₦airaland Forum

trustman: On God’s Answer to Prayers
God DOES NOT ALWAYS respond positively (i.e. with a YES) to our prayer for something or our faith.
Paul prayed for the ‘thorn in the flesh’ to be removed. God responded; but it was with a NO! Paul pleaded with the Lord. HE DID NOT ADDRESS THE SITUATION (2 Cor. 12: 8, 9). Was Paul not matured enough to know the WILL of God without resorting to prayer? Why didn’t he rather address the situation if that is truly God’s system (God’s manner of approach for the believer).

On God’s WILL for the Christian
The Bible gives the general will of God for the Christian. Then, of course, God has his will for the individual believer. That WILL can include what may be regarded as ‘Negative’ such as suffering (including sickness and disease) and death.
In Revelation 2:10 Jesus Christ told those in the church in Smyrna “DO NOT BE AFRAID of what you are about to SUFFER”. So God’s will include permitting suffering in the life of the believer. Nowhere in the Bible is it stated that when a Christian is sick he should assume IT IS NOT God’s will Apostle James clearly showed us how we can approach prayer for the sick.

Is the Christian Omniscient?
There are things that, like death, are better left to the sovereignty of God. “the secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may DO ALL THE WORDS OF THIS LAW” (Deuteronomy 29:29).
Nowhere in the Bible are we told that the believer MUST necessarily KNOW or DECIDE the time of his death. It is God who determines the TIMING [/b]and [b]MANNER (sickness, accident; peaceful, violent – Acts 7:58, Hebrews 11) of death of the Christian. What matters is not this flesh. What matters is what counts for eternity; for the hereafter.
Stephen’s death in Acts 7 would be described by many today as ‘horrible’, ‘ghastly’, ‘gruesome’, or in such terms. But Jesus Christ literarily gave him a standing ovation. Why? Because through it all Stephen (like Job) glorified God. He kept the faith. He held his head high. Could Jesus Christ have saved Stephen? Yes. Did he save him? No. Why? Was it because Stephen did not ‘DECIDE’ to be saved? For those who may even think so (i.e. stand on the ground that he (Stephen decided NOT TO BE SAVED) how do you explain the standing ovation Jesus gave him?

The Sovereignty of God
When issues are left ONLY to man’s exercise of FAITH, the SOVEREIGNTY of God becomes relegated to the background. In other words, man’s actions are seen as being more important than God’s involvement in human affairs. The believer who thinks that God must accent to his will (or faith) is claiming to have greater wisdom and better plan than God. That is blasphemy! We DO NOT dictate to God. We go to him to ask for his grace. No Christian has the right to question the sovereignty of God.
No Christian ‘owns’ his life. He has been ‘bought with a price’ to ‘belong’ to another – God. He must therefore subject himself to and depend continually on his master.

On Exercise of Faith
Faith, for any issue or situation, should be in God or directed toward God and not ‘for’ or ‘to’ the situation. No Bible verse asks the Christian to have faith ‘for’ or ‘to’ a situation; it is always to be ‘in God’ or directed toward God.

Questions that need Consideration
• How come a number of foremost advocates for being in ‘control’ over situations have themselves (or their relatives) battled with sickness and disease and even death? What happened?
• Is the Christian free from issues that face other human? Look at this scenario: It rains continuously for days. The place where a Christian (or even a group of Christians) live, because of inadequate drainage or is low-lying gets flooded. Will he, simply because he is a Christian, be excluded from the others (unbelievers) in the neighborhood will face in having to battle with the flooding?

God’s positions on issues are clear from the Bible. What the Christian needs to do is to study to find them out and choose to align himself with them.

Many things are wrong with your post. I can only highlight a few as I don't have so much time to burn.

1. You introduce James 5 as evidence that sickness can be the will of God. Does that make sense to you? If it's God's will, why is James encouraging people to violate God's will? And why would God go against His will by answering the prayer of faith to heal the sick as James 5 says He would?

2. God determines the timing and manner of everyone's death. Can you provide just ONE verse in the Bible where God says that? I'm not interested in your assumptions, just what the Bible says. The truth is that God gives SOME people a special assignment and within it determines when and how they die. For the rest, He lives their length of stay on earth to a number of factors: the faith of the individual, prayers of the saints, lifestyle choices (smoking, drinking etc), environment, etc. God Himself said we can do some things to prolong or shorten our life. He said to honor your parents so you can live long. If He timed me to live for 30 years and I honor my parents and still die at 30, He has not kept His Word. If His timing is that I'll live for 90 years, but I live recklessly, dishonor my parents, etc, I can be sure that His timing will prevail? Simply put, why did God tell His children they can lengthen their days when that means nothing as He has already set the time? Is God frivolous? Is God a liar?

3. Faith leaders dying. None of them ever claimed they will never die. None of the ever claimed that people cannot succumb to sickness. All they keep on saying is that if you live by Faith, you'll get the results they're talking of. They are not immune from the principles they espouse. If they stop believing, it stops working for them. And you can't sit in your house and know if they kept believing or not. More importantly, using the principles they preached, and that you deride at every turn, they lived longer than anybody gave them a chance, even seeing their great grandchildren. Principles that work that far are to be celebrated, not denounced. And those of them alive continue to use it and are seeing the results. If they had followed your prescription, they'd have been long dead and buried.

ayoku777: While it is true that christians suffer and indeed should suffer; even so we should be careful not to attribute every suffering and affliction that comes our way as being something we should go through. Some are attacks from the devil to truncate our destiny, while some are just natural consequences of the fall. Both of which we can and should exercise authority over as new creations in Christ.

Take Jesus for example, the template of our faith; even though He knew He came to suffer, shed His blood and give His life for us; He also knew when NOT TO DIE or just suffer for suffering sake.

There was a time they wanted cast Him down a cliff in Luke 4. Verse 30 said "But he passing through the midst of them went His way.". Another time after saying He and His father are one, the jews took up rocks to stone Him "but He escaped out of their hands. -John 10v39." Did He escape because He was afraid of death and suffering? Or He simply knew which suffering had nothing to do with the will of God

Also here; John 11v53-54 -Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death. Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the jew; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples.

Did Jesus leave Jerusalem for Ephraim out of fear of persecution? Or He simply knew when not to suffer and what affliction had nothing to do with God's purpose?

What about when He told his disciples that they should cross over to the other side, and a storm met them on the way. They woke Jesus up. What did He do? He didn't encourage them to endure it. Or call it "afflictions of the righteous" or "hazards of mission work". No, He rebuked the storm, because it was a storm to be rebuked not endured. And He turned around and rebuked His disciples for their unbelif, becaus He expected them to have done the same in His name.

All these shows that knowing the will of God and being a matured christian also involves knowing when NOT TO SUFFER, knowing when to rebuke a storm and not endure it.

Jesus came to suffer, die and resurrect for us, even so, He didn't just let himself be pushed around, stoned at will or endure every storm in the name of "affliction of the righteous." Infact, if you study the scriptures, you will discover that the only time He let himself be man-handled was from gethsmane to golgotha. No one and nothing could harm Him before then. He was incharge, even of His own suffering. That is Jesus -our template.

Its not everything we suffer that Has anything to do with the will of God, or even something to help us grow spiritually. A lot of them are just natural challenges of life which we can exercise authority over as new creation. And some are even devil-orchestrated storms designed to prevent us from "crossing to the other side". Which God expects us to rebuke in His name, as He did -not endure it.

For many christians "thy will be done" has become just another fancy expression to describe throwing our hands in the air and submitting to whatever happens. We ought to know the will of God that we are asking to be done, otherwise it is submitting to FATE not to the WILL OF GOD.

In closing let me say this, christianity is not comfort or suffering, it is being filled and led of the spirit. Comfort is not carnality and suffering is not spirituality. Christian maturity is beseeching to behold the glory of Christ, and doing that entails both times to abase and times to abound.

This qualifies as the post of the Year!! Ok, at least for this month. Amazing wisdom God has given this brother and the kind of temparement most of us can only wish for. More grace, brotha!

Candour: Really??
If indeed I surprised you, then it's my turn to be surprised.
@the bolded, so you believe God can will otherwise? Interesting!!

Ha ha ha! Of course, God's will can be contrary to ours. And sometimes we either do not know it or do know it but want to do something different. I thought I've said that in many words on this forum? If you know where I've stated or suggested otherwise, please point me to it.

Also, what we should not do is use "God willing" or "if it be Thy will" in prayer. Especially where the will of God is known (e.g healing) or where we are praying in faith. You'll not see that taught or practiced anywhere among New Testament folks. Such insertion tends to nullify faith. If you're not sure of what God's will is before you ask for it (e.g particular job), go to God in prayer first and ascertain His will.

Candour: Suffering is not necessarily a part of Christianity as much as its a fact of living in a fallen world.
Boko haram in the north of Nigeria affects Christians, Muslims, pagans and atheists. Tsunami, earthquakes and other natural disasters is the lot of Christians and others in south east Asia. The effects of global warming can be felt the world over. Until the plan of redemption culminates in the millennial reign, these things will continue and even increase.
That said, being a Christian in this sinful and corrupt world comes with its challenges. You lose contracts or jobs because you refuse to bribe or sleep with the boss.You're singled out for victimization because you refused to be part of the fraud syndicate in the office. You miss a 'fine marriage' match because you refuse to sleep with the guy before tying the knot etc.
These are some of the things that could afflict a christian but we are to persevere and not be deterred. We are enjoined to remain steadfast and immoveable. We are enjoined to take our requests to God who called us
Philippians 4:6-7 KJV
Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. [7] And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
Paul admonished us thus
Philippians 2:14-15 KJV
Do all things without murmurings and disputings: [15] That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
Peter also said
1 Peter 2:11-12 KJV
Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; [12] Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.
Finally we should remember
Hebrews 13:5 KJV
Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

Excellent! You surprised me here!!

Hoping to contribute tomorrow, God willing.

^^^

But surrendering your will is a decision, a choice you make. The whole Christian experience is about growing in our surrender. Choice of manner of death is only one of millions of choices Christians make everyday. I hope you're not deceiving yourself into thinking that in all these decisions, you or other Christians always make the right choice. That's the point.

The other point is that people like Peter and Paul knew clearly what God's will was on this issue. For the vast majority of people facing death, God has not spoken to them or He did but their antenna is not properly tuned. Saying such people should accept death because Peter or some people in a book of martyrs did, misses the point. All of us should seek to grow in knowing His will for us.

And to grow in the grace of doing it because it's not always easy even when we want to . That's why we hear the expression: the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.

^^^

I think you're making this a lot about Peter and whether or not he could have said No. While the issue is that Peter and the rest died under the will of God. In the process, you miss the big issue, which is that not every untimely death is of God. Christians should be encouraged to resist and reject untimely death. But you took issues with resistance to death, saying in your very first post or so on this issue that believers of old were more accepting of death than today's christians. And if you're presented with David's death, you said he knew because he was old! 70 years is old? If at 70, people knew they'd soon die, what happens if they live till 90? So, they had premonitions for 20 years!

For the record, I'm all for what Peter and Paul did in accepting God's will for their lives. I'd do the same. But the aspect of acceptance should not be minimized. It's because they and Jesus accepted God's will that we celebrate them today. Not because they (Peter and other mortals) had no choice. That flies in the face of God's purpose of creating human beings who are free moral agents. He wants people who on their own will choose to do His will. That's why He did not stop Adam and Eve from sinning, even when stopping them would have saved God and the rest of us a lot of headache.

Ayomivic: Your pastor might understand what he was saying. It might be you that does not understand him. Have you heard this praising song before?
Talo to o,baba ta lo ju olo, apanla to sole aiye ro, erujeje tin gbenu awon orun, O tobitobi orun o gba a, talo to o, okere niye on gbenu eniyan o talo ju o lo. Meaning
who be like you or who can be equalized to you? who is bigger or greater than you? the big arms that upheld the world, the scary one that dwelled in heaven, he is very big to the extent that heaven can not occupy him, he is very small to the extent that he lives inside of person, who is bigger than you?
Depends on your reasoning , someone can praise God by saying God is small, if he can prove it. From what you said here, he said " God is indescribable" if he keeps saying that God is big without him saying God is small, i think he has discribe God. Saying that God is small after he had said God is big is what make God indescribable.

Good observation, but I'm not sure of that. I think the pastor is thinking along the lines of "infinity" and using infinitesimal as the adjective. Op can type a letter and mail it anonymously to the pastor. Or create an email address and email the pastor. Key thing is to use a channel that ensures that the pastor gets the message, instead of it being hijacked on the way.

Processor01: The responses here are quite chilling and sad to read from Christians.

No wonder it is written that whoever loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. If truly you know your father has prepared a wonderful place for you and you really long to be with him then why the fear of death? Oh, I know, you don't really believe that part because life here seems sweet for you and you'd rather be like Esau and live for the now!

This is my problem with feel good messages being preached these days - you begin to think Earth is a Mega train station or airport where all you have to do is enjoy some coolade while surfing nairaland, waiting for your bus or flight to heaven. Not so brethren! It is going to be an air lift like is often the case of soldiers at war. For some, comfortable (on a greenland) and for some, uncomfortable (under the harsh conditions of a desert).

I took time out yesterday to read "Foxes book of matyrs" (please every Christian should download and read) and I was speechless at the persecution that the early Christians suffered. In some cases, a large number of people were led to christ because of the bravery and peace that these Christians exuded in the face of death (gruesome one and not just being shot or beheaded). In fact, in one case, a pagan standing by was so overwhelmed that he exclaimed "Their God must be so great!" - he was executed too.

Now, my question to some of you here;
i) Who does a soldier take orders from? Who decides when a soldier is withdrawn from war? Are you a soldier of christ? If yes, then on what basis do you decide when to be withdrawn or your opinion sought?
ii) Which of your pair of shoes decides what day to be worn or where to be worn? (after all it was bought with your money and belongs to you, right?) So by whose blood were you bought? To whom do you belong? How then do you decide your fate?

Lastly, the topic of this thread should be changed because it is ridiculous! God ANSWERS ALL PRAYERS! Just as YES is an answer, NO is also an answer except of course you feel God is your errand boy and must answer in the affirmative.

I don’t know why some of you prefer to debate with a straw man. Since you claim to have read the posts, I challenge you to show me any one that shows that somebody is afraid of death. And talking of feel good, you are the person really preaching a feel good message. You want to feel good that you love the Lord and are not afraid to die and go to Heaven. You want people to harbor similar feelings. But it’s all false.

Otherwise, prove me wrong by going to Afghanistan next week to live as a missionary and preach on the streets of Kabul. You would even earn a place in the book of martyrs. But I’m sure you won’t do it. Why not? Because you do not believe it’s God’s will for you to be there. That’s the point we’ve been making. People should not embrace death simply because they want to go to Heaven. They should embrace only the death that is God’s will for them.

I honor the lives and service of past and present day martyrs for the gospel. But I honor the Bible more. When I read the Bible, I see Christians who knew they had a job to do on earth, not play into the devil’s hands by embracing death that would only help reduce ministry effectiveness on earth. When Epaphroditus was sick, Paul said God had mercy on him and Paul by not letting him die. So, Paul and Epaphroditus are afraid to die or are not interested in going to Heaven? Paul even said God sparing Epaphroditus spared Paul “sorrow upon sorrow. “ (Phil. 2:25-30). If any of us said that, some of you would be accusing us of hating sorrow and only looking for happiness and enjoyment. When Timothy was sick, Paul told him to drink wine. He didn’t tell him to succumb to the sickness and death to show he’s not afraid of death and doesn’t subscribe to a feel good gospel.

We find other examples from the early church. They just witnessed the first Christian martyr Stephen killed and his powerful testimony of seeing Jesus standing in Heaven as he was about to die. Yet, the next moment Saul went about looking for Christians to haul into prison, these Christians did not line up and say: ‘Here I am, take me, I want to be with Stephen and Jesus today.’ Even when Saul got converted and was sent to them, they responded by wondering if he was not the same guy persecuting Christians earlier. They did not rush out. If any of us acted that way today, you’d be brandishing the story of Stephen or that of other heroes that died for the faith. As if one part tells the whole story. No wonder Paul talked about preaching the whole counsel of God, something so lacking today, as people latch on to any pet set of scriptures and ignore the rest.

If things were as you present it, all a smart devil needs to get more souls in hell is to throw sicknesses, accidents and the like at Christians and they’ll accept death and move on to Heaven. That way, there will be little preaching of the gospel. When we got born again, God could have taken us straight to Heaven. He kept us on earth for a purpose. We can’t run away from that purpose by checking out before our time and patting ourselves on the back that we are not afraid of death. It’s God’s will for us to live long and use our long lives for His service. We’ll have plenty of time to spend in Heaven.

Candour: @the bolded, its because you see it as a punishment and see Christianity as a passport to a life of ease. See what Christ had told them earlier in his ministry

Matthew 10:28 KJV
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Death wasn't to be feared so God would have told him the same thing he told Paul

2 Corinthians 12:9 KJV
And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.




We now know with the benefit of hindsight that even the ignominous and painful death picture too wasn't about Peter alone. It was about all the apostles (save John). My firm belief is that Peter was specifically informed because of his proclivity to go against specific programmes of the Spirit he wasnt comfortable with. Eg

1.Trying to steer Jesus away from the cross because he thought it was a horrible thing. (Matt 16:21-23, Mark 8:31-33)

2.Refusing to go to preach to Cornelius until God practically dragged him there. (Acts chapter 10)

Also like I said earlier the picture Christ painted to Peter wasn't open to negotiation because God wished to be glorified by it whether it was palatable to Peter and you or not.

John 21:19 KJV
This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

And we see Peter hold his peace about it henceforth.




I know it's a challenge for you but can you try to leave 'crew'out of our discussion for once? I'm the one talking to you here. If you miss this 'crew', why not invite them?

My position on believing the gospel for salvation has not changed. Its still the same because that's the bible position. I gave you a scripture - the one i take as holding the full gist of the gospel that saves us today. I'll reproduce it here

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; [2] By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. [3] For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; [4] And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Ephesians 1:13 KJV
In whom ye also trusted , after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Hope you saw the parts in bold?


God


Yours

Hope you'll be ready to answer my own simple questions too?

Asking for the manner of death to be changed does not necessarily mean selfishness, hatred of sacrifice or standing in the way of God’s Plan. It’s simply human. I don’t know why it is hard for us to understand that we’re still human and have certain feelings. Jesus asked God in serious prayer at the Garden of Gethsemane to consider changing the manner of death designed for Him. If the Son of God could pray that way, how about us mortals? In the case of Jesus, it could not be changed. Unlike Jesus, neither Peter nor any other Christian is indispensable in the plan or purpose of God to reach the lost, etc., even when obedience will bring Him glory.

The thorn example from Paul you presented further cements my point. Paul was human and sought escape from punishment. Neither he nor God interpreted it as an indication that he has believed in vain. God can decide not to grant the request without castigating or condemning the person. And it’s easier to reject a request for removal of a thorn than one for violent death. So, that Paul got one answer does not mean Peter could not have gotten a different answer.

On your crew, invite ke! Avoiding them is the beginning of wisdom, so chances of my inviting them are below zero. On a more serious note, this is an open thread and everyone is welcome. They should simply avoid polluting the environment by doing the devil’s work of dividing the brethren as that would drive other people like me away.

Sure, I understand that you think the way to salvation is believing, excluding believing in vain. What’s problematic is what you choose to include under ‘believing in vain.’ How do we determine what goes into that and what does not? Your position reminds me of a Nigerian pastor that gives altar calls by quoting the scripture that says “all unrighteousness is sin” and then goes ahead to list a host of things he calls unrighteousness, including ladies’ hair attachment and weave on. That’s the same thing you’re doing here. Choose a scripture and make things you choose fit into it.

I disagree with you on Judas. The prophecy that somebody would betray Jesus never mentioned Judas Iscariot. Just as the birth of the Savior by a virgin did not mention Mary. Each made a decision to fit into God’s plan. The only way God could be justified in punishing Judas was because Judas acted on his free will. If God decided for him and he had no role but be an automaton, why should he die the way he did? Similarly, even when Jesus told Peter that he would betray Him and that it would be orchestrated by the devil, it was still Peter’s action. That’s why when he realized his error, he wept and repented (sign of personal responsibility) instead of relaxing or blaming it on God.

On the Chevron job, I agree with you. But you see, it was God’s decision to give me the job and He even sent somebody to confirm the message. But it was still up to me to cooperate with His decision. That cooperation is also a decision, as you rightly stated. That’s the same thing with the believer’s death.

I welcome your questions.

Candour: You're very free to remix my posts into any format that would enable you vilify me but try not to add 'jara' when doing so. I asked you to tell how Peter could have rejected the manner of death Christ showed him without jeopardizing his eternity, you couldn't answer. Now you boldly twist my post and import things i never said nor implied to score cheap points?
See another instance with the same Peter. I hope this drives the point home
John 13:8 KJV
Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.
Peter initially refused his feet be washed by Jesus but see the master's response at the bolded. IF I DONT, YOU HAVE NO PART WITH ME.
Do you think that declaration of the master would have had no effect on Peter's eternal destination? Or you assume our Lord was just blowing plenty hot air and blabbing?
When Peter saw that it wasn't a joking matter, see him trying to 'comply' but on his own terms. He wished to decide his own way
John 13:9 KJV
Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.
However did Jesus succumb or let him have his way? Of course not. It was the Lord's way or the highway
John 13:10 KJV
Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.
The question is still "what would Peter have done differently to avoid the death the master showed him and still remain in a relationship with the master?
I noticed. That's why I ignored it initially.

I don't add jara. I may misread but it's never intentional because I want to be sure I understand what I'm disagreeing with. I answered your question on how Peter could maintain his relationship with Jesus if he disagreed or disobeyed with the message on the manner of death. This time, let me answer this way: by leaning on The same mercy and grace that saved him. He can tell God that it is too hard for him to bear.

On washing of feet, you're on the wrong foot here. First, it was not just about Peter. It was about all the apostles. Jesus would have said the same thing to any of them, but they already complied. Second, that was an experience before the birth of Christianity. After Jesus' resurrection, one's eternal future is not determined by washing of feet. But by believing in Jesus and living for Him, repenting where we miss it.

I can see you're running away from your claim last month that salvation is based on believing only. Then, even your support crew came to assert that mere confession amounts to salvation by works. You're fine with it then. But now that it conflicts with the new reality you're projecting, it has become a case of twisting your words.

I have a simple question for you: who decided that Judas would be the one to betray Jesus - God or Judas?

Another simple one: if I pray to God to make me the MD of Chevron and He speaks to me the next day that He has answered positively and even sends somebody that never knew of the prayer to confirm it; when I start work at chevron, whose decision is it that I work at Chevron?

^^^

Oh, btw, the above may be my last substantive post on this thread if agents of disunity that have come in will stay here to spread their foul odor. The thread was doing just fine without their coming in to sow discord. It's like some people dont think children of God can discuss without taking sides or some childish cliqueness.

Candour: If there's such a crew, then you must be a high ranking member.

You don't know my views on eternal security of the believer so I'll tell you. See the scripture I believe holds the full gospel message. See the clause in bold

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; [2] By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. [3] For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; [4] And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

I know Peter didn't believe in vain because he stayed the course till his martyrdom. There is no way Peter could have believed in Christ and rejected that particular information because it wasn't open for debate. Christ wasn't seeking his opinion. Christ was simply pre informing him of what the future held for him as a Christian. If he left, it means he stopped believing in Christ. If he stopped believing, it means he believed in vain initially and stood disqualified. If it was open for negotiation, why didn't Christ inform the others about theirs too so they could decide to do or not to do? See what John, who was standing by when Christ gave Peter this information, wrote

1 John 2:19 KJV
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out , that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

Also, Have you read "Foxes' book of martyrs"? If you've not, try and do. A lot of 'ordinary' Christians suffered more and died more horrible deaths than Peter. Being a Christian at that time came with terrible perils and everyone of them knew what they signed unto. He would not/could not have walked away and remained the Peter we talk about today.


Really?? You mean Moses could have refused to die on the mountain and simply pick up his staff and walk far away from God? Would the refusal have resulted in a struggle between God and Moses?? Was there any record of God consulting Moses before deciding Moses would die on the mountain?

Interesting. You're the guy that told us only a few weeks ago that all that is needed for salvation is for one to believe. That even to confess Jesus as Lord as stated in Romans 10 was not necessary. Today, you're telling us that believing is not enough. The believer also has to accept the manner of death specified by God. Because if he doesn't he has believed in vain all this while and will be doomed for eternity. Yet, the guy that doesn't confess Jesus when he can hasn't believed in vain? Your position has no basis in Scripture and you can't fool anyone with Bible verses that you put your own gloss on.

That he would be a different Peter from the one we talk about is not the same as sayng he was never a believer.

Sorry, my earlier response was messed up structurally.

Candour: If there's such a crew, then you must be a high ranking member.

You don't know my views on eternal security of the believer so I'll tell you. See the scripture I believe holds the full gospel message. See the clause in bold

1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; [2] By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. [3] For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; [4] And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

I know Peter didn't believe in vain because he stayed the course till his martyrdom. There is no way Peter could have believed in Christ and rejected that particular information because it wasn't open for debate. Christ wasn't seeking his opinion. Christ was simply pre informing him of what the future held for him as a Christian. If he left, it means he stopped believing in Christ. If he stopped believing, it means he believed in vain initially and stood disqualified. If it was open for negotiation, why didn't Christ inform the others about theirs too so they could decide to do or not to do? See what John, who was standing by when Christ gave Peter this information, wrote

1 John 2:19 KJV
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out , that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

Also, Have you read "Foxes' book of martyrs"? If you've not, try and do. A lot of 'ordinary' Christians suffered more and died more horrible deaths than Peter. Being a Christian at that time came with terrible perils and everyone of them knew what they signed unto. He would not/could not have walked away and remained the Peter we talk about today.

Really?? You mean Moses could have refused to die on the mountain and simply pick up his staff and walk far away from God? Would the refusal have resulted in a struggle between God and Moses?? Was there any record of God consulting Moses before deciding Moses would die on the mountain?

Interesting. You're the guy that told us only a few weeks ago that all that is needed for salvation is for one to believe. That even to confess Jesus as Lord as stated in Romans 10 was not necessary. Today, you're telling us that believing is not enough. The believer also has to accept the manner of death specified by God. Because if he doesn't he has believed in vain all this while and will be doomed for eternity. Yet, the guy that doesn't confess Jesus when he can hasn't believed in vain? Your position has no basis in Scripture and you can't fool anyone with Bible verses that you put your own gloss on.

Candour: The title of this thread "should I be disappointed in God, when it looks as though he doesn't answer prayers" presupposes we are talking about Christians so I ask "what could Peter have done differently to change the information Christ gave him without jeopardising his eternity?" What choice (as an apostle of Christ who wished for eternity with Christ) did he have in the matter?
Once again, thank God you agree God decides. Also you don't need to understand my fixation with that statement. However I'll keep repeating it as many times as it takes to correct the wrong notion that "all heroes of scripture decided their deaths"

Peter's eternity would not have been jeopardized. While I'd not dare encourage anybody to walk away from God's plan for them, doing so does not doom people to hell. There's only one reason for going to hell or jeopardizing eternity: rejection of Jesus as Savior. I thought you're part of the eternal security crew here? Suddenly, you now believe that a saved person can lose his salvation?

Yes, in a sense they decided their deaths because they cooperated with God's plan. God did not do it without them. God did not just decide and let it happen to them.

mba emeka: [color=#990000]Hebrews 11:35King James Version (KJV)

The message of faith has to be preached more accurately so that Christians will rule and dominate all the wiles of the devil- including death! It is only when the message is preached that Christians will take advantage of it afterall it is through Knowledge that the righteous is delivered (Proverbs 11:9)

You're so correct about deliverance coming through knowledge. God uses different methods to set and make people free, including knowledge, prophets and prayers. People can be healed or delivered without even praying at all! In some cases, all they need is acquire the relevant knowledge of God for their situation. Jesus was obviously right when He said in John 8:32 that knowledge of the truth makes one free. I've had personal experiences where I was freed of something as soon as knowledge came - before I could even pray or think of it.

Candour: Good you agree premonitions exist. But in any case, my argument is not knowledge of death based on God's will. Moses was told and succumbed to that will. The bone of contention is the statement that "all heroes in scripture decided their deaths". Could Moses have decided against that particular decision of God? If you agree with statement in bold, prove it. If not, you and I have nothing to argue about.
@the bolded, that's all I need the OP to realise. GOD DECIDED.
@the bolded, you think dying differently mattered so much to Peter when compared to eternity without Christ? We are discussing Peter the apostle, not Peter that could have been lost as an atheist.
Why do you think he told them? To enable them get a negotiator? He told them to prepare their minds. If Peter wanted to remain in God's will, he had no choice. Its as simple as that. He even had to ask the 12 at a particular time thus "will ye also go away?" What do you think their response was? (See John 6:60-69 to find out)
See what Christ told Ananias to tell Paul
Acts 9:15-16 KJV
But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: [16] For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.
If you were Paul, what would you do? Decide not to go ahead or pray against it?
I don't know who is rushing to death here. If you know any, pls tell them to chill. I don't know what dressing you're insinuating but since God decides, and you agree God decides, then let it rest.

Sure, it’s God that decides. So long as you’re not saying that it’s God that decides for everybody when they’ll die and the manner of death. Because that’s not true. God decides in some specific situations, like Peter’s as part of his plan for them. He doesn’t decide in the case of the vast majority of people, including possibly the person in the OP. If He decided when everyone would die, what’s the point in telling them what to do to prolong their life? And even when it is according to his plan, like Peter’s, the Peters of this world are part of the ultimate decision in the sense that they have a choice in the matter. That Peter DID NOT walk away does not mean he COULD NOT. Our God, unlike the devil, respects human sovereignty and does not impose His will to override human wills. Otherwise, He’ll get everybody saved today, because His desire is that nobody should perish. So again, I do not understand your fixation with “it’s God that decides.”

qstar: I do not wish him death.
I'm just inquisitive as to the "source" of the premonition.

Being inquisitive is fine. And I did not say or suggest that you wished him dead. But you clearly said you'd have sacrificed yourself to allow other passengers escape death. How could you or anyone have accomplished that? You see, I'm inquisitive (too). So please share with us so we can learn and bear that in mind for the future.

qstar: I laugh when i hear Christians talk about death premonition. This is a christians' thread, so i do not want to be much of a bete-noire.

My Christian neighbour did a thanksgiving ceremony in his church some years back. His testimony was that after boarding a flight, he got a "premonition" from God, that the flight was gonna crash. He withdrew from taking the flight and that craft eventually crashed, nobody survived.

Now, is this his alleged premonition from God?
And if it's from God, what kind of God is this? killing everybody on board and only my neighbour coincidentally missed it. I was happy for him though. But, i was marvelled at "why" he should be making a party out of it.

To be objective and honest. Nobody is worth more than the total number of people in an aircraft. If i was given such premonition, i'd rather sacrifice myself than allow everybody die.

Can you share with us how your neighbor could have sacrificed himself for the other passengers to live?

alexleo: I am not doubting your points but I have also seen people who got the best medical attention to a particular ailment yet they died of it while some other person suffering the same ailment and got a poor medical attention survived the same sickness.
There are christians who had engaged in serious prayer before embarking on a journey yet they died in accident and there are also some others that engaged in little or no prayer yet they survived even worse accidents.
There are christians that did fasting and prayer over a particular sickness yet they died while some others who just prayed normal prayer survived same sickness.
Some churches hold series of fasting and prayer weeks especially in the early part of the year. Part of the major prayer points in such services is prayer against death. Pastors make declarations too yet before the year runs out some of the people who prayed that prayer and shouted big Amen to pastors declarations still dies. This does not mean that prayers do not work but my point is that when your time is up you are going.
Like i said( pls mark my word, because thats what i ve been saying from the begining of my post here), WHEN YOUR TIME IS UP, anything can just be your own medium of exit.
Yea i know that satan always wants to kill and with prayers we can stop him from doing so but when your time is really up, you will go even after all the prayers.

You’re right that we can pray and people still die and some people live even when there was little prayer. But that does not mean that death came when it would come. We simply do not know unless God tells us. That person that died after long prayer perhaps could have lived if people had prayed a day longer. I heard recently about this guy who was prayed for in the hospital in Nigeria and he got well. He was discharged and sent home. The saints that prayed for him had stopped praying. Shortly, after the guy got home, he died. Somebody may say it was his time. But couldn’t it also be that the saints should have stayed in prayer until they secured in a note of victory in their spirit that the job was done?

Other than the cases of people that have a special assignment from God (which God would most probably tell them), God’s will for everybody is to live long. In Ps. 91, He tells us that He’ll satisfy us with long life, not premature death. In both the OT and NT, He tells us that if we honor our parents, we’ll live long. If His desire is not for us to live long, He does not need to tell us what to do to live long.

This eagerness to check out and go to Heaven is not encouraged by the Bible. When the early saints were being persecuted, they did not ask God to take them to Heaven. They sought His help to make it here on earth and fulfill His mandate. I am convinced that many deaths are preventable but for the lack of faith and lack of spiritual diligence of believers today. This point and one made earlier by somebody about “the receiving end” of faith and prayer reminded of a story from years ago that I read somewhere. A pastor’s wife was bedfast, dying of cancer as the doctors said there was nothing they could do for her. A minister and his wife, another pastor and his wife and the woman’s husband decided to pray for the woman. For two days and two nights they prayed, sleeping only for 4 hours a night and spending the rest of the time praying and seeking God. Nothing happened. The minister wondered why, considering that healing is something promised us, and asked God for guidance. It turned out the problem was not from the sending (God) side, but the receiving side. God told the minister to command the spirits of doubt and fear to come out of the woman. He did, the spirits left, and the woman was instantly healed. She danced around the house.

Now think of it, how many Christians would seek to hear from God in such circumstance? Not many, as many Christians have no idea how to hear from God. How many saints devote that much time to pray for a dying person? No, they spend 5 minutes of prayer while listening to cool Christian music in their car. Then, when the person dies, they say it’s nothing to cry about; after all, heaven is much better than here. All along, all they’re doing is excuse their own faith failure, while making themselves feel good that they’re not earthly-minded.

Candour: You are the one missing the point. Did you read my post and the one I quoted at all?? The issue I have is Gombs saying all saints in the bible DECIDED their deaths. Its not about them knowing or sensing their impending deaths.
My grand ma who died recently at a very ripe old age acted in some very strange ways and said some strange things the few weeks before she died that leaves us in no doubt that she must have had a premonition of her death. People regularly have premonitions about death etc but I'm not concerned with a premonition or a pre knowledge of death.
The issue here is anyone affirmiing all heroes of scriptute DECIDED their deaths. If you or him wish to expunge "decided their death" from the discussion, I'll rest my case here.

Premonitions exist. But it’s not about premonitions. Or even actual knowledge of impending death. It’s actual knowledge based on God’s will. Not referring to your grandma, but people – young or old - may have premonitions or actually know of the day they would die even when that death is not God’s will. Ask anybody deeply versed in the occult.

Without quibbling over words as to who decided, the key point is that God decided. But He also needs the cooperation of those people. That’s why He brings them into the picture. Or why do you think He tells them or lets them know – so they can throw a party? Jesus told Peter about his manner of death. But it’s up to Peter if he wanted that or not. He could have walked away on Jesus and died differently.

The key issue though is that people should not be rushing to death when God has not told them it’s their time. You want to dress that as accepting of death when the people you’re comparing them with actually knew from God it was their time. That’s a big difference.

alexleo: You are blessed my dear. How some christians fears death makes me wonder whether they still remember that this world is a temporary abode for us and death is inevitable. Whenever I'm sick I pray for healing and still pray God for grace to make heaven if my time here is up. If God heals me- Halleluyah, if he takes me to heaven- Halleluyah.

You are focusing on making heaven when you die, but have you thought seriously about the fact that many of these people that are snatched do not know Jesus? Does it occur to you that those of us alive are the ones that would preach the message to a dying world, which gives the devil the incentive to want to take us out? We owe it to ourselves and to God not to succumb to that. That has nothing to do with being afraid of death. Personally, I’m not afraid of death. In fact, sometimes under the pressures of life, I wish God would just take me to Heaven, so I can be free from the hassles of this life. From a human angle, some people have done more than they thought they’d in life and their legacy will endure. But that’s no reason to accept death orchestrated by the devil.

alexleo: @OP, you are just talking too much here. Death is inevitable and when it comes nothing can stop it. Everyone's death comes in various ways- sickness, murder, accident, war, violent clashes etc. Even Joyce will still die when her time comes whether he curses and abadons God now or not. I don't care when I ll die but I pray God to make me fit for heaven whenever my time is up for me to leave this world. This world remains a temporary site for us all so we should always keep it at the back of our minds at all times. All this nonsense blames on God doesn't change anything. It doesn't even wake up the dead so its not neccessary.

There’s no such thing as everybody will die when they will die. If you see where it’s in the Bible, please point it to me. We Christians like the easy way out which includes accepting the devil’s nonsense so that we’ll not be ridiculed, instead of rejecting it in prayer and exercising our authority over evil powers. Countless number of people have been kept from dying after a sentence of death by the doctors or even evil forces because of the prayers of the children of God or by better medical intervention. Even in Africa and the developing world, many children die that would have lived if there was adequate hygiene and medical attention. When they die, we claim everybody will die some day in one way or another.. As though the kids that are living in the developed world live under a different dispensation from the African kids.

Candour: You mean Moses decided not to see the promised land and decided to die on the mountain @ 120?
You mean David decided to die @ 70 when he could have stayed till 120?
You mean Paul decided he to be beheaded before he turned 70?
You mean Peter decided to be hung upside down just like that?
You mean Simon the Canaanite decided to be cut in half?
My bro, none of these saints decided to die or how they died when they did. They only had a better acceptance of the inevitable than Christians of today. In fact all the apostles except John died violent deaths you won't wish on an enemy.
Being prepared for death is very different from deciding to die. All sensible human beings should be prepared for death whether they like it or not because its inevitable if the Lord tarries and Christians are expected to be better prepared according to the bible.

I think you missed his point. None of those people died at random. They knew it was time to die and accepted God’s plan for themselves. God told Moses. Jesus told Peter the type of death he’d die. David put his house in order and even thanked God for letting him see his son on the throne. None of this justifies the belief that anytime we die is the will of God. The Bible teaches no such thing. It only gives cover to the devil to continue to steal, kill and destroy innocent lives, many of whom end up in hell. Unlike the people you reference – Paul, Peter, etc – who are enjoying in Heaven. Our role as believers is to stop the work of darkness in the lives of people (see e.g. Mark 16:18) not accept them in the guise that we’re following God’s will. That’s gabbage that finds no place in the Bible.

DrummaBoy: @nlmediator
X's act is a sin.
How did I come to that conclusion? Because Moses' laws or the Moral aspect of Moses' law says we should not fornicate? No. Because the New Testament says so.
12 All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. 13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. - 1 Corinthians 6 and some other NT scriptures like it.
Someone will say Paul found his inspiration from the Old Testament. I would say yes and no. The faith that justifies the Christian saints today has the law and the prophets testifying about them (Romans 3:21). So, yes, the law gave the inspiration for the coming of the Christian faith but I used the word "inspiration" rather than "foundation" because Christianity is not a continuation of Judaism. They are different.
The Christian faith was sealed by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ but when our Lord had gone; he sent the Holy Spirit who will eventually instruct the Apostles on how the Church and Christians life will work. This is what we have documented in the NT. First the Church or what we like to call the Church Age Dispensation has its life and theology built on the Apostles and Prophets - That is Peter, James, Paul, etc.
1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, 2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: 3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: 7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. - Ephesians 3
Permit me to say that these apostles and prophets introduced a brand new "religion" called Christianity. Who primary rule of life was walking in love; and with whom we had the Holy Spirit to instruct on what this love consist of. Now the OP has gone on and on about some people making conscience and other things their standard of rule which is bound to fail. True. But the resort to Moses to find "foundation" for Christianity is equally wrong. So what do we do. The New Testament, writtten by inspired Apostles and Prophets have all the rules and regulation the Christian man needs for life and godliness.
But indeed there arises some cases where it may not be distinctively clear what the Christian should do. Where does he get his standard of law from. From Moses? Capital NO. From NT? It might not be there. From where then? From the Spirit within him. God will tell him what to do.
Paul's grouse with the Judaizer of his time was that they wanted to make Christianity a continuation of Judaism. Paul made it clear to them that Christianty was starting off by itself; even though a lot had been prophesied about it in the OT. The OT may provide inspiration for Christianity but it is certainly not the foundation for it.
If you read my text well, you will notice that the only reason I criticize the subdivision is the tendency to divide it to the point of discarding some and keeping some. The NT discards the whole thing! Now for those who say we should cut off the OT from our bibles and read only new. I don't do that. In fact I am reading the OT in my personal study right now. It provides INSPIRATION for the NT and that is why the apostles encouraged that we read it.
On the matter of law, holiness and righteousness. It is incumbent on Christian ministers to not only teach the bible correctly but to live it correctly in holiness. It will inform the manner in which they teach the word, encouraging the saints on the path of godliness without the need for resorting to Moses. Indeed, there are sins coming out today that even Moses never envisioned, just like the OP said. How do we handle such? The answer lies with the Spirit. But when we have godly ministers they can point us on the right path and we will walk it without getting hurt or without keeping Moses. This is what Ephesian 4-6; colosians 3; etc, consists of.
The NT does not subdivide Moses' laws. And no one has yet provided a scripture for such subdivision. It is ok if we subdivide it to comprehend it but to make a standard for the law we keep or not keep is wrong. Moses laws are very different from Nigerian laws. Moses' law were not subdivided but Nigeria's law are. There are a lot of difference there.

Thanks for your straighforward answer. This is what you wrote in the post I responded to that prompted my question: "The Christian man follows a new law: the law of spirit of life in Christ Jesus; the law to love God and men." In your answer, you did not say you were guided by love to know that X's act is sinful but you said you were guided by the NT. Had you said that, I would not have posed the question - and if you recall I said your point about geting rules from the NT was solid. The problem is that many of you that talk about grace always claim that your guide is love, but as your answer shows, it's not just love or conscience; it's also rules. But we hardly ever hear that part from the mouth of grace teachers.

You said where it is not clear from the NT what a believer should do, he should follow his conscience. Where 2 believers (husband and wife) get 2 different messages from the conscience about the rightness or wrongness of a proposed act, but the OT is clear about that, your argument is that one or both of them should go ahead and take a decision or action that is contrary to the OT. Why, when it's obvious that at least one of them would be wrong?

Sure, christianity is a different religion from Judaism. But Judaism still holds a special place in Christianity. In Rom. 10, especially verses 16-17, Paul shows a clear link between Christianity and Judaism. The root is the same. Christians and Jews are branches of the same vine. No other religion is accorded this privilege. So to treat Judaism as something completely unacceptable for all purposes is not scriptural.

Finally, you wrote: "Moses laws are very different from Nigerian laws. Moses' law were not subdivided but Nigeria's law are. There are a lot of difference there." I don't see the difference. They are both collections and systems of rules. And who told you that Nigeria's laws are subdivided? Who subdivided them - the Legislature that made the laws?

DrummaBoy: @Gombs
Sorry my friend you have not provided one scripture that shows that the laws given through Moses can be subdivided into Ceremonial, Moral, Civil, Ethical or Scribal. Now, it is really not your fault that you can't find such a scripture. The fact is that there is no such scripture in the whole of the bible. I understand the position of nlmediator who says that though such a scripture does not exist, we could subdivide the laws Ceremonial, Civil and Moral, for our own learning and understanding. I believe such theological position was taken in the same way the word "trinity" was coined to understand the three person in the God-head. But the problem with his distinction and yours is that while he subdivides his own to three, you subdivide yours to five! Adding ethical and scribal. Does it mean that we are all at liberty to divide Moses laws the way we like and take up the parts we want to keep in our dispensation while discarding the rest? Does it not further prove that the whole process of sub-division is the "wisdom of men" and has little or nothing to do with God? If a theological term like trinity is coined to understand God better, what does subdividing Moses laws achieve? Is it not better to leave it the way it is and approach it the way the NT commands us to?
Now to help me comprehend this subdivision more you refer me to Matthew 23:23 and showed that Judgement, Mercy and Faith will come under the division of Ethical and Moral laws. But that position leaves behind a lot of questions. One of them is that do we now subdivide the laws of Moses to Judgement, Mercy, Faith and Tithes (as tithes must be included in the subdivision even though it is not weighty)? In that sense what happens to other divisions of the law that include ceremonial, civil and scribal? If Jesus was really subdividing the laws, do you not think he would have mentioned those too even though they may have be done away with in our dispensations? The truth about Matthew 23:23 is that it was not about subdividing the laws of Moses as you would have us believe. Jesus was simply helping us to comprehend the weighty matters of Moses law and the light ones. Laws that do not apply to Christians today by the way.
So you see that you have not shown any scripture that subdivides the law of Moses.
When the NT talks about Moses laws, it never sees it in a three or five sub division; it sees it as a whole and it is all the whole that is refered to as a ministry of death (2 Corinthian 3); it is all the whole that has been abolished in the cross of Jesus (Hebrew 8:13).
I cannot agree with the OP that the law of Moses is a "foundation" for us today. What that statement implies is that Christianity is a continuation of Judaism. That is error raised to the power of error and the result is unimaginable error. This is the reason why we have all the wrong teachings that pervade the church today.
The problem we have with tithing stems from the wrong foundation. If you see Christianity as a continuation or a modified form of Judaism, then you will modify some of the practices in Judaism and impose on Christians today. What we however, have noticed about the tithe is that in regards to it, this modification has the hand of what I would call the conspiracy of the clergy in it. These men of God have browsed through all the 613 laws of Moses and singled out some, especially the tithe (and lets not forget first fruit too this January) that will benefit their ministry and called it tithe. They take offence that we have shown them that it is not God's holy tithe (Leviticus 27:30-33) and they make their followers persecute us for taking such stance (I will not bore you with what anti-tithers go through in their local churches here).
Christianity is not Judaism.
Law is law in the NT and has no subdivision.
Paul the apostle was an inspired author of scriptures and helped us to see how the law came to an end.
The Christian man follows a new law: the law of spirit of life in Christ Jesus; the law to love God and men.
There are dispensations in God's dealing with men and it will be good we learn that doctrine ASAP.
Cheers!

First off, I did not limit my categories to 3. I used etc. after mentioning some types. But seriously, does it really matter if one person identifies fewer categories or not? It may well depend on the approach one person takes in trying to explain something. Moreover, there may be some overlap as some laws can fall into more than one category. E.g., the Nigerian constitution says the police (ordinarily) cannot detain you for more than 48 hours without charging you to court. That provision falls under both Constitutional Law and Criminal Law/Procedure.

Some of you are opposed to a resort to laws but you keep on creating your own laws for the rest of us. So, now there’s a law that says that we cannot subdivide phenomena or that it is wrong to do so? So, all the time we spend in (secular or even theological) class learning typology is a waste of time?

You ask the purpose of subdivision. One purpose is to provide clarity and ease of discussion. Another is to understand the type of laws that are not applicable today in any sense. The ceremonial laws that forbid a menstruating woman from the house of God are no longer useful. The civil laws can help us organize our political system but a Christian is not bound by them. Don’t forget God gave Israel laws to govern them politically in addition to spiritually because God was their political leader. Today, God does not play such a role and each country can adopt whatever political system that works for it. Christians in those countries need not insist on the Bible provisions. E.g. the U.S. accepted the idea from the Bible that people born in a place are citizens of that country. The U.K. does not accept that. There are also moral laws like abstaining from adultery, which may or not be part of the civil law. There are rules for conducting business ethically. There are rules applicable to only certain categories of people, like priests and Levites. To claim that all these rules are the same in every material particular is a position that is difficult to sustain. As is any claim that because somebody says that murder is wrong, he also has to accept that observing feasts is required of the Christian.

Finally, you claim that as Christians we are governed by love. I agree. If you love somebody, you won’t steal from him, take his wife or murder him. But what the OP is saying and I agree is: how do you know that what you call walking in love is not actually wrong? E.g., X loves his neighbor and wants his neighbor’s kids to have a happy life. X believes that if the neighbor’s daughter has extensive sexual experience, it will assure her a happy married life. So, X, who worked as a porn star in his past life, mentions it to the neighbor and the daughter and they buy the idea. X then sleeps with her. Is X’s act a sin?

DrummaBoy: I thank you for refering me to the above thread by an anti-tither. But I did not request for a thread, not even one by an anti-tither. I requested for a bible verse that divides the laws God gave Moses into civil, ceremonial, moral, ethical or scribal; or any verse at all in the whole of the bible that divides those laws into any two or more distinctions. What I read in the NT is that the law of Moses is seen as one entity called LAW.
On a final note here, I am not lawless. The teachings of Jesus and the letters of Paul provide ample substances for the way and manner a Christian must conduct himself. Example Ephesian 4-6; Colosians 3. These admonitions are the way of life God will direct the believer in Christ in the New Testament church to live out. This laws or way of life are in accordance with the summary law of God which is to LOVE.

I think both of you are talking past each other. The Bible contains laws in the OT and these laws can be categorized into moral, civil, ceremonial, etc. The Bible does not have to say that for anybody to know it. It's like somebody saying that Noah's ark contained carnivores, herbivores and omnivores and you're asking for where the Bible says that. All you need are the characteristics of each category of animals and compare them to the animals in the ark. Or it is like taking all the laws passed by the National Assembly on such things as allowing people to vote at Age 16, protecting the elderly from scammers, granting protections to the disabled, etc. Anybody with knowledge of the legal system can break these laws into such headings as Constitutional Law, Elder Law, Disability Law, Civil Rights, Criminal Law, etc. Because the legislature did not describe it as such does not mean we cannot. Unless, you're suggesting that al the laws in the OT are of the same character and have no distinguishing characteristics.

I think the larger point you're trying to make is that all the laws have been abolished regardless of whether they are ceremonial, civil, etc. But that's different from saying there were no distinctions in the laws.

I also think the point that the NT contains sufficient rules for the believer is a very solid point. That's what keeps on confusing me about this Law-Grace argument. The "new" teachers of grace spend their valuable time demonizing "the law" but when you ask them if they think rape, murder, stealing are wrong, they'd say yes. And then they launch into some mumbo jumbo about how people sin because of the law. Ok, so those that preach grace without law no longer sin? Somehow, their congregations are better behaved? Of course, anybody with a modicum of intellect knows that that's not even remotely true.

The OP struck the right balance, in my opinion, about Law and Grace. The law is not for the christian, as written. However, the principles behind some of the laws are still valid. That's why many of them are repeated in the NT. And that's why those that claim to preach grace-only never come out to endorse the moral activities, for example, that the law condemns. At the end of the day, much of this is much ado about nothing. Nobody can be justified by the law. And nobody can live a successful christian life who wallows in those activities called sinful. 1 Pet. 2:11.

For those who care about the math, I will illustrate this way.

Name of organization: ABC Partnership
Owners: Mr. A and Mrs. B
Gross revenue in 2012: 150,000 Naira
Expenses (staff, utilities, etc): 50,000 Naira
Profit : 100,000
Entity Tax rate: 0%
Entity Tax: 0 Naira
Profit distribution to owners: 50,000 Naira each
Tax bracket for each owner: 20%
Income tax for each owner: 10,000 Naira
Money left for each owner: 40,000 Naira

Name of organization: ABC Limited (Corporation)
Owners: Mr. A and Mrs. B
Gross revenue in 2012: 150,000 Naira
Expenses (staff, utilities, etc): 50,000 Naira
Profit : 100,000 Naira
Corporate Tax rate: 30%
Corporate Tax: 30,000 Naira
Profit after tax: 70,000 Naira
Profit distribution to owners: 35,000 Naira each
Tax bracket for each owner: 20%
Income tax for each owner: 7,000 Naira
Money left for each owner: 28,000 Naira

Name of organization: ABC Church
Owners: Mr. A and Mrs. B (Pastors)
Gross revenue in 2012: 150,000 Naira
Expenses (staff, utilities, etc): 50,000 Naira
“Profit “: 100,000 Naira
Entity Tax rate: 0%
Entity Tax: 0 Naira
“Profit” distribution to owners (what each pastor takes after expenses): 50,000 Naira each
Tax bracket for each owner: 20%
Income tax for each owner: 10,000 Naira
Money left for each owner: 40,000 Naira

Can somebody tell me the difference between the partnership and the church here, in terms of what the owners gain and what they pay to the government? Zero difference. But people will be harassing churches and ignore businesses that pay no taxes. And can people see the huge difference between what the owners of the partnership keep and what is kept by the owners of the corporation?

Logicboy03: You have no idea what you are talking about but you want to defend your theiving churches by all means.
I didnt want to talk much since I believed that Evil Brain handled the issue well......
You claimed that partnerships dont pay taxes? That is quite irrelevant and silly. They partners still pay income taxes from the individual income they make from the partnership. How is that not a business tax? It is still an income tax- just collected differently.
The only organisational forms that are tax exempt are charities and it should be that way.

You're even more ignorant than your fine brother and "partner" here! So, in your world, there is no distinction between the tax treatment of partnerships and the tax treatment of corporations because partners ultimately pay taxes? To you that's all business tax? Plain rubbish. If that were the case, why did the law go through the trouble of having 2 different provisions for the various entities, since in your book, it all amounts to the same thing? Listen, if 2 people form a partnership and 2 other people form a corporation. At the end of the year, both businesses earn the same amount of profits. The profits are then distributed to the owners. The owners of the corporation will end up paying far more taxes on that profit than the partners, even when all the individuals are in the same tax bracket and have the same individual deductions (number of children, etc). Why? because the partnership does not pay taxes. That's why some people choose to rganize their business as a partnership and expose themselves to personal liability when they can choose a corporation and enjoy limited liability protection. It's tax-driven.

The treatment of the church and partnership are essentially the same at the entity level. Using the same example of 2 business owners, let's assume they formed a church instead. At the end of the year, the church has the same amount of money left over, i.e. profits. Then, these two owners (pastors) share the money between themseves, as salaries. Their tax obligation would be exactly the same as the partners who shared the profits of their partnership.

The advantgae the church enjoys is that it may not distribute any income to the pastors (owners) and not be bothered to pay taxes whereas partners are obligated to pay taxes whether or not there is a distribution to them. But if your concern is that the pastors are pocketing the money, then there's no difference because the church has already made the distribution (the pocketed money) upon which a tax is due from the pastors.

The key queston that none of you seem smart enought to answer as I have asked repeatedly: why are partnerships exempt from income tax? Claiming that they are not exempt and thus are essentially the same as corporations tax-wise is what is silly and uneducated.

^^^

Thank you for the opportunity to expose your ignorance and the ignorance of your ilk who argue for policy change withh little understanding of the policy's raison d'etre. There's no point wasting time. Maybe, you can send more knowledgeable people from your camp and we can continue. It's now you want to send me to dollarland when you you should have done that earlier rather than demonstrate your lack of familiarity with the issues in question. That's part of our problem as Nigerians: it's hard to admit that we don't know some things. At least, now you know that there are many organizational forms that do not pay taxes, not just churches. Chase after those ones before you start harrassing churches. And btw, pastors pay taxes on their income, just as partners do. Guess, you didn't know that one too.

Evil Brain: Partnerships are not legal entities therefore, corporate income tax cannot be levied against them. Instead, income tax is levied against the individual partners in the same manner as a sole proprietorship. This is solely because of the nature of a partnership and not because anybody thinks they shouldn't be taxed. The reason why law firms are usually partnerships is because law firms are full of lawyers and lawyers tend to know how to lawyer their way to paying as little tax as possible. The downside is that they lose the limited liability that corporations have, but they can lawyer their way around that as well.
Churches aren't partnerships, they don't operate like partnerships and the pastors who effectively own them don't pay income tax on the church's' earnings like partners do. There is no other reason for comparing them to partnerships except the vain hope that I'd be ignorant on the topic and concede even though I'm right.
So your argument basically is that certain types of businesses in the US don't pay income tax, therefore churches shouldn't be taxed at all? Really? You want to use your minimal knowledge of the NYC tax code to obfuscate how ridiculous your argument is abi? Nice attempt, but it didn't work.
Try again.

Ha ha ha! We're getting somewhere. Initially, you were not ready to accept that partnerships do not pay taxes. You kept on insisting that they do. And then said that those that do not do are using loopholes. So, now you're abandoning all those baseless arguments. Your new slant is that partnerships are not entities and that lawyers, who form partnerships, use the law to their advantage.

Again, you're wrong on both counts. First, partnerships are entities under U.S. law. If you insist, I can flood you with links that state that clearly. Besides, limited liability companies are also treated the same as partnerships for tax purposes, as the New York link I sent earlier states clearly. So, are limited liability companies entities or are you going to show further ignorance by saying they are not? Again, I can send dozens of authorities to support that they are entities. I am sure you'll accept that corporations are entities. Well, corporations that elect S corporation status also do not pay income tax. So, your first contention, like previous ones, is without merit.

On the second point that lawyers use partnerships, that's quite ignorant. Apart from the fact that many law firms are formed as professional corporations (PC) and professional limited liability companies (PLLC), the use of partnerships go far beyond law practice. Even oil companies, real estate firms and manufacturing companies exist as partnerships, especially limited partnerships. Limited partnerships, like general partnerships, do not pay any income tax.

I did not suggest that partnerships are similar to churches. I brought partnerships in to support and refute 2 points: tax-free status is based on societal considerations that explain allowing the privilege to churches and commercial firms; and tax-free status cannot simply be explained by influence of churches in America unless you're willing to say the same about partnerships and limited liability companies.

BTW, I am reserving stronger arguments, hoping that you have a modicum of knowledge about these issues. Right now, you're arguing from a position of disadvantage based on your little or zero knowledge of this area. I advise that you stick to what you know. Or better, argue for how churches should be made to use their resources for the poor. Taxing them to enrich corrupt officials is not one of such options.

Evil Brain: I don't know where you are getting this idea that those companies aren't require to pay tax. FYI, they are taxed on their profits, their capital gains and their landed property. The fact that they have the money and the lack of morals to lawyer their way out of most of their obligations is irrelevant to our discussion.
You can't use the corporate tax loopholes in the pro-big business, anti-poor people US as a justification for not taxing churches.
Try again.

It is obvious you do not know what you’re talking about. Any business organized as a partnership, limited liability company or S corporation does not pay any income tax to the US government. It has nothing to do with loopholes. See the link below from the State of New York, which says, inter alia: “Income tax responsibilities - A partnership:
• does not pay income tax directly on its income. The partnership's income is passed through to its partners and is included as income on each partner's income tax or franchise tax return."

http://www.tax.ny.gov/pit/efile/partneridx.htm

Loopholes will pertain to corporations (C corp) which are required to pay a corporate income tax. Those can utilize loopholes, credits and deductions to reduce their tax liability. But the big law and accounting firms, which are almost invariably organized as partnerships, and many other businesses now organized as LLCs and PLLCs do not have an income tax liability in the first place. So, loopholes have no place in the discussion.

And why are you talking about capital gains tax or property tax? Let’s settle the income tax question first. Since you do not seem to know how the income tax system works, it is unlikely that you’ll know what to say when we shift to capital gains and property taxes. For a start, tithe and offerings paid in church are income, not captal gains nor are they subject to property tax even if the church were to be a private business that is taxed on its income.

Evil Brain: All of those companies are required to pay tax. If you feel they aren't paying enough, then you can start a new thread about that but don't pretend that they are getting the same free ride as churches.
My argument is that there's not a shred of evidence that religion has any overall positive effect on the amount of harmful behavior engaged in by its members. Until you can show us some, please keep your church propaganda to yourself.
I already dealt with the oil vs tax issue in my last post. Try reading that again. And pointing to the US and Canada is a nursery school debating tactic. Just because other children in school wet their bed doesn't make it okay for you to do it. Churches in US enjoy all sorts of illegal privileges due to their overbearing influence and the lack of opposition to them in the past. But that is slowly changing.

No, those companies are not required to pay - and do not pay any - income tax in the US. Your assumption that churches in the US and Canada don't pay income taxes because of their influence holds little water when you can't answer why for-profit businesses organized as partnershis, LLCs and S corporations enjoy the same privillege. Again, I mention these countries because the practice of exempting religious institutions from tax is similar. Besides, if your argument that churches are enjoying a free ride at the expense of tax payers had any merit, it would be more applicabe to those countries (US, Canada) where there are genuine tax payers who are financing the government, unlike Nigeria. Yet, nobody has seriously considered the proposal to tax churches because it lacks merit, seeing the important social functions that churches play. Sorry I had to spell it out and repeat myself again.