₦airaland Forum

@Jo agbaje

You don't want to address my last posts and questions to you?

Anyway, in relation to your question to Image123, how did David obtain God's forgiveness after the Bathsheba affair (pun intended)?

What about Psalm 51? What does that do?

I know, aletheia; I want to treat this as a lesson for him. He just cannot see; that is the nature of error, sometimes it blinds you to the obvious. Let me quote his own very post!!!:

Joagbaje:
@ Enigma
litererarily it means reconciliation, the right english word to have been used is "reconciliation" It is not thesame as the atonement in the OT.

katallage,   kat-al-lag-ay'; from Greek 2644 (katallasso); exchange (figurative adjustment), i.e. restoration to (the divine) favor :- [size=14pt]atonement[/size], [size=14pt]reconciliation[/size] (-ing).

And he cannot see that!!!!!

It also shows that he only knows CEC doctrine; if anything he has not even heard of the historical debates on how to understand the "atonement", e.g. penal substitutionary atonement, Christus Victor etc etc etc


[b]EDITED[/B] Joagbaje, I know it is not ROR but go and have a look at the link below and learn some basics before you continue to make a fool out of yourself l'oju gbogbo aiye!!!

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_atone5.htm

MsTom:
The church is now a hypocrites that the atheist now condemn.

"People are talking, and what you do reflects on all of us,
"A hypocritical citadel" is what they're calling all of us." -  The Grits


http://www.lyricsbay.com/mirage_lyrics-grits.html

OK

What does reconciliation do for a Christian?

@Joagbaje

Explain the word "atonement" in the passage below: Romans 5

6For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

7For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.

8But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

9Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

11And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

@Joagbaje

What the blood of Jesus did, is that "atonement" or not

@luckyCO

I make one concession: OK Isaiah 42:8 says give and not share; for that reason you have a point in relation to your first group who change the song to

1. You are the Lord that is your Name U will never Give your glory to anybody,

However, whether the matter is "give" or "share" ----------- the exercise set for you is in relation to when it will be fulfilled.

luckyCO:
I dont understand him because he didn't make any ref to bible.

Whether or not he made reference to the bible, what he said is really simple and clear!

luckyCO:
What about if I make this comments?
1. We are image of God
2. We are in Christ,Christ In God
3. God is our inheritance.
4. God is our Father
Above can be found in the bible.

Does any of that mean we are "gods"? Does any of that mean we NOW have or share every characteristic or attribute of God?

luckyCO:
Lets speak small of inheritance as it is used in OOP (Computing).
IF B is inherited from A, it means B depends on A and have,needs,deserves everything from A for survival which A must surrender to B.
The idea is A is the one controlling B because once A is changed B must change. In any case you can I identify B structurally when you look at A. It could be that B is purely A with another frame.

With the above statement, am thinking twice.

This analogy is not sufficient or good enough to describe the relationship between God and man.

luckyCO:
Concerning your comment study.

I have asked many people about this including pastor, one pastor told me some1 asked such in his church and he corrected them to give instead of share as said in the Is 42:8.

That means you have not done the study. Asking people is not necessarily the same as studying. While it is good to seek help and to learn from others, it is not a good idea to be lazy. I have explained what I meant when I asked you to study earlier, have you done what I asked you to do?

luckyCO:
Others said what they mean is ,

But we are not talking about what you mean when you are saying what was not said.
My concern is why Share is used where Give should have been used as was written in the scripture which contradicts with about 3 books in the new testament by 2 authors Peter & paul?

Whether "share" or "give" is used is not of great importance. Second you are wrong and the Bible does not contradict itself on the matter.

I will give you one more chance: go back and read and try to understand the comments on this thread AND go back and do the exercises that you have been asked to do. We will know by your post if you have done them and will then be encouraged to help you. At the moment, it seems either your mind is made up anyway or you just want spoon-feeding!

@ toba

Firstly, I personally think it is pointless to debate whether God exists or not. Secondly, exchanging abuse with atheists is not going to convert them to God. Thirdly, and I think this is most important, it is vey very very unwise for a "Christian" to be so presumptuous to say that anyone is going or has gone to "hell". On this thread, Christians would have shown that they follow Christ's teaching on love if they could at least pay respect to Flew who just died and, critically, refrain from speculating on his eternal destiny ---- let alone pronouncing that he has gone to eternal damnation.

The way I see it: I think the institutional culpability, disgraceful sinfulness and moral failure of the Catholic Church collectively is beyond question. Hopefully they are now addressing these ---- and hopefully their tackling of this disgrace will be genuine and not another PR exercise.

However, on the personal (as opposed to collective) culpability of the former Cardinal Ratzinger, i.e. the current pope, in relation to covering up I think the jury is still out and have yet to be convinced.

This thread has become so so sad!. "Fundagelical christians" and atheists are, in some ways, no better than (or even different from) one another.

nuella2

Do you know who said the following:

For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.

EDIT as I want to modify my tone.

OK, fellowshipping with brethren is right and good but it does not have to be in "church". If one's faith is being threatened because of what one sees and hears in "church", it may be better to meet with a smaller group of brethren.

I cannot invite Enitan to my "church" because he lives in Naija and I live, most of the time, in the UK.

Apology for my initial jumpy response.

Enitan 'me dear bredren'

Nice to see you here - again! It's not such a big deal if you are not going to church at the moment. It is more important that you keep holding on to the most crucial things --- placing your belief and trust in God Almighty and in Jesus His only begotten son; spend time to study Jesus' words and strive to follow His teachings as best as you can, the rest will eventually fall into place.

By the way, I still come to the FTA thread except that I only post occasionally.

Ah, please if they are very long a summary or extract and link might be enough oh! I no wan responsible for eating up of bandwith.

"Read" may be just go over the words on the page.

"Study" involves asking questions and searching/looking for answers --- often the answers can be found elsewhere in the Bible, so you need to learn cross referencing. You need to not be lazy ------- I say this because on this very thread, you have been given a lot of information and questions to help your "study"; it seems you have not followed them up!

OK let us start your "study" with a simple question/exercise: how do you understand noetic16's post on this thread?

I think it doesn't hurt to post it (or a summary of it) here ---- then at least the cases for both sides will be on this thread.

To link it, you can open the thread as if you want to read it, then copy the URL at the top and paste here.

@Lady

I think it would be helpful if you post the article here.

One thing saddens me about this episode though:

But believers waiting to welcome this most prodigal of sons back into the fold were to be disappointed. Flew's conversion did not embrace such concepts as Heaven, good and evil or the afterlife – let alone divine intervention in human affairs. His God was strictly minimalist – very different from "the monstrous oriental despots of the religions of Christianity and Islam", as he liked to call them. God may have called his creation into existence, then, but why did he bother? To that question, it seemed, Flew had no answer.

False doctrine of some of our fellow Christians, especially harshness and a readiness to condemn people to "hell" do turn otherwise intelligent people off Christianity. It reminds me of a song from a most beautiful hymn/song "There's a Wideness in God's Mercy" (especially when sung to the tune Corvedale which unfortunately is not one of the tunes in the link): http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/t/h/e/therwide.htm

But we make His love too narrow
By false limits of our own;
And we magnify His strictness
With a zeal He will not own.

In truth, part of the fault is with the "intelligent" people too in that they often don't apply enough intellect to understanding true biblical teaching and go by misrepresentations and in extreme cases, like Dawkins, are duplicitous in their tactics. Nevertheless, I believe that we need to balance all this "hell" and brimstone things with a true perspective on God's love as well without going to the other extreme a la WoF that god is my "sugar daddy" or my "boyfriend"!

ETA another verse:

For the love of God is broader
Than the measure of our mind;
And the heart of the Eternal
Is most wonderfully kind.

Hmmm, interesting! I had missed this so I went looking.

Professor Antony Flew (RIP)

Flew always described himself as a "negative atheist", asserting that "theological propositions can neither be verified nor falsified by experience", a position he expounded in his classic paper Theology and Falsification (1950), reputedly the most frequently-quoted philosophical publication of the second half of the 20th century.

He argued that any philosophical debate about the Almighty must begin by presuming atheism, placing the burden of proof on those who believe that God exists. "We reject all transcendent supernatural systems, not because we've examined or could have examined each in turn, but because it does not seem to us that there is any good evidence in reason to postulate anything behind or beyond this natural universe," he proclaimed. A key principle of his philosophy was the Socratean concept of "follow the evidence, wherever it leads".

When Flew revealed that he had come to the conclusion that there might be a God after all, it came as a shock to his fellow atheists, who had long regarded him as one of their foremost champions. Worse, he seemed to have deserted Plato for Aristotle, since it was two of Aquinas's famous five proofs for the existence of God – the arguments from design and for a prime mover – that had apparently clinched the matter.

@ Snowwy

Actually, nuclearboy's latest post above and re-reading your post that I shall be quoting below prompt me to reply to you further.

Snowwy:
@Enigma . . .
So my quote 'which is what he should part with first from his earnings to honour God' is a false doctrine?

Yes --- because of what followed it as quoted below. It can, however, be good doctrine as I will show you.

Snowwy:
Since God is first in our lives, should we not put Him first in all we do? Or 'the friend' that wanted to pay tithe, since we assume the friend pays his tithe, was that not what he was to pay first before using the 90%?

'Honor the LORD with your wealth, with the firstfruits of all your crops; then your barns will be filled to overflowing, and your vats will brim over' - Prov 3:9

It is this part and your misuse of scripture that makes your first quoted statement false doctrine. You are suggesting that the first thing a person should do is "pay 'tithes'"; implicitly, you are excluding from "pay tithes" the possibility that by giving the money to the sick person the chap would have paid the "tithes". What you have left unsaid but which is also clearly implied is that "tithes" are supposed to be paid into "church".

All that is wrong. Go back and read this thread from the beginning; also think carefully about nuclearboy's last post. Finally, we have made the point repeatedly that Jesus says you should give to Him! How? By helping, the sick the poor, the hungry, the needy etc. So if you must "pay tithes", the actual best way to "pay tithes" is to give it to those people that Jesus told you represent Him.

If you cannot read the whole thread, go and read this post: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-421491.96.html#msg5816734

Edited

As I said before, you will be confronted with Biblical truth if you continue to spread the false doctrine that "tithing is required of Christians by God"!

Snowwy:
@ Enigma
I basically asked questions on this thread, didn't I?

Not true, as I will show by quoting your post below.

Snowwy:
Oh and please show me the false doctrine I spread in thsi thread 'in quote pls'?
Afterall I am willing to take correction.

OK; we start with your very first post on this thread.

Snowwy:
@Poster, I have a question for you. How come your friend's tithe, which is what he should part with first from his earnings to honour God, is what he now wants to use to assist a friend? So you mean he spent the 90% on his budget and just has his tithe left for you to advise him on what to use it for - whether to give it to God or take your advice? He actually planned to give the 10% as tithe and because his friend asked for assistance, he would rather use the 10% for his friend rather than touch the 90% he budgeted for himself?  How does that sound to you?
Or this is just another avenue to ridicle the body of Christ alongside some others?
If he had to pay may be his school fees or some very pressing need of his, you will not ofcourse table it here saying
'Assisting a friend or pay school fees'. I guess you will know the answer to that.
This tithe thing has generated a lot of issues here especially for people who do not understand what it's all about or have just made up their minds to persecute the body of Christ because of this.
Just tell him to let God lead him. If you seek for answers in His word you will get it.
As per all those spending all their time and energy ridiculing pastors, whether fake or real, I must say you are really jobless.
Most of them never even spend time on means to win souls but anything on tithe/offering, they are on it like hawks.
Just consider that we will give account of every idle word. We should edify the body of Christ not tear it to shreds.
Remember, whether perfect or imperfect, it's Christ's bride.

The first bolded bit was a statement and not a question albeit a statement made as part of a question. More importantly it is an error and false doctrine.

The rest of your post is provocative even as it is both presumptuous and, if you forgive me, foolish. As I said before, go and study your Bible instead of spreading false doctrine and insulting people presumptuously.

Snowwy:
@Enigma,
I am not sure I posted anything will happen to me if I do not pay tithes. Please quote me.
What will happen to you if you do not pray for the next 3 months or you do not help the needy? So please I don't understand the relevance of your question.

It was just a question to try and understand your logic; I never suggested "quoting you"!

All I will say is that you are wrong to suggest that "tithing is required of Christians by God". This is an error and false doctrine; so be ready to be confronted by the truth of God's word whenever you make this kind of statement.

"Tithing" is NOT required of Christians let alone by God. Go and study the Bible properly including the debates on this site and stop spreading false doctrine if you truly believe in Jesus and fear God!!!

@Snowwy

I have two questions for you.

1. Suppose that for the next three months, you do not pay any tithes to anyone or any church, what do you think will happen to you?

2. Supposing that for the next three months, you take what would be your tithes and share them among beggars, orphans and sick people etc, what do you think will happen to you?

jaffi:
WOF does not preach that.
that was foolishless!

Well, it seemed a logical understanding of WoF doctrine from the chap's point of view.

By the way, see other WoF practitioners doing something somewhat similar https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-428114.0.html

ayettymama:
all these parlour room churches are soo not kool!

Matthew 18:20

"For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them."

Gotcha Inesqor, no not me this time.

Inesqor bros, it is very tiresome; interestingly, this thread had not been that antagonistic (though I haven't seen each and every post) and it is right to examine our praxis along our doctrine.

Hmmmm TC? No, I think not as I don't get the reference, sorry.

kushe:
let me start by asking how many people really go to church on a sunday in england,not in all the 'shires' but in london,birmingham or liverpool.

Why don't you tell us and also tell us what point you are trying to make?

why cant christians just serve God in their own way  and leave Joel Osteen,T.D Jakes,Eddie Long,Paula White,David Oyedepo and co alone.

Because any person with sound Christian doctrine can see that these folks often make a mockery of Christianity with their false doctrines driven by the fact that the god of these fellows is their belly. We don't like them misrepresenting our faith. As just one example maybe you should search the Net on how your Paula White uses Psalm 68:19 as an attempt to fleece the flock into committing themselves to giving $68.19 per month to her partners in crime.

we overanalyse only to make ourselves comfortable with the decisions we have taken like not attend a kicc anymore etc.

Perhaps somebody who chooses to stop attending KICC is actually using God-given intellect and has awakened to biblical truths and sound doctrine?

please dont be a bunch of jokers.

Johnny just come to thread insulting people who had been discussing reasonably cordially; is that what they teach you at New Wine?

a selfish person cannot fathom giving 10% of his hard earned money either in a congregation of 100 or a million.

If you are biblically ignorant and foolish enough to part with 10% of your monthly income to your "church" instead of doing as Jesus taught, which is to help the needy around you, don't worsen the ignorance and folly by insulting those who know and follow Jesus' teaching!

my church in london is actually a refurbished theatre i.e newwine

So what? By the way, I know New Wine and I have been there a couple of times, what's your point? Is the issue being discussed whether a group meets in a former cinema? Or rather is the discussion about formats of meeting and whether the mega-church format in particular is desirable?

Ogajim

I am (better St Francis was) saying the same thing as the opening post.    His point is: "[Only] use words when necessary, otherwise just preach the gospel [by your actions]".  

Agreed, Jesoul.

On the originating thread, I expressed a wish that this thread would be left alone by moslems and atheists. Is it not telling that a part of me is beginning to wish that the WoFers would also leave it alone? Anyway, I have put that part under subjection and now hope and pray that some of the WoFers might at least start to rethink their errors!