₦airaland Forum

Sorry guys. Been occupied all day. Actually religion section is my thing; only popped into politics to post this. But let me try and some questions directed @ me and other issues

1. Word was around town that the bridge was to be commissioned today but apparently it seem work is still in progress. It will be commissioned b4 week ends.

2. As per being narrow. True. But it seem that is the only way to accommodate the structures around without demolishing

3. The 2.2 billion is only one person's word on it. Last I heard it was to cost less than a billion

4. The quality of the bridge cannot be appreciated from those photos except U see it live

5. It is not right to compare Oyo with Akwa Ibom. Oyo receives 3 billion monthly. Akwa Ibom receive no less than 10 billion. And Oyo has to cater for a larger population and larger work force.

Ibadan people are really excited bout the bridge. This is a lot better than a gov' who spend state money on drinks

Lest someone think this poster is a government official far from it. I have had occasions to criticize this govt on this forum.

We think the Ajimobi got scored high in its effort to put up this bridge in less than a year of starting and in just 2 yrs of coming to office.

We wish them the best in the final 2 yrs left and hope otherACN/PDP/OTHER govt emulate acts like this and even surpass them.

Congratulation my fellow Ibadan people on this great feat.

Finally this one

Another...

Enjoy this one

Another

And another

yet another

Another view

Well, the much publicized newly constructed Mokola (Ibadan, Oyo state) fly over is billed for opening today.

This NLander took time off to takes photo shots of the new bridge prior to its commissioning

Ajumose gbo gbo wa ni O

Oyo oni baje O... Ibadan oni to shi O

I am one of those Olaadegbu is talking about

But Ola will never see himself as legalistic, hypocritical, Judaistic and Mosaic-law abiding

Ola, know that Paul advocated a gospel of grace - which you reject - and also always mentioned Christian duty as he ended his epistles. just as him, we preach the gospel of grace and encourage Christian duty; however we reject Moses Laws, firmost among them - the TITHE. I call upon all neutral readers how this equate to antimoniansim?

I believe the Calvinism is more biblical; while Arminianism tries to reason out, humanly, lofty spiritual ideals.

So we have to resort to a book of Didache to find NT evidence for tithing... talk about extra biblical teachings.

And I used to have a lot of respect for Sproul until this...

Well, b4 Didache was written Paul wrote Pastoral epistles to the church and 'forgot' to mention the tithe

Jesus wrote letters to 7 churches in revelation and 'forgot' to mention the tithe

Ola has enumerated a no. of NT scriptures and not a single one talks about tithe. Everyone talks on free will giving. And that is the point - when we were children or if we are servants, we will live by rules and regulations. But Sons who have come to maturity are expected to make intuitive decisions on their own and not be guided by rules.

The kind of Christianity Sproul and Ola are advocating is a servitude Christianity; a Christianity for babies that must be regulated by laws.

NT Christianity calls us to be led by God in free will giving - this is maturity. And if we grow in grace of giving we'll exceed 10%.

...having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience...

@Frosbel

The root of false guilt is an evil conscience. And in the given scripture God commands we have our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience.

What consist of an evil conscience, Sir?

If I may attempt to answer the question with the following experiences. My pastor ministers and when he makes an altar call he says 'if your heart is beating faster... then God is convincing you; you must give your life to Christ'. I have often wondered whether guilt can always be equated to God's voice? I am sure a Muslim who missed one or more prayer time a day will feels guilty. Is that God too? I think that is what an evil conscience is.

I, for one, who stopped tithing 3 months ago still feel guilty not tithing today. I feel it is an evil conscience.

Pls, Frosbel, can you shed some light on this concept of an evil conscience that God call us to be rid of.

Though I think much of He 10 answers my questions.

In addition to what flourishG wrote, the confusion going on in Akwa Ibom and the killing of children suspected of witchcraft are examples of un Christ like practices.

I sometimes think the real witches, or those demonized are those who
suspect anyone of being a witch or wizard

Challenge accepted.
We loan him T B Joshua.

AFTER YOU BELLIEVE

The following are points I wrote as I listened to the speaker

1. The lecture/book is for Chrsitians AFTER they believe: the point is that have people really gotten to the point of faith in Christ? Are they truly born-again by the power of God alone? When we are right about that, then can we begin to talk about what must be done AFTER WE BELIEVE.

2.When he compares spontaniety to rules, he was not talking about the rules as stated in Moses' law: Paul talked of rules also in Ephesians, Colosians and Phillipians after discussing the great riches of God's grace. He mentions "appropriate spontaneity"; and I think I agree with him on that. There is no where in this man's message where he has said that Moses laws are any basis for Christian messages: he does not even say there are principles in them for us to follow. He only emphases that good works must follow faith, a submission that no grace advocate disputes on this forum (including shdemidemi - who can be on the extreme of it sometimes).

3. Nonetheless, messages that advocate Character or works, are always in danger of falling back into the old Judaistic thinking or simply following modern day doctrine of Morals, and they leave out the person of Christ. There is a reason why Paul started most of his great epistles with doctrinal positions on Jesus and the meaning of his death on the cross. The reason is that every moral, work, rule or law, that a so called Christian must bring forth must be founded upon Christ: the done work of Christ. If this is not so, then we resort to churning out good works (Hebrews calls them dead works, actually) only that we tend to glory in, and then gradually find authority in, which leads inevitably to the point of dictating to others what the rules and regulations they should follow also. And when they don't see eye to eye with us on this issues, we labels them antimonians.

4. "Chrisitan works doesnt come automatically", true. But the Spirit works in human lives and the miracle of that is what we call automatic. "The automatic working of the Spirit starts with our thinking, that is transformed to our actions, and that is seen as good works". In this I agree with the speaker.

5. "Love is not our duty but our destiny". We are saying the same thing.

6.He reminds us at the 34th minute that everything he is saying comes under "by grace alone, through faith alone..."; In this one I agree 100%.

7. "The fruits does not grow automatically. They must be cultivated."

8. It is obvious that the speaker does not like the 19th century Christian teaching that emphasise too much grace and less works; but what folks like him and those who support him do is that they go the other way round: they emphasise too much works and no grace. We all must agree that there must be a ballance. I however feel, that the scale tending more towards grace is safer; bc in the long run it is God we all must resort to help us.

9. My emphasis on the grace gospel is simply bc, unlike the enviroment the speaker is in (europe), Nigeria is a nation that is steeped in religious works and this has led to all sort of legalism and hypocrisy; so, if the grace gospel can be emphasized (while ballanced with works as the speaker says), we will return to apostolic Christian practise of faith.

10. I do not subscribe to his use of Plato or Aristostle as basis of teaching doctrine. I think it is too much reading on his part. Or maybe he included them bc it was not strictly a gospel preaching but a lecture that allowed Q and A.

11. I see why Ihedinobi says we share a whole lot in our christian convictions as a denominator. If he subscribes to all that this man does, then I do agree with him in conviction. At least 80%; and I believe that is a pass mark on a "test" of agreeing to disagree.

Nice lecture.

ogeelove: If the pastor was not a pastor could he afford a jet? Should a pastor use his position to elevate himself? These are moral measures even worldly people use for people in positions of authority and trust. Accountability matters when in a position of trust.

Exactly. I cannot agree with you more. I hope they can answer those questions

^apparently you have found the answer to your question in my post, though it may be hard for U to accept

And, em, the day you signed up on NL, a public social ntw with the ID Stryklimi, you gave anyone access to NL to mention in it as long as they are not breaking forum's rules. Except you want to create ur own rules and then U will have to create ur own social ntw... that was just for your information

Somewhere in Ephesian 3 Paul mentioned his calling to preach the Unsearchable riches of Christ. The greatest disservice the prosperity gospel does to the gospel is to reduce this unsearchable riches to naira and kobo, or dollars and pounds.

The Unsearchable riches of Christ are the riches of his grace to sinful man. In this forum we have some I call neo-Judaizers come to condemn the gospel of grace, but these same folks are blind to the errors of the prosperity gospel.

My own deduction is this: ever since the church lost knowledge of these unsearchable riches of Christ hidden in the doctrine of grace and have had to resort to another gospel: a gospel of self effort - their has been a gradual decline. First it was the holiness, SU movement and then the prosperity movement. A church devoid of the understanding of true riches, will resort to a false one - the prosperity gospel.

A man truly secured in kingdom riches considers worldly riches as dung; and he seeks things above Col 3:1

That we are debating this matter at all is probably the biggest challenge. It lends credence to the fact that religious life is at its lowest ebb of all times.

No one would had thought of an action like this in the 19th century. But alas, we are in the generation of the modern... all things are new. God has re-written a new gospel for us, it is called Prosperity gospel. The world call it 'get rich or die trying'; the church imitate the same spirit but this times with a religious tone 'poverty is a curse'; 'my God is a prosperous God'; 'we are children of royalty and must live so'; 'God wants the best for us; the children of God should use the best and most costly'

Paul summed it up as a generation who think godliness is means of gain: or who think we can use God to get wealth; or who think the measure of spirituality is worldly wealth; or who think the measure of God's blessings to man is wealth only.

It is so despicable.

When U have the likes of strykt asking this kind of question it confirms the decadence that has come to stay in today's church.

Strykt, you ask if it will be legitimate for a MOG to purchase a jet as long as he worked hard to earn the money. The answer is: how many full time pastors can buy a jet btw 5 and 50 million dollars? Where would they get the money from? With the state of our economy no Pastor can afford that amount except he is fraudulent.

The next question I anticipate is: what if it is purchased for him. Answer
1. Does he need it?
2. In the proper scale of preference of a truly spiritual church, should purchase of private jet be no 1?
3. Do we realize that the churches that built schools, hospitals, mission bases, etc, for Africans in those days too could have purchased private yachts for the pastors but had their priorities right and did not do this?
4. In a society reeking with the poor, can such money not go into social works?

There is no sin in a Pastor owning a Jet but like, Tony Rapu wrote, during the last imbroiglo on this issue, IS IT NEEDFUL; IS IT EXPEDIENT?

Those of us who oppose these men do it on account of the doctrines they teach and the lifestyle they encourage. If U teach a health and wealth gospel then you will see a need to prove ur doctrine by owning a jet.

My biggest argument against these Pastors is that Jesus did not live like this. Paul and Peter did not live like this. The reformers did not live like this; neither did those who brought the gospel to Africa live like this.

Christian ministry and its ministers were known to be men of integrity and who lived frugal, and were committed to providing for the poor. Many people who are not even Christians see this as synonymous with a genuine Christian testimony.

A minister who lives ostentatiously brings contempt to the gospel of Jesus; he does not know the Jesus he claims to represent; he is an idolater bc of his greed and covetousness.

In my trip to Tunisia last year, a fellow delegate at the course, a Kenyan, told me that Nigerians are known for one thing in his country: churches.

He said that the biggest churches are owned by Nigerians and all they talk about is money. He told me how these people sell anointing oil and other stuffs to folks looking for breakthrough.

Another delegate from Namibia told me how she is so fascinated by T B Joshua and said lots of folks come to Nigeria from South African countries to see him in Nigeria.

The article below lends a voice to this.

I am particularly irked by the likes of alwaystrue who recognizes justification by faith but says we must then continue to keep the law to remain in God's good books: ie, led by the Spirit.

They cannot understand an imputed righteousness; a done work @ the cross; Christ fulfilling the law; etc.

Proof that they are in bondage to their works and are seeking others to also be in bondage, is the fact that they cannot let others be themselves and serve God the way they understand him.

I came to the realization of the need not to tithe 3 months ago and I stopped. My wife does not understand it yet, so I cash her tithe for her from the ATM and encourage her to pay it: FREEDOM.

No one is God's police. You that think someone is breaking Moses laws, are you keeping it (in full) yourself?

I do not expect the dispute with pro-law folks to end in this life; it didn't end in Paul's time either.

*sits back and enjoys thread roll*

^@brasilpluz
A hundred likes for the above quote... this is equally my position: LIBERTY

Nigeria is exporting more false gospel than oil

OLAADEGBU: You don't have to be querulous. The grace of God can only come on you where your self righteousness ends. Do you still walk in your grave clothes?

I would recommend you talk to the chief Judaizer on this forum: MostHigh; you both talk alike

@Olaadegbu

Take a dictionary and find out the meaning of these term with two words: SELF RIGHTEOUS

Then take some times to spot the difference btw the meaning you find and yourself

You will then find out where you will end; oh thou self righteous, judgmental, neo-Judaizer.

Is this how Jesus commanded you to go out and make disciples of nations?

[quote]Olaadegbu: If you continue to follow those blind leaders of yours you know where you will both end up.[/quot

Why are you so self righteous? Ooops... do you know what it means?

frosbel: (To Olaadegbu)

You are fast becoming the leading Judaizer on this forum.

For all it is worth, I second this post!

Ihedinobi: The only thing I do not compromise on is Who the Lord Jesus is. On that matter, I'm ever a merciless warrior. Even though I may rebuke and chastise on doctrinal issues, on this one, I go all out and I take absolutely no prisoners. So every doctrine that takes something away from Christ by making Him less than the Scriptures make Him is one on which I will not compromise. Every spirit or attitude which does not receive Jesus as God come in the flesh and every doctrine that goes contrary to that is one I do not tolerate.

DrummaBoy: @Ihedinobi

Your post where you say U will take prisoners if anyone detracts from the person of Jesus are the same reason I disagree with U.

I did not say I will take prisoners, I said that I don't take prisoners under certain conditions. That's why I ask why it's difficult for you guys to read and understand people you think you are disagreeing with.

OK. I believe I got you wrong there. But It could still correctly be said that while you do not take prisoners on "certain condition", you will take prisoners on some other conditions - like in a case where you feel anyone is detracting from the person of the Lord. If not you would probably have stopped commenting here. My point in the above statement does not change, I believe your position on Law and grace detract from the person of Jesus and that is why the contention still remains.

How does an individual that teaches that there are elements and principles in the law of Moses applicable today, not detract from Christ?

Do you have the stamina for that discussion? Or are you gonna shout all over the place, be outraged, walk out and return so many times that it will be impossible to discuss coherently with you?

It would have been good to answer my question straight away rather than betray pious arrogance with whether I have stamina or not. If I do not have stamina and you do, why don't you show it. I mean, by now we would all have been disciples of Ihedinobi if your stamina (for arguing) was than incredible.
But that said; I want to know how you can decipher whether an individual is shouting or not, when we are all limited here by electronic writing? And to use your medicine against you (a penchant for questioning) could you qoute any of my post anywhere on NL where I was "outraged". My style does not allow for the back and forth argument you seem to relish with the likes of demi and Boomark; that is why I make my point and leave it to your conscience to see whether it is true or not. But you have succeeded in making me change my style now and must say well done on that.

Do you understand the persecution and hate Paul endured bc he taught that circumcision no longer applied to gentile Christians?

If he indeed taught what you said that he taught, why did he call us Christians the true circumcision?

There would have been no need for us all to discuss this grace issue if Paul did not teach against cirmcumcision (Acts15:1,2; Galatians 2:4-6)

And you know very well that the circumcision I said Paul spoke against was circumcision of the flesh done with human hands. Of course, he showed us that the circumcision that means anything to God today is the one done in the heart. Like the working of God's Spirit in men's heart. The same way the laws are written on our hearts and the same way it is totally absurd to think that the bases for paying tithe is bc a written code in Moses laws command paying tithe. If we would follow the logic of how circumcision in the flesh has now translated to circumcision in the heart; so also a code of paying tithe and offering has now been translated to "giving as every man purposeth in his hearth" 2 corinthians 9:7. To teach any other thing from this is to teach false doctrine and it is to detract from Jesus' gospel

He called it the offence of the cross. So how do you convince me that tithing differ from circumcision? In fact circumcision is given greater prominence than tithe in the OT and Paul discountenanced it, how much more the tithe?

What exactly did Paul call the offence of the Cross? Can you state it exactly?

You find the offence of the cross related to circumcision in Galatians 5:11. And no wonder some folks are mortally offended if anyone insinuates Christians must not pay tithe.

That anyone encourages believers to tithe, or say a person will not be saved except they tithe or that some laws of Moses still apply to Christians today - that person is saying Jesus' cross is not sufficient and is detracting from Christ and must be resisted.

And have I taught that or even implied it in any way?

To your credit you have not. But when you ally with those who do, one can assume that you do also.

Your views are interesting but I can't agree on your position on the law.

I did not ask you to agree. I've never asked anyone to agree. I have demanded that my positions be properly, critically and honestly appraised. Have you done that?

So far will I go with my appraisal of your last post to me.