₦airaland Forum

Pastor Kun: Haba bros the other passage is 2 Corinthians 9:10 and second Corinthians was definitely written years after first Corinthians. So how could he possibly be following up on what he was yet to tell them

You do agree that 2 Cor. 9 was talking about money, right? So, the seed there is aptly in reference to money, not so?

Bidam: What he is saying is that the God of the jews is different from the god of the gentiles.smh!

And that the Jews have a different path to salvation from the rest of humanity!

^^^

It may surprise you that neither your position nor the position of those that say that christians may need deliverance is new. Smith Wigglesworth wrote about it almost 100 years ago. Like you, he also did not believe that a christian may need deliverance until he saw it in action. And this was in Europe, so it's not even a Nigerian thing. You cannot run away from all experiences by saying the Word of God is your guide. Because, you do not know everything in the Word. So, when you see an experience that contradicts your present level of knowledge, your job is to search further or dig deeper into the Word. I presented the woman's experience to you because unlike you, she does not have the luxury of quoting scriptural verses that are not relevant to her situation. If you were a pastor and she was a member of your congregation approaching you with this predicament, what would your response be? That's what I want to know.

ajayikayod: I dont want to dwell much on all ds ignorance, but u said u ll prove to me from d scriptures, but u ended not givin at least on example, case or situation. Thr are over 45 deliverance from demons/devil recorded in d scriptures, u cant see a single one from Christians?
U claimed salvation is not enough to deliver a man from power of darkness or curses, exposure to God's word is not enough for renewing of mind. Chairman judgment dey o for all we teach d flock.

Inferring from ur writing, the man who stole in Paul's church must be under demonic oppressions, rit? Unfortunately for d line of tot u presented, Paul simply admonished him not to steal again and work. If such guy is left in ur own hands, u would hav scheduled countless days of deliverance from generational curses to demonic attack.

My brother, I have a simple question for you based on this story I heard a few weeks ago in church. This woman apparently was experiencing a situation where some being has been disturbing her, groping her private parts, etc. even at work. Obviously, she hates what's going on. Now do you think the woman is

1) imagining things?
2) lying?
3) not born again?
4) oppressed by an evil spirit?
5) none of the above?

Oh and a second question: you said that of all the deliverances in the Bible, none was conducted on a christian. Do you think that demands the claim you're making that the ONLY logical conclusion is that christian may never need deliverance? Can you show one scripture that says that or that a christian can never be oppressed?

Joagbaje: There's difference between the covenant and the law. We are not under the old covenant but the law itself contain certain principles that are right .

We don't know what sin is except for the law.

Romans 7:7
if it had not been for the Law, I should not have recognized sin or have known its meaning. [For instance] I would not have known about covetousness [would have had no consciousness of sin or sense of guilt] if the Law had not [repeatedly] said, You shall not covet and have an evil desire [for one thing and another].

So principles are forever. Principles travelled in the law didn't die with the law. We have had different constitution in our nation . But there' are element which are foundational in every constitution . They remain even after the old constitution is abolished by the new. For example .we had had litleton constitition in nigeria which was replaced by clifford constitution in 1947 and Macpherson constitution in Nigeria 1951 Murder will always be a crime In every constitution . So the law contains elements that are eternal principles and principles transcends dispensations .

Romans 7:12
Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Because the Jewish covenant is obsolete does that justify murder or idolatry now?

Why don't we just live in sin because the old is gone?

The only issue about the law is that it cannot bring justification or make a man right before God. You can use the law on a lawfulf way.

1Timothy 1:8
But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

Because of its principles but don't seek to be justified by it becsuse a man can only be justified by faith .

Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law:for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Excellent points. I think this presents the relationship between the law and grace in a clearer manner than many.

Two quick points, though. Another major problem with the law - apart from the fact that it cannot justify anyone - is that the law provides a universal method for God's dealings with man whereas God would prefer an individual approach, as we see in His relationship and fellowship with Adam and Eve. God wants to tailor his instructions to each person to that person's circumstance. This is hard to do with the law. At the same time, God wants people's conduct regulated in accordance with His will and the law is the second best option. E.g., X may be driving home from work in the evening. He sees a man with a flat tire. He thinks it's dangerous to stop and help. There's no law that tells him he must stop to help fix a stranger's flat tire. The Holy Spirit whispers in his heart to stop and help. X does. Through that help, he wins the man to Christ (or the man turns out to be a rich man that helps X become wealthy). Another day, in the afternoon, X is driving and sees a man with a flat tire. He figures that if God wanted him to stop in a dangerous evening, He certainly wants him to stop and help in the afternoon. But the Holy Spirit tells X not to stop. X feels that cannot be God. He stops. An oncoming vehicle hits X and the man he was trying to help. If X had not stopped, both he and the stranded man would have been safe. In the absence of a close relationship or ability to speak to people's heart when they are not born again, the best God can do is make a law that says to stop (or not to stop) when you see somebody stranded. But as we've seen, that's not the best approach in all situations. A law written in the heart is much better.

The other point is that when Paul said that he would not have recognized sin unless he found it through the law, he was speaking for himself and maybe some others, but not everybody. Before the law, people knew what sin was. Joseph, who lived before the law, told Potiphar's wife: "How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God?” Gen. 39:9 (NIV). Even pagans recognized sin, without having the law. See e.g. Gen. 20 - the story of King Abimelech, Sarah and Abraham.

I heard this guy share this story on TV. Amazing!

peteregwu: haba! is that why you call me dumb. but I have mouth to speak. ok it was a mistake, it Oprah they said, "you have about 16k members and their no how u won't have gays among them." I admit it was a mistake from me.

but that video speaks volume that JOEL OLSTEEN IS ONE OF THE FALSE PASTOR OF THE ANTICHRIST. HE IS NOT OF CHRIST. BUT TO LEAD MANY TO HELL. NO WONDER OPRAH TOO WAS HIS ACCOMPLICE COS THEY UAVE SAME BELIEF AND WORKING FOR THE DEVIL.

OPRAH SAYS, WE HAVE MANY WAYS TO GOD, AND NOT JESUS ALONE. NOW THE MEMBERS OF ANTICHRIST IS BEGINNING TO MAKE MANIFEST. I BELIEVE THEY HAVE THE SPRITUAL MARK OF THE BEAST ON THEM WHICH IS INDELIBLE.

IF YOU ARE AND DONT WANT TO GO TO HELL, BEGIN TO READ THE BIBLE YOURSELF AND BE TRULY BORN AGAIN.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 KJV
Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come , except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

AND THE VATICAN IS THE SEAT OF ANTICHRIST. YOU GUYS MAY NOT UNDERSTAND NOW, BUT LATER. I HOPE IT WONT TOO LATE FOR ANYONE. GOD WILL BEGIN TO REVEAL THEM ONE BY ONE.

THANK U LORD.

Well, at least you have enough decency to admit that you made a 'mistake.' That should teach you some lessons that people make mistakes and misspeak. When others do, do you descend on them and refuse to accept any explanation they provide? Hope you know that you'll be judged by the same standard you use for others. Also, when you want to level an accusation against others, especially fellow christians, just pause and ask yourself if you are certain to back up your claim. Finally, since your attack on Joel has been premised on the false claim that he said he had 16,000 gays in his church, would you now admit that your attacks against him and his stance on homsexuality are baseless and should be abandoned?

And by the way, what I said was that Pastors Joel and Lazarus preach the same thing regarding financial prosperity. If you have contrary proof, kindly present it. Don't muddy the waters by bringing in their messages on eschatology or dressing in church.

Joagbaje: Paul was only following up on what he had already told them about laying money aside every Sunday service. In chapter 16.

1 Corinthians 16:2 living bible
On the first day of the week, let every one of you put by him in store, in measure as he has done well in business, so that it may not be necessary to get money together when I come.

Money is referred to as seed, as that Scripture and 2 Cor. 9 clearly show. It would have been a valid point to say that not all reference to seed in the Bible applies to money. I believe that's one mistake we often make.

Joagbaje: Paul was only following up on what he had already told them about laying money aside every Sunday service. In chapter 16.

1 Corinthians 16:2 living bible
On the first day of the week, let every one of you put by him in store, in measure as he has done well in business, so that it may not be necessary to get money together when I come.

Money is referred to as seed, as that Scripture clearly shows. It would have been a valid point to say that not all reference to seed in the Bible applies to money. I believe that's one mistake we often make.

truthislight: What do you mean by that ^ ?

That paul di not preach about the kingdomd ?

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God ? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God ." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom
of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." (1 Corinthians 15:50).

"Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the
kingdom
of God." (Galatians 5:21).

"For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom
of Christ and of God." (Ephesians 5:5).

"Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God,
for which ye also suffer:" (2 Thessalonians 1:5).

Smh for you for saying that paul did not preach about the kingdom of God. Na wa!

Good job.

Another good one is Rom. 14:16-23: “Let not then your good be evil spoken of: For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”

I experienced the above scripture – the part about peace and joy – when I got born again, without even knowing that this scripture existed.

Moreover, Jesus is the King of kings, who has made believers priests and kings. That’s not just for the Jews. Rom 5:17 says that those who receive abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness shall REIGN (that’s what kings do) in life by Jesus Christ.

It seems like believers like to attribute all manner of things to Paul!

Gombs: SMH

You need not shake your head, my brother. There seems to be a lot taught in your church that you do not understand even when you think you do. The videos contradict you clearly. E.g., you said the redeemed was the people that were dead that Jesus rescued and they appeared to people. Pastor Chris said the redeemed are the Jews who were under the curse of the law, i.e. ALL Jews including those alive then and now. Even though he said nothing in the videos about purchase, he said the chrisitan is a new creation, which would contradict your claims that the christian was a debtor whose debt was purchased. Since the pastor believes the christian never existed, he could not have any debt that would have been purchased. You need some humility and learn to pay more attention when the message is going on in church. It's not enough to grab the headlines and go there screaming some slogans from your church when you do not even grasp the substance of the message.

Joagbaje: man was redeemed. A christian is not redeemed. He is a new creature ,created anew. He doesn't have a past. He is the fruit of redemption


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5k7WJQFxik


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLcMSjpR5K0


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ag6kNwBDJQ

Thank you for posting the videos. I watched all three. They shed some light, but I'm not sure they answer the questions raised. I'll continue to work on the topic to gain a fuller understanding.

Bidam: A1. Redeem, Redemption [Verb] exagorazo a strengthened form of agorazo, "to buy" (see agorazo under BUY), denotes "to buy out" (ex for ek), especially of purchasing a slave with a view to his freedom. It is used metaphorically
(a) in Gal 3:13; Gal 4:5, of the deliverance by Christ of Christian Jews from the Law and its curse; what is said of lutron lutron under RANSOM) is true of this verb and of agorazo, as to the Death of Christ, that Scripture does not say to whom the price was paid; the various suggestions made are purely speculative;
(b) in the Middle Voice, "to buy up for oneself," Eph 5:16; and Col 4:5, of "buying up the opportunity" (RV marg.; text, "redeeming the time," where "time" is kairos, "a season," a time in which something is seasonable), i.e., making the most of every opportunity, turning each to the best advantage since none can be recalled if missed.
http://gospelhall.org/bible/bible.php?search=agorazo&dict=vine&lang=greek

Oh this is a new one. So, we don't even know who the price was paid to? Yesterday, you said Adam sold himself to sin. Wouldn't sin [satan] be the master from whom redemption would be obtained? Can you free a slave legally without transacting with the master or abolishing the law that governs the slavery? In any case, can you see now that you and the Op are poles apart? Op says there is no redemption of the christian, you say there is. Op says there was a fresh purchase. You don't seem to say so - you only seem to believe in one purchase, which is the same as redemption. If I have not stated your position correctly, please advise.

Ubenedictus: in economic terms you had to pay to the owner of the slave to buy him, naturally Jesus is suppose to pay the devil so as to purchase man. tHAT IS TOTAL RuBBISH, Jesus didn't exacly purchase man from the devil, no he didn't, he only purchased man for God. The explanation is a bit long so take a little rest, i won't directly be quoting scrippture becos i need to sleep, nevertheless i'm ready to support every sentence scripturally should it be neccesary.

Man became slave to sin and satan by one man i.e adam, he alone actually sined but we all sined in him, that order was reversed in Jesus who did not contact original sin, he lived in complete obedience to his father and thus reversed the disobedience of adam.

Now please note that man became a slave of satan only becos God in accordance with his nature cannot associate with sin, God only left man to his own device becos he couldn't be associated with sin, sin was against the nature of God.

Now down to business, God could accept man again if man was totally sinless.

Jesus while physically bleeding at calvary was spiritually before the throne of God, he entered into that heavenly tabernacle carrying his own blood, he became both priest and victim and offered himself, his own blood to his father,thus fufilling the demands of justice. In Jesus we have a sacrifice that frees us of sin totally so that with Jesus we now have direct access to the father and since the impediment of sin has been done away with and we are now parts of christ, we are now free from the slavery of the devil and slavery to sin.

For all therefore in christ by faith thru baptism, with christ they have been accepted as sons.


I'm sure this has become long and boring, i'm a bit sleepy so let me conclude. To redeem us Jesus broke the laws of economics, he didn't purchase us by paying to the devil instead he went back to the original law. Man is a slave to what he chooses either to sin or to righteousness, by nature in adam we are slaves of sin by grace in christ we are slaves to righteousness. If man became slaves to satan by sin (a delibrate offence against God) then we can come sons by faith in christ Jesus. Christ purchase us for God with his blood becos his blood cleared the impediment against us. By offering blood to the father he cleared in record of sin against and open sonship for us.
The price by which we are made sons is the blood of Christ but that blood wasn't paid to satan it was offered to God to clear the impediment of sin against us so that we can become sons with, in, and through christ.
It seems i'm repeating myself, i'll let the holyspirit do his work.
I do not claim that the above is what pastor chris meant, instead i only presented what i have learnt in God's word.

Even if everything you said above is right, you'd still be describing redemption. Only difference is that many christians believe that Jesus redeemed us from satan while you believe He redeemed us from God. But that's different from the Op who says we were not redeemed. Never knew the subject of redemption can be this complicated. I plan to re-study it based on this encounter.

Ubenedictus: if jesus bought us so he can give us to his father, who sold us to Jesus? Who did Jesus purchase us from? Who did he pay the price to in the ''marketplace''?

Those are simple questions and all of us should be interested in clear answers. It could be that the Op is 100% right. But it has to be explained to us in a way we can understand. So far, that has not been done. In fairness to our brother here, I think he said Jesus bought us from the Father and presented us back to the Father. And then he thinks that's a fresh purchase.

Gombs: Matthew 27:52-53
"and the graves were opened; and many bodies of
the saints which slept arose, and came out of the
graves after his resurrection, and went into the
holy city, and appeared unto many."

Those righteous folks of old held by the devil...those in Abraham's Bosom ("Bosom of Abraham" refers to the place of comfort in sheol (Greek: hades) where the Jews said the righteous dead awaited Judgment Day)....
My Jesus freed them all, he REDEEMED them during/after the battle in Hell. They are the redeemed!




He purchased the debt we owe God, then we became his...now that we are His, He can do whatever He pleases to do with us...He then chose to reconciled us to God. Hallelujah!

" God was in Christ,reconciling the world unto Himself, NOT IMPUTING THEIR TREASPASSES UNTO THEM,and hath committed to us the word of reconciliation"( 2Cor.5:19).



Jesus purchased the debt! God wasn't selling us na! Buying up a debt is different from buying the debtor.

I hope you get it now...pls do

OK, so only the old saints are the redeemed, not us? How do you reconcile that with what you wrote yesterday in post # 10 or so: "by his blood he paid the price of redemption of man after man fell to Satan through adaam". Was it only the old saints that fell to satan through Adam?

And how do you reconcile that quote with your statement now that what Jesus purchased was our debt, not us?

Even more, you contradict the original message here which clearly says in quoting Revelations that christians are what was purchased, not debt.

Finally, whether it is debt or the debtor that was purchased, how do you describe that as a new or fresh purchase, as opposed to old-fashioned redemption or buy-back? If I pay a debt you're owing to GTB, can I describe it as a new purchase? Why can't I say I redeemed your debt?

^^

Thank you very much. Your comments are quite helpful. But they leave some questions unanswered or raise new ones. For instance, you describe the battle described in Colossians and Ephesians as redemption. For there to be redemption, somebody or something has to be redeemed. So, who was redeemed in this battle of redemption, since you state it was not the christian that was [the] redeemed?

Also, you note that Jesus purchased us from God and gave us back to God. Is that a correct understanding of your view?

Taking aside the circuitous nature of this transaction, do you realize that if we're indebted to God and Jesus purchased us from God, that is redemption, a buy-back? Which contradicts the idea of a new purchase. Something is still not adding up.

Satan is both evil-looking and good-looking. He transforms himself into what image is suitable for the purpose he seeks to accomplish. Some people only come under his influence through fear or terror and not because of his debonair looks.

Gombs: You obviously wanna argue...if you still don't get it, ask God for the holy spirit to aid you, or you wait when we get to heaven.

Why do I have to wait till Heaven to get an answer that you and others can provide today? Perhaps, my questions are not clear, so I want to present them this way:

1. Was the christian redeemed or not?

2. If yes, from whom was he redeemed - God or satan?

3. Was the christian purchased or not?

4. If yes, from whom was he purchased - God or satan?

We already know the price (the blood of Jesus). So, some clear answers to the above would be greatly appreciated.

Gombs: The OP didn't say the above in bold...go and read the post again...He said

"Observe that the new creation is not the redeemed; [size=16pt] he’s the fruit of Christ’s redemptive work on the Cross."
[/size]

Where did you see a second transaction in the OP? Even after you saw this?

"The word, "redeemed" is wrongly translated here (Rev 5v9) ; it’s from the Greek, ‘agorazo,’ which means to go to the market and make a purchase; to buy something as a
gift to give to someone. [size=16pt] It’s not a buy-back, as is the case with "lutrōsis," but a fresh purchase. [/size] Christ purchased us with His blood, and gave us as gifts to God. "



I told you you just wanna argue

I do not want to argue. I Simply want to learn. What is hard for me to get is why you keep on introducing confusion to the issue. In the post, you accuse me of misstating the OP's views about the christian and redemption. I said the Op does not believe the christian is redeemed. You said Op did not say that and then quote this portion from the message: "Observe that the [b] new creation is not the redeemed . . . ." How's that different from what I said? Then you quote another portion of the message that says: "It’s not a buy-back . . . ." Do you realize that buy-back is the same as redeemed or redemption? So, if the message is saying the transaction is not a buy-back, it is exactly saying it is not redemption. Instead, it says it is a new purchase, prompting me to ask who the seller was, especially since this purchase appears to occur after redemption.

It is saddening that you've been under the pastor's teaching for some time and heard the message over and over, and yet seem unable to understand what the message is saying in the first place.

Zikkyy: I don't see joagbaje providing a solution, and it's simply because he is not capable of providing one. His role or only responsibility on matters of this nature is to promote his pastor's teachings, the pastor does the explaining. only person that can attempt to explain the op is Chris oyak, and I don't see him coming here.

Pastor Chris is a very fine teacher who delivers the Word with masterful clarity. Perhaps, because this message is short, it is not very clear. I'm hoping the Op and other CE members can present us with a fuller version of the message, which probably tackles the issue in greater detail and answers the pertienent questions.

^^^

I don't need your youtube videos. Simply provide the source where Joel said he has 16,000 gays in his church. Is that very hard? What you do not know is that the population of the City of Houston is a little over 2 million, while the Greater Houston area is about 6 million people. Attendance at Joel's church on a weekly basis is about 45,000, including tourists and visitors from other churches. While that is the largest congregation in America, it is still less that 1% of the population of the Greater Houston area. In that area, the number of gays is not super large, with one estimate stating that there are 61,000 gays in Houston. Adda few more thousands perhaps and the gay population in the whole Area still won't be a lot. For 1% of the population to have 16,000 gays - more than one-third of the church and one-quarter of all the gays in Houston - is implausible. Houston is not San Francisco. So, your claim is absurd. I've been to Joel's church probably more than all the youtube videos of his teachings you have viewed. And I know that his positions on gays and salvation are in stark contrast to the falsehood you've been spreading here.

If you have any integrity in you, produce the evidence that Joel made that claim and if you're unable to do so, simply apologize for misstating the facts. That's the honorable thing for any decent person, let alone a christian, to do.

^^^

I think you have a different understanding of the post from the rest of us. Please read it again. The post said it is wrong to see the christian as the redeemed. You're saying the christian is the redeemed, but only his spirit part is redeemed. The Op never said that nor would the Op agree with you. That's the point. Since there is a disagreement with traditional christian belief on this, further clarification would help.

Yooguyz: now you are talking, what i don't understand is why christians condemn the person. If a non-gay homosexual christians asks you to be his friend will you accept his friendship?


Joel Osteen never said that ^^, could you quote any of his post that implied or directly said the above?

Of course you'll wait for a long, long time. The same fellow claimed that Pastor Joel said that he had 16,000 gays in his church. I asked him to provide just one authentic source for the assertion. I even sweetened the deal with an offer to make a contribution to a legitimate charity of his choice, if he can back it up. He could not. Instead, he abandoned the thread and opened a new one. Integrity is really a scarce commodity in today's world, including inside the church. Sadly, the same people actually think they're living a holy life, simply because they are not engaged in sexual immorality, cover their hair, etc. Yet, they fail to realize how terrible it is to be a false witness against their brethren.

Gombs: Psl 49
7 None of them can by any means redeem [either himself or] his brother,[size=16pt] nor give to God a ransom for him[/size]—
8 For the ransom of a life is too costly, and [the price one can pay] can never suffice—



Jesus paid our debt...he paid it all the debt we owe God due to Adam's err,


the question u should ask is Who were we indebted to or what was it Jesus paid for? not who he purchased us from...were we put up for sale before?

Did you read the original post. It's the one that uses the word "purchase" so you're querrying the issue of who he purchased us from and asking if we were ever put up for sale makes me wonder if you are following this topic at all. Second, you suggest that Jesus redeemed us from God, not satan? Even if for the sake of argument we accept that as truth, where does the fresh purchase that the Op spoke of come in? So, after paying the price to redeem us, he paid another price to purchase us afresh? And purchased us from whom this time? These are simple questions and I'm surprised I cannot get a coherent answer.

Joagbaje: Jesus paid the price to apease Gods demand of justice on our behalf.

But that's what christians call redemption. Your original post dismisses that and asserts there is a transaction after that called a fresh purchase. Did Jesus redeem us with His blood or not? If He did, where does a fresh purchase come in? There cannot be a fresh purchase if we were slaves and Jesus died to rescue us from slavery. Fresh purchase makes sense only if we were free at the time of purchase. Otherwise, Jesus would be purchasing what another person (satan) has a legitimate claim to. E.g., I am owing the bank for the car I am driving. If I pay to get the title back, that's redemption. There can be no fresh purchase of the car until I have paid off the loan. On the other hand, if you say that satan had no claim to humanity before the purchase, that defeats the whole point of Jesus paying any price.

Bidam: God Laws are eternal.He doesn't change them that was why when satan sinned he fell under the judgmental wrath of God. He deceived Eve hence the fall of Adam which caused chaos in creation.Serpent was cursed,Eve was cursed on childbearing.The ground was cursed for Adam. That is the judgement we are talking about.

The buyout clause for man to escape this judgement was for a righteous and sinless man to shed His blood.Since no one except God is holy and righteous,He has to send His WORD as a Son to die for the sins of mankind. That is the purchase we are referring to.

It seems to me like you did not read the original post. What you described above is redemption. The Op says christians are not redeemed. There was a purchase after redemption, and that's where christians belong. Nobody so far has been able to provide even a decent explanation of this second transaction. For it to be clear, we need to know who the parties to this transaction are. You can't have a purchase without a seller and purchaser.

Candour: For there to be a purchase, there has to be a seller and a buyer. For there to be a ransome, there must be an exchange. you give something to ransome someone or another thing and when you give, somebody must receive so the question is very valid.

I'm interested in this teaching as well as i need to clear up somethings i might be confused about.

Correct. The issue here is not even whether Adam sold himself to sin. But who Jesus purchased us from. As the Op acknowledges, christians all these years have believed that they're redeemed. But the Op is suggesting that is incorrect; that we are a new purchase while at the same time accepting that we have been redeemed. This is the picture I'm getting: Jesus died and through His death and resurrection, we were redeemed. For Him to make a new purchase, it means either we're never redeemed by what He did or after redemption, we're in a new slavery. At that point, Jesus made another purchase. But even this second purchase wouldn't be new as OP interprets new, it'd be second redemption. For it to be a fresh purchase, we had to be free and Jesus then bought us, as opposed to buying us back (redemption).

That's what I need clarification on. Simply put: what did Jesus' blood accomplish: redemption, purchase, neither or both?

Gombs: what garden?
we have come to Mount zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem...hebrews 12v22 not a garden!

Spiritual Eden? where did u get that from? is zion same as "Spiritual Eden"? do u have scripture to back this up?

anyways sha, the point of my post is that Jesus didnt pay the devil anything. we were indebted to God.


i dey meeting now.....brb

You need to slow down a bit because you're not making any sense on this thread. Looks like you're adding a new dimension by saying redemption does not even involve satan. Christians believe Jesus redeemed us from our former master (satan and sin). The Op says after redemption, Jesus purchased us. The simple question is: who did Jesus purchase us from? If you don't know the answer, you can just keep quiet so we can all learn from the Op.

Quite interesting. I'll like to learn more. So, could you clarify one more thing: Who did Jesus purchase us from - who was selling us and received the purchase price?

Candour: Incase you do not know, Eli and Samuel's kids you claim were not destitutes are the exact examples of the Charlatans in Christianity today because They were very corrupt. Read 1Sam 2:12-17 to get the gist of Eli's sons which was so bad that God had to get them killed in battle. Read 1Sam 8:1-3 to get the gist of Samuel's sons. infact i'll quote verse 3 here

1Sam 8:3
'And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgement'

From this verse you can make the following deductions
1. Samuel was a honest servant of God who was content with having his needs met
2. His sons were crooks who saw service to God as a means to enrich themselves

Now which of the examples above will you recommend as standard for your ministers today? Any minister of the gospel not content with having his needs met but instead wants to compete with the high fliers in society is a crook and a thief and will inevitably devise schemes to fleece his flock like the children of Eli and Samuel.

No matter how you see it, true gospel stewardship WILL NEVER pay as much as secular pursuits. Christ our Lord did not have cash stored up. The bag Judas kept was nearly empty most times because he too like most pastors today saw the office as one to loot. Our Lord's needs were met whenever they arose like when a fish provided money for tax and that is what the Lord expects of us Christians and i dare say much more of his ministers.



The Levites were mandated not to get any land which is a deprivation on its own. The Lord provided 10% for them which was enough to meet there needs particularly when you remember they had to share this 10% with the widows, orphans, Strangers and other needy people in Isreal. No one here has said ministers should not get support from their congregations, at least i NEVER SAID that. what i oppose is you saying your friend who went into the ministry deserves everything that your friend who took a secular job got. You mentioned houses, cars, luxuries etc. The gospel is NOT a business. Your pastor friend should be happy God counted him worthy of a place in the vineyard instead of lamenting about the material things he's missing. God promised to meet needs, he didn't promise a chateau or golden chariots. If he's regretting, he should check; maybe God didn't call him after all.

You keep shifting the goal post. Were Samuel's or Eli's children priests? The simple point you need to address is whether Samuel, Eli, Moses and Co. were poor or different in any way from their "mates" in the secular world. Their children do not come into the discussion. Otherwise, we should also ask about the children of Elijah, Elisha and others you mentioned. Also, I gave a hypo and was not talking about a real friend. And all of us should count ourselves happy that God called us into His kingdom. Based on that, christians in Mobil should live less than the unbelivers in Mobil, going by your logic. But I've not heard you say that. We all agree that the needs of ministers should be met, just as God met the needs of the tribe of Levi. What is problematic is your definition of "needs." Owning a house is not a need for a pastor, but it is a need for the brother in Mobil. Same with owning a car. Again, one more time, you've not been able to provide one scriptural verse that says that ministers should live a poorer life than other christians, especially when it comes to owning the essentials of (modern) life.

Candour: Contentment is the key bro. Contentment! Contentment!! Contentment!!!

The way the MOG you mentioned above amass material things will almost make an ungrounded person suspect there is no place called heaven. I mean if we are eager to be with the Lord, why the craze to acquire things and more things and more things? It's simple: They lack any fiber of contentment in their body and souls.

1John 2:15
'Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the father is not in him.'

I don't know much about Prince or very much about Oyedepo. But as far as I know, Joel Osteen lives a very simple life. He dresses well but not that expensively. He drives his father's former car (Lexus). He owns one house he lives in and he mentioned that he was feeling guilty about buying an investment property but God told him there was no problem. You don't see him in the social (party) circuit with the high rollers. So, to you, somebody that controls a ministry with an income of more than $100 million is amassing personal wealth by living in one house and investing in another property?