₦airaland Forum

Pastor Kun: They don't collect salaries because the church account is merely an appendage of their personal account. They already have unfettered access to the church's finances to spend as they please so why should they restrict themselves to salaries?

I for instance run my own personal business and I don't collect a salary from it but that does not mean I am not the chief beneficiary of the business so you guys should stop playing on our intelligence.

So Kun, you are the General Overseer of your business abi?

Issokay!!!

Alwaystrue: I care not much for your views except it is backed by the word of God. What you said above has no scriptural backing and all you have done is bring in your own prejudice.

The tithe U pay on your hard earned income - how much scriptural backing do U have for it. I challenge you, the same way I challenged Bidam (and shut him up) in another thread to supply one instance in the whole bible, were anyone paid a tithe on his income. He couldn't.

In Genesis 14 Abram gave a tithe after receiving a blessing. Later in d story of Joseph, he enact a law were a fifth of a harvest was to be given to the king. Many pro and anti tithe preacher agree that the tenth Abram gave was in keeping with the culture of his day - a pagan culture. If you've never come across this b4 and it is news to U, its shows how much you've studied into something U defend so tenaciously on this forum.

There is no rhema about tithing - the true rhema behind tithe PAYING is that Jesus PAID it all!!!

Ihedinobi: I said that?

Ihedinobi, U didn't say what I said U said. Alwaystrue put it in a better light. When I was typing that I was constrained by the phone I was using. It should better read 'this is my DEDUCTION from what Ihedinobi said...' Let's call it phonographic error.

Lol!

@Alwaystrue

In the same breadth in which I described Abraham tithing as pagan, I said it was in keeping with their culture. Abram, came from a pagan background and they had their culture which was not necessarily sinful but could not be described as a religion of God.

Also, the Hebrew 7 scripture is not a justification for tithing today. It was simply showing the greatness of Melchizedek's priesthood - a priesthood that could be compared to Christ'. Remember 'Consider how great this Melchizedek was...' Hebrew 7 does not say Melchizedek is Christ.

I don't hate tithe or tithers. I hate duplicity: using scripture to say what the bible never said. Like Ihedinobi admitted on a recent thread he opened, U cannot look at all the arguments for and against tithing and still argue for tithing, except you choose to be adamantly prejudiced.

There is nowhere in all scriptures anyone paid a tithe on an income and the tithing that is practised today is fraud: that is the kindest way I can describe it.

Goshen360: ^

Question for you @ Image123,

Are items recovered from war acceptable under the law as tithe?

[size=32pt]NO![/size]

Items obtained as spoils could not be tithed before the law, during the law and after the law.

Therefore, the example of Abraham tithing, in which he gave a tenth of war spoils to Melchizedek, is not an example for believers. It was a pagan practice, that was in keeping with the culture of that time and such are not recommended for Christians today.

Colosians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. 18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. 20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, 21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22 Which all are to perish with the using a[b]fter the commandments and doctrines of men[/b]? 23 Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.

Candour: Incase you do not know, Eli and Samuel's kids you claim were not destitutes are the exact examples of the Charlatans in Christianity today because They were very corrupt. Read 1Sam 2:12-17 to get the gist of Eli's sons which was so bad that God had to get them killed in battle. Read 1Sam 8:1-3 to get the gist of Samuel's sons. infact i'll quote verse 3 here

1Sam 8:3
'And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgement'

From this verse you can make the following deductions
1. Samuel was a honest servant of God who was content with having his needs met
2. His sons were crooks who saw service to God as a means to enrich themselves

Now which of the examples above will you recommend as standard for your ministers today? Any minister of the gospel not content with having his needs met but instead wants to compete with the high fliers in society is a crook and a thief and will inevitably devise schemes to fleece his flock like the children of Eli and Samuel.

No matter how you see it, true gospel stewardship WILL NEVER pay as much as secular pursuits. Christ our Lord did not have cash stored up. The bag Judas kept was nearly empty most times because he too like most pastors today saw the office as one to loot. Our Lord's needs were met whenever they arose like when a fish provided money for tax and that is what the Lord expects of us Christians and i dare say much more of his ministers.

The Levites were mandated not to get any land which is a deprivation on its own. The Lord provided 10% for them which was enough to meet there needs particularly when you remember they had to share this 10% with the widows, orphans, Strangers and other needy people in Isreal. No one here has said ministers should not get support from their congregations, at least i NEVER SAID that. what i oppose is you saying your friend who went into the ministry deserves everything that your friend who took a secular job got. You mentioned houses, cars, luxuries etc. The gospel is NOT a business. Your pastor friend should be happy God counted him worthy of a place in the vineyard instead of lamenting about the material things he's missing. God promised to meet needs, he didn't promise a chateau or golden chariots. If he's regretting, he should check; maybe God didn't call him after all.

I ENDORSE this message 100%

Goshen360: I'm Goshen360 and I ENDORSE this message of the kingdom!!!

Thank U jare Goshen.

What Joagbaje's bible translates as 'pay' in Gal 6:6 is 'all good things' in KJV and 'double honor' in 1Tim 5:17. How all good things can be narrowed down to pay and how double honor can be pinned down as 'pay well', can only be the outcome of prosperity minds. It is evil to add to God's word and it is sin.

I challenge Joagbaje to supply us the version of the bible he uses, the names of the authors and what led to the making of that translation. Also, while at that I also challenge him to dig up the words translated as 'all good things' and 'double honor' in d Greek and show us how those words in anyway means to pay or to pay well.

I am not against paying ministers but in our bid to justify a practise we shouldn't be found twisting and adding to scripture.

No one is saying ministers must not be paid; what we are saying is that the matter of money must be reviewed in church, with the hope of restoring the church to something close to apostolic Christianity. What we have now is a church bowed 2 Mammon!

Joagbaje: Call it allowance , honoraruim or whatever ,but what is wrong with salary? All na pay.

Galatians 6:6
Those who are taught the Word of God should help their teachers by paying them.

1 Timothy 5:17
Pastors who do their work well should be paid well and should be highly appreciated, especially those who work hard at both preaching and teaching.

The above quotes are the tragedy of modern day translations. Pls compare those verses to the King James and find their original meaning in the Greek, and U will see there is no such thing as PAY in those verses.

They are the translation by modern day prosperity gospellers to justify Pastors earning CEO salaries.

Period!!!

@Candour

I commend U for holding up to Image and mediator on this thread. To say the least the thoughts they express on this thread is a mirror of d mindset of most Christians today and it shows the desperate situation we are in today.

I chose not to respond anymore bc there is no basis to converse with men that are thinking like this.

A young lady here in Ibadan who owns Nazareth Home, an orphanage, picks up homeless children from d roads and takes care of them.

I have read stories of the sacrificial ministry of men bringing the gospel to Africa.

The situation we are in today I blame on the gospel of prosperity. It is a gospel Paul prophesied will come when he said the days will come when Men will think that godliness is a means to financial enrichment.

One thing is sure all this Pastor must live aflluently, cannot be found from the NT. It is the reason the Pastors themselves hold unto to tithes, firsfruits and prophet offering too. Pastor too go chop na.

Its pathetic...

Tributes to all caring fathers.

I believe most fathers can identify with this father in the video below. Enjoy it:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=197922757049025&set=vb.230692167030198&type=2&theater

All that bravado displayed by the Monarch is unnecessary. If his faith was so much in conflict with the culture he presides over, he could simply abdicate the throne.

So well said, Mr Adeniyi.

And much of the challenge we have in Christendom today is because 'Hagin said...', not necessarily because the bible said.

I was brought up in a Christian tradition steeped in Hagin's teachings, until I understood the scriptures for myself.

There are lots of contradiction about the teachings and person of Hagin. Example, how do you enact a gospel that births the prosperity gospel and then wait some 40 years after to 'disown' it. And many others.

I am not a critic of Hagin; others have done an excellent job at that and there works can be found online. Neither do I recommend his teachings to anyone. I encourage Christians to study the scriptures themselves and consider the very rich Christian heritage that God has given us long before the coming of Kenneth Hagin, as foundation for their faith in Jesus Christ.

Petraman: The prophecy was dat year 2013 will be a year of crisises for Nigeria.

And which year has not been a year of crisis for Nigeria since 1960?

Bidam:

Jesus had an accountant,

Who was a thief.

Bidam:

Paul was ministered to,

And there is no record that he was paid for ministering anywere; neither is there a record that he collected salary from a church.

Bidam:

as for the first question you never put into consideration the occupations,vocations of the early churches in contrast with this day and dispensation.It is just like asking me to put on the shoes and clothings and eat the food of the early church.Did you see the folly? Everything must not be written in black and white and that is why we have the Holy Spirit who intepretes the mind of the Father comparing scriptures with scriptures.

If God took the tithe and paid ministry as seriously as we have turned to be in modern day Christendom, there will be clear accounts of these matters in the scriptures. Letters were written to churches by the apostles of the Lamb. Jesus wrote letters to seven churches in Revelation, and in all of these account, every one of them forgot to mention tithes or paid ministry. Could it be that they were wrong or could it be that we have invented something into scriptures and modern Christian practice that God never intended.

As to thing written in black and white, let me make a danger clear to you: we are in times when men are receiving extra biblical revelations. They claim God spoke to them to do this or do that. As a serious believer what do you do when you hear such claims? You swallow them hook, line, sinker and rod? No! You go to the scriptures and look for one or two accounts were such revelations may have been alluded to and at the mouth of two or three witnesses, a matter is confirmed. If you tell me there are issues that are not important and we should not subject such to scriptural search lights, I will agree with you. But tithe and paid ministry are important matters in Christendom today and we must find examples for them there before we can adopt them in practice. So I assume you have not provided answers to my questions and neither can you bc there are no such answers in the bible. The questions again:

1. From what I have written on this thread so far I stated that there is no account in scripture New/Old Testament were anyone paid a tithe on his wages or income: Question to you Bidam: Can you show me one scripture were anyone paid a tithe on his income in the bible?

2. Following 1 Corinthians 9:14 and the other scriptures you yourself quoted above, I said that paying ministers for their service to God's people is not un-scriptural. However, it should not be the norm rather it should be an exception. Question to you, Bidam: Can you show me one scripture in the New Testament were it was said or insinuated that Paul or any of the apostles of the Lamb or any Christian leader for that matter was paid a salary?

If we accept that there is no known account in all of scriptures were anyone paid a tithe on his wages and that non of the leaders of Christendom in the NT was ever paid anything for ministering, then we can conclude that both practice are non essentials before God and if they are then

1. Tithing is not obligatory. Rather it can be free will. Anyone who pays a tithe of his income is giving a tenth of his income; he will be blessed by God but he has no right to invoke a curse in the name of Malachi 3 on another believer who does not. I believe the OP agree with me on this too.

2. That paid ministry must be left the discretion of those who receive spiritual things from their spiritual leaders and that it should not be the norm.

Bidam: And i am saying you are still wrong about the tithe and offering issue.You can easily quote Malachi 2:15 to justify the marriage covenant as a principle which is nowhere found in NT scriptures apart from the one Paul advised on bishops and deacons,and you re not one.When the covenant of malachi 3:8 is quoted you guys start crying blue murder.There are strong evidences that Paul actually demands that ministers be paid their dues .You can't escape it.Not with all this your maradona dribbling to score zero points.

1 CORINTHIANS 9:7-11 (Paul)
7 Who goes to war any time at his own expense? who plants a vineyard, and does not eat of the fruit of it? or who feeds a flock, and does not drink of the milk of the flock?
8 Do I say these things as a man? or does not the law say the same also?
9 For it is written in the law of Moses, You shall not muzzle the mouth of the ox who treads out the corn. Does God take care for oxen?
10 Or does he say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he who ploughs should plough in hope; and that he who threshes in hope should be a partaker of his hope.
11 If we have sown to you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things?

GALATIANS 6:6 (Paul)
6 Let him who is being taught in the word share with him who teaches in all good things.

Bidam, I had hoped to ignore you on this thread but it seem I can no longer. I would trust God to respond to you with all the Christian restraint I can muster so as not to reply you with the same spirit with which you reply my quotes on this thread. That said; let me make my position clear with some questions to you with the hope that you will "get it" this time.

1. From what I have written on this thread so far I stated that there is no account in scripture New/Old Testament were anyone paid a tithe on his wages or income: Question to you Bidam: Can you show me one scripture were anyone paid a tithe on his income in the bible?

2. Following 1 Corinthians 9:14 and the other scriptures you yourself quoted above, I said that paying ministers for their service to God's people is not un-scriptural. However, it should not be the norm rather it should be an exception. Question to you, Bidam: Can you show me one scripture in the New Testament were it was said or insinuated that Paul or any of the apostles of the Lamb or any Christian leader for that matter was paid a salary?

Coza, seem to me, no longer a noun, but a verb - COZA is a "doing" word!

Article, well written.

Ihedinobi:

Actually, Paul was not a part-time minister at all. Those who served in the Gospel and still had still kept day jobs were probably elders in local assemblies.

Ihedinobi:

The job of elders was administration of the local church, a bit like the job of the first deacons. The job of the likes of Paul was to take the Gospel everywhere that God took them. It's not very practicable to hold another job down when you're studying the Scriptures, reading commentaries, making commentaries, laboring in prayer as a matter of responsibility for other believers and probably travelling everywhere you see an opportunity to plant the Gospel or water it.

Sir, the position you stated above that Paul was not a part time minister and thus a full time minister, and that it was the elders, more like Deacons, that were working part time, cannot be supported by any scripture in the NT (I would be happy if you can point them out to me). We must understand that the concept of a full time or a part time minister was alien to the thinking of first century Christians; that concept was made popular in our time. Yes, in Acts 6:4 we see the apostles mention that there was a need for them to give themselves to the preaching of the word and to prayer, but that statement is no evidence for a full time ministry that is supported by some kind of salary or pay. The impression that Paul gives us in Phillipians 4 when he received support from the Phillipian church was that what was given to him was a gift and not his pay.

Phillipians 4:10 But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at the last your care of me hath flourished again; wherein ye were also careful, but ye lacked opportunity. 11 Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. 12 I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. 13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. 14 Notwithstanding ye have well done, that ye did communicate with my affliction. 15 Now ye Philippians know also, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church communicated with me as concerning giving and receiving, but ye only. 16 For even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my necessity. 17 Not because I desire a gift: but I desire fruit that may abound to your account. 18 But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God. 19 But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus.

So, it is obvious from this passage that the support Paul received from this church was a gift and not a pay. A gift depicts a free will giving; a blessing of some sort, to another. A pay is meeting a debt and Romans 4:4 gives the clearest sciptural difference btw a gift and a pay. If Paul was receiving his pay, there would not have been the element of gratitude that is so well expressed in that passage. I believe this is how both Paul and the other apostles were supported in ministry: via free will giving by those who they had ministered to and who in return chose to minister to them. All of this was done even as they engaged in what we shall call a "full time" ministry today. They got this example not from the Old Testament but from Jesus' ministry himself that was shown to have been supported by a number of women. And I maintain that the fact that women supported Jesus' ministry gives us an idea of how lean his treasury was: we get this from the fact that women were never the leading money makers in those days and despite the meager allowance they earned, they supported Jesus' ministry. Now, Jesus made things worse: it was bad enough that his treasury was lean, he went further to make a thief his treasurer in the person of Judas. What can we glean from our Lord here: No man can serve two master; it is either you serve God or mammon. Jesus showed an attitude to money in ministry that some of our Pastor and leaders can learn from - even though I do not subscribe to the idea of making a thief a church treasurer but it gives us an idea of the attitude of our Lord to money.

Now, my point is this: the idea of full time ministry work in the NT, that is supported by some kind of salary cannot be found anywhere in the scriptures. I concur with those who say that church history shows that paid ministry did not come into Christendom until some 300 years after Christ. And, whatever led to this idea, is not necessarily wrong. It is ably supported by 1 Corinthians 9:14. But I still think that in the midst of the confusion that we have found ourselves in today's church, the model of ministry that we see in the NT, that is supported by free will giving should be returned to.

However, it is becoming increasingly difficult for this to happen with the place that money has taken in today's church. A lot of ministers today no longer serve God, they serve mammon! And the number one culprit in this matter (the Oga at the top of it all - apologies to christembassey) is tithing. This is the reason God, by the Holy Spirit, in the heart of men, is asking us to find out the place of tithing in the New Testament church. Unfortunately, in all the debates about tithing, no one has been able to supply one scripture from the whole of the bible, and particulary the NT, were anyone paid tithes on wages he earned.

So, I welcome this discuss on the place of paid ministers in today's church wholeheartedly because it will lead us inevitably to understanding the true place of money in the church today.

BTW, Ihedinobi, you mention that full time ministers like the apostles are different from elders in the church. You claim the former were on some kind of pay while the latter were not - that it was the elders that worked, albiet, part time. Well, Peter referred to himself as an elder in 1 Peter 5:1. From that scripture one can claim that the NT saw elders as leaders in the church generally and, as I have said before, those who worked "full time" were supported by gifts and free will offering and the others who were not full time may also have enjoyed a similar largesse. However, if we follow your permutation that elders worked part time, then Peter, as an elder, also must have had a side job he did like Paul who was a tent-maker.

In conclusion for now, we must not under rate the power of God himself to providing for the vision he himself has given to his servants. If God send a man, God will move people to support him financially, without that man needing to resort to cunning fables to extort money from people. That is how the NT preachers lived. Paid ministers today should not be the norm; it should come in extreme cases when the need is very apparent.

If we look up Paul's analogy in 1 Cor 9 taken from the law about not briddling the ox that threshes the wheat we find there a veritable reason for ministers to be in paid ministry.

But could it be that many more ministers need to look up Paul example as being probably the most effective of Jesus' apostles and still he worked part time? Would it be better that more full time ministers go find work to do?

Church history shows that paid ministry started some 300 yrs after Christ. We may deduce then that the NT was not so much concerned with full time ministry even though it was not discouraged.

What we have in our hands today in Nigeria is a pandemic. In a space of 1km square you will find at the least five churches in the suburbs. With most of these ministers full time. Is it the economy? Is it joblessness? Is it tithe? Or is it laziness?

I think we need more of the Pauline example of part time ministry and still effective, than the OP justification for paid ministry.

Yooguyz: you are not sincere as to if you've ever had feelings for the same-sex.

Unfortunately, despite all I wrote, U heard only what U wanted to hear.

U asked a question, I answered and U are still insinuating I am attracted to same sex.

Well I thought I could help U and your likes. When U have the time study what I wrote and study scriptures. There U will find the help for your predicament.

Cheers.

Yooguyz: lemme ask a question,
are you attracted to the same-sex? No offence please.

No. I am not.

Yooguyz: lemme explian some terms i use and the meaning i ascribe to them :
MAN OF ORIENTATION: someone who is attracted to the same sex, both sexes. It's something he finds himself in, it's beyond his control. He has accepted his. He can be reffered to as a homosexual based on his attraction.
GAY: is someone who assumes the identity above. It's a label. When one decides to act on his attraction, he's classified as gay. I know about all what the bible says about homosexuality. I came about the definitions above because i want to be at peace with myself and still make heaven.

Now, I have seen the OP use this term "make heaven" over and over again and I think that that mindset is another thing that is compounding his troubles.

When Jesus saves: he saves to the uttermost. No one can make heaven! It is either we have made heaven or we have not and cannot!! When you talk about making heaven you betray the mindset of one who is trying to get to heaven via his good deeds and not by the finished works of Christ on Calvary. When such an individual has such a mindset, he looks more to what he is doing than what Christ has done, to save him. Now, the orthodox view of homosexuality is that it is sin. But this individual know he has committed his life to Christ but is still bound to the lifestyle of homosexuality. All round him, he hears that gay people will burn in hell and he has no peace. But he is certain that he is born again, though with a gay mentality. How can he reconcile this? He chooses to find peace with himself by knowing fully well that he is born - again but then translates the grace of God in Christ Jesus into one that accepts gay people and does not discriminate; rather than seeing the grace of God as something available to deliver him from the power of homosexuality.

What I am saying is this: the first step in salvation is accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior. Repenting of our sin and trusting him for our salvation both for now and for all of eternity. By faith, we see that we are saved and we are safe; there should be no fear of loosing one's salvation, talkless of a talk of making heaven.

Next step is to avail ourselves to the power of the cross, by renewing our minds. What does a renewed saints mind say, despite his gay orientation: it does not say Christ accepts me the way I am and wants me to continue that way. NO! It says Christ accepts me the way I am and is able to make me a new person. Being gay is sinful before God and He is able to save me and deliver me from the power of it.

The cross of Jesus secures eternity for us; and also saves us from the grip of sin. There is a grace that delivers from the grip of homosexuality, if we shall avail ourselves to it. One way to deny ourselves from it is to say we do not need it. And since Justification is both by faith and shown via good works; the very proof that an individual is truly saved via Jesus' cross is the fact that Jesus is able to change him from being gay to the perfect human being God has made him to be: heterosexual.

debosky:

And does that basic understanding tell you you can change a nature you are born with?

Depending on what we think the word "nature" depicts. For me, nature should equate to something natural. Being gay is not natural.

debosky:
I disagree - I don't know what you mean by 'imperfectly' but there are people for example born with defects, without limbs, etc. Are those perfect? If those people are not perfect and are not denied access to God's kingdom, why do you assert that people cannot have been born homosexual in orientation?

I agree, but then again, if you are male - do you ask God to change you from being male for example? Or change you from being black to white?

Again, it depends on what we define as perfect and imperfect. I do not believe that a person being born without a limb can be compared to a person being born with homosexual tendencies. A person born without a limb, etc, can still grow up a well rounded individual and excel in life. The perfection of God in creating that person is in the fact that despite his deficiencies physically, he could still do well in life with God's help. Also, we human are not born perfect in the real sense of the word. We are born with a human nature that is sinful but the difference btw the sin of Adam and Eve, which a child displays in anger, stealing, lying, etc, with the imperfection of homosexuality, is that the former is not learnt; while the latter is learnt, somehow. What we call sin traditionally comes natural; what they call homosexuality or being gay is learnt.

Let me make a confession: I have nurtured homosexual thoughts before, though, thanks to God, I never practised it. How I got saved from it eventually, I cannot remember now; but I believe, that if I had nurtured it, found an avenue to practise it, etc, I would also, probably be selling the lie that I was born with an innate gay nature. No one is born that way; those who are gay today learnt the art.

debosky:

No need to apologise bro, I'm just trying to explain my own limited understanding of the subject.

Thanks for the understanding; it has given me greater freedom to respond here.

debosky:

Amen!

debosky:

But even with a strong belief in this, I am not aware of any men that have been converted to women (or vice versa), neither am I aware of other aspects of people's nature which they are born with changing. If that is not observed, is the expectation of those with gay orientation (who believe they are born that way) to change?

I maintain that no one is born with a gay nature: if there is ever a change anywhere it came about by the man's own persuasion (if I may use that word).

My position here really is not to condemn anyone for being gay or to join the myriads of Christians that look down on them. My position is that homosexuality is sin. And cannot be said to be a nature. Sin is a nature but homosexuality is a learnt sinful nature. In the cross of Jesus, the power of homosexuality can be abolished and gay Christians can be Christian-Christian. There is no need justifying their position for them: however, is the great need to point them to God's grace that cannot only save to the uttermost but save completely from every grip of sin.

I hope I have not said to much...

ayoku777: Thanks, I guessed that was the meaning too, something like 'Opening Post'. But I got confused when it was being used to refer to the individual as well.

LOL @ unfinished business. Will let you know when I will upload my piece. I love being Spirit-led for maximum impact, don't just want to 'add to the list' of posts.

Hope you're doing good. I've checked out some of the links, hope it wasn't hijacked and turned into a 'roforofo' fight again?

We'll be looking forward to it.

There was little trouble on the thread. One or two people had issues but they were easily resolved. I think our making rules for the thread worked and it ensured the usual suspects did not hijack it. Some guys that had issues with christembassey's presentation opened a thread claiming there was heresy spotted on the convention. I explained the issue out to them with a post but they still lashed out at me. So I left them to enjoy their thread.

We shall be looking forward to your paper. Do take your time.

Cheers.

ayoku777: Agree 100% with this scriptural view of this topic.

What's OP Keep seeing it a lot.

OP is an abbreviation I found here on nairaland that I think means OPENER. I may be wrong. But it can be used in a dual manner: to either refer to this first post on a thread or to the person who posted it. I think I used it to refer to the person who opened the thread.

Now welcome. You have an unfinished business on nairaland.

We are still looking forward to your posting your paper on Walking in the Spirit in the concluded E-Convention. Pls refer to this thread https://www.nairaland.com/1416947/welcome-e-grace-convention-2013/1#17754058. Let me know when you can upload your paper and then we'll invite the house to it.

Thanks.

Debosky:

I'll preface with the following - my thinking is still evolving on this subject, so indulge any imperfections therein.

My own thinking is also evolving on this matter but no matter how much it evolves, it cannot go beyond a basic understanding of the bible.

Debosky:

While the testimony you provided is a good aid, it doesn't address those who regard homosexuality as the way they are born - something they have no choice in, and something not determined by harsh events in their lives. (Unless of course, you imply that all cases of homosexuality can be traced back to traumatic incidents in one's childhood).

In Randy's case, the cause appears easy to identify - events in his childhood and his response to those events. However, I would argue that there are numerous homosexuals who didn't experience this in their childhood.

I agree that every one will have varying experiences and all of them cannot, of course, be a Randy Thomas. But except, we want to submit to an extra-biblical position, that says that God made some mistakes in some of his creation and thus created some people imperfectly - making them gay, we must agree that at some point in people's lives, through some expeirences, such people begin to nurture gay worldviews, that grow into full blown homosexuality.

Debosky:

This sounds good in principle, but may be problematic in practice. If it is in-born how do you let it succumb to a new nature? I am born male for example - no matter how I let my maleness succumb to the new nature in Christ, it doesn't involve changing my maleness.

I believe the proccess of being changed from glory to glory unto Christ's person is the working of the Holy Spirit. I however, argue that God will need our agreement for that work to be done. If we think we are ok the way we are, we will not avail ourselves to God's power that is able to change anyone or any nature.

Debosky:

This is very important as general comparisons to lying, etc. are a different kettle of fish altogether, as I am not aware of people asserting that lying or stealing or killing is the way they were born.

I agree with you: comparing gays with murder and theft is digging up a can of womrms that will not help in a proper discuss with individuals who claim to be gays and are Christians also. Pls, accept my apology on that. It is due to my own in-bred prejudice against gays.

Debosky:

If I am 'born' male, but I am not required to change my maleness, why, if I am 'born' homosexual am I required to change that?

With God nothing shall be impossible!

I read the OP and some comments that followed it and I understand that some people had issues with the thread being called a Gay Christian chat box. They would have preferred that it is called a gay chat box.

I think I get their fears and in a sense I agree with them. One cannot be gay and at the same time be a Christian.

But, before we jump into such a conclusion, we may need to hear the OP out well. Wether he is gay or not, is not an issue to me. He feels that one can be a Christian and be gay at the same time. And that being gay is a natural disposition some individuals find themselves in and cannot help it. So, if there are naturally occurring people like that, why can't they also be Christians - as Christ died for all men.

I am very open to any contradiction on this matter, but this is my position: One can be gay and one can become a Christian. Just as one could be a murderer, adulterer and a thief and then becomes a Christian. The problem is with being a Christian and still remaining gay, murderer, adulterer, thief, etc. I believe that Christianity call us to Christ as we are but leads us in him as new Creatures.

The gay inclination whether natural, in born, in built or whatever, is supposed to succumb to a new nature in Christ. Now the challenge is with how the gay-Christian allows for his life to be reformed. He may in one hand accept that being gay is sinful and submit to the power of God that is ready to change him or he may on the other hand, believe that being gay is natural and acceptable and find a way to making it compatible with his new nature in Christ. For which, I believe, he will continue to have conflicts with the Spirit of God within him, if he truly is regenerated.

I do believe one can be gay and also be a Christian; but I believe that one being a Christian, such an individual can avail himself to the power of God to deliver him from the power of homosexuality.

This is what the story Randy Thomas depicts and those who find themselves as gays and are Christians now, also can learn from him.

http://randythomas.co/about/

I have followed this thread for a while now and I thought I could share the Story of Randy Thomas to help the discuss her(that is if it has not been mentioned before):

Randy Thomas grew up in an abusive environment. At the age of 5 he perceived his natural father was a threat to his mother and at that young age promised his mother he would take care of her. Randy recalled that childhood, “Growing up I internalized the abuse and the pain grew. My need for love was desperate. I knew at a very young age that I preferred the company of males even though I wasn’t like them. When a male would smile my heart would leap. This became erotic at the age of ten.”

The pain in Randy’s heart continued through adolescence and at age 16 he started drinking and had his first homosexual experience. At eighteen he was dating men and frequenting gay bars. Randy believed the only thing going for him was his homosexual identity. He explained, “When I walked into my first gay nightclub, I was ecstatic. People here were friendly and fun and just like me! … My first sense of belonging, safety and identity was through the gay community.”

At nineteen Randy’s mother asked him if he was gay and he told her he was. His mother was not a religious person and as a family they had only briefly attended church, but in her childhood she had been taken to a rural Tennessee church and told that God hated gays. Randy’s mother imparted that theology lesson to her son and she threw him out of their home. A popular drag queen gave Randy a place to live.

Randy was openly gay and believed with his whole heart that he was born that way. He never thought about leaving homosexuality, because he believed he could only be happy as a homosexual. Every opportunity Randy had he promoted the gay ideology.

At that time he believed in a God, but didn’t really know what to think about Him. He had come to the conclusion that the Bible was culturally biased. When his mother kicked him out of their home he “became hard about hearing anything about the gospel.” Randy did not care about Christians. Despite his harden attitude at the age of twenty Randy went to a Bible study a co-worker invited him to and met a man who told him that “he wasn’t gay anymore and was getting married, to a woman.” Randy did not take it personally, but later he started to recognize that his life was empty and he began to fear the future. For the first time in his life he prayed an honest prayer - “God help me, please.”

One month later Randy was on a Greyhound bus headed for Dallas with a chance to “start over.” Instead he “found the best gay bars and drugs Dallas had to offer.” The night of New Years 1990 he was drunk and vomiting when he had a premonition of his own death in an alcoholic state of stupor. For Randy the event was a culmination of a lifetime of asking why. “Why all this pain? Why was I even still alive? I had been through drug overdoses, abuse (from childhood and gay bashers), worry-free homosexual sex. Nobody seemed to really care, so what’s the point?” Almost two months later Randy was in a twelve step program and sober for the first time in while. He thought he was at the beginning of a fulfilled gay life.

Randy’s life continued on a roller coaster. He had a spiritual experience where he felt the presence of God and he knew that “God had gotten me off drugs! He had orchestrated every move. He had a purpose for my life.” A short time later he started drinking again. It wasn’t un htil March of 1992 that he went back into the twelve step program where he was reunited with a friend that had recently become a Christian.

“Then it started; she kept talking about Jesus. This was the girl that would convince me to run around till dawn doing stupid fun things. But here she was, calm, reflective and loving. I was amazed that Jesus had transformed her life. I asked her about homosexuality and [was] angry at her response. She said, “I now believe it is a sin, but God would not call it a sin if there wasn’t something better.” She informed me that a former lover of mine had recommitted his life to Christ (I had no idea he was a Christian) and was getting married to a woman. This reminded me of the man at that Bible study in Nashville.”

Pls read the conclusion of the story on this link http://ex-gaytruth.com/encyclopedia/randy-thomas/

In addition to what Enigma has so ably enumerated above, I wish to add one other thing we often over look in the name of Compulsory Tithing: What it does to the conscience of the weak believer.

The tithe is taught today in church in a manner that places a curse on anyone who doesn't tithe, Malachi 3.

The weak believer feels condemned if he doesn't tithe; he attributes every ill in his life to this; he's continually hounded by tithe preaching; he is enslaved to a weekly/monthly bondage; etc. It is sheer evil to behold, especially when U are looking at it all from the point of view of an enlightened and liberated individual.

Paul in 1 Cor 8 calls all this 'wounding' the conscience of a fellow Christian and he says it is sinning against Jesus.

That is the reason compulsory tithing must be resisted and resisted with the strongest possible term, and the reason why I have no apologies (save for the names edited) for the language I used in my first post in this thread.

Candour: @Drummaboy, pls avoid the name calling pls. this thread should put to bed plenty of the issues that raise arguments among Christians on Nairaland.

let us not allow it degenerate

thanks

I will certainly not give Bidam the pleasure of trading words or name calling. It's not worth it.

Excellent piece Ihedinobi.

There is no way one will consider the arguments for and against tithing and not come to the conclusion in 2 Corinthians 9:7, just like Ihedinobi has: NO COMPULSION! Let every man be fully persuaded in himself.

However, I still remain a strong advocate of not tithing bc unlike what Ihedinobi told us: that God wills for there to be balance: no one is in want in church; today the scale is tilted all too much in favor of the clergy.

So that the principle of equality in church has eroded away: the poor is despised; the widows are suffering and the orphans are dying. On the other hand the Pastors are living in obscene wealth.

The current opposition against tithing is the workings of God in the body of Christ to restore the equality he desires in the church.

I hope those (names edited for the sake of peace) advocate of 'TITHE OR PERISH' shall not be disappointed with the conclusions of Ihedinobi here.

Pls find time to read my Q and A on tithing, on my blog: see my signature below.

I am with Pastor Olu T in this one. We cannot add to our conversion.

There is a restitution some teach today that is not far from The Roman Catholic Penance for sin. We cannot add to our being forgiven, we can only accept it by faith.

If anyone finds himself in this situation, I advise he seeks counsel form sound ministers AND his parents. Let the the decision be collective.

That is what I will do if I find myself in that position. Too many make unnecessary mistakes. Looking back at my conversion, I realize that it has taken the mercy of God for me not to make such costly mistakes myself.