₦airaland Forum

sportsmaster:
1cor13:1

Open and see for yourself

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
1Corinthians 14:22
Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not:
The passage above shows the reason why the tongues spoken were of men and the nations of those men were detailed, on the day of pentecost; they were not yet believers and tongues are a sign to such. Remember that they spoke as the Spirit gave utterance.

Now consider:
1 Corinth 14:2
2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

This is an act done in the private (like scriptures admonished) and since there are neither unbelievers to whom it is a sign, or believing interpreters there, The Spirit may give utterances both of men's language and also of angels severally as HE wills.

sportsmaster:
you dont have any questions?.It means you do understand all of it..

Explain tongues of MEN and tongues of Angels

Where did you get that in the Bible?

italo:
So Acts 2:38 is not scripture?

Says? Kindly reconcile Acts 2:38 and Matthew 26:28. Feel free to use other scriptures to back up your position.

italo:
Does Baptism remit sin. Yes or no?

What remits sin? Let Jesus answer:
Matthew 26:28
28 for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

and that is because

And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Hebrews 9:22

italo:
@muttleylaff and scholar8200

1Pet3:20 who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 21 And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Which baptism does the saving of the eight through water prefigure?

Water baptism or Holy Spirit baptism?

First are we agreed on the essence of the word,'figure' as used in the above passage and the meaning as attested by Hebrews 11:19 as a symbol or type of the real?

sportsmaster:
this thread is only for notice.
When I start the main topic,
we are going to be looking at the following
1)can tongues be understood?
2)who speaks with tongues?
3)can all believers speak with tongues?
4)Understanding what Paul meant by tongues of men and tongues of Angels
5)what really happened on the day of pentecost?
6)were different languages spoken?
7)what are the prophecies from the Old testament concerning tongues?.
what is even Pentecost itself?
9)which group or tribe of people were present on the day of pentecost?
And plenty other questions.
Please do drop your questions so I can study along those lines.
Thanks.
cC Jogbaje,WinsomeX,Gombs,vooks,scholar8200,soye3, and everybody that is interested.

I dont have any questions. Kindly go straight to the thread for the main topic alluded to.

Thanks a bunch; see it's not fair to make a verdict without a fair hearing being granted.

italo:
The question was not whether baptism is a figure or an alphabet sir.

The question was:

Do you believe Acts 2:38 and 22:16 when they say Water Baptism remits sin?

The use of the word in the Holy Spirit inspired scripture, makes it worthy of our attention.

italo:
Your stories are too much.

Does Baptism remit sin. Yes or no?

That was a Bible verse sire! Now because it contradicts your view, it is no longer Holy Spirit inspired, but story?!

italo:
@ Muttleylaff and scholar8200,

Can a child be baptized with the Holy Spirit and Fire?

A child who , having reached the age of accountability, repents and surrenders to Christ is a worthy candidate! See:

Acts 2:38,39
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Note that the condition above in vs 38 stands for both they and their children.

Now Ananias gave his terms of engagement in Acts 9 thus:
Acts 9:17,18

17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.
18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
MutleyLaff's statement suggests to me (I didnt notice that till he/she pointed it out) that the baptism spoken of in vs 18 is the one referred to in vs 17.

Acts 22:16 was a reference to the above. The Ethiopian Eunuch was baptized in water; hence Paul must have been so baptised but it seems, by the foregoing, that was not recorded.

Paul himself would later say:

1 Corinthians 1:17
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

"Muslims believe in all the messengers and the books revealed to them...and that Muhammad is the final prophet, it doesn't where the original Bible is, it's not my obligation to use it, we have quran now which is the final testament"
The statement above made by a fellow NL provoked the questions below. Now I perceive not all muslims may agree with the statement credited to a fellow muslim hence in answering, kindly state if the speaker was right or wrong.

1. The OT and NT were off shoots of the promise made to Abraham and were prophesied ahead of time. How come the final testament is bereft of the faintest jot of reference by these books revealed? And has no reference to the framework- God's promise to Abraham?

2. Since God is not the author of confusion, why was the New Covenant called Everlasting Covenant? especially if there was to be another?

3. Both testaments, Old and New, were ratified by blood. By what was the final testament ratified?

4. The last prophet was as Israel/the Church knows them, was John the baptist whose coming was clearly (expressedly) prophesied and his birth as such was attested to by angel Gabriel; mother, father and all Israel testified of his ministry and were witnesses. Whence a final prophet in the books? And why the deafening silence by the books? And this prophet testified that Jesus Christ was greater than himself and would baptise with the Spirit, why does the final prophet equate Christ with the same man and those in his class? Who was right?

5. Most of the prophets and Moses prophesied of Jesus Christ and those gifted with that office today still point to Him. Why then was this absent in the final prophet's teachings?

6. All prophets were inspired and they spoke by the Holy Spirit; the Word of the Lord came to them. Why the sudden change and substitution of the Holy Spirit by an angel?

7. If Mohammed had come in the inter-testament period,perhaps some of my questions would be unnecessary. But for one who came about 5+ centuries after and reiterated similar laws after the pattern of the OT's laws (with some differences) after God had clearly said He was going to make a New Covenant, NOT ACCORDING TO THE OLD, and He had already perfected same through Christ, the claims of such an one suggests that God later reversed His own words (Impossible!). How do you explain or clarify this?
8.The person quoted said the Quran is the final testament and that he is under NO OBLIGATION to refer to any other Book, is this in accordance to the teaching in the Quran?
I gain nothing arguing with you but, on a forum where we have many informed readers/ contributors on both sides who will gain therefrom, answers will be appreciated.

Regards

mustymatic:
Contradictions in the Bible are countless, I could list some of em but u still won't reason, Muslims believe in all the messengers and the books revealed to them...and that Muhammad is the final prophet, it doesn't where the original Bible is, it's not my obligation to use it, we have quran now which is the final testament

Alright as regards the highlighted:
1. The OT and NT were off shoots of the promise made to Abraham and were prophesied ahead of time. How come the 'final testament' is bereft of the faintest jot of reference by these books revealed? And has no reference to the framework- God's promise to Abraham?
2. Since God is not the author of confusion, sir, why was the New Covenant called Everlasting Covenant? especially if there was to be another?
3. Both testaments, Old and New, were ratified by blood. By what was the 'final testament ratified?
4. The last prophet was as Israel/the Church knows them, was John the baptist whose coming was clearly (expressedly) prophesied and his birth as such was attested to by angel Gabriel; mother, father and all Israel testified of his ministry and were witnesses. Whence a 'final prophet' in the books? And why the deafening silence by the books?
5. Most of the prophets and Moses prophesied of Jesus Christ and those gifted with that office today still point to Him. What then was the 'final prophet's' emphasis?
6. All prophets were inspired and they spoke by the Holy Spirit; the Word of the Lord came to them. Why the sudden change and substitution of the Holy Spirit by an angel?

7. If Mohammed had come in the inter-testament period,perhaps some of my questions would be unnecessary. But for one who came about 5+ centuries after and reiterated similar laws after the pattern of the OT's laws (with some differences) after God had clearly said He was going to make a New Covenant, NOT ACCORDING TO THE OLD, and He had already perfected same through Christ, the claims of such an one suggests that God later reversed His own words (Impossible!). How do you explain or clarify this?

I gain nothing arguing with you but, on a forum where we have many informed readers/ contributors on both sides who will gain therefrom, answers will be appreciated.

Regards

btoks:
[b][/b]
Some of the verses you quoted will apply to adults who can definitely make that profession of faith.
You have however missed out a number of other verses:

Paul in Col. 2:11–12 in effect states that baptism has replaced circumcision. We know that circumcision was done for babies in the OT in anticipation of being raised in a Jewish famly. Would he have used the word ‘circumcision’ that was mainly linked to babies if he thought baptism wasn’t for babies? ( I do know some adults were circumcised). Baptism also then applies to babies in anticipation of being raised in a christian family. See Lydia in Acts 16:15 who was baptised with her household, read further to v33 where the jailer and his family were baptised.
Also note that Jesus comments about children in Matt 19:13-14

Baptism did not replace circumcision! This was an Epistle to gentiles!The households you are referring to can not be assumed since details are not given.
Colossians 2:11
11 in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
This simply means that our old man was cut-off/crucified when Christ was cut-off/crucified, just like Romans 6:6 puts it:
knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

The best way to understand early christiantiny is by looking at how it was practised in the first few centuries. See these writings from some early church fathers:

Rather the best way to appreciate the Faith of Christ is by looking unto Jesus and His Word and depending on the Holy Spirit.

Irenaeus in AD 189 -"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

Hippolytus in AD 215
"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Augustine in AD 400 - "What the universal Church holds, not as instituted by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).

This is what subverted Israel such that they did not recognise the Messiah- tradition being exalted over the Word!
I respect these church fathers but their teachings must be compared with the Bible; if there is any contradiction, the Bible supersedes.

Even the partaking of the Lord's supper was to be preceded by the command:
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

italo:
I will show you where you contradicted the Holy Spirit again. Not my words, but the Holy Spirit's words vs your personal words.



The Holy Spirit:
Act22:16 And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.’

"Then Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38)

Do you believe these verses are true?

Consider the quote i referred you to in Revelations 1:5
5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Compare this with:

Here Peter points out that baptism is a figure/semblance of a deep spiritual occurrence-our salvation as a result of faith in the death and resurrection of Christ(after repentance).
Consider the amplified rendition of verse 21

21 And baptism, which is a figure [of their deliverance], does now also save you [from inward questionings and fears], not by the removing of outward body filth [bathing], but by [providing you with] the answer of a good and clear conscience (inward cleanness and peace) before God [because you are demonstrating what you believe to be yours] through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

italo:
You didn't answer the question. You dubiously avoided it as usual.

Do you believe Acts2:38 22:16 when they say Baptism remits sins?

Since Peter spoke the first reference, let's consider what he(by Inspiration) wrote in 1 Peter 3:20,21

20 which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Here Peter points out that baptism is a figure/semblance of a deep spiritual occurrence-our salvation as a result of faith in the death and resurrection of Christ(after repentance).
Consider the amplified rendition of verse 21

21 And baptism, which is a figure [of their deliverance], does now also save you [from inward questionings and fears], not by the removing of outward body filth [bathing], but by [providing you with] the answer of a good and clear conscience (inward cleanness and peace) before God [because you are demonstrating what you believe to be yours] through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The same word figure is used here:
Hebrews 11:19
18 of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: 19 accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

Isaac was not literally killed but the faith of Abraham that underlied the whole process was the focus of the writer here.

Baptism therefore is a figure, an outward demonstration of that which we believe is ours by faith.

Acts 22:16 was spoken to brother (one who had believed in and surrendered to the Lord Jesus and had already become a member of the family). He was here called to make a public demonstration of that which had already took place when he believed.

brocab:
I am just spreading the word brother-letting you know everybody who claims they tithe, say they follow after Abraham, which is wrong, we follow after Christ..
And we are Abraham's descendants not his followers, so those who tithe, are not tithing for Christ, but for themselves..

Noted.

italo:
Don't you ever feel remorse for openly contradicting and challenging the Holy Spirit?

Serious allegation! So you mean i contradict the Holy Spirit by quoting from the same scriptures inspired by the Holy Spirit? I guess what I am contradicting is your view. Or you may like to show me my personal words (not Bible quotes) that contradict that which the Spirit inspired.

Kei144:
[size=12pt]Mt. 7:13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.
Mt. 7:14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Baptisms are gates or initiations. Some people think that faith means accepting a principle or doctrine in your mind.

Ja. 2:17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

Ro. 6:3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death?
Ro. 6:4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

You believe in your mind that Jesus saved you by dying on the cross for you. You even confess it with your mouth. You sing hymns and praises about it. So, you are saved. Isn't it? But you cannot perform a rite of passage from the realm of the old man (Adam) to the realm of the new man (Jesus Christ). You came into the world as a branch of the old tree (Mt. 13:32). While you are still part of the old tree, you are told to perform the rite of passage (baptism) so that you disconnect from the old tree and be grafted into the new tree (Jn. 15:5), you refuse and begin to claim that in your mind you already belong in the new tree and you call it faith. Well, even though you have faith, without performing the rite of passage, your faith is dead. It is through water baptism that a person dies to (or disconnects from) the old man and is raised up in the new man.

[

As regards the highlighted, the Truth is stated below:
Romans 8:13
13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
It is the Spirit that mortifies the old man and this is possible by our faith in this Truth:
Romans 6:3-6
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6 knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

The baptism being referred to is that which water baptism seeks to testify of: a spiritual process that follows true repentance and faith in Christ:

1 Corinth 12:13
For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Also see
Colossians 2:12

Galatians 3:27

btoks:
[/b]
@bolded,where do we find this teaching in early christianity. I'm assuming you're excluding baptism for babies and children.

Pls vouchsafe me Bible references as regards the highlighted!

Let's start here

Mark 16:16
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
(He that does not believe need not be baptized; a baby/ toddler cannot profess saving faith)

Acts 2:41
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.
(Only those who received the Gospel meaning they heard, were pricked in their hearts as regards their need for salvation, repented and were baptised. See Acts 2:36,37. Only a child who has reached the age of accountability/and those older can do all these! )

Acts 8:36-38

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

(The baptism could only commence after the man had professed saving faith by surrendering to Jesus; Rom 10:9 tells us it is at that time salvation occurs) Note that believing is not mental assent. Rom 10:10 reveals true believing as a heart procedure.

Acts 9:17,18
17 And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.

Paul had become a member of the family of God hence the title brother. If you read Acts 9:15, The Lord made it clear that he was a chosen vessel meaning old things had passed away.

Acts 16:30-34
30 and brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? 31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. 32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. 34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.

Notice the reply and notice the cause of the joy. Believing that brought salvation always preceded baptism in water. They had to be able to genuinely believe before baptism was brought up. The call to believe was preceded by a deep sense of need. (Believing is more than a mental assent or intellectual acquiescence). It is a heart issue and the heart controls the man.

Acts 20:21
testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
Shows the key ingredients both of which cannot be effectively communicated to babies or amoral toddlers

italo:
I believe all the verses you quoted. None of them says that baptism does not remit sins.

Do you believe Acts2:38 and 22:16 when they say Baptism remits sins?

Or do you think the Holy Spirit was mistaken?

Who then inspired the ones quoted which you said you also believed? What else do they say?But they sure say we are saved by our faith in the redemption in Christ's blood.

Do you believe that the Lord's supper can be taken unworthily?

In the Bible, none was baptised before they truly believed! And Romans 10:10 tells us salvation is by faith.

I am not saying a person should not be baptised but not before he genuinely repents and surrenders to Christ and his faith is attested to by a newness of life.

mustymatic:
What you fail to understand is that Muslims never question that Jesus receive the Gospel (Injeel). He received it like other prophets received theirs before him.

Pls note, Jesus did not receive the Gospel! The Gospel is all about Him and the work of redemption for all, which He came to fulfil.

But the authors who wrote the Bible weren't around when he was, didn't see him, talked to him after some years thay come to claim that he said some contradicting things.

John the author of the Gospel according to John was the closest to Jesus Christ; Matthew was written by Levi the tax-gatherer-another apostle/disciple of Christ. Mark was not one of the twelve but was also a disciple of Jesus Christ. Luke lived at the time of the apostles.

(This is a digression from the focus of the thread)

Indeed no one's case is closed. Problem is most of us are guilty of contempt of court: the Advocate and the adversary appear before the Judge but we the plaintiff (or defendant as the case may be) are nowhere to be found!

italo:
Act22:16 And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.’

Who is wrong between you and the Holy Spirit who inspired Acts22:16 and 2:38?

The yielding of oneself to water baptism is an act of faith, a testimony of surrendering to the Lordship of Jesus Christ after trusting Him as Saviour. The faith that precedes baptism (faith that is in the redemption in His blood) is the intent here.

Romans 10:10
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Baptism is done after believing and not before.

Sans this faith and its evidence, water baptism (like the Lord's supper) will be done to the unworthy.

italo:
Act22:16 And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.’

Who is wrong between you and the Holy Spirit who inspired Acts22:16 and 2:38?

Did you notice this:
Revelations 1:5
and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

and have ye never read:
Revelations 7:14
... These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

italo:
In Acts 2:38 and 22:16, where they not talking of water baptism?

Of course they were talking of water baptism.
My reply was that Acts 22:16 was not saying water baptism washes away sins! If you read the account being narrated in Acts 9,you will realize that the person Paul was quoting already called him a brother(he was saved by then).

Revelations 1:5 tells us what does the washing:

and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

phabuloz:
Even God told ISAAC to tell the king that SARAH is his sister,so sometimes,lies are needed to be lied

God never said that!
Besides, no point lying. They are not toddlers that will simply march back to their den, they came probably on a tip-off and pretty high on something; since the person involved is grossly outnumbered, they will still ransack the house after a threat and the outcome may be more should he be found.

OLAADEGBU:
Romans 5:1; Ephesians 2:8-9 and Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21

Saved by baptism:

"Then Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).

The key word here is repentance.A person who genuinely repents,trusting in Christ, but was not chanced to be baptised in water is saved; another who does not repent, holding on to sin and its guilt but is baptised, comes out the same.

"And now why do you tarry? Arise, and be baptised, and [color=#000099]wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord[/color]" (Acts 22:16).

This was said to a Paul who had already met Christ and surrendered his life, after three days of settling things with God in the closet. He was already saved. The highlighted was not dependent on the baptism but was used because of the faith and understanding that should normally precede water baptism.

"The like figure whereunto even baptism does also now saves us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Peter 3:21).

If you remove the statement in parenthesis, this is what you will get:
The like figure whereunto even baptism does also now save us by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This baptism is not water baptism. It refers to the activity of the Holy Spirit by which we become saved and a member of the Body of Christ. see 1 Corinth 12:13
13 For by [[d]means of the personal agency of] one [Holy] Spirit we were all, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free, baptized [and by baptism united together] into one body, and all made to drink of one [Holy] Spirit.

OLAADEGBU:
"Whoso sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man" (Genesis 9:6).

If this is not the establishment of capital punishment that is to be administered by man which authorises the institution of human government then tell us what it is.

The verse also implies the enactment and enforcement of regulations for crimes such as stealing and adultery, which if unrestrained, would lead to murder.

Consider the context: Genesis 9:1-7

And God pronounced a blessing upon Noah and his sons and said to them, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.
2 And the fear of you and the dread and terror of you shall be upon every beast of the land, every bird of the air, all that creeps upon the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are delivered into your hand.
3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and as I gave you the green vegetables and plants, I give you everything.
4 But you shall not eat flesh with the life of it, which is its blood.
5 And surely for your lifeblood I will require an accounting; from every beast I will require it; and from man, from every man [who spills another’s lifeblood] I will require a reckoning.
6 Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God He made man.
7 And you, be fruitful and multiply; bring forth abundantly on the earth and multiply on it.

This was not the establishment of human government (like it was done in the days of Samuel)! If so, why did it displease God when Israel said they wanted a king? Besides, the fact that the punishment was prescribed by God suggests Who the Ruler was.

But, God did not break his own moral law. The Bible says do not murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of life. But, all people have sinned against God and are worthy of death (Rom. 3:23; 6:23). So, God had them killed according to the Law.

There is a difference between the action of a prophet in accordance with what,"thus saith the Lord" and use of authority as a servant of God. The lads broke an hedge; Elisha cursed them by the authority (delegated) he had as a prophet; some of them were destroyed. If Elisha had merely ignored them, would they have been destroyed right there? And if Elisha's silence had been followed by the same event (with Elisha interceding for mercy) then your claim will be correct.

What passages of scripture do you have in mind?

CryptDarpick:
All of which Muhammad did.

Meaning he brought no new laws then!

. Prophets were those who reiterated God's laws ignored/ abandoned and also declare the Mind of God on current issues and future events, as revealed to them by the Spirit. The responsibility to enforce/obey rests with the listeners.

All these were done by Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Isaiah too.

OLAADEGBU:
What do you mean by "No"? Can you please explain?

Perhaps you should give us the reference in Genesis 9 you are referring to.

No. Ahab/Jezebel were not obedient to the laws of God just as Nebuchadnezzar, Nero and all wicked kings were responsible for their own decisions.

On this premise, God is not culpable for Elisha's use of authority! If Elisha could say,like Elijah, that he was acting, "at God's word" then the legal principle -he who acts by an agent acts by himself- will inform a verdict to the contrary.

OLAADEGBU:
God instituted the system of human government immediately after the Flood of Noah (Genesis 9:6).

No.

God may sometimes, for His own purposes, place wicked men in positions of power i.e. Nebuchadezzar (Dan. 4:17).

We are to be obedient and submit to human laws unless they contradict or demand disobedience to God's laws (Acts 5:29). In the case of Elisha, he was obedient to God's laws.

Now,was God responsible for Ahab/Jezebel's misuse of their regal authority against Naboth?