spicykev:
As I write av kind of lost interest in almost everytin, a lot has happened to me lately and its looking like y is God allowing this happen to me? Growing up av tried to live right to the best of my ability, I can't place a finger on where I cld hav gone wrong. I dint go to church today just absorbed in my thoughts.Does God really care for me? has my prayers reached him? does he know that.somewhere in Nigeria someone is gradually loosing her mind? does he know me? by this time last year I had everytin working for me but everytin in my life is gradually going down the drain. have u ever felt this way before? or am I having a wrong feeling? am so depressed right now

Yes, I've heard similar thoughts and feelings of abandonment in the midst of tough circumstances. One of the lessons I've learnt so far is that all things work together for the good of those that love God. In fact, if one doesn't face tough situations sometimes, it may be time to ask if that person loves God. Times like these can bring you closer to God and help you shed excess baggage that you don't need in your life. I'll encourage you to find a good believer or minister to pray with you and silence the part of the opposition coming from the enemy. I did that for a sister yesterday. She felt good after the prayers and knew she had been delivered. She even sent a text today declaring and celebrating her deliverance. Please read and meditate on Deut. 4:30-31. If God could not abandon OT folks, He won't abandon us.

May the Lord's hand be upon you to live for Him and fulfill your purpose on earth. Amen. I encourage you to develop some healthy spiritual habits, one of the most important of which is reading your Bible everyday. It may not seem like much is happening, but as time goes on, you'll notice that you're getting nourishment and so staying stronger. One of the things that has helped me personally in Bible study is to read good christian books. Not every minister is for you. As you start reading, you'll find the ministers that God uses to speak to you. Focus more on those ones and see your spiritual life blossom.

eleojo23:
We thank God for the life of these men.
While it is recommended that we listen to them, let us not idolize any of them because they are humans like us. They are not infallible and that's why the Bible remains our sure reference point with the Holy Spirit as the best teacher.
And if you notice, each of these men emphasize a certain truth in the bible and when you bring their messages together you have a balanced christian. So it is not advisable to listen to you pastor alone because he will only emphasize the truth which he has received much light on. The christian life is not only about deliverance from Satan and sicknesses, neither is it only about prosperity, neither is it only about dealing with sin nor any other thing that the preacher emphasizes. It is God's will that we be delivered from the hands of Satan and sin and it also His will that we prosper. So you see that listening to only one person makes you strong in only what that preacher emphasizes.
I believe that God has a purpose for giving each pastor a point of emphasis. He wants each truth to be fully developed so that his children can benefit from these truths. But most Christians fail to see the big picture and that's why there is inter-denominational 'war' and 'my pastor is better than yours' syndrome.
Like I said earlier, as you listen to them don't forget to test what they say with the Word not in the spirit of antagonism but in the spirit of one who is on a quest to lay hold on truth.

I concur.

That's why pastors should encourage their members to listen to other preachers, while staying on guard. Such Christians will likely be better and stronger Christians, which redounds to the benefit of their local church. Insisting on hearing only from one pastor or only those under him is not helpful to the believers. In fact, even the big pastors benefit(ed) from various sources over the years.

vooks:
Image123,
1. One can listen to bits if the sermon is broken down to as many bits and all are recorded on ONE DVD. So preferences have nothing to do with burning several DVDS. Good point though.
2. Buying is never by force as far as I am concerned. And it need not. There is a thirst for the word I hope,it is cashing in on this that I detest. Whenever the government or not-for-profit organisations want to reach out to the masses, they go cheap or free be it condoms or mosquito nets and polio vaccines. Only on NL do I hear that expensive disperses further and wider.
3. What's the difference? You receive a revelation and the first Christian instinct is to share it. You are comfortable sharing it to hundreds for free but you have the urge to charge to take it further?
4. Open source concept is simple; the software is free but the user pays for distributing it. Just charge COST for the messages which is next to nil. Why should you copy profiteers? Imagine Peter discovering that guys are actually willing to pay him so he can lay hands on them. Would he be justified in accepting their payments?

You're putting words in people's mouth. Nobody said expensive disperses farther and wider. There's a big difference between non-free and expensive.

Paying for healing and paying for a message on CD are miles apart. The pastor is not selling his gift.

And you need to ask Aid workers to tell you about the challenges they face with polio vaccines and other forms of assistance. In several places, like Northern Nigeria, they're rejected by the people they're intended for, as the people are fed with one conspiracy story or another. People that willingly purchase medicines or take their kids to clinics would suddenly stay away from Aid workers because they hear that the vaccines are a stealth effort to sterilize them! In East Africa, nutritious baby formula was branded as poor people's food and nobody wanted to collect it, to avoid the stigma. That's not say that humanitarian work should cease. Only that you're not presenting the full picture. And if Aid workers find a more effective way, they'd probably explore it. I was talking the other day with a US government official who said US aid to Africa was about (free) food and medicines while in Eastern Europe, it was about legal and institutional structures for economic development. Years later, he found on his recent visit that places like Albania were thriving while Africa is still languishing. So, now he's spearheading a different form of Aid.

Your emphasis on online distribution shows you're not familiar at all with the economy and state of technology in Africa. Simply put, it'll cost the recipients more to download long messages than to purchase or share CDs. And more time-consuming too. Time is money! Perhaps, you're limiting that option to the richer countries.

We can find ways of subsidizing the cost of CDs without making them free for all. Because they cost real money to produce, not just 5 cents for an empty CD.

vooks:
Here is what I have observed
1. Unnecessary splitting of messages into several DVDS to make a 'series'. A 2 hour sermon that can comfortably sit on a dvd is split into 40 minutes bits,a set of 3 DVDS sold of course at the price of 3.

2. Most of the DVDS are bought by people who watched the pastor live. These are the same members who support ministry and as such there is no need to profit from them

3. Charging for DVDS is one step away from charging for Live sermons

4. Selling merchandise is always restrictive;fewer benefit. Don't tell me that 'mature' believers know the value of the message exceeds the cost

Personally, I favor the open source approach like Linux. I can download at. My expense a Hirens Boot CD and burn it but ordering a CD costs me. In short, free resources but believers pay the small cost of distribution.

Cc
NLMediator
Image123
esere826

I do not support excessive costs of messages, whether by splitting them or placing a high price. However, sometimes messages are better broken into smaller bits for easy digestion.

That fewer benefit is not sufficient reason to distribute the CDs freely and see even much fewer benefit. There could be a system for helping those who cannot afford the messages, including maintaining a library, tape lending service, or fund dedicated to that purpose with contributions from rich members.

These days when Joel Osteen writes a book, he sends free copies to members. It does not stop him from selling to others. Or to members who want additional copies for whatever purpose.

flourishG:
your personal experience is not God truth in da word n all i can say is u sure hv a big problem and only God can help u.

Starting the new year with insults already? Not even a modicum of self-restraint? And you're busy bothering yourself about who needs help?

^^^
I don't appreciate a conflation of issues in discussions. Doing charity or social services is not part of this discussion. Let's stay focused.

1. Do you believe that those who translate and publish a version of the Bible should sell it or should give all the copies away for free?

2. Are you suggesting that Catholic priests who write books do not sell those books? Hint: they do.

3. I have good friends who are Catholic priests and good friends who are pastors. On average, the catholic priests enjoy a higher quality of life. Nice car. Nice residence. Some change in pocket. And I'm not talking of those who are fairly wealthy, owning a house or investment, as those may be considered an aberration. Nor am I mentioning the bishops that built or maintained palaces for themselves as official residences.

When was the last time you saw a catholic priest jumping a molue?

I've listened to all of them in person, with the exception of Pastor Kumuyi (who I've listened to or read) and Rev. Areogun (who I've not heard of until now) I endorse your list. These are men God has used mightily to impact our generation. I'd add George Adegboye of Rhema Chapel. He's a walking Bible.

Just saw now that I got a number of nice wishes. Thanks, everyone. I pray and declare that this year, 2015, will be our best year yet! Amen.

plaetton:
Pentecostalism is largely based on the sin and crime of Simony.
In cannon law, simony is perhaps the greatest crime one can commit against the body of Christ.

By selling things that are supposed to confer spiritual benefits, these Pentecostal harlots are crucifying Jesus over and over every single hour.
Poor Jesus.
I really feel his pains.

Pentecostalism in Nigeria is nothing short of medieval Churchianity.
A reenactment of negative history.

What makes you think it is limited to Pentecostalism in Nigeria? And are you suggesting that non-Pentecostal groups, e.g. Catholics, do not charge for materials produced by their ministers? You have the wrong definition or application of simony.

vooks:
I have always wondered why pastas resist embracing technology such as Youtube and they disseminate sermons freely.
DVDs too. I buy the blanks at around ten to the USD. Throw in the burning and the label usually done by volunteers and church equipments. A DVD costs far less than USD 0.5. Why then do we have DVDs, messages especially series going for up to USD 50?

Are they not guilty of presenting the gospel 'with charge'?

1 Corinthians 9:18 King James Version (KJV)
18 What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.

I support the sale of the tapes primarily because it is more likely to elicit listenership. It is basic human nature that people do not properly value what they get free of charge. I know an RCCG pastor who places CDs for free distribution at an African grocery store. I think I picked one or two copies but never listened to them. These days, I don't bother picking any even when I see them lying there. Chances are higher, though not 100%, that I'd have listened if I paid for it.

Selling a CD is not selling the gospel nor is it making merchandise of people. If that were the case, nobody should sell the Bible even for a small profit. Paul was talking about individuals making money. CD sales go to the ministry and the money used to support activities of the church including other costs of the CD that you omitted, such as salaries for those that produce and distribute the CDs, if they're not volunteers. Not to mention the cost of maintaining the buildings, which is not always fully covered by offerings.

Even if the money goes to the individual pastor, eg a pastor that's just starting his work, I don't think its wrong. It costs money and time to buy resources that help in studying for the message. Without compensation, the quality of the message on CDs is likely to suffer as little investment is made. The pastor would have to spend more time at a secular job to pay his bills. I'd prefer richer messages that are paid for than free watery messages that are less meaningful.

My personal beef is only with pastors or ministries that charge excessively for the materials. I saw a Branch of a Nigerian church here selling a DVD for $20. Same copy that came from Nigeria and obviously sells for far less there. In fact, I was surprised to see you could get CDs for about $1 equivalent in Nigeria, though I'm not sure of the price of DVDs there. High price defeats the purpose of getting the people feed on the message and grow spiritually.

chronique:
Except the lawyer would only be taking up cases of people who have been cheated/unjustly dealt with and their cases are genuine. Taking up cases from clients like Farouk Lawan,Tinubu and their likes,cannot make his boast of being a "true born again". What that means is that,if you must make heaven,do not defend criminals and thieves.

I believe attorneys-general who are Christians or people of integrity should not defend thieving or criminal governors, etc. Their real client is the people, not the government.

A (Christian) lawyer in private practice can legitimately defend a criminal, including one who confessed the crime to him because the defense serves some good purpose:

1) to ask for mitigation. The law often provides a range of sentences and the lawyer can argue for leniency.
2) because committing an act is not the same as committing the crime. A client may have killed his wife's lover in the heat of passion. He may not have committed murder, but perhaps manslaughter. In some cases of say taking an item, it may be that it does not rise to an offense as defined by the applicable statute. A lawyer helps protect the client in such circumstance.
3) to make the prosecution prove its case. Our system of justice is based on the notion that he who alleges must prove. If the prosecution is not made to prove its case when somebody is guilty, we run the risk that there'd be cases when the prosecution would not prove its case when somebody is innocent and yet the innocent is convicted. Proper defense of the guilty eventually protects the innocent.

Of course, some lawyers are overzealous and are even excited to defend and protect evil people. A Christian lawyer should let the Holy Spirit guide him.

ruggedlaw:
Most people really need to get at least a little education on the particular issue they need to confront before displaying their ignorance to the whole world. In Nigeria, when you are called to bar you automatically qualify to practice BOTH as a barrister AND a solicitor. The implication is that you can choose either to practice as a barrister and/or as a solicitor. To the uninitiated, the barrister is the advocate that represents you in court, while the solicitor is the one that drafts your legal documents, e.g land agreements. I will not bore you with the nuances, but I have practiced for 14yrs now WITHOUT ever going to court.......I do not know your definition of being born again, but I believe in my heart that right now if the trumpet sounds, I shall be raptured.....education education education!

I agree with your overall sentiment that one can be a successful lawyer without resorting to lying. I disagree with your insinuation that being a solicitor insulates one from the temptation to lie. Solicitors, whether in-house counsel or external solicitors, are often faced with situations where they are asked to do something not exactly truthful to move the transaction forward – doctoring documents, changing dates, fabricating facts, etc. I know a friend who quit (or was fired, if you may, from) a high profile company secretary position in Nigeria because she wouldn’t succumb to illegal acts being suggested by the higher-ups.

That said, I think the major impediment to successful legal practice by a Christian in Nigeria is the corrupt court process and corruption in the general environment. Lawyers face undue pressure to bribe judges, even by their own clients. Otherwise, their cases either do not proceed or fail completely. When I recounted a story told me by a lawyer friend in Nigeria this year, the people I was talking to here were looking in disbelief! And these are people born to Nigerian parents here!

Congratulations on 14 years of practice! May the Lord continue to supply the strength and wisdom to prevail.

WinsomeX:

The bolded is called Christian science. More appropriately it is occultism and it has no basis in the holy scriptures. You are the one that needs some enlightening man.

I'm not surprised you do not know any better. A disciple is not above his teacher. Since your teachers are this ignorant, one cannot expect anything dramatically different. What you bolded contains 2 different concepts. One is Christian Science and the other is Word of Faith. That you cannot make the distinction is part of the reason I tell you you're not realy qualified to discuss WOF. What surprised me is that a supposedly knowledgeable minister would conflate the two and as a result misinform and mislead the hearers. Either he is ignorant or he knows the truth but chose the path of deceit. It's hard to debate with those who cannot come to the discussion table with an honest heart.

WinsomeX:
continue 1

Now what happened, you’ve probably heard of Christian Science, but Mary Baker Eddy claimed that she was physically healed by Phineas Quimby, she really wasn’t, she was a sickly woman most all of her life.  But she thought she was physically healed by Quimby and she was so impressed by his teachings that she took his doctrines and developed them a bit further and from that formed what is today known as Christian Science.  And Christian Science is very poorly named, by the way.  Because it’s not Christian and it’s not scientific, kind of like Grape Nuts, you know, they’re not grape and they’re not nuts.  Christian Science is neither Christian, nor is it scientific, but there are a lot of Christian Science overtones in the Word of Faith Movement.  One of which is the denial of physical symptoms when it comes to sickness and disease.  If you have a friend or a family member who is in this Movement, you might notice that when they get sick, they deny that they’re sick.  You know, maybe they’ve got a cold, their eyes are watering, their nose is running, they’re sneezing, they’re congested, the whole nine yards, but you say something to them about it, “Oh no, no, no, I’m not sick.  I won’t confess that.”  Well that’s Christian Science that has just been wrapped in some Christian terminology.

”

How do people with this high level of ignorance get selected to speak at high profile conferences? So this guy is telling us he does not know the difference between refusing to confess what you feel and denying that such feeling exists in the first place? Lord, have mercy! And some people sat down for hours listening to this crap?

WinsomeX:
continued 6
This from Kenneth Copeland.  Now Kenneth Copeland, and this is a prophecy, according to Kenneth Copeland Jesus said this to him.  “Don’t be disturbed when people accuse you of thinking you’re a God, they crucified me for claiming that I was God, but I didn’t claim I was God. I just claimed that I walked with Him and He was in me, hallelujah, that’s what you’re doing.”  Unbelievable.  Jesus most certainly did claim to be God.  “Before Abraham was, I am.  If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father.  I and the Father are one.”  Jesus most certainly did claim to be God. And any Jesus he’s preaching who did not claim to be God, is not the Jesus of the Bible.  If they preach a different Jesus, they preach a different gospel.
This from Copeland.  “And I say this with all respect so it don’t upset you too bad, but I say it anyway: When I read in the Bible where He says, ‘I am,’ I just smile and I say, ‘I am, too.’”
Watch this video clip from Larry Huch and Paula White. And, gentlemen, if you’re in the sound booth, this video has a little bit lower level of audio, if you could just turn this up just a little for this one clip.
PAULA:    We really begin to understand that, that when Jesus Christ paid the price, the first thing that happened after He said it is finished is the veil was rent from top to bottom, signifying that no man could do that, but the price that was paid was there’s now no separation, so that we have direct access in the Holy of Holies. We understand according to Hebrews that Jesus is our High Priest and He’s the first of many brethren, which means I now come into a priestly anointing.  So I now can walk…
LARRY:  Say that again, because they don’t get it.
PAULA:  I now come into a priestly anointing…
LARRY:  Jesus is not the only begotten Son of God, he is not.  I’m a son of God.
PAULA:  He’s the firstfruit.
LARRY:  He’s the firstfruit, He’s the firstborn of many.  But Jesus is not the only begotten Son of God.
JUSTIN:  Can you believe that?  Flat out denying that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God.  Have they read John 3:16?  Friends, those of us who are saved, who have been regenerated by God’s Holy Spirit, we are children of God by adoption.  There’s only one who is begotten and His name is Jesus.
Watch this video clip from Victoria Osteen. This is Joel Osteen’s wife and she is leading a communion service at their quote/unquote church which is problematic in and of itself, but that’s another issue.  And she actually starts off pretty good, but it goes downhill real quickly. Watch this from Victoria Osteen.
VICTORIA  OSTEEN:  You see, Jesus walked this earth in a human body.  He was man, He was God made flesh. The Bible says He was tempted and tried in every way, just like we are, but He overcame.  See, Jesus was man until God touched him and put the Spirit of the living God on the inside of him. And that’s encouraging today.
JUSTIN:  No, that’s heretical today.  Jesus was just a man, just a man until God touched Him, put a Spirit on the inside of him, just a man.  We are just men, just women and so when we get saved supposedly, we are just as much an incarnation as was Jesus of Nazareth.
Wealth, health, speak things into existence, it’s a different gospel. They’ve got a different God, they’ve got a different Jesus, they’ve got a different gospel.  Dear friends, it’s not enough, okay this is going to sound heretical in and of itself, but bear with me…it’s not enough to believe in Jesus, it’s not enough to believe in Jesus…you’ve got to believe in the right Jesus.  Mormons believe in Jesus.  Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in Jesus.  Muslims believe in Jesus.  You’ve got to believe in the right Jesus.  You’ve got to believe in the Jesus of the Bible.
I want us briefly to look at the spiritual death of Jesus. This is a fundamental teaching that all of the faith preachers teach. They teach that Jesus’ death on the cross was not enough to pay for sins, not enough. That when Jesus died on the cross, the work of the atonement had just begun. And for time’s sake, I’ve got multiple, multiple videos of this, but time’s sake I’m not going to get into them.  But this is something that they all teach.  They teach that when Jesus died on the cross, He then went to hell, suffered, was tormented in hell, died spiritually, and ceased to be God.  And then Jesus had to be reborn.  Jesus had to get saved.  And they say that that is where the real atonement for our sins took place, not on the cross but down in hell. And they all teach this.  Even Joel Osteen has taught this.  Joyce Meyer teaches this.  Benny Hinn, Creflo Dollar, all of them, Kenneth Copeland…I mean, run the gamut, they all teach it.  Bill Johnson, Bill Johnson in Redding, California, he’s one of the leaders, movers and shakers of the New Apostolic Reformation Movement.  This is kind of an offshoot of the Word/Faith Movement, it’s everything that Word of Faith is, even worse, they even have more emphasis on miracles and signs and wonders and prophetic utterances, and modern day Apostles and things like this. Bill Johnson is a wolf.  He is a false teacher.  Bill Johnson also teaches this. This is…they all do, they all do.  And they use the support Jesus’ words from the cross.  “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?”  Probably even shouldn’t get into this because it’s too much to unpack in ten or fifteen minutes. But this is where this comes from.  It’s not just Word of Faith and the NAR(?), it’s also…this is commonly held by many evangelicals, that Jesus died spiritually and when He was on the cross He was separated from God the Father.  Be very careful with that.
Well Jesus is quoting Psalm chapter 22 verse 1, okay?  So if He’s quoting Scripture, He’s applying not only that verse to Himself but the context of the passage to Himself.  Okay?  We don’t take verses of Scripture out of their proper context.  Leave them in the context.  And of all people who would know this, it would be of course Christ.  So let’s look down a little bit further at the fuller context, Psalm 22, the Psalmist David continues, “But be Thou not far from Me, O Lord, for He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted, neither has He hid His face from Him.  But when He cried unto Him, He heard.
Dear friends, when it comes to the atonement, it’s important that we not say too little, it’s important also that we not say too much. There’s a certain mystery there that we’ll never fully understand this side of heaven.  Was the agony of the cross the flagellation?  Yes.   The thirst?  Yes.  The nails?  Yes.  All of those things. It was more than that.  It was the righteous wrath of God being poured out on the Son.  In Jesus, God the Son fully drank in all of God’s wrath. Absolutely.  But it was not a spiritual death.    Dear Friends, if Jesus died spiritually, then that means He ceased to be God because what is God?  God is Spirit and He must be worshiped in Spirit and in truth.  So if Jesus died spiritually, then He ceased to be God.  And if Jesus ceased to be God even for an instant, He never was God to begin with because God cannot cease to being God.  Are there things that God cannot do?  Yes, there are.  God cannot sin.  He cannot lie.  God cannot deny Himself.  God cannot cease being God.  So if there’s ever a time when Jesus was not God, then He never was God to begin with.

Let me respond to a few of the things discussed.

1. Jesus is not the only begotten of the Father. The speaker quotes from John 3:16. But the Word of God di not end there. After Jesus rose from the dead, He made us also begotten of the Father. From the time of resurrection of Jesus, you never hear the Bible refer to Him as the only begotten of the Father. Instead, He's called the FIRST begotten of the Father or the first born among many brethren - US. The change in terminology must mean something, doesn't it?

2. Jesus as God on Earth. I agree with Victoria Osteen there that Jesus lived on earth as a human being. He said it Himself that the Spirit of God has anointed Him to preach, etc. Peter said 'how God anointed Jesus . . . .' God does not need anointing. Jesus needed it. Because he operated as man empowered by the Holy Ghost. He lives as an example that as human beings, we have no excuse for not living a godly and impactful life. Because He accomplished the same. If He had lived as God, it would be impossible for us to try to follow His standards and footsteps.

3. Spiritual death. I commend the speaker for noting that it's not only WOF that teaches that Jesus died spiritually. Evangleicals do too. Billy Graham is a prominent evangelical that does, although he may not go as far as adding the element of fighting the devil in hell. The confusion seems to be centered around the meaning of spiritual death. Spiritual death simply means to be separated from God. That's what happened to Adam when he sinned and God kicked him out of Eden. He died as God told him, but not physically immediately. The immediate death was spiritual. Jesus hinted, if not stated, that God had forsaken Him at the cross. God forsook Him because, as Habakkuk tells us, God is of purer eyes than to behold iniquity. At the cross, Jesus bore our sins. God could not behold the sin. That's the separation that people call spritual death. I don't know what people quarrel with, regarding that.

WinsomeX:


And where in that quote of mine did I say anything about people praying and repenting? What exactly is your point? You cannot comprehend a fact that God is sovereign enough to say a thing that even prayer cannot change? And I gave you a case of David and you do as if you did not see that?

At the mouth of two or more witnesses a matter is confirmed: Judas and Esau repented but their case was sealed by God. Do these examples help you?

Neither Judas nor Esau is an example of repentance to God. Besides, both occupied unique positions that do not apply to the regular person. There could only be one betrayer of Jesus. Try again.

WinsomeX:


And why didn't God's mercy come on David who also mourned and pleaded with God in prayer for Bathsheba's child? The point remains that it is God who speaks a word and that word comes to pass and not how much we pray or we do not pray. The two scenarios, Hezekiah and David, shows God operating in his sovereignty and it is his sovereignty I speak of when I said if God says he will do a thing he will do and not even prayers can avert it.

I hope you understand the concept the sovereignty of God because I know many do not and they despise it to their own detriment.

Youre dancing palongo, my friend! Nobody is fooled by your antics.

When Jonah was mentioned, you said it was conditional. You didn't mention God's sovereignty. When Hezekiah was mentioned and you couldn't find a condition, you run to sovereignty. No matter how you slice it, the fact remains that an accurate prophecy did not come to pass. Which makes mincemeat of your claim that every true prophecy must come to pass. Why didn't you qualify your unequivocal assertion from the start: E.g., every true prophecy must come to pass unless God in His sovereignty intervenes. We would not have had this long argument. And you would not have disagreed with me about the bombed building, because all you wuld have said would be that the prayers would only work if it's in the sovereignty of God. Then, I'd have left it, knowing that no prayer gets answered outside the sovereign will of God.

Candour:


And God also sent the same Isaiah back within a matter of hours to deliver a counter message because Hezekiah wept and begged for mercy.

It would have been a different thing if Hezekiah ignored the prophecy and still didn't die according to Isaiah's declaration.

The God who cannot be challenged gave a word and decided to change it for mercy sake. I think it's God we should take issues up with, not Isaiah. He didn't deliver an inaccurate message.

God alone knows what he wanted to achieve by giving Hezekiah a message that made the king fall on his knees in pleas and prayer then rescind the decision.

Correct that Isaiah did not deliver an inaccurate message. But isn't that the bone of contention? I said that a prophet can make a true prophecy, people would pray and the prophecy is averted. Our brothers here challenged it, prompting the Hezekiah example. Let's not lose sight of the real point here. The claim that one of the criteria for determining a true prophet is that the prophecy must always come to pass is NOT true according to Scripture. Any other thing na jara.

WinsomeX:

Your conclusion here is not what Sammied was pointing my attention to. I had made a comment that not even prayer could avert God's position on a matter and he suggests the Hezekiah prayer and I in turn made it clear that as good as that prayer sounded, it was God's word again that reversed the initial pronouncement that is the issue and not prayers. A lot of people pray about things and still don't change God's position on a matter: case in point, David's child with Bathsheba. David mourned like Hezekiah but God was not moved.
For you to use this to justify your faulty position of a mistaken or wrong prophet can still be a true prophet is criminal to say the least. Obviously the text shows that the same God who spoke of Hezekiah death, spoke again to reverse it. Maybe you should have accused God of being the false one here and not Isaiah seeing he is the one speaking, while Isaiah was a mere spokeman.
You would require a lot more effort to debunk the Cessationists position that true prophets are always 100% accurate and to show that your wrong prophets are not false prophets after all.

No. What s criminal is your attempt to change the WOrd of God. Revelations warned against that.

You said 2 things:

1. Prayer does not avert prophecy.

2. Whatever a prophet says must come to pass; otherwise the person is a false prophet.

Hezekiah's case clearly debunked #2.

Hezekiah's case also debunked #1 because we know it's his prayers that God answered and changed His mind. If it was not Hezekiah's payer that moved God, what did? His sovereignty and Word were present all along before the prophet went there, during the visit and after the visit. The only new variable was Hezekiah's prayer. Yet, you want to throw that out of the way and attribute everything to God's sovereignty.

Even if it's God's sovereignty that changed it, fact remains that the prophecy did not come to pass. Which should make Isaiah a false prophet by your criteria. Simple as ABC.

That people pray and some things do not change is not a reason to reject the cases where prayers changed things. There are many barren women that stay without children, even after prayers. But it was Hannah's prayer that gave herSamuel. To discount it and claim it' all about God's sovereignty is to lie against God's Word.

Saying that God changed His mind and so the prophet is not to blame is infantile. The whole idea of prophecy means that it is God speaking. The prophet is simply an agent. God can always change what He asked a prophet to prophesy. That's the bone of contention. And you have no coherent answer.

Now, I agree with you that it does not mean that a prophet's message may not be false. That God changed His words in one prophecy does not mean that He's the One that spoke in another instance where He never spoke. But to use one to cancel the other will not wash. I used the bombed building example as one of the points against your criteria. I never claimed it addressed everything. Your attempt to debunk it failed woefully.

And you're working too hard to get yourself out of a trap of your own making. Next time, stick with the Word. As I always do!

WinsomeX:

Isaiah 55:10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater: 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
Hezekiah lived not because he prayed but because the One who gave a word at first, spoke again. There are many people who pray and still end up not changing God's mind on an issue. We must be careful to allow God remain as God and attribute the sovereignty that's due to him totally and not detract from it even through very noble exercises as prayers. This is what I meant by prayer not averting Gods pronouncement.

You mean you cannot see the contradiction in your position? You said if God speaks through a prophet, it must happen. In Hezekiah's case, it did not happen. Now, you pull a new card: sovereignty!

Anyway, your position has been thoroughly debunked. A prophecy, though true, may not come to pass. Under your criteria, that makes the prophet a false prophet. Under the Bible, as Hezekiah's case demonstrates, it does not. I'll go with the Bible.

vooks:

Tithing is not condemned in the NT nor is it invoked for the MOST OBVIOUS purpose namely supporting ministry. Isn't this obvious? Just like Sabbath. We have believers meeting on FIrst Day and not Sabbath so much that Paul asks them to bring the gifts during these meetings. That's enough to tell you nobody cares about Sabbath keeping no more after Pentecost


OT is clear. You prophesy, it comes to pass but you mislead and you are to be ignored. You prophesy and it fails to come to pass, you are false and should be stoned. We don't stone but the principle remains; you are false


Once again, I don't know who Jesus called and who He didn't. The reason is callings are rather private. Look at Paul. Since I was not there, I can only judge by what is evident namely the FRUIT of their 'calling' namely prophecies and teachings. Do you have a manual or checklist for confirming 'calling'? I sure would be interested in going through it with a fine tooth comb


YOu are now blaspheming by telling us that God goes out of His way to reveal to his servants things He has no intention of executing. What's the point? How then were the OT prophets judged if they could flash out Jonah card?


In short, drop semantics to 'protect' the false charlatans in your crowd. False prophecies & teachings by 'true' or 'false' prophets/teachers are dangerous. Call them carnal,fallen,backslidden prophets or any other English word you can cook but at least WARN your flock against these crooks.

PS:was Baalam a true or false prophet?

1. You're still ignoring the threshold question: is the OT applicable to the christian? If yes, when does the OT apply and when does it not apply? On what principled ground can you reject First fruits but support using criteria outlined in the OT for prophets?

2. I'm not VERY interested in Balaam or OT prophets, when we're discussing who's true or false. In the NT, one can be true who does not meet your criteria ALL the time. And one can be false who APPEARS to meet them when you look at outward factors.

3. Certainly, callings are privately ascertained. But that does not mean that we cannot discuss callings. Ok, you determine a false prophet by your criteria. How do you determine who qualified or qualifies as a false apostle, false teacher or false evangelist? If they plant a church in the wrong place, teach something you disagree with, win fewer souls than you expect?

4. Flashing the Jonah card. As a brother already pointed out to us, I guess God was lying when he sent a prophet to Hezekiah. By your stand, God sent his prophet on a foolish errand He never intended to execute. In fact, He never added any years to Hezekiah because there was no decree that he was going to die. Right?

5. In a nutshell, while I like the OT criteria, I do not believe it applies as a rule governing christians. I believe that God can use somebody to prophesy whose life is not completely in order and who may have a sin or two in their lives. God looks at His call and the righteousness of Jesus. Even in the OT, didn't Saul prophesy at a point when he was not right with God? 1 Sam. 19. Yes, he was prophesying while trying to kill David! I guess they couldn't find enough stones to stone him then.

sammied:

The above highlighted with blue is a very big lie.....am amazed someone who claim to understand scriptures can make such bogus statement. What do you say to 2nd kings20:1- 11.
Is there any condition there?...God clearly sent Isaiah...God said hezekiah will SURELY die...and the prophet deliver the WORD and left....the rest of the story is there.....
May God help his people

Great observation, my brother! May God really help us. What I've observed in NL is that people just want to re-write scriptures to fit their wishes and desires. We may not like how people are abusing spiritual gifts. But that does not give us the right to seek to correct it by going against the clear words of Scripture.

WinsomeX:
I want to state again that to avoid unhealthy back and forth, my response to you here will be once.
The cessationists position is that the office of an apostle and a prophet has ceased. I agree with this position too. However, my little deviation from the cessationists will make me a continutionist in their eye but I am not bothered by that. I remain faithful to what I see as truths of scriptures. While I believe the office of prophets and apostles have ceased, I believe that God can bring a prophetic word through anyone in the church. This does not make the person a prophet in the strict sense of the word. It is this sort of prophecy that must be judged by the three criteria enumerated in the first post of the summary you are responding to. This is the reason I earlier gave an example of the British preacher and his prophecy, even though he was not charismatic. From my observation in the church, most of those who claim to be prophets today do not stand the test of doctrinal orthodoxy, accuracy and character. It would have been better if they share the Cessationists position that prophets have ceased today, while at the same subjecting all prophecy to test.
So now you will agree to distinctions in the bible only on matter of prophecy but discard the distinction on tithes. Let me help you understand why the distinction on tithe remain valid: because tithes are simply rituals of the law. What Moses enumerated in Deuteronomy 18 to test for a true prophet are biblical principles that are unchanging. The same way Paul referred to another Mosaic principle of not muzzling the ox that thresh the wheat. The point is simple: a man is provided for from his place of work. So also the principle of testing the accuracy and doctrinal orthodoxy of prophets. It is a principle that runs through scripture. That is what Paul meant by not despising prophecy but rather prove it in 1 Thess 5.
And as vooks has pointed out, the spirit of the prophet being subject to a prophet is NOT justification for erroneous prophecy. It is simply saying that Charismaticism should not be synonymous with chaos, as John MacArthur had shown in an earlier book in the 90s.
Now you are sounding like a true Charismatic. Can you provide one scripture that says a false prophet is one not called by God? I notice you refer, in a latter post, to Matthew 7 to justify this; Jesus saying I knew you not, implying I didn't call you. Let me provide you information:
Every child of God in the NT has a call to ministry. For example, we are called to do the work of an evangelist. We all must be able to teach, having studied the word and rightly divided it. And if need be, we all must be able to Pastor a flock of God's people. It might please God to lead a few to a dedicated ministry of this but all of us are called.
The concept of a special call to ministry outside being called saints is one that is found in the OT but popularized by WoF ministers in their bid to lend legitimacy to what, most of the time, turns out to be means to defraud God's people.
When Jesus spoke of "knowing", he was speaking of an intimacy that leads to spiritual fruits in Christians and not a call to ministry.
Again as vooks has shown you, Jonah case was still an accurate prophecy. Whatever personal issues Jonah had with it notwistanding.
Now, if God says a building will be bombed, that building will be bombed and no prayer will avert it. What could avert a prophecy is if the prophecy came with condition as that of Jonah did. It would be good that you begin to see God as God and not that effeminate weakling that WoF people have turned him into. God is still God and his words will not return to him void but accomplish what he has sent it to do. God is not our errand boy and cannot be kicked around even by the most "powerful" of prayers.
I believe that many have issues with those three sound and scriptural criteria to determine true and false prophets because when adhered to it will ultimately render most of the so called prophets and their prophecies false today.
Like I said in the beginning, there are no prophets today. Period. Those who call themselves prophets and come under careful scrutiny always come short in some way and end up being false prophets. The safe line for me to anyone who says he has a prophecy from God to state it thus: I believe the Lord has impressed so and so upon my heart and I trust God that it will come to pass. If it does, he has given a true prophecy but it doesn't make him a prophet. If it fails, he has spoken from his imagination and no one can call him a false prophet because he has not stated authoritatively that he is speaking a thus says God. He has spoken only by faith. A true prophet will speak a word from God or he is God's mouth piece. There are no such people on earth today. The last of them died when the apostle of the Lamb died and after the canon of scriptures were complete.
The Scriptures, the bible, is all the Sure Word of Prophecy we need. Any other today is not a sure word of prophecy and the one speaking it is not a prophet.
I shall be presenting the summary of the last presentation by Phil Johnson next.

I appreciate your making your position clearer on prophets and prophecies. Inconsistencies remain as I will show below but your position is less muddled now.
1. First off, your accusation on tithing is invalid as you simply do not know my position on tithes. You’ve never heard me defend tithing here. I prefer not to engage in fruitless tithe discussions here. I only pointed it here to somebody that takes a position on that and is taking an inconsistent one now.
2. Your claim that tithing is ritual while your prophecy standards are eternal gave me a chuckle for a number of reasons. For one, when tithing advocates call tithing an eternal principle, the opponents reject it. Now, you’re borrowing their argument and expecting others to accept it! Second, interesting that you’re classifying the law into ceremonial laws and non-ceremonial laws. For eons, you and your cohorts have rejected any sort of classification of the law. You even claimed erroneously that Nigerian law is not classified. That all laws have been dispensed with, not just ritual laws. All of a sudden when it suits you, you go into the law to find something binding on Christians!!
3. Your ‘muzzle the ox’ analogy does not apply. Paul was writing scriptures and borrowed from the OT. Now that the canon is complete, we can’t go to the OT to pull out a principle unless we can see it supported in the NT. Otherwise, you should support first fruits. It’s in the OT but many of you reject it because when it is mentioned in the NT, it’s not about money. Yet, you want to impose standards from OT that are not even mentioned in the NT. And claim Paul is your example!?!
4. Your claim that nobody is called into special ministry and all Christians are called into ministry is false. Paul said in Ephesians 4 that God gave some apostles, prophets, etc. He did not give it to every Christian. Because as Paul explains there, these ministry offices are to help Christians mature and be of service to God. In Romans 1:1, Paul said that he was called to be an apostle. A few verses below, Paul said in Romans 1:7 that people are called to be saints. He made the distinction right there.
5. I know some of you would want to create an image of a masculine God that never ‘apologizes’ instead of an effeminate God, as you say. There is one man in the Bible who understood God more than any other person. It was David. When Prophet Nathan came and told him what was wrong and prophesied that the baby would die, David was obviously familiar with your standards for judging prophets and your non-effeminate God. But what did he do? He still went ahead to pray to God. Because he knows the God he serves is a merciful God. That the prayer was not answered does not change the understanding he had of God. Nowhere in the Bible is David condemned for seeking to change prophetic outcome, disqualify a prophet, or make God effeminate because of that prayer. You’re free to have any image of God that suits you, but I’d rather serve the God of David.
6. Please point to me the condition in Jonah’s prophecy. Chapter and verse, please.
7. The spirits of the prophets being subject to the prophets refers to chaos alright, but there is no indication it is limited to that. If something is subject to you, it is under your control. It means you can direct how it functions. Otherwise, it was never under your control. And Paul would be lying by saying so.
8. Funny enough, you see that scripture as referring to charismatic chaos. Yet, you believe prophets do not exist today. Which means that particular scripture has ceased and thus cannot be referring to Charismatics who exist today. See the inconsistency?.
9. The three standards you mention are standards for judging prophets, not prophecies. Yet, you apply them when you believe there are no prophets. To use a popular chef example we’ve seen here, if there’s a standard for judging who’s a qualified chef, it does not mean that you should automatically use it to judge good cooking. Cooking and being a chef are not the same thing. So, you have to make up your mind. If there are prophets, you look for standards to judge them. If there are not prophets, you cannot judge them by inapplicable standards.
10. You keep on latching on to Peter and the sure word of prophecy. For the umpteenth time, Pater said the Word is a MORE sure Word. Not a sure word as you claim. Peter understood there are other sure words. In fact, the transfiguration experience he was describing was a sure word. Peter knew it was true. He just didn’t want us to depend on other sure words at the expense or in competition with the MORE sure word. Your’re simply adding to or subtracting from scriptures.
11. You and the cessationists have one thing in common. They claim that gifts have ceased without citing ONE scripture that says so. You reject some of their positions, based on made-up positions, without citing one scripture that supports you EXACTLY. It’s just your interpretation and conjecture.

I don't think back and forth is inherently unhealthy. It's our choice. And even one-off responses can be unhealthy too.

nlMediator:


1. Your (and the cessationist) position is not clear. Do you believe that the office of the prophet has ceased or not? If yes, we need not bother about judging it. So, let us know if you believe people still have the gift of foretelling and that being a prophet is not only about forth telling. Seems to me like you guys want to have it both ways.

2. The criteria you outlined for validity of prophecy is from the OT. The NT had no such criteria. What the NT says is that the spirit of prophets is subject to the prophets. That means, among other things, that a prophet can say the wrong thing deliberately or mistakenly. Neither makes him a false prophet.

3. Being a false or true prophet is primarily about calling. False prophets are those that were never called by God into that office. Even if all their predictions are true, they're still false. True prophets are those that have a genuine calling. Their mistakes do not invalidate their call. Because the gifts and callings of God are without repentance.

4. The criteria outlined for judging prophecy by the cessationists seem to leave no room for divine intervention. God can change an outcome He asked somebody to prophesy about, as He did with Jonah. If a prophet says a building will not be bombed and the building gets bombed, it may well be proof that God did not speak through the person claiming to be a prophet. But if God says a building will be bombed, people's prayer may avert the catastrophe. It may even be the reason for the prophecy - as an advance warning to let people have the opportunity to thwart it through prayer and other means.

I should add another one.

5. When do we determine if one is a true prophet?
So, Bro. AB has been foretelling events accurately for the past 20 years. He's also sound in doctrine and character. Well, if I asked anybody about him, they would all say he's a true prophet since he meets all 3 criteria. In the 21st year, he predicts something, claiming a God told him. It clearly does not come to pass. So, now he's a false prophet. When did he become a false prophet? 21 years ago? 1 year ago? If the former, so those who called him a true prophet earlier were wrong? You see, it means we cannot tell if somebody is a true prophet until they die! Can we find such a conclusion anywhere in the Bible. No, of course.

vooks:

Nlmediator,
1. Am far from cessationism but if I were in the camp and was bombarded with prophecies and the thus-saith-the-Lord guys, the most natural thing would be to test them for accuracy,consistency with the Word and character....the point is even if there were prophecies today,the believers are called upon to examine e them and this has not been the case. This laxity in testing prophecies is part of the reason we have Strange Fire
2. Paul's statement that spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets is no formula for testing prophets. It means prophecy is no excuse for chaos. There is no distinction between NT and OT prophets. These are assumptions
3. When you think through your criteria for testing prophecies/prophets, it is IMPOSSIBLE to identify them. How do you test the calling for genuineness? What do you call a genuinely called prophet who routinely spews garbage? What about a not-called guy who delivers them accurately?
You are engaging in semantics in distinguishing between prophecies and prophets. Prophets prophesying lies are false prophets just like teachers peddling false teachings are false. In short we know them by their fruit not the spectacular nature of their calling
4. We all know the perfect excuse for epic fail is Jonas. But the prophecy was conditional. Otherwise what was the point of sending Jonas there? What you are telling us is to ignore the most obvious sign of a false prophecy; accuracy and stick to the ambiguous untestable 'calling',and deem all fails as 'mistakes'

So, why do you reject some OT practices that are not condemned in the NT, tithing being the obvious one? Or you pick and choose what to adopt wholesale from the OT?

I'm not against the criteria for prophets from the OT but they should be seen as guidelines, not as rules that the church in the NT is bound by.

Calling is what determines if one is true or false. A false teacher is one that Jesus did not put there. Jesus said at the last day, He'd tell false teachers and the like that He never knew them. He didn't reject them simply because of their teaching but because He never had a relationship with them and thus could not have called them.

Jonah is neither conditional nor a one-off example. God does nothing without revealing to His prophets. He told Prophet Abraham that He wanted to destroy Sodom, yet He was willing to relent as He listened to Abraham, agreeing with him that if He could find a few good people, He'd spare the city. He told Prophet Ezekiel a similar thing. To say that a prophecy must come to pass in the face of prayer is to reject the efficacy of prayer. Besides, such position has no scriptural foundation.

In summary, feel free to judge prophecies. But don't determine who's false or true solely on the basis of rules not in the NT.

WinsomeX:
Summary of Nathan Busenitz' A Word from the Lord?
1. The bible proposes three criteria for identifying a false prophet: doctrinal orthodoxy; moral integrity and predictive accuracy.
2. Defenders of modern prophesy claim that there are two types of prophecy: those that are 100% accurate and those that are not. The bible does not make such distinction. All true prophets in scriptures were 100% accurate.
3. The NT prophet Agabus presented his prophecy in the same manner with the OT prophet saying "The Holy Spirit said..." and using symbols to explain the prophecy.
4. The call on us to test every prophecy is a confirmation of the fact that there are false prophecies.
The three quotes by D M Lloyd Jones, C H Spurgeon and Prophet Jeremiah at the end of the text are worth careful perusal.
The next presentation is by Phil Johnson: "Is There a Baby in the Charismatic Bath Water?". Interesting presentation. Stay tuned.

1. Your (and the cessationist) position is not clear. Do you believe that the office of the prophet has ceased or not? If yes, we need not bother about judging it. So, let us know if you believe people still have the gift of foretelling and that being a prophet is not only about forth telling. Seems to me like you guys want to have it both ways.

2. The criteria you outlined for validity of prophecy is from the OT. The NT had no such criteria. What the NT says is that the spirit of prophets is subject to the prophets. That means, among other things, that a prophet can say the wrong thing deliberately or mistakenly. Neither makes him a false prophet.

3. Being a false or true prophet is primarily about calling. False prophets are those that were never called by God into that office. Even if all their predictions are true, they're still false. True prophets are those that have a genuine calling. Their mistakes do not invalidate their call. Because the gifts and callings of God are without repentance.

4. The criteria outlined for judging prophecy by the cessationists seem to leave no room for divine intervention. God can change an outcome He asked somebody to prophesy about, as He did with Jonah. If a prophet says a building will not be bombed and the building gets bombed, it may well be proof that God did not speak through the person claiming to be a prophet. But if God says a building will be bombed, people's prayer may avert the catastrophe. It may even be the reason for the prophecy - as an advance warning to let people have the opportunity to thwart it through prayer and other means.

BabaGnoni:




Good catch nlMediator, didnt know you were keeping abreast of this thread and shdemidemi's dexterity at weaving in and out

I didnt want to go down the route of "... people that hear the devil and his demons, what voice they used - man's, woman's, child's" with shdemidemi.
This for the reason that knowing shdemidemi, he will lash on to it, use it as a distraction, divert from the original or main matter and possibly make a real meal out of it

shdemidemi, nlMediator is on point, do you believe the devil and demons spoke to people in the past and still speaks to people today?

Saul, the witch of Endor and the demon (i.e. familiar spirit) masquerading as Samuel is a classic example (i.e. 1 Samuel 28:3-20)
Another are the demons (i.e. legion of them) cast into pigs (i.e. Mark 5:1-17)

Let me share a story, a story about voices, I once heard a "friend" narrate.
Back in the day, this "friend" decided one day to experiment with substances (i.e. cannabis also known as marijuana or igbo)
The first time he tried igbo, it was only had a small amount of half finished wrap and it didn’t have much, if any effect on him
but as for the second time and last, it did have some effects, very interesting effects

This is the story and the interesting things that happened the second time round of smoking igbo
He said, he asked the dealer to give him a good quality high grade igbo, as the first time he took it, the igbo didnt "shack" him at all
(i.e. he didnt get high on it)

He went home to enjoy the rolled up spliff, in the safety comfort of his home, he lit the joint and took a cautionary small drag of the weed, nothing happened, no effects, it was déjà vu, it was just like the first time.
So he decided to up the ante by doing a deeper drag and inhalation,
this time there was a surprising effect, he said he felt at peace, he felt floating and ascending into the air, he felt euphoric.
He liked the feeling, and wanted more of it, so on the next inhalation, he took a deeper x2 inhalation,
and that was when the first interesting thing happened, he felt light and dizzy, like he was spinning
then like a bolt out of the blue he started hearing a voice, the voice was said:
"You are high, and getting higher on your way to heaven,
it is getting hot in here, take off your shirt, unbuckle your belt, pull off your trousers and flip off your shoes,
Get yourself relaxed, be relaxed, ease the tension.
The next round I promise you, you will be on cloud seven, it is going to be life changing and you would never be the same again"

He said, he obeyed the voice, by taking off everything except for his pant or boxer-short and made himself comfortable
He took another very deep deep drag of the weed, pow, again he heard the voice.
The voice said:
"yank off your pant or boxer-short, drop-kick the door, go out on to the street stark n@ked and starting doing 100m races"

At this point, he said he came to himself, knowing that if he obeyed the voice and he cross that line, this will be the beginning of madness for him (i.e. kolo mental and/or Yaba left)
He put out the cannabis, threw it away, stomped on it and quashed it with his feet on the floor, and that was his last time of smoking cannabis and hearing that voice

"That settles it then. You believe the devil speaks to fake men of a God.
But you never ask in what voice the devil speaks.
Yet, when somebody says God speaks, you resort to that line of questioning."
- © nlMediator
^^^
LOL, shdemidemi, stepped right in it. LOL
Two people you dont want them catching you slacking are nlMediator and mbaemeka
LOL try wriggle out of that gaffe shdemidemi LOL
Good luck LOL

Well laid out! QED.

Candour:


Bro, you're wrong actually. I'd been home all these while reading the posts on the thread but not venturing to post partly because I really am enjoying all the discussions and also because I'm banned from any other relationship (NL is like a mistress ) while at home with my queen and little royals (the Lady does not share ).
Got back to work today so I'm free to engage now but you guys have gone so far that I'll have to be content with just reading and learning for now.
I like the idea of the conference even if I'm not in full agreement with everything said there or with some posts here.
We all will always have where we need growth and more understanding. I only pray for it not to be on the more essential tenets of our faith so we don't run the race in vain.
So carry go......I dey for una back gidigba

Aah, you mean I heard the wrong voice telling me where you were? That's why we need to stick to "sufficiency of scripture." Sola scriptura all the way! No more false prophets.

I support the queen 100%. As you can see, listening to her has made you a much better person. Remember, how terrible life was before you met her?

shdemidemi:


Why exactly should I want to know how the devil speak?

That's an irrelevant question.

shdemidemi:


The Old Testament isn't Jesus. It is a shadow of what is to come by Christ.




It is not my claim, it is clearly written in the book. It is plainly divided into prophets and the Son in the book.

Hebrews 1 King James Version (KJV)

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son




Pain or disaster isn't a means of communication but a way to subject our flesh to mortification thus our spirit become induced to look up to God at such times.

We almost present ourselves as the all in all and end in all when things are happening all around us. Disappointments some times helps take the chip off our shoulder.

The life of Job is a perfect example of this, everything was going on well for the man until God nudged him. The man said things that revealed all of his weaknesses and all that was fundamentally wrong with Job. God came in to the scene to eventually reveal Himself as the one behind all of Job's success and this He did not because of the works of Job (contrary to what Job thought) but because He is merciful.

Job got the message via disaster. That is not to say disaster can supplant God's word as written in the the sacred scripture but its God's way of calling our attention back to Himself most times.





You need to speak for yourself bro. Some people actually think God speak like you and I will speak to each other. Some say God appear to them in the person of Jesus to have a one on one chat.



I have never met anyone who speaks with the devil. May be when or if I do I will pose the question.

I believe the devil speak with most mainframe men of God if truly they hear voices and that is if it isn't all gimmicks and lies to stay relevant.

That settles it then. You believe the devil speaks to fake men of a God. But you never ask in what voice the devil speaks. Yet, when somebody says God speaks, you resort to that line of questioning.

Candour:
Wonderful thread and posts.

Reading and learning

Cheers all

Welcome, bro. I can see you've been out there raking in the cash, while devoted servants of The Lord like us have been busy here toiling in the Master's Vineyard! Well, so long as you share the loot with those doing the Father's business, all is well.