₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight: Anony, we need to step up the pace, or it will take a full year to treat the verses. Remember we have only treated A1 AND D1 so far, and we have 38 more verses to treat!

I agree with you. The pace should increase but it should not be too fast O. Its an academy and hopefully future trinity debates can refer to this thread for answers.

Rhymeyjohn: those of you quoting lengthy epistles and twisting scriptures to suit your fleshly inate dentencies have issues you need to settle with God. Behind every dogma/doctrine is an underlying principle. A TRUE CHRISTIAN gives his tithes out of utmost gratitude to God. thats the principle, giving all. Those supporting the idea that tithes is gone away with the law, ever since you stopped tithing, have you EVER given up to 10 percent of your monthly earning to Gods purpose That would show the hypocrisy of those who say give, but dont tithe

When you write your own epistles and quote your scriptures, you do not think those are lengthy, neither do you see yourself twisting scriptures but let permit you here. I want to assume that you are not used to people putting down your most treasured tradition in your local assembly as it is done here at nairaland. But let me try to rehearse what I quoted from Mr Nerramore's online book in probably a succinct format for those who care to learn a thing or two.

The concept of tithing actually negates the gospel of the grace of God, introduced by Jesus in his coming but brought to life by the teaching, writings and preaching of Paul the apostle. I would not go into much details of how this is, as Mr Nerramore has done justice to that, I only wish to bring it down home to practical terms.

Tithing, like I said does a lot of injustice to the gospel of Jesus, because it seems to re enact everything Jesus died to obliterate. For example, with a change of priesthood also came the change of law. The priesthood that changed from Aaron's to Jesus, necessitated a change from the Mosaic law (law of sin and death) to the law of liberty (law of Spirit of Life). What sustained the Aaronic priesthood was the tithe (and that is the whole message of Malachi that you qouted in your OP) but now that that priesthood is done away with, to continue to pay tithe is to try to sustain something God has killed. What will happen is that men will put in place of Aaron another kind of priesthood. This is what we see in the enactment of the league of men of God that is prevalent in our nation, Nigeria.

Tithing also shifts focus from the doctrine of grace. This doctrine tries to show the believer that salvation is free. Sanctification is free. His future glorification is free. We cannot work to earn any of them. Now, the message of the OT was a message of works and rewards. The message of the NT is Christ earning God's reward for us because of What HE did and not for what we can do. Our response in holiness and Christian service or works is not to earn God's blessing but the out working of His Spirit in our lives. We are new creatures and the newness of our nature demands a new way of living. Not to earn blessing or favor from God, but in response to his manifold grace. This message is blurred when Christians are told to tithe to earn God's blessings and favor, and worst still some extend it to the point that we must tithe to be saved. This is what some call confusing grace with the law.

Tithing is a most treasured tradition in our churches because it oils the wheels of ministry and recently, one scripture comes to my mind on why tithing is greatly resisted in our churches:

Act 16:17 The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation.


Act 16:18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.


Act 16:19 And when her masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone, they caught Paul and Silas, and drew [them] into the marketplace unto the rulers,


Act 16:20 And brought them to the magistrates, saying, These men, being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city,

The reason not-tithing is opposed in our churches is because it would take away the hope of these pastor's gain. It is as simple as that. If they deny this, they should tell us if they can run ministry without depending on tithes.

Now let me address an issue you mentioned: and that is that those of us who say we don't tithe, do we give up to 10% of our income? I don't know of others, but for me, I will be truthful, I don't... for now. But that is easy to explain because the doctrine of grace allows for growth: "growing in the grace of giving"; so rather than starting and remaining with 10%, I trust God to grow in my giving and then I cannot glory in how much I give as many tither tend to do.

I would stop here for now

OLAADEGBU: You children are boys. Do you allow them to wear earrings in the UK?

What is the point you're trying to make with this question you've been asking?

@Image 123

I had thought you will understand but let me try a little and after this one I will let the issue be. In your analysis of my post you conviniently left out the main issue, the 1Timothy scripture that is the very basis for a scriptural call for Kumuyi to resign

1Ti 3:1 ¶ This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.


1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;


1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;


1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;


1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

Now Image will have us believe that in the church all believers are equal but some are more equal than others (sound more like a line from George Owel's animal farm)

Image 123: Answered already above. Sorry, hate it or love it, they (Kumuyi and the Jamaican pastor) do not have the same status. Not before God, not before men. Paul and Timothy are not mates, neither is Peter and Mark, or you and John the baptist. And again, not forgetting that it is actually the jamaican pastor's jurisdiction as it were. Similar occurences have been happening unchecked under his watch. He took the lady from home to the church. Kumuyi most likely met them at the church.

The bible does not teach this

Gal 2:6 But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person for they who seemed [to be somewhat] in conference added nothing to me:

Jam 2:1 ¶ My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, [the Lord] of glory, with respect of persons.

Jam 2:4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?

And the very words of Jesus Himself

Mat 23:7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.


Mat 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren.


Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.


Mat 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, [even] Christ.

As for the relationship btw me and John the Baptist, hear scripture:

Mat 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

The theological implication of Jesus' words is that there is no longer a priestly order after that of Aaron and Moses and to exalt men to the position of Rabbi or Men of God with the connotation that they are greater than other, is to teach something that is foreign to the NT and that is obsolete. But how do you understand this since this is the reason you pay tithe to such men in the first place. But this is not a tithe thread and we can allow it to pass.

Now if Kumuyi's resignation will hurt the church then I propose two things, he should be suspended following the same church rules that apply to other pastors; the same rule applied to the Jamaican pastor himself. If however he cannot be suspended then that church doctrine on outward adornment must be reviewed. Let a new standard for modesty in dressing be published and let it be worldwide, not just applying to the Nigerian church. If this cannot be done, then the likes of Colin Adua have the right to hold their views.

Now it seem to me that the issue of Kumuyi resigning is something that the church cannot contemplate. But that is not just an indictement on the church of DL but of Kumuyi himself. Having ministered in that church for close to 40years, he should have someone who can succeed him by now. He is over 70 and death can come anytime. Does he want to die and leave the flock scattered?

I rest my case on this thread.

Olaadegbu: You certainly sound like one.

So how does an eye for an eye tactics which you are using against a legiimate critism solve the problem. Atleast he is your fellow brother in DL. If you will not hear us atleast hear him. Do you realize that God can use anyone to speak truth, including this one you are disparaging?

Are you basing this on facts or just hearsay?

Now see who is talking. How much of facts are in the fairy tales of hell you publish on this forum? Are they based on facts or hearsay? When you answer the question, then maybe he will also.

You are basing your emotional outbursts on hearsays which are not facts.

So without waiting for an answer, you decide for him: hearsay. Now is that not presumption?

The bride didn't wear earrings and the wedding did not take place in DLBC. If you don't have the full information surrounding the whole scenario why do you want to bring yourself under a curse like Mariam did?

Apparently you are the one that does not have the full information. The story is all over the media. How come it is only DLers that have a different version.
And then the hall mark of false prophets: binding up in fear. Do you have to resort to curses for you to make your point? The one that Christ has died is redeemed from curses, including the ones people like you use to bind up your devotees in a zoo of fear. SMH!

If you sincerely wanted answers to these questions you should have consulted your pastor instead of venting your pains with unbelievers who don't care about the state of your soul? If the fact that you have been prevented from wearing make up is the issue then you don't have to stay in the church, especially if make up is more important to you than your soul.

So it is also in your rules to resort to Pastors to air contrary views? Who was that that suggest your church was a cult again... I would get the name asap

If your conviction is not based on the word of God you will be moved by what you see or hear. Let Christ be your rock and you shall not fall.

These are the tantrums of a man who has lost all legitimacy. How much of God's word to your resort to when you bind up your members in a zoo. For your information many are finding their freedom, starting with John and Love Kumuyi, until you binded them back again in the name of suspension.

The bolded above tells me that you have no fact to buttress your point. Is it the newspapers that made spurious reports that she wore earrings when she did not? You need to get your facts right and not put your faith in what you will later find out to be false reports and assumptions.

If she didnt wear ear-rings and all that you claim she did not wear, why is the church punishing the couple?

The devil has got you where he needs you. You've allowed your faith that was built on the promises of God to be destroyed by all the naysayers and gainsayers. It is easier to destroy than to build and you know that the devil has only come to steal, kill and destroy and that's if you allow him.

The famous lines of zoo keepers. It is for freedom that Christ came. He that the Son hath set free, he is free indeed!

Again you "heard" who are you hearing from? Are you hearing from the Lord?

I agree with you Ola for once. He should hear from the Lord. How much of those hellish visions did you hear for yourself?

Again, you do not know all the facts. It is wrong for you to wrongly accuse the Man of God of things you are ignorant of. Learn the lesson Mariam learnt and be wise.

Do you have any other line of reasoning than Mariam? Peter was the one Jesus named the Rock, but he got a resounding rebuke from Paul when he erred. Where was the curse of leprosy on this apostle? Mr wake up from your slumber. THIS IS NEW TESTAMENT. The ones Jesus died for are blessed beyond the curse. And we do not have Moses and Aaron anymore, WE ARE ALL BRETHEREN!

If it is the high society wedding that you are after then go ahead and do it. If you think that worldliness and idolatory will make you happy go ahead and do it. Don't give the excuse that the church would not allow it.

]

In other words, it is ok to drive limousines, etc, but it is worldly to wear make up and earrings - the gospel according to Olaadegbu

You say that they are defending their pastor. That means that he wasn't your pastor. Why don't you just say it that you are advertising your pastor?

Whether he names his pastor or not, that is not the point. He is a DLer and he is telling you the truth you boast often of defending but it hard for you to swallow it.

For your information. There have been visions of those who visited heaven and heard what the Lord Jesus Christ testified about W.F. Kumuyi and showed them his mansion. His wife who has moved on to glory was also seen in her splendour. You are still in the race and you are condemning what the Lord has not condemned. Take heed.

Now behold the foundation of Ola's testimony. Well with the hypocrisy that is playing out in the church is Pastor Kumuyi not in danger of loosing that mansion. SMH!!

The Lord is building His Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The bride in question is not married to you so you don't have to worry yourself of what becomes of her, if anything at all pray for them. Bitterness and anger will destroy you if you don't let go and let God.

You are the one that seem to be weighed down with bitterness and anger here because someone like you dares to challenge the status quo

At least we can see where you are coming from and where you are going. You mentioned your pastor unlike others who hide their's in secrecy.

*yawns...*

When you wake up out of your nightmare you will then face the reality of life and see that all your assumptions are false.

Olaadegbu you are the one to wake up from false hood.

You better ask God to forgive you for blasphemy and false witnessing before its too late, He will surely forgive.

Is there any thing else that you can say? Is this not obvious that the greatest fear of neo juddaizers is that someone challenges them.

I challenge you Olaadegbu to debate on Christian outward adornment basing all discuss on the bible. If you agree, I would open up a thread for it.

frosbel: ^^^

Ola , read the above.

Olaadegbu doesn't read stuffs like that

His is read no TRUTH hear no TRUTH

Charles Swindoll told this story of a preacher friend of his who knew Elvis Presley as a child. They both met once on his preaching tour and Elvis asked where he was going and the preacher friend replied 'to preach'. Elvis then said 'Ever since I knew U, U've always been going the wrong direction'

Elvis died a pop star of drug over dose. Who was going the wrong direction after all?

Morale of the story: anyone can accuse another of being a false prophets; as long as that person is moving in the opposite direction to yours. What then is the true measure of the prophetic: the bible.

Thus, anyone who resorts to the bible as final authority and bases his argument on it in this forum, as well as, allowing the freedom of thought and expression that the Spirit of God permits in other people without treatning them, is the true prophet. Any one going against this standard, is going in the wrong direction: he is a false prophet preaching false doctrine.

Goshen360: I'm Goshen360 and I ENDORSE this message.

Goshen is back!

Goshen is baaaaaaaack!!

Goshen is baaaaaaaaaaaaaack!!!

Welcome bro.

OLAADEGBU: (Genesis 35:3-5)

What law was Jacob obeying when he got rid of his idols in the
aforementioned verse? and yet we see those who have the whole Bible
still getting stuck on these same idols that Jacob got rid of. That is
the bone of contention of this thread, idolatory and worldliness which
has given birth to rebellion.

Have U read the response by Coins Adua or U choose to realize that like him many deeper lifers are disenchanted with ur GS and would prefer he resigns?

At the risk of hoping you will understand, I will reason with you on this post of yours.

Image123: heading is misleading. Kumuyi is not offering to resign in the present continuous, he offered to resign. That is, when their leadership met, he offered to resign,

How does what you have written differ from the title of the thread. Thread is titled Kumuyi offer to resign over son's wedding controversy. You say he offered to resign. That is, when their leadership met, he offered to resign. Is there any difference here. Or there is a challenge with comprehending English somewhere. But that is not my main grouse with your post. Let's consider the others:

but the decisions made was the suspension of the couple.

Who are the people making these decisions and what yardstick are they using. Couple is suspended. Pastor of Jamaican church is sacked. Kumuyi is left off the hook. What did the Jamaican pastor do that Kumuyi did not do. They both had children who wedded breaking church rules. They both attended the wedding at parent and pastors. They both kept mute at the traditional and the church wedding, but alas, one is sacked because he is a mere pastor and the other is left off the hook bc he is the GS. Did you read what the Colins Adua wrote? Apparently disquising with an alias, but certainly a deeper lifer (bc he is using cliches that only members of that church would know), accuses the Deeper life leadership of double standard. Because, in his own words Pastors in that assembly have committed less offences and have been punished. Why not the GS? Kumuyi proposed the resignation because he was trying to maintain the principles of the church, albiet in a hypocritical way because he does not need to "suggest" whether he should resign or not. If he feels he has failed as a parent, he should simply resign and go live on his pension and not play to the gallery requesting to resign.

Issue overblown out of proportion IMHO.

The reason why the issue has become such an overblown matter is because the DL church has been guilty of overblowing issues themselves. Making a mountain out of nothing like dressing and make ups and here the chicken has simply come home to roost.

So many folks are just interested in vengeance and in the downfall of the dl church and leader, bad belle go soon burst oh.

That is the height of childish talk. Most people commenting on this matter have nothing to compete with DL on. The point most are trying to make is for the church to stop its hypocritical acts and double standards. If the son of the GS can fail on a small matter of dressing at wedding, where he should know better, We can assume that the GS himself has not taught his children the ways he has imposed on the whole church and if a man cannot govern his own home, he is not fit to pastor a church, saith the holy scripture. KUMUYI SHOULD TAKE THE WISE STEP AND RESIGN!

1Ti 3:1 ¶ This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.


1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;


1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;


1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;


1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

tpia@:
and who is going to preach to the numerous concubines and mistresses enjoying nigeria's money, do they not see poor people in nigeria perhaps?

why cant they give up some of the goodies they're being lavished with by their sugar daddy politicians, and help the poor?

our celebrities nko? Advertising $1 million wine and such.

brazilian weave nko? Is it free?

Your jet flying pastors can start this leading by example

I hope Olaadegbu, Alexleo and other DL sympathizers have read what Collins Adua has written

Image123: let me get this right please, sinners that i know that liked Jesus became his followers, name any. The sinners that remained crucified Him. Where are the sinners that like frosb and what has it profited them? There are many sinners that like musicians, football stars, fashola and jonathan. Bros, is that a proof of their christiness or whatever?

I made scriptural references. You could make yours too. That is, show us here that every sinner who listened to Jesus came to accept him as Lord.

The truth is that everyone hates religious hypocrites except the hypocrites themselves. Those you call sinners (but whom Jesus said he came for, but left the "righteous" their self righteousness) can see beyond the facade of the religious garbs you put on. They know it when they have met a truly righteous man and they detest hypocrites.

Image, you may fill in the blanks and find out where you belong.

I am surprised that Alexleo and co think we are here to praise Frosbel. On the contrary, we would notice that there has been more criticism of frosbel on this thread than praise. The OP itself was a scathing critic and maligning of frosbel's person.

For the individual who says atheist and sinners like frosbel, that is further proof of his Christlikeness.

Religion crucified Jesus and it will continue to crucify those like him that dare to challenge the status quo. The bible said ordinary people listened to Jesus gladly. Tax collectors and sinners received him into their homes. They felt comfortable with him. The prostitute that broke the alabaster box carresed his feet with freedom, something the Pharisee could not stand and it is not suprising that modern day pharisees detest people like Jesus.

The core of frosbel teaching is a call to freedom. It is a biblical call. Those in the zoo of churches, in Tuned Bakare words, cannot stand that kind of theology.

^I second you Kun on that submission

I have been accused of being a disciple of frosbel, Well I am yet to be convinced on his position on trinity and hell but I like his attitude to things and I detest the self righteousness of his detractors: chief among them Olaadegbu, Image and Bidam

Frosbel allows freedom of thoughts. He allows U to disagree with him

Unlike his detractors he doesn't judge or treaten U with hell

He is a patient teacher. Check the thread he was teaching or contending with one chukwuebem or so

He is passionate. Following his experience with the Apostolic faith; he wants others to know truth for themselves

Frosbel represent the kind of people God is raising in this end times: Christians without walls: Not hedged in and shackled down in the prison of religion.

Frosbel loves God and truly out to discriminate doctrine. May God fill our ranks with more of him.

Amen.

EVALUATING MANY OF THE CLAIMS TO HEAVEN AND HELL

Thus far we have examined specific, current, and popular accounts of people claiming to have been to Heaven and to Hell. With these specific accounts still in view, we will now look at some of the broader challenges, both logical and theological, confronting anyone claiming to have made such journeys.

There is a logical problem with these accounts that is so glaring, it is hard to understand why more people do not take note of it; namely, these various accounts often contradict one another. The three individuals examined in this article only scratch the surface of those claiming to have been to the other side. Mary Baxter (who claimed she went to both Heaven and Hell), Betty Malz, Roberts Liardon, Jesse Duplantis, Kenneth Hagin, Richard Eby, Todd Bentley, etc. also would have you believe they were given a sneak peek into the afterlife. It takes only a cursory reading of these stories to realize that they all contradict one another – and often even contradict themselves! Colton Burpo reports that everyone in heaven, even God Himself, had wings. Piper saw many people in heaven but they apparently did not have wings. Some report that heaven is completely urban whereas Duplantis says he saw homes out in the country. Some saw God on His throne, others did not see Him at all, and some, like Don Piper, can’t seem to remember whether they saw Him or not. Colton claims that those in Heaven show no signs of age, yet Piper claims that his grandfather, Joe Kulbeth, still had his “shock of white hair.”

Some heavenly tourists say that Jesus has brown hair, others say it is blond. Some report Jesus as having a purple sash about his waist, others say it is blue. Benny Hinn claims to see Jesus often and can even describe what He is wearing from day to day. Some, like Colton Burpo, say Jesus’ eyes are blue, others say they are brown. One thing that all of the supposed accounts of Heaven have in common is a minimized description of the glory of Christ. Rather than a description like that in Revelation 1:14: “His chest was girded with a golden sash. His head and His hair were white like white wool, like snow; and His eyes were like a flame of fire,” these accounts describe Jesus as being rather ordinary and non-glorious. God would never be the source of a vision which downplays the glory of His Son.
The list of contradictions is almost endless. The obvious point is that these accounts cannot all be true. In all likelihood, none of them are.

Now let’s turn to the theological issues with all of these accounts. Though with varying degrees of specificity, all who have been to the hereafter and have returned describe people as having physical bodies. They report that the heavenly residents are perfect in every way showing no signs of sickness, disease, arthritis, handicaps, etc. They describe these glorified bodies as beautiful in appearance and perfect in function. There is only one problem with this: the redeemed in Heaven do not yet have their glorified bodies. This statement will likely surprise many readers and, unfortunately, the theological nuances are too involved to fully address here. It is, however, sufficient to note that the Bible teaches that those presently in Heaven are not yet in possession of their permanent, glorified bodies. In fact, Heaven itself is not yet in its perfected, eternal state. Those events will not transpire until the timing of Revelation 21. At present, Heaven is in its “intermediate” state, if you will, and the redeemed there are also in an intermediate state. In Revelation 6:9-11 and 20:4, John saw the “souls of those who had been slain because of the Word of God” and the “souls of those who had been beheaded” respectively. Those that John saw were not in possession of physical bodies but rather were in a non-corporeal state. The redeemed will be given glorified bodies at the rapture or Christ’s return to earth (Parousia). Therefore, the reports of people in the intermediate Heaven as possessing glorified bodies must be rejected.

2 - SECOND The second theological problem is one which plagues all the books in the “I’ve been to Heaven and/or Hell” genre; they are all an attack on the sufficiency of Scripture. Even if an account does not directly contradict the Bible per se (and most do), these accounts propose to add to biblical revelation. In these accounts, for example, we learn that hell is 3,700 miles below the surface of the earth, that it is inhabited by ghastly creatures and giant spiders, the pit of fire is shaped like a giant human or maybe it’s one mile in diameter (depending on whose account you read) and is ruled by demons – none of which can be found in the Bible. Likewise, Heaven apparently has suburbs, the flowers turn themselves to watch you as you pass by, the fruit is copper colored, individual homes are furnished with ball and claw Queen Anne furniture, people have wings or they don’t (again, depending on the particular account), and the souls of babies fly around God on His throne. None of this is biblically supported.

All of this information is unbiblical at worst and extra-biblical at best. This leads us to the issue of new divine revelation knowledge. Is God giving certain individuals new revelation and speaking to them apart from and in addition to the Bible? If any of these accounts are even partly true, then the inescapable conclusion is “yes.”

The implications of new revelation are huge. If it is necessary for us to know this information, why has God delayed nearly 2,000 years in giving it to us? Did the saints of previous generations have inadequate revelation of Heaven? Did they not have a sufficient supply of God’s truth? If they did, then these and all other accounts of visiting the other side are entirely unnecessary and of no profit to the church.

Whatever God reveals and says to these individuals (most of these individuals quote God directly) should carry with it the very same authority as any verse of Scripture since God cannot speak less authoritatively on one occasion than He does on another. In other words, God cannot speak to us in the Bible and “really, really mean it” but when He speaks to individuals outside of the Bible whether in a dream, vision, audible voice, or trip to Heaven still mean it, but somehow mean it less so than He did in the Bible. It is illogical. It is an untenable position. If God is speaking, then God is speaking. If God is indeed speaking to people outside of Scripture then these communications would add to the Bible. Carried to its logical conclusion we are left with an open canon of Scripture. If the canon of Scripture is still open, then anything goes. Consider how many false religions have begun by an individual claiming to have received new revelation from God. Almost every false religion was begun by an individual saying, ‘God has spoken to me. Let me tell you what He has to say.’ Most notable: Mormonism and Islam. Both Joseph Smith and Mohammed, respectively, reported that an entity claiming to speak for God appeared to them and gave them new divine revelation knowledge. Interestingly, both of these men initially believed the entity to be malevolent, but, over time, became convinced that it was from God. From these eerily similar encounters in which extra-biblical revelation was given, two huge false religions were born. The canon of Scripture is complete and it is closed – for good reason.

All who claim to have been to Heaven or Hell report that God the Father or God the Son brought them there for the purpose of allowing them to go back to earth and let people know that these places are real. For example, Wiese quotes Jesus as saying, “Go and tell them about this place. It is not my desire that any should go there.”
Jesse Duplantis quotes Jesus as saying, “Go tell My people I’m coming.”

Replied Duplantis, “They know that.”

Jesus supposedly answered, “No they don’t know that. Go tell My people I’m coming! I brought you here to tell them I’m coming!”

Duplantis is wrong. God’s people do, in fact, “know that” because the Bible states it clearly. We do not need anyone to go to Heaven or Hell to tell us these places are real. Scripture reveals this information for us. If such excursions are necessary to give us this information (or at least impress upon us the urgency of it) then the inescapable conclusion is that the Bible is insufficient in and of itself to do so.

Most of these individuals would at least give verbal ascent to the Bible as God’s inerrant Word, but they clearly do not believe in its sufficiency. If they had such a high view of Scripture they would quickly see that these trips are completely unnecessary. Recall Abraham’s words to the rich man in the lake of fire upon the latter’s request to send the deceased Lazarus back to earth to warn his five brothers to repent while they still had time: “If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets (the Bible), they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead (Luke 16:19-31).” There is an inherent power in the Word of God that no miracle, no sign, no alleged visit to Heaven or Hell can boast. If people will not believe the Bible, then neither will they be persuaded by stories such as these.

3 - THIRD - There is clearly a difference between the response of those inspired writers who were allowed to glimpse Heaven and those in our modern day who make the same claims. The New Testament records only three men who were allowed to see Heaven: Stephen just before he was stoned, John, and Paul. Interestingly all three of these men were very much alive when they were given glimpses into Heaven contrary to some, but not all, of our modern cases. Stephen’s glimpse was very brief and offers little detail other than seeing Jesus at the right hand of God. John’s account is by far the most detailed we have, was revealed to him personally by Christ Himself. That leaves us with the Apostle Paul. What do we know, though, of what he saw and heard in Heaven? Absolutely nothing. Paul writes, “I know a man in Christ who…was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak.” We have no idea what he saw or what he heard. Why? Because what he saw was “inexpressible” and he was “not permitted” to speak it.
Ponder this for a moment. Here we have the man who wrote roughly one-third of the New Testament. Not only did he not give us any details of his rapturous visit to Heaven, but he did not even want to mention the experience at all. He did so only reluctantly because his apostleship was being questioned by some in Corinth; hence his reference to himself in the third person, “I know a man.” Paul was so humbled by his experience he would not even refer to himself in the first person. Even with that degree of humility, God still gave him a “thorn in the flesh” to humble him even further. Contrast Paul’s humility with the attitude of those making such claims today. In contrast to Paul who gave no details and only reluctantly mentioned it at all, people today who claim to have been to Heaven write books about it and go on national and global speaking tours. Some of these books sell millions and millions of copies. Spin-off books and courses complete with instructional DVDs often follow. Movies are even being made. Paul wouldn’t even speak of his vision while some today use their “revelations” to catapult them into stardom, celebrity status, and the New York Times Best Seller list. The contrast is stark, is it not?

Finally, it is worth observing what is mysteriously absent from most of these accounts: the Gospel. It is striking that so many of these people who claim to have been to Heaven and to have not only seen Jesus but spoken to Him do not mention the Gospel. For example, in Heaven is for Real, the closes thing to the Gospel is when Colton quotes Jesus as saying, “I had to die on the cross so that people on earth could come to see my Dad.” Granted, this is coming from a child, but the author of the book and father of the child, Todd Burpo, is a Pastor. If this experience helped make Heaven “real” for them, why is the Gospel never presented so the millions of readers can know how to get there?
The same can be said of Don Piper, another Pastor. He supposedly spent 90 minutes in Heaven and yet, save for a few clichés like “accepting Jesus” and “turning to Christ,” one will search his book in vain for the Gospel message. It’s just not there. There is no mention of the seriousness of sin or its eternal consequences. There is no mention of the wrath of God. There is no mention of the Deity of Jesus, the meaning of His sacrificial and substitutionary death, or His resurrection. There is no mention of repentance from sin and placing faith in His finished work. There is, in short, no Gospel.

To be fair, Bill Wiese is different. Wiese does give an excellent, complete, detailed and non-compromising Gospel presentation. I watched him do so on TBN and he did so very, very well. There was no fault to be found. However, what of Burpo and especially Piper? For the reasons already presented I do not believe that such visits to Heaven and Hell are even possible, but for the sake of argument let’s assume that something like that really happened to me. Let’s assume I had truly seen the majesties of Heaven and the glory of God, I would expect that I would be absolutely consumed with telling people about the Gospel. My preaching would not be characterized by waxing eloquent about how “good you’re gonna look in Heaven” but rather pleading with people to repent and escape the coming judgment. I would expect I would have the attitude of Peter and John who, when in response to warnings not to teach in the name of Jesus replied, “we cannot stop speaking about what we have seen and heard.” I would expect I would share Paul’s desire to preach nothing but “Christ crucified.”

It is difficult to understand how the Gospel would not be central to any believer’s preaching or writing, but especially so for one claiming to have actually seen what for the rest of us is accepted by faith alone. Based on the authority of the complete and sufficient Word of God we are forced to reject all of these claims as valid.
This raises an obvious question which I have not yet addressed: are they lying? This is where my assessment must leave the objectivity of Scripture and delve into the subjective realm of people’s thoughts and intentions.
Some of these people I do believe are complete frauds. Some I have studied for years and believe they are motivated by money and fame and have been very successful in acquiring both. Others, however, I am not so sure.

In watching many interviews of Todd Burpo it is obvious that he loves his son dearly. He certainly seems like a nice guy. The story he tells tugs at one’s heart strings to be sure. Don Piper undoubtedly had a devastating wreck and suffered excruciating pain. However, his claim of seeing God on His throne when he had previously denied this, and denied it quite thoroughly, is difficult to understand. Bill Wiese certainly presents the Gospel well and definitely warns people of coming judgment. I think it would be neither right nor fair to make such a serious charge of lying against any of these men. That having been said, neither is it possible to be completely confident of their truthfulness. I think it is entirely possible that some of these stories began with a vivid dream which, at the time, seemed quite real. Dreams often do seem very real. I would imagine that the dream was told to one or two people who then told it to others who in turn told it to others and on and on. Likely the reports grew and became more and more elaborate. A radio interview here, a newspaper report there, the story snowballs and before long it takes on a life of its own. To keep up with the hype and publicity the individuals must keep up the story and may even begin to believe it themselves to a degree. Publicity and the praise of men is an intoxicating elixir and it poses a threat to every preacher no matter how humble - this writer included.

However, our final authority is the Word of God. No matter how real an experience may seem to us, if it does not plumb with the Word of God then it is an illegitimate experience. Those who promote an illegitimate experience exceeded biblical parameters. They have begun to divorce themselves and those who listen to them from sole reliance upon the Scriptures.

Anything that is not of the truth is a lie. Whether the person telling the lie has malicious motives or not is irrelevant to the nature of the information being given. Colton Burpo may have the purest of motives in telling us that God has wings, but when his statement contradicts Scripture, it is not just a fresh perspective, it is a lie. Contradicting Scripture is the work of Satan, not God. Whether Burpo, Piper or Wiese intend to lie, contradict Scripture, or promote error, their reports end up doing that very thing.

The question about the sincerity or lack thereof of any of these individuals may be an interesting one to ponder, but, in the final analysis it does not matter. Whether someone is sincere in his promotion of error does not make the error any less harmful to those who believe it. Error is still error. Millions of unsuspecting people are slowly but surely being pulled away from the authority and sufficieny of Scripture and are instead turning to other sources of “truth” for their spiritual knowledge and nourishment. The dangers of this cannot be overstated.

These accounts are extra-biblical and often unbiblical. They divert attention away from the true power of God, the Gospel (Rom 1:16), and emphasize subjective experiences. They may be motivational in a superficial sense but they are not capable of convictinLg people of their sin and need of the Savior. In the words of hymn writer John Keith, “How firm a foundation ye saints of the Lord is laid for your faith in His excellent Word. What more can He say than to you He hath said? To you who for refuge to Jesus have fled?” What more can He say to us, dear friends, than what He has already said in His Word?

CULLED FROM:

http://so4j.com/false-visits-to-heaven-and-hell.php#hell_is_a_real_place

^Fine with me

^OK... I will do that

Checked again and I guess this is the answer to my question

I respond by saying that the word "Father" whenever ascribed to God, would not contradict the word "God", but the word "mediator" will always contradict the word "God" in so far as it specifically goes on to say that this is a mediator between God and men.

Further, your hypothetical verse substituting the word "mediator" for the word "father' is a very bad mis-application indeed, because the word "father" corroborates the word "God" whereas the word "mediator" does not.

Your hypothetical text would certainly not read - "There is but one God, and one Father between God and Men", would it?

That resolves your rebuttal: your rebuttal is very clearly mis-footed, because it does not subsume the core of that which I pointed out - namely, the function of a role said to be of one between God and men.

I confess that maybe it is my ability or inability to comprehend the English but I still do not think it answers my question.

You need not answer it though as I believe as the thread progresses I would understand what need be understood, so as not to divert the thread. I want you, Deep, to go back to the rules at the beginning and state how we the students or viewers of this thread can come into the discourse without unnecessarily derailing the thread with comments or questions like mine. Since this a meant to be an academy with tutors or debaters and students or viewers.

Thanks.

@Deep

While I could say U did justice to the Romans 9:5 scripture, to me, U failed to answer Anony's point that D1 was telling us of Christ's function as a mediator and not referring to his deity as such.

Mr anony: Lol, Bros no vex, I buy plenty plenty things but Ekelebe block me for road seize am.

LOL!!!

no wahala.

Atleast dem no collect your doctrine.

We await your response to Deep.

When a chief judaizers comes online to give an expose on Romans, you should not expect anything less.

And here is Image123 expose on my signature verse:

Rom 3:28

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

The conclusion and the summary of all that has been said is that man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. to be justified is to be just, made just. Righteoused, if there is a word like that.

Can he say any less. Two lines on such a mighty scripture. As much as I espouse the doctrine of grace, I count myself inadequate to do an expose on Romans. That book is too lofty for any careless work on it like I am seeing on this thread.

So far the bit I have read on Image's posting here is just to lend credence to the position of neo-judaizers like himself and that is that after grace, there are still laws for Christians to keep. Is that, for example, what Romans 3:28 is saying?

This work is not impressive at all.

Welcome Anony

Wetin you buy come for us?

Bidam: you must be a dunce.Where did i say the church can save you in that write up?

I rest my case. I leave the readers to judge what you wrote.

Bidam: LOOK at this hypocrite and disciple of frosbel,you never shuddered when frosbel opened a thread that Jesus never preexisted his birth.You are now here peddling lies against me.show us the thread where i said only church can save or forever remain silent here.

Well, it was on thread "Why am I thus?" opened by your very self! And the conversation went thus:

Bidam: What's your proof? This are wild speculations and false allegations created by you.
Ok. Nobody is in disagreement here.

You have said it already. Men jobs is to witness,The work Of the Holy Spirit is to convict.Show me where the article says contrary.SMH!
I am afraid you will end up becoming like frosbel at the rate you are going, if you are looking for the perfect church,then stay at home and don't go to church.Jesus is coming for the churches,not individuals.[/b]It will actually do you some good to study Revelation 2& 3.

DrummaBoy: [b]Did Bidam say: Jesus is coming for the churches and not for individuals (?) or I was reading double?

Thank God it is black and white. I had to re read it: Jesus is coming for churches and not individuals (!). And you call yourself a bible teacher?

Ok. Lets go to Revelation 2,3. These were messages tp churches to reform their doctrine and practices. Why? So people could be set omikunle the path of truth. There is no other way to read it... Jesus is coming for the church, Yes. Which church? Deeper life, etc? No, he is coming for a people, a people he has made his temple and his dwelling place. Jesus is coming for you and me, Bidam. Not for churches founded by men.

God has ordained churches for the perfection of the saint and not as a vehicle to go to heaven.

And, as for being like frosbel, if more Christians were like we would have greater effectiveness in Christ body.

I do not oppose the Lord's prayer but we cannot turn it into another catholic prayer means to salvation. that will be properstrous.

Bidam: YES..I,said it,if your ignorance is so big you can go double check like a berean should.And i am a bible student not a teacher.correct that pls.
you see what i mean by ignorance? What gave you the impression i was referring to ministries?

Revelation 1:4 To the seven churches in the province of Asia: Grace and peace to you from who is, and who was, and who is to come,

Revelation 3:11 I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown. Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it.
God never works with individual,that has changed,he works with people and that is why there are ministry gifts so the body will lack nothing. 7 Represent perfection and that is why he spake to the 7 churches.Remember that paul also planted 7 churches,these churches will unite under one umbrella as the bride of Christ.The characteristics of these churches can be seen in many denominations we have in this present day.Take note that we are not talking about denomination here.Jesus knows His disciples who are scattered in these different churches that you are accusing everyday online here.

.

There is where you said it O mighty Bidam.

Can we hear word now?

[quote
author=Deep Sight]I hope so, but I am worried. I just checked his profile, and he has not
been on Nairaland since Tuesday. Rather unusual for Anony. I hope he is
well.

[/quote]I trust God he is fine. He's probably caught with some stuff the way U were also.

We should find a way of contacting guys on this forum other than thread. Like email, phone, etc

[quote
author=Joagbaje]We have many women leaders over men in the bible. There
was female ruler in Israel ,there were female prophetesses in the bible
there were female pastors and teachers in the New Testament .there were
female deaconesses in the bible. Wetin remain?[/quote]Joagbaje

You have been on this forum long enough to know that a statement like yours need scriptural references.

I am surprised Alwaysttrue has not seen this thread yet.

I got this from www.acts1711daily.com and it is also my position on women ministers

THE BIBLE AND WOMEN PREACHERS

It is no new thing to find hundreds of churches today, with Women as their Overseer, Teacher and Elder. This concept is totally unscriptural and like so many wrong practices we find in the body of Christ today, it’s imperative we address the subject.

Pertinent Questions

Does the bible allow women to teach?

The answer is Yes! They can teach men and more specifically other women and children.

Can women be Leaders, Elders, Pastors or Overseers over a church?

The answer is No! There is no scriptural backing for women being leaders in Church.



Now before you women, start ‘hissing’ and squeezing your faces, let’s look at the authority on all spiritual matters – the Holy Bible.

If you’re reading this and you are saved, I mean washed with the unmatched blood of Jesus Christ, if you’ve come to the realisation that you have been saved by Grace alone and that the Word of God is alive and profitable for doctrine amongst other things in love, then it won’t be difficult to embrace The Truth. It may hurt a bit, but you’ll still acknowledge and do Gods word (will) and not yours.

Enough talk; let’s delve into Gods word.

We will look at;

Biblical Church leadership
Empty arguments
Jesus and his disciples (The Apostles)
Women in ministry
A joint work (ministry)
Easy Pointers


Biblical Church Leadership

The church of Christ was established on the grounds that Jesus died for us. The church didn’t come to be, because a group of moral people thought it wise to gather and worship God. It is strictly Christ centred.

Matthew 16:18 (ESV)

And I tell you, you are Peter, and I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

1 Corinthians 12:27 (ESV)

Now you are the body of Christ and individual members of it.

So we see that Christ owns the church, Mathew 16:18 says; “I will build my church”. It doesn’t belong to any MAN or WOMAN; it’s not an inheritance or gift. And as we see in the first book of Corinthians, we (believers) make up the body of Christ – the church.

Having established that the church is for The Great Shepard Jesus Christ, He (Jesus) can chose to delegate responsibilities as he deems fit – He is God and cannot be questioned!

1Timothy 3:1-7 (KJV)

1. This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3. Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4. One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5. (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6. Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

I guess this is self-explanatory; there is no indication or reference to a woman becoming an elder, no matter how zealous or passionate she is. If you continue to read the passage from verse 7, you’ll see that even the office of a Deacon was referred to men only, not my words, not my thoughts, not my experience, just the word of God alone.

The book of Titus literally spells out the same message, addressing the office of leadership to men. Titus 1:5-6. I’m sure no woman on earth can assume to be a “husband”, now that would be scary! So let’s move on to other examples and instructions in scripture.

In 1 Corinthians 14:33-35; Paul was writing on the mode of worship in the church, or better still how services should be conducted. From this passage we can see the role of men as the leaders in the gathering of believers.

1 Corinthians 14:33-35 (ESV)

33. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, 34. The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church

Again this passage shows us Church leadership is strictly the responsibility of men.

Empty arguments

There is an argument that says as long as a woman is not married, she is not under this rule. This is simply not true. In the Church you’ll see that elderly married women have more authority over younger women, as they’re given direct responsibility for them. The book of Titus explains plainly:

3. The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; 4. That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5. To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. Titus 2:3-5. (KJV)

There isn’t so much as a hint throughout the bible, in support of this idea of single women having the opportunity to be spiritual leaders! This begs the question: where did we get this idea from?



Jesus and his disciples (The Apostles)

Jesus picked 1, 2, 3…all the way to 12 disciples – all men.

Mathew 4:18-22 (KJV)

18. And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. 19. And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. 20. And they straightway left their nets, and followed him. 21. And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them. 22. And they immediately left the ship and their father, and followed him.

We’ll see that in Jesus’s ministry he had women very dear to Him such as Mary Magdalene, who walked with him but he didn’t make them Apostles. It is not because women didn’t know the word then or were not exposed; it is simply God giving the responsibility of leadership in the Church and home, to the man. Period.



Women in ministry

As I inferred from “the golden questions”, women are not called to Church leadership. Let us take some time now to see biblical examples and references of women in ministry. A classic example in Dorcas, she was known for her work of charity, such that when she died, her works spoke for her. Can you beat that?

Acts 9:36

Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and alms-deeds which she did.

This woman was a disciple, a follower of Jesus, and we see that her ministry was “helping”. When this woman died the whole town gathered, weeping. What an impact this woman must have had on that neighbourhood! She was really loved!

Paul in closing a letter written to the Roman church made mention of a sister called “Phebe”, this woman was very active in ministry. She was known by the church for her good works.

Romans 16:1 (KJV)

1. I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: 2. That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.

This woman was referred to as a patron (someone who supports or champions something). A good example of women in ministry

It is clear from scriptures that women can minister in church, but not has an Elder or Pastor over the congregation.



A joint work (ministry)

The ministry of reconciliation has been given to both men and women alike.

2Corinthians 5:17-21

17. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 18. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19. To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. 21. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

The book of Acts records the account of a man and his wife; Aquila and Pricilla. They found Apollos, a zealous man bold and eloquent, although all he knew was the baptism of John. Together they explained Gods word to him better.

Acts 18:26

And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.



Easy Pointers

It is a matter of order and responsibility – not superiority
There are no examples of Women leadership in the Bible
Even under old covenant men had the responsibility of political and religious leadership
Jesus’s 12 apostles where all men.
No woman was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write any Scripture
Zeal is not enough reason to disobey God – “obedience is better than sacrifice”.


Final thoughts!

I don’t understand why some women want to carry a burden or responsibility that God has not given them. It’s like a man desiring to carry a child for 9 months and give birth, pray and fast all you like, its simply not Gods plan for us.

When women of God come to the knowledge of this Truth, they will begin to walk according to Gods master plan for their lives and thereby glorify the name of the Lord.

Ephesians 1:18-20

18. The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, 19. And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, 20. Which he wrought in Christ,

Shalom!

okeyxyz: If this man is saying that the Woman can have spiritual authority over the man, then he's got it absolutely wrong. THis is what you get when people want to force spiritual doctrine meet with secular values. The scripture expressly states that these two must be kept apart, even while abiding by both systems. Yes! submit to secular systems and submit to spiritual systems but you MUST keep them separate. A man who forces these two systems together has no idea what spirituality and christian doctrine is about.

You can have a female boss at work, No problem, A woman president, vice-chancellor, bread-winner, governor, etc, Again:No problem. These are secular systems, but You cannot have a woman pastor, evangelist, prophet(there's a difference between gift of prophesy and an office of a prophet), teacher and apostle. These are offices that requires a masculine discernment and control. It's not about having spiritual gifts(though essential) but also about discernment and rulership, of which this office calls for a masculine mind. This is about leadership, not about management, as they two are very different functions. These offices are not about who follows or preaches doctrine, but more about who makes/creates doctrine. It's about who has the mentality to see an alternative and overrule the system/doctrine. The feminine does not overrule the system, she is the system itself.

^^^ Okay, I know this will be gibberish to a lot of people here
Nevertheless, The few who are enlightened will see the wisdom in it.

I agree with you Okeyzz.

Calling women into Christian ministry is like asking the woman to head the home while the man is there. The reason why women can go into ministry is the reason why ministry has become what it is today: a sham. Nevertheless, I do not say a woman cannot be called to a ministry but it must be under a man. Paul's words are scripture here:

1Ti 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.


1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.


1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

@Kefmawin

Your contribution is appreciated but U must accept some realities. The internet is re defining how things are done in today world. It has caused revolutions, it is bringing revolution to the church: it is called FREEDOM OF SPEECH. The constitution not only guarantees this, The bible also does. So DLBC must be prepared for what they will hear based on what they do.

Next, when U reel out the performances of the deeper life and its ministers you forget that it is God that does this things not men. When works becomes the central issue for a church, the result is glorying in men.

DLBC, no doubt, over the years has done well for the body of Christ but one weakness for them is this legalist tendency which is now challenged by no other person than the GS child. What other confirmation do we need to the utter hopelessness in those practises.

God is calling the church to perfection and that includes DLBC. they will do well to listen to God voice in the cry of the dissenting multitude.

ono: @Frosbel,
I would like to know you more.

I have been in Deeperlife since the early 80s. I was raised in the children church, was with the DLSO, DLCF and now even in the UK, with all the negative things I see around me in the church, I refused to leave. And I will not leave.

You have to take a stand. I am not in that church because of Pastor Kumuyi. He's not Jesus Christ. And Pastor is not my role model - Jesus is my everything. If I tell you my experience in the hands of so-called brethren in Deeperlife, you will wonder why I am still in the church.

Don't go out there and face the world and the Devil all alone. There are times the teachings, prayers and blessings I receive in the church on Sunday worship service, Monday bible study and Thursday revival hour service have this ''therapeutic effect'' on my spirit and soul. I don't get that feeling elsewhere and I have managed over the years not to allow church politics and the likes to take it away from me. May God help us all.

Hello Ono

I am not trying to hold brief for Frosb here but I believe Frosbel is not trying to ask people to leave DLBC but rather for people to see as Christ sees.

I got into a discuss with colleaques at work on this John Kumuyi's issue and they all seem to have won the argument by stating that DLBC has her rules and if anyone would remain there they should keep the rules.

But my point remains, and I think that is Frosbel's position too, that the church is not for any man. It is not kumuyi's neither is it for any of those elders. The church is the body of Christ. The rules that are made must be subject to what Christ commands and which can only be found in the bible.

What i am saying is that the debate on what the bible really calls the believer to do on every issue of life, whether it be dressing, marraige, divorce, tithing, sunday worship, etc; we must subject it all to biblical standards.

Organzed church is not the will of God. Jesus did not form any church; the apostles planted churches but discouraged the idea of a church following one man's philosophy. The first organized church was Roman Catholic and there is no need to go into how far lost that church is today. And that will be the destiny of every organized church: because Jesus will not contend his position with man and He will allow Satan to have his way in so called churches.

That is why i shuddered when in one thread Bidam said we would be saved through churches. No church can save you. The church are men. And the position the hearts of men is at is where the church of Jesus is. And God wants the church to think right.

The John Kumuyi's issue is both good and bad. It is good that a so called true deeper lifer will do this and it is bad that it is ending in John's apology. I wished he stood his grounds but there is a limit most men can take.

This is prophecy: either before or after Kumuyi's(snr) death, a man will rise up and tear down every man made doctrine that church stands on and the deeper church will be divided.

I like deeper life. I still have friends there. I spent a whole service year there in 2002 bc I wanted to attend a serious church. God's way of saving that church and making it true to himself is his raising the likes of John Kumuyi to challenge the status quo and in the days to come they will succeed.

Deep Sight: Anony - What's happening?

Researching to return with a bang!

In my undergraduate dayz, I played a lot of chess. Three ways the game ran: the fast, called blitz. The regular which you could finish in half an hour. The lengthy one that could take months.

I think this discuss will be the lengthy type. So Deep, allow Anony to grab his arsenal and shoot to aim. I have my questions though; but I assume they would be answered as the debate goes on.

By the way I am cooking up this sort of thread to debate LAW & GRACE: with emphasis on the tithe.

Maybe I would ask Olaadegbu to be the antagonist. While I be the "actor"

Lol!!!

^Tithing is an antithesis to grace.

Simple and short.

Tithe was instituted to sustain the levithical priesthood. Since Jesus came, and grace and truth came with him, there was a need for the law to change(remember the law was given through Moses). With the change of law and priesthood, came a change of means of sustaining it. Free will offering is the means to sustain the gospel of grace.

People are not tired of tithing, they are tired of challatans.

The Mosaic law promised blessing for those who kept it; the gospel of grace pronounces blessing on those who accept it.

So there is absolutely no reason to tithe for blessing. We are blessed!

These are the differences.

I believe that Jesus allowed the tithe for a time; but in the fullness of time, there is need for it to stop.

And no other time than now when Christians do not have a testimony anymore bc our devotion is compromised with money.

So I agree with Abisala any Pastor that collects tithe is a thief and a robber!