₦airaland Forum

Enigma:
God did not send anybody to preach the gospel advertise on MITV or OGTV or any other TV. End of story.

It is much better that a "church" (a) teaches its own members godliness (rather than all this rubbish "prosperity" and, (b) teach its members each to influence other people they come across with their own Godly behaviour and carriage; in other words each member is to preach the gospel, particularly by actions (including charity) and by words if necessary.

In-law, what kind of strategy is this now? How is the 'church' supposed to make money and sustain itself by teaching only 'holiness' and 'godliness'? Na 'godliness' pastor go chop? go use fuel private jet for the spreading of the gospel? na 'holiness' go supply air time on OGTV? all these spiritually antique words & concepts that you're flinging around that are out-of-date with the modern swankified church . . . abeg mind yaself oh.

Lol. Happy Birthday sister. I pray God will continue to multiply years unto your life, years full of joy, comfort, peace & love and all that your heart desires. Amen .

Na wa oh. May God give his family comfort at this difficult time.

If its eventually discovered that he overdosed on illegal drugs that will just be too darn sad and another bullet for the critics to fire at 'christianity'.

Image123:
@JeSoul
i don't have all the answers, i'm not sure anyone does. As much as i feel for others and wish we all are in God's 'good books' and i sympathize with all who don't get to hear the gospel like i've done a thousand times, i'm not sure its going to end like my wish. Why? i'm lookING for that wish in the Bible and i'm not found it. Do i base their fate on the PROBABILITY that Cornelius was accepted before Peter saw him? Well, i wish them all the best on judgement day, i'm not the judge and what i feel or opine is not too important in this.

Snr brother, no qualms jare. I really appreciate this here above. The fact that we all have a very limited grasp of what God can do is something we all need to remind ourselves of daily.

---

@Joagbaje,
You self. I posed a few questions to you on previous pages. You vanish and then reappear after the dust has settled and people have 'forgotten'. Dat one na your style abi?  Anyways . . .

Joagbaje:
That's different , the question was about cornelius salvation. At what point did he get saved. The answer is simple. He got saved when he received the gospel preached by Peter.

No problem. That na your opinion and it is well respected.

Of course he was a good man ,devout to the Jewish religion,seeking God with good heart. But with all his religiosity, he was not born again. Been born again is not about making heaven. It's a change of spiritual state in the now. A man receiving eternal life. If cornelius had died without meeting Peter . He may have futuristic salvation after judgement . He good and the bad will be weighed . And he may be saved if damned. But the christian won't go through that judgement.

Hmm . . . the implications of this your quote here.

So salvation is a multi-step process abi? There are different stages/requirements - being 'born again'   is different from 'making heaven' and is different from being 'acceptable to God' and is different from 'receiving eternal life' and is different from 'futuristic salvation after judgement'.

  Abeg do small explain to us which one be "futuristic salvation after judgement"?

remember the direction of your focus at the opening of the thread. Which suggest that a man can be saved by learning the lifestyle of Jesus teaching without receiving the Jesus life. Morality saves no man . Because people of other faiths have moral values. And that's why people get the idea that you are preaching salvation by works.

No mr Jo, "people" did not get any idea like that - just you - because if you have read the thread at all you will have noticed practically every post of mine (and Enigma & PastorAIO) have consistently and clearly said salvation can never come by "works" or "morality".

  Again I told you READ THE POSTS CLEARLY and stop injecting your own bias and seeing things that are not there - you still no wan gree.

luvtbaby:
I am a United States Citizen looking to move to Nigeria. I have never worked outside of the United States, but I would like to be employed there. Looking for advice from someone who has already walked this road. Where do I begin? I am employed full time working 40 hours per week, as well as a student of Psychology. Looking to be adventorous and fulfilled.

I must commend your adventurous spirit. Not many people can consider what you're considering.

Some people like Omega have given you some very good advice. You should think and consider very carefully the advs and disadvs. Nigeria is not like America - and I'm not just talking in terms of development (because as someone said if you have enough money you can live very well in Nigeria). Issues like the culture, the food, the people, the weather, the politics, the entire system of doing business, your health - if you body adapts well (very important), the overall way of life - completely different from America. So you (& your body and mind) should be ready for a culture shock.

  Do some research (Nairaland is an excellent resource) and see if you can find a job in your field that can enable you to live in a good, safe neighborhood and maintain the kind of lifestyle you'd like. Jobs are not easy to get in Naija and you don't want to end up in a bind. Watch youtubes videos, that should give a nice visual idea but keep in mind those can be a bit misleading as well.

  I'd advice you to visit Nigeria, and look before you leap. Spend more than a week or two and travel to different parts if possible and see if its somewhere you could live. South africa is closer in standards to America than Nigeria so perhaps that may provide a 'softer landing' for you than a direct leap into the heart of Africa. All in all, I wish you well!

Image123:
Yes my sista, i'm asking for the verse that says God accepted Cornelius' works as it seems that was the general agreement on page 6 of this thread. i don't know much about those glowing terms o, but i don't think they say that God accepted him/them.

Acts 10: 4 "Cornelius stared at him in fear. “What is it, Lord?” he asked. The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God.

So is it possible that God only 'noticed' Cornelius' works? they only 'went up as an offering for God to just see - but not accept him? or God only accepted the offerings but not Cornelius himself? (is that possible?)

You posted random verses culled from various contexts - lets stick to just Cornelius so we don't muddy the waters. But in any case all the scriptures you quoted are not under antagonism because I have not disputed (nor anyone else on this thread I've noticed) that men will be saved only through Jesus. You seem to be stuck on 'works' . . . whereas I've been talking about works borne from faith - which is what Cornelius had. There are indeed some trusting in their works to save them - we all agree they will be sorely disappointed.

Jesus said in Matt 7
"By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17[b] Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.[/b] 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them."
Cornelius:
1- Feared God
2- Loved his fellow man and looked after the poor

  Jesus said, "no bad tree can produce good fruit, and no good tree can produce bad fruit". If it produces good fruit, then it is a good tree and vice versa. What is the greatest commandment? Jesus said "¹ Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and ²love your neighbor as yourself" . . . both conditions Cornelius was said to have done. How can a bad tree produce such good fruit?

Cornelius is not being saved of his own righteousness by works . . . but of his faith - which resulted in works and it was credited to him as righteousness. The spirit of Christ did not begin moving and working among men after Calvary - but rather stretches both forward and backward in time - justifying as many who would believe in God, and believe enough to result in good deeds. Every man will be saved one way or another 'through' the righteousness of Jesus Christ - that point has never been in dispute! Where we dare not draw dimensions in the sand and set-up parameters by which a man can be saved in our limited understanding is what constitutes this[i] "through Jesus Christ". [/i] You may believe a man has to hear and recite a confession of faith in Christ to be saved - whereas God has already seen the faith in his heart (even though such a man never heard about Jesus) and declared him righteous (just like He did Abraham, Rahab & others) - through & by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ which was done "once for all men" (Heb 10).

Let me ask one question. By what standard will men who didn't get to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ be judged?   Faith? works? a combination of the two? the OT Law? The Law written on their hearts? Their conscience?

Nice discussion btw Tayo & nolong. I agree with both of you - to different degrees When Tayo said this:
  [quote author=Tayo-D link=topic=735496.msg8923911#msg8923911 date=1313367301]This so-called compassion is what has brought the society to this point.  The government is not about compassion.  It is an institution with delegated power to force compliance with societal laws.  The govt is meant to ensure there is justice, and remember, justice is blind.  It does not consider people's race, color or background to mete out judgment. It is folly in my opinion to think the govt should be used as a vehicle to mete out compassion. That is the role of the Red Cross and other organizations.[/quote]I agree, the govt should function objectively . . . but the problem is

nolongTing:
You are either naïve or being cynical if you think ones social standing and ethnicity has no bearing on the outcome of justice. You are living in a country which judges everybody by the melanin in their skin and then their wallet, did you not know that? 

. . . although I will not go to the extent of saying this prejudice is rampant & widespread and is the main issue that 'prevents' blacks/AAs from advancing into diverse kinds of professional fields of occupation.

With all due respect America and Nigeria have more social problems than England.  In the US most African Americans have been dumbed down with “over paid”, “under educated” celebrities, where are the African American leaders in America?  Have you not noticed that “Black” is a dirty word for the new black political class? There are no African American billionaires in America now except Oprah a woman,  and all the Billionaires have been entertainers – glorified jesters. 
African Americans are 12.6% of the population yet there are only 6 African American ceos of fortune 500 companies – thats less than 1%.  Do you still think race and colour dose not matter? In 2010 it was revealed that 1 in 5  Black people living in London were stopped and searched by the police between 2007-2008 – they admitted that they targeted ethnic minorities http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8567528.stm I know its a similar story in America. What about welfare and African Americans?

And I will argue black people are the ones - for the most part - dumbing ourselves down. While it is true that as long as it is human beings that operate the system, there will always be prejudice - this excuse will no longer suffice, especially with all the great strides the country has made over the last half century - I mean as Tayo said, a black man from a broken home with a drunk for a father is president afterall.

  Turn on BET and see what black people are telling black children to aspire to be. The 'black leaders' for the most part do not help either. They seem to me to forever foster this sentiment of 'oppression' from the 'white man' - thereby breeding generation after generation of angry youth who just fold their arms waiting for reparations in one form or another. And when there is an accomplished black like Cosby who dares to criticise the culture, they are immediately attacked as 'sell-outs' or 'uncle-toms'. In the schools I've been to, the AA kids are never known to populate the libraries or spend after hours with professors. Is it the system that is forcing them to be lazy and unambitious? It is true some racist employers will pick Richard Smith over Jaquan Shaheem, so we thank God that companies abound - if company A is stupid enough to overlook your 4.0 gpa and shiny work experience because of the arrangement of vowels in your name, best believe company B will not. The times I've personally experienced racism I can count on one hand - and hell, I live in the Northeast! lol

Someone (I think Tayo and you agreed) attributed society's problem to the breakdown of the family unit - I could not agree more wholeheartedly. A poor black kid from a single family home (we still have the highest % of this if I'm not mistaken) . . . he grows up with limited, undisciplined values - and this is reflected in his relationships with school, jobs, authority and the society as a whole. In a way I don't blame him - he's merely re-enacting all he knows, what he's been taught, thereby perpetuating the endless cycle. Of course some smart ones break free and acheive things - and we can point to them as an example that your history does not have to define your destiny.

Lets be realistic politicians will implement policies to gain votes and popularity and that usually means catering for the majority. In the US that happens to be White people. Obama is a setup, he has sleepwalked African Americans in America into doom, Africa and African Americans are worse off under that skinny coconut.  What future do African Americans have in America? You guys are next mark my words, Obama is already preparing the army to deal with the unrest and as usual it will all be blamed on African Americans.  I just hope that by then you have stopped your daily doses of WHITE media propaganda and learnt the game.

Honestly, I don't blame Obama for the black community's coronation of him as their savior. Did he send anybody to throw common sense to the wind, and believe that a single man will waltz into office and wave about his magic schtick and transform America into a nubian paradise?    This is part of why I say we must hold ourselves accountable, and stop passing the buck to everyone else but ourselves. Obama is president to ALL americans - not just the black ones, that is the oath he swore. He cannot be expected to show favor to blacks over other races - no more than it would've been right for Bill Clinton to favor his own skin-kind at the expense of blacks. This is where AA's continue to stumble and miss the mark.
 

You seem to be transfixed with the word “compassion”, are you not a christian? Whats wrong with it? Politics is not just a business entity, by compassion I mean that the working class and under class must not be neglected otherwise the cost to society will be greater in the future. 

You advocate discriminating against the 'have nots' in society and taking the moral high ground – in politics such favouritism will spell doom.  You should know that professionalism means you do the right thing and remain objective.

If there is no compassion in government why do the western governments have welfare states? why do the western governments dish out aid every year to the so called Third world? Why are the western governments implementing a so-called no-fly zone over Libya under the cover of “we need to protect the citizens”,  maybe we should switch this conversation to digital circuits instead – politics is not logical Tayo.

I think I understand Tayo's discomfort with the word 'compassion' when used in the context of this subject. I also understand your classification of the Welfare programs as 'compassionate'. The problem lies in the rampant abuse of the system by certain people of all races by the way, who would rather receive a handout than work for food. Certain people who believe that they're entitled to a piece of somebody else's pie. Certain people who will riot in the streets and burn down their own neighbor's properties simply because they're angry they're not as rich as they would like to be.

  The problem is a large portion of this camp has been thrown under the umbrella of 'compassion' - thereby smearing groups of poor/disabled/elderly people who genuinely need help from the govt (and by the govt I mean us) and lumping them all together with these cheats. And then when a person of conservative persuation speaks against this - he/she will probably be accused of 'not caring for the poor'. I'm not sure but I think Tayo believes the govt. should hands off completely, I won't go that far  I think it has its place - and needs desparately to be fixed as so many needy people are going without because the leeches are sucking where they do not belong. It just breaks my heart cos with what the govt is taking in - it can take care of the needy, disabled, out of work etc population ten times over if we just fixed the leaks.

My point is that the situation is complex and whilst a more sustainable social program is being devised the underclass need to be catered for. Otherwise, there will be more unrest on a much larger scale.  The welfare given to these individuals is subsistence income, without it they will have to turn to crime which will be a much greater cost to society.

What would you define as the parameters for a person to be classified as a member of the 'underclass'? People who have basic necessities such as food, shelter and healthcare surely cannot fall under this category? And I'd your comment on whether/why you believe the UK system systematically handicapps minorities from advancing.

Comparing Greece and the UK is a false comparison, the[b] Greek politicians are worse than those in Nigeria[/b] – they were corrupt plain and simple.

I thought they said Naija no dey carry last? I spent a bit of time in greece last year, and my overall impression led me to believe that their 'attitude' problem is just as bad as their economic one.

. . . you b's can't even balance a check book? A CHECKBOOK B? This is something every American has to go through every week . . . we gotta figure out what we gonna pay and what we gotta put off for a little bit. You B's got to 14.6 trillion dollars before you realized "oh shoot, we've reached the debt ceiling" How do you even approach the ceiling?" . . .

  ROTFLOL . . . yeeeeee! I'm dying of laughter!!!! this guy is a riot!!! 

www.nairaland.com/attachments/180447_ROTFLMAO_gif3d0c775232c7f27cf80592785b9635b6www.nairaland.com/attachments/180447_ROTFLMAO_gif3d0c775232c7f27cf80592785b9635b6www.nairaland.com/attachments/180447_ROTFLMAO_gif3d0c775232c7f27cf80592785b9635b6www.nairaland.com/attachments/180447_ROTFLMAO_gif3d0c775232c7f27cf80592785b9635b6www.nairaland.com/attachments/180447_ROTFLMAO_gif3d0c775232c7f27cf80592785b9635b6www.nairaland.com/attachments/180447_ROTFLMAO_gif3d0c775232c7f27cf80592785b9635b6www.nairaland.com/attachments/180447_ROTFLMAO_gif3d0c775232c7f27cf80592785b9635b6www.nairaland.com/attachments/180447_ROTFLMAO_gif3d0c775232c7f27cf80592785b9635b6www.nairaland.com/attachments/180447_ROTFLMAO_gif3d0c775232c7f27cf80592785b9635b6www.nairaland.com/attachments/180447_ROTFLMAO_gif3d0c775232c7f27cf80592785b9635b6www.nairaland.com/attachments/180447_ROTFLMAO_gif3d0c775232c7f27cf80592785b9635b6www.nairaland.com/attachments/180447_ROTFLMAO_gif3d0c775232c7f27cf80592785b9635b6www.nairaland.com/attachments/180447_ROTFLMAO_gif3d0c775232c7f27cf80592785b9635b6www.nairaland.com/attachments/180447_ROTFLMAO_gif3d0c775232c7f27cf80592785b9635b6
THIS IS ONE OF THE FUNNIEST THINGS I HAVE EVER SEEN  Gosh that was so on point! I'm voting this guy for president!

Montelik where did you find this guy? 

[quote author=pres-elect link=topic=733797.msg8905843#msg8905843 date=1313118370]I disagree with his tax policy, small govt policy, etc. But this guy is honest, consistent and plain.[/quote]On this I think you're absolutely right. During a timeout from the Patriots game last night I stumbled onto his sermon during the republican debate and I agree he does honestly believe the things he was saying . . .

  . . . now whether what he was saying honestly makes total sense is a whole nother issue.

Since Obama is now a republican, I might as well say Ron Paul is my favorite republican and if it were possible, he will get my vote.

Stop kidding yourself. Obama is more Liberal than Michael Moore's leftist cousin. He's simply finding out that by and large, America as a country leans to the right and will resist idealistic notions we should adopt the european way  of doing business - especially when we're looking at europe and seeing many of those ideals failing.

Image123:
@all
i'm a little confused, or maybe i'm not. Just to confirm, is it that anyone's saying that the works of Cornelius was acceptable before God? If in the affirmative, please quote the verse to this effect, thanks.

I'm confused. Are you asking for a verse that says "and God accepted the works of Cornelius"?  That he was talked about in positively glowing terms as ¹God-fearing, ²Loving towards his fellow man, ³Gifts went up as an offering before God (doesn't that mean God accepted them/him?) etc etc those ones no do you? 

Justcool! Oga how body now? Shoutout to David, Homer, Maz & others.
Anytime I see a topic like this, I always go back to the single best posts on NL on this topic IMHO from the-seeker and JC here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-371029.0.html (EDIT - wrong link fixed )

I've been enjoying watching from the sidelines, but all4naija sounds like a cool dude and he makes me wanna jump in . . .

---

all4naija:
In my opinion why this religion bashing has become a habit is that the religion individuals used to force this ideology or rather doctrine on people.

And its funny how pancakes get flipped on their own behinds . . . this topic is about an atheist trying to force and pass off his own beliefs as scientific doctrine 

I really hate it when somebody tries to shove anything without physical evidences on my throat. The truth is not far fetched that the gods or god the religion people talk about is myth. every religion in the world has almost the same story with the same lines, they are full of legendary. Yes! Religion has contributed more harm than modern science. Through out history religion stands on the root cause of almost every war. From WWs to the internal disputes in most countries.

. . . yes. And I'm glad you said in your opinion sir, and which since is an opinion lies alongside on the same playing field as all other opinions.   

By far religion is what I wouldn't want to agree with when it comes to the understanding of our universe. We can quite speculate(flipping my two fingers)that what is elusive about the origin of the origin of the universe is a god but not the god the religion people talk about. That's one point which we shouldn't confuse with another.

This point would be best attended to by the atheists! They're the ones whose defense mechanisms fire on overdrive at the mention of the word "God", immediately evoking thoughts of any negative associations they might attach towards religion. Champions of 'reasoning' tell us we should "keep an open mind". But I see no better example of a slammed-closed-shut mind, than one that dismisses the possibility of a God existing. An oxymoron if I ever saw one

These supernatural and all encompassing god the religion people are talking about is only limited with what we have seen in the books. Please, most of the things there are contradictory and not scientifically proven or rather have observable physical entities.

And I always wonder what is the scientist's (of which I am one by the way) concern with what is contained in religious texts? Why this endless antagonism towards a group of people who believe in seemingly impossible things? Why should a scientist be irked & bothered at the idea someone has the audacity to believe in miracles?

  I believe in the laws of nature - I also believe miracles are possible. And everyday I go into the lab to perform my experiments, I follow the laws of nature. I do not dare breathe in concentrated acetic acid (it will jack up my respiratory functions) or touch carcinogen materials (I will surely regret it) without gloves or cook egusi without palmoil (that just won't taste right ) . . . and at the same time, I also believe there is a God that can break these natural laws anytime He wants to suit His purpose, resulting in a miracle - wetin concern another scientist with another's personal beliefs that do not affect anyone else but me?

No scientist is saying that science is almighty

clearly, you have not listened to mr Hawkin.

but it is the most tangible tool available to have a better understanding of the physical world at the moment or else I would like to know about any other if available.

Exactly sir! the PHYSICAL world. The concept of a "GOD" is by light years and quantum leaps far beyond the scope and reach of science. Science will never be able to prove that a God exists no more than a telescope can measure the content and moral inclinations of a man's heart. So why are anti-religious jihadists like Hawkin hell bent on flinging around enough scientific jargon in the faces of regular folks like us, in the hopes to obfuscate and marry two disciplines that should remain divorced, all in a bid to bamboozle us? I call that intellectual dishonesty. Attempting to pass off inconclusive scientific speculations as conclusive evidence against a spiritual belief . . . I would have respect for him if he simply said it for what it was - his opinion on whether or not God exists - And that it holds no more weight than mama sunday who sells akara and believes in God.

With all exigences, I would like to say there is nothing that proves religion god really exist in the physical universe rather in people's heart and mind without refutations.

And I would argue that the 'physical-ists have no business in the first place apprehending the spiritual - I would argue that its peoples hearts and minds that are meant to question and decide for themselves whether or not a God exists . . . not an over-reaching scientist who has clearly departed from the mothership of the physical, driven by his disdain for religion, and is attempting to force his own beliefs that are not based on any experiments, as scientific fact. Ahn ahn which kin ojoro be that? I may not have a pHD in astrological physical mechanical mysticology - but I know BS when I see it .

^so the most logical & effective way to lodge your dissatisfaction with the system is to burn down your neighbor's car, loot his store and burn down his home? The rich man is in a lush mansion in MonteCarlo, on a private yacht off southern France, skiing in the Alps, laughing all the way to the banks . . . . and ignorant youths are burning down their own neighborhoods, and destroying the sweat and labor of their co-'sufferers'.

  Yup. Definitely makes a ton of sense.

Nija4Life:
Once, again excuse, excuse, excuses and blame, when are the black community ever going to take some responsibility for their own shortcomings? Why are those young people expecting not to achieve anything? Is it because they can’t be bothered to learn when they go to school or are their parents not supporting them through education? It could be either of both or both of them if you ask me.

If the educated ones aren’t able to get jobs in London, they could consider moving out of London and look for jobs elsewhere or even go abroad. It does appear some don’t want to leave their comfort zone in London. They could think of starting a business or those with African heritage could go to their native country and get a job or engage in a business.

I really don’t get this whole talk all the time that kids don’t have anything to do, really? They are very lucky they live in a country where there are parks near neighbourhoods, why can’t they go out and kick a ball or run off some of their excess energy or better still they can visit the library and read a book! When I was growing up in Nigeria, we had no parks or playing fields but we made the most of what we had. Some kids in this country have too many choices and lack discipline. The govt needs to give teachers and parents more powers to raise children with some discipline and stop giving out houses to people who are not old enough to look after themselves let alone having babies. Parents should be responsible if their daughters get pregnant at a young age, because in my view that is part of the problem. There is a new generation of children as young as 14 having children who they just cannot look after which is breeding a society of children without any sense of discipline or values.

We need to take a cue from Indian parents who are streets ahead of the black community because of their drive and sacrifice to ensure their children get the best of education. It is no coincidence they are doing well in Medicine, Dentistry and Law. We could learn a thing or two from them instead of the constant moans.

^ X 1000^1000th Imagine all the priviledges they already get from living in a soceity where your most basic needs of food, shelter and healthcare are taken care of, you're also waiting for the govt to give you a job as well . . . hiss . . . spoiled bunch of brats. And adults like the writer of the article are only fueling the sense of entitlement, instead of encouraging them to volunteer, do non-profit work around the community while looking for a job or start a business, they're complaining its because the govt didn't give them work to do . . . they should go to developing countries and see ppl making $1 a month and not burning their neighbors business as an excuse.

^Lol

http://www.becausepeoplematter.com/marks_weblog/2008/01/christianese-tr.html

1. I'll pray about it = NO!
2. We need to pray for so and so = Guess what I just heard?!
3. I'm waiting for God to open some doors = I'm living in my parent's basement.
4. God gave me a word for you = I have advice to help you with your disaster of a life .
5. I'm going to have my quiet time = Leave me the heck alone!
6. God is good = My life sucks.
7. Bless his/her heart = What an idiot .
8. I have the gift of discernment = I can judge people without even talking to them.
9. I was having fellowship with them = We had beer and pizza and watched the game instead of going to church.
10. I'm saved by grace, not works = I can do whatever the heck I want.
11. She caused me to stumble = What a skank.
12. I kissed dating goodbye = I couldn't get a blind date, literally.
13. Let no unwholesome talk come out of your mouth = I can't believe you said the real curse word!
14. I don't mean to judge but,  = I'm going to judge.
15. I'm dating Jesus right now = Are you kidding? I'm way out of your league.
16. God wants me to take some time off from this relationship = I met someone else and I'm too coward to break up with you.
17. I'll pray about marrying you = NO!
18. God told me that we are supposed to get married = Maybe you'll say yes if God is behind this.
19. I'm fasting = Your spiritual life is miniscule compared to mine. Try to keep up.
20. God has called me to minister to her = She's really hot.
21. I think you should pray about it = You'll see that I'm right.
22. We've decided to court, not date = My parents have a death grip on my life.
23. Courting = Homeschool dating.
24. Lord willing = My plans are His plans.
25. Take this with a grain of salt = I'm about to really offend you.
26. I'm feeling convicted about this = One day my actions might change too!
27. Have I offended you? = Why are you treating my like garbage?
28. Who wants to pray? = I don't want to pray right now.
29. Jesus turned water into wine = Jesus turned water into grape juice. (Southern Baptist Dialect)
30. Jesus turned water into wine = I can drink whatever I want. (Presbyterian Dialect)

Enigma:
Even me wey I keep the thing open on one tab for several days now never finish de ting!

Phew! just finished it ~30mins. Very interesting thoughts and well laid out. Even though I generally agree with the viewpoint (women can lead etc) I couldn't ignore how subjective it all is . . . perhaps, maybe, in my opinion, I think Paul really meant to say this etc etc . . . but anyways, the whole thing self . . . way too much room for exegetical error. But def a good read, thanks!

Pastor AIO:
More "Born again" Stuffs:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=143706.msg2393078#msg2393078

Nice link. I wish you and Mnwankwo had thrashed out those issues . . .

Sweetnecta:
@Jesoul; you asked somebody in an early post to tell you what he means by religion that may be from God.

i want you to define religion, in your word. then name a religion that you are absolutely certain is accepted or is from God and no other.

please provide few point for your choice.

and i will come back and talk a little about Islam, because this is the season to give abundantly.

caring is sharing my friend.

Sweetnecta, please open a seperate thread on the topic and I'll meet you there. And then you can abundantly share your vast wisdom with us ehn.

Basito:
[color=#990000][/color]My advice to you is that it is wisdom for you to recognise issues that are beyond your scope and seek the true teachings from people like us who by the special grace of God can teach you the undiluted truth.The very concept"why evangelicals should stop evangelising " doesn't reflect the character and lifestyle of Jesus that you talked about in your message.
One of the beautiful thing God has done for humanity is giving us the opportunity to be born again,because when a man is born again,you receive the God life inside of you and that life enables man to live the good life outside.It's like putting a Toyota engine into a KIA car. That is why true Christianity is divinity in humanity. Without being born again, a man can't maintain Godly morals, he can only have man's morals which is still substandard as far as God is concerned.we can see this in Isaiah64v6:But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags,
Rom10v1-3:Brethren,my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. for I bear record that they have a zeal of God but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness,and going about to establish their own righteousness(morals),have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
Without the life of God inside ot a man,he can't live it outside. To recieve that life,a man must be born again

Just two questions. ¹Was Abraham 'born again'? ²Is he going to be in heaven/kingdom of God?

Enigma:
[digression]

@Jesoul

Something you might be interested in --- from my vague recollection of a not too old thread.  http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm

[/digression]

Just took a quick peek, e long oh! lol but looks quite interesting. Thanks! 

Joagbaje:
Okay make I read them again.

Please do ehn . . .

---

wordtalk:
Query on? Lol, I'm sailing at half mast just now.
I've enjoyed the discussions so far; although I can't help but wonder at our handling of the core issue (being "born again". Yes, I acknowledge your spectrum was more than that when you said: 'The scope of what we're discussing stretches far beyond the NT in both directions of time and circumstance . . '; even so, I reckon that the subject of being 'born again' is at the center of this thread. (Again, I may be wrong).

It is - sort of indirectly - we started at teaching people about Jesus and His sacrifice vs requiring them to convert to christianity . . . and after many turns and twists ended up discussing the essentials of what it means for a man to be saved/born again/accepted by God etc etc.

I'm trying to connect the dots here. Men must be saved by the Gospel, yes; but what happens to those who are religious, hear the Gospel and yet reject it?[/b]That question was not to stump the discussion or put anyone on spot. I'd be first to say I don't have all the answers or even the only correct one. But I'm just wondering where this leaves the Christian who is commissioned with the preaching of the Gospel (1 Cor. 9:16) - is he to be satisfied that one who rejects the Gospel will be 'saved' by that person's "religion"?

John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, [b]but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

I don't doubt for one minute that God is able to do so; but I'm very hesitant indeed to assume that "acceptance" through the doors of "religion" would be just as effective as being saved through the Gospel.

This is to assume that God has different standards by which men must be saved - it is by faith - one and for all. Whether the faith resulted by the hearing of the gospel - or by looking at the evidence of God in nature or by listening to the conviction of the Holy Spirit in the heart or by any other means - it is still faith in God that saves.

Joagbaje:
@Jesoul

God deals  with people according to the standard of righteousness in their dispensation. I asked you a direct question . I want a direct answer . Are you aware that paul had righteousness according to the law? Did that make him acceptable after christ had come ? Consider this scripture in your response pls.

Your question is irrelevant for 2 reasons:

^1. Who is going to argue that Paul was righteous by the standards of the Law (leading christians to their death is a huge disqualifier you know)? He obviously wasn't - he thought he was - that is what Phil 3 is saying. And more importantly
^2.I have never argued that anyone can be made righteous by the following the Law - you're the one reading that into my posts - I have said faith which must result in works.

JeSoul:
In Heb 11 a whole gang of OT folks were each stated to have been accepted by God based on faith -and not the following of any Law.[/b] So again, do you want to rephrase? Rahab didn't have any Law to follow, yet she was declared righteous - you don forget that one?

The bible didnt say so . The bible says by her act, she saved her household from destruction when the city was destroyed.

You're sure the bible didn't say so? From the same Heb 11 vs31 "By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient So is it her action that saved her? or is it her faith resulting in action that saved her? Aren't you the one who's been campaigning against 'works' the whole thread? wetin happen now?

I agree that heberw 11 talked about faith deed of these OT people .They Were accepted in their generation. According to the standard of Gods dealing then. But that acceptance won't get them born again. Or attain perfection. All of them still had to wait for christ. Are you aware non of them could go to heaven until Jesus came? They were not born again. They only got born again at the resurrection of christ.

Siddon. Even we have not received the fullness of the promise.

Salavation Is not character modification , but life transformation through the spirit. Teaching a man character modification is not the gospel. It is glorying after the flesh. A man trying to make himself acceptable before God by good works. It is contrary to truth. Men should glory in the power of God spirit within that turns their lives around.

I will not respond to this. Because you are obviously not reading the posts clearly or are deliberately reading your own bias into them. I've lost count of how many times I've said this is not a salvation by works, but yet you persist in reading something that is not there

---

JeSoul:
Perhaps if you are paying attention and taking down notes you may have noticed pretty much everyone is in agreement 'works' alone by itself is worthless

JeSoul:
We're all on the same page that 'works' by itself cannot save anyone - you both stated this and I don't think myself or anyone else has said anything to the contrary. I wanted to stress that point. Where we differ is that in those biblical examples 'works' were a product of a 'faith' that was already present - and that their 'works' infact proved their faith - and this is what made them acceptable before God.

JeSoul:
. . . and no one on this thread is saying that either!!!!! do you not see this my dear brother? Cornelius works is not what is saving him - it is his faith that has resulted in works!!!

JeSoul:
Hmmm  . . .
  I think I (and others) have reiterated several times over the course of this thread that works by themselves are worthless - so I'm not sure how you continue to attribute that pov to me. You said this above:

---

When you're ready to actually read my posts without those biased glasses then I'll be more than pleasured to discuss with you.

wordtalk:
Not necessarily. I wasn't thinking negatively about 'religion', in view of the fact that James already told us that God the Father accepts a type of 'religion'.

Okay no prb .

The question ultimately that I'm grappling with is whether 'religion' in whatever defined idea is what procures the 'born again' issue.

Okay, although you highlighted the fact that Abraham was "accepted", it yet appears in your comment that he was never 'born again'. That we shall meet in glory is not the issue (as that is not contested, not at all). The one thing here I've been wondering about is -

[whether "accepted" = "born again"]

Ohhhh . . . yeye boy, yes now!!! YES YES YES lol when I say Abraham was never 'born again' I meant that tongue-in-cheek - see the 'born again' is in 'quotes' now And I put am for red here now:

JeSoul:
So yes, to be 'born again' (stripped of all the theological ceremonial garb) is to be acceptable before God.

If you ask me again ehn   

Thanks for patiently considering my queries.

I guess query dey then abi? You're delightful to spar with wordtalk. It is great to have a solid representation for the other side so we can hash out these issues properly and better ourselves in the process. Thanks for hanging around . . . oya query on!

JeSoul:
So Cornelius was acceptable to God until Jesus came?

Joagbaje:
@Jesoul
Yes he was acceptable according to the law. But when the law was done away with. Men can only be acceptable through faith in christ.

Hmm . . . oga, I have some news for you oh . . . men have always only been acceptable to God by only faith.
Heb 10:4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins . . . 8 “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law." In Heb 11 a whole gang of OT folks were each stated to have been accepted by God based on faith -and not the following of any Law. So again, do you want to rephrase? Rahab didn't have any Law to follow, yet she was declared righteous - you don forget that one?

God accepted Cornelius until Jesus came? Really?

Let me ask you a question Jesoul, are you aware Paul had the righteousness according to the law? Did that make him acceptable after christ died? Please answer . Thanks.
I don't know what you mean here. So who was sent?

Pastor AIO:
I wonder how Paul could be blameless according to the law while he was slaughtering christians. Is there anywhere in the Law where it said christians could be slaughtered.

wordtalk:
Okay, sorry for the further misreading - it was unintentional. The one thing that got me quizzed was your statement that "It is his religion" - and I wanted to know if you were saying that Cornelius' religion procured his being "born again". It seemed that while you were saying 'No' on the one hand, you were implying "it is his religion" that did it. I apologise, but that is just where I'm at cross-roads in reading yours.

No problem dear. It seems you attach a bit of a negative connotation to the word "religion" which is why I had asked earlier if you could lend us your definition of it.

The word 'religion' is splattered all through our various minds as either positive or negative depending on the context. I meant Cornelius' religion encompassing the entire package of who he was and what he did as described in the scriptures - in obviously a positive light. His 'religion' was a combination of his faith in God and works to his fellow man. What do you understand by religion sir?

Well, I'm not sure that 'separation' is the issue. If anything, works follow salvation - or salvation comes before works: they are intricately connected in that manner, and I think that is what James 2 highlights for us.

Does the 'order of appearance' really matter in the big picture? The main point is that both are tied to each other and each is dead without the other.

Okay, let's be clear - colourful or poetic language aside: does "accepted" imply "born again"? Is that what you were saying? If yes, how so? If no, then I'm missing something.

Now we're getting somewhere

 God accepted Abraham, Lot, David, Rahab the pros.titute and other OT men/women of faith. We know as the scriptures teach that men are saved by faith first (which must result in works). Now Jesus comes along in the NT and declares we must be born again to see God. Now various interpretations abound of what 'born of water and spirit' entails so lets not get into that - but what is the totality of being 'born again' other than to be acceptable before God? Abraham and co were never 'born again' but yet we will meet them in glory.

So yes, to be 'born again' (stripped of all the theological ceremonial garb) is to be acceptable before God.

 Or is someone going to tell us that Elijah who was taken up in a chariot of fire is not in heaven or with God because he was never 'born again'? Or Enoch who walked with God sotay God took him - is also not in heaven/with God because he too was never born again?

 So again I say - yes, to be 'born again' (stripped of all the theological ceremonial garb) is to be acceptable before God. And this relates directly to your next assertion:

Lol, it was his 'works' (or, his 'deeds') - a different thing from the person himself. This is explained in answer to your next question -

It is not a modernist enquiry.

Then please explain how OT folks can possibly see the kingdom of heaven.

What if I ask the question another way: can God reject someone's works and yet regard them as "saved"? My answer? Absolutely YES. Take a look again at 1 Corinthians 3:15 - "If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."

However, the question of whether God could accept a person's deeds and faith and yet stop them at heaven's gates is somewhat preposterous. The implication in that question already supposes that it is their works that saved them - whereas that is the one thing that the NT counters.

The answer is given in Romans 2:6-11.

As in Romans 3:25-26.

You're are actually making my point for me self   I have been saying 'faith & works' are joined at hip.

This is not the issue, Jesoul. Perhaps I should rather ask: what then is the reason why the Gospel must be preached at all?

Because 1 Tim2: "God wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time."

 The glorious gospel of Jesus Christ is the ultimate revelation of truth. Men have lived and died without having this truth - but yet as the bible tells us they are still without excuse. Why must the gospel be preached? Because it is life and by it men can be saved. We're by no means saying don't preach the gospel because afterall God can still reach men . . . to give a crude and well insufficient analogy, that's like saying do not discover and innovate and create better technology because man has survived in the past on a stone cutter and twisting dry twigs to make fire.

 We should all do our part to make disciples of all nations and spread the gospel of Jesus christ that is based on faith - by the forgiveness of sins. And while doing this must also understand that God is more than able to save those who are not as fortunate as us to have had known in glorious detail the sacrifice of Christ.

dare2think:
Pls, this is borderline bigotry.


Tel me, if an individual was born in Saudi arabia and all that he knows is islam due to the involuntary Indoctrination most of us have been subjected to, are you now telling me that person is not "saved"?

Do you only have to be a Christian (followers of Christ) to be "saved"?

What is wrong with this world? Even the ones that preaches the "Love", "peace" and "Salvation" are indirectly saying "It has to be our way or no other way" and no other way means eternal damnation.

What is the difference between that and the threat of some islamist fundamentalist ideology of "our way or no way".

My brother is all good . . . we're all sharpening each other and will plead for patience from each other knowing that at one point or another we have all believed awry. I pray that all these things too God will continue to open our eyes and the heart of our understanding to greater revelation of truth - amen!

wordtalk:
Well, that is where the problem stands. I've been asking about the implications of the view seemingly being upheld by yourself and Enigma, which was one that rests on the question of being "born again" - as in this quote from Enigma:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-720610.96.html#msg8868344

So, as regards all ideas considered with words such as 'accepted', 'saved', 'works', etc, I wanted to know their implications in your views with reference to Cornelius. It seems to me that the view was that Cornelius religious works procured his being "born again" before Peter even arrived at his house.

I apologise. However, I don't seem to get your point. Could I ask if your implication was that Cornelius was "already born again" because of his religious works (he 'gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway')? I'm asking this in view of what Enigma said earlier - "that Cornelius was ALREADY born again before Peter came to his house to preach"?

If that is another misreading of your view, please oblige me.

Religion means a lot of different things to different people. But whatever or however defined, I was clear in saying: "Cornelius' works (however good they were) did not procure his being born again - no matter how religious he might have been": the words highlighted qualifies whatever definition of religion one might have in mind.

No; rather I said that he was addressing people who were already saved, and not that he was already addressing them. (Not a big deal, other than that I want to be clear: the 'already' qualifies the people whom he addressed, and not his addressing any crowd).

No, I still don't get you; because, while you're saying this -

- it comes back to the point that is of concern to me: that your view is that Cornelius' religion saved him! That is where I'm quizzed, and was asking: Does religion save any man?

Hmmm  . . .

  I think I (and others) have reiterated several times over the course of this thread that works by themselves are worthless - so I'm not sure how you continue to attribute that pov to me. You said this above:

It seems to me that the view was that Cornelius religious works procured his being "born again" before Peter even arrived at his house.

and I said this in just my last post:

JeSoul:
Cornelius works is not what is saving him - it is his faith that has resulted in works!!! It is his religion - which God has accepted - that is rooted in a love for God and his fellow man.

---

 I think the main stumbling block here is the seperation of faith from works. Whereas I'm trying to show Cornelius' faith by his works. Yes I agree with Enigma that Cornelius was already accepted by God prior to his audience with Peter - I mean see the flowing colorful language the bible describes him in, and even Peter declaring he now understands "God accepts from every nation people who fear Him" - how could we say any different? To be accepted before God is the ultimate goal and is that any different from being 'born again'? isn't that what its all about? God accepting or approving of us? Can God accept a person's deeds & faith but stop them at heaven's gates because they were not 'born again' as we modernists require it?

What happens to generations of God-fearing men and women who loved God and their fellow men - who never heard of Jesus? Or do we think that the reach of the Holy Spirit to transform a man is limited to after he has been preached to? The sacrifice of Jesus Christ not only affected every man that was born since Calvary - but rather stretched both forward and backward in time - justifing as many who believed in God - and believed enough that it manifested in good works.

Jesus said He has sheep from other pen that also listen to His voice and that He would gather and make us all one. God reminded Elijah, I still have faithful followers who haven't bowed down to baal - you're not my only 'people'. God has followers all around the globe - in every tribe and nation. The arm of God is not restricted to touch and move and yes save - by our human conceptions of tribe, nation and especially religion.

Joagbaje:
What God saw in the guy was his hunger and desire to seek God. But lacked the knowledge of how. He was acceptable unto God under Judaism , but dispensation has changed. And God has to reach him with the gospel. If he was born again already ,there would no longer be need for salavation.

So Cornelius was acceptable to God until Jesus came? I'll give you a chance to take that back and rephrase. Peter wasn't sent to 'save' Cornelius . . . 
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-720610.96.html#msg8855056

Infact, when God spoke to Peter in the dream He said "do not call unclean what I have made clean" (refering to Cornelius & the other gentiles). And after Peter met with him, he made this ultimate declaration: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right." Meaning God had already accepted Cornelius. Leading him to Peter was to lead him to a greater walk and ultimate revelation of truth. Teaching him about the sacrifice of Christ to me was to bring to glorious fruition what was already started by God in Cornelius. He was already walking with God - now he could know Christ and understand the greatest sacrifice for his sake and accept it and then walk in it - in even greater love & works borne from faith.

The Muslims are religious too . What do you say about their salvation?.

Very simple, I say what the bible says: "Acts 10:34 "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right."

---

wordtalk:
John 3:5 - Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-720610.96.html#msg8856052

wordtalk:
Jesoul,

Thanks for the point you raised. Although I'm not quick to hold to any cemented or particular view, I believe that the issue here is one of being 'saved' or 'born again' in context of the NT - that which we find as foundational in the doctrine of the apostles.

Actually no. The scope of what we're discussing stretches far beyond the NT in both directions of time and circumstance - which is why I brought in the amazonian man who has had no contact with the outside world.

To that end, while we are all making basic statements to reject salvation by works (cf. Eph. 2:9 - "not of works", what I find particularly worrisome is the view that you're pressing - which is, that works (as in Cornelius' case) brings about the said 'saved' or being 'born again'. I may have misread you on that; but if that is exactly what you're summing up, I find that idea indefensible in light of the apostles' meaning of salvation in Christ.

Indeed you have misread me and Enigma - it was just my last post in which I said this:

JeSoul:
  We're all on the same page that 'works' by itself cannot save anyone - you both stated this and I don't think myself or anyone else has said anything to the contrary. I wanted to stress that point. Where we differ is that in those biblical examples 'works' were a product of a 'faith' that was already present - and that their 'works' infact proved their faith - and this is what made them acceptable before God.
As much as we try to seperate the two, WORKS & FAITH are inextricably linked, you cannot have one without the other and be acceptable before God. Likewise we cannot claim one is superior (in the fanciful sense we like to think) to the other because one is dead without the other.

One quick question: Does RELIGION save any man?!?

Aha! You would first have to define what you mean by 'religion'. Then we can properly tackle the rest of your post below.

I would not think that James would promote the idea that 'religion' was sufficient to 'save' any man - not at all. In that same James 1, we find in verse 18 that he already acknowledged the basis of our salvation in Christ - "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures".

However, coming to James 1:27, we cannot grasp the gist of that verse until we ask a basic question: who was James addressing in particular? The answer is in verse 26 - "If any man among you seem to be religious. . ." He was addressing people who were already saved! The verse 27 is not another path to obtaining salvation as separate from verse 18.

So, how do we reconcile these verses? Simple: verse 18 tells us how we are saved; while verse 27 stresses the nature of our works. The nature of our works follows after our having been saved, even as Paul shows in Ephesians 2:9-10

You know I cannot let you off the hook by simply saying James was already addressing a crowd that was 'saved' . 
EDIT: Infact he's in essence saying "Those of you who claim to be religious . . . if you don't do A & B . . . your religion is worthless"

Bottom line is that, I do not find anywhere in the apostles' teaching and doctrine that salvation (on the basis of being born again) is ever obtained by any works of man. NONE. Cornelius' works (however good they were) did not procure his being born again - no matter how religious he might have been.

. . . and no one on this thread is saying that either!!!!! do you not see this my dear brother? Cornelius works is not what is saving him - it is his faith that has resulted in works!!! It is his religion - which God has accepted - that is rooted in a love for God and his fellow man.

Nice posts from Image, 5Star, Wordtalk - and thanks to Enigma & PastorAIO for providing the counter perspective. Image & 5Star, thanks for the detailed reponses and I don't wish to rehash all that Enigma has already said, but for the sake of clarity & so things don't get convoluted, lemme try to keep things simple.

We're all on the same page that 'works' by itself cannot save anyone - you both stated this and I don't think myself or anyone else has said anything to the contrary. I wanted to stress that point. Where we differ is that in those biblical examples 'works' were a product of a 'faith' that was already present - and that their 'works' infact proved their faith - and this is what made them acceptable before God.

Now Image & 5Star & Wordtalk, you all hold that Cornelius' life of good works and fearing God was insufficient for him to be "saved". I would like to ask how you can reconcile that point of view with this:

James 1:27
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

¹ Religion
² that God
³ accepts
⁴ as pure
⁵ and faultless
⁶ to look after orphans, widows, poor
⁷ keep yourself from being corrupted by the world

  Please carefully and soberly reflect on all these powerful descriptors. Cornelius fulfilled all these requirements.[/b]GOD ACCEPTS(approves, regards as righteousness) RELIGION[i](notice it does not say judaism or christianity)[/i] as PURE and FAULTLESS[i](if this doesn't qualify as saved or justified and headed for heaven then I don't know is)[/i] is to look after the poor and powerless.

From the above God [b]accepts (approves, saves, regards as righteous etc) those who do these 'works' that you all are tossing aside as inferior to a audible 'confession' of faith. Or are we saying God will accept their 'works' & 'religion' but not them? The point is anyone who actively & passionately & consistently does these 'works' and keeps themselves from the world - just like Cornelius - already has faith good enough to be accepted by God - who are we to say otherwise? This is not a salvation that is based on works - but rather one that is proven by its works that are a product of faith - there is a monumental difference.

As much as we try to seperate the two, WORKS & FAITH are inextricably linked, you cannot have one without the other and be acceptable before God. Likewise we cannot claim one is superior (in the fanciful sense we like to think) to the other because one is dead without the other.

Jasiel:
Hello moderator, I just posted a topic on self-service and u changed it to 'self service'. Without meaning to sound insulting, may I ask why u did that, and how will people know what I mean. I had to go back thru a lot of threads looking for my post. Thank u

Hi there & sorry for the late response.

Mods do not have the power to change your posts or words within your post. Nairaland does not permit/allow certain words and they automatically get changed when you make a post.

Joagbaje:
cornelius didnt get saved gradually , he was obviously formerly converted to jewish religion and he learnt the piety from it. but that didnt get him saved . even though he loved God, he had to be born again legally

What does it mean to be 'born again legally'? I will insist beyond all resistance that only God knows when a person is 'saved'.  

Everyone's journey to God/Christ is different - we even see this in the bible. Salvation is not an event. It is not linear & we cannot use one universal template to determine every single man's condition or status. 

Infact, when God spoke to Peter in the dream He said "do not call unclean what I have made clean" (refering to Cornelius & the other gentiles). And after Peter met with him, he made this ultimate declaration: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right." Meaning God had already accepted Cornelius. Leading him to Peter was to lead him to a greater walk and ultimate revelation of truth. Teaching him about the sacrifice of Christ to me was to bring to glorious fruition what was already started by God in Cornelius. He was already walking with God - now he could know Christ and understand the greatest sacrifice for his sake and accept it and then walk in it - in even greater love & works borne from faith.

If Cornelius (with his great record of love) had died never having the chance to hear the gospel, are we going to say he was never "born again" or "saved"?

---

Image123:
@JeSoul
i'd need some time to give some 'body' in answering your question on amazon and romans 2. But know though that no man can be justified by keeping the law, and that even no man can keep the law whether it be imprinted on the heart, head or toes.

My brother no problem jare. Take all the time you need & no vex if it reach next week before I can respond .

  And I want you to think very carefully about the implications of the part bolded above^ you will run into a ton of problems with Romans 2:14-16 with a rigid interpretation of that viewpoint. Here's the Contempoary English & amplified versions of the verse:

CEV
14Some people naturally obey the Law's commands, even though they don't have the Law. 15 This proves that the conscience is like a law written in the human heart. And it will show whether we are forgiven or condemned, 16when God appoints Jesus Christ to judge everyone's secret thoughts, just as my message says.

Amplified:
14When Gentiles who have not the [divine] Law do instinctively what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, since they do not have the Law 15 They show that the essential requirements of the Law are written in their hearts and are operating there, with which their consciences (sense of right and wrong) also bear witness; and their [moral] decisions (their arguments of reason, their condemning or approving thoughts) will accuse or perhaps defend and excuse [them] 16 On that day when, as my Gospel proclaims, God by Jesus Christ will judge men in regard to the things which they conceal (their hidden thoughts).

^Frosbel,
Where is the kolanut and palmwine?    see how you have annoyed Super Mukina. She has enough on her plate dealing with crazies all over the forum . . . oya prostrate and serve her the kolanut asap or else

mukina2:
Just so  they say you created a thread to whine

everyone knows the spam bot and how it auto bans people instead of whining about what is not true  you could have simply posted what your ban message read.

this is your ban message:

You have been auto-banned by the antispam bot. You may be unbanned shortly.
Please DO NOT REPOST: your post is still here, just hidden. So sorry!


you were banned because your post was tagged by the bot, you reposted as forsbel1 and got banned again.

Even with the ban message you simply didn't read it but jumped to blame people. smh

Ejo, no vex super Mukina. Na small misitake the guy make ehn. You know not all of us are as super as you now He will show up shortly with kolanut and palmwine to appease you  

  Frosbel,
     I think you owe the muslims and mods an apology . . .

Nuclearsir you have spoken very well.

Frosbel,
  Hmmm . . . you probably posted in the muslim section right? You're a cool dude Frosbel and I vouch beyond doubt for my sister Mukina, she does not ban without good reason.

My advice is that while posting whatever topic you wish, try to do so without being disrespectful or condescending to those of muslim faith, we as christians ought to set the standard by which others emulate - and please ehn leave their section for them ehn. Gracias!

^That said, I'm going to have to move this topic to the NL section soon