This sentence is historically incorrect. For a period the dark traffick in human souls was the lynch-pin of the world economy; a period referred to by some scholars as the first age of globalization. Only a tiny fraction of the Africans shipped to the Americas were prisoners of war. It was a thriving business with well-entrenched middlemen and lines of credit. It would interest you to note that the modern notions of "race" arose during this period as a justification for this evil trade.

On Onesimus: Like I said the key is verse 16. Perhaps you should look at that verse again.

Deep Sight:
abeg alethia make u siddon joor, idehn don sammer you

^Do you have something niggling you? Out with it!

SirJohn:
including notable men of god barking like dogs, howling like wolves and crawling on all fours like beasts?

^
Why bother? Haven't you noticed how he twists and turns on this thread and refuses to commit himself. You can glean that he considers such strange manifestations to be from the Holy Spirit. His very first post was a dead giveaway.

^
You are right. Was in a haste, so didn't catch it. So you read the Economist? Kudos man, I try to encourage guys to read it.

Don't know about the other states but without a doubt Lagos' is #1. It's the 5th largest economy in sub-Saharan Africa. With a GDP of $43 billion, Lagos economy trails South Africa at $467 billion, Nigeria $294 billion, Sudan $107 billion, Angola $80.95 billion, and Kenya $57.65 billion. This means Lagos' economy is larger than that of Ghana.

[quote author=Economist.com]He stresses a rise in the tax take, which now accounts for 65% of the city-state’s revenues. If Lagos were a country, its GDP of $43 billion would make it the fifth-biggest economy in sub-Saharan Africa.

http://www.economist.com/node/18652563[/quote]

Joagbaje:
why would church copy hinduism why can you think that the devil imitates the holyspirit as his custom is.

^
What rubbish is this? Are you now telling us that Yoga is from God? What kind of delusion is this?

^
A little leaven. . .you know the rest.

Now they are in Orlando, in a rented house, passing out tracts and reading the Bible. Their daughter is 2 years old, and their second child is due in June. Joel says they're spending the last of their savings. They don't see a need for one more dollar.

^Sad. The makings of a tragedy.

Idehn:
If you are saying that it is the law and not the bible that encourages slavery then you are choosing to completely ignore the passages of the that deal with the acquisition, treatment, and behavior of slaves. The old testament reads like a treaties for slave ownership. Not supporting slavery means either saying nothing of the subject or condemning it. Making rules for owning slaves is acceptance of slavery.

First the the legal way is the same as the biblical means. If Philemon was a debted slave, then Onesimus was obliged to accept payment. If he refused, then he was trespassing the laws set forth in the old testament. The biblical law is not incompatible with law in Colossae(as stated). Second this does not show that Paul is not opposed to slavery. He just does not want enslaved believers to seek freedom violently which is understandable considering the precarious position of the church. Consider his other statements on the subject.

^
1) I begin to see the problem here. Have you considered this verse:
And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 21:16)
In clear and unequivocal terms we see the biblical condemnation of slavery as practiced in the 18th/19th centuries.
2) As pointed out the earlier forms of slavery were a form of indentured servitude as we see in its evolution into the medieval forms of villeins and serfs. It was a man-made economic system and the bible provided guidance for ameliorating it's more inhumane practices similar to how the Law of Moses provided for divorce even though through and through God declared he hates divorce; how the bible provided for the practice of usury etc.
3) Both I and you have committed an egregious error in invoking the epistle to Philemon to support our views. It would appear that Onesimus was not a slave after all. Verse 16 is key. This highlights once again the dangers of being blinkered by the "traditional" interpretations of scripture.

Pastor AIO:
'Backed by Law'. The state worship of the Imperial cult was backed by law and was a necessity of the entire empire. Can the same arguments you provided above also be applied in this case?

^
But the system of slavery was backed by human law as was the worship of the "Augustus". That is the similarity. The difference is that while slavery pertains to an economic system, the worship of the Caesars impinges directly on the First Commandment. The greater law of God takes precedence for the Christian in both cases---and the Bible does not encourage Christians to be rebellious. In the case of slavery; freedom is encouraged by all means that are legal. Other extralegal methods like that of Spartacus would involve breaking other laws. In the case of bowing to Caesar in worship; the Christians simply refused to bow down to Caesar and were willing to pay the ultimate price for it as stipulated by the human law; but they did not foment rebellion against Caesar.

[img]http://logosmeditations.files./2009/07/the_christian_martyrs_last_prayer.jpg?w=300&h=182[/img]

seanet02:
[. . .] ajaokuta and other that belongs to us is all we needed.

^The territorial pretensions of would-be statelets. Pray do tell us how Ajaokuta in Kogi state belongs to a potential Odua Republic. Neither the facts on ground nor history support this bogus claim. No doubt you betray your covetousness towards the rich iron deposits in this town and its surrounding hills which is neither Yoruba-speaking or at any time belonged to any Yoruba state; or does the suffix "Okuta" in the name of the town mislead you into thinking so.

^
How about:
"CAVEAT TO CHRISTIANS: Please if you do not like my choice to depict The Christ in this manner, kindly say so, I will rescind my fable as quickly as possible."

This is another gospel.

Pastor AIO:
Is the suggestion here that religion does not impinge on the world and its systems, economic and political? I would beg to differ.

^
Why sir, by now you should know my views sufficiently enough to discern that is not what I am saying here.
Medieval Catholicism, some strains of Protestantism and Islam have all seen ecclesiastical authorities lay claim to temporal power and advanced justifications for such intersection between "heaven" and "earth".

Idehn:
Yes that is true, but it was still wrong. A book supposedly containing stipulations on being good should not compromise itself because "everybody is doing it".

Good, you agree that slavery represents an economic system. But you seem to have overlooked where I said that:

aletheia:
All these are part of the world system which lies in darkness and is doomed to pass away in the fullness of time.

Secondly, you also overlook the fact that the Bible passages you quoted from the OT lay out a clear procedure for the manumission of slaves and more or less prohibited permanent slavery. The Bible does not compromise itself on anything and there is no justification whatsoever to be found in its pages for slavery.

Idehn:
Again in the context of his other passages, they were most likely referring to masters offering to release their slaves. Availing oneself with freedom against the masters will would, not surprisingly, contradict the other passages I cited. In other words he is giving small consolation to slaves and telling them to accept their status unless otherwise given the opportunity(from the master). Your next passage further supports this contention when taken in context.

^You agreed with me that slavery is an economic system, but you discount that it was an economic system backed by law. There were two legally recognized ways for a slave to gain his freedom:
1) By buying his freedom
2) By the master voluntarily manumitting the slave

Thus you see that the passage in 1 Corinthians 7 encourages slaves to make use of legal avenues to secure their freedom or did you want the Bible to encourage a Spartacus-like rebellion before you concede that it does not encourage the practice of slavery.

Idehn:
Clearly Paul sent him back so that the master could decide whether or not to free him. Paul did not declare that he was free nor did he accept that simply running away makes you a free man. He only pleaded that he be freed on the grounds that he was a useful convert.

I have not misrepresented any facts, as I have cited passages that clearly support slavery.

^Paul's inclination and preference in this matter is clearly seen. He wanted Philemon to free Onesimus. . .even offering to pay any debt that Onesimus might have accrued that would serve as an impediment to his manumission. From the letter we see that if Paul had the power, he would have freed Onesimus but since it was a legal matter; only Philemon could do so in a legally valid way and thus he appeals to him.

Accordingly, though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do what is required, yet for love's sake I prefer to appeal to you--I, Paul, an old man and now a prisoner also for Christ Jesus-- I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I became in my imprisonment. (Formerly he was useless to you, but now he is indeed useful to you and to me.) I am sending him back to you, sending my very heart. I would have been glad to keep him with me, in order that he might serve me on your behalf during my imprisonment for the gospel, but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own accord. For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother--especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. So if you consider me your partner, receive him as you would receive me. If he has wronged you at all, or owes you anything, charge that to my account. I, Paul, write this with my own hand: I will repay it--to say nothing of your owing me even your own self. (Philemon 1:8-19)

The biblical example is what was followed by devout men such as Wilberforce in fighting against the institution of slavery in the British Empire.

Idehn:
Peter and Paul think that Slavery is just fine.

^
Your thesis is weak and a misrepresentation of the facts. First of all the system of slavery is an economic system just like capitalism, or serfdom or other systems that have existed through the ages. All these are part of the world system which lies in darkness and is doomed to pass away in the fullness of time. Secondly, Christians are pilgrims, wayfarers transiting through this world, citizens of a city whose architect is God. The world is not worthy of us. Thirdly the attitudes of the apostles to slavery is revealed in these epistles:

Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.) (1 Corinthians 7:21)


For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you might have him back forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother--especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. So if you consider me your partner, receive him as you would receive me.
(Philemon 1:15-17)