₦airaland Forum

viaro:
@noetic16,

I would rather like to respect the feelings of other readers and contributors in this thread and leave it off here. Cheers.

well understood bro. cheers.

toba:
when will noetic and viaro start behaving like adults and will not challenge each other?

henceforth, I will tone down my responses. I have nothing against viaro.

Image123:
Viaro
I may be wrong on this but it seems that Noetic doesn't regard the epistles or perhaps the NT as the Word of God, but as men's view. That may explain his 'stand'.

On the contrary, I do regard the epistles as the infallible and perfect words of God inspired by the holy spirit. what I do not accommodate is the personal and greedy human interpretation men have given to it.

viaro:
The thread was not for a debate either - perhaps this is one point you have been missing all along.

If I ever came across as all-knowing and arrogant or perhaps as someone who disrespects the scriptures. . . I do sincerely apologise. That was never my intention as I expressed myself as I deemed fit. However I do completely disagree with the lack of substance in all of ur arguments. no insult intended.

You're arguing far from what I posted in #62. I did not "recommend" human teachers for heresies or errors. Instead, I sought to address basic questions: why are there heresies at all? How do they occur? What does God's Word say on the subject? Second, having sought to address those basic questions, I noted that even where these things are evident, the believer is to exercise discernment. This is not the same thing that you're talking about here, and it shows a serious lack of discernment on your part and casts doubt as to whether you even read that post at all.

Viaro, with due respect, I find ur reference to post 62 very irrelevant in this discourse. The reason is because u submitted that teachers are meant to teach but the believer also requires the spirit of discernment. contrary to my position of the holy spirit being the teacher. Take for instance Apostle Paul wrote more than half of the entire NT, this is so because God gave him the message and approved of his teaching. why is this not applicable to the teachers u postulate and vouch for? why does a believer need discernment to decipher the intentions of their message?

Your statement on "doctrine" was careless indeed. That is the point you're struggling to excuse, but doing so poorly! All the questions you've asked above have to do with doctrines at some level - and whatever you recommend as answers would again be your own interpretation that mirrors your 'doctrine'. You cannot ask these questions and wave them away as if you have nothing to say about them - and what you say would definitely mirror your own teaching, no?!?

But when you argue as you did initially that (a) "of what essence is doctrines to a believer?", and (b) "Doctrines come from man's ridiculous attempt of placing God's counsel under the microscope of human reasoning", you only tend to confuse issues all the more for yourself. You have nowhere acknowledged the distinction between the doctrine of God and that of men - once you acknowledge this distinction, you will see that all your arguments against "doctrine" is absolutely unnecessary and useless.

This is rather pathetic. . . why have u ignored all the questions I asked on doctrines? does that mean u dont know the answers to them? what stops u from admitting that?. . . .let me repeat them here below.

1[i]. So tell me, should believer pay tithe or not?, cover their hair or not?, walk bare footed in a white garment or not?, speak in unknown tongues or not?, ask for love offerings or not? attend church service thrice a week or not?, worship on saturday or sunday? should believer consult prophets for personal prophecy or not? should the presence of the holy spirit be marked with shakings or not? should believers sow seed for blessings and break through or not?[/i]

2. You picked out two phrases I used with the sole intent of misrepresenting my views. . . .why did u choose to conveniently ignore this question I asked [size=13pt]is the knowledge in question, pertinent to the eternal life of the believer?[/size] what u have failed to show is any doctrine outside of the ones I listed that enriches the eternal life of a believer.

3. You keep throwing unnecessary, irrelevant words and posers. I have no reason to acknowledge the difference between the doctrines of man and God. Even the resident atheists namely tudor, mazaje, huxley and toneyb have stated and endlessly ridiculed the often ridiculous differences between God's doctrines and latter day men doctrines, how much more myself, a believer. dude, I just dont see the relevance of such to this discourse.

Thank you - only you understand the mind of God, nevermind that you never seek to calmly see that you're confusing issues for yourself. Is it any wonder[/size] that you alone can't understand yourself?

what part of my post suggests that I know tha absolute mind of God. please let us limit our differences to issues and not to ridicule or to put the lord's name into disrepute. I have not in any way suggested that I am speaking for God or declaring His mind. we are both having a mental exercise by displaying our understanding of the scriptures. The fundamental difference in our differences lies with the source of our influences. . . .one is influenced by the theological carnality in the church, while the other is influenced by spiritual exercise with the holy spirit.

Clarification? You had all the opportunity in the world to have corrected yourself without much ado - but when you make very arrogant assertions about "doctrine" and yet can't see how very arrogant your statements are, you expect us to waste time asking you to clarify your obviously WRONG conclusions?!? Is it not clear to you that something is patently wrong in some of your assertions?

blah blah blah. .  , if u had good intentions, u would have asked me for clarification and not make rather meaningless misrepresentation of my views.

Please stop being childish - as if you didn't read the distinctions I made between the doctrines of men, doctrines of devils, and the doctrine of God!! Scripture does not just flat out conclude that "doctrines" come from men - it quite clearly shows the difference between these various doctrines and points out what God would have us receive! Is that too hard for you?

irrelevant. The subject has nothing to do with the differences between man made doctrines and Godly doctrines.

It comes from both - it is because you are too far gone with your sanctimony that is why you keep polarising your arguments against "doctrine".[size=18pt] What does Acts 2:42 tell us? "And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine[/size] and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." Did you miss that "doctrine" is listed first in that verse? Your problem here is that you can't bring yourself to see that there is a vital place for "doctrine" in Christian fellowship - that word seems to irk you so badly that you react so badly to it and can't see any distinction between false doctrine and that which points us to doctrine in Christian fellowship!

what was the apostles doctrine?
was it different from salvation, repentance, baptism, feeding the poor, restitution, testifying et all.[size=18pt] Please show me anything in the bible that testifies of the apostles doing anything else?[/size]

I've already explained earlier. Just don't play games and try being difficult to yourself.

No u did not. how does my primordial analyses differ from hebrews 5 and 6 account?

The tune you always sing when you have nothing to say. Well done.

its not my favourite.

What do you mean by that? Did you ever anywhere try to make such a dictinction, huh? If you ever had attempted recognizing that distinction, would you have been yapping vacantly and reacting all around against "doctrine"? Are you so confused between these distinctions that you just can't see how your obviously flat statement about "doctrine" is careless and disgraceful?

mr viaro, pls get real 

You were the one who emphasised on the different types of doctrines. . . . .that was not part of the discussion and I had no reason to state anything related to such. what u have not shown me yet is the relevance of this "new information" u have disclosed 

Tell me - does the Bible not point to TEACHERS as human beings in the Body of Christ? Ephesians 4:11 sound familiar? What about Acts 13:1? Oh, God Himself set teachers in the Church, according to 1 Corinthians 12:28, no?!?

1.I am sure u read my first post to u, I made mention of the following
The words of God are not an oratory tool for crafts men. They are words to made alive by the deeds of men You cannot tell a hungry to "accept Jesus or be damned" . . .Nope, u feed him and cater for his needs, then tell him of the forthcoming kingdom. So also can u not tell a unclothed man to "accept Jesus or be damned" You clothe him, feed him, shelter him, meet his needs and then tell him of the forthcoming kingdom. The same goes for the imprisoned, hopeless, helpless and other members of the society,

2. What type of teaching did Jesus ask the disciples to do . . . .He asked them to FEED his flock. . . this was what He commanded Peter John 21:15-17 and this was the apostles doctrine Acts 4:32-35

3. This also was Apostle Paul's doctrine as he was instructed by the apostles: Galatians 2:10.

4. If u must know, teaching is NOT the oratory use of words but the practical application of God's words.

All these are the gracious gift of God to the Body of Christ - they are not to be confused for the "false teachers" bringing damnable heresies, of whom we have been warned against (2 Peter 2:1). The teachers in the Body of Christ are gifted and mature believers who are set in the Church by God Himself - that is His Word. You may argue long and hard against this fact, but that would merely be your own problem and has no bearing whatsoever on what Scripture says to the believer who is reasonable and calm enough to see it for himself or herself!

I will not allow u to side step this "discussion" There has been no reference to false teachers. but the essence of human teaching in relation to doctrines has been the subject of discourse. keep on track viaro 

viaro:
You didn't ask for a similarity or dissimilarity - you flat out made categorical statements that deny the value of DOCTRINE in the life of the believer, and I responded to show you in God's Word that He desires to teach His people knowledge and make them understand doctrine. You did not set forth the difference between them either, other than just yapped a blank statement about them as if the one is opposed to the other. If they are mutually exclusive and have absolutely no connection between them, let's see how you exemplified them below -

Ok, now I ask. . . .please show me the similarities or differences between doctrine and knowledge?

Thank you - perhaps you should see that the very example in A. forms Christian DOCTRINE in the NT. For example, Romans 5:14-21 shows us what Adam's disobedience effected in humanity. If that is not the case, what then could have been the reason behind Romans 5 saying anything about Adam's disobedience in Genesis?

Doctrine is connected with knowledge - they are not disconnected. However, the value of doctrine in the life of the believer is such that it sets the parameters for fellowship among believers: for us, we are urged to abide in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 1:9) ; and if anyone comes without that doctrine, we are to receive him not (2 John 1:10). It is not just a question of "knowledge" being far more important than "doctrine" - for whetever "knowledge" anyone might claim, the doctrine of Christ is the defining grounds for fellowship!

This is quite ambiguous and reveals ur limited understanding of the subject here.

1. The original sin and the price Christ payed is a DOCTRINE of SALVATION. . .  .but God's immortal words to Adam and Eve concerning the forbidden fruit is NOT a doctrine but a word of KNOWLEDGE. how does "thou shall not eat the forbidden fruit" constitute a doctrine?

2. Doctrine can be formed from words of knowledge. . but are not words of knowledge. I gave u a second example on tithing which was clearly a doctrine, the case of the sabbath which is clearly a doctrine, . . . . , let me ask u this. . .when God told the Israelites not to keep extra manna for the next day, was that a doctrine or a word of knowledge?

3. be humble, ask me to explain these concepts in simpler form to u 

This is why when we go back and remind you about the statements you made on doctrine -

(a) "of what essence is doctrines to a believer?", and
(b) "Doctrines come from man's ridiculous attempt of placing God's counsel
        under the microscope of human reasoning]"

Honesty is ideal. . . . u should place those statements side by side with the question I asked in that same post 86: [size=13pt]is the knowledge in question, pertinent to the eternal life of the believer?[/size] which u are yet to answer.

. . .it is clear from these that there's every reason to show your statement is false and because it is unqualified. "False doctrine" would have better qualified your statement in (b); but that in itself does not mean that 'doctrine' is of no essence to the believer as is implied in your statement in (a). If you recognized that there is value in "doctrine" to the believer, one would not have read that statement in (a), let alone your unqualified assertion in (b) above!

what is the value of doctrine to a believer? Do us all one favour. . .Name one doctrine outside of salvation that is essential to the eternal life of a believer?

Growth is the maturity a believer attains as he/she continues in fellowship with the saints in the things of God (see 1 Peter 2:2). Such a growth finds the "apostles doctrine" an essential part of that fellowship - Acts 2:42 and 1 John 1:3.

1. 1 peter 2:2 talks of believers having a desire for the word to grow. It does NOT define growth

2. Acts 2:42 tells of the apostles doctrine. . . and the apostles doctrine is what Christ commanded Peter to do. . .the same thing peter commanded Paul to do . . . .which is to feed the poor. Acts 2:42 does not define growth.

3. 1 john 1:3:  does not talk about growth in any context.

4. Viaro please do me a favour and educate my ignorance. . .[size=20pt]what is the meaning of this GROWTH u keep talking about? where is it in the scriptures? which of the apostles practised it?[/size]

Now, in Hebrews 5 we learn that when believers are not maturing in fellowship where the Word is taught, the situation presents such believers as "dull of hearing". Why? For the simple reason that they are stuck on the same "elementary principles" which seem to be your hallmark -

[list]Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.[/list]

[list]For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. - Hebrews 5:11-14[/list]

Then follow through with Hebrews 6:1-2 >>

[list]Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of - [/list]

[list][li]repentance from dead works,[/li]
[li]and of faith toward God,[/li]
[li]Of the doctrine of baptisms,[/li]
[li]and of laying on of hands,[/li]
[li]and of resurrection of the dead,[/li]
[li]and of eternal judgment.[/li][/list]

Synopsis: on the one hand, those who are recommending that the "elementary principles of salvation" is all that the believer needs are in effect falling into the same idea that Hebrews 5 shows will tend only to those who are dull of hearing! Those "elementary principles" are the foundation - but that is not all there is nor should they be all that a believer should be concerned with! Those who want to stay on that note are babes and thus cannot digest 'strong meat' - whereas, those who go on to maturity beyond those elemtary/foundational level are showing they have their senses exercised to handle 'strong meat'.

Therefore, chapter 6 recommends that we leave those elementary principles behind and MOVE ON to maturity! This chapter does not say it is alright to stay with the elemtary principles you recommend (under the guise of "principal elements of salvation". It says: noetic16, LEAVE THOSE ELEMENTARY PRINCIPLES and GO ON to maturity BEYOND that foundation!

Paul did not imply leaving the teachings of Christ or the development of cow meat like u want to make us believe 
Paul spoke about PERFECTION. which is all about our eternal life and the second coming of Christ . . . .is that rocket science?

Your analysis, therefore, is just a laugh - it is more the arrogant chirpings of a self-satisfied know-it-all who concludes there's nothing more than his own "analysis" where elementray things are your hallmark! Stay there - it suits you just fine!

It certain does - that is why you cannot respond other than excuse yourself lamely.

pls permit me to laugh in arabic 

viaro:
@noetic16,

You didn't make yourself clear enough, and the way you talked about doctrine was quite careless. However, the questions of your concerns have been addressed in my post at #62 - and I also noted that the believer ought to exercise discernment in these things.

Fortunately for you, I am not very forthcoming for a "debate".
1.  Your posts (#62) recommends human teachers but teaches discernment. why should errors come from these human teachers? why should they not always teach the mind of God and the HS? the bible NT consists of Paul's teachings because God approves of his teachings. . . . .why should that not be the case for latter day teachers? and why is discernment more important than the teacher? does that not tell of unGodly doctrines? why not go to the right pulpit to learn messages from God? is this rocket science?

2. You assertion of a careless statement. . .remains ur opinion and an uninformed opinion at that. Latter day doctrines have only divided the body of Christ and confused the would-be saints of Christ. So tell me, should believer pay tithe or not?, cover their hair or not?, walk bare footed in a white garment or not?, speak in unknown tongues or not?, ask for love offerings or not? attend church service thrice a week or not?, worship on saturday or sunday? should believer consult prophets for personal prophecy or not? should the presence of the holy spirit be marked with shakings or not? should believers sow seed for blessings and break through or not?

It is ur rejoinder to my assertion that is both misguided, careless and ignorant. Perhaps u should simply have asked me for clarification. And I gave u the opportunity to do so in my last pot.

3. And before u answer 2 above, tell me where these doctrines came from? who influenced them? are both sides of these doctrines from the holy spirit? is God the author of confusion?

Again, I addressed that when I made reference to Hebrews 5 and 6. If one were to be limited to just the principal elements of salvation, that is simply ignoring what those two chapters in Hebrews are saying. Worst of all, it does not tend to growth and maturity, but makes the believer who recommends 'just principal elements' to become dull of hearing (Heb. 5:11-14).

1. This is part of the lies being sold as a doctrine. does growth come from doctrinal teachings of from fellowship and walk with God? where does growth come from, is it by believing the ridiculous scriptural interpretation of pastoral thieves or by simply walking with God? who revealed these teachings to the pastoral thieves in question? was it from their knowledge or from God?

2. how does the teachings of hebrews 5 and 6 differ from my primordial analysis?

I disgree. You are making out your own narrow view and drawing hasty conclusions. There are doctrines of men (Colossians 2:22); and also doctrines of devils (1 Timothy 4:1) - but we can't confuse them for the doctrine of God nor forget that in the time of prevailing decadence, there exists still the doctrine of the Father (John 7:16).

It is the latter (the doctrine of the Father) that we often forget just because there are perverse doctrines around. However, God has always looked for His own people who desire to be taught of Him, and thus we find in Isaiah 28:9 that He seeks to impart both doctrine and knowledge to His people -

          'Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make
           to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk,
           and drawn from the bosoms.'

One immediately sees that "doctrine" and "knowledge" are not strange phenomena with God; nor can anyone maintain that "Doctrines come from man's ridiculous attempt of placing God's counsel under the microscope of human reasoning" - to maintain such simply means you're set to confuse issues further without being careful enough to distinguish between the doctrines of men and the doctrine of God. Jesus indeed came with a doctrine, and the life-changing effects upon His hearers made them marvel (Matt. 7:28 and 22:33; Luke 4:32).

blah blah blah . . . the above is simply irrelevant.

1. There is no dispute about the doctrines of God, devils or men. The fundamental question is how does a believer learn the doctrines of God? is it through human teachers or through the counsels of the holy spirit?

2. there is no where in the epistle above, where u told us the similarity between doctrines and knowledge?
For example: A. God tells Adam that "the day u eat of the forbidden fruit u shall die" . .  .this is knowledge for man to live at peace with God.
B. God tells the children of Israel to pay a tithe of their farm produce to the priestly elite every 3/7 years. . . . . .a man tells his church to pay one-tenth of their income as a tithe.
God's instruction in A is a word of knowledge and not a doctrine. God's instruction in B is a doctrine and not a word of knowledge. man's instruction in B is his own doctrine and a misrepresentation of God's teachings.

You didn't care to see it was a direct response to your hasty conclusions previously. The believer is to grow beyond your very limited recommendations - that was the point in Hebrews 5 and 6.

This is rather Lame. can u please highlight the growth a believer should experience outside of my analysis. . . .but please start by defining GROWTH

Sorry, you're too occupied with the negative to the utter exclusion of the postive! Dude, doctrines of men and of devils do not mean that the doctrine of God should be completely forgotten. So when you begin to draw unbalanced conclusions about "doctrine", you make your reader wonder about your ideas. Be clear in what you say, distinguish the one from the other, let your concerns be in context of not being too polarised to just one side - and perhaps others can more easily grasp your views.

typical viaro, making senseless deductions from people's posts. was the above made in reference to my post?

viaro:
@noetic16,

Howdy? Now I can have something to say in direct reply to yours:

I am good . , , and u?

I think you got me wrong there. It is not true that I "never" considered the implication of unhealthy teaching or false teachers - infact, I outlined this very issue in post #62! There, I not only discussed why we have heresies in many places today, but also spoke a couple of times about DISCERNMENT.

ok. , . .if u say so.

You should not feel a need where your words bear testimony to what you had in mind. I did not edit anything about the quote I drew from yours; but to have been so careless about the value of doctrine is quite alarming - I can excuse you on that; but you should not be too hasty to react the way you did earlier to make such unguarded statements.

there was nothing careless in what I said . . . it was u who did not comprehend the full point I was making. what do u imply doctrine? is the various division between the many denominations a result of different doctrines? if the body of Christ be the same, why are there so many contradicting doctrines? why should a believer be involved in such divisions? why not get involved in just the principal elements of salvation and subsequently walk with God?

I didn't take you up on that initially - and I explained why to nuclearboy. If you assume that after all those things you talked about, then a believer does not need any knowledge afterwards, you are making your reader think you know it all at that stage! That is more than arrogance and very misleading indeed. A few cults were started that way where people think that they have repented and are walking with God and therefore need no other knowledge!

This is a far cry from the point I raised. There is a whole difference between doctrine and knowledge. knowledge comes from teachings, which are universal as they are from God. Doctrines come from man's ridiculous attempt of placing God's counsel under the microscope of human reasoning. doctrines are NOT knowledge.

We learn every day or our lives. Any one who feels he has "arrived" and "accomplished" should wear a big 'L' sign on his back! He that thinks he knows when he does not know is acting like a fool - and it does not matter if that person is noetic or viaro (1 Corinthians [color=Black]3:18[/color]).

I have never in any way implied otherwise.

I'm sure you have an informed personal opinion on the Sabbath and such issues around what day(s) to worship. You cannot pretend that to not be concerned about it, unless you are trying to say that you don't even worship God at all - so, whether you choose any specific day or not would be based on your persuasion of what you read in God's Word as a doctrine of the Christian faith and testimony, NO?!?

and?

Please don't shout - especially when you might be wrong! Hebrews 6:1-2, for example, possibly shows how very wrong you might be! Let's even allow your own argument for the moment, viz: your assumption that these are the things that define your own conclusion -

[list][li]salvation - with "principal elements", such as -[/li]
[li]restitution,[/li]
[li]genuine repentance,[/li]
[li]love,[/li]
[li]fellowship with saints,[/li]
[li]faith[/li]
[li]and holiness[/li][/list]

Nice. I recognise that there could be more - since you listed those as "examples". However, what does Hebrews 6:1-2 say? In one word: MOVE ON FROM THERE to maturity - and as such, there are in fact several other aspects that we should explore as a necessary part of our Christian faith BEYOND just the doctrine of salvation -

[list]"Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of - [/list]

[list][li]repentance from dead works,[/li]
[li]and of faith toward God,[/li]
[li]Of the doctrine of baptisms,[/li]
[li]and of laying on of hands,[/li]
[li]and of resurrection of the dead,[/li]
[li]and of eternal judgment.[/li][/list]

All these things are just the "foundation" - that is not all we should be cemented on. Hebrews 6:1-2 says we should move on from these things unto "perfection"; and it seems clear that the things you mentioned earlier are just "the first principles of the oracles of God" as Hebrews 5:12-14.

So, when you have come to the conclusion that beyond what you assert, there is nothing more - the end result is that you will have nothing else to present. We can only receive if we're open to God - but shouting our own small conclusions as the limit of all that defines Christianity is quit unproductive.

There is nothing u mentioned above that could not be deduced from previous rejoinder with u.

Your opinion. I guess when you go through Scripture and see that you're too narrow in your arguments, then light will dawn on you. Till then, fingers crossed for you, my bro.

narrow? how narrow, if u could discern the source of most of the prevalent doctrines in the church today, u might get have an appreciative understanding of the darkness disguised as light.

InesQor:
@noetic:
The Nature and Sovereignty of God is also a fundamental Doctrine.

Ezekiel 12:28 Therefore say to them, "This is what the Sovereign LORD says: None of my words will be delayed any longer; whatever I say will be fulfilled, declares the Sovereign LORD."

Revelation 17:14 They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings -- and with him will be his called, chosen and faithful followers.

For instance, within the doctrine of God's Holiness is the doctrine of His Sovereignty. He is Sovereign because He is Holy (i.e. unmovable and steadfast except on His own accord). Sovereignty and Holiness of God seem not to be related, but it is embedded in one another.

When you say there is no doctrine outside of salvation, you are approaching the matter from man's own end. Think of it this way: our relationship with God is a two-way thing, a kind of business deal: we gain salvation, but what does He gain from us? Ponder on it, and yet other fundamental doctrines besides those related to salvation, will spring upon you. God bless.

1. God needs nothing from us.

2. These are end-time doctrines whose interpretations are usually with loads of holes.

This is laughable.

Gidtruth:
And will that be beacuse the doctrine is bogus or out of sycn or difficult to explain in plain language?

ur conclusions though ignorant reflect ur inability to entertain new truths and revelation. I am not interested in a debate. There is going to be a rapture.

On a side note . . . Let me state that after reading several resources on rapture, I became confused, So I asked God and I received an answer. I am satisfied with the answer I received. There is going to be a rapture and a lot of church-going folks will be disappointed.

if God has revealed it to u, why not share this revelation with the world?

^^^ could u shed more light?

Gidtruth:
How does this comment address any of the issues raised in the quoted article?

do u expect me to give evidences or arguments for the rapture? do u expect me to convince u of the rapture?
I am not interested in doing so.

viaro:
Thank you. I'm sure a second look at my comments following noetic16's will show that I considered BOTH sides of this issue:

I don't know if noetic16 saw the point before assuming other things that I wasn't concerned about. Nothing in my post suggests "an oratory tool for crafts men"; nothing there was pointing to "a bunch of theological orators who possibly do not live by the word". . . unless of course he suggests that those are the conclusions he draws from the verses I cited.

True to ur word, u did consider both sides. . . .but never considered the implication of believers learning from teachers who do not practise what they teach. The church needs teacher who will make the scriptures alive by practising the deeds of Jesus Christ themselves.

[size=13pt]I don't think such reactions are necessary or helpful at all. When I read comments like: "of what essence is doctrines to a believer?", I feel very sorry for the one who asks such a question. In all things, I shall leave him to argue with God - the answers he gets may surprise him.
[/size]
Yes, there are very many names I could give you from across the world. The one thing is that I recognize that you guys often narrow issues down to your local environment, and that is why it becomes really difficult to discuss largely and broadly with people who think like that. Just because there are many abuses in Nigeria does not mean that there are no Christian leaders of integrity within Nigeria; nor does it mean that outside Nigeria the corruption is not felt at all. There are quite a few ministers who are truly commendable; but we are not asking for perfectionism here. However, if you have no one that will benefit you at all in the things of God, no worries - others are finding benefit in the ministry of other servants around the world, and we should be humble enough to recognize that.

Absolutely NOT! I can here and now tell you that anybody who dismisses "doctrine" has no value at all to present - and if that is the sort of crowd you want to hang around with, good luck! But don't try to place them at par with the Holy Spirit! What's wrong with you, commander?!?

Is that what you read in my posts? Is that what the verses cited in my posts are saying? Please show me how you derived this from what I have posted.

Noetic16 has his own small reasons blown way beyond his world, so I won't be concerned about him at all.

I feel the need to reply before Viaro misrepresents my views and constructs a wrong case as he "seldom" does  . . .

In my rejoinder to ur previous post . . I did state the following:
4. After a man repents of his deeds, makes restitution for his sins, begins his walk with God, adopts a life of faith and holiness. . . .what knowledge does he need again?
The gap in understanding is the singular basis for the doctrinal inconsistencies found in several churches. where men who claim to be teachers in words only do not act as commanded but also apply personal opinions to God's commandments. An example is the case of the sabbath. . . .many churches worship on saturday, others on sunday.
What has the day of worship got to do with salvation?

So to clarify the issue of Doctrines. [size=18pt]There is NO doctrine outside of salvation and the principal elements attached to it, such as restitution, genuine repentance, love, fellowship with saints, faith and holiness. [/size]
Any other doctrine is a FRAUDULENT product of dubious men set out to deceive the saints of God.

^^^ yawns loud at tudor

^^^ well said bro.

I simply believe that the best knowledge anyone can impact is to live by the commandments of JC. That way the world would see that we indeed are the salt of the world.

Tudór:
all this na rubbish. If on the other hand I said I became born again at age 10, could heal the sick and bla bla. You will be raising your hands in praise. You will not be here claiming an 11 year old cannot be saved.

I laugh at ''people who went to hell'' quote. Yea, is it like doz who went and saw bimbo odukoya there and a month later say they didnt see her? Or doz who'll say hell was shaped like the human body another claim its like prison, or shaped like an egg. Abeg stop that rough play jo

same old blah blah blah from tudor.

Personally, I believe that those who gave their lives to Jesus at such age were simply influenced by the surroundings and did not have an understanding of what they are doing. Salvation entails genuine repentance. . .what would an 11 year old be repenting from? does he know the meaning and implication of the original sin? has an 11 year old boy formed his habits yet?

All I said about hell was that I do NOT have any reason to believe or think that young persons who die at such a small age, without the ability to discern and make a choice on salvation, will end up in hell. God remains a merciful God.

viaro:
Let me try and come in here.

It seems the purpose of this thread has been largely ignored - notwithstanding the appeal of the OP that we should try and focus on the primary objective.

However, in whatever small ways we can, let's try and share something helpful - whether for the new convert or for the maturing Christian: perhaps there's something we all might benefit and take home with us.

This is where I'd like to comment on the discourse between noetic16 and Image123. It seems that you're both saying the same thing as per 'feeding' God's people. The question is what such feeding should entail - and it seems more inclined to teaching and imparting the knowledge of God's ways to His people.

'Feeding' is an interesting metaphor for imparting knowledge to people. Certainly, leaders should care for the welfare of believers; but the basic idea of 'feeding' God's people is to impart them with knowledge.

Peter (who was addressed in John 21 by the Lord Jesus Christ) had used the same metaphor when addressing the elders: "The elders which are among you I exhort, . . . Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, " (1 Pet. 5:1-2).

Of old, the prophet Jeremiah proclaims: "And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding" (Jer. 3:15). It is clear that Acts 20:28 carries the same gist when Paul addresses the elders with these words: "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

Indeed, Paul uses the same metaphor in the sense of imparting spiritual knowledge to the Corinthian believers - "I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able" (1 Cor. 3:2).

It is not as if other types of care for believers are to be ignored. However, in terms of leadership among God's people, the metaphor of feeding carries the implication of imparting knowledge - teaching God's people His Word.

1. what knowledge are you talking about? is there any necessary knowledge outside of salvation? of what essence is doctrines to a believer? is the knowledge in question, pertinent to the eternal life of the believer?

2. The words of God are not an oratory tool for crafts men. They are words to made alive by the deeds of men. You cannot tell a hungry to "accept Jesus or be damned" . . .Nope, u feed him and cater for his needs, then tell him of the forthcoming kingdom. So also can u not tell a naked man to "accept Jesus or be damned" You clothe him, feed him, shelter him, meet his needs and then tell him of the forthcoming kingdom. The same goes for the imprisoned, hopeless, helpless and other members of the society.

3. ur contextual expression of teachers implies a bunch of theological orators who possibly do not live by the word. If you tell others not to tell lies, but do tell lies urself, what message are u passing across? Teaching in Christianity implies the practical application of the commandments of JC to influence the lives of others and bring them to the saving grace of JC?

4. After a man repents of his deeds, makes restitution for his sins, begins his walk with God, adopts a life of faith and holiness. . . .what knowledge does he need again?
The gap in understanding is the singular basis for the doctrinal inconsistencies found in several churches. where men who claim to be teachers in words only do not act as commanded but also apply personal opinions to God's commandments. An example is the case of the sabbath. . . .many churches worship on saturday, others on sunday.
What has the day of worship got to do with salvation?

5. When JC mentioned the word FEED. . . that was not a ,metaphor. The implication of this commandment is written all over the NT in the deeds of the apostles. Take time to study the book of Acts and also Paul's personal relationship with the phillipian church and the thesolonician church.

Tudór:
I laugh in chinese. . . According to you an 11 year old cannot know anything about christianity and have a relationship with god. Yet I wont be suprised you are of the view that when such 11 year old dies in sin, hez judged and he goes to hell.

When will you people stop confusing yourselves?

I also laugh in korean

an 11 year old is NOT capable of making such a decision of salvation as he CANNOT understand the principal matters at stake. All the testimonies of people that saw hell, which I have ever read, none of them claimed to have seen little children in hell. They are ignorant and could not have made such a decision of matters pertaining to salvation at such age.

So oga tudor, why blame me when I dont believe ur story of converting at the age of 11. which kind brain u get, wey make u understand the principal elements of this discourse at that early age? abeg, honesty is ideal.

KunleOshob:
@noetic
Na you know, Mr know all I have stated my own position.

I like that title of mr know all

on a lighter note . . .why not seek the truth from God himself, since u claim to be His son? . . .that was the crux of my post.

how many stomachs of orphaned and hopeless dudes can 17m feed?
how many homeless can 17m shelter?
how many wrongly imprisoned persons can 17m liberate from the confines of our judicial system?
how many helpless students can 17m sponsor to quality education teaching institutions?
how many prostitutes and destitutes can 17m redirect the course of their lives?
how many sick can 17m heal?

why is Adefarsin's priority to build a mega-building for Jesus, but not to FEED the church of Jesus? is Adefarsin a son of God or a son of the DEVIL?

The rapture is wondrous home-going event all true sons of God should look forward to.

KunleOshob:
Even though I won't be making any finte submission becos I truely don't know, I have learnt enough to know that the concept of hell presented to us is very faulty and mostly derived from poorly translated text. That aside a person is only a true christian becos he has renewed his soul (born again) and he seeks genuine love for God and his fellow human beings. If a person adheres to the christian religion becos he believes it is an escape route from eternal damnation and he does not have the christian fruit of genuine love for others, the person is only wasting his/her time and is not really a genuine christian. Christianity is based on genuine love and not inspired by fear. Unfortunately the church is to blame for all this poisonous teachings distorting eternal truths.

This is one of the saddest reality of this age . . .men who dismiss their lack of knowledge for convenience.

1. You claim to be a Christian with a personal relationship with God. Every relationship is defined by communication, implying that you and God have an appropriate means of communicating.

2. The scriptures (God's revealed word) affirm that there is eternal damnation called hell fire.

3. You do not subscribe to this teaching for perceived translation errors

4. what stops you from asking God for a personal message of revelation of hell fire? what are u afraid of, since u claim to be a Christian full of "genuine love"?

what is this teaching that we are talking about? what EXACTLY are u teaching new believers?
Are u teaching them to cover their hair or to leave it open? wear trousers as females or wear skirts? pay tithes or not to pay? sow seeds or not to sow? worship on saturday or on sunday? subscribe to catholism or pentecostalism?

what EXACTLY are u bent on teaching new converts? which one of the above relates to the core teachings of JC?

Image123:
Noetic
I never said that a teacher should be limited, whether in Word or deed. What I said is that a teacher is needed, that's what the Bible says. He gave us teachers, don't tell me He didn't. So we're permitted to lead people to Christ. Some will not buy that idea i tell you, and they've got scriptures to quote for it.[size=28pt] Jesus commanded us to teach, noetic says no,[/size] just lead them to Christ and then individuals move on from there. That's not in the Bible, thank God I follow Jesus Christ and the Bible, not your fine view.

No . . . You are the one manipulating the words of Jesus. This was the last instruction of JC to Peter:

John 21: 15-17

15So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, [size=15pt]Feed my lambs.
[/size]
16He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, [size=20pt]Feed [/size]my sheep.

17He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, [size=25pt]Feed my sheep[/size].

what did peter do as soon as he received the holy Ghost? He ensured that the multitude of believers understood the great commandment that they all had to care and feed one another. Acts 4:32-35

And when Paul was being sent on his missionary journey . , . the apostles commanded him to ensure that the poor are always fed and taken care of.

Image123:
Our Lord Jesus was a teacher. Paul was a teacher. They both told us to teach others the Word.
In Matthew 28v18-20, we told among other things to go and TEACH all nations. TEACHING them to observe ALL things that Jesus commanded. He's given us the command, not only the Holy Spirit.

You are missing the whole point. what kind of a teacher was Jesus? how influential was He?
Jesus made friends with sinners and thieves only so that they may become better persons and receive the gift of salvation through genuine repentance. . . .A good example is Zacheus the tax collector and mathew wo later became an apostle.
The same can be said of Apostle Paul who sacrificed earthly pleasure to ensure that this same gospel is preached to the gentiles at the detriment of his lives.

In what light and on what basis do u then compare the Lord and Apostle paul with the later day criminals called teachers? what are they teaching?

Perhaps we should start by summarizing the message of the gospel of JC. which is to show unconditional love to all men irrespective of their beliefs, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, help the needy . . .which includes those in prison, those who cannot afford education, health care and other basic services.
which of this boxes do the later day self-professed teacher tick?

In 2Timothy 2v2 says what you have HEARD, commit to FAITHFUL men, who shall be able to TEACH others also. It's not the of Spirit of Christ to be unteachable, and everyone is not the same. You don't talk to people anyhow and say we're all the same. Christians are taught to respect authority.

who are these faithful men? what makes them faithful? is it their theological expertise or their testimony in JC? and what authority? the church authority or governmental authority?

God has commited new believers into the hands of His labourers to [size=28pt]feed[/size] and teach, just as literal children are commited to the hands of their parents by God to nurture and direct. That's what we call follow.up in some circles. Children should NOT be left to themselves.

how many believers are being fed, physically and spiritually like Jesus did?

Image123:
Nuclearboy and co.
When you say things like 'who is a better teacher, it'll be better if they learn on their own, a human teacher doesn't impart knowledge but lives by example', all indications that people shouldn't be taught the Word of God, it begs your knowledge of the Word or plan of God.
Viaro has kinda explained issues to nuclearboy. Half truths are dangerous and polluted. I think you're standing on an half/polluted truth. Of course a believer should study the Word for himself. You agree that far, but it's beyond that. Teaching/teachers are what God has given the church for our development. Not one without the other, but the TWO.
A denial of this is a denial of the Word and will of God. Believers are sheep with shepherd(s). Hebrews 13v17 calls us to obedience and submission, not the independence of the prodigal Son that you're clamouring for.

Far from it.

of what point is a teacher whose lessons are limited to words and not deeds? whats the point of dotrinal teachings and not exemplary teachings? why is there so much debate on doctrines but with little emphasis on the commandments of Christ?

why is it that between 1999-2007 Adeboye was the most influential Nigerian, yet there was no improvement in the lives of the average man? Adeboye had access to the president and he had 2 million people who learnt from his feet every month, yet the country is plagued with moral decadence.  is Adeboye leading people to God or to to hell? did God ask adeboye to ask people for tithes? why did RCCG benefit from the NPA economic scams? why has the blessings of God been defined as the accumulation of material things and poverty described as a satanic infliction? where did these alien doctrines come from?

I have nothing against Adeboye or RCCG, u can substitute Adeboye for Bakare, Oyedepo, Joshua or whoever. But the point remains that believers do not need a human teacher. All u need is someone to lead you to Christ. . . .afterwards each individual should walk with God and learn from the counsels of the holy spirit.

Tudór:
[size=20pt]There are believers who dont hv a personal relationship[/size] it dont matter what u claim.

what then is the basis of their belief if they dont have a personal relationship with God? its just like u claiming to once be a "Christian" at the age of 11. what did u know about Christianity at that age?

The level of ignorance disguised as sarcasm is laughable. bro, if u cannot get right the fundamental concepts of Christianity, then u are least qualified to form an opinion on Christianity.

mazaje:
The fact is the Americans have learned to separate religion from their collective affairs as a people. And they are better for it. . . .

u miss the point. No nation on earth is a Christian nation or has ever been a Christian nation. perhaps u need to understand what Christianity entails in the first place. That a bunch of pagans who labelled themselves "Christians" ruled and abused others in the dark ages, does not make their colonies a Christian state. Religion has always been separate from any state, but has also been the major influence in the affairs of many state. America as a nation has been tremendously influenced by Christianity from its inception. Thats a FACT.

Since when did deist star believing in the bible? The American founding father were deist not christians. . . .

They claimed to be Christians (like many church-going persons do) but are really deists. Because they know there is a God, but have no relationship with Him.
On a lighter note, there is NO founding father of America who ever claimed on record not to be a Christian. . . prove me wrong and produce a link.

How did the bible help Newton in his exploits? Pls state how the bible helped him in his scientific exploits

How did the bible help these people in their scientific exploits as you stated?

Newton was inspired by his beliefs, convictions and source of Strength (Jesus Christ)

How is the universe in order?. . . . .

what u opine as CHAOS is what others opine as ORDER. Since there is no known parallel to compare the universe with, it is as such acceptable and factual that the universe is in ORDER.

What have all these quotes got to do with any thing? I can also provide quotes from other scientist who have contributed so much to the scientific field of knowledge who were atheist, but am more interested in your assertion that they got their inspirations from the bible, Which part of the bible helped dalton with his discoveries in chemistry?. . .I just want you to show me how their beliefs in the bible particularly helped them in their scientific finding, I saw you provide quotes from people like Albert Einstein, a person who does not even believe in the bible and is on record declaring that the bible and the God it talks about are childish fables.

Several biblical teachings must have inspired them. namely:
1. I can do all things through JC who strengthens me . . . phil 4:13
2. They that know their God shall do exploits , . Daniel 11:32
3. Every good and perfect gift comes from above . . . .James 1:17

do u need more? . . .

where is mazaje?

where do u stand? do u believe hell is a hoax? if so, what are ur reasons? what are ur deductions from ur article?

mazaje:
I just don't get this. . . .Since you claim to know the will and plan of your God why then do you still say that God is mysterious or why do some people say that their God is unknown?. . . .Where did you get the idea that the christian God has plans for the many universe in existence?. . . . .As I have said when it comes to God people just self project themselves as God and continue to make things up as they go. . . . . .

1. when did I use the word "mysterious" in describing God? Those who describe God as mysterious, do so based on their knowledge or lack of knowledge of Him. I would say that "there are mysteries of God" and NOT that "God is mysterious"

2. If the basis of this thread is to debate the "will of God" . . .the least u can do is to "assume on this thread" that God created all things in existence. If so, the basis of my statement that God has a plan for His creations (including the many universes) is the fact that there is absolutely nothing that suggests a purposeless or accidental creation.

The free will argument again? There are so many parts of the bible that clearly states that there is nothing like free will, no?

Lets just say . . . u dont understand the bible.

What then is wrong with people that pray 50 percent for protection and spend the other 50 percent worshiping?. . . . .

Those who pray 50% for protection are IMO largely confused and do not know the personality of God whom they profess. And what do u mean by worship? is worship acceptable in the face of incessant unrepentant sins?

You have stated this so many time without showing how my understanding is flawed. . . .

maybe u should read my posts again

Here is one, if God is all powerful and can do all things as the bible claims, why didnt he create a land that was flowing with milk and honey for the Jews in the bible? Why did he have to tell them to kill others and steal their land that was flowing with milk and honey? When such questions are asked you hear people saying that God's ways or plans are mysterious and he can not be known. . . .

here we go again . . . if u a creature has freewill, how much more ur creator? God is at liberty to do what pleases Him.

In answering ur question . . . Since by ur post u believe that God created all lands . . then u should also believe Him when He said He made such for the children of Israel and not for aliens. War is the only language some people understand.

One needs to know what context he was speaking (before saying he is right or wrong) because for a fact man has freewill but destiny is written and determined by God.

I would go into details of my submission in a bit . . ,

toba:
Pls guys i have a very controversial topic i love us to discuss,should i wait till after the 30 days or start it now? Reason being that part of what the subject entails will be part of what we might likely read during the 30 days which will make us have good responses.
Last week,i heard Pastor Rod Parsley of Break through ministry colombus usa on TBN say that God doesnt control destiny but man does. He made qoutes&i will love to hear from u, on when to act. Thks

please open a new thread on that with details of the pastor's comments . . . that would make a rich discourse.