₦airaland Forum

All may not be apostles, teachers or prophets but all are ministers and all are therefore men and women of God.

Man of God = Ministers

All = Ministers

Therefore: [b]All[/B] = Man/Woman of God

QED

Back on topic: actually the point that both Jesoul and aletheia made is ultimately the same if with distinguishable shades of emphases and I agree with both.

Firstly, one must not only believe in loving God and neighbour, one must also do it; secondly 'doing it' involves sacrifices especially taking up one's cross to follow Jesus. In Matthew 12:50, Jesus said 'whoever does the will of my father in heaven is my brother, sister and mother'; earlier in Matthew 7:21 he said "Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven." To complement that, the apostle James, the Lord's brother, also said in James 1:22 "But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves." And he is of course famous for requiring believers to show their faith through their works.

These kind of passages help us to contextualise "saving faith"; of course the first thing is that Christians believe in the One God through faith in Jesus Christ and His redeeming work; but the point is that it is a faith that is genuine and anchored on obedience and followership of "the word" and the Word, of Jesus Himself and of Jesus' teaching. For us Christians, we have it relatively easy and educated Christians with the right heart and right reasons for believing have it easier still. For then, really if the heart truly understands Jesus' teachings, it will be easier to spot false and misleading doctrine; it also places a big responsibility on the well informed Christian to educate others, in fact it is a clear biblical duty, so as to help them not to be led astray.

The second point, one must take up his cross; Jesus never promised that following Him in the course of our earthly lives would be easy; none of the apostles ever promised that being a Christian would be a bed of roses; Jesus never promised that being a Christian will lead one to material/financial prosperity (indeed it could do the reverse to you; remember the chap told to go and sell all he had before even coming to follow Jesus?); the apostles did not promise financial/material prosperity; Jesus did not promise literal houses etc on earth (and I'm aware of 'no one who has left houses, mother, brother etc')

Now, I touch on a point slightly more controversial: I think even some ostensible non Christians are covered in the foregoing i.e. people who believe in God, love God and neighbour and try to live their lives in accordance with the principles flowing therefrom because they believe in and love God[/i] perhaps not having heard of Christ or perhaps genuinely not knowing that Christ is God. We may borrow a phrase and refer to them as being part of the "invisible church"; in this connection I'm usually reminded of Jesus saying -

And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.

One more slightly controversial point, I believe that anyone who takes time to understand what Jesus taught would be wary of the prosperity gospel, would be wary of "easy believism", would be wary of "decisionism", would be wary of the pop gospel" which is all around us. It is the duty of the better informed Christians to keep educating others and to keep challenging the doctrine of the false teachers. However, we need to learn to be far far more wary regarding strategy for combatting false doctrine; we need to heed the extremely astute words "be gentle like doves and wise as serpents". My realisation is that we need to choose more carefully when to go on the offensive in defending the gospel; perhaps we should do it less but without fear or mincing words when we need to do it; but more importantly perhaps the gentle as doves bit requires us to be more patient when explaining to genuine seekers (mockers don't necessarily command that patience),

^^^Look Joagbaje, you may be able to fool a lot of people but I (and many others) know your game.

Anyway, the people that we call names are the same kind of people that Jesus also called names, that the apostle Peter also called names, that the apostle Paul also called names and that virtually each book of the New Testament teaches us to be vigilant about as they come inside the church with poison to damage the church from inside.

So, tell Jesus, Peter, Paul etc that they did not love their neighbour.

In John 3, Jesus said 'except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God'.

Now, there is the incident recounted in Mark 12 where a scribe asked Jesus what was the most important commandment. As we know, Jesus answered him that the Lord God is one, love the Lord with all your heart etc and love your neighbour as yourself. When the man agreed with Jesus he said, "Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: 33And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices."

Now where I'm going is this: Mark 12:34

Now when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, He said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God."

Therefore, anyone who believes the Lord God is one and that it is correct that the greatest law is to love God and to love one's neighbour is "not far from the kingdom of God."

Question: what is left to move beyond just not being far from the kingdom of God and to actually reach/see it?

Edited: it is an indirect question about being "born again" of course ----- because otherwise the question is completely answered by the very first line.

[quote author=Tonye-t link=topic=566857.msg7327135#msg7327135 date=1292259208]I somehow believe these MOGs know what they are doing secretly.   May God help his church[/quote]I am thoroughly convinced that many of the American televangelists certainly know what they are doing and that many of them are really atheists. There have been examples of some of them who deliberately set up a church or "Christian ministry" for the sole purpose of making money. One example is Robert Tilton of whom it was said that while in college he himself said he was going to do precisely that with his plan including setting up a good "hallelujah corner" (or something like that) i.e. a good choir so as to attract punters. Closer to home, we have an ongoing thread about the Ghanaian "pastor" who went to a voodoo guy for juju help to attract people to his "church".

Another line, a more favourable line, is that some of the so-called MOGs set out with good intentions but got sidetracked by the lure of filthy lucre. I believe that many of the Nigerian big-name MOGs fall into one or other of these two categories.

This is why some of us regard the prosperity "gospel" as no gospel at all ---- its whole ethos is to subvert the teachings of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, it appeals a lot as it appeals to the flesh ---- which again is an indication of its contrariness to Jesus' teaching which requires emphasis on spiritual things. The prosperity "gospel" first of all deceives its followers in saying that fleshly things are "spiritual" and adds to that with various forms of false "spirituality" and supposedly "spiritual practices".

Well, thankfully, there will always be a remnant who are not fooled by that false prosperity "gospel" which is no gospel. If only they will not use the title 'Christian' and opt for something like 'Prosperitian'!

Edited to correct spelling errors etc

Yep, every true believer i.e every Christian (follower of Jesus and His teachings) is a man or woman of God. The Bible does say we are now all priests --- belonging to a royal priesthood.

Na wa; I dislike that sleight of hand modus operandi; its parallel is the atheist asking the theist to prove the existence of God when he the atheist cannot prove that God doesn't exist. They say 'oh the burden of proof is on you'; well, that trick works with some but I say to them 'try the other one'.

mabell:
"Well, he is parading a PhD of apparently questionable pedigree; a fake PhD is one that can be obtained without the traditionally rigorous academic exercise or excellence involved --- such as, for example, one awarded by a "degree mill" or one that can be bought for a few hundred dollars"


@Enigma, from your statement above, i have this question to ask.
Have you not heard of online school?
The world is now a global village where you can do anything right from the comfort of your room, thanks to the internat et al.
So must one be within the four walls of a university before he is awarded a degree or must he go through stress to get one?

Look if you keep pursuing this Oyaks' fake PhD issue, you will eventually expose your own man's yansh, you know. Perhaps it is better that you leave it just like Joagbaje ran away the last time the issue was raised here.

If you really want to pursue it I have just one task for you: find out and come back and tell us which University/Institution he got the "PhD" from, in which year and on which subject ----- if you can do that it will be extremely easy to decide objectively and honestly whether his "PhD" is fake or not.

Yada yada same difference ---- the guy said he believed in the Holy Ghost and in the Christian god. Do you think that when he is before his congregation  praying, preaching, prophesying etc he will call his 'herbalist god' or he will be praying, preaching, prophesying in "Jesus name" and in the name of the "Holy Ghost" ----- just like Oyakhilome, T B Joshua etc etc.

Don't worry, Jesus will recognise his own and He said He will tell some of those who did all yada yada "in His name" to depart and that He never knew the workers of iniquity.

He is a pastor ------ just like Oyakhilome, T B Joshua etc; like them, he is an MOG.

You people are disrespecting oooo!

Don't you know that the pastor is a "man of god" aka MOG? You people should be afraid ooo; remember "touch not my anointed and do my prophets no harm" (or should it be "my profits"?

No, either you are missing the point or something else and I'll show you "something else" in a minute.

The point is this: you provided a definition of "religion" which you said was closest to what you wanted to say: evangelical atheism fits within your definition of religion (please note the word "fits" because I will return to it in a minute); if you are unhappy that evangelical atheism fits within your definition of religion, do something about your definition --- or acknowledge that evangelical atheism is a religion.

Now to "something else" and "fits": you took your preferred definition of religion from a source that had three other definitions; you rejected the other three definitions because certain things fit within them that you do not wish to classify as religions. As your preferred definition has now suffered the same fate (i.e. something, evangelical atheism, fits within it which you do not want) the honest intellectual course open to you is to discard your preferred definition as you discarded the other three, otherwise acknowledge that evangelical atheism is a . . . .

Here are your own words:

thehomer:
@ Uyi Iredia

I think you're making a fundamental error in claiming that atheism is a religion. You may also need to consider that theism is also not a religion. But Christianity, Buddhism, Islam etc are religions.

I would go with Wiktionary's first definition of religion for the purpose of this discussion.

This is the quote from http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/religion

A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred.

Going by this, one can see that the examples of religions that I gave above do fit but neither atheism nor theism does. . . .

And when you were challenged on why you ignored the other three definitions from your own source:

thehomer:
I picked the first definition because like many other words in English with multiple meanings, a particular definition may be closest to what one wishes to say.

The other definitions would require adding some other beliefs and practices that I would not consider as religious in this discussion.

To clarify, the second definition could also add people going about their jobs as being religious e.g a lawyer going to courts 4 times a week, an architect designing buildings 7 hours a day etc.

The fourth definition could also include concepts like capitalism, socialism and even peculiar dance moves of some tribes.

I'm not sure what militant atheism means because in regular conversation, militants advocate or use violence. From what I've read about Dawkins and others, they speak and write more about opening up religious beliefs and practices to criticism just like other human endeavours. I've not read about Dawkins advocating or using violence to get his points across.

I don't think atheism fits with the second definition because what is the particular act that atheists do that marks them out as a particular group?
About the fourth definition, I don't think atheism has been adopted as some traditional view somewhere neither does it have enough distinguishing characteristics to elevate it to the level of an ideology.

So you see, you have form when it comes to discarding definitions of religion that take in certain things that you do not want to be included. As your preferred definition now also takes in at least one thing, evangelical atheism, that you do not want to be included, your honest choice is to disown your own definition -------------- or accept that evangelical atheism is a religion on that definition at the least.

Man of God = "Minister"

Usher, armour bearer (security), chorister etc etc etc = "Minister"

Therefore: Usher, armour bearer (security), chorister etc etc etc = Man of God

QED

Therefore:
- every usher is a man of god
- every 'armour bearer' (i.e. bouncer/security/pastor's mai-guard) is a man of god
- every choir member is a man of god
- every worship leader is a man of god
- every church counsellor is a man of god
- every intercessor is a man of god

Now let me add some more from my previous 'etc etc' as long as they are Christian, members of the church and perhaps volunteers

- every cameraman is a man of god
- every sound 'engineer' is a man of god
- every car par attendant is a man of god
- every person manning the stall for the sale of books, tape, videos etc is a man of god

again etc etc

^^^ Pitiful argument! Your first task is to show that these things fit within your own, I repeat, your own definition of religion. Show how they do!

If you can show that, then you would have  to face up to the fact that you need to disown your own definition of religion and start again. If you want to argue that the definition of religion with which we are working is unworkable or possibly even nonsensical, well, it was you who supplied it.

One thing I know is that it cannot be intelligently, objectively and honestly denied that evangelical atheism is within the definition of religion that you supplied and preferred --- as I have shown.

I have considered that possibility indeed; but first, I'm interested to see if he agrees that ushers, "armour bearers", Choir members,
'worship leaders', 'intercessors', church counsellors etc etc etc are "ministers".

^^^ After initially providing and vaunting a definition as your "preferred definition" you later stated that the same definition was "inadequate"; see your post numbered 184; see also your posts nos 166, 178 & 191.

I argued and proved sufficiently that evangelical atheism is indeed a religion --- according to your own supplied and preferred definition; see esp my posts nos 169 and 170 among others.

First the answer dodges both questions! Anyway, working with the evasive answer means:
- every usher is a man of god since they 'minister' in the church
- eveey 'armour bearer' is a man of god since . . .
- every choir member is a man of god since

mabell:
Tell me what erroneous teachings did Pastor Chris do and what doctrines, where did you see or hear them and what are they

We have pointed to many of them on this forum over the last year and my earlier post indicated where I saw/heard some of them.

mabell:
Pastor Chris does not need to fake a PHD
What makes it fake anyway

Well, he is parading a PhD of apparently questionable pedigree; a fake PhD is one that can be obtained without the traditionally rigorous academic exercise or excellence involved --- such as, for example, one awarded by a "degree mill" or one that can be bought for a few hundred dollars.

nuclearboy:
. . .

@Enigma:

I think they are looking at motive and believe his motives are clean and that is what matters. Tells you just how prophetic Maddock was in saying these are "youths". They're obviously babes in Christ if that is the reasoning. And it is.

An enemy outside is usually easier to spot and fight than an enemy within. The problem we have with the Christian faith today is that our greatest enemies have penetrated and are inside the "Church"; the atheists, deists, satanists etc etc are not really as troublesome or dangerous as the anti-Christs within. EDIT (forgot to add) Hopefully those "babes in Christ" will come to this realisation some day.

Indeed my questions still remain for all the MOG apologists:

1. Is every ordained pastor a man of God?

2. Is any other "minister" in the church a man of God?

^^^ Just as well I said 'primary problems' as there are several other issues with Oyaks, including deception, feeding fat off his flock, parading an almost certainly fake PhD etc etc

The primary problems with Chris Oyakhilome are (1) he clearly preaches several erroneous and even heretical doctrines --- and this is not hearsay as we have watched him on TV and read his material; (2) there is plenty of good reasons not only, negatively, to doubt the veracity of his "miracles"  but in fact, positively, to believe that at least some of them are being faked and stage-managed.

Look, hardly any man will not have a somewhat decent side to him; I imagine if one really looked enough one would find people that even Hitler did favours for but does that remove the fact of the evils that he did?

A side comment on a tangent from the main issue based on reading the quote below:

I don't subscribe the the name .PENTICOSTAL knowing it relates to Judaism . And it's used in error for the church.

A distinction should be drawn between the Jewish "Pentecost" and the Christian Pentecost. The Jews celebrate/d a harvest festival also called Shavuot roughly 50 days after the Passover and Exodus ---- importantly to commemmorate the day that the law was given to the Jews ('physical' Israel) to mark them out as a people chosen/committed to God under that law.

"Coincidentally" the Christian Pentecost falls around 50 days after Easter (i.e. after Jesus' resurrection); the Holy Spirit was given to Christians on the day that the physical Israel celebrated the giving of the law whereas on that day the Holy Spirit was given to Christians on that day to mark Christians out as a people ("Spiritual Israel" chosen/committed to God but under and by the Spirit rather than under/by the law.

Thus Christians worldwide who are not part of the "Pentecostal movement" are happy to celebrate Pentecost and give thanks to God for Pentecost. Pentecost could in a sense be rightly described as the birth of Christianity.

Jenwitemi:
You should know all about that, enigma. Afterall, you are a christian to whom being ignorant is a virtue.

Abeg, anyone who believes in the credibility of David Icke on religion should arrange to see me as soon as possible as I have several plots of land for sale in the Bermuda Triangle for $1m each.

Ignorance is bliss! lol

David Icke of all people! lol

lagerwhenindoubt:
@Enigma, thanks for the clarification (and the links to interesting threads)

Cool; I'm sure I once expressed my liking for your username though I can't now find the post.

Addendum and Summary:

The primary reason why the OP and I express that sometimes we would prefer to hold certain discussions with Christians only is because of the prevailing derogatory attitude in this section by a handful of posters - small in number but vocal and belligerent.

There may be other reasons e.g. seeking to work out or understand a particular Christian doctrine when it is likely that only Christians will truly understand and appreciate the doctrine or its error.

Take either of those and similar out, we have no reason to exclude non-Christians even from Christian topics. See an example of a Christian topic started by a Christian and where the contributions of non-Christians were expressly appreciated in posts.  https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-468583.0.html

^^^ Funny I've only just seen this post.

lagerwhenindoubt:
@Enigma

Nairaland is a forum (a public meeting or assembly for open discussion)for enlightening discussions, A forum that aim to Reveal rather than compel-by-argument. or obscure, or confuse. (not that Christian threads do so intentionally)

I think this is an assumption rather than fact ---- not that it matters much to me either way anyhow.

lagerwhenindoubt:
The proverbial "Christian Brother" is meant to throw an Open Question (with an open mind) rather than a half-answered question with preferred line of reasoning (Bible Scripture only)

This statement contains two presuppositions: (a) what the Christian is meant to do (but who really dictates each person's action/s?) and (b) that what you state (i.e. half-answered question) is what the proverbial Christian brother does indeed do.

lagerwhenindoubt:
I am yet to see a popular (Front-page) Christian Post that is opened clearly for the purpose of Revelation (Knowledge, Understanding, Wisdom). rather what goes on is that the "Christian" poster has a position in mind which is (more times than not) a traditional (dogmatic) understanding or interpretation of scripture and is simply using Nairaland as a platform to extend Sunday Sermons or presenting a theme in the Bible.

First that you are yet to see a thing does not mean it doesn't exist; I have seen here what you say you have not seen. Second, there is nothing wrong with stating one's position (e.g. on a particular doctrine). Third and most important, stating one's position on a particular topic does not mean that one is not inviting other views: see an example  https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-429416.0.html

lagerwhenindoubt:
there is nothing wrong with that, however when you present a theme of scripture you should be ready for part of your audience to disagree with the Content, Purpose and Clarity (It is only natural) of your presentation. This is where the problem lies. It no longer becomes a discussion on a level field but an argument which attracts Atheists, Satanists, Muslims, Okada-riders, Agric-Scientists and Bulk-SMS resellers into the fray.

First, see my immediately preceding response; and I wonder if there is any poster here who is not ready for part of the audience to disagree with his post(s) in whatever particular respect. Moreover, the problem is not simply that non-Christians get involved, the main grouse of this thread is the prevailing and pervading derogatory attitude to Christianity which means many of the non-Christians get involved in the debate not for a discussion but to denigrate both the faith and the Christian posters -------------- I know because I have been at the end of it; to my better judgment, I am going to post an example: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-454157.0.html

lagerwhenindoubt:
My humble suggestion for you is this. (you can choose to disagree if you so please)

There are purely "Christian" themes that a lot of Christan brethren do not fully grasp as regards their understanding of the Scripture. Think of it like a Bible Class and you will definitely attract Christian Folk, When you decide to hold Bible Scripture against popular philosophy, then you are calling other folks out to "Test" the credibility of your argument.

A common trend is that "Professing Christians" tend to discuss Philosophy from a Biblical perspective (the answer to life's questions based purely on Emotion, Faith and Tradition) rather than discussing the Bible from a Philosophical perspective. - how does the Bible address Life's questions(Revealing Truth through Reasoning)

Thanks for your suggestions but here are a couple of points to consider. First, even when a thread is in the form of, as you put it, a "Bible class" we have seen a number of particular posters come to defecate on it, sometimes deliberately, far too numerous times. Now, personally I don't mind to hear the perspectives of non-Christians but if that is a perspective of gratuitous insult to the faith or the object of the faith e.g. Jesus let alone to the poster(s) then I am not interested in the discussion beyond whatever I consider necessary.

To the second part of your point here: if there are people who want to hold "Bible Scripture against popular philosophy" bully to them; above all whether it is the "Bible class" type of thread or the "Bible Scripture against popular philosophy" kind of thread I have no objections to intelligent and intellectually honest contributions by any poster whether Christian or satanist.

lagerwhenindoubt:
The precise way in which Reason differs from Emotion, Faith, and Tradition is controversial, because all three are considered to be both potentially rational, and potentially in conflict with Reason.

I do not aim to argue but to understand through Reason. If you (Christians) are averse to Reason then it is only natural that Christian threads will  derail (as they often do on Nairaland) and Meaningful Value and Opportunity for Enlightenment (perhaps spiritual change) is lost in insults, hate and agenda-driven dispositions.

You see, here again is an undercurrent that Christians are averse to "Reason" ---- which soon becomes Christians are dumb, irrational etc and which in turn fuels the defecation on well intended threads. You suggest earlier that Christians open/come to threads with a particular position in mind based on dogma but do you consider that some of the non-Christians open/come to thread with their own positions in mind ---- the most insidious of which is simply to attack/ridicule the Christian faith and things it holds sacred?

On whether Christians are averse to "Reason" I suggest you have a look at this thread for an example: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-523483.0.html

lagerwhenindoubt:
The strength in Faith cannot be supported by Hope alone but must be proven beyond reasonable doubt (As with all Doubting Thomases, Jesus proved our Faith with his wounds)

Well we will have to agree to disagree on this. First, I do not agree that faith has to be proven to another person "beyond reasonable doubt". It is sufficient that the believer himself is satisfied on a reasonable basis including his own experience - experience that he may not be able to explain or that others may not be able to even grasp let alone participate in. Second, will we even be able to agree on what constitutes "reasonable doubt"?  Third, if you really believe for example that anyone can prove the existence of God "beyond reasonable doubt", I'd like to know your methodology for reaching such proof.

An interesting thing on this thread and in part why I stopped bothering is the double-standard almost bordering on intellectual dishonesty. The definition of "religion" proffered by thehomer unquestionably takes in at the least evangelical atheism as a religion. The intellectually honest thing to do is to either acknowledge this and/or to disown the definition; in fairness, thehomer himself tacitly does this (Edit: and to some extent Purist too) but I see some of his supporters pursuing red herrings.

Interestingly, myself and InesQor did not initially seriously argue that atheism per se is a religion; however, it was very easy to turn the argument of the atheists and their supporters on its own head.