₦airaland Forum

Image123:
i take it this post is addressed to public forum, whoever that is.

yes o. It's addressed to the public forum working hard to dig up posts in a bid to bring 'peace' on this wonderful thread. I'm talking to that goodly 'godly' public forum

Image123:
Stop the insults, you and everyone else. This is the religion section for God's sake. What correction is left to make that supersedes this? You guys should correct your lives before whatever doctrine or teaching you dream of correcting. i'm talking to everybody reading.

If dem ask you now, for your mind you're trying to make peace abi? you're trying to settle a problem abi? after the dust has settled, after all the broken bottles have been cleared by the gladiators themselves, after everybody has seen that the fights aren't worth it, you start digging up posts to 'resettle' the quarrels and 'right' the wrongs abi?

kontinu to deceive yourself. It's not costing you anything but sleep so ride on.

blessed are the peace makers......for they will have the same 'peace' they're bringing on the thread in their own affairs too. Amen

mbaemeka:
I meant it in the sense that Isaac was Abraham's "best". But I understand you.



Okay. The point I was also trying to make is that they were aware of the principle.



We don't need to debate on the trivial aspects. God accepted the sacrifice of his human son. Also whatever made them turn back and thereby cause God's promise to be unfulfilled was the man's sacrifice. The scriptures clearly tell us that. I didn't say God favored Moab or that Israel were defeated. I said God's prophecy was not fulfilled and it was not unconnected with Mesha's sacrifice. I personally believe it is easier to accept that God respected Mesha's sacrifice than to concede that his own god did it for him or that Israel became horrified into "unfulfilling" God's word which some watered-down translations seem to assert. But it doesn't matter, Mesha got what he most probably wished for- the end of the war against his people.

ok then.

cheers

mbaemeka:
Yes the word firstfruit as used in NT never referred to financial giving or money. That's all his statement meant. He was saying so to debunk the claim that giving firstfruits is a doctrine in Christianity. BUT the principle of firstfruits (as giving money or produce/livestock) is replete in the OT and one can practice it without being coaxed to do so. Hagin did exactly that- with money. Same way some CEO decided to give 90% of his income to his church and he told many people that it was the source of his great wealth. Of course, it is not a doctrine. But the CEO practiced it regardless.

@the quote in blue. very correct and i agree with you

I saw the comments in blue and I think it is misapplied to the import of my posts. If a Farmer's first tuber of yam isn't so bulky he may decide to wait and offer the biggest or bulkiest which he may interpret as his best. It's all about the principle. Saying that "Does this mean the first fruits in a believers life is the best he can ever get?" or "Does it mean these first people to believe are the best of that location?" to me, is OP. If my first salary is $12,000 and I offer it as my firstfruit and the following year I am raised to say $15,000 it has become my new best and I can decide to offer it whole or give the increase. That's my understanding.

I only sought to correct your notion that ''first fruits'' in the bible (OT & NT) always referred to first and the best.

Well, that's exactly why the principle applies here- because Isaac wasn't the only son Abraham had. God even had to add the caveat "the one that you love" because I am sure Papa Abraham would have offered Ismael without flinching

and we must also remember that Isaac wasn't actually the first fruits of Abraham's loins and God never referred to him as such

Again you missed the point I was trying to make. The Moabites learnt the principle of FIRSTFRUITS and not human sacrifice. Moab could have offered "any" of his sons but the bible says he offered his first; the one who would have replaced him as king. He offered his best!

This is still your assumption. There's nothing in scripture or recorded history to say pagans hadn't engaged in giving the first of their substance to their gods before God appeared to Abraham.

I didn't say God accepts human sacrifice. God respects/permits sacrifices of all kinds without necessarily accepting them. Someone can give his manhood to a native doctor as a ritual for wealth and become very wealthy. Of course, the man didn't offer his manhood to God but if God didn't prevent the man from getting the wealth we can say he permitted it. I am not even considering the situation were a christian is put into the equation and by that I mean: if a christian and a pagan are vying for a job and both of them study equally hard for it but the christian prays to God and gets the word that he will be successful while the pagan decides to "donate" his mother to his deity and gets the go ahead from his Dibia, and at the end of the day the pagan gets the job can't we conclude that God permitted the pagan's sacrifice? That seems like the only logical conclusion.

The commentary is neither here nor there as he seems pusillanimous to assert the obvious fact which is: that whatever permutations we give to the scenario it is clear that God's promise about delivering the city to Israel wasn't fulfilled and that this happened at the sacrifice of the Moabite king should not be equally overlooked.

The simple fact is that God permits all that happens, whether good or bad because he's given man freewill. God doesn't respect Human sacrifice. His word is totally against it. What stopped the combined army was the great indignation that arose. It could have come from some evil spirits that the abominable sacrifice brought up and scared Israel and its allies or it could have come from the army of Judah and Edom against the Israeli contingent. It could also have come from the Israelites themselves at the horrifying thought of confronting a desperate man who had just burnt his heir apparent in the fire. The fact is that Israel departed the battlefront. The bible didn't say they were defeated or that God favored Moab over Israel because a pagan king offered his son as burnt sacrifice. Even if the devil decided to favour Moab, if Isreal didn't depart, they would have gone on to total victory even if the King burns himself to death.

for instance, see the contemporary English bible rendition

2 Kings 3:27
He then grabbed his oldest son who was to be the next king and sacrificed him as an offering on the city wall. The Isrealite troops were so horrified that they left the city and went back home

I agree.

ok

mbaemeka:
^^^This should have been the topic clincher.

Wish the preachers who turn out tons of devotionals and books on first fruit offerings as a christian doctrine and duty understood it that way.

I didn't say he preached it as a christian doctrine. I said he practiced it. I have heard Tunde Bakare say the same things about Firstfruits and tithes too. And by "heard" I mean I heard him live not that I read a particular link or thread.

No wahala then. It was his personal decision and i can't quarrel with that but i still wonder what he gave as first fruits offering since he affirmed that first fruits in the new testament had nothing to do with financial giving or money. It means he was engaged in something he knew to be redundant to a christian.

Nope @ the emboldened. Every instance I mentioned carried the principle of firstfruits giving long before the Mosaic law. Recall I said firstfruits referred to the first and probably the best. That's the allusion given to the term all through the scriptures- old and new.

Genesis 4:4Amplified Bible (AMP)
4 And Abel brought of the firstborn of his flock and of the fat portions. And the Lord had respect and regard for Abel and for his offering

Genesis 22:2Amplified Bible (AMP)
2 [God] said, Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering upon one of the mountains of which I will tell you.

@the bolded, you're not exactly correct. once again Hagin helped us by listing the various instances of first fruits in the NT and only the one referencing Christ can be said to be about first and best. For the others, even if the ''first'' in the ''first fruits'' indicates first of course, there's nothing to indicate first means best. see them again with my comments in blue

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

Another use of the word "firstfruits" is totally figurative. It has to do with the first individuals to be born again in a certain location. - Does it mean these first people to believe are the best of that location?

Also while the Abel situation might support your stance, the Abraham and Isaac issue makes no allusion or takes any resemblance to the idea of first fruits. He was an only Son and that was the basis for asking for him to see if Abraham could stomach the loss.

True but the principle is what he expressed. What he did was akin to what God asked Abraham to do. Recall that the Moabites grew up under the tutelage of the Israelites somewhat. They must have learned this principle from them.

@the bolded is purely your own conjecture. It has no basis in scripture or History. Human sacrifice had been a part of pagan history before Abraham was asked to offer Isaac. Moab sacrifices children in the fire because Molech desires it and God warned Israel against it with promises of dire consequences (Lev 18:21, Lev 20:2-5). They didn't learn that abominable practice from Israel.

God respected the man's offering. I believe the bible gives strong indications as to that regard or is it easier to believe that God told the Israelites something but then the "deity" of the Moabites upturned God's word/prophecy? God said he would successfully "deliver the Moabites also into their hands" but after the man's sacrifice the same scriptures state that "there was great indignation against Israel and the people were forced to go back to their land". This means the Moabites weren't delivered to Israel's hands again and I strongly believe that only God almighty could have done that for them.

@the first bolded, are you telling me God accepts human sacrifice? If you say God respected the man's offering, it means you believe God accepted it. If God refused to carry out his promise to the Israelites because he respected or accepted Mesha's offering, is it not possible that Israel could have had the full promise fulfilled if they could match or exceed this dangerous and abominable offering of this pagan king?

I'm sure you use bible commentaries. see what this has to say here

''And there was great indignation [R.V. wrath] against Israel] The word rendered ‘wrath’ or ‘indignation’ is nearly always used of the wrath of God against offenders. But it appears difficult to take it in that sense here. God’s promise through Elisha was that Israel should conquer, and they were bidden to smite every fenced city and every choice city. Therefore unless we conceive that underlying God’s message there was conceived some point beyond which they were not to go, and that the forcing of the king to offer his son was of this character, it is hard to see how they could be held to blame and worthy of God’s wrath. They were in no position to know what the king intended, nor, when they saw him on the wall, to prevent his sacrifice. It seems better therefore to take ‘wrath’ in this place to signify ‘wrath of men’. The word is found in Ecclesiastes 5:17, ‘All his days he eateth in darkness, and is sore vexed and hath sickness and wrath’ (R.V.). This can be either of what the man feels himself, or of what others feel towards him. Taking the latter sense, the meaning here would be that in the minds of the men of Judah and Edom there rose indignation that they had been brought to partake in an expedition which led to such a dreadful sacrifice. If we apply the word to the feelings of the Israelites themselves, we get the sense that they were grieved and angry at so terrible a result, and so hastened to leave the dreadful scene. The margin of R.V., ‘There came great wrath upon Israel’, alludes to the anger of God, but it seems, as the preposition is ‘against’, to be better to understand that the allies were grieved at having shared in so disastrous a warfare. Josephus says the kings pitied the need which the Moabite monarch had felt when he offered up his child, and so withdrew''.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/cambridge/2_kings/3.htm

Do you disagree with it?

God sacrificed his firstfruit, Jesus his son. He "offered" his son FOR us and not TO us. If you for example, dedicated/offered your first child for the work of God, that is a form of firstfruit offerings. You would be following the principle. That's exactly what I meant and that is why some people give their first salary to the work of God.

I can't stop anybody from giving their first salary to the work of God or like the widow, give their whole living to the work of God or to anybody. I'm simply against making it a doctrine for Christians. You've already said you don't agree with it being preached as a christian doctrine so i guess we are good.

Gombs:
Aii bro
But BabaGnoni didn't refute the claim on the thread, rather got nannymcphee in a slap mode! I felt her fury bro

well, we can't take that as evidence now or can we? i ignore some statements i find baseless sometimes and i'm sure you do same sometimes too. Let's try to avoid statements that stoke anger unnecessarily.

Gombs:
Someone was dishonest enough to edit his post, but someone has already quoted him! Opssss

please, after clicking, take your discussion elsewhere, BabaGnoni, you owe some folks an apology

Now, you have evidence, tell him to open a thread as you said and explain himself there, I hooe he takes correction, something hard for your camp!
Can we stick to the book now?

Pls pls Gombs, let me correct you before this goes out of hand again. Nowhere on that thread did BabaGnoni make that statement. Mbaemeka was merely cataloguing to nannymcphee what he saw as wrong teachings from BabaGnoni not solely from the WOF thread. he encapsulated all in a post and nannymcphee quoted that particular one she was interested in. She was quoting from mbaemeka's post:she wasn't quoting BabaGnoni since he didn't make that statement there hence nothing to edit there. That accusation predates the WOF thread i think. let's not confuse the issues.

If he made it elsewhere, pls look for it but it surely wasn't on that thread.

abeg let's not scatter this thread again.

mbaemeka:
Certainly you and Hagin are right in the sense that there was not a mention of the word firstfruits as related to money or financial givings in the NT. But the word (or compound word as the case maybe) 'firstfruits' actually means the 'first' from both NT and OT accounts alike and that is the PRINCIPLE (not doctrine) that some of us applied to Proverbs 3:9.

Also I believe Hagin gave money as his firstfruits but he didn't teach it as a doctrine like one will teach Baptisms or Laying on of hands. He probably practiced giving firstfruits with the same mentality those that give 90% of their incomes have I.e he practiced it based on his convictions about giving and not because any law said so.

Actually like i said earlier, it is within our individual rights to adopt any practice as long as we don't make it a rule for others. I too have some form of 'first fruit' practice if we can call it that. What i won't do is say it is in obedience to a biblical mandate to christians like some preachers do. That to me is ignorance at best or lying at worst.

If Hagin gave money as first fruits, it's his money but i'm glad he affirmed in his book that first fruits to a Christian has NOTHING to do with financial giving, support for ministers or money. From that statement, its very clear he wouldn't preach it as a christian doctrine. If he did on the pulpit or in his other books after writing Midas Touch, he'll correctly be labelled as lying.

Also, I disagree with the idea of it being taught as a doctrine when it clearly isn't even as I disagree with the notion that it is Mosaic in form and practice. Abel gave firstfruits to God. God asked Abraham for his 'firstfruits' of some sorts (Isaac), Jesus was God's firstfruit, King Mesha gave his firstfruit (his son) to God and it was honoured. I believe it is just a principle like when people give gifts to their parents even if the said Parents are far richer than their kids.

That's my take.

I'm glad you disagree with teaching it as a doctrine. However, It is purely Mosaic in form and practice. There is no scripture to support the notion that Abel gave first fruits offering or that Abraham was giving first fruits offering when he laid Isaac on the altar (infact churches prefer to use this to preach giving your all -mainly money and other material resources- to God). Also on the issue of King Mesha, i'm sure you remember he was the pagan king of a pagan Moab who were worshipping Molech?

2 Kings 3:27
Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there was great indignation against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land

are you saying he did human sacrifice to God as first fruits offerings and God accepted it and stopped his chosen people from utterly defeating the moabites?

Also, are you saying God gave us first fruits offering? We are talking of first fruits offering, not just any first fruits. My first child is obviously the first fruits from my loins. The first salary i received when i started work is the first fruits of my working career. i have other first fruits as well but we are not talking of those.

Gombs:
Vooks and lobeez, I have no reasonable reason to speak to you now. Your dishonesty, poor reading and comprehension ability (lobeez) and insensitivity to people's livelihood, (vooks) are not encouraging to continue a discussion with you both. I humbly announce I will not discuss with you both or engage your posts. I humbly ask you don't quote me or direct a question to me, if you do, I'd ignore them. Feel free to troll .

Candour! I wish some guys on the other side of WoF, would learn from you.

@the bolded, are you deliberately trying to provoke a reaction with the insults embeded there?

I wish some guys on your side can learn to chill too. We all can blow our tops and we all know how to provoke the other party to blow their tops. I have kept quiet in the face of insults and provocations sometimes, sometimes i've been provoked into responding. We all prove how human we are everytime. This is why i've reduced my engagements on NL in recent times.

i wish we all can learn to chill, give your opinion and move ahead.

mbaemeka:
I copied that verse et al from the AMP version of the app on my phone. I probably didn't cross check the verses placed on the margins.

Ok. Actually, No new testament scripture talks about first fruits in relation to material giving to God or anybody. (i stand to be corrected)

Concerning Hagin and what he stood for I have read a handful of his books even to revised editions and I have read a couple of his son's till date. On these basis I can say he gave firstfruits. Besides, the verse I posted said one could honor God with the firstfruits of his income so in that light the 'firstfruits' as described in the NT (meaning the first and the best) can be applied to my income hence why some people give their first salaries, the increase from a promotion or a profit as their firstfruit.

at the bolded, do you have any scripture in the NT to confirm that? If you decide to apply the Mosaic law and Solomon's admonition on first fruits to yourself, it's very well within your rights after all, there are a lot of practices from Mosaic law and the OT which some people have picked personal doctrines from which i trust you and i would agree has no relevance to a Christian. What i can't find a support for is first fruit as a doctrine for a Christians.

If Hagin affirms that first fruits has nothing to do with financial giving or money in the NT, then if i agree with you that he still went ahead to give first fruits, in what form then did he give the first fruits?

I personally believe Hagins grouse was with Ministers who claimed (like the tithes) that the firstfruits belonged to them. I believe he said firstfruits weren't written in the NT in relation to financial givings in SUPPORT FOR MINISTERS. In other words, this isn't like when people give gifts to bless their pastors or what not.

I believe he was positing that like the tithe, the firstfruits belonged to the church and was to be used for only the needs of the church (and Gospel) and not for the Pastor's personal needs. That's what I think. I stand corrected.

@the bolded, that's not the only thing he said. see the full statement ''[size=16pt]The concept of firstfruits is not used in the New Testament in reference to financial giving. There is not even the vaguest hint of it by any New Testament writer in reference to money or the support of ministers.[/size]''

Hagin is saying ''Nothing in the new testament talks about first fruits as a form of financial giving, support for ministers or even money at all''

I'm not against folks deciding to practice it. What i rebel against is preaching it from the pulpit as a christian doctrine. It is Mosaic in form and practice. It will be much better if Christians are told this truth and i trust that's what Hagin said in the book.

nannymcphee:
I have been silent since because of the bickering. It is too much, one can even get lost, this thread was supposed to be on the Midas touch & maybe the subject of prosperity not covered by the book.

Gombs you are still of the opinion that the so called "anti WOFers" have problem with giving(because of the bolded part)

you are wrong & I stand to be corrected, I give, I believe in giving & also believe that love should be one's motivating factor. My stand on the Christian giving is summarized in 2 Corinthians 9.

I have also seen from scripture how God intervened on behalf of men as they gave sacrificially & how he also moved without them giving(eg extension of hezekiah's life & miracle oil with the widow)

Striking a balance between the above lies on the leading of the Holy Spirit & not some man made formular

At this junction, I want to call on



WinsomeX
vooks
Candour
BabaGnoni
Lobeez
shdemidemi

& all the "anti WOFer's to state their stance on the Christian giving, so that we all know where we stand on the subject for posterity sake

Thanks

Every giving in the new covenant from the inception of the church was tailored to meet needs, not to get rich. That's the simple way i approach giving. I hold the scripture below close to heart

1 John 3:17
But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?

This is because if you don't love your brother whom you can see, how can you claim to Love God whom you have not seen? (1John 4:20). So be it our fellowships, a pastor, a layman or even a pagan, a Christian must be willing to bail the needy out of their needs. I believe there is no better way to give to God than by giving the needy because Christ said if you give to those in need, you give to him.

mbaemeka:
Proverbs 3:9 AMP

Honor the Lord with your capital and sufficiency [from righteous labors] and with the firstfruits of all your income; [Deut. 26:2; Mal. 3:10; Luke 14:13, 14.]

That's my stance. Besides, Hagin gave firstfruits and his son teaches it in his books till date so I wager that some of the folks quoting him thinking they are raising new information do not understand him. I even found it ridiculous that they are picking and choosing what aspect to believe and endorse from the same book. Anyone can do that even to the bible hence the so much confusion and bitterness. Is that clear enough?

Luke 14:13, 14
But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: And thou shalt be blessed:for they cannot recompense thee:for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.

There's nothing about first fruits from the Luke reference you gave as can be seen from the text above. you might want to check again

Also if Hagin said the below

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

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

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

What then is the basis you used to draw your conclusion that he gave first fruits? If in his own words, first fruits HAS NO RELATIONSHIP WITH FINANCIAL GIVING IN THE NEW TESTATMENT? Also if we want to assume that he did, did he continue it after writing this book and saying all he said about first fruits? Also remember he admitted preaching the false '100-fold return' doctrine before he was told it was a false doctrine.

Gombs:
Now that we've come this far, mfrom the book, irrespective of the derailing the thread has endured, plus those who use extra monikers, but their line of reasoning betrays them, can we all agree that the book by Hagin was very needful at a time as these, even though the anti WoF folks seem to be innperfect churches and hence Hagin wrote the book for churches like CEC, LFC, RCCG, etc?

I'd put up chapter 9 today (hopefully), it'd then remain one last chapter. It was not surprising anti WoF guys har nothing to say about Hagin's 24 principles from the Epistles regarding money, givin and receiving-why? It caught them pants down

Hmmm Gombs, at the bolded. Really?? What is in those 24 points that will scare any honest person? i dare say they further indict preachers whose main reason is enriching of theor own pockets and families with the money of others. i'd wanted to engage in them but the unecessary derailing by you and almost every other person made me abandon the thread since page 17.

For instance, what is your take on point 11

[size=20pt] 11. Ministers should be ethical and above reproach in their handling of church finances. [b][/size]

Avoiding this, that no man should blame us in this abundance which is administered by us: Providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men.
—2 Corinthians 8:20,21

In The New English Bible, verse 20 says, "We want to guard against any criticism of our handling of this generous gift." And in the New International Version, verse 21 reads, "For we are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of men."

How many of the pastors you defend can boldly say they abide by this admonition? How many pastors publish their statement of accounts so their members can really know what their contributions are actually used for? Rather we see the ones in america appeal to their ''First Amendment rights to freedom of religion'' when the govt came calling. The ones in Nigeria are even worse. who is the senator that dare start a probe against the Lord's anointed? Let's even assume they forgot the machines that print their books can also print financial statements, can you as an individual walk up to your pastor in CEC to ask for details of how money was spent?

I raised the poser below earlier in the thread to give us something to ruminate about. i reproduce it here again

''Does anyone think our Mega churches actually lack funds? i watched the video of the mog owning a $16,000 dog. Does that guy have any moral justification to request donations into his 'ministry'? I know plenty of them even in this country who indulge in worse waste of scarce funds. Do you in all good conscience believe such prodigals should be entrusted with the contributions of any hardworking child of God? This is just an aside for us to think about''

If the secular world can ask accountability of it's leaders, how much more the church? Rather you my dear Gombs put up a thread to promote the idea that the church isn't a democracy and the G.O answers to no one on earth and telling us he's higher than lesser 'gods' like you. Is that not effectively confirming your pastors WILL NEVER pay attention to any scrutiny? particularly any bordering on financial? Did Paul forget that too when he insisted on ''providing for things [size=16pt]honest in the sight of all men[/size]? like WOF make it seem he forgot the 'principles' they sell today?

The others i'll touch when i have the time

Gombs:
I Don't work with Diamond Bank anymore, I moved on to something more profitable! Bankers dey try sha, that na suffer suffer job, not that I'm saying it's bad.. I am not in Jos, I work away from there... my parents are there though, would go see them by December, meehn, Jtown!

If only you knew how I got some details, if only you knew! For example, unlike you, I never went through Goshen's posts, I simply stumbled on it on google while searching for grass cutters!

Of course banking na suffer suffer Job. Na the money no allow person complain but even the money is chicken feed when you get else where as i found out myself. Thank God for you

Any how you found out makes no difference my bro. Just chill

Your opinion is noted!

good

Can we get back to the book?

after you bro

Gombs: Ummm, I doubt, SirJohn seems way smarter than Lobeez, I can tell alot from one's writings, but now you've mentioned it, I'd set to work.

It's quite baffling the way you get easily carried away with your own hype. Nora, DrummaBoy, PastorKun and even Christemmbassey have at one time or the other put their details in various posts on NL. You don't ned to be techy or whatever to know it. You only need to be observant. I know when you got your Job with your bank, the day you did your medical etc. I know the name of your bank and if it was important, i could decipher who you are from our interactions on here and my association with your church in Jos and i could get the branch you work with too. Ditto for some of your friends on here. The difference is of what use will your personal details be to me? and what will i gain from spreading them?

For instance i got Christemmbassey's phone no from a post he made on NL and we've been chatting since then. I know Nora's daughter is a health volunteer somewhere in Africa because she mentioned it and her job too. We all know DrummaBoy's history because he tried to be very open when he was seeking the truth to some questions bugging him and people thought he was a fake. We all know Kun's own because he never hid them here. I'm sure you have some about me too because i reveal somethings about myself here too.

Pls anybody can get any info you need about anybody. Keep digging if you so wish but it's very cheap to be painting a picture of an Edward Snowden.

They went on an ugly digging spree in politics section sometime ago and it wasn't pretty. pls don't start that race here. We might get angry at each other here but we are not mad. We don't have to pose a security threat to someone else because they diasagree with us and were open enough to leave some personal details here. You might be descending into a stalker. like BabaGnoni said, rein in before it becomes something else.

nlMediator:
Correct on all points!

Their wish is that this thread would die. Recall that this is not the first, seond or third time that Midas Touch is being mentioned on NL. I even excerpted a page or two during the WOF discussion that was deleted. But each time, they pretend the book is not there or dismiss it, claiming it's too little too late, etc. Unfortunately for them, they could not stop it this time. So, they're working hard to derail the thread. One day, it's a video about laughter, another day it's a video about miracles. Why not discuss the substance of the book - the real purpose of this thread?

Regarding the WOF thread, it's an abysmal failure, as anybody with an ounce of intelligence would have predicted from Day One. Apart from failure in terms of contributions, contributors and views, it's a complete failure regarding it's objective, which is to lead people away from WOF. We'll know it's a success when we hear (truthfully) that people have left WOF churches in droves or that scores of churches have abandoned WOF preaching as a result - direct or indirect - of their thread.

Yeah, that would happen!!!

whoever wants this thread to die obviously has a hard time facing the truth. From the OP to the guests viewing the thread, i believe folks are reading and making necessary adjustments. There is a crisis in Christianity and the church (particularly it's more visible leaders) have pretended about it for too long. It's not about the crowd or gaining popularity. Christ after 3 years had 500 people with him after his resurrection and only 120 in the upper room waiting for the holy ghost. It's not about the crowd for Christ said ''strait is the gate and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life and few there be that find it''. No matter our best efforts, only a few will find the truth. Christ said so and i believe him. However, God will get his job done and he'll use donkeys if he has to after all he's done it before. We should avoid garnishing the gospel to make it more appealing to the world. That will be trying to help God who doesn't need our help. Hagin tried to expose these garnishing in the book.

Rev Sun Myung Moon of the unification church has kept thousands (his apologists claim millions) believing a lie for over half a century. even with his death in 2012, his deluded followers still persist in the delusions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Myung_Moon and
http://www.religionfacts.com/unification_church/index.htm

Crowds have always believed a lie and crowds will continue to believe a lie if it is convincing enough. Truth on the other hand has never been attractive and will never be to a depraved world. What should be important to us is ensuring we avoid the extremes and discover the balance which Christ advocated when he told the covetous man that ''A man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things he possesses''. This is the moral behind the story of King Midas which Hagin narrated in the book.

So Gombs, continue with your review and any body that will think of stopping it, Holy Ghost.....fiiirrreeeee!!!

TheShopKeeper:
BE ONE OF THE 8500!!!!!!!

In April 2010, EIWM took possession of a Dassault Falcon 900 B. It is named The Weapon of Prosperity II (The Citation III that EIWM currently own is called The Weapon of Prosperity I). This aircraft is a weapon to destroy poverty in the Body of Christ by allowing my team and I to take this message of prosperity to the four corners of the earth.
There are so many people around the earth that know Jesus died for their sins (2 Corinthians 5:17), but don’t know that Jesus also died for their prosperity (2 Corinthians 8:9). God has given me a mandate to take this unique and rare anointing around the world to break the bondage of poverty. I’m also a pastor of a local church. The Weapon of Prosperity II allows me to do both assignments with efficiency and with the greatest amount of affect.

On my way to see this aircraft, the Lord spoke to me and this is what He said:
God:“This plane will be a DIVINE MARK in your ministry! You have been patient, so now your time has come!“
Me: “God, I’ll go anywhere you want me to go!”
God: “REALIZE THIS: I am sending you to the nations with a special Word from me. Get Ready! Big doors are about to open supernaturally. All that you have preached is about to begin to start manifesting. You’ve been faithful over your small jets. Now I am about to give you a bigger one. So receive it as a “Gift With A Mission! GET READY TO RECEIVE! Immediately, I knew that plane was now a part of the Kingdom of God.

God told me what amount to put down on the loan. I had more than that but I have learned to obey God. So I put that amount down along with the debt free Weapon of Prosperity I (The Citation III that EIWM currently owns).
I didn’t know why God didn’t want me to put more money down on the aircraft until spending time with Him in prayer about it. Now I know why God wanted me to put down a certain amount. With the economy in the condition that it’s in, those that know the laws of sowing and reaping are looking for good soil to plant seed. The mission of the Weapon of Prosperity II makes taking part in this debt cancellation a good place to sow seed.

Matthew 13:8
But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
There was a balance of $8.5 million dollars on the loan. If 8,500 people give $1000, that would pay the loan off. There are 8,058 spots (This number will change daily!) left to get in on this opportunity to sow into the debt cancellation of the Weapon of Prosperity II. 442 people have already committed to this project. If you are one of the 8o500, you will have seed in good ground ready to receive a harvest.

Here’s the wonderful news! You can give it all at once or pledge the amount you want to give. I’m allowing pledges because it gives everyone a chance to get involved. You may have never given a large seed, but here is your opportunity! On top of that, the deadline for pledge completion is 24 months from the date you pledge. That’s 2 years from now!

That means, if you pledge $1000, you can sow into The Weapon of Prosperity II with only $41.66/month and as each month passes you will have significant seed in the ground. You don’t have to stop at $1000. If you want to give more, you can. Look at the examples below:
If I pledge :
The monthly breakdown is
$1000 $41.66/month $1250 $52.08/month $1500 $62.50/month $2000 $83.33/month $2500 $104.16/month $5000 $208.33/month $7500 $312.5/month $10000 $416.66/month $15000 $625/month $20000 $833.33/month I want to use this giving opportunity to train my partners in receiving! Once again, I’m allowing pledges to give you a chance to give towards this debt cancellation, which puts you in a position to receive.

A harvest needs 2 things: good soil and seed! I already know what’s going to happen to you! As soon as you purpose in your heart to give, God will begin to send seed to your hands. That’s 2 Corinthians 9:7-10. It reads:
7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
8And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work:
9 (As it is written, He hath dispersed abroad; he hath given to the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever.
10 Now He (God) that ministereth seed to the sower both minister bread for your food, and multiply your seed sown, and increase the fruits of your righteousness

Once you begin to put that seed in the ground, God will start you on a process of multiplication of seed and fruit (results). Some of you will complete your pledge before the 24-month deadline! If you pledged already and have finished your pledge, you may want to pledge again.
As soon as you point your focus on what God wants, He begins to point His focus on what you want. There will be wonderfully strange ways God begins to put seed into your hands. I’m excited to begin hearing about these adventures in faith. As I said earlier, I want to use this giving opportunity to train you how to receive. I’ll send you a confession that I want you to say at least 3x’s daily. This will cause your thoughts to be right and eliminate every thought that doesn’t agree with your increase. You will begin to see increase immediately because God will begin to send the money your way to fulfill your commitments and cause you to increase!

To join the movement, you can submit your pledge below!

Blessings on Your Life,
Dr. Leroy Thompson Sr.

Is this for real

meanwhile see what Hagin (on page 126-127) had to say about the fraudulent use of the parable of the sower to manipulate people into parting with their cash

''Several years ago, I made that mistake with the concept of the hundredfold return. I picked up on what others were saying and started saying it too. When I took an offering, I would pray that God would bless the people's giving by sending them a hundredfold return. It sounded good. And people seemed excited and enthusiastic about it. But every time I said it, I felt vaguely uncomfortable. Something wasn't quite right, but I couldn't put my finger on it.
One morning I was getting up to come teach a class at RHEMA. I was sitting on the side of the bed putting on my socks. I had one on and was starting to put the other one on when the Lord said to me, "No one has ever received a hundredfold return yet on all their giving."
Well, that stopped me in my tracks—with one sock on and one sock off. I thought, Did I hear right? I believe I know the voice of the Lord. I've heard it many times.
"Well, Lord," I said, "Jesus talked about the sower who went out and scattered seed. Not all of it produced good results, but some produced a hundredfold, some sixtyfold, and some thirty."
The Lord pointed out to me that the parable I was referring to was not talking about money. The seed is the Word. The stony and thorn-infested ground has no return at all—some who hear the Word do not respond. But even in good ground, the amount of return differs. Some Christians don't grow and develop much
—maybe thirtyfold. Others may develop more. And some become great, devout, faith-filled, productive Christians—the hundredfold folks. In other words, they receive the maximum benefit from the Word of God they have heard.
And the other commonly used hundredfold passage that we looked at earlier isn't about giving money, either. Mark 10:28 through 30 is talking about Christian service. Jesus wasn't talking about multiplying tithes and offerings.''

If the guy who sent that mail out isn't a certified criminal predator preying on the gullible, i don't know what else he'll be except of course he didn't originate or send that mail out

Bidam:
Good you raise a valid point instead of the usual dribbles. Jesus is our perfect sacrifice hence no need for turtles etc.. Since All scripture is for doctrine, i already said a spiritual truth drawn from luke 2. is folks bringing their children to be dedicated unto the Lord. There is a pattern. God is not interested in sacrifice even Isaiah said so, and that is why it is of faith that it might be according to grace we come to dedicate our child to Jesus. Jesus is grace and truth.

@the bolded, you've been shooking me words since o and i dey ignore

See what you said

Bidam: I quoted luke and it says the law of the Lord. Ok. If it means nothing to you fine.

The above shows you regard it as the law of God which is binding on you. See the other conditions attached to it. if its a male child, the mother stays away from every hallowed thing for 40days and goes to the temple that 40th day. if it's a female, the mother says away for 80 days (Lev 12:1-8 ). This is in addition to the animal requirements. Do you obey those time conditions? if you say no, who permitted you to cut it out? God?

I already answered we don't

ok

i already defined it in the OP, so define yours.

Bidam said ''A Baby Dedication is a ceremony in which believing parents, and sometimes entire families, make a commitment before the Lord to submit a child to God's will and to raise that child according to God's Word and God's ways.''

I'll say 'a baby dedication is an opportunity for christians to declare they have surplus money and party while involving the church to make it adorn the garb of a spiritual event when in actual fact, it has nothing spiritual in it''

Yes...why do our ancestors dedicate their child to idols? If you cannot answer say so.

oya, tell me

i never compared them, you did, i just made a reference to tithes to draw the tithe crowds who insist all the 5 books or torah are not relevant to christians. Ofcos there are many doctrines for the church taught by the apostles which are directly drawn from judaism and the law of moses.

at the bolded, is child dedication one of them?

My op never made such comparism, i guess anywhere you see the word tithe mentioned your head starts spinning.

na christemmbassey lead me into this temptation o and you can see i'm avoiding the 10% now. infact i dey fear am

God did not see child dedication useless in the OT..sorry your opinion holds no water here.

Just as he saw turtle doves and pigeons as very important for child dedication in the same old OT.

I already showed you Luke..is that not a NT scripture?

Did you not see that same scripture mention turtles and pigeons? Do you carry them along?

The church is the foundation. Dedication is the starting point. To bring a child to zion in the presence of Jesus, the angels and the saints of God for dedication and identification is not a bad thing in itself.

where is zion? your church building? Is there no presence of Jesus and angels in your house? I'm not against anybody doing it and its not a bad thing. I see it as an opportunity for rejoicing with those who rejoice. What is bad is quoting a law of Moses to back it up when the whole process runs contrary to what God gave as a law to Moses.

Bidam:
I have no probs with the adventist as far as he doesn't impose it as a rule on me. I worship God everyday.

good

I quoted luke and it says the law of the Lord. Ok. If it means nothing to you fine.

hope you also remember the part in bold in the scripture you quoted

Luke 2:22-24. "And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons."

Do you obey that part too?

What are you talking about? You are the guy evading questions here not me.

really?

what do you understand by the word dedication to start with?

Define your own idea of dedication first, let's start from there

You answered for yourself not others abeg.

ok

ok thanks, your opinion is duly noted.

good

Pls.could you respond reasonably?

and you think that question was a reasonable one?

Did i? I never knew. My bad.

Then you should read your own posts before posting. what does the below from the OP mean if not that you are comparing child dedication to tithes?

Bidam: Since our brothers say tithe is old testament law and should be as such discarded in churches,should child dedication also be discarded in churches? I need you views.

May be more blessings na.Ok lets stick to the topic and stop deviating from issues raised.

Your OP is comparing tithes and child dedication so it's very relevant.

And who put those in a class far above child dedication. You? Or God?

Sorry. It's not a question of class. with respect to baptism and communion, child dedication doesn't exist. Its that useless an ordinance for a Christian unlike communion for instance Otherwise you'll need to point out a scripture that asks Christians to engage in this ritual.

Yes. Children are gifts from God and we are to nurture them in the fear of God since God placed them in our custody. I may even say the outward rituals of communion and baptism holds no value if you haven't dealt with your home issue first. My point is that they( child dedication, communion,baptism) are practised whenever saints gather.

Nurturing children up in the fear of God has to do with training not child dedication. Remember we are talking about child dedication, not Child training.

Bidam:
No one said that. The OP mentioned some churches that followed a pattern because they saw it in scriptures.

Adventist insist on Saturday Sabbath because they saw the pattern in the bible. Do you follow them to observe it as well?

Read the scripture quoted by the OP, did it mention Moses or the Lord? Do you agree children should be dedicated in the church?

which law was quoted in the scripture you put up? Mosaic or New covenant? No. Dedication in church means nothing to me or the life of my child.

Every christian who is born again is a firstborn, the connotation is spiritual not physical, i know this truth will be lost on you as usual.

What has the above got to do with the discussion at hand? what truth are you putting forward that you're scared will be lost?

Who is being dedicated in the church? you or the child? who is born again? you or the child?

Whether you take your child today or not is insignificant. What is significant is that is child dedication a valid principle christians should adhered to?

The bolded is the truth you should know. It is totally insignificant to a Christian and no Christian needs to adhere to it. If you like, fine if not, fine. nothing to gain from it and nothing to lose from it.

Our ancestors dedicated their children to idols in those days. Who gave them such ideas? Where did they copy it from?

You should tell me. Did they get it from the bible too?

An argument that doesn't tally with the OP. A child who is not brought up in the way of the Lord will certainly end up on the other side of the ditch.

I simply wish to know what benefit it serves since you compare it to tithes. We hear of windows of heaven with tithes. What does child dedication open?

Do you call baptism a ritual, Do you call communion a ritual? What will also happen if you do not engage in such "spiritual connotation" as spelt out in your bible?

of course baptism and communion are rituals you should do well to place very far away from child dedication. It is grossly insignificant compared to those two.

And what does baptism and communion has to do with your status as a child of God?

Are you by any chance placing child dedication in the same class as baptism and communion?

BabaGnoni:
EXCERPT
Does miracles still happen today? Does healing still happen today?
Of course, they both happen, they happen every seconds of the time, the only concern or reservation is that for every genuine miracle or healing, there are ten to the dozen fakes, counterfeits or staged versions for each.

Staged leg lengthening healing is not a doctrine as such but was a phenomenon until a few years back
Leg lengthening healing otherwise known as "growing legs" was common as far back in the mid 70s
It basically is lengthening of shortened legs

In the past, the mid 70s to be precise, a few WoF heavy weights were doing and performing leg lengthening healing...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVOBZefESIA
Rev Kenneth E Hagin Teaching Seminar
December 8th 1974 Lengthening of legs

https://www.nairaland.com/1790500/word-faith-movements-doctrine-proponents/12#25433864
EXCERPT

We know Ibiyeomie, we've noticed him on the radar and so know what he's been up to
David Ibiyeomie is Mike Murdock's lapdog
He obtained all his "anointing" from Mike Murdock after unashamedly sucking-up to him.

It grieves the heart, especially when Image123 has the cheek to always say none of these fakeries and detestable acts happen locally

To be honest, I don't know how all these self confessed & so-called WoFs on NL get to peacefully sleep at night, knowing all these extremely wicked things carried out here. Cruel acts committed whilst faking healing, staging healing or pretending to heal

This is bad, not good at all, a lot are going to be taken in by this now. SMH

i found myself wondering why he (Ibiyeomie) couldn't grow the missing toe if he could lenghten the leg. well, maybe i didn't look very well sha

Is someone saying refusal to take my child to 'church' for dedication connotes disobedience to any law concerning me as a Christian? Is dedication done today because of Moses? Do we realize Moses dedication is only for the first born son?

You mean if i don't take my child to church for dedication, the child will not follow the ways of the lord when he grows up? Does it mean God will blacklist the child? Does it mean the child will be attacked by devourers or what exactly?

What exactly does child dedication have to do with my qualification or status as a child of God? What will happen if i don't engage in this ritual?

Hi Gombs, see a remix of the quotes you used up there. In fact they more perfectly describe Gombs et al. Don't you think so?

"A stupid man's report (Gombs et al) of what a clever man says (Hagin) can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears read into something he can understand.” ― Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy e.g, how else do you explain Gombs saying he gives cash as first fruit since he can't give his job? This after reading Hagin's explanation of what first fruits mean to a Christian

“Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.” ― George Carlin e.g, how else can you describe the group of deluded folks listening to and applauding a man like them brag about using their donations to buy a $16,000 dog and other items to satiate his sick sense of importance?

“People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.” ― Søren Kierkegaardtags

We all can describe each other in unsavoury terms and surely get admirers to lap them up and applaud. However what we can't do is obliterate the [size=16pt]truth[/size] no matter how hard we try. Hagin's book presented a lot of things in order to correct what he discovered were wrong, false, abusive doctrines and practices in the church (Thankfully he admitted to one or two). Things you, me or anybody can't wish away (guilty pastors have ensured never to mention it to their members despite their professed love for Hagin and his books. That speaks volumes for those who can hear and think). The book is already in the public domain and people will read it. Keep up with your review of the book. i'm glad you opened this thread yourself because there's no way you would have discovered the few errors you've realized and admitted to already if anybody else had started this thread. For the ones you're still grappling with e.g first fruits (your incoherence about it betrays your lack of confidence on your stand viz a viz that of Hagin's. You're naturally more confident than how you've carried on about it so far ), time will tell.

Thank God for how far you've gone with it. pls go ahead. The Lord is your power

cheers

Gombs:
If the above colored is what you lot want to use to nullify first fruits, if from it you conclude Hagin condemned it, why then doesn't it apply To tithing Hagin wrote about? You remember Hagin said some of his brethren brought the cotton they farmed as tithes, did Hagin send them away? What if they brought cash?

@the bolded, Did they also bring first fruits? How come he didn't give this example under his thoughts on first fruits if indeed he believed first fruits offerings have anything to do with Christians?

EDIT: I just remembered sef. where there no barbers, or bankers in 2000 when Hagin wrote that book? how come he still insisted that First fruits had nothing to do with money in the new testament?

Gombs:
I give in cash terms because I can't give my job to church

I take it then you readily admit to practicing something totally alien to the New covenant? If it is alien to the new covenant, that makes it a false doctrine to Christians. I take it then that you have no qualms about propagating a totally false and alien practice in the church?

It is well

Gombs:
^^
So, Hagin condemned firstfruits giving? Yes?

If you believe that he didn't condemn it but you DO NOT DENY that he said First fruits has nothing to do with money and has nothing to do with support for ministers, i would ask how you now do your first fruits giving? If you agree that first fruits has NOTHING to do with money, what then makes up first fruits today?

Gombs:
Nannymcphee, can you make your post clearer, ie the quotes. I ignored the firstfruits question because I have treated it. Hagin did not condemned firstfruits, he condemned preachers using it to get money in the guise that they are priest today. Notice he said "and the support of ministers".

From Hagin's mouth and pen

"[size=16pt]The concept of firstfruits is not used in the New Testament in reference to financial giving[/size]. There is not even the vaguest hint of it by any New Testament writer in reference to money or the support of ministers."

Hagin says first fruits in the new testament has [size=18pt]nothing [/size] to do with financial giving. Its so clear it needs no explanation.

See more by Hagin from the same page

"Firstfruits" in the New Testament primarily refers to Jesus Christ. He is the Firstfruits—the first One to be raised from the dead—and represented all those who would follow after him.

Other New Testament uses of "firstfruits" refer to the "firstfruits of the Spirit" in the life of the believer. In other words, "firstfruits" refers to the initial working of the Spirit in a believer's life—the first evidence of His indwelling us. It refers to those signs of His Presence in us now, as compared to what He will do with us later when we have our glorified bodies.

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

If this doesn't confirm [size=16pt]unequivocally[/size] that first fruits in the new testament has nothing to do with money, has nothing to do with salary, has nothing to do with profit on businesses, has nothing to do with any income, then there's definitely a problem.

@nlMediator. Bro, do you have any comments on this issue?

Romans 14:16
''Let not then your good be evil spoken of:''

Romans 14:19
''Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace,and things wherewith one may edify another''

in line with the above scriptures,my belief on this issue is that if a brother and a sister have decided to marry, why not go ahead to the registry and settle it? in the eyes of the law of the land, you only need 2 witnesses and Jesus said ''render to Caesar what is Ceasar's......''. God will sanction the union.

I know we've been called to liberty but see what Paul said about liberty

Galatians 5:13 KJV
For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

1 Cor 8:9
''But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak''

1 Cor 10:23
''All things are lawful for me,but all things are not expedient:all things are lawful for me,but all things edify not''

What will it cost a spirit filled Christian to ''hold body'' and get to a registry to concretize the union before indulging his flesh? We all will be scandalized by a married pastor sleeping with pastoral care unit members (eg COZA allegation). Does it mean it would have been alright if the pastor was single?

According to this theory of committed to a relationship, all i need do is convince sister comfort to enter a relationship with me today, sleep with her and then do same to sister rose next week then sister agatha follows too.

Please for the unmarried among us,if you've seen your mate, just go ahead and legalise it. You dont need to provide rice and drinks for anybody. Go to the registry and settle it. The problem is our modern Christianity that assumes you can't marry until you wear a white gown and suit then stand before a MOG in a fanciful church. You can do it @ home or the court premises.

Bro Goshen, you don even marry, why you wan make e look like say we wey marry dey 'unlucky'? Pls let's stop pursuing this thing. This is the samething with those who see nothing wrong with masturbation. Christians should pray for more self control. Abstinence till its right won't kill.

May God help us in our quest for a sweeter and more fulfilling walk with him

WinsomeX:
Since, I am the only one who has refuted Hagin here, I know this comment is for me. Now provide one statement of mine on this thread or on the one that led to this one, were I "praised" the book to high heaven. If you cannot, you are apparently the confused one.

While I do not deny that some of my friends here believe there is something to learn from Midas Touch, my position on it is that it is a hypocritical work that was never designed to birth any lasting reforms among WoF adherents and that is why its message has been largely ignored by them.

Don't worry. Me i go manage am.

Let them stop the deceit, lies and fraud he had the courage to point out first. Maybe Oyedepo, Adeboye, Oyaks etc will do the others before they exit the stage too. If they forget to remember the books, we'll dig it out for them the way God used one curious lady to bring this one out to public scrutiny.

God works in mysterious ways you know

Lobeez:
@Gombs, the foundation school manual of Christ Embassy clearly states that 'Tithing is COMPULSORY for every Christian and member of the church'
'Tithing is not a choice'

Do you agree with this stance? If yes, does it not go against your current argument of 'tithing by faith'? if it is by faith then why the compulsion?

Of course they have to call it compulsory and we know the scripture that helps them say this, Mal 3 which their much loved and talked about Hagin has admitted wasn't talking to a Christian.

No wonder "The Midas Touch'' is so unavailable in mega churche's bookshops. Who will want one old man close to the grave to come pour sand for them garri

BabaGnoni:
$16,000 dog to PROTECT his wife, he said, SMH
You can take a man out of the ghetto,
but on some occasions, you can't take the ghetto-mentality out of the man

That video was the perfect proof that common sense isn't common. Did you see the crowd of deluded folks cheering him on? Christ said narrow is the way and few will find it. That video also proved Christ didn't lie when he said that.

Gombs:
Ah! the only sensible post so far after my Tithe post from the book Hagin wrote.

Hagin highlighted the law MERELY regulated tithing, and we tithe by faith (a fact you attacked me and Joagbaje for) check the tithes and offering thread. Now, If churches are not to tithe, how then should they raise funds? Offerings and free willed donations alone? right? ok

from what Hagin wrote, you think he missed it? if so, kindly point them out

What is wrong with free willed donations alone dear Gombs? what is wrong with asking members to decide what they wish to contribute on a regular basis to their fellowship and encourage them to remain faithful to it? why use Mal 3 to threaten them when Mal 1:1 starts with "The burden of the word of the LORD to Isreal by Malachi'' clearly indicating it was wrtitten to Isreal under the law, not to Christians under Grace?

Why not just tell them to give as they purpose in their hearts. the exact same thing Paul told Christians like you and me residing in Corinth? Why tell them to tithe because Jesus said it ought to be done in Matt 23:23 when the same verse referenced the law of Moses which showed Jesus clearly had the regulated tithe of Moses law in mind and which we all know had no relationship to the way Abraham tithed?

If you notice, i have not touched the subject of tithes for a long time. After the 58 days of back and forth we had recently, i believed we've covered all there is to cover on that subject. Maybe i'll resume in future.

However, as long as you dont tell folks the following when preaching tithes, i will turn a blind eye to the issue

1. You will go to hell for not tithing because you're a robber (Hagin confirmed that scripture has nothing to do with a Christian like we've been telling you)

2. A devourer will attack your finances if you don't pay tithe

3. The devil will collect the tithe from you if you don't bring it to church

4. Pastors have replaced the priestly tribe of Levi

5. You cannot prosper if you don't pay tithes.

6. Telling them they must add 20% penalty to any default in tithe payment they have (i'm sure you saw that devotional by one of the biggest MOG in the country on this issue)

etc

I'm sure no participant on this thread has any excuse to still indulge in the lies enumerated above after what we've heard from Hagin.

For folks who chose to keep to the 10% mark like Nannymcphee (She knows it doesnt have to be brought to the pastor before it's deemed acceptable), i have no problems with their resolve and i'll even encourage them.

As long as we don't keep oiling the wheel of fraudsters who latch unto the name of Christ to fleece people (i didnt mention names o), we are all good


P/S: Does anyone think our Mega churches actually lack funds? i watched the video of the mog owning a $16,000 dog. Does that guy have any moral justification to request donations into his 'ministry'? I know plenty of them even in this country who indulge in worse waste of scarce funds. Do you in all good conscience believe such prodigals should be entrusted with the contributions of any hardworking child of God? This is just an aside for us to think about