Trustman's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Trustman's Profile › Trustman's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (of 20 pages)
 Christianity Etc › Re: Tithes And Offerings Are Eternal Principles by trustman: 10:02pm On Nov 03, 2016 |
One of the many questions 'tithers' have been unable to answer is this: If tithing is so central to THE CHRISTIAN LIFE, how come the New Testament epistles missed giving it to us as clear command or instruction? Until 'tithers' understand that the spiritual life for the CHRISTIAN is based on "a better covenant " and what that covenant consists of they can never move forward in their spiritual life. 3 Likes 1 Share |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Tongues: A Fundamental Flaw In Pentecostalism by trustman: 10:29am On Dec 11, 2015 |
Tongues I believe that key to understanding 1 Corinthians 14 is to bear in mind that Apostle Paul wrote the Corinthian church to REBUKE and CORRECT them. He had already shown us in chapter 3 that they were CARNAL. They therefore needed straightening out. He was not presenting a fresh 'mystery' doctrine but correcting a MISUSE and CONFUSION. Paul corrected the Corinthians (a lesson that is still applicable to us today) that ALL spiritual gifts are given for the purpose of building up the Body of Christ, NOT for individual benefit or recognition - "To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good." (1 Cor. 12:7). Therefore 1 Cor. 14:2-4 (a continuation from chapter12 discuss) should immediately tell us that uninterpreted "tongues" fall short of edifying the church but rather was a detraction from the spiritual life. Paul refers to uninterpreted speech as "speaking to the air" - 1 Cor. 14:9 "So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air." This means meaningless. It should be clear then that Paul's focus was that tongues if not used for the edification of the church is meaningless. Recall what he said in 1 Cor. 13 - "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal." Tongues was understood by those who spoke or understood the language like happened on the day of Pentecost or interpreted by another believer with the spiritual gift of interpretation. Either way a clear message is communicated. If the speech is not interpreted whatever was said would be incomprehensible. So, Paul's emphasis in verses 1-4 should be immediately clear to any reader - an emphasis the church and many individual Christians today have flagrantly ignored. It would appear that today many turn 1 Cor. 14:5 the other way round; to them "......greater is one who speaks in tongue". Here, in verse 5, Paul again emphasizes the issue of the need for church edification - "....................The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up.". The exercise of spiritual gifts is for the common good so that the church is edified. The analogy in verses 7 to 9 which was explained in verses 10 to 25 clearly shows that in corporate worship of the church (where the use of the individual believer's spiritual gift should evidently be for the common good), uninterpreted tongues is meaningless and therefore to be discouraged. Any other interpretation given to it other than this amounts to an affront against the clearly revealed word of God. 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: How Could A Loving God Send Me To Hell? by trustman: 5:58pm On Sep 08, 2015 |
Some pertinent scriptures: Matthew23:33 - "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?" Matthew 25:41 - "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Luke12:5 - "But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!" 2 Peter 2:4 - "For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment;" 2 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: My Pastor Justified Taking Another Wife With Scripture, Is He Right? by trustman: 5:38pm On Sep 08, 2015 |
nannymcphee:Some thoughts from a book by Rev. Moses Onwubiko: "FOCUS ON CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE" DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE The Christian marriage is an extension of the spiritual lives of the spouses. Every marriage that ends in divorce is a failure. God considers marriage a success, not because it hasn’t ended in divorce, but because husband and wife are on the witness stand together testifying against Satan in his appeal trial. DIVORCE Biblical divorce is a grace provision from God for the dissolution of an impossible marriage. Note the word “impossible,” not unpleasant or uncomfortable or imperfect or disappointing but impossible. Divorce is allowed only on the grounds of desertion, including the sexual desertion of adultery and the authority desertion of physical abuse. Divorce is never mandated by God but is merely allowed for those Christians who are unable to apply virtue love and forgiveness to their spouses. Christian marriages do not fail because of unfaithfulness, financial problems, or irreconcilable differences but because believers fail to execute the plan of God; and the greatest failure in the execution of the plan of God is failure to exercise virtue love. Divorce is never a solution to a problem but an escape from a problem. Divorce is a sensitive subject. Some theologians and pastor-teachers have tried to explain away the verses dealing with divorce. Others have worked hard to insert their own ideas about divorce into the written Word of God. Still others have ignored the subject altogether. Anyone who wants to do justice to the inerrant Word of God must be prepared to handle the subject of divorce objectively. When the Lord Jesus Christ performed the marriage of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:24, immediately after His creation of Eve), He didn’t intend them to divorce each other. He didn’t intend their future offspring to divorce. “For I hate divorce,” says the Lord. (Malachi 2:16a) GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE God is specific about those circumstances that are legitimate reasons for divorce in Christian marriage: Desertion in its many guises of sexual unfaithfulness and severe physical abuse, including molestation of children and incest. God doesn’t demand divorce in these situations, but He allows it. In Old Testament times, Moses gave permission for divorce regardless of the reason because of the hardness of the hearts of Israel, the scar tissue on their souls. Jesus Christ said that these causes were frivolous and tragic. While He discouraged divorce, He recognized that circumstances might make divorce legitimate. REMARRIAGE When a spouse dies, remarriage is legitimate. When divorce is legitimate, remarriage of the innocent party is legitimate. The victim of a divorce gimmick has the right of remarriage. A husband or wife is the victim of such a gimmick if his spouse is trying to get rid of him. When a man has taken a wife and married her and it comes to pass that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, let him write her a bill of divorcement. And when she [the innocent victim of the divorce gimmick] is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. (Deuteronomy 24:1-2) In the divorce gimmick described in these verses, a husband divorces his wife for the express purpose of remarrying. The same criterion applies to a wife who divorces her husband because she has someone else in mind. The divorce gimmick is based on sly self-justification and is a combination of hypocrisy and sinfulness. The guilty spouse wants to marry someone else so he deludes himself into believing that he deserves to divorce his present spouse. The victim of a divorce gimmick is allowed to remarry. The guilty spouse isn’t. When spouses divorce, marry another, and again divorce, God does not allow remarriage with the first spouse. Then her first husband who previously divorced her can’t remarry her since she has been defiled [through having sex with her second husband, which has permanently destroyed the authority of her first husband], for that is an abomination before the Lord. Therefore, you will not bring sin into the land. (Deuteronomy 24:4) In such a situation, the first husband has lost his authority over his wife to the second husband. He can never regain that authority. Such a remarriage is doomed to failure and, therefore, is denied by God. God doesn’t forbid marrying a divorced person who was the innocent party; however, caution should be taken. Divorce by its very nature is a sign of inability to handle problems. The greatest expert on marriage, the apostle Paul, was never married. He never experienced marriage, but he knew everything about it. The issue is objective doctrine, not experience. Doctrine comes only from the Word of God. When experience contradicts the Bible, the Bible is always correct, and the interpretation of experience is faulty. Problems in marriage don’t come about in an instant, and they can’t be solved instantly either. Instant and desperate answers are no answers at all. Desperate people are emotional people, and emotional people are irrational. They demand easy solutions that don’t cut into their time and convenient solutions that don’t demand more than they are willing to give. Emotion, an inevitable by-product of human solutions, makes learning, thinking, and solving problems impossible, which increases the problems and leads to divorcement from reality, loss of commonsense and wisdom, and entrance into panic. Emotion is an effect; thinking is a cause. Concentration on Bible doctrine eliminates the disastrous consequences of using emotion to solve problems. Man is the product of his own bad decisions, but when he refuses to take responsibility for those decisions, he remains in a status of arrogant subjectivity which renders him unteachable no matter how gifted his pastor-teacher. Virtue is necessary for success in marriage, and virtue is the monopoly of God. The priesthood of the believer demands that he solve his own problems using the inventory of Bible doctrine he has heard consistently from his pastor-teacher, stored in his human spirit, and cycled into his soul. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Earth Is Not 6000 Years Old. by trustman: 10:02pm On Sep 04, 2015 |
Chizzled06:Now I know you better. These few exchanges have been quite an eye opener! |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Earth Is Not 6000 Years Old. by trustman: 1:42pm On Sep 04, 2015 |
[size=5pt] Chizzled06:[/size] You have clearly shown the level of your knowledge of the things you speak about. Again, note this: fossil can be a trace of past existence but that a thing existed in the past does not amount to knowing how it came from a lower, simpler form to a more complex form or to the state the fossil shows. In other words, fossil DOES NOT prove evolution. Telling when or how a creature lived DOES NOT amount to a PROOF of their evolution. Mutation does not necessarily amount to evolution. But more importantly, to the extent that you have not been able to PERSONALLY investigate these things but have had to rely on others' analysis, experimentations, deductions, etc. you are still exercising 'faith'. Evolution is not an exact science. I hope you know what that means. Therefore to accept is as gospel truth means you're relying not on rational or empirical system of thinking but on a non-empirical one. You're then not really different from those who believe in creationism. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Earth Is Not 6000 Years Old. by trustman: 12:10am On Sep 04, 2015 |
Chizzled06:Listing Fossil evidence, DNA, Genetic commonalities doesn't prove anything. Fossil evidence can show that the thing in question existed but that a thing existed is very different from HOW it 'evolved'. So, let me ask you again: What 'rational evidence' in fossil documentation made you 'accept' other peoples' statements about it? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Earth Is Not 6000 Years Old. by trustman: 11:33pm On Sep 03, 2015 |
[size=5pt] Chizzled06:[/size] You've gone the same way again - vague and ambiguous. I ask again: what is the proof of evolution? What 'rational evidence' made you 'accept' other peoples' statements about it? A simple SPECIFIC sentence will do. You don't need to summarize all the 'knowledge' you have gleaned from your numerous sources. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Earth Is Not 6000 Years Old. by trustman: 8:37am On Sep 03, 2015 |
[size=5pt] Chizzled06:[/size] You said it yourself that Biology wasn't one of the subjects you studied. So maybe then you'll not be able to understand the context in which I used my words. I don't see what gravity has to do with 'jumping out of building'. Certainly one can prove gravity without that; can't we? On the other hand, what is the proof of evolution? Unfortunately you are not able to clearly explain your statements. They are for most part either vague or ambiguous. If your belief in 'vastness of the cosmos' is not baseless and empty then tell me on what basis you accepted it - on your 'faith' in what some other persons presented to you as 'facts' or on the basis of your own empirical ( self-experimented) evidence? Clear answer please, and no need for insult or pun. Remember you said: "I prefer rational thinking, logical reasoning based on evidence." Whose evidence? The ones you worked out yourself or the ones others claimed and you accepted by 'faith'? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Earth Is Not 6000 Years Old. by trustman: 11:53am On Sep 02, 2015 |
I agree with Davidylan that the bible actually supports an older earth. An older earth does not necessary mean agreement with evolution. Chizzled06 is your REALITY in the 'vastness of the cosmos' or on earth? Evolution has NO rational explanation to the existence of life forms on earth. Evolution is ONLY an attempt to 'rationally' explain observed order on earth. I want to believe that you are sure that at best evolution is a theory and nothing more. You must know what a 'theory' in this context means. That must be why you mentioned that: "Biological science hasn't (yet) concluded on the definitive process of the origin of living matter on earth" It (evolution) is, along with 'intelligence of mankind', more of 'ridiculous nonsense' than a belief in an intelligent creator for earth and the universe. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Another Error Of Quran Or Muhammed by trustman: 9:36am On Aug 31, 2015 |
Jesus Christ is both undiminished deity and true humanity In one person. "... ... his son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God ... ..." (Romans 1:3-4). "For in Him (Christ) all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" (Colossians 2:9). "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word" (Hebrews 1:3). He did not previously exist as 'a spirit creature in heaven'. His deity had always existed - "In the beginning was the Word , and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1:1). There is the need to understand issues relating to his humanity and those that have to do with his Deity and clearly delineate them. He accepted being called God - "Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28). His humanity became even superior to angels - "so he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs" (Hebrews 1:4). As God, Jesus Christ: has all authority (Matt. 28:18), possesses life in Himself (John 5:26), imparts eternal life (John 10:28), forgives sins (Matthew 9:6; Mark 2:7). Jesus Christ is God with ALL the attributes of God and He is equally perfect humanity. All divine titles are ascribed to him: "God" (John 1:1); "God over all" (Romans 9:5); "our great God" (Titus 2:13). Nothing in Scripture suggests that Jesus Christ is anything less than God - the Supreme Being of the universe. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: ( MUST READ) Four Reasons Why We Cant Lose Our Salvation by trustman: 8:15am On Aug 29, 2015 |
5solas:I agree with you. I trust it's concise enough for Vooks. 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: ( MUST READ) Four Reasons Why We Cant Lose Our Salvation by trustman: 9:06pm On Aug 28, 2015 |
vooks:Election occurs (from our point of view as humans) at regeneration. From God's side it was a sovereign decision He made in eternity past ("before the foundation of the world"  . Election is God specifically setting apart for honor those who choose to believe in Christ. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: ( MUST READ) Four Reasons Why We Cant Lose Our Salvation by trustman: 9:03pm On Aug 28, 2015 |
Scholar8200:Remember that mankind was "... ... dead in the trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2:1) when God "... ... being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ-by grace you have been saved-(verses 4-5). So don't think that grace cannot be extended to a person in a situation like that of the Good Samaritan. Grace is all over the Scripture. Jesus' treatment of the woman caught in adultery is best described as what? GRACE! The emphasis in grace is on the giver. Not the recipient. On the parable of the Prodigal Son, I want to believe you see it as a parable that teaches about grace. But then, grace in what area? Grace in salvation or grace in RELATIONSHIP? This 'certain man' had two sons. So they were ALREADY his sons. They had a family relationship with the man. When the story ends the same relationship was still there - a father and his two sons. Both had charted different paths. Was one 'better' than the other? Was the one who lived in self- indulgence 'worse' than the one who questioned his father's wisdom in decision? Was his questioning of his father's wisdom not an affront against the father? Was that not a display of self-righteous arrogance? Who owned the things - himself or the father? The story shows how every believer has fellowship with God but can get out of that fellowship. The prodigal son became carnal. He suffered for his carnality. While suffering he was still a son of the 'certain man'. That family status did not change. He later realized he had made a mistake and decided to make a U-turn and return to his father. His father disregarded every thing he had done, accepted his U-turn and restored him to fellowship. It wasn't that "he exchanges the old for the new and that newness is visible to all! ". He did not DO it by himself. It was the father who in GRACE provided him the newness. The father's eagerness to receive and forgive his son speaks about his integrity. His actions towards his son (indeed sons, including the older) shows grace! They did not deserve what the father did. The father NEVER stopped loving them. That is grace! Whether in salvation or in the Christian life, grace is always "A favor done without expectation of return; absolute freeness of the lovingkindness of God to men finding its only motive in the bounty and free heartedness of the Giver; unearned and unmerited favor" |
| Christianity Etc › Re: ( MUST READ) Four Reasons Why We Cant Lose Our Salvation by trustman: 10:58am On Aug 28, 2015 |
vooks: You haven't seen me say anything here about 'TULIP' have you? I believe God provided salvation for ALL. - 1 John 2:2, John 3:16 ('whosoever' is here referring to choice - freewill). Like I said earlier, because of unlimited atonement, sin is removed as the basis for eternal condemnation. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: ( MUST READ) Four Reasons Why We Cant Lose Our Salvation by trustman: 8:22am On Aug 28, 2015 |
vooks:If I understand your question, you mean why do the unbelievers end up eternally separated from God in spite of the cross? Like I think you've noted on this thread which I want to rephrase : The sovereignty of God and the freewill of man coexists. When any man therefore uses his freewill to reject (refuses to accept) God's unlimited atonement expressed by His outpouring grace through the cross, such a one will end up perishing. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: ( MUST READ) Four Reasons Why We Cant Lose Our Salvation by trustman: 7:56am On Aug 28, 2015 |
Scholar8200:I had given examples of display of grace from the Bible. The typical example being: - The Good Samaritan Lk. 10:30-35 The emphasis in grace is on the giver. Grace as favour means an act of kindness. The Good Samaritan did not expect the man he helped to pay him back in some way for the favour he did him. The man helped in the story cannot reverse the grace extended to him. The favour done was not dependent on the goodness of the man or the ability of the man to repay the favour in future. The only motive of the Good Samaritan was from himself - his free heartedness, not on any external consideration. God's grace is TOTALLY dependent on Him - the Giver rather than the receiver. God's grace is totally based on His integrity. 3 Likes 1 Share |
| Christianity Etc › Re: ( MUST READ) Four Reasons Why We Cant Lose Our Salvation by trustman: 5:18pm On Aug 26, 2015 |
vooks:A true understanding of grace should elicit a great appreciation of God, and awe and reverence for Him. Not the opposite. Also, the issue in a true understanding of grace is God's integrity, not ours. God gave Christ as a sin-offering to the world. Is there going to be a time when God will say something like 'I'm tired of mankind. I'm withdrawing my gift'? If God did so much for the man when he was 'dead' will He do any less for the believer in Christ? Our focus therefore should be on God's viewpoint. Grace is ALL about what God did. Man only responds to it and contributes nothing to it. Can man 'unrespond' to his initial response to salvation and then become 'unsaved'? Some pertinent questions: 1. When a person becomes 'born again' does anything happen to him to change his spiritual status? 2. Is that change in status 'real' ? 3. If real, is that change temporary or permanent ? 4. When a Christian sins does his initial spiritual status change? If yes, to what? Can he be restored? 5. Can a person be saved more than once? So if anything can make a believer 'unsaved' (since it is the unsaved that will end up in hell) doesn't he have to be 'saved' again to be right with God? 6. What is the equation of salvation - faith alone in Christ alone or faith in Christ plus some additional things ( living a sin-free life or not renouncing Christ)? In other words does man add to Christ's work to make it complete or effectual? If man can do anything to add to God's work in saving him then salvation is not a GIFT of grace; it is not 'unearned' or 'unmerited favour' and not dependent on the bounty and free heartedness of God. If man can do anything to add to or complete his salvation then it's not a FAVOUR! It's payment (at least in part) for the 'work' he did. He earned it in part. Therefore the glory belongs to both God and himself. But that would be blasphemous. Adding man's work to the process of salvation is irreconcilable with the truth of the Word of God. That is why the scripture emphatically declares that: "For BY GRACE you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the GIFT of God, NOT A RESULT OF WORKS, so that no one may boast". Ephesians 2:8&9 "he saved us, NOT BECAUSE OF WORKS done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy" Titus 2:5a "who saved us and called us to a holy calling, NOT BECAUSE OF OUR WORKS but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began," 2 Timothy 1:9 Salvation is by faith ALONE in Christ ALONE. Man's 'works' (however they are classified) play no part in it from start to finish. Acts 13:39 "Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses." 3 Likes 1 Share |
| Christianity Etc › Re: ( MUST READ) Four Reasons Why We Cant Lose Our Salvation by trustman: 10:56am On Aug 26, 2015 |
1. Unlimited atonement removes sin as the basis for eternal condemnation. Faith in Christ becomes the key issue. Faith is a non-meritorious expression. 2. A person who expresses faith in Christ is saved, regenerated, in union with Christ, in dwelt by the Spirit, given spiritual gifts, sealed, etc. All these are acts of God's grace. 3. Can the saved then cancel out what God has accomplished? Can sin or failure (e.g. Failure to continue to have faith) on the part of the saved be great enough to cancel God's grace? Or, will God reverse His grace provisions for the saved due to failure on the part of the saved? 4. Grace is all about UNMERITED FAVOUR. Grace has been defined as: "A favor done without expectation of return; absolute freeness of the lovingkindness of God to men finding its only motive in the bounty and free heartedness of the Giver; unearned and unmerited favor" (The Lexical Aid to the New Testament). 5. God's grace is a favour done without the expectation of return. - The Good Samaritan Lk. 10:30-35 - The Ten Lepers Lk. 17:12-18 6. God's grace is an expression of his unfailing love; Is. 54:10a, Ps. 89:2, 1 Cor. 13:8. 7. God's grace is solely on the basis of His integrity expressed in his bounty and freeheartedness - Lk. 11:13. 8. God's grace is not dependent on man's MERIT - Romans 5:8 9. God's grace is TOTALLY dependent on Him - the Giver rather than the receiver. Man, on this side of eternity, will always be imperfect. Only God is perfect. God is not impressed by man's works - Isa. 64:6; God is only impressed with His own work. 10. If man does ANYTHING to remain saved the he (man) 'earned' it. That would cancel out grace - Romans 11:6. Adding anything to grace nullifies grace. 11. God's grace is unconditional; therefore it is not dependent on man but on God. God is unchanging and so His grace continues undiminished. God's grace does not swing like a pendulum. What God starts in grace, He continues in grace! 2 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Is Heaven Really Pure & Without Sin? by trustman: 6:43pm On Jul 05, 2015 |
PietraK:The indications we have are: 1. The old order of things (would have) passed away - Rev. 21:4b 2. It will be the home of righteousness - 2 Peter 3:13 3. There will be the "making everything new!" - Rev. 21:5a So we can say that the things that made for sin in the first place will be done away with. 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Penal Substitution: Jesus Didn't Die In Place Of Anyone. by trustman: 2:47pm On Jun 02, 2015 |
Ubenedictus:Your various comments and responses leave many questions unanswered. And by ignoring those issues you have failed to make your position clear. First, the title of your thread "... Jesus Didn't Die In Place of Anyone" contradicts Romans 5:6-8 and Hebrews 2: 9 Jesus voluntarily gave up the ghost. What does this tell us? One, that he did not bleed to death. Two, he did not give up the ghost as soon as he was nailed to the cross or shortly after but only after noonday darkness, his cries to the father and declaration that "It is finished". Three, he knew that it was only then his work was complete. He was still physically alive on the cross when the work of salvation was completed for him to declare "Tetelestai!" God was actively involved in Jesus' sacrificial death. See Romans 3:25 "whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins."(ESV). "God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished." The cross was a high point in the work of salvation. 1 Peter 2:24 "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed."(ESV) The cross was therefore critical to the salvation work of Christ - Col. 2:14 |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Penal Substitution: Jesus Didn't Die In Place Of Anyone. by trustman: 12:03pm On May 26, 2015 |
Ubenedictus:Here are some of your statements: I repeat, Yes Jesus "bore our sins in his body on the cross", Yes! "his wound have effected healing for me", Yes!! "On him was laid the iniquities of us all", but no in the sense that trustman means! He wasn't undergoing the penalty for the sins of a select few, his father wasn't pouring wrath for our sins down on him instead he was offering to God a sacrifice, allow me to go back to scripture to get back the sense in which those words are used.So God had no part in man’s redemption? Jesus chose to give an “offering” to God which became acceptable to God. Christ died for you mean he died for your sake not that he is a substitute for your physical death. ’died for your sake’ means what? I believe that the punishment the bible is refering to is death, God proclaimed death and suffering as punishment for sin and since Christ accepted suffer and die he bore "chastisement", the very one that brought is peace. that is what I believe that passage is saying. I do not believe, infact I reject the thought that erronously claims it means Jesus went to hell fire of condemn souls and suffered the torments of the damned, I reject the thought that says God was actively pouring his vindictive wrath on his son, I repeat what I said ealier in the thread, that teaching is a 16th cent teaching and isn't true.was the penalty (punishment, price, payment) for sin borne by Jesus on behalf (in place of) of mankind? Like i said: 1. 1 Peter 3:18 "For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit," Cf Hebrews 13:12 "So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood." 2. Romans 3:24&25 "24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins." 3. Romans 4:25 "who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification." Cf Romans 8: 32a “He who did not spare his own son but gave him up for us all” Notice; ‘did not spare’ – spare from what? Notice; ‘gave him up for us all” – gave him up? My position is tha by the suffering and death of Jesus Christ a wholesome sacrifices was offered to God with superabundant merit, this sacrifice has the power to literally forgive all sins of the whole world and grant exceeding grace to all who recieve it my faith.who demanded payment for sin? My position is that this sacrifice was an atonement (a sacrifice that averts wrath), my position is that it is heretic to claim that God diverted his wrath on his son Jesus. Instead Jesus death was a pleasing sacrifice, an acceptable offering that adequately satisfy for all sin.was man under God’s wrath as a result of sin? Will God’s wrath continue to be poured on those who refuse him? Ubenedictus Ultimately every sin is against God; an outrage to God’s holiness, an offense and insult to His perfection. God’s justice demands that every sin be punished – “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). It is God who does the punishing. To be just God has to punish sin; He has to judge every sin. In his wisdom God made available a substitute – one who will stand in the place of sinners – to take the judgment (pay the penalty) for mankind’s sin. That one is Jesus – Romans 3:25; 4:25a; 8:32a. He – God – did this so that his justice will be satisfied and he can therefore justify those who are guilty without compromising his essence – chiefly his holiness (righteousness and justice). Jesus satisfied the demands of a righteous and just God as far as the sin issue is concerned – Romans 3:25. The just (Jesus) was standing in for the unjust (mankind). He did not have to pay the penalty for man’s sin but chose (in agreement with the Father) to do so on man’s behalf (as a representative of man). He took our place – Jesus became our substitute. Standing in as our substitute, Jesus Christ took upon Himself the punishment for our sins (as demanded by the justice of God). He did this on the cross – “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree … …” 1 Peter 2:24. The cross became the ‘altar’ on which the overwhelming debt of the penalty of sin against mankind was resolved. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Christ Embassy Church Is A Cult by trustman: 7:04am On May 16, 2015 |
Gombs:Therefore we do not lose heart. ...For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Christ Embassy Church Is A Cult by trustman: 10:12pm On May 15, 2015 |
Gombs:So, when will you go to the cross to die for mankind's sin? On your issue of attempting the question: I have. Too bad you can't comprehend. I can't help you any further. 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Christ Embassy Church Is A Cult by trustman: 8:35pm On May 15, 2015 |
Gombs:Are you Jesus of Nazareth? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Christ Embassy Church Is A Cult by trustman: 8:49am On May 06, 2015 |
Gombs: No, you have not. Prayer is not ....... Is not the same thing as: Prayer is ...... So again, can you give a plain English definition of prayer? I don't recall mentioning anything about the question you're asking. But if you mean whether we can ask God for enablement see Acts 4: "29 And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness, 30 while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus." Btw, the prayer area is one area where cults veer off and show their true colour!! |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Christ Embassy Church Is A Cult by trustman: 7:41am On May 06, 2015 |
Gombs: I gave a simple definition of prayer. I wish you will do same, then maybe we can begin to see where you missed the mark. So, can you give a plain English definition of prayer? Btw, time of fellowship with God involves the believer's entire life and living. When you're reading or meditating on the Word of God you are fellowshipping with God. When you're worshiping in any of it's expressions you are fellowshipping with God. Fellowship with God - connection with God - should be a moment by moment experience of the Christian. High-sounding phrases when not properly put in perspective end up communicating wrong meaning to hearers or confusing them. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Christ Embassy Church Is A Cult by trustman: 10:27pm On May 05, 2015 |
[quote author=Gombs post=33425156][/quote]First, words have defined meanings. Secondly, the Christian is not at liberty to change words to suit himself. Prayer, as with all issues taught in the Bible, must be understood from how the Scripture, properly explained (not any other source or anyone else), states it to be. Thirdly, prayer, properly situated, is addressed to God and no one else. Fourthly, to help us, the Bible has numerous examples of prayer and the Lord Jesus’ model prayer given at the request of his disciples to help us better understand what prayer is. Fifthly, prayer is our expression of faith and trust in God. Prayer, biblical prayer then, is simply a request or some other expression (e.g. thanks) by a subordinate – the believer, addressed to a superior – God. Now you can see how your “romance of righteousness: a time to fellowship in the communion of the God-kind” goes way off what true biblical prayer is. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Christ Embassy Church Is A Cult by trustman: 6:37pm On May 04, 2015 |
[quote author=Gombs post=33403652][/quote]Now tell us who's being deceptive; me who simply stated facts and asked you question OR you who instead of addressing the issues and question chose your usual defense mechanism? Another question which attempt ONLY if you know the answer, otherwise remain silent: what is prayer? A very very simple definition will do. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Christ Embassy Church Is A Cult by trustman: 7:57am On May 04, 2015 |
Gombs: Just to let you know that some of us have close contacts with CE members so please when responding to these things don't do as if you're writing to novices on your activities. Clearly hero- worship of pastors thrives in CE. Members are therefore PRESSURED to give toward their birthdays. Is giving towards your Pastors' birthdays not usually driven as a group thing? Because many of these things are unwritten should not make you defend your sect unreasonably. 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Christ Embassy Church Is A Cult by trustman: 10:29pm On Apr 30, 2015 |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Christ Embassy Church Is A Cult by trustman: 9:50am On Apr 30, 2015 |
Gombs:You, tutor? You don't seem to have the capacity for that. You prefer to play pranks in other people's thread so I'm sure you'll run from where you'll be exposed for who you are. |
