₦airaland Forum

Goshen360: ^ I'm not a hater but I thought he said he wanted to resign because of his son's issue then. Is that true he said he was going to resign? Besides, does Kumuyi still hold the teaching or doctrine of "no watching tv for Christians"? If he does, why is he on tv then?

Keep thinking.Very soon, you will see the light.

Acts 13:41 Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.

Just saw Pastor Kumuyi live on tv, LTV to be precise, They are showing a deeper life programme live on tv. Haters keep hating, the gates of hell cannot prevail against God's church. I'm certain despisers would be so pissed and disappointed.

thehomer: Do you think it is wrong or not? Or are you just arguing for the sake of argument?

It is not about what i think or know. It is about why you think what you think. Why do you think it is wrong, is there no reason, is this some form of faith?

Goshen360: SIR,

Can you show us from the word of God where the poor and widows are commanded to tithe ?

You for just show us where they were commanded not to tithe na. So you are implying that the poor and widow are not to tithe agric produce too?

thehomer: Because it is wrong to kill people for crimes they didn't commit. If you disagree, it means that you can be killed because someone else killed President Kennedy.

You are saying the same thing in many words, it is wrong because it is wrong. Why is it wrong is the question. If i am killed because someone else killed Kennedy, why is it wrong?

mazaje: Its just a claim, where is the evidence?. . .

Confirm that you have no evidence to the contrary before i give mine evidence.

Any evidence to the contrary?

mazaje: Where is your evidence for this statement?. . .

thehomer: We've seen what God has done and what he did was wrong.

And why was/is it wrong again?

debosky: @ Image123

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the ownership issue on this basis:

Abram never asserted ownership on the 'spoils of war' - the aspects that belonged to the King of Sodom. Therefore, regardless of whether he could 'legally' assert ownership or not, the important fact is that he didn't.



Abram brought back only goods that were taken away (from Lot, Sodom and Gomorrah), and the natural conclusion is that he returned them to the rightful owners, just as he did for the King of Sodom. If you disagree, then you are implying Abram also took Lot's goods as 'increase' or addition for himself - is that what you are implying?

Abraham never denied ownership of the spoils of war. He only said he had made a vow not to touch anything of Sodom. He didn't give tithe of the things f Sodom. One may not even notice that he brought spoils of war until one sees it in hebrew7. However these are common place happenings in battles everywhere till date as i have previously explained. He spoiled four kings, this is plain you do not even need to be told. He gave tithes of all, all being the spoils of war.

debosky: Madame, what exactly did Jesus affirm? Was it not tithing as described under the law? Are you therefore saying Jesus affirmed that Christians should tithe as described under the law?

Tithe is tithe. It is theologians that split it but tithe remains valid before God as a tenth in any dispensation. Jesus or the writer to the Hebrews did not talk about any difference, they just talked about tithe, and they never made a ministry or calling out of the issue, neither did they ever speak against the practice. i tire for this another gospel of thou shall not tithe. Sure, its a form of good news for the tight fisted, but it desn't add anything of worth to anyone that is bought.

@ Candour
It will do you a world of good to stop being sentimental and focus on the thread. The thread is about ministers and their pay, should they be paid, is there biblical reasons or tangible discussions why they should be paid etc. It is not about oscillating and obssessing on Oyedepo.

Ihedinobi: Bro Image, good day to you, sir. Have you seen my mails yet? I sent you one yesterday, I think, and one maybe the day before or so. Please do get back to me as soon as you can manage. Thank you, bro.

Fixed. Sorry for the late reply

Hahahaha, so something is wrong because it is wrong is sufficient, but God is good because He is good is insufficient.

Goshen360: ^

Question for you @ Image123,

Are items recovered from war acceptable under the law as tithe?

Don't ask me foolish questions.
Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

Zikkyy: Just letting you know that the bible reference you quoted was not addressing the discussion. Loving my neighbour as myself does not mean i should ensure the pastor is able to do everything i do. am sure he did not take up the pastoral work for the purpose of being able to do all things i want and pray to do.



Issues created by people like you.

WHAT!!!!!!!!!!
Thou shall love your neighbour as yourself does not address the discussion? Case closed fa.

Mr anony: Deducing from the command to take no extra personal belongings but eat whatever they set before you.

Jesus later told them to take na. There are different administrations but the same Spirit.

Jo is so on point. How on earth or heaven will anyone ever say that true gospel work will NEVER pay as secular pursuits? Is there any bible verse that says that or this is just a man's idea as usual? Is this not tantamount to taking gain as a standard of godliness? Anyways, its not by argument, everybody will forever have points.

2 Corinthians 11:8 I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.

DrummaBoy: Thank Christembassey for the kind defence. My time here on NL is winding up quickly. Putting so much effort into minds that cannot be renewed is a waste of time and resources, thus to move to other things.

But I thank both the pro and anti tithers for helping me grasp biblical truths better.

God bless you all.

Cheers.

You lied, that was the point.

i do not think that anyone's personal walk and relationship with God is a thing to be laughed at or scorned. He has not told any of us that his example is what we should follow.

DrummaBoy: Ihedinobi, U didn't say what I said U said. Alwaystrue put it in a better light. When I was typing that I was constrained by the phone I was using. It should better read 'this is my DEDUCTION from what Ihedinobi said...' Let's call it phonographic error.

Lol!

This fellow needs our prayers, not our replies.

Yooguyz: i have a little problem with the bolden, could you please carefully throw more light into the above with scriptural references? Thank you.

Well, okay. The devil has being defeated and is powerless before God or Jesus. But he remains the prince of the powers of the air. We still get to wrestle against powerS and principalities and wickedness in HIGH places, which are all under devil. We should not be ignorant of the devices of the devil. We have been given authority over him and his powers no doubt, but he does have powers. i do not say this to scare anybody as nobody should be scared of the devil, but the fact is that he has powers to do things, like taking Jesus to a high place and tell Him to jump down. He has powers to cause disasters and sorrows, he has power over the world's music, influence and money, but we have authority to resist him. Our authority is based on God(Jesus) by faith and knowledge of God.

Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Note that the writer is here teaching us the Sovereignty of God and that whatever God does, He is the right One. He has established this point in the strictest, shortest terms possible. But we do not read this, and forget every other scripture. It is not to be read to give up hope or become hopeless. The reasonable thing to find out is "Who will God have mercy on?" If God is insisting on he will have mercy on who He will have mercy, you want to know who it is. This is faith, this is what Bartimeus had. He didn't settle for well, if Jesus will have mercy on me, He will heal me. He knows i am here. No, he cried out "Jesus, have mercy on me". The people rebuked him and charged him to keep his mouth shut. Even Jesus was asking for what he wanted. But he was not to be deterred, he obtained mercy. It is the same faith that the Syrophenician woman had. The Word said "I am not sent to you", He also said "It is not okay to give the children's meat to dogs". She didn't say, well what can we do, the very Word has spoken. The Truth has finalised the thing, He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy. He has just ruled me out. She obtained mercy. What would we say about Nineveh. The judgement had gone out "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown." There was no promise for them. They didn't even have Isaiah 55v7 or Proverbs 28v13. But they obtained mercy, they were spared.
Heb 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
how bold are you, you've got to be hungry. Are you as bold, as hungry as Bartimeus, or as the Syrophenician, or as the king and people of Nineveh?
Psa 86:5 For thou, Lord, art good, and ready to forgive; and plenteous in mercy unto all them that call upon thee.
God is plenteous in mercy unto ALL that call on Him. These are the kinds of people that He will have mercy on. Psalm 119 reveals that the earth is FULL of His mercy. But like every treasure, you've got to ask and seek and knock, as it were.

Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

These are the kinds of questions that will come up when you do not know the way.
Ecc 10:15 The labor of the foolish wearieth every one of them, because he knoweth not how to go to the city.

God has made us all as men, in His own image, that is with ability to decide, having a will of our own. We are not like the sun or the planets who obey God all the time or the rocks that have nothing to think of. We are made with ability to say yes or say no. That even if God said He would not have mercy on us, we could bring forth our strong reasons as it were, His promises and His revealed Word.
Psa 18:25 With the merciful thou wilt show thyself merciful; with an upright man thou wilt show thyself upright;
This is a paraphrase of Matthew 5v7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Even the OT repeats countless times that God shows mercy unto thousands, so let's not build this idea that God will have mercy on some few lucky folks. i'll tell you one thing though that can keep you away from God's mercy, hypocrisy and evildoing.
Isa 9:17 Therefore the Lord shall have no joy in their young men, neither shall have mercy on their fatherless and widows: for every one is a hypocrite and an evildoer, and every mouth speaketh folly. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.
But mercy and truth shall be to them that devise good. Proverbs 14.

Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?

The writer says No, do not question God. The solution is not to start questioning, the solution is to Search the scriptures and hold on to God's promises. Do the things that the Word says will bring mercy and watch if you will obtain mercy or no. God is Sovereign. He is all powerful and unquestionable. He cannot be found guilty i.e He is unsearchable. He is able to make of the SAME lump a vessel to honour or to dishonour. Which one do you want to be?
2Ti 2:21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honor, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.
If a man therefore purge himself. If a man therefore purge himself, HE WILL BE A VESSEL UNTO HONOUR. We have no excuse.

Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

What if? What if, that is not definite, but an analogy to bring out his point of God's sovereignty. That even if this was the case, God is still sovereign.
God is the God that declares the end from the beginning(with omniscience), and has it has been explained, we are not helpless victims. We are made with ability to be proactive. If a man therefore purge himself, HE WILL BE A VESSEL UNTO HONOUR.

Rom 9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Here, the writer attempts to close in on the Gentiles being part of God's plans right from the beginning. That God declares something from the beginning does not mean that we have no part whatsoever to play.
Gen 18:19 For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.
God had spoken to Abraham and had promised him the blessing that was to cover all of us, jews and gentiles. Yet, it is said that Abraham would command his children and they will obey, so that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him. Then he the writer goes on to show the hints in the OT Bible. His doctrine and teaching about God accepting both Jews and Gentiles had to be proved from the OT. This was the way the first century christians practised their christianity. They searched the scriptures whether these things were so. If the apostles said something, they will go and find it in the OT Bible. But Today, if people bring something from the OT Bible, we begin to hear legalism, under the law, pharisee, covenant, Moses. But the apostle Paul's teachings were steeped in the OT scriptures.

Rom 9:25 As he saith also in Hosea, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
Rom 9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.

First Hosea, then Isaiah. i wonder what folks would think if i quoted Malachi.

Rom 9:27 Isaiah also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:
Rom 9:28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
Rom 9:29 And as Isaiah said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodom, and been made like unto Gomorrah.

The funny thing is that if Paul the writer had come on nairaland and quoted this Hosea and Isaiah passages to support or teach God having both Jews and Gentiles in mind, he will be called an heretic by several. they will say he was twisting those scripture passages and taking them out of context. Because primarily and scholarly, those passages had a somewhat different meaning, context and audience. But the Word of God comes alive by the Spirit of God who inspired it in the first place, not just by scholastic arguments and strong's dictionary.

Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
Rom 9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Rom 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
Rom 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stumblingstone and rock of offense: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

The summary of the chapter is that the Gentiles attained to righteousness but Israel did not. The Gentiles attained it by faith, it is stated. Israel followed it, but they did not get there. They trusted in their power and works, but it is not by power or might but by the Spirit of faith. Jesus said the same thing, He said "yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?" The jews could not keep the law, the law was not given for them to keep as god knew they would not be able to, by their own power. Today as well, when we strive to keep the law, whatever law wherever, whether found in Leviticus or Ephesians, we will ultimately fail Without God, we can do nothing. We need some great faith to truly believe that. Justification remains by faith, Righteousness is by faith in God, not by efforts, for all our own righteousness is simply our own, filthy rags.

Yooguyz: i have a little problem with the bolden, could you please carefully throw more light into the above with scriptural references? Thank you.

Power is like developing muscle(body building). It takes many factors like grace, prayer, baptism, gift, etc. It is hardwork in most cases unlike authority which every knowledgeable believer should have. We do not all have the same power but we can all exercise authority.

soapdish: @image, what if the ground for divorce was adultery?

But the ground for divorce is not adultery na, it is irreconcilable differences

debosky: No - when it comes to God, He gives instructions as to what happens to spoils - they do not automatically become the victor's with God. Common practice is not equal to legality, neither is it justification to accept such as valid behaviour. In any case, we have the definitive record of what Abram did, so no need to waste time describing what you consider 'legal' it is irrelevant.

Actually, this is wrong. All the battles that God's people fought and won, they took the spoils. They had to be specifically instructed if they were not to take the spoils, and i remember only three instances in the Bible where they were told not to take the spoils. They were told ahead of the battle BTW. Taking the spoils was so legal and commonplace it was considered as some form of blessing.
Exo 3:22 But every woman shall borrow of her neighbor, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians.
Gen 49:27 Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf: in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil.
It was even a law. Here it is,
Deu 20:1 When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the LORD thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
Deu 20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

These are the general instructions given, this was what happened to spoils generally. This was their rules of engagement. It was only against the Amalekites and the seven countries that they were to possess their Canaanland(among which was jericho) that God specifically said not to take the spoils to themselves.

When Achan took the part of the spoils he wasn't supposed to, why didn't he assert they are 'legally his' through so called 'rules of engagement'?

Because he had been told previously not to take the spoils. they were not legally his, you can read up their rules of engagement in Deuteronomy 20.

So if God's instruction is different from the default, are we to take the 'default' or look at what happens in a specific instance?

In this case, God's instructions were not different from the default, else he would have specifically instructed. It was legal both societally, culturally and biblically for God's people to take the spoils in a battle.

Stop twisting and turning sir - whether as a personal decision or otherwise, Abram never asserted ownership, therefore they were never his. What you think could/could not have happened is irrelevant. Abram said - I will never take a thing - they are your belongings. Simple.

no, Abraham did not say that I will never take a thing - they are your belongings. He said " I will not take from a thread even to to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine" I will not take a thread nor a shoe-latchet nor anything that is yours. The goods of the four defeated kings were not Sodom's, the goods of Lot were not for the king of Sodom either. And it was so clear that it was a personal decision as he did not speak for the men that went with him.
Gen 14:24 Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.
The men of Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre, let them take their portion. If the men of Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre wanted to take a portion, they could, it was their spoil too but Abraham did not touch anything from Sodom's goods when the spoils were being divided. It was of his portion that he gave a tenth. This is so straight i'm surprised you don't get it.

debosky: Abram said they didn't belong to him - are you saying Abram was wrong in saying so? Why should you assert ownership for Abram when he disavowed ownership so clearly?

Salary is what you get in exchange for your labour - not simply income, else we can say if you go and steal, it is also income/addition not so?

One further note, the account in Genesis does not say that Abram took the belongings of those kings, it says he recovered what had been taken by those Kings:

Abram recovered all the goods that had been taken, and he brought back his nephew Lot with his possessions and all the women and other captives.

Abraham NEVER said that the spoils belonged to the king of Sodom, neither did he ever say that the spoils did not belong to him. Here is what he said.
Gen 14:23 That I will not take from a thread even to to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:

It is evident that the king of Sodom came to bargain for his goods which were taken away. It is not only his goods that were taken away, there were five kings. Abraham brought back more than just the goods of the king of Sodom.
Gen 14:16 And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.
Gen 14:11 And they took all the goods of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all their victuals, and went their way.
It says Abraham brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and etc. It doesn't say that Abraham brought back ONLY Sodom's goods. It clearly wasn't only Sodom's goods. Lot's goods were there, and other goods must have been there. It was of the other goods that he gave a tenth. As for Sodom's goods, he would not touch a thread, not to mention ten percent.
Gen 14:23 That I will not take from a thread even to to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine.

Salary is income, it is as simple as that. If you go to steal, that is illegitimate income. It has come in, it has become yours albeit illegally. Abraham must have taken spoils of the kings he defeated, otherwise there will be no point or business of his in paying tithes. You don't pay tithes of other people's property. He did not take ten percent of Sodom's goods, no, he did not even take a shoe lace.

I am not speculating and my post is very clear - I said it is not recorded that Abram tithed of his other belongings to Melchisedek (as those belongings were not with him when he went to war - only the 318 men of his house), therefore it cannot be used as evidence for or against.

We have to stick to what is written, and it is written that Abram said the goods belonged to the King of Sodom and not to him. If Abram NEVER considered those goods as an addition/income to him, then they did not belong to him regardless of what you think is 'legal'.

Whether you said it or not, i maintain that "It is pure speculation to say that Abraham never tithed at any other time using his other possessions. You have to be omniscient to say this."
i'm addressing every reader as well as i have read something like that in the past.

Fhemmmy: If that is the case, i guess it might only be Africans or warm weather residence that would make heaven . . .

Oga Fhemmy, but not all women in cold weather wear trousers na, just saying. At least, there was a time when they did not even wear at all, was there no cold all that time, or no women then?

1Co 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
1Co 7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

i thought it doesn't get more simple than this.

Zikkyy: That's if the members are looking to obtain financial assistance from the pastor. if not then no need to support to pastor (financially), abi?

i do not understand this. Are you saying that we should help others or do to others as we want them to do to us, only if we are expecting assistance from them?

...and i am not saying they are complaining, they can give their life even. I believe the question has to do with wages for pastors and my view was that members can do whatever makes them happy. I will only have issues if pastor (or church member like you) attempt to justify pastor's salary using scriptures.

You always have issues, i'm not perturbed.

Zikkyy: shine your eye very well, i wasn't thinking oyedepo, i was thinking of a church in the village.



i never said decent education was a luxury. You just don't get it. before you start telling members to pay the school fees of pastor's children, you should ask if they can afford it.

Nobody has said that members should start paying the school fees of pastor's children. Your efforts to misconstrue what i say are a bit overzealous. i was mentioning things that a minister needs that every normal human being also needs and prays for, things like quality education. i was mentioning this to show why a minister should be paid like every other person desires to be paid or earn something stable. You linked(whether knowingly or unknowingly) my point on education to pastor's enjoyment and comfort.

'Authority' and 'Power' are used interchangeably and rightly so in the scriptures. There is no big need to twist our knees over this fact. They are related and can even be synonymous in some instance. But for clear distinctions,
Power is like what the huge trucks have as they bamboozle their way almost, through traffic. Authority is what the traffic warden/police/frsc/lastma has that stops the huge truck. It's as basic as that. Credits to some preacher that explained it that way BTW, i don't remember exactly who.

So, a believer has authority over a powerful devil, sin, sickness, principality etc if he knows that he has being given such authority. But not many believers have power. It is one thing to use authority to stop a truck, it is another thing for the driver to come out and beat the daylights out of you. that is why believers need power in case Power comes by grace, prayer, baptism, gift, etc. It is hardwork in most cases unlike authority which every knowledgeable believer should have.