₦airaland Forum

Hi gracious,

gracious:
based on my understanding all sins shall be forgiven. remember the thief at the cross. he was forgiven. "a broken and a contrite heart, God cannot despise".

The sins of those thieves on the cross were not blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Indeed, they stole (any wonder why they were called thieves?); they also reviled Jesus on the Cross (Mark 15:32); but nowhere is it recorded that they blasphemed against the Holy Ghost.

gracious:
I believe that the pharisees had sinned against the Spirit because they were hardened. They refused to receive Jesus as the messiah.

Specifically, the Bible states their sin: "Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit" (Mark 3:30). Accounting the Holy Spirit as an unclean spirit constituted their blasphemy against Him.

Not every sin is considered a blasphemy against the Spirit; and I've tried to outline some of the common sins against Him. I think the confusion about this subject would be greatly minimized when we can understand this point.

gracious:
therefore I would take it that every unbeliever has sinned against the HOlyspirit if he dies in doubt and unbelief. If he refuses to accept the finished work of calvary.

I'll agree with you, but need to add this: even when a person is alive and grieves the Holy Spirit by refusing to respond to His gracious convictions or leading, such a sin (serious as it is) is not to be misconstrued as blasphemy against Him.

gracious:
but as long as a person is alive and open to God for cleansing of sin, I believe he cannot sin against the Holyspirit .

No one is automatically immune to committing the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The warning is strong enough to make us aware of its implications. Here, the apostle Paul's admonition might be quite helpful:

1 Cor. 10:12 - "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall."

gracious:
but however a believer can grieve the Holyspirit . when we become bornagain the Holyspirit comes and lives in us. we could grieve him through sexual sin, lies etc. but there is always room for forgiveness and restoration.

God bless.

@Drusilla,

Drusilla:
And again, the Spirit belongs to God and returns to God and does not experience judgement. God is not judged.

On Judgement Day, a wicked person - spirit, soul, and body - will be judged and cast into the lake of fire.

Believers are also triad - spirit, soul and body - and they cannot stand before God with any part less. If believers will be judged by any measure, their spirits will be involved as well their souls and bodies.

@Bobbyaf,

Bobbyaf:
I have already brought it on a very long time, but you haven't noticed. Jesus said that it is good to do good on the sabbath, which no doubt will involve expenditure of energy, and work. If you understood anything in His discourse with the pharasees, you would have picked up that reality. The Mosaic sabbath stipulations as handed down to the then Israelites were for their unique geographical and situational context, and especially considering their spiritual immaturity. The scriptures must never be read with the intention to mislead the fora, but in reading one should look at the central motif for their application. That you all have failed to do, unfortunately.

Unfortunately, you haven't said anything fresh to the point and your latest remarks read as efforts to continue the debate with excuses to go round the clear Word of God. If you want to keep the seventh-day Sabbath by quoting EXODUS, you are bound to strictly adhere to its stipulations. Failing to do so is indeed an attempt to shortchange your readers while pretending your accusations against others.

Bobbyaf:
Two examples were given by Jesus about how stipulations should never overide the greater good. For example Jesus made reference about the need for lifting animals out of a pit on the sabbath, if the situation called for it. Must you continue to gainsay what Jesus said, in order to pin down stipulations on those who don't need them.

Doing good has nothing to do with making exemptions to keep your "professional" work and earn money for your pocket.

Bobbyaf:
He also drew reference to how David went into the sacred temple and ate the bread that were dedicated for the priests only, yet I wonder why such acts were not seen as sacrilegous. He also drew reference about those priests who worked even harder on the sabbath, than on other days.

Neither those priests nor David were in your hospitals - they were in the Temple; and if you want to follow their example, please note two things:

(a) in the Bible, Jesus indeed said that they "profaned" the sabbath (Matt. 12:5) - so you cannot pretend that their acts were not seen as sacrilegious.

(b) neither the priests nor David carried out any work on the sabbath in your reference so that they can make money for their pockets.

Do you want to do good? Then by all means do so without recourse to collecting salaries for the Saturdays when you go to work!

Bobbyaf:
So indeed the sabbath was made for man for his blessing and happiness according to Jesus. Indeed also Jesus is Lord of the sabbath, because He created it for mankind, including you, and only He alone has determined, and continues to determine the true purpose of the day.

Only in Jesus Christ do Christians find their true rest; and you won't find that the sabbath was made for man so that he can work a good work to earn salaries on those days.

@simmy,

If you're feeling quite in the mood for wild statements and comedy, I can bear with you. But trying to flog an issue while knotting yourself all at once is not what accentuates the substance in your rejoinders - if they bear any substance at all. Instead of calmly providing pointers to your purported statistics, you're still vending your soft-sell capers (not to mention that we're familiar with the usual propagandist antics that say nothing at all).

Another one of those wild statements again:

simmy:
the good Lord revealed that women should SHUT UP IN CHURCHES and not speak
Barry ure way way too smart to actually believe that. That staement was borne out of Paul's personal predjudices against women.

Now which is which - the Lord's revelation or Paul's personal prejudices?

My dear simmy, I can have the evening off listening to good music and more mature jokes with online movies; instead of these tired old skits with which you're trying so hard to solicit my interest. Until I read something more to the point (without the frantic drama) in your repostes, here's just crossing my fingers for you.

Cheers.

@TV01,

TV01:
When one understands that "church" is not something one attends, but something that one is a part of or belongs too, "attendance" (or not) ceases to be the question.

I know why I asked him that question. And yes, the semantics aside, people "go to church" in the sense that they "go to their own company" -- Act 4:23. Also, "they assembled themselves with the church" -- Acts 11:26. I believe that when you understand issues like this, you would adjust your persuasions accordingly. One cannot sit in isolation and call himself or herself "church".

So, however he chooses to read it, go to, assemble, attend meetings, gather together, I'm sure he would oblige me an answer.

TV01:
He said "I will build my Church". His Apostle said "No other foundation".

Dammey made a categorical statement; and when he responds I'll bring these issues to him.

TV01:
Quite a few of the planets in our solar system have moons. All these moons have given names. As we all know, the Earth also has a moon - just the one - but it has no name. Why? because there is just the one, no one ever named it*. I see Demmey' point.

He simply has no point by refrence to the line of his quote in my enquiry. People easily see other believers as being deceived; and if he had thought for a moment that his own quite corner was safe from his heat, I'm just waiting with a gentle hose!  

TV01:
*Please, no smart-alec rejoinders about the various names, such as Luna,  ascribed to the Earths Moon at different times .

Doesn't make a case against its being distinct from other moons. See the following:

           http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=289

@Aproko,

Aproko:
so you say that paul blasphemed, but not against the holy spirit!!!

Precisely so.

Aproko:
1 Tim 1:12-14 ", who was before a blasphemer,, "
he did not say who he blasphemed against, just that he was a blasphemer. here i insist that we have no way of knowing that his blasphemy wasn't against the holy spirit. you have given that passage your own interpretation.

I offered verses to demonstrate what context Paul spoke about his own case - and by comparing his testimony from other verses, we see exactly what he meant.

It's a bit of concern to read people making statements like "we have no way of knowing" when answers are there in the Bible! Remember what we read in II Pet. 1:20 - "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation"?? The moment anyone tries to interprete a verse without looking at other verses on any subject, they will come to a blank wall and claim there is just no way of knowing what the Bible says on that subject.

Did you read the other verses to the point? Please Acts 26:9 again. May I ask you: Who exactly was Paul incensed against - Jesus or the Holy Spirit?

Aproko:
Acts 26:9-11 -", I and i punished tham often in every synagogue and compelled them to blaspheme, "
again, he did not say who he compelled them to blaspheme against. "doing many things contrary to jesus christ' - paul had no qualms with using the word blasphem, so if he meant to say blasphem against jesus christ, he would have gone ahead and said so.
again i insist you have given that passage from the bible your own interpretation.

The interpretation is not my personal summation. The fact that Paul mentioned "the name of Jesus of Nazareth" is telling enough in that connection. As a Jew, it would be unthinkable that he would have tried to blaspheme the Holy Spirit or even compelled others to do so, and then come back later to claim that he was blameless as concerning the Law (Phil. 3:6). Please go through the verses again; and if you may, ask yourself why he specifically mentioned that he was against the Lord Jesus.

Aproko:
still you havent answered my question. should a person that has blasphemed against the holy spirit forget about repentance since he is already doomed?

I answered your question. Please read it again:

bari_kade:
How many people who have actually BLASPHEMED AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST do YOU know who have been inclined to repentance? That people have sinned against the Holy Spirit and yet come to repentance - there are thousands of such cases. Remember that sinning (that is lying, resisting, despising, grieving) the Holy Spirit are serious sins in themselves; but they are not to be mistaken for the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.

It is utterly impossible to find repentance if the holy Spirit does not convict a person. And if someone has blasphemed against Him, how then would the Spirit disregard the words of the Lord Jesus and void it?

Let me even ask you this: from all that we have shared so far, what do YOU understand by the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

@thesilent1,

thesilent1:
the story of jacob and the tenth "offering" is another mis-used verse to support the "tithe" as both accounts talk about people GIVING or OFFERING this to god and NOT as a condition. infact jacob (i love this guy) goes as far as to say that he will ONLY give the tenth IF god protects his journey, etc. so that is totally different to how its used today to defend the tithe.

Although I wouldn't want to derail the topic of this thread and make it more a question about tithes , I would like you to understand a few things about Jacob's promise. We can't fault him for making that promise to God; the question it leaves is whether or not he kept his promise.

One core concern in that connection would be this: leaving aside what conditions he placed on his "promise", what prompted Jacob to think about tithes in the first place?

thesilent1:
as i believe in the various administrations, i look at the administration i am in and what applies to me and the church. based on this, i have come to the conclusion that i hold on to.

And what conclusions do you hold?

TV01,

TV01:
I appreciate the stance on "various types of giving", But I see it from another perspective. Giving is in response, primarily to need or a desire to bless. I see no need to classify or categorise giving, but neither do I don't deny others the right to do so.

It's amazing that people often make statements like this; but my one question would be: if someone doesn't see a need for the classification, then why do we read of them in Scripture as such?

TV01:
In any event, I don't see this as core to a discussion on mandatory tithing for NT Christians. I also fail to see how over 27 pages of discussion boils down to this 1 point? If I recall, TayoD likewise refused to budge from a point of "priests offer gifts and tithe = gift, therefore NT Xtians must tithe". If you want to equate the tithe with a type of giving, my personal opinion is that connection is at best tenuous, as a tax, tribute or madatory tithe is not the same as giving.

I don't remember making it mandatory to give or tithe. In the NT, NOTHING in this regard is mandatory; and I read the arguments against tithing as mere excuses, which will not do. However a person feels on this issue is a matter of their personal persuasion, even if one such should argue for NO GIVING at all! But then, at the end of the day, I'd be more interested in what precisely is said in God's Word.

TV01:
I also (and quite fondly) remember my discussion with Syrup about "theocracy". I appreciate that the discussion cleared up the difference b/w ecclessiocracy and theocracy, which I failed to distinguish when posting. Again this was not pivotal to the discussion and Syrup agreed that there is no mandatory tithe for NT Xtians. We also concurred that a NT Christian choosing to tithe is another matter entirely. To make a tithe mandatory makes it no difference to a tax or tribute. And as we know, Kings only take tribute from strangers, not their sons.

If only you wouldn't read tithes as a question of being mandatory to the believer. Again, is this issue about Kings taking tribute or it is one about priesthood and tithes mentioned in connection to Melchizedek? The grave mistake many people make is often to derail from what exactly is stated and look for far-fetched inferences that have no bearing to what is being discussed. TV01, to bring in the issue of "tribute" will further weaken your persuasion; and I do hope you would not even make the mistake of referring to that ideology.

TV01:
I trust we all are, but there are only 3 positions really. Yes, no or undecided. Most proponents of tithing can wheel out anecdotal evidence to suggest it "works".

I don't count on the list of using anecdotal evidences.

TV01:
And at best that's just what an enforced tithe is, a work. I humbly submit that there is nothing scriptural to attest to this.

I would say that you haven't seen the Scriptural precedence to tithing; and no sir, tithing is not an enforced exercise. No one is obligated, mandated, bound, enforced, induced, or compelled to give ANYTHING in the NT. Even the other type of giving is not what anyone is mandated to do. However, when a believer sees the Biblical precedence for the various types of giving and he/she applies themselves to it, the blessings thereto definitely follow such submission of heart in obedience.

TV01:
I could similarly testify that tithing made no difference to my walk (except in a negative sense). To which I'd expect the well worn rejoinders of "not doing it right", "heart not right", "sin" or some other of the type I've heard severally, which only point it back to being a work

And I'll serve you one more.    As long as you keep seeing it as "work" and therefore to be played down or argued against, may I challenge you to look up the references for the other types of "giving" and see the point: even those types are NOT MANDATORY! In which case, if tithing means nothing to you in the NT, the other types will simply have to mean nothing at all.

Your arguments against tithing is a bit tiresome (no offences) because of your default interpretation of it as "work", etc. If that is the way you read the subject, please understand that the other types of giving you come across in the NT simply won't be more profound to you.

TV01:
Feel free to presume that a amndatory tithe =/= tribute, but can it really be anything else?

Please don't try to be so patronizing.   I do not equate tithes to tribute in this regard; nor do I read at all that Abraham was paying a tribute to Melchizedek (which would make the latter read as a warlord).

TV01:
It's not an idea that it was common practice, it's a fact. My introducing this was not to argue against it, merely for background knowledge and for a full discussion.

I would have to wonder yet again that the background knowledge you seek to introduce in this regard does not tessellate with Abraham's tithe that he gave to melchizedek.

TV01:
Accepted. WhatI believe God's word teaches is that NT Christians give in response to need (or to bless). But as ever, I am happy to hear other submissions, attested to by scripture of course.

Is tithing somewhat a strange subject to the the curriculum above? I would here seek to take the same humble position as yours for others to help me smoothen out any misconceptions here that I might have.

TV01:
Your interplay from a to c is at best debatable. Abrahams response is no where testified as something incumbent on NT believers or integral to the priesthood. He voluntarily/by freewill GAVE! Nothing divinely ordained or mandated, and as you clearly stated demanded or requested.

I had to sink back in my chair and wonder at your shoe strings here, TV01. Going by your assertions, what did Abraham GIVE?? Did he give "GIVE"? or he gave "TITHES"?

Please check the references again: it says TITHES!

Now, it seems that my points (a) to (c) earlier did not register with you because you probably thought I was arguing for a MANDATED giving made INCUMBENT by ORDINATION. Phew!! Sorry, I didn't so infer that tithes were by default to be read as such.

Now, let me appeal once again: please look carefully and maintain the course here that we're reviewing. Let me bring you round them again:

       (a) he stands in connection with the first mention of priesthood and tithes in the Bible (no inference suggesting Melchizedek was a warlord)

       (b) the patriarch Abraham gave him tithes of all, without so much as Melchizedek asking (here again, by emphasis, no inference to ideas of any mandate, incumbency, obligation, enforcements, inducements, or compulsion)

       (c) the pristehood of our Lord Jesus is patterned after Melchizedek's priesthood (what examples are there in this connection for believers - any, none?).

The debate will keep going round in circles if we continue to make far fetched inferences that are not suggested in posts we read. I haven't (and don't intend) to make tithing a madatory exercise for any Christian - because NOTHING is mandatory upon the believer in this regard.

TV01:
I stated clearly that tribute in the form of a tithe (tenth) was paid to the warlord or PRIEST. I don't think it's hard or would be considered tenuous for anyone to make the leap from warlord to king. Niether did I infer that Abraham was paying tribute. That would be counter-intuitive to my point above.

In the first place, if there was no connection between tithes and tributes in the case being discussed, I don't see why you would even have suggested it.

Second, Abraham was not recorded as paying tithes (and not even tribute) to a warlord; and your interjection with that line was unnecessary.

Third, even as a PRIEST Melchizedek did not receive "tribute", but rather "tithes" from Abraham; which should humble our hearts to not read Melchizedek for other than Scripture says of him. He was "first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace" (Heb. 7:2).

TV01:
As ever I appreciate your contributions. I was hoping to advance the discussion in that main thread, to considering the practical application and outworking of a "mandatory tithe" for NT Christians.

Yours appreciated as well; and I hope that mine has helped dispel the idea that tithe is mandatory by default; for clearly, it was not in Abraham's case, nor should it be for the NT believer.

TV01:
Given the universal priesthood of all believers (with The Lord as High Priest), would you have any suggestions as to what it represents it's significance, and  how it should be correctly/scripturally done?

Thanks for your time.

It's a simple response of the believer's heart as part of his/her worship to God (Heb. 13:16). How it is done is not a rigid code in the NT; but the apostle offers a principle in I Cor. 16:1.

@tlops,

I think that is the point we should all try to make instead of the name-calling and no answers. Personally, I'm persuaded about the same point you made; only that I would put it like this:

Wearing trousers or miniskirts can become a sin if it helps another person to sin.

@Aproko,

Aproko:
am not otuwe, but i must say that the last time i checked, Jesus Christ said 'if then ye must pray, pray then like this', and he went ahead and gave the Lord's prayer.(i'll have to find that verse)

Perhaps this:

Matt. 6:9-13 -- After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

(also Luke 11:1-4)

Aproko:
jesus christ has taught me how to pray by giving me the Lord's prayer which says everything I need to say to the Almighty, i don't see the need to battle serpents and scorpions when the same bible has told me they shall not harm me. if indeed jesus has fought the battle like we christains say 2000yrs ago, do i really have to bother with the loudspeaker and jumping and shouting?

i guess not.

The tangential inferences are not the core concerns of my enquiry to otuwe. However, I very much appreciate ricadelide's post just above, as it covers most of what you might have raised in yours.

Cheers.

@Aproko,

Aproko:
what about Saul? or Paul? what sins did he commit? are you sure all those his sins did not include blasphemy?

I'm glad you asked. Let me offer my persuasion to that question:

Did Paul sin? Yes he did, and he himself acknowledged it - being thankful as well for God's mercy to forgive him:

       1 Tim. 1:15-16  --  "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation,
                                      that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners;
                                      of whom I am chief.

                                      Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first
                                      Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern
                                      to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting."


The necessary question that follows upon that would be: did Paul blaspheme at all? To be sure, he did! And again, he clearly stated HOW he blaspehemed, and the consequences following upon that:

        1 Tim. 1:12-14  --  "And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me,
                                     for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry;
                                     Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious:
                                     but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief.

                                     And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant with faith
                                     and love which is in Christ Jesus."

Again, in trying to figure how Paul's blaspemy could be read, let us ask this question: did Paul blaspheme against the Holy Spirit? I'm persuaded that he did not! before we cuff this apostle by misjudging him, let us seek to understand in what sense (how) he acknowledged that he blasphemed; and against whom he did so. Here is his testimony:

       Acts 26:9-11  -- "I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things
                                contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Which thing I also
                                did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison,
                                having received authority from the chief priests; and when they
                                were put to death, I gave my voice against them.

                                And I punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them
                                to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, I persecuted
                                them even unto strange cities."

It is clear here that Paul's blasphemy was against the Name of Jesus Christ, and not against the Holy Spirt. He was incensed against Jesus so much so that he did what he described against Christians. But then, there's no reason to believe that he blasphemed againt the Holy Ghost, especially because he was zealous in the Jewish religion ["that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee" - Acts 26:5]. One who lived as a Jew and well acquainted with the things of God would not have blasphemed against the Spirit of God (["touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless" - Phil. 3:5&6]).

Paul did not blaspheme against the Holy Spirit; and even though in ignorance he did so against the name of Jesus Christ, he was forgiven - which was what the Lord Himself had said: he that blasphemed against the Son of man:

       Mark 3:28-29  - "Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto
                                the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever
                                they shall blaspheme:

                                But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never
                                forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation"

       Matt. 12:31 & 32  --  "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy
                                shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost
                                shall not be forgiven unto men.

                                And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be
                                forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall
                                not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."

I hope you see the point now?

Aproko:
again i ask, does this mean that a blasphemer should not bother repenting even if he just came across the bible because he is already condemned to die?

How many people who have actually BLASPHEMED AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST do YOU know who have been inclined to repentance? That people have sinned against the Holy Spirit and yet come to repentance - there are thousands of such cases. Remember that sinning (that is lying, resisting, despising, grieving) the Holy Spirit are serious sins in themselves; but they are not to be mistaken for the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.

It is utterly impossible to find repentance if the holy Spirit does not convict a person. And if someone has blasphemed against Him, how then would the Spirit disregard the words of the Lord Jesus and void it?

--------

I would just like to add by way of a reminder: if anyone has truly been born again (this is radically different from merely sounding or looking like a Christian), then hhe/she should entertain no fear. Believers fall short many times in sinning against the Holy Spirit by grieving Him when we do not submit to His leading (Eph. 4:30); but the Bible does not suppose that a child of God would turn round and blaspheme against the Holy Spirit that wrought the new birth in him or her (see I Cor. 12:3).

@simmy,

This is just one of those wild statements that I would like you to offer me ONE FACT about:

simmy:
Heretics have been burnt at the stake in their millions

Please, just one line of unbiased historical FACT for the millions will do, thank you.

simmy:
don't get me wrong i actually beleive that fundamentalists are a pain in the neck and i also realise that islam seems to be prone to violence breeding; but most religions (including islam) do not directly preach violence and we should not be unfair to muslims in our horror, shock, unbeleif and grief at what some of the proponents of their faith have done or intend to do

My dear simmy, the NT does not make me a Jew; and as a Christian if a Muslim believes that I'm one of those who should be beheaded for no other reason than my just being Christian, I think that is enough to shock both you and me.

I'm not referring to tangential issues, and I hope you can see that. These are well established tenets in Islam; and incase you're still only interested in the shadow boxing, I would advise you to please go and study just one Islamic subject: J.I.H.A.D.

simmy:
Let me just state once and for all that i find the attitude of many xtians appalling and unxtianlike and im actually vewry dissponted.
Many xtians go out of their way to ridicule adherents of other religions without paying attention to the faults of their own religion (if you cna call them faults, )

I'm here for a debate and not ridicule. Issues that are of deepest concerns to me inform my engagement in such debates; and if that happens to cross the lines into the example of JIHAD, I don't think that is reason for anyone to begin to make wild statements just to prove that Christianity by the NT is WORSE than the fundamental beliefs of Islam in that regard.

simmy:
My personal belief (notice the word, personal) is that Islamic theology is poorly developed (at least in comaprision to xtianity0 and so it is easy to pick holes in it.

I don't agree with you. Neither Muslims nor Christians who have studied Islam by any measure will come away tagging its theology as "poorly developed".

simmy:
The islamic apparent disregard for women was common to middle Easterners in those days and extended to the early Xtians. (if u don't believe me, try and re-read Paul's exhortation to women to cover their hair and shut up in church. It;s obvious that Paul had so high a regard for women that he told them all to shut up in church. Women should be seen not heard!!!! Thats respect alright, !

That is just one case in point where you misread issues. I'm not one of those who subscribes to this misconception - for that was not Paul's personal views, but what the Lord revealed. Yet, it does not make the woman inferior to the man - you only need to read the NT and see the place of each person, and then you might get answers to your complaints.

@otuwe,

otuwe:
i love you dear, your eyes are open. don't mind those people who have been deceived by their pastors

Leaving "those people" for a moment, could you share with us what you believe prayer to be according to God's Word?

@Aproko and all,

It's interesting to read the many views on this subject. But let's here outline a few things and minimize the confusion.

1. There are various types of sins against the Holy Ghost.

I earlier tried to outline just a few:
     
         (a) lying to the Holy Spirit - Acts 5:3

         (b) grieving the Holy Spirit - Eph. 4:30

         (c) despising the Holy Spirit - Heb. 10:29

and as well: (d) resisting the Holy Spirit - Acts 7:51

I hope that we've not been carried along to have made the mistake in our thinking that all these sins are the same as the BLASPHEMY against the holy Spirit? Please, let's be very clear what we have been thinking.


2. There are some sins which are forgiveable

I wish to state upfront that this is no excuse to encourage sinning in any form. However, Christians and unbelievers alike commit such sins against the Holy Spirit, and may yet find forgiveness when they repent. Some of these sins may include resisting or grieving Him when we do not yield our lives to His leading; or yet following the desires of the flesh when we choose to walk contrary to the Spirit; or even yet again, when we sin against our brethren by putting a stumbling block before them.

All these (and by no means the only sins) are some of the ways we sin against the Holy Ghost; although not many people realize this. Yet, they are not the same thing as the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

3. The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit has no forgiveness

This is the core issue here: and we should never misconstrue it to mean what it does not. Perhaps, the main concern is two fold:

      (a) can believers commit the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?

      (b) can blasphemers against the Holy Spirit find repentance later on?

The (a) above, my persuasion is simply this: NO! Believers are not to fear that they rpobably have committed this sin. In the first place, a blasphemer has deliberately rejected the convictions of the same Holy Spirit, and therefore the Spirit withdraws His convicting work in the life of that person. Without the Holy Spirit, repentance is IMPOSSIBLE!!

Second, when a person is born again, the Spirit of God bears a twofold witness: (i) that Jesus is Lord [no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed - I Cor. 12:3]; (ii) that such a person is truly God's child (Rom. 8:16). If these are true (as surely they are), where then is the inference to suggest that a believer has committed this sin against the Holy Ghost?

Now to the second question (b) above, my answer is still NO!! To suggest otherwise is to deny the clear statement of the Lord Jesus Christ in Mark 3:29 & 30 --  "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation: Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit."

How anyone would read the Lord's Word and try to go round it is beyond me. I hope these lines would be helpful in shaping our thinking when we reflect on this subject.

@Aproko,

Aproko:
are you saying everybody has read the bible? come on my brother!!!1 my point is that there are people that have never come across the bible wether we agree or not, again my dear, not everybody can read and understand the bible clearly!!!

I don't think that the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost has to be predicated on how much one has read the Bible; or whether or not such a person has read it at all. However you look at it, we would still have to come back to this one thing: there are other sins one commits against the Holy Spirit; and yet, it is the blasphemy against the Him that the Bible clearly delineates as a sin without forgiveness.

Aproko:
so again i dare ask, what if you do not deliberately vilify the holy spirit?

In the first place, what would make someone want to vilify/blaspheme againt the Holy Spirit?

Aproko:
again i ask, if i am on the 'holy spirit death row' (forgive my plagiarism thesilent 1) what then is the point of repentance? i.e. accepting jesus as my lord and saviour and trying to live by his word?

I don't know about the idea of being on such 'death-rows'; but as I said earlier, when a person has consciously and outrightly rejected the convictions of the Holy Spirit in such a way as to blaspheme against Him, then the question of trying to repent does not come in. We should remember that repentance follows upon the conviction of the Holy Spirit; and if the Spirit of God does not cause that conviction, where is the repentance?

Aproko:
i don't mean to challenge your christain growth my dear,

I don't think you were challenging me in terms of putting me on spot; however, I meant that your questions are pleasantly a challenge to me.  

Aproko:
i only want you to ask yourself this - 'is that what the book says or what i have been told?' (again thesilent 1, please forgive my intrusion on your copy right signature)

If I have not been quoting from the Bible in making my points, then I can understand your concerns. But if on the other hand I have been actually making reference to what the Bible says, I wonder why that question is brought about.

feelgood:
but you would want me to mention specific instances to enable you JUSTIFY your actions.

You have just encapsulated my concerns about babs' responses in such manners.

@Aproko,

You'd have to excuse my style of answering your questions by offering a few others. Anyhow, here's what I can offer:

Aproko:
so what if the 'vilification' of the holy spirit is not deliberate? is it still counted as a sin against the holy spirit?

I wonder why someone would even want to vilify the Holy Spirit and call that an act that was not deliberate. I think great answers have been given to all your questions in naijacutee's rejoinder just above.

However, a vilification of the Holy Spirit is something that one could do in so far as he/she has been offered a clear pointer to His Person and work. One may have lied to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3); or yet grieve Him (Eph. 4:30); or even despise Him (Heb. 10:29). But when it comes to blaspheming the Holy Ghost, that is a more profound issue altogether.

Aproko:
and pardon my ignorance, but if the holy spirit is part of the trinity, i.e. one with God as we  christains believe, why will sin against the holy spirit not be forgiven? and do you have bible verses specifying what those sins are?

I don't believe you're being ignorant here, especially because questions like these challenge my Christian growth and walk. So, thank you!  

Now, as I've attempted above, the question of blaspheming the Holy Spirit is a more profound matter than the other sins committed against Him. We as Christians know that we sometimes grieve the Holy Spirit when we do not submit to His leading and power (Eph. 4:30). But then, when someone applies himself/herself to blaspheming the Holy Spirit, that is something the Bible does not count as an act of ignorance.

Aproko:
and again, if the sin against the holy spirit cannot be forgiven, does it mean even if a person accepts jesus christ as the lord and savoiur that person is still hell bound?

In the first place, for someone to blaspheme the Holy Spirit would mean that such a person has deliberately rejected His deep convicting power; and not stopping there, he/she has gone ahead to account the very Person of the Holy Spirit with blasphemous terms.

Since it is the Spirit who brings convictions to people, is it conceivable that He would still seek to convince someone who has blasphemously rejected Him outrightly?  Here again, I can't help but appreciate naijacutee's input.

Regards.

Hi TV01,

TV01:
Whilst I wouldn't want to ascribe anything to you, if as you claim, you are persuaded that the arguments against a mandatory tithe for NT Chritians are weak, does that mean you are more in favour at this point?

Yes, I'm more inclined to tithing for Christians at this point; although I'd like to state upfront that it is not something that should be a legalistic engagement that believers use as a yardstick against their fellow brethren.

TV01:
And would you be so kind as to outline your thoughts vis-a-viz the following;

~ Whether you followed or have read the main discussion on this forum?

I've followed the discussions on the several threads on the topic/subject of tithing; and have learnt tremendously from the principle contributors/debaters on either side; yourself, TayoD, 4get_me, syrup, etc.

TV01:
~ Your thoughts on the weaknesses against and the strengths for.

I hope it does not come across as an excuse that I'm quite occupied at the moment with loads of stuff; however, when I have more time, I'll gladly oblige you.

Yet, I've taken the time to go through your points as well on the subject; and my one problem in most of your arguments is the idea of reducing the various types of giving to a mere "simply give". Pardon me, but even when 4get_me outlined some of them and gave texts upon texts for them, several arguments (besides yours) were made in opposition to his points; and yet, it's amazing that not much substance could be gleaned from those counter arguments (IMHO).

Then again, I recall syrup's didactic outline in reference to the debate with you on theocracy and similar terms. Following through that thread, I well appreciate her comprehensive outline and debunking of the idea that the tithes could be played down to mean other than what they meant, so that taxes were being introduced to make it sound like tithing/tithes were simply a matter of high-handed theocratic governnance (although, I was quite concerned by how you had loosely used the term 'theocracy'). Link:

          https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.640.html#msg362582

This is not to say that there were no good points in your counter arguments. However, what my studies lead me to infer, and the points raised on all sides, would be more towards tithing.

TV01:
~ And possibly more interesting to me, your thoughts on the outworking and practicality of a
tithe for NT Christians with of course reference to your linking tithing to priesthood.

Like I opined earlier, I'm still studying the subject, However, as far as being practical goes, I have experienced the blessings of tithing for myself, which only strengthens my persuasions on the subject.

TV01:
In response to the "simplicity" of Abraham's act in offering tithe, I'd like to point out (and you may well be aware) that tithing was extant long before Abraham, and is recorded as being practised by communities in the region both before, and up to the time of Abraham. It was common practice and a form of tribute to the most senior warlord and/or priest in a region.

This is precisely one of the issues that weaken your arguments. Tithing is not the same thing as a "tribute" - and the idea that it was a common practice back by communities does not mean that I take my theology outside God's covenant blessings.

Granted, we may gain help in trying to understand what exactly a subject points by examining what other communities had practised and how they did so. However, the big issue is what God's Word teaches, rather than a common practise among communities.

The point I'm trying to make here is this: there is a fundamental issue here in connection with Melchizedek --

       (a) he stands in connection with the first mention of priesthood and tithes in the Bible

       (b) the patriarch Abraham gave him tithes of all, without so much as Melchizedek asking

       (c) the pristehood of our Lord Jesus is patterned after Melchizedek's priesthood.

Please try and see the point I'm raising here. We do not read that Melchizedek was a warlord (so where does the inference come in as to Abraham's tithes possibly being a type of "tribute"?). Abraham was not paying "tribute" to a warlord; and that argument should not even come in at all in the ambit of this discussion.

TV01:
Hope your study of the subject shed's light. Be sure to share with your peeps on Nairaland.

In due course, I'll like to share what light has come to me on the issues mentioned in this connection. Do have a good day.  

@sirgai,

sirgai:
what amazing is the many xtians responding to a muslim oriented post. is the original intending to find out why and understand or has already made up his mind and just wanted to ridicule islam?

I think for the most part, the topic seeks to understand the why this practice holds true among Muslims; but I'm speaking for myself, as I'm one of those who's been observing this thread keenly.

sirgai:
islam like many other faith has been practised wrongly by people and on hadiths there are so many untrue ones out there.

That is true; and as far as practices are concerned, Islam is not the only religion where its adherents have introduced a whole lot of other issues not found in their holy books.

However, when I read the Muslim response that there are true, weak and false hadiths, I wonder if anyone could be so generous to delineate which hadiths are true; or better still, recommend a link online for us to read them for ourselves.

sirgai:
to understand better google up understanding islam and learn.

I think some of us have been trying to do that; but not much help has been sifted from the materials found online on this question. Do you have something more helpful?

@ajadrage,

Pardon me if I still don't get your meanings. Although I'm quite occupied just now, could you please delineate for me the difference between the various themes you have tried to put across, in terms of the following:

The church founded "on" Jesus Christ

The church founded "in" Jesus Christ

The church founded "by" Jesus Christ.

I see you've made an attempt on the first; but that seems to me to be far short of what the Bible teaches. Do you care to be more precise?

Thanks.

naijacutee:

So basically, we should be careful about what we say. If we don't know, we should ask God to lead us.

Good talk, Bless you.

ajadrage:
Dear vigasimple, the church founded on Jesus Christ has since ceased to exist.

If that were true, then we're all in trouble with a smokescreen hope.

However, that is not true. The testimony of the Church may be confused in many quarters - and these things were spoken of and warned about in the NT (see Acts 20:27-31 for example). Yet, Jesus promised that the gates of hades shall not prevail against His Church - and that promise is true to the very Day of His Second Coming (Matt. 16:18 ).


@ray-dar,

ray-dar:
I was not going to walk pass a hungry person and throw good food in an incinerator for a corporation.

I couldn't do it !

Thank you for taking a stand for a true relationship with Jesus Christ, and being resolute against the tendency of a religious cloak. I was once involved in a similar situation, and was promptly dismissed by the fast food estab I worked for. Poor me, being Nigerian, I begged and almost cried; but. . . "company policy", they cried!

Not too long after that, two others got the sack (one for taking home leftovers; the other for slipping away trying to help folks). The latter now runs a restaurant; me - I'm still in school (and God has well taken care of ALL my needs).

Cheers.

Drusilla:
I think somebody said once that 92 percent of the preachings are against gay sex because the preacher doesn't have to worry about rejection if he just talks about some sin that only about 8 percent of the congregants might have a problen with.

No offences, but that statistical figure is overblown. Whatever happened to prosperity preaching? Feel-good Christianity? Healings by money and gift donations?

Hi tlops,

tlops:
Its the work of religious bigots who try to imprison people by their self righteousness. why empasize on this and not the remaining part of the passage. byye

That said, I don't see how you actually tried to offer answers on the question suggested by the topic. While accusing others of being religious bigots, do you care to provide a few lines as to where to draw the lines?

@Oluchia,

Sin is described in various ways in the Bible: iniquity, transgressions, wickedness, trespass, etc. I think when you look carefully in the verses you quoted (Matt. 12:31 & 32), the answer to your question is found there: "all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men", Jesus said. How far-reaching was that offer is clearly explicated as including those which people speak ignorantly against the Lord Jesus Christ.

However, a warning is given against a deliberate exercise to vilify the Holy Spirit - and that is the sin that has no forgiveness.

Dear Drusilla,

I have no worries with anyone who argues against tithing, as far as that is their persuasion; but from what I've read of them, I'm more inclined to the persuasion that most of the arguments against it are weak.

As regards this very subject, the core question of my concerns are not about dietary laws, etc. Rather, it is here more about PRIESTHOOD and TITHES - both made in reference to the priesthood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

thesilent1:
i think that hit the nail on the head; that he GAVE his tithes and NOT asked like i keep hearing. it is poor to try and use this verse to defend church tithes. and yes, like abraham our giving should be free and willing!

It is true that Melchizedek did not ask Abraham for tithes; but the patriarch did so in simplicity. Which makes me wonder at the mystery of how he came to that understanding; noting that the first time priesthood and tithes are specifically mentioned in the Bible are in reference to Melchizedek - whose priesthood prefigures that of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Many people have their persuasions as to tithing not being a practice for NT believers; but I'm still studying this subject with reference to the priesthood of Melchizedek as a figure of the priesthood of our Lord.

Hi @Dammey,

Dammey:
In the first place, anyone who owns or founded by themselves a church in the name of Christianity is a deciever. Note that Peter, nor Paul, nor any other faithful believer founded or owned a church,

Do you attend a church? Who founded that church you attend?

I thought this request was made earlier. Oh well, maybe just me thinking. Try these few:

From USC-MSA website: Sunnah and Hadith
     

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/

Bobs, can't remember when exactly I read that book by Yonggi Cho. When I go back and browse to refresh my memory, I might post some.

@babs787,

babs787:
Is God of the OT different from NT?
Do Jews and Christians serve different God?

My questions are quite simple, babs787. Perhaps, dribbling is not a very good way to resume after a long break. Are your arguments against Jews or Christians, babs787?

babs787:
Brother, I want you to know that we are not kids here, so please let us be honest when attending to issues here. Now you claimed that there was no killing but this is part of the verse 'that whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put
to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman', meaning that whoever does not seek him would be killed. Anybody that did not seek him would be killed. And if I may ask you, why did God want to kill anybody that would not seek his face? What do you call that? Is that not killing in his cause?

Even in your reply, you emphatically came round to state my point: the verse did not say they WERE killed; as you have hinted - WOULD be killed. These are two very different things. As for the answers you're seeking, please refer to where I offered them.

babs787:
I thought God is of peace, must he avenge the death of the people of Israel?

I hope you're not trying to be deliberately mischievous here? I gave answers to what you asked; and if you don't want to discuss them, no worries.

babs787:
Brother, but you blame muslims for fighting the pagans in Mecca when they oppressed muslims and never allowed them to practice their faith.

Where did I do that, please?

babs787:
The same goes for Muslims too. Muslim did not just wake up and started fighting the pagans, the pagans caused it and Muslims had to repel aggression.

Right; so you take your vexations about Islam from the OT?

babs787:
Can you compare the above to that of the prophet? You do accuse Muhammed of fighting but here we read that God commanded Moses to kill them.

And I gave the referral verses to the antecedents of your complaints.

babs787:
Brother, this is part of the question 'has Jesus Christ went to war against people in just the same way that Muhammad did?' He was trying to say that Jesus never went to war and I decided to give him verse where such happened.

If you gave him verses where Jesus went out to war as Muhammad did, then are you not saying that Jesus is actually God? Yes or NO?

babs787:
Is Jihad not fighting in the cause of God? Please brother, why did God want to fight them and what is the reason for his fighting and killing them?

Did you read Jihad in the Bible, babs787? Is the Jihad that Muslims have explicated the same thing as what you read in the Bible?

babs787:
What do you understand by Jihad, is it not striving in God's cause? Why did the above happened and why did God intervene?

This is the thread on Jihad where I'm still examining that issue with you:  https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-57531.0.html#msg1196310

babs787:
I didnt believe and you should please tell if the God of Peace in the NT is the same as that of the OT
Brother, how will they know a virgin? Why the killing of innocent women and kids?

Can you please go through the answers outline in my rejoinders once again, in reference to the case of the Midianites and on from there? And when you do, take the time to reflect on this simple issue: what are you trying to prove in Muhammad's Jihad by seeking to focus on what Moses did?

babs787:
No brother, must you kill women and innocent kids because you are fighting for GOD? Is Jihad not the same as fighting for God in HIS CAUSE)

As a Christian, I'm not asked to do so. As a Jew, I could see your point. The Qur'an clearly distinguishes between Jews and Christians: Am I wrong?

babs787:
Let me have the sources please. Is God of the OT same as NT?

In due course I'll proffer them.

babs787:
So brother, is that not killing in his cause?

In order to establish Jihad, is that?

babs787:
I am not mixing up issues. christians have been saying that muhammed was a warrior forgetting to go through their bible too.

Muhammad was a warrior; Moses also was. What Muslims have tried to do is make Jesus look like a warrior in the same way that Muhammad engage in Jihad. The Son of God is nowhere recorded in the Qur'an as having done that; so what is your point here, babs787?

babs787:
Brother, you are also of those that says I have been deriding him, please let me have a post, verse or anything in which I have derided him and I will back it up with verses from the two books.

Why did you refer to jesus as an impotent man who did not impregnat any women at the age of 30; and then you called that a "tit-for-tat" when Telly B (if I remember clearly) called your attention to that? Was it really necessary for your to go that far? When I have the time, I'll post the link; but I think it is a bit childish to try and deny what you have done.

babs787:
I am not here to deride him because he is one of the prophets muslims believe in. so if you think I have done that, please supply me and I will respond. Lastly, it is not what you may be thinking, babs is not here to condemn any prophet but to let you know that most of what christians have been attributing to jesus are false.

Please babs787, you're making matters worse by pretending to forget what you stated previously about Jesus. Referring to Jesus Christ in such derogatory terms is not the same thing as respecting Him.

@ajadrage,

The fact that followers of Jesus Christ are referred to as Christians is not an issue in itself. "And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me" (Luke 7:23).

ajadrage:
Another word of note, christianity cannot be describd as ancient as it is just about 2000 years old, do you know that people have been worshipping the true God since the beginning of the world, and the final culmination of this present system of existence has been revealed to certain people before even the coming of Jesus

Rom. 16:25
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

Eph. 3:9
And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ

1 Pet. 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you.