₦airaland Forum

Hi Babymine

A glass of red wine a day appears to have served the French very well in health terms.

Personally I've never had a drink (before or since I became a Christian, sweettoothed me  ). If I decided to have the odd glass of wine with some meals (porridge and wine sounds somewhat odd  ), it would be a question of how much is beneficial? and how much is too much? As long as I could reconcile those two points no problem

I have heard it preached that drinking is actually a sin, but I don't agree with that. Study the Bible, be led by the Holy Spirit and draw your own conclusions.


God bless

Hi Babymine,

I don't believe drinking in moderation is wrong.
I believe the Bible teaches us not to be drunk with wine (Ephesians 5:18)

The medicinal effects of the occasional glass of red wine are well documented.
Paul exhorted Timothy to drink a little wine for his frequent infirmities ( 1 Timothy 5:23, another Bible first! ) But please note he said "a little".

The bible calls wine/strong drink a mocker (Proverbs 20:1), and describes drunkards as unwise.

The word "drunk" is also used in some instances to describe the pouring out of
God's wrath, (we should be aware and careful as strong drink is not the only thing one can be drunk on). But that's probably a bit "off-thread" so I'll stop.


God bless

Mmmmm, "Sleep paralysis", so that's what its called?  

Regardless of all the scientific theories, the mountains of detailed analysis and the most laborious foresensic research, what can trump the empirical?

Call it what you will, I had it bad.
As soon as I repented towards God and placed my faith in Jesus Christ. It left.
No prayer, no fasting, no sacrifice. Gone like a shot! Not an incidence in 7 years.

Glory to God (always!)

4get_me (et al),

Pray do not be offended, I was in no way belittling your "ministry" (keep up the good work!). I had a brief look at the "Reverends" site a while back, and even the cursory look I took revealed that neither he nor it were to be taken in the slightest degree seriously.

Thank you for your lengthy rejoinder.

Since you only responded to the first of the two points I made, can I take it that we are agreed on the second point?

God bless

Hi 4real,

Your quote below;

4real:
well one thing i know about Christ embassy members is that they would defend there pastor till death do them part, wither the guy is right or wrong, as for me i just think for the program they did not get there acts right and so if there is going to be more programs there should be more help to clear up the road. and people please we worship God and not man.

I'm not sure wether you realise it or not (or intended it or not), but your statement suggests a form of "idolatry".

I'm not taking a position for or against the person or the ministry involved (I know next to nothing specific about either). I find that statement speaks deeply about faith and religion as it is now practiced/lived.

I also have friends and family who respond in like manner to inquiries about the "ministries" or "men of God" they follow.

I hope people think about this.


And too the ministry in question;
Proverbs 15:1 - soft answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger[color=#000099][/color]

I think a heartfelt acceptance that things did not go altogether smoothly and sincere apologies to anyone that was inconvenienced would have quenched a lot of ire and given people cause to hold you in esteem for your humility.

God bless

Hi Welborn,

Hope all is well.

Non-technical me is having all sorts of problems figuring out where everyhing is. But I'm improving, please bear with me, my excuses for tawdry responses are in no way as laudable as yours.

The way many people view the question of denominations or groups of Christian gatherings are many times uninformed,
In response to your point above, please advise how you feel I am uninformed. My position is taking God's truth, re-codifying it, building structures and traditions around it is simply wrong.

I trust that anyone who has believed in Jesus Christ as the Bible prescribes is actually born again (John 1:12; 3:3-5).
I'm sure (re Galatians 3:26, we had agreed on this point). And again, I absolutely agree that there will be error, either due to immaturity or mis-interpretation. But what denominationalism has the tendency to do is codify error, enforce it by man-made laws, and stop people enquiring for themselves.

I'm off too read the response you posted for me (how do you do that? - Non-technical me ! )

But may I ask you this.

We have touched on error, but in some sense, thats a continuum that includes error, heresy and apostasy. Error is fine (in as much as one is open to being corrected), but it becomes heresy when it is codified and at some stage abounds to apostasy.

I wouldn't want to ascribe anything to you, so I'll ask,

1. What is your personal stance (or denominational take).
2. Is apostasy ever an issue? And if yes, when?

I'm enjoying and I'm learning.

Thank you and God bless

Hi Jagunlabi,

I think your thread has been well served by the responses thus far. I hope they have helped.

There's been a high level, objective response, a detailed, personal one, and a summary post. Quite comprehensive coverage and in a few responses.

I think even the way the question was framed gives the word/term "religion" a pejorative tone. And I'd agree with that. Religion as rite, ritual and obligation is definitely what Christianity is not. What it is is a relationship with God The Father, being transformed into the likeness The Son, by the power of The Holy Spirit.

That which is characterised by temples, mediatory priesthoods, physical sacrifices and other outward things is mere religion. And yes there is something like that which calls itself "Christian". Personally, I don't subscribe to that and for the purpose of this thread, have the following to say about it;

1. I don't believe that that expression is in it's essence different from any other "religion".
2. They are real "Christians" and seekers of truth in those modes of expression.

So sir, where you at? We have had opportunity to participate in a few threads together and I get a sense of someone who wants truth and is earnestly enquiring. I won't ask if you are disillusioned, doubting or just plain disbelieving, but I will encourage you to keep on seeking.

I discovered that if you go looking for the truth of God in Christ Jesus, no matter how clumsily you go about it, the Truth will find you.


God bless

Kimba, 4get Me, 4 real, Hi,

I can see that you guys are having fun on this thread, but two things

1. I don't think this chap is the type the Bible warns us about (Kimba @ 9:35:53 PM yesterday).
    Would anyone with half a brain cell and even the slightest desire for truth really be fooled by this
    guy? No, I don't think so. The false prophets the Bible warns us about will appear as angels of
    light, ministers of righteousness even. They'll look and sound like the real thing. There'll be signs
    wonders and mighty works, they'll even do things in "His name". I see a Joker at best and a   
    weirdly perverse mind at worse.

2. As for disgracing the title of "Reverend", that title along with a host of others have no place in 
    the Christian lexicon. So no disgrace there. He's free to call himself whatever he chooses.

Enjoy.

God bless

Hi Welborn,

I'm not sure we we are in the discussion, especially after the problems with the database, so I'll reply briefly.

I thing I''ve made my point about denominationalism and the fact that there are degrees of error and corruption in them all (which may or may not include pagan rituals).

Galatians 3:26 - For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

My point exactly, anything more (tradition), or anything less is not faith in Jesus Christ.

And no, I don't agree with Jagunlabi, although he does have a point about syncretism being a problem.

Like I said I'm not sure if this is ahead/behind where we have already got to. I hope you have a better understanding of my perspective now.

Thanks & God bless

Hi Lioness,

After the problems with the database, I was just browsing a few of the threads again and came across your post quoted below.

lioness:
I have come to the conclusion that there are
1. Christians - who follow Christ Jesus, believers in his teachings, Love and atonement
2. Denominational worshippers - those who worship their denomination. Those who would rather die for their church/denomination instead of dying for Christ.

That pretty much captures a point I arrived at. I'm really interested to hear how this understanding has worked itself out in your walk.

Please let me know if/when/how.

God bless

Hi Lioness,

After the problems with the database, I was just browsing a few of the threads again and came across your post quoted below.
quote author=lioness link=topic=2894.msg287609#msg287609 date=1144850575]
I have come to the conclusion that there are
1. Christians - who follow Christ Jesus, believers in his teachings, Love and atonement
2. Denominational worshippers - those who worship their denomination. Those who would rather die for their church/denomination instead of dying for Christ.
[quote][/quote]That pretty much captures a point I arrived at. I'm really interested to hear how this understanding has worked itself out in your walk.

Please let me know if/when/how.

God bless

Hi Welborn,

Thank you very much for you encouragement and for taking the time to pen a response.

I mentioned earlier that maybe we need to talk church models/structure, but maybe we need to go ab initio, and explain what we mean by church.

Is church something you "go to"? or something "you are"? Repentance towards God and faith in Jesus Christ places you in the body and hence the church.

At no time did I say I do not assemble or fellowship with other believers. Neither have I forsaken collective worship, the breaking of bread or ministering.

Assembling is not a question of numbers, 2 or 3 satisfies.
Fellowship is primarily with The Father and His Son Jesus Christ - 1 John 1:3.

"Enoch walked with God".

Feel free to ask specifics about my walk, it will mean we can dialogue without having too rebut incorrect assumptions. It's why I always wait for you to state your position or ask before I respond with regards to mine.

I can see you feel I "withdrew" from church, no sir, I didn't, I was led out, kicking and screaming.

As thick as I was, I couldn't see and refused to believe that was how God was leading me. It went completely against everything I understood. But I know I am right where God wants me to be.

And no, I am not looking for the perfect assembly, but neither do I believe that every gathering that labels itself church or mentions the Lords name is necessarily the body of Christ.

So, let me ask you two things
1. What tradition/model do you worship in?
2. Are we transgressing? We appear to be a little off the topic of this thread.

Talk soon

God bless

Is it wrong?
What kind of question is that?

My dear, it's absolutely essential.
It's the only real imperative in marriage.
In fact, it I'm personally surprised it's not on the statute books.

I think it's plain rude of blokes to consider marrying a girl without having made a couple of mill' at the least (and to have gained a measure of celebrity)!

Why should a girl have too waste her precious time with some middle income earner with a good heart, or even worse, a "decent guy" who doesn't have two pennies to rub together? Timewasters!

And the source of the riches needn't be a worry. Criminal background dodgy past, shady political dealing, those should not bother a serious minded girl with her heart set on marriage.

Physical considerations are for the immature. Halitosis, wasting disease, terminal illness whatever (in fact in certain cases this may actually be advantageous!  ). As long as his "signing"hand is in perfect working order.

I'm sure if we look hard enough we can find scriptural backing for this!

ABOUT ME![color=#000099][/color]
I'm as rich as Croesus, and extremely generous with my money. I also have extremely low expectations of any potential wife!

Which of my customised private jets/stretch limo's would you like me to send for you?

Hurry, before the other gold-diggers, I mean properly raised, well cultured, highly educated and accomplished young ladies on this forum make a beeline for me!


Can't wait babe!

Richie "LoverBoy" Rich


ps ~ if when we meet, you don't like me, I won't let you go to the trouble of manipulating me down the aisle, enduring a short unhappy marriage and a painful drawn out divorce. Just let me know and I'll hand over half my stupendous wealth after the first date! Hopefully we can "close" before the easter break is over.


Admin - Please get a shakin' head smiley up in here, save me writing - Thank you!

Hi Consultant (How long before you pick up the tag "Connie"? )

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

You got me right.
Questions/issues as too both structure & doctrine. Since they are to a large degree entwined, error in one will have to be mirrored by error in the other.

For me plurality goes with equality, although they may have different callings/gifts. It bothers me in as much as I see departure from scripture cause Christendom unnecessary problems.

I won't bore you here with my trouble with that word "leader". Yes, Peter was obviously senior, but I believe James was more of a presence amongst the believers in Jerusalem, while Peter himself acknowledged the depth of the revelation given to Paul.

Have a good one.

God bless.

Hi Zahymaka,

True.
Christian history is has in the past been bloody. But the Christian faith has never been. The Bible has been used to justify slavery, racism and wars, but it does not do that.

If one apostasises from Christianity, they are not considered enemies, just no longer Christians, which is ostensibly what they want and why they left ? No injunctions, no penalties.

"Wage war against your enemies". There are wars in the Bible, but no where in NT Christianity are Christians asked to make way. In fact we are enjoined to love/bless those who hate us. So even in this day and age I have heard people claiming to be Christians call for war. Anyone can adopt any label they desire, but a commitment to Christ is evidenced by your actions/fruit.

The Bible can be read literally, allegorically, prophetically (and a few other ways besides), but the truth of the Bible always harmonises.


Hope this helps.

God bless

Naijababe,

I hear you.
But the reformation has been in terms of how Xtians practice their faith. The truth has not changed. Greater enlightenment, freedom and access means more people can engage in a more direct way. Even today there are some dodgy practices in Xtianity.

Not being an expert on the Islam, I can't really comment, but doesn't that beg the question "how closely to the Koran do Muslims believe they are adhering"?


God bless

ps would you consider someone in the Se your neighbour?

Hi Papa,

Thanks for the response.
I take it the "young man" comment was intended in good humour. Would you be referring to my physical or spiritual age (I can see how pious you are!).

You can post as many references to justify it as you please. It was simply wrong.

Please feel free to continue your defense of bankrupt tradition and indulgent religiosity.


God bless

Hi Papa,

You are quite simply defending the indefensible.

I am not holding brief for Consultant here (we have differing views on some things and I note that the tithe is yet another one )

Firstly your emphasis on the "outward appearance". God can use whomsoever He pleases, and scripture makes it clear that it can be the foolish, weak, base or despised. "Tattered" looking is an issue is it? How about Peter saying "Silver & Gold have I non?" Or Paul being, weak in his physical presence and contemptible in speech. He was often ill and suffered lack?

"Honour the Lord". So when did we start to equate men with the Lord?

Your attempt to justify the amount by the length of time and numbers donating is at best lame. It was about the purpose and the amount.

Yes, and by all means, please esteem those who "labour among you in the Word", and "share in all good things with them". But if he is being paid (a whole other discussion ), is he not being honoured?

"Lack of Knowledge". That's an oxymoron. The Bible says "We know in part" it also says "Knowledge puffs up". I guess there's growth yet for us all huh?

I don't believe the state has any business in Church affairs (yet another thread ), but if you choose to subject yourself to the state, should you not comply with the law?

Please do not be offending, that I haven't been able to append chapters and verses on my post. I appreciate your thoughts sir, but I'm not with you on this one.

God bless

Dear Seun,

I sense a groundswell of opinion from the Christians on this one.
In fact I almost said "we are up in arms" (but that's not the Christian way).

So, I throw my lot in with those who would like to the Christian child board re-instated.

I also second what will undoubtedly go down in NairaLand folklore as the "Charlisco motion"
(no motions puns intended )

yours in Christ

Hi Consultant,

In as much as we are trying to air our differing views on the issue, I think these are both informed by differing perspectives/approaches to our common faith.

We could spend forever making points without really understanding each other, and be non the wiser.

So for example, your comment "likening Apostles to present day pastors" does not resonate with my understanding. I personally do not see what you may call the "job spec" of modern day pastors in scripture (neither do I know precisely how it operates in your particular congregation). I see "plurality of elders".

I think we'd all be best served if we talked fundamentals more, as then we would clearly understand the basis for our differing takes.

I appreciate you comments and thanks for taking the time to reply.

God bless

Oops, apologies for the double post. Please ignore the first one.

I am not against tithing because of the greed of "men of God".
I am not even against tithing per se.
I am against tithing that is enforced/preached as scripturally mandated, and used to bind people.

Christians give. Full stop.

One last thing, whatever our differing perspectives/opinions on the term "man of God", can you really qualify it with the "greed"?

It's good to talk

God bless

Hi Kenshin,

kenshin:
TVO1 Read malachi 3:8-11,

As suggested, I read the noted scripture. Thank you. Your point being?

kenshin:
And please get something paying tithe is your choice just as serving God is a choice you make however if you do it you get blessed and if you don't then well, you remain the same.

I agree with the fact that paying tithe and serving God are both choices.
However, I don't confuse the two.

God does not mandate tithe paying, neither is it a scriptural imperative.
If people join a particular church tradition and insist on tithing, I have no problem with that.
I simply do not agree with people who preach it as a biblical command and  attach a curse to non compliance.

Remain blessed

Hi Kenshin,

Please see following post.

No probs sister baby4u2, In your own time.Webchat never ends,

Baby4U2/Welborn,

I agree absolutely with the last post.

But "Give to get"? Is "God supplying all our need" predicated on us giving to Him first?
What about the very poor? What about those who bless/help in other ways??
Say I give time, what do I get in return?

Shouldn't that be "give to bless" or "give to honour"

"Give to get" too me has prosperity gospel writtern all over it.

God bless

When I say non-denominational. That is as plain as I can state it.
I actually do not have a"church" that I am a member of, neither a group that I belong too.
It really is just me.

So I can see what you are alluding to when you say "inform my outlook", but truly my outlook is not formed by association (although I do have a denominational background). It's primarily The Word & I(and I trust The Holy Spirit).

Likewise, I fellowship with anyone who wants to share the word (on a relational basis), and I find that my non-denominational appraoch makes this easier (although people often try and convince me of the superiority of their tradition/church branch/"pastor" So right now I don't actually have anyone I could actually separate from! (Maybe one day we'll talk church model/structure).

One of my points all along has been that I don't take umbrage at the teaching of individual traditions, because truth and error are clearly evident in them all. So I see inter-denominational squabbling as kind of like a "log & speck" or "sin & stone" situation. And just plain confusing.

I test all things by God's grace and hold fast. But I am by no means certain on every position. But I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing, as I am open to be led by The Spirit of God, which I believe is the whole point. Being in a denomination would by it's nature make me bound to certain traditions whatever I personally believe.

I choose liberty in Christ. So when I say non-denominational, I really mean that. Maybe the term should be extra-denominational? Actually no, that would probably become another tradition in itself.

So I have no need to reference myself against others, as I see myself as a "maturing Christian", not better or worse than anyone else.

Thank you for your kind words. And no, you have not been unambiguous. I see that we have slightly differing perspectives (I won't hazard a guess at yours, as I'm sure we'll talk more), but I'm sure God works in and leads each of us in a unique way.

Stay committed sir.

God bless

baby4u2:
couldnt help but write again.
my money was given to me by God, so i give a little portion back to get an even greater portion.

Could you please explain how this works? It sounds like a sure fire investment.
Only my job sucks and I'd really like to take early retirement.

Thank you

I am prophesying tirade from the resident "denominational apologists" and "MOG mouthpieces"

welborn:
we are all the children of God by faith in Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:26)

Your quote above is my point. Which is that, faith is Jesus Christ is what makes one a Christian.

By it's very nature denominationalism demands something extra. It has a tendency to to defend certain cherished positions, and often leads to an unbalanced view of scripture or additions (tradition). This invariably leads to disunity and squabbling.

Which is why certain denominations are not considered truly Christian by others. Since I personally do not belong to any denomination, I wonder how I would be viewed by them?

Believe me, attempting to prove my previously held sectarian beliefs against scripture, humbled me and led me out of the denominational approach to Christianity. It's quite clear that there is truth in all and error in all, but the very real danger is the error will lead to spiritual harlotry. Hence my emphasis on just being Christian and not taking positions against any one denomination.

I hope this clarifies things. (But I'm sure you'll let me know if it doesn't  ).

God bless dude

welborn:
"The Prophet Muhammad has said several times that those who convert from Islam should be killed if they refuse to come back." That was made by an "educated Judge" at the impending trial of a Muslim convert in Afghanistan - [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4841334.stm]see here

I have a question, which kind of follows on from Welborns post.

I understand Afghani law is based on the Sharia code. I have not heard anyone say that the death penalty for apostasy from Islam (and in light of developments in the case, may I add "of a sound mind" is is a mis-interpretation of said law/code.

In light of this, could someone please advise the penalty for non-Muslims who refuse to convert.

Thanks

welborn:
If Christians (of whatever label - Protestant, etc)

Christians don't have labels. They are just that Christians. No qualification required.

Catholics are Catholics
Anglicans are Anglicans
Mormons are Mormons
Pentecostals are Pentecostals (& repeat ad infinitum for all traditions/denominations)

I have no problem with debate between "denominational apologists" (or even those that expend their energy championing various MOG's), but please leave us Christians out of it!

Thank you & God bless

kenshin:
Tithing is a means of defence from the devourer,

No it is not!
Or should I say, please refer me to the relevant scriptures to support that statement!

A Christian walks in covenant with God, eschews evil and the evil one stays away.

1John 5:18 - We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him.

If you think a little about your original post, it is little more than reformed "babalawoism". Not to mention that it smacks of  indulgent self-righteousness.

Feel free to tithe all you please. But don't blaspheme by saying God demands it or scripture instructs it. Tithing is quite simply not a Christian imperative.

God bless