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: Nine Reasons Why You Should Tithe by trustman: 6:32pm On Feb 16, 2015

robosky02:
tithe was never abolished in the new testament. Jesus said

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Matthew 5:17

he went on to say

Matthew 23:23
23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

the pharises were making a show of how much they give in tithe. which is good but they must be balance in faith too.

that is do all plus give your tithe

he also repeated it in

Luke 11:42 - But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

The key issue is that the New Covenant we are in, has no place for a compulsory tithing thing.

Jesus Christ did not live under the New Covenant.
He lived under the age of Israel which was under the Old Covenant.
His death and resurrection and session instituted (kick-started, brought into place) the New Covenant -
Hebrews 9:16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.
17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.

This gives us a good understanding of how the book of Hebrews started off -

Hebrews 1
1 In the past God spoke to our people through the prophets. He spoke to them many times and in many different ways. 2 And now in these last days, God has spoken to us again through his Son. He made the whole world through his Son. And he has chosen his Son to have all things. 3 The Son shows the glory of God. He is a perfect copy of God’s nature, and he holds everything together by his powerful command. The Son made people clean from their sins. Then he sat down at the right side of God, the Great One in heaven. 4 The Son became much greater than the angels, and God gave him a name that is much greater than any of their names.
Hebrews 8:6
But the work that has been given to Jesus is much greater than the work that was given to those priests. In the same way, the new agreement [/b]that Jesus brought from God to his people is much greater than the old one. And the new agreement is based on better promises. 7 If there was nothing wrong with the [b]first agreement, then there would be no need for a second agreement.
13 God called this a new agreement, so he has made the first agreement old. And anything that is old and useless is ready to disappear.
Hebrews 9:1
The first agreement had rules for worship and a place for worship here on earth.
10 These gifts and sacrifices are only about food and drink and special washings. They are only rules about the body. God gave them for his people to follow until the time of his new way.
Hebrews 10
The law gave us only an unclear picture of the good things coming in the future. The law is not a perfect picture of the real things.

Israel was a NATIONAL ENTITY WITH GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES – a real estate, if you like - and had a national and spiritual life based on the Mosaic Law.
The church age believer does not belong to A SINGLE NATIONAL ENTITY. He is also NOT UNDER the Mosaic law (or any system pre-mosaic law) that instituted or called for tithing.

Did God command the Christian to tithe? If so show me from the New Testament epistles.[/b]

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: John Macarthur's 2013 Strange Fire Conference by trustman: 8:11am On Feb 14, 2015

Flawless2015:
Yes, however, Calvinism is against freewill and the belief is that the atonement was only limited to those that God unconditionally chose. The Bible on the other hand explicitly states that the atonement was for all. The criteria of course is to believe in that free gift of salvation.

Concerning Jesus being God, there is no scripture that explicitly states that Jesus was God. What's evident from scripture is that Jesus was a man who had the Spirit of God in Him. The bible explicitly states that God cannot be tempted by evil (James 1:13) yet, Jesus was tempted by the devil. There other scriptures where Jesus describes himself as a different entity from God. No where in the Bible does Jesus say He is God. The closest Jesus came to that was in John 17:21 when he said 'let them be one just as you and I are one'. Notice He didn't say 'just you, me and the Holy Spirit are one' (trinity). Now the concept of us being one does not mean we are the same people, just as it doesn't mean God and Jesus are the same. It is the minds of fallible men that invented the trinity and made Jesus, God. If you study history you will see that as Calvinism gained ground in Rome, those that did not believe in the trinity were beheaded or burnt, John Calvin himself was at the forefront of these punishments. It was a cycle of how philosophy had gotten to the heads of men that any divergence from their views was deemed a punishable offense.

The gospel of John clearly show the pre-existence of Jesus Christ.
Starting with chapter one it leaves one with no doubt as to the fact that the man Jesus is God.

Certainly his audience understood clearly what he meant by his words that we find their reactions pointing this out like in
John 5:18
"This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God."
Or
John 10:
30 I and the Father are one."
31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?"
33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."
And this:
John 8
"58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."
59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple."
The entire discuss speaks for itself. You may need to read all of it.
The 'I am' of verse 58 was very clear to Jesus' audience and should be clear to us too. He was telling them that he is Yahweh, the God of Israel. It was unmistakable. There was no ambiguity. So, over and over again, Jesus did say that he is God. Yet he was also true humanity and so could speak as different from God the father. He had to come as true humanity for the plan of incarnation necessary for mankind's salvation to be fulfilled.

That Jesus Christ is God is not an invention of man but a clear declaration of Scripture.

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: John Macarthur's 2013 Strange Fire Conference by trustman: 6:29pm On Feb 10, 2015

Flawless2015:
I think most of you should be advised to look into the origin of reformed theology. It stems from Calvinism and teaches the 5 points of Calvinism (TULIP). Which are T- total depravity, U- unconditional election, L- limited atonement, I- irresistible grace, and P- perseverance of the saints. If you open the bible and read it in light of this philosophy, you will twist so many scriptures in order to conform the Bible to the Calvinistic philosophy. That's basically Calvinism and what Calvinists do. There is no free-will in Calvinism, because according to the U (unconditional election), God has already chosen those that He wants saved and no one can make a decision to go to God because of the T (total depravity). So even as you read the views of these cessationists, know that their ideology and theology is tainted with Calvinism.

If you go back and study church history, you will realize that John Calvin got most of his work from St. Augustine. Read about John Calvin and St. Augustine's history and make your own conclusion. In addition, reformed theology has a view of salvation called penal substitutionary atonement. Go back in church history and see the conflicts that arose between penal sub atonement and the christus victus view of atonement. It is actually understood that the christus victus view of the atonement was what was prevalent among the early church fathers who had made commentaries on the manuscripts that are today the new testament. It should also be noted that in order for Calvinism to work, Jesus has to be God, which directly is against scripture. Please familiarize yourselves with the history concerning the trinitarian doctrine. The early church fathers even noted that as the Bible says; there is only one God, and that Jesus was indeed a man (God's son). There is no trinity. It so happened that those that believed in the trinity began killing and attacking those who did not believe in it. Again read up on the history.

Having expressed all of this, I think it is fair to say that the opinions of these men at the conference can be so easily debunked by a simple look into history. Reform theologists are always talking about how the 'truth' should be preached and that the gospel should preached the 'right way'. But what they don't tell you is that 'that way' is Calvinism. According to Calvinists, everything that happens is ordained and predestined by God. So to them, if a woman loses a child during labor, it was God's 'sovereign' will. If a young man is addicted to fornication, it's God's 'sovereign' will. Apparently, sin is God's 'sovereign' will too. Run and run fast.

The 5 points of Calvinism, like all other forms of classification, seeks to present a logical order for God's dealing with man particularly with regards to the issue of sin.

Over the years many have come up with their own form of LAPSARIANISM. One thing common to many if not all of these categorization is the total depravity of man. Areas of differences include Limited Atonement which addresses whether Christ's work covers ONLY those to be saved or the entire humanity.

I believe the biblical position for this (limited or unlimited atonement) is clearly brought out in passages like:
1 John 2:2 - "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and NOT ONLY for ours BUT ALSO for the sins of the WHOLE WORLD"
1 Timothy 2:6 - "who gave himself a ransom FOR ALL MEN... ..."
Titus 2:11 - "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to ALL MEN"

Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for ALL but ONLY those who, in the exercise of their freewill, express faith in his finished work become beneficiaries of his work - John 1:12, John 20:31,etc.

In addition, it would be good to know from you where Jesus being God is directly against scripture.

Christianity Etc › Re: The Midas Touch- A Balanced Approach To Biblical Prosperity - Kenneth Hagin by trustman: 11:34pm On Jan 29, 2015

Gombs:
Pride? What was the reason for the pride?
The rest of your post has been answered

Christianity Etc › Re: Student Pastors And Their Deception (life Story) by trustman: 11:07am On Jan 24, 2015

Students used to be "thinkers" and pushed for needed changes in our society. Students demonstrations were for well articulated issues. But today even Christian students cannot 'reason' with the Scriptures any longer. They swallow anything given to them - hook, line and sinker- in the name of 'revelation' and 'deep truths' without reference to the Bible. Objectivity has given way to emotionalism and superficiality.

The reality today can be summed up in Jesus' words:
"Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?"
Luke 18:8b

Christianity Etc › Re: Grace Without Works Is Dead! by trustman: 1:34pm On Jan 23, 2015

efficiencie:
Lazarus was the object of Faith and not the Subject... Lazarus wasn't the ACTIVATOR of Faith, Jesus was...and to whom the ACT of FAITH is credited GRACE is given. Even Jesus ACTED! ...he cried with a loud voice... and didn't just sit down and look and expect the miracle to happen without any ACTION at all!

Unless your definition of the word 'faith' is different from what the Bible gives us then your statements are out of line with scripture.

One biblical definition of 'faith' is trust/confidence. So when you say: "Lazarus was the object of Faith and not the Subject..." my question is 'how?'

When you say also that: "Even Jesus ACTED! ...he cried with a loud voice... and didn't just sit down and look and expect the miracle to happen without any ACTION at all!" are you saying that ANY ACTION (which perhaps to you amounts to work) makes 'faith' effective; no matter what that action is - shouting, clapping, jumping, etc. ?

Lastly, for now, is God's grace based on his integrity or man's?

Christianity Etc › Re: Grace Without Works Is Dead! by trustman: 10:27am On Jan 23, 2015

[size=5pt]

efficiencie:
Bro truthman no man, no matter how pious and acetic, is worthy of anything from above! When i say WORKS i do not mean the works of mere men rather i mean the MOTIONS of people (good, bad or ugly) driven by their belief in the WILL of the Father expressed by the WORD, Jesus Christ.

So in this light i believe we agree!

Bro your discussion above does not capture the degree of the seriousness of what happens when FAITH is without WORKS Faith is not just stagnant or useless... It is DEAD! without WORKS! (I hope you now know what i mean by WORKS)...So grace may abound for a lifetime but if faith isn't backed with INSPIRED WORKS then grace is out of reach!

Many Christians are killed by erroneous teachings... if the woman with the issue of blood had remained in her house FASTING and PRAYING she'll remain sick, if the prostitute hadn't broken the jar of perfume and anointed Jesus' feet she wouldn't have been saved, if Peter had remained in the boat he would'nt have walked on water, if Moses didnt stretch his rod the waters wouldn't have parted, if David hadn't used his sling Goliath wouldn't have been silenced and slaughtered, if Elijah hadn't rebuilt the altar and called on the LORD fire wouldn't have fallen, if Elisha hadn't smote the water with Elijah's mantle the waters wouldn't have parted, if Jesus hadn't mixed spittle with clay and smeared it on the eyes of that man born blind that man would never see...

You see, from the Prostitute to the Messiah they all had on thing in common... they supernaturally knew the will of the Father, by the Word of God, Jesus Christ, in their hearts and they ACTED UPON THE WORD

Again I say, there are works and there are WORKS... and Grace without works is DEAD

[/size]

Let me ask a question:
What did Lazarus 'ACT UPON' before he was raised to life?

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Grace Without Works Is Dead! by trustman: 8:24am On Jan 23, 2015

efficiencie:
isn't grace by faith as said by Paul:

Romans 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

That means if faith is dead then grace is dead as well. ..and what keeps faith alive WORKS!

James 2:17
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead,
being alone.

...Do you also want to argue with Bros Paul and James combined! The question you need to ask is: How are the 'works' of Romans 11:6 different from the 'WORKS' of James 2:17?

I'm actually in agreement with both Apostle Paul and James.
Both of them, when well understood, DO NOT contradict themselves.
So, I'm not arguing with any one of them. It's actually an issue of CLEARLY understanding them.

Grace is all that God does for us on the basis of Christ's work on the cross. God's grace stands whether man responds to it or not. The CREDIT belongs entirely to him.
God did not have to wait for mankind to attain a measure of 'righteousness' or 'good' or 'holiness' before he provided Christ - "but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."(Romans 5:8' ) - , THAT IS GRACE!

Do you disagree with my statement:
At the point of salvation, the faith anyone expresses is a non- meritorious action. It cannot be classified as 'works' otherwise that would mean that the 'works' of a sinner/unbeliever amounts to something before God. ?
If so, are saying that man's MERIT (in this case, a sinner's merit) is part of what saves him? (Since you claim that what keeps faith alive is works?).

Again a clear understanding of James 2:17 - "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. " - is this:
'Faith (i.e. Biblical truth that a person knows or creed/spiritual principles that a person knows), if it has no works (i.e. If it is not applied: Not put into practice), is dead (i.e. Produces no results, remains stagnant, is useless), being by itself'

Therefore a Christian who does not apply what he knows from scriptures to his day to day life lives an unproductive spiritual life.

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Can A Christian Be Justify & Still Be Guilty As Charged? by trustman: 3:19pm On Jan 22, 2015

Ubenedictus:
covenants always involve two parties, they don't need to sit on a round table and banter on the terms, all the terms may be proposed by one party, but agreed by all.

The covenant of promise with abraham is a good example, God propose all the terms and promises and abraham agreed.

It is always between two parties. God usually draws the terms, and he alway establish his covenant with men.

This clarifies the position then that God ALONE draws the terms of the covenants: He then brings in man to get involved in the covenants.

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Can A Christian Be Justify & Still Be Guilty As Charged? by trustman: 1:37pm On Jan 22, 2015

Ubenedictus:
hahaha,

do you know how funny this sounds??

A convenant can't be made by one party. It is not possible, covenant even according to Calvin is a contract involving two parties.

All the covenants in scripture involve two parties and the new covenant is not an exception.

There is no such thing as a covenant made by God ALONE to mankind, instead it is a covenant between God and man.

Note these:
Made by....
Involve ....parties

If there's no such thing as a covenant MADE by God alone, then the question to you is this: Did both God and man sit down together to draw out the terms of such covenant(s)?

2 Likes

Christianity Etc › Re: Grace Without Works Is Dead! by trustman: 12:08pm On Jan 22, 2015

efficiencie:
Many on this thread are posting for posting sake and not reading in between the lines my opening post...

I say again there are works and there are WORKS! Works borne out of man's capacity defies Grace and vice versa but WORKS borne out of BELIEF in the Christ keeps FAITH ALIVE and only with a living faith can you get GRACE... Please read these verses and argue with bro James if you like:

James 2:14
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? Bro James is asking you all a question, please answer?

James 2:17-18,21,24
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works... Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? ...Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Ok, scribes and theologians start arguing with Bro James...instead of harmonizing scripture you pit it against itself...

I do hope you noticed that James didn't say 'Grace without works is dead'; rather that 'Faith (i.e. Biblical truth that a person knows or creed/spiritual principles that a person knows), if it has no works (i.e. If it is not applied: Not put into practice), is dead (i.e. Produces no results, remains stagnant, is useless), being by itself'
God's grace is available to all. It is unearned. It is therefore unconditional. That is why Apistle Paul could say : "And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; IF IT WERE, grace would no longer be grace" (Romans 11:6).

At the point of salvation, the faith anyone expresses is a non- meritorious action. It cannot be classified as 'works' otherwise that would mean that the 'works' of a sinner/unbeliever amounts to something before God.

James in his epistle is simply saying then that a Christian who knows scriptures but refuses to put it into practice or apply it, will be unfruitful and also putting himself up for God's discipline which could terminate his life in death.

Christianity Etc › Re: Grace Without Works Is Dead! by trustman: 11:43am On Jan 22, 2015

efficiencie:
Many on this thread are posting for posting sake and not reading in between the lines my opening post...

I say again there are works and there are WORKS! Works borne out of man's capacity defies Grace and vice versa but WORKS borne out of BELIEF in the Christ keeps FAITH ALIVE and only with a living faith can you get GRACE... Please read these verses and argue with bro James if you like:

James 2:14
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? Bro James is asking you all a question, please answer?

James 2:17-18,21,24
Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works... Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? ...Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Ok, scribes and theologians start arguing with Bro James...instead of harmonizing scripture you pit it against itself...

I do hope you noticed that James didn't say 'Grace without works is dead'; rather that 'Faith (i

Christianity Etc › Re: Grace Without Works Is Dead! by trustman: 10:06am On Jan 20, 2015

christemmbassey:
this is half truth, and its dangerous!

And the whole truth ?

Christianity Etc › Re: Grace Without Works Is Dead! by trustman: 9:03pm On Jan 15, 2015*

One common answer to the definition of GRACE is 'unmerited favour'. This means something done to someone who is undeserving.
Therefore if the least merit on the part of the recipient (before, during or after it is expressed) is brought in, then IT IS NO LONGER unmerited. It becomes a reward or payment!!! In other words it would be deserved!!

That would cancel out that definition of grace. It would have to be something else.

Grace therefore stands on its own WITHOUT the addition of ANY kind of works.

A graphic picture of this is in the story of The Good Samaritan.
- The helpless victim was the recipient of an UNMERITED FAVOUR.
- He did NOTHING to earn the kindness he received.
- The credit goes entirely to the giver of the Favour.
- Once the gracious act was done it could not be 'undone'.

PS
Grace and works are mutually exclusive.
They cannot be blended together in any way.

Christianity Etc › Re: Can A Christian Be Justify & Still Be Guilty As Charged? by trustman: 5:12pm On Jan 13, 2015

shdemidemi:
^^^ isn't this what we have been saying all along? I thought I would read some man made addendum to complete God's free gift of salvation from you.

Absolutely on point!

Christianity Etc › Re: Can A Christian Be Justify & Still Be Guilty As Charged? by trustman: 8:22am On Jan 13, 2015

Hiswordxray:
If you place your faith on Christ for salvation it will cause you to react in certain ways e.g:
go to a pastor
say the sinner's prayer
confess your sin
get baptized
All of these are works but act of faith not works of the law.
If you say all you need to do to be saved is believe then why did you say the sinners prayer and confess your sin. Remember Paul said you have to believe and confess your sin to be saved.
Why did Paul include confessing your sin?
Why didn't he just say believe?

I assumed you were following my thoughts from my last post.

What I meant is this: the 'faith' James is talking about when he talks about faith without works being dead is not 'faith' as that of 'trust' in Christ for salvation.

That's what I explained when I said:
When James made the statement 'Faith without work is dead' what he simply said is:
Faith (i.e. Biblical truth, the body of what is believed, creed) if it is not put into application(works) is barren (produces nothing, shows no results - dead).

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Can A Christian Be Justify & Still Be Guilty As Charged? by trustman: 10:30pm On Jan 12, 2015

Hiswordxray:
Exactly, you can't say you have faith and yet sit down and do nothing. Your must do something and that thing you do is works (although not works of righteousness/the law but just a natural response to your faith)

That application (works) is also a indispensable aspect of faith.

Note that the 'faith' he's talking about is not that of 'trust' in Christ for salvation.

Christianity Etc › Re: Can A Christian Be Justify & Still Be Guilty As Charged? by trustman: 9:55pm On Jan 12, 2015

Hiswordxray:
When you have faith you will naturally act and behave in certain ways and this is called the works of faith.
James was talking about the works of faith.
There is no way you can believe something and not act in accordance to what you believe - this is what James was trying to explain.
But our divine teach shdemidemi thinks James was preaching another Gospel in the same Bible.

When Paul was explaining how we get saved he said we have to believe with our heart and confess with our mouth. Confessing with our mouth is an act of faith and it is "works".
So yes faith is works and we are saved by works.

When James made the statement 'Faith without work is dead' what he simply said is:
Faith (i.e. Biblical truth, the body of what is believed, creed) if it is not put into application(works) is barren (produces nothing, shows no results - dead).

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Can A Christian Be Justify & Still Be Guilty As Charged? by trustman: 9:18pm On Jan 12, 2015

Hiswordxray:
Faith is works.

Faith is a non-meritorious expression.

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: Who Will Return To Judge And Save Mankind , Is It GOD Or Is It JESUS ? by trustman: 7:14pm On Jan 10, 2015

Jesus Christ is Israel's Yahweh.
With this I believe the two positions are reconciled.

Christianity Etc › Re: Can A Christian Be Justify & Still Be Guilty As Charged? by trustman: 10:57pm On Jan 06, 2015

Justification means to declare a person righteous. Man, being a sinner does not have the inherent ability within him (through works or whatever) to get to the position of being qualified to be proven just. It therefore requires a qualified person outside of man that man can, as it were, piggyback on to qualify him to be declared righteous. That qualified person is Jesus Christ. The non-meritorious (not involving works) entrance of achieving justification through him is faith in him.

In his justice God declared that through one man, Adam, all humanity are sinners. In his same justice God has provided that through one man, Jesus Christ, all who express faith in him will be declared justified.

Justification then is a gift of grace given to those who express faith in the finished work of Christ who paid the debt for sin (redemption) and satisfied God's righteous demands (propitiation).
Romans 3:24 "And are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus".
Romans 5:1a "Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand".

Positionally therefore, justification makes us have a right standing before God. God then looks at the justified through Christ. The individual believer still possesses the Sin Nature (Rom. 6&7) but justification frees him from the condemnation that would ordinarily have gone with the possession of the sin nature.

2 Likes

Christianity Etc › Re: Before You Pay That Firstfruits Offering! by trustman(op): 6:44pm On Jan 04, 2015

Still on "First fruits"
The call by some pastors on Christians to pay the so-called "first fruits" offering like many other issues is a call to go back to Judaism. Do today's Pastors know more than the Apostles did who never for once told Christians that they needed to pay ''first fruits" offering?

There were many things in the Old Testament that were for Israel and Israel alone. The Christian needs to distinguish such things from the requirements for the Christian way of life. Failure to do that invariably leads to the Christian subjecting himself to "a yoke of bondage" (Galatians 5:1).

How come pastors who advocate for "first fruits" offering on the basis that it is in the Bible never emphasize all the other FEASTS and ordinances which Israel was to observe?

What is the Biblical definition of first fruits? How does it line up with what is practiced today? Or are pastors at liberty today to redefine "first fruits" and apply it as they wish? Was Israel to give ALL of their 'first' HARVEST to God? Honest answers to these questions should help the Christian to better understand this matter.

The real truth is that it's all about money today. In a bid to increase their revenue pastors are coming up with more and more devious ways of raising money. And what better thing than to look for a biblical nomenclature to attach to their new creation. And less it be resisted they add the carrot and stick approach to it - if you do it blessings await you, if you don't, the opposite.

The real truth is this: what we see from the Bible is that "first-fruits" were strictly-speaking agricultural produce. Moses says: “The first of the first-fruits of your land you shall bring into the house of the LORD your God.” (Exodus 23:19). This points to "first-fruits" as being crops. Also that it is the "first" of the "first fruits" that is to be given - not ALL.

So, before you pay that "first fruits" offering ask yourself and honestly answer this question: 'As a New Covenant believer I'm I required by the Word of God to pay this?'

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: The Midas Touch- A Balanced Approach To Biblical Prosperity - Kenneth Hagin by trustman: 11:08pm On Nov 30, 2014

BabaGnoni:
No problemo!

Taking the scenic routes, can't be that bad, at least you get to see the impressive sights & beautiful natural scenery LOL

Lol!

Christianity Etc › Re: The Midas Touch- A Balanced Approach To Biblical Prosperity - Kenneth Hagin by trustman: 8:58pm On Nov 30, 2014

BabaGnoni:
I dont think mbaemeka disagrees that heart circumcision superseded physical circumcision,
just as giving with a cheerful heart & without compulsion superseded paying tithe or tithe giving
I think mbaemeka agrees that physical circumcision & paying tithe or tithe giving albeit no longer mandatory for the Christian, can be optional
- though unnecessary, nothing stops the Christian having physical circumcision or paying tithe (i.e. giving tithe)

I hear you!
Given where we have been through with this matter it's statements
Mbaemeka made like:

So what is the import of circumcision? As we have said before a) to carnally identify with the Abrahamic covenant b) to keep it (Genesis 17:10). Notice that God said to Abraham "between you and thy seed" in Genesis, and Paul making reference to that verse said the seed in question was Christ and not even the Physical Jews. So even if circumcision doesn't make me saved or seal my salvation as it were, it makes me 'conscious' that I am a child of Abraham and an heir of the promise. Also notice how I used the words 'carnal', conscious etc. It is because the significance of circumcision is now fleshly.

and:

4. Nonsense again. God said it would be everlasting. Everlasting means even now. Paul said it is beneficial to you ONLY if you are obedient to all the laws or saved. You on the other say it was useful but not anymore. Please why was it useful before? If you can answer this,you will see the ccontradictions in your argument.

that made one go all these routes.

I guess i'll rest my case on this matter, for now.

Christianity Etc › Re: The Midas Touch- A Balanced Approach To Biblical Prosperity - Kenneth Hagin by trustman: 7:08pm On Nov 30, 2014

mbaemeka:
What it means is; Nobody is mandated to get circumcised physically if they are already circumcised in the spirit BUT it doesn't mean that if they choose to do it, they are wrong or amiss. Just like Tithing. So it is therefore wrong for anyone to claim that circumcision has been dismissed EXCEPT they mean it in the context of salvation.

In other words, you are saying that physical circumcision is no longer mandatory for the Christian just as tithing is no longer mandatory for the Christian. Both are therefore optional for the Christian.

Christianity Etc › Re: The Midas Touch- A Balanced Approach To Biblical Prosperity - Kenneth Hagin by trustman: 6:03pm On Nov 30, 2014

vooks:
I believe the point in this is the word everlasting can be qualified. We are not advocating for an eternal Levitical priesthood, just saying the word everlasting may be qualified

Here is another usage of the word.
Leviticus 16:34 (KJV)
And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the Lord commanded Moses.

If this is the case, the covenant with Abraham though reckoned as everlasting,it is quite possible that it is no longer in place and we should not merely resort to the usage of the word 'everlasting' there to defend the permanence of the covenant anymore than we can for Levitical Priesthood and Atonement

Sorry trustman and mbaemeka if I missed the context

I believe on my part it's ok, Vooks. At the end of the day it is for us all to have a better grasp of the whole thing.

I'm really trying to understand Mbaemeka's position.

On the one hand he seem to advocate that circumcision is no longer required.
But on the other hand he appears to be emphasizing that because it is pre-law, the covenant it 'marks' still exists, and there is no NT verse abrogating it, then it has not been 'dismissed'.

If it has not been dismissed, what does that mean? That it is still operational? That it is merely optional? That in fact it is still necessary, in which case it is in essence still required - perhaps to have the 'full benefit' of the covenant? If so, which covenant? Is it the same as the better one of which Jesus is the guarantor (Hebrews 7 & eight) or a different covenant? Which covenant is the Christian under?

The questions can go on and on I suppose but let's await his clarifications.

Christianity Etc › Re: The Midas Touch- A Balanced Approach To Biblical Prosperity - Kenneth Hagin by trustman: 5:23pm On Nov 30, 2014

mbaemeka:
Trustman,

1. Circumcision is not required by anyone.

2. What you quoted from Leviticus said Levites would forever be priests through out their generations. I said 2 things in response:

a) This was according to the law, and the law has been abolished. That is why we know it is no longer binding.

b) God already knew the law will not be everlasting but that verse may confuse you until you read Hebrews amd what I have been saying. God was only saying that verse for e.g, that ONLY the Levites will forever be the priests in THIER GENERATIONS. What Generation? The Generation or Era of the Law. That's what Paul explaines in Hebrews 7.

From the foregoing, I wasn't saying that circumcision remains in tact ONLY because it is pre-law. I said it has not been dismissed because 1) It is pre-law 2) the covenant it marks still exists 3) there is NO NT verse saying it has been dismissed (neither can there be).

Also, my post to you above was to show you that is erroneous to claim that Abrahams covenant with God was for ONLY ISRAEL. I hope it didn't pass you by.

How do you reconcile:

1. Circumcision is not required by anyone.

With:

I wasn't saying that circumcision remains in tact ONLY because it is pre-law. I said it has not been dismissed because 1) It is pre-law 2) the covenant it marks still exists 3) there is NO NT verse saying it has been dismissed (neither can there be).

Christianity Etc › Re: The Midas Touch- A Balanced Approach To Biblical Prosperity - Kenneth Hagin by trustman: 4:01pm On Nov 30, 2014

mbaemeka:
Acts 3:25 KJV

Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.

Trustman,

You are the one who seems to mixing things up. The JEWS (like you) THOUGHT that the covenant was their exclusive preserve but they were wrong. Paul said so in Galatians 3 but even if that confuses you listen to Peter teach his fellow Jews in the above verse. Please read it slowly. You will understand it.

Peter says; you my fellow Jews are the CHILDREN of the covenant which God had with Abraham. . . So that ALL the nations of the earth will be blessed through his SEED.

I want you to notice his language. He didn't say the JEWS had a covenant with God THROUGH Abraham. He said God had a covenant with Abraham and the JEWS (like the rest of the world) are the products; offspring; offshoot; children of that covenant. And Peter said this was possible through Abraham's SEED. Good.

Now, Paul told us in Galatians 3 that the seed God was referring to was CHRIST and not ISRAEL or Isaac or whoever. So the underlying questions will be:

1. Is Christ present or Past?
2. Does that covenant still exist?

The answer to the above posers shows us why without a doubt that the Abrahamic covenant still exists and that is because the SEED is what was produced from the covenant. That seed was Christ and nothing else.

Isaac and Israel are what you call Abraham's fleshly seed or children of the flesh while (in thist context), Christ is that spiritual seed. Why is this important? It is because it shows us what circumcision really is, which is a fleshly way of identifying with the promise of the blessings which came though Christ, same way Isaac and by that Israel, were just a fleshly way of saying Abraham's seed. They were NOT what God was referring to. God was referring to Christ and Christ is the WHOLE BODY of the Church including Gentiles AND NOT ONLY JEWS.

So the verse about Paul saying if you are circumcised Christ will not benefit you, should be studied IN CONTEXT. He was saying if you get circumcised because you feel that it adds to your salvation then Christ will not benefit you. Why? Because salvation is not a mixture of law and grace. It is by grace only (recall that the Christian jews were insisting on circumcision According to the LAW of Moses).

Sorry if the post is too lengthy.

If you had taken my post point by point maybe response would have been better.

Remember again where we started, before we veer off.

First, is the issue of whether physical circumcision is still required today.
Second, I asked a question which still remains unanswered till now.

I noted that some things said to be 'forever' are no longer required today. But you said :
"I have answered something similar to vooks. The law said throughout your generations like the Aaronic priesthood etc. They came with the law and went with the law. Abraham's covenant came pre-law, thus

Am I right in saying that you are stating that because circumcision pre-existed the law it is still required today, at least as a means of 'identifying' with the Promise?
So while some areas of the law could be done away with not so circumcision?

Am I right in saying that you have no response to question?

Christianity Etc › Re: The Midas Touch- A Balanced Approach To Biblical Prosperity - Kenneth Hagin by trustman: 8:53pm On Nov 29, 2014

mbaemeka[quote][quote]Ishmael wasn't Israeli, Abraham wasn't Israeli either. In fact, post a scripture that says the Abrahamic covenant was with Israel. The bible ONLY said God made a covenant with Abraham that he and his seed will receive the promise. The seed in question wasn't Israel. It was Anyone who was to believe in God's son.

My previous reply to your post has answered part of your issue here. You must have seen the progression in the specifics of God’s covenant. It is clear from the following passages that the covenant God made with Abraham extended to and included his descendants (through the promise):
Genesis 15: 18 – “On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates,”

Genesis 17: 7, 10, 19, 21 – “And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.”
“This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.”
“God said, “No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him.”
“But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year.”

My take is that you are mixing up issues here. You are confusing the initial declarations God made on his covenant with Abraham and the declaration God made after Abraham responded in faith to God’s command to offer Isaac up as a burnt offering in Genesis 22:18.

After the patriarchs, the nation Israel became God’s focal point regarding his dealings with mankind. Circumcision which was the physical sign of the covenant also came into the Law for Israel’s observance. The Law now embodied all that Israel had to do in relation to God’s covenant with them.

So, when Paul was highlighting this issue in the book of Galatians he did not need to go back to Abraham but to the Law. And so he could say in Gal. 5: 2-4, 6:
“Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourself be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.”

“For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.”

Any insistence on circumcision as a necessity for ANYTHING in the spiritual life of the Christian amounts to being “burdened again by a yoke of slavery” Galatians 5:1.

As for your question. I have answered them and will do so again: God didn't say those things were to be done forever or throughout ALL generations. He said they would be done thoughout THEIR generations. He knew what he meant when he said it but they didn't comprehend him. He knew that those ordinances that came WITH THE LAW were only as a schoolmaster till the substance came- Christ.

The passages I pasted clearly said ‘forever’ and ‘throughout your generations’. Even if you argue that the ‘forever’ may not be equivalent to ‘eternity’ because some translations use ‘lasting’ in its place, putting them together definitely imply that as long as Israel exists they are bound to keep those statutes.

Now that Christ has come those generations have been put to stop. Christ has come to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant that was before the law. For starters, that Abrahamic covenant was what promised and later produced the savior- Jesus Christ.

If, like you said, Christ has come to fulfil the Abrahamic covenant, it therefore means then that just as Christ came to fulfill the Law and as a result it no longer stands binding for the Christian, then his fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant equally makes the Christian free of any physical obligation of that covenant since Christ has fulfilled them all.

mbaemeka[quote]Many things are right with this post but let me show you the absolute lies:

1. Ishmael was circumscised Genesis 17:23 and he was NOT ISRAEL OR CONNECTED TO ISRAEL IN ANY WAY.

2.The covenant was between God and Abraham concerning Abraham and his SEED which referred anyone that hailed from or was connected to him. Paul said that SEED was Christ and his church (present day) and we are still connected to him according to Galatians 3.

I however, do agree with last aspect of your write-up. The anyone who wished to identify with the COVENANT and not ISRAEL had to be circumcised. It is a fleshly way of saying I am part of the Abrahamic covenant. Look at the proof. Period. Nobody ever said it was spiritually valuable.

Look again at Genesis 17:18-21
"And Abraham said to God, “Oh that Ishmael might live before you!” 19 God said, “[size=14pt]No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son[/size], and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. 20 As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year.”
Even though Ishmael as well as others in Abraham's household were circumcised the COVENANT [/b]was only going to pass down through Isaac.
God clearly stated here too that He would establish his covenant [b]with Isaac and his "offspring after him"
Grammatically the "seed" can be a collective noun. So in Genesis you see it referring to not only Abraham but his descendants.
The fact that God reiterated in the above portion that he would establish his covenant with Abraham's children is instructive for this.

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: The Midas Touch- A Balanced Approach To Biblical Prosperity - Kenneth Hagin by trustman: 3:07pm On Nov 29, 2014

mbaemeka:
Ishmael wasn't Israeli, Abraham wasn't Israeli either. In fact, post a scripture that says the Abrahamic covenant was with Israel. The bible ONLY said God made a covenant with Abraham that he and his seed will receive the promise. The seed in question wasn't Israel. It was Anyone who was to believe in God's son.

As for your question. I have answered them and will do so again: God didn't say those things were to be done forever or throughout ALL generations. He said they would be done thoughout THEIR generations. He knew what he meant when he said it but they didn't comprehend him. He knew that those ordinances that came WITH THE LAW were only as a schoolmaster till the substance came- Christ.

Now that Christ has come those generations have been put to stop. Christ has come to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant that was before the law. For starters, that Abrahamic covenant was what promised and later produced the savior- Jesus Christ.

I may respond more fully to your post.

But for now let me give you additional information that may help you appreciate things better.

Let me make it clearer: circumcision was a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham (Genesis 17). This covenant was later extended to Abraham's descendants through Isaac (Genesis 17:19). Not including Ishmael but only Isaac (Genesis 17:21). In Genesis 26 God again reestablished the oath he made to Abraham with Isaac. And then with Jacob who was renamed Israel (Genesis 35). The twelve sons of Jacob later became the NATION ISRAEL. God again reinstated his covenant with the nation Israel (Exodus 22,19,ff).
God did not make any similar covenant with any other nation. Only Israel was his special people. Circumcision was therefore a sign between God and his special people alone. Anyone other people who wished to identify with Israel under the covenant had to be circumcised.

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: The Midas Touch- A Balanced Approach To Biblical Prosperity - Kenneth Hagin by trustman: 1:52pm On Nov 29, 2014

mbaemeka:
In summary, was circumcision for ISRAEL AND ONLY ISRAEL?

Circumcision was a sign of the covenant between God and Israel only. God did not make any similar covenant with any other nation.

Now that you've got my answer I await yours to my question:
Leviticus 23 stated many things God said were to be done forever or 'throughout your generations' or words to that effect.
How many of them do you or your church still follow today?

1 Like

Christianity Etc › Re: The Midas Touch- A Balanced Approach To Biblical Prosperity - Kenneth Hagin by trustman: 8:36am On Nov 29, 2014

mbaemeka:
I have answered something similar to vooks. The law said throughout your generations like the Aaronic priesthood etc. They came with the law and went with the law. Abraham's covenant came pre-law, thus the law that came afterwards could not annull it.

Now answer Gombs' question: was circumcision for ISRAEL AND ONLY ISRAEL?

Your response has not really answered the question.
BTW, i already answered Gombs when i pointed him to my response to another post by
i think Goshen360 on the issue.

4 Likes

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (of 20 pages)