₦airaland Forum

Well,(if this truly happened) the couple knew the procedure that is followed in their church and that a last minute interview will be conducted. It's all about choosing a society/community/fellowship and[b]abiding with the extant rules[/b].

Why didnt they see their leaders to open up before that time?

While I will commend them for being truthful,it appears they were hoping to manipulate their leaders with the expectation that they will consider the extent of preparation already made.

sportsmaster:
stop wasting your time with this lady.
She dint come to learn,she came here to mock.
2cor4:3 is referring directly to her.

Noted, with thanks.

MizJanet:

do you have to lie about everything ? "who" and " whom " in that verse is reffering to the person , the only pronoun identifying the light is " which"

If the " WHOM no man hath seen nor can see " refers to the light , it means " WHOM be honour and power everlasting" also refers to the light ! Do u agree ?

I noticed that pronoun (Whom) after submitting meaning that analysis was not correct. Now let's consider the context:
1 Timothy 6:13-16


13 In the presence of God, Who preserves alive all living things, and of Christ Jesus, Who in His testimony before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I [solemnly] charge you

14 To keep all His precepts unsullied and flawless, irreproachable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ (the Anointed One),

15 Which [appearing] will be shown forth in His own proper time by the blessed, only Sovereign (Ruler), the King of kings and the Lord of lords,

16 Who alone has immortality [in the sense of exemption from every kind of death] and lives in unapproachable light, Whom no man has ever
seen or can see. Unto Him be honor and everlasting power and dominion. Amen (so be it).

This shows that this concluding part had reference both to the Father and Son and verse 16 focuses the Father.


Verse 15 agrees with Christ declaration that only the Father knows the Day when all things shall be wrapped up.

1 Timothy 6:15

15 which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 who only hath immortality, dwelling in [size=14pt]the light[/size] which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

The op is referring to the light not the Person. consider the change in pronouns.

1 Timothy 6:15

15 which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 who only hath immortality, dwelling in [size=14pt]the light[/size] which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

johnydon22:
there is nothing like limited perfection. .Perfection is perfection, imperfection is imperfection.

Now there is a define perfection. . . Hahahahahahahahaha...

we are talking Adam as an entity if he is perfect not his mythological features like what you listed above..

He had the ability to make wrong(imperfect) decisions therefore had an imperfect trait, adam aint perfect then.

How did a perfect god create a perfect adam that became imperfect... ?

8 For the Sadducees say that there is ..., neither angel, nor spirit:

Is this also your belief?

johnydon22:
Same thing again **face palm**

Perfection means total excellence. .

since adam was not excellent (therefore fell) means ada was not perfect...

again, How did an alleged perfect god create something imperfect?

The attribution of perfection (a Divine attribute) to Adam is because:
1. he was more than flesh and blood;
2. he had a spirit which other creatures dont have;
3 his perfection was the result of his union with God, by his (Adam's) spirit;
4[b]the command by God (concerning avoiding a tree) shows that Adam's perfection was not holistic (in other words the union with God was not at once exhaustive; there were limits) and though God had that in mind, He wont do it without Adam's willing cooperation.
[/b] Bear in mind that this perfection had its source from his union with God which was to be limited at the initial stages

5[b]Corollary therefore is that God set those limits because it will be against the Divine Nature to forge an exhaustive union at once sans the cooperation of Adam's will.[/b]

johnydon22:
What was it then. . . Its a very simple case scenario and you keep copying and pasting your posts.

Was Adam perfect?

If yes, then how come a perfect being made an imperfect decision or better put had the ability to be imperfect, this shows it was imperfect fro the on set.

If No, same question. .how could imperfect adam come out from perfect god... U can't eat your cake and have it

See it this way, were the other creatures perfect?

The attribution of perfection to Adam is because:
1. he was more than flesh and blood;
2. he had a spirit which other creatures dont have;
3 his perfection was the result of his union with God, by his (Adam's) spirit;
4 the command by God (concerning avoiding a tree) shows that Adam's perfection was not holistic (in other words the union with God was not at once exhaustive; there were limits) and though God had that in mind, He wont do it without Adam's willing cooperation.
5. Corollary therefore is that God set those limits because it will be against the Divine Nature to forge an exhaustive union at once sans the cooperation of Adam's will.

Adam's perfection was not a built-in ability like the beating of the heart! God is a Spirit and Adam's spiritual progress was not going to be achieved in an instant (that will be unlike God's nature)



(thread is for a brother in need!)

Syncan:
Hahahaha you are indeed trying. Listen to Peter's account on Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
As he began to speak....he had barely started speaking when this took place, They were just even starting to hear the word not to talk of believing in it, as a matter of fact Peter made the clear differentiation in vs 17.
Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

So was it that Peter could not withstand God about? Have acts 10:47 in mind.

This was all Peter had said :

Acts 10:34-43
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: 35 but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. 36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all) 37 that word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judæa, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; 38 how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. 39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: 40 him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; [/b]41 not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. 42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. 43 [b]To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

This much they heard and it led them to true faith which God saw and blessed them!

johnydon22:
It is just two options. . . Its either something is perfect or its not.


Again, How did a perfect created Adam make an imperfect decision which is yielding to temptation..?

[
Adam's perfection was not a built-in ability like the beating of the heart! God is a Spirit and Adam's spiritual progress was not going to be achieved in an instant (that will be unlike God's nature)

Besides, our use of the word perfect here does not mean Adam had all the Divine attributes in the same degree as God at creation: on the contrary, it was a starting point experience;( The incorruptible body Christ had after resurrection was not the same body Adam had else what would have been the issue with the tree of life after the fall?)

A careful reading through the mysteries in the gospels & epistles show that God still had further and greater plans for the man He had created before the latter fell.
Adam was on a kind of probationary stage (at the time he fell) else the tree of life and its consequence wont have been an issue after the fall. Why? Because God, in the Nature of Who HE is, never forces us into anything. However, the statement made by God showed He still had greater and higher plans for Adam.

Meaning Adam was a living soul, made a partaker of God's nature (to a certain degree) but was not without an intellect and will. Again,what would have been the need of a command to abstain from the tree if Adam already had the fullness of the Divine nature in perfection it being no choice of his?

The command given by God already shows that it was going to be a probationary period for the man and his part in God (perfection included) would be in stages as his cooperation and willingness will determine.
(thread is for a brother in need!)

johnydon22:
Ok so god created adam perfect, and then perfect adam made an imperfect decision and became imperfect. .

How did perfect Adam make imperfect decision. . .?

He yielded to temptation!

Besides, our use of the word perfect here does not mean Adam had all the Divine attributes in the same degree as God at creation: on the contrary, it was a starting point experience; The incorruptible body Christ had after resurrection was not the same body Adam had else what would have been the issue with the tree of life after the fall?
a careful reading through the mysteries in the gospels & epistles show that God still had further and greater plans for the man He had created before the latter fell.

Adam was on a kind of probationary stage (at the time he fell) else the tree of life and its consequence wont have been an issue after the fall. Why? Because in the Nature of Who HE is, never forces us into anything. However, the statement made by God showed He still had greater and higher plans for Adam.
Meaning Adam was a living soul, made a partaker of God's nature (to a certain degree) but was not without an intellect and will. Again,what would have been the need of a command to abstain from the tree if Adam already had the fullness of the Divine nature in perfection it being no choice of his?
The command given by God already shows that it was going to be a probationary period for the man and his part in God (perfection included) would be in stages as his cooperation and willingness will determine.
(thread is for a brother in need!)

johnydon22:
You already gave me an example of what you think is perfect and the question then was. .


Can something imperfect come out of something perfect?

Man's perfection as a creature was not to be possessed independent of God, but in union with God.
God predestinated man's character when HE made him a partaker of His Life (Adam already was alive like other creatures were, before God breathed into his nostrils; he was not created dead) the condition given in Eden was to enable him decide if he wanted it so or not.
Hence after the fall, there was separation from God (death) and a loss of that perfection

johnydon22:
If humans were created perfect from whence then came the corruption?

Man's perfection as a creature was not to be possessed independent of God, but in union with God.

God predestinated man's character when HE made him a partaker of His Life (Adam already was alive like other creatures were, before God breathed into his nostrils; he was not created dead) the condition given in Eden was to enable him decide if he wanted it so or not.

Hence after the fall, there was separation from God (death) and a loss of that perfection.

johnydon22:
You lack comprehension? . . . I asked a very simple question. .

Can something imperfect come out of something perfect?

I wish you will be more specific! 'something perfect' and 'something imperfect' could be anything the principle of which might not be applicable to the matter at hand.

Syncan:
The Holy Spirit that came upon them, is it the one of born of the spirit or the one of baptism of the spirit?

Kindly read the reference quoted again:

Acts 15:8,9

8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 [size=14pt]and [/size]put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

They were not only regenerated (saved) they were also Baptised with the Spirit:

Acts 10:46
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God.

Note that before this time, an angel had told Cornelius to seek for Peter who will tell him what to do to be saved meaning Cornelius was not saved before that time but as they heard the Gospel and believed with their hearts, God saw it fit to grant them a double blessing;( purifying their heart and Baptising them with the Spirit) note the word 'and' in Acts 15:8

johnydon22:
Good, and can perfection bore out imperfection?

Sorry, who is perfection and who is imperfection?

johnydon22:
Seriously my question was

Is god perfect or not

GOD IS PERFECT!!!

Pchinak:
Considering the bold, remind me at what point did cornelius household experience their own event.

While Peter was preaching the Gospel to Cornelius, the Spirit of God came upon Cornelius and those gathered. This happened not because they were baptised before they started but because God saw that they had believed with the heart (as Romans 10:9 shows). Theirs happened because God from Whom all blessings come knew their heart. Here is what Peter had to say:

Acts 15:8,9

8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.


It was after all these that water baptism followed; their hearts had already been purified. Why? they Believed!

italo:
Seeing that Paul only received the Holy Spirit, was baptized and had his sins washed away, when Ananias got to him, are you saying a person can be saved, yet not receive the Holy Spirit, and remain with his previous sins?

Cc Barnabaseloka

You appear to be confusing being born of the Spirit with being Baptised with the Spirit. They are not the same thing. Paul was saved and his sins washed away at the point he did the following:

Romans 10:9

that if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

At this point of believing, a person (who genuinely repents) is saved by the Power of the Holy Spirit but He is not yet Baptised with the Spirit for service'
Acts 1:5,8
5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judæa, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Syncan:
Interesting @ bold. We know that, when a person is born again,the Holy Spirit takes up residence in that person’s life ( 1 Corinthians 6:19 ). If a person does not have the Holy Spirit, then he does not belong to Christ ( Romans 8:9 ). So why is it that these men in Ephesus did not have the Holy Spirit,
when you say they are born again already?

The incident at Acts 19:1-7 was referring to the Baptism with the Spirit quite distinct from being born of the Spirit (John 3:3-5). No one experiences the events in verse 6 at the point of being born again except those who seek for and receive that Baptism.

Acts 19:6
6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

italo:
At what point was Paul saved?

At what point were his sins washed away?

Cc scholar8200

At the point he met/encountered the Lord and surrendered to His Lordship! Note that unlike Cornelius,he was not asked to call for one to preach the Gospel to him. Why? He encountered He Who is the Gospel!

Why would Ananias call him brother Saul? (Knowing the terrorist he had been days ago)

italo:
And here you disagree:

Acts3:38Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

And why did he forget that element in his second sermon?
Acts 3:19
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

Peter also said conversion or being born again is by the Word (the hearing of which brings saving faith)

1 Peter 1:23
being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.(reminds me of John3:5)

I am not against water baptism after genuine salvation.

italo:
So you're say Peter was correct when he said 'baptism is for remission of sins?'

Here I stand:

Remission of sin is not without the Blood or faith therein: Hebrews 9:22
22 [In fact] under the Law almost everything is purified by means of blood, and without the shedding of blood there is neither release from sin and its guilt nor the remission of the due and merited punishment for sins.

Since it is so, your stance will be an accusation that Peter was contradicting a generally known Divine principle. But if we consider it from the perspective that Peter's sermon and other scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit, you will realise that they all clarify and complement each other.

italo:
Believing is part of baptism.

The baptism we are talking about...is it the same one Peter said is for remission of sin in Acts2:38?

Do you also believe Barnabaseloka when he says Peter meant the opposite of what he wrote?

Or did Peter write the correct thing?

Remission of sin is not without the Blood or faith therein: Hebrews 9:22
22 [In fact] under the Law almost everything is purified by means of blood, and without the shedding of blood there is neither release from sin and its guilt nor the remission of the due and merited punishment for sins.

Since it is so, your stance will be an accusation that Peter was contradicting a generally known Divine principle. But if we consider it from the perspective that Peter's sermon and other scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit, you will realise that they all clarify and complement each other.

Besides believing precedes baptism and is more important. Note the order:
Acts 16:30,31
Q: 30.... what is it necessary for me to do that I may be saved?

A:31 ... Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ [[d]give yourself up to Him, [e] take yourself out of your own keeping and entrust yourself into His keeping] and you will be saved,...



They that truly believe receive the Spirit by Whom they are born again

John 7:39

39 But He was speaking here of the Spirit, Whom those who believed (trusted, had faith) in Him were afterward to receive. For the [Holy] Spirit had not yet been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified (raised to honor).


Another practise is the Lord's supper. Paul by inspiration wrote that there were some who took part unworthily and were judged (some even died!). Why? They lacked the faith (and expected effects of newness of life) that should have qualified them. Now if taking part in the Lord's supper did not qualify them, how would being baptised in water qualify them? Also were they not already baptised? Why were they still judged?

If one can take part in one unworthily then it means certain things must be in place before you can avail yourself for either sacraments

italo:
No it explains that we were baptized by the power of the Holy Spirit...did you think baptism was just done by pouring ordinary water without the Holy Spirit?

Nowhere does the verse say anything like "outward testimony."

Explain the highlighted citing relevant scriptures vis a vis Ephesians 1:13

13 In Him you also who have heard the Word of Truth, the glad tidings (Gospel) of your salvation, and have believed ... on Him, were stamped with the seal of the long-promised Holy Spirit.

italo:
But Paul baptized people!

Yes or no?

Sure! After they had believed with the heart; not before.

Scholar8200:
1 Corinthians 12:13 explains the real event that occurs in our inner man by the Power of the Holy Spirit that makes us born again; water baptism then follows as an outward testimony:

12 For by [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.

This is why Paul's primary focus was to preach the gospel and bring people to the point of believing hence he said

1 Corinth 1:17

17 For Christ sent me out not to baptize but [to evangelize by] preaching the glad tidings (the Gospel),

If their being baptised in water was salvation, then he was wasting time and leaving out the real issue!

But he knew that:

Ephesians 2:8
8 For it is by free grace (God’s unmerited favor) that you are saved ([c]delivered from judgment and made partakers of Christ’s salvation) through [your] faith. And this [salvation] is not of yourselves [of your own doing, it came not through your own striving], but it is the gift of God;

Ubenedictus:
This is what my bible says.

From vs 20b

in the days of Noah during the building of the ark in which a few persons, eight in all were saved through water. This prefigured baptism which saves you now

that passage says the waters in noahs time prefigures, foreshadowed, is an antitype of baptism which now saves me.

It didn't say baptism is a mere picture or a figure, it instead said the waters of Noahs day is a figure of baptism which today saves us.

You should go back and study the passage and maybe learn a little english.



no! You didn't shout "stop it". You just called a new testament practice obsolate. And you remember Paul says what is old and obsolate is to pass away? When you start calling new testament practices obsolate then you are alledging the new covenant has failed, is obsolate and passing away.

For you its no big deal right?



hahaha,

you should read your bible more often, unless ofcourse you believe the bible writters were mistaken.

Jn 3:22

After this, Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptising

Kindly see John 4:2
2 Though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples—
Sorry for interfering

1 Corinthians 12:13 explains the real event that occurs in our inner man by the Power of the Holy Spirit that makes us born again; water baptism then follows as an outward testimony:

12 For by [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.

To the op (and his band of supporters), can you explain this in the light of your claim:

2 Peter 2:20,21

20 For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through [the full, personal] knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they again become entangled in them and are overcome, their last condition is worse [for them] than the first.
21 For never to have obtained a [full, personal] knowledge of the way of righteousness would have been better for them than, having obtained [such knowledge], to turn back from the holy commandment which was [verbally] delivered to them.

and

Hebrews 10:26-29

[b]26 For if we go on deliberately and willingly sinning after once acquiring the knowledge of the Truth, there is no longer any sacrifice left to atone for [our] sins [no further offering to which to look forward].
27 [There is nothing left for us then] but a kind of awful and fearful prospect and expectation of divine judgment and the fury of burning wrath and indignation which will consume those who put themselves in opposition [to God].
28 Any person who has violated and [thus] rejected and set at naught the Law of Moses is put to death without pity or mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses.
29 How much worse (sterner and heavier) punishment do you suppose he will be judged to deserve who has spurned and [thus] trampled underfoot the Son of God, and who has considered the covenant blood by which he was consecrated common and unhallowed, thus profaning it and insulting and outraging the [Holy] Spirit [Who imparts] grace (the unmerited favor and blessing of God)?
[/b]

This question is tantamount to asking," Is God a disciple of Jesus Christ?!"

I recently bought a Uk used Nokia E63. (firmware version: 110.21.004). From the internet, I discovered that some features were absent. In addition, setting up an Email has been impossible. I tried installing a newer firmware version (having downloaded Nokia Software updater) but each time, my laptop restarts itself and the process is aborted. Kindly help out. Thanks