₦airaland Forum

^^^
This is why it is usually pointless to discuss with you --- and I was heavily tempted to ignore your first post. You make bold and so-called "conclusive" pronouncements --- without adequate understanding.

Nah, I know what I mean and what the Bible means by those words ---- and they do not mean that a christian or for that matter a person is "god". I would give you further help on the matter but I honestly don't think it is worth the bother. So, please feel free to hold on to your "conclusive" conclusion. 

^^^

1 Cor 8:4-6

. . . we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one.  For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

There is one God. The Bible uses "god" of human beings etc that are not God in a number of places often denoting authority over other men e.g. the judges in Psalm 82 and even Moses to Pharaoh - as Moses representing the power/authority of God over Pharaoh through Moses.

Some confuse issues by saying God made man in His own image; yes it true as represented in this (inter alia) conversation of the Trinity: Genesis 3:22

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil.

It is also true that God breathed life into man and, especially of the Christian, that man is in a sense a partaker of the divine nature. While acknowledging these, they do not indicate that man is truly divine or "god" in any sense implying divinity proper.

toba:
. . . I ve read in the bible where jesus had quoted Psalm 82vs5&6 in John 10 about us being 'god'. Isnt that correct?

It is NOT correct! Jesus never called "us" god/s. Yes, Jesus quoted Psalm 82:6.

First, Psalm 82:6 was not talking to or of Christians; it was a Psalm rebuking certain people ('judges') and the immediately following verse in Psalm 82:7 essentially placed a curse on them or at least put them in their place by saying they shall die like men.

When Jesus quoted Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34, again He too was rebuking people who accused Him of blasphemy because He called Himself God; you can argue that He quoted the Psalm 82:6 at them sarcastically. Even if you disagree about the sarcasm, ask yourself who was He quoting Psalm 82:6 to? Answer: people who wanted to kill Him, who wanted to stone him dead because He claimed to be God.

Christians are not "gods" let alone "God" despite the delusions of Joagbaje and people before him like the diabolical Kenneth Copeland etc.

'Sup InesqQor

I'm pretty sure about the first one; I'm still hedging on the second poster. lol 

PS

Hope you are keeping well ---- don't get snowed under by work. A break from here does a lot of good sometimes. I stayed away once, just peeping in occasionally, for several months!

EDITED

I am a Christian. As such, as a one off I am able to 'fellowship' at almost any gathering of professing Christians. When it comes to regular fellowship, my inclination is to attend the "church" most local to wherever I might be living or staying. However, in such event, my first preference will be a "church" in the Anglican tradition --- for various reasons and despite its shortcomings including debates over ordination of women, controversies over gay priests et al.


@InesQor

How bodi?

I'm pretty sure a Nairaland poster is your brother ---- and I think the same of another poster as well.

^^ Laa Afwan (on behalf of your correspondent)

Edit I just realised that I did not even know what the preceding discussion was about as such ---- and was just getting in on the "Arabic groove/thing"!

^^^

Probably best to ignore those types. Do you know that if Oyakhilome says "a spirit" descended on him in the form of a snake, these fellows will proclaim it. In fact, I recall vaguely them saying something like he magically produced a pen or something. They will believe that charlatan before they believe Jesus Christ or God the Father Himself.

Look at the pathetic Joagbaje writing his own "scriptures" that "the body must have been human figure" (sic). The blind leading the blind all behind the charlatan.

Honestly, if there ever is a poll for the most pitiful and pitiable poster in this nairaland religion section, Pasiitor Joagbaje should win hands down. No contest.

Luke 3:22

And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven which said, "You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased."

One interesting response: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-explain-universe-God.html

Extract

For years, other scientists have made similar claims, maintaining that the awesome, sophisticated creativity of the world around us can be interpreted solely by reference to physical laws such as gravity.

It is a simplistic approach, yet in our secular age it is one that seems to have resonance with a sceptical public.

But, as both a scientist and a Christian, I would say that Hawking's claim is misguided. He asks us to choose between God and the laws of physics, as if they were necessarily in mutual conflict.

But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.

What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine.

That is a confusion of category. The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics on their own - but the task of development and creation needed the genius of Whittle as its agent.

Similarly, the laws of physics could never have actually built the universe. Some agency must have been involved.

To use a simple analogy, Isaac Newton's laws of motion in themselves never sent a snooker ball racing across the green baize. That can only be done by people using a snooker cue and the actions of their own arms.

Hawking's argument appears to me even more illogical when he says the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there? And what was the creative force behind its birth?

Similarly, when Hawking argues, in support of his theory of spontaneous creation, that it was only necessary for 'the blue touch paper' to be lit to 'set the universe going', the question must be: where did this blue touch paper come from? And who lit it, if not God?

Much of the rationale behind Hawking's argument lies in the idea that there is a deep-seated conflict between science and religion. But this is not a discord I recognise.

For me, as a Christian believer, the beauty of the scientific laws only reinforces my faith in an intelligent, divine creative force at work. The more I understand science, the more I believe in God because of my wonder at the breadth, sophistication and integrity of his creation.

Further extract from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-explain-universe-God.html

The very reason science flourished so vigorously in the 16th and 17th centuries was precisely because of the belief that the laws of nature which were then being discovered and defined reflected the influence of a divine law-giver.

One of the fundamental themes of Christianity is that the universe was built according to a rational , intelligent design. Far from being at odds with science, the Christian faith actually makes perfect scientific sense.

Some years ago, the scientist Joseph Needham made an epic study of technological development in China. He wanted to find out why China, for all its early gifts of innovation, had fallen so far behind Europe in the advancement of science.

He reluctantly came to the conclusion that European science had been spurred on by the widespread belief in a rational creative force, known as God, which made all scientific laws comprehensible.

Despite this, Hawking, like so many other critics of religion, wants us to believe we are nothing but a random collection of molecules, the end product of a mindless process.

This, if true, would undermine the very rationality we need to study science. If the brain were really the result of an unguided process, then there is no reason to believe in its capacity to tell us the truth.

We live in an information age. When we see a few letters of the alphabet spelling our name in the sand, our immediate response is to recognise the work of an intelligent agent. How much more likely, then, is an intelligent creator behind the human DNA, the colossal biological database that contains no fewer than 3.5 billion 'letters'?

It is fascinating that Hawking, in attacking religion, feels compelled to put so much emphasis on the Big Bang theory. Because, even if the non-believers don't like it, the Big Bang fits in exactly with the Christian narrative of creation.

That is why, before the Big Bang gained currency, so many scientists were keen to dismiss it, since it seemed to support the Bible story. Some clung to Aristotle's view of the 'eternal universe' without beginning or end; but this theory, and later variants of it, are now deeply discredited.

But support for the existence of God moves far beyond the realm of science. Within the Christian faith, there is also the powerful evidence that God revealed himself to mankind through Jesus Christ two millennia ago. This is well-documented not just in the scriptures and other testimony but also in a wealth of archaeological findings.

And

Hawking also thinks that the potential existence of other lifeforms in the universe undermines the traditional religious conviction that we are living on a unique, God-created planet. But there is no proof that other lifeforms are out there, and Hawking certainly does not present any.

It always amuses me that atheists often argue for the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence beyond earth. Yet they are only too eager to denounce the possibility that we already have a vast, intelligent being out there: God.

Hawking's new fusillade cannot shake the foundations of a faith that is based on evidence.

One interesting response: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1308599/Stephen-Hawking-wrong-You-explain-universe-God.html

Extract

For years, other scientists have made similar claims, maintaining that the awesome, sophisticated creativity of the world around us can be interpreted solely by reference to physical laws such as gravity.

It is a simplistic approach, yet in our secular age it is one that seems to have resonance with a sceptical public.

But, as both a scientist and a Christian, I would say that Hawking's claim is misguided. He asks us to choose between God and the laws of physics, as if they were necessarily in mutual conflict.

But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.

What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine.

That is a confusion of category. The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics on their own  -  but the task of development and creation needed the genius of Whittle as its agent.

Similarly, the laws of physics could never have actually built the universe. Some agency must have been involved.

To use a simple analogy, Isaac Newton's laws of motion in themselves never sent a snooker ball racing across the green baize. That can only be done by people using a snooker cue and the actions of their own arms.

Hawking's argument appears to me even more illogical when he says the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there? And what was the creative force behind its birth?

Similarly, when Hawking argues, in support of his theory of spontaneous creation, that it was only necessary for 'the blue touch paper' to be lit to 'set the universe going', the question must be: where did this blue touch paper come from? And who lit it, if not God?

Much of the rationale behind Hawking's argument lies in the idea that there is a deep-seated conflict between science and religion. But this is not a discord I recognise.

For me, as a Christian believer, the beauty of the scientific laws only reinforces my faith in an intelligent, divine creative force at work. The more I understand science, the more I believe in God because of my wonder at the breadth, sophistication and integrity of his creation.

@nopuqeater

If you follow Jesus you won't be a slave oh! He whom the Son sets free is free indeed.

@aletheia

Ah ha! I've been following with wonderment even with my very very basic maths!

@nuc

I really admire you guys (you and aletheia especially) for your patience and tolerance. I tire quickly of these people, some of the so-called Deists as well as some of the atheists. Some of them are simply unreasonable for all the so-called "intellect"!

Ọrọ awọn ara ibi yi really su'yan!

You can start from https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-497445.0.html and also use the nairaland search engine (bottom of each page).

@ toba

Na my jejely I make half-joking contribution wey no attack anybody oh --- before big grammar come my way!

oscartawn1:
Don't be narrow-minded and putrid in your imaginations. Go find out for yourself what the meeting has to offer and come share with us.

Thank you very much! Are you a member of the "church" and are you all this daft and carnal-minded?

Maybe there will even be live practical demonstrations?

@Joagbaje

Regarding ur question on when a person is saved?

Answer: when God saves the person. If you want to know the precise minute or second, ask God!!! I suspect however that you know better than God anyway.

@ Joagbaje

Regarding your post no 197

A. The first part seems like you just reproduced material from your CEC Manual. Until you drop your Manual and Rhapsody of erRoRs you will always struggle to accept what the Bible teaches.

Instead of quoting your manual why not try answering the question again using only the Bible? Does Acts 2 say the 3000 were born again instantly? Acts 2 and 1 Cor 1 talk about people "being saved" ("on the way to salvation"; please explain those passages in their own right without reference to CEC Manual or doctrine!

B. You say the household of Cornelius got saved at the hearing of God's word through Peter. Can you please tell us where you got tis information --- or are you adding to Scripture again? Can you tell us when exactly during Peter's speech they were saved then? Remember that even while Peter yet spoke before/without making an "altar call" the Holy Spirit actually descended on the people.

C. You say the household of Cornelius must have acted by faith on Peter's teaching. Was this by confession by mouth which you say is necessary? Was this by silent/mind prayers which you say is not enough or acceptable.

D. Additional Question: you say "There is nothing a natural man will offer God that will be accepted until he gives his heart to God first." By this quote you have always meant that the person has to be born again first before his "good works" can be accepted by God.

Question: How come the angel told Cornelius "Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God." at a time when Cornelius had not yet been "born again" according to your theology?

Joagbaje:
Enigma,
You still haven't answered me , from your point of view, at what point does a man get saved.

Read Ttalks' post number 164; also read my comment in post 175 "We have been saved, we are being saved and we will be saved"!

I do not want to confuse you further but so as you know that things are not as simplistic as you take it: there are those who argue that a person is regenerated even before he shows faith; faith itself is a gift; and a person who shows faith does so because he has been regenerated. If you don't believe me ask 5solas to explain it to you as I am fairly confident this is where he stands.

^^^

OK I will indulge you a little and I will keep it simple.

1. You said the salvation of the 3000 in Acts 2 was "instant" ---- so I asked you for proof of that statement. (Please remember that I have now quoted passages saying people were being saved.

2. Another question I raised (even if not directed at you specifically) --- when exactly was Cornelius and his household "saved" or "born again"?

3. Did the "borning again" of Cornelius and his household involve them making a "confession by mouth"?


Start with those.

@ Pastor Joagbaje

Have you now done the assignment? If you are struggling, let me give you a little further help.

Acts 2:47

And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

NKJV

To see my questions, you only need to look at my posts of this morning on this thread!

^^^ You have not yet done your assignment! And you have not answered a number of questions I posed.

So, call me 'evasive' all you like --- but after doing so look at the mirror; see if you are able to look yourself in the eye through the mirror.

^^^
@Joagbaje

Just go and sit down, get your Bible and read it. Do NOT look into Rhapsody of erRoRs or any other CEC material and your eyes will start to open.

ttalks:
The salvation process is kick started upon belief in Christ(guarantee given), it is gone through by the living of the life expected of a person
who has believed upon Christ(ensuring that one's eligibility for the guarantee is valid), and the process is completed when we get our reward at the end(materialisation of the guarantee).

I like one way in which some have put it thus: "We have been saved, we are being saved and we will be saved"!

@nuclearboy

In fact the Cornelius example was a poor case of shooting oneself in the foot. Let us look at the sequence

- Cornelius was a "non-Christian" who feared God and did good works
- He did not know or believe in Christ (an "unbel" or "umbel" according to Rhapsody of eRoRs people)
- An angel of the Lord appeared to this unbeliever who did not know/believe Christ
- The angel said in Acts 10:4:

Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.

Meanwhile, see how that flatly contradicts Joagabje's attitude to the good works of an "unbeliever" or "unsaved" person!

- Peter is sent to Cornelius' household
- Hear what Peter said there (Acts 10:34,35

Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

- While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius and his household.


When did Cornelius and his household "confess with their mouths"? When did they say the "sinner's prayer"? When were they "saved" --- that God gave them the Holy Spirit?

Again: when was Cornelius and his household saved?

When did Cornelius and his household become "born again"?

@Joagabaje

Also, while you seem to have an aversion for Jesus' own words, take the following passage, put it in your pipe and smoke it.

Matthew 10:22

And you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.

^^^ None so blind as he who refuses to see!

Joagbaje:
Enigma,
You're bringing another issue here , when you've not address issue on ground.  A G.O may go to hell if he backslides and walks out of the grace of God. That is not anybodys business . It's between him and his God. If that happens , it doesn't mean the guy was never saved. He fell out maybe through  etc. The fact that someone gets saved does not mean he will remain so. If he denies christ. He ceases to be a Christian. But that doesn't mean he was never saved. He lost his salvation

That is your error right there. You assume salvation is man's work; he confesses with his mouth (Romans 10) and he is instantly saved. Of course if salvation is a man's work, he can lose such "salvation".

What you fail to realise is that salvation is done by God Himself; it is God who does the saving; it is God who does the "borning-again"! Therefore anyone who God has saved cannot lose his salvation; anyone who God Himself has "born-again" cannot be "unborn-again" and cannot lose his salvation.

This is why you need to show that you are justified by faith and remain in the faith by examining your works. The apostle James really is your friend and taking his word to heart will help you ensure that you are not on the way to perdition.

But we are dealing with the issue of a man being saved by works. This is false doctrine. A man is saved by faith and he begins to produce good works.[/b]

True but only to an extent because of its context in light of next excerpt below. Here it suffices to say that yes a person is saved/justified by faith to do good works.

An unsaved man could produce good works but it will not earn him salvation. There is nothing a natural man will offer God that will be accepted until he gives his heart to God first.

Implicit in this is your arrogance (and ignorance for that matter) that the "saved" person is a person who says the "sinner's prayer" (confesses with mouth). It is God who saves and it is God who "borns again". The evidence of being born again is good fruit. It is possible that a person wo has not said your sinner's prayer (confession by mouth) but who is showing seriously good fruit is already saved/born-again by God Himself ------- when and how you know not!




[quote][/quote]