₦airaland Forum

Nwadina77:
@Life2017, u should get ur facts right about the Ahiara diocese issue before showing ur ignorant publicly. The diocese never discriminated against any priest, their grouse was that the priest sent to them wasn't ordained in d diocese as had been the norm.They said anyone could be their priest, be he Hausa, Yoruba or any other person so far HE WAS ORDAINED IN D DIOCESE.

that was never the problem, the bishop was ordained in ahiara diocese, on his ordination day ahiara people locked the cathedral, but he was still ordained within ahiara diocese.

Sapiosexuality:
I don't support this argument. How were Igbos treating themselves for the over 900 years before the British joined them to Nigeria? Did the creation of Nigeria eliminate any problem the nations that formed the country had within before the British colonised us?

If you want to preach one Nigeria you should do so and not bring up imaginary reasons to foster unity. If Nigeria benefited everyone less calls will exist for secession. Just restructure this country, eliminate the problem of religion, and eliminate heterogeneity and all these calls will cease.

For me, I believe in Peace and Justice. I have no problem with anyone, no matter how silly they appear, wanting to secede. We can copy the Rwanda model to make Nigeria work. If they are not willing to act like Rwanda then they leave no choice for calls for secession. We have to sacrifice a lot for Nigeria to work and our leaders think this sacrifice only exist in words.

before Nigeria, some IBO's were raiding the next town and selling their fellow ibos as slaves to the white man...

human beings have never been perfect, their imperfect institutions didn't begin with Nigeria it has been there since time immemorial.

otr1: Roman church started well and was in communion with other bodies of Christ until they started mixing paganism with Christian doctrines.
John Mosheim testifies to this as follows:
He [Clement] himself expressly tells us in his Stromata, that he would not hand down Christian truth pure and unmixed, but "associated with, or rather veiled by, and shrouded under the precepts of philosophy"... the philosophy of the Greeks.

please quote the document where Clement wrote that he wishes to mix Christianity

While Clement, with Pantaenus, mixed Christianity with paganism at Alexandria, Lucian founded at Antioch a school of Syrian theology.
Dr Williston Walker described the difference between Lucian teaching and that of the Alexandria allegorizing theologians
"With Antioch of this period is to be associated the foundation of a school of theology by Lucian, of whom little is known of biographical detail, save that he was a presbyter, held aloof from the party in Antioch which opposed and overcame Paul of Samosata, taught there from c. 275 to 303, and died a martyr's death in 312.... Like Origen, he busied himself with textual and exegetical labors on the Scriptures, but had little liking for the allegorizing methods of the great Alexandrian. A simpler, more grammatical and historical method of treatment both of text and doctrine characterized his teaching.
Note that Clement was the Teacher of Origen and they are both of Alexandria (the capital of gnosticism) and Rome has always been on the same page with Alexandria.

This is evident from the writing of Socrates a century after Lucian:
"For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this."

On why Lucian was not popular. Did you say he didn't write? Man, the transmission of the Received Text by Lucian with its unparalleled effects down through the centuries is enough a writing.

this is a lot of hot air. Lucian were from the school of Antioch so were the heretics Arius and Nestorius. Again I repeat Rome never practiced gnosticism, infact Rome Antioch and Alexandria were in communion before and after lucian

OLAADEGBU:
It was Andrew Murrey that said: "To convince the world of the truth of Christianity, it must first be convinced of sin, it is only sin that renders Christ intelligible."

Do you know the true nature of sin and how Christ alone can set you free?

this is what your op says...






From what I understand of st Francis he was no sissy.




That ends the story

damariox:
The simple question was who should declare a Canon closed man or God?
If men, infallible men did the collection and closing of the NT canon then why should sects 1400 years (muraton) and 500 AD (council of trent) denounce the church fathers inspiration and guidance?

both closed the canon, God using men as instruments did .

damariox:
The simple question was who should declare a Canon closed man or God?
If men, infallible men did the collection and closing of the NT canon then why should sects 1400 years (muraton) and 500 AD (council of trent) denounce the church fathers inspiration and guidance?

who ever tagged me here I thank you immensely, I haven't checked my mentions in a long time

thank you.


damariox. I wish to correct something the council of Trent was held about 500years ago but it never, I repeat it NEVER denounced the church fathers, in fact the canon of Trent is exactly the same as the canon set by the Church fathers. please correct yourself.

OLAADEGBU:
"But as many as received Him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name. Which were born, not of blood, nor the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13).

There is only one universal catholic Church and that is the body of Christ. You can only be born into this Church by the will of God not the will of man, hence the need of the Holy Spirit who brings about the new birth.

and this one Catholic church is established by Christ on the apostles...

OLAADEGBU:
But you still place your church tradition above the word of God. This is what Jesus said in response to the Scribes and Pharisees who would not let His people go:

"Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandments of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And He said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition...Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye" (Mark 7:5-9, 13).

The Church is not a building nor is it a denomination, it is the assembly of people who have been called out from worldly systems, traditions and organisations such as yours and have been washed by the blood of the lamb.

your quote is non sequitur sorry, no Catholic is stu.pid enough to place church traditions above the deposit of faith.


and yes, the church is the assembly of people called out of the world and washed by the blood of the Lamb having been given a new birth.
BUT, more so
it was built by Christ himself with the apostles as foundation, they too were empowered to ordain new ministers.... if your so-called assembly do not bear this trait,if your ministers are not successors of the apostles...then they lack legitimacy and your assembly is certainly not the one Christ established. you are only deluding yourself

be careful not to speak with too much authority about things you don't know much about l.

oyejideogunjumo:
I know the issue of Martin Luther that led to the breaking away to found Anglican Church around 1492 or so.He proposed that Pope was a human being and shouldn't be confessed to.The righteous shall live by faith.
But how he influenced the removal of the books I may not answer now bt I know some books that were not part of the bible at the beginning were kept bt Roman Catholic and The Church of latter day saints founded by Branham born in 1830& died in 1863.
It boils down to the same thing,Authorship&purpose of writing/_teaching. Am a Pastor I believe in the Divinity of the Bible&will never change my stand on it.
D bible is inspired word of God.

Martin Luther founded the Lutheran church not the Anglican church as you claim. his church still do confession till today. he didn't teach the just shall live by faith, he taught "the just shall live by faith ALONE" he even added the word alone into his Bible.
the Catholic church didn't ever add any books that weren't part of the canon of hippo and Carthage, every book in the Catholic Bible were those canonised.

OLAADEGBU:
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1:18).

The message of the Cross is foolishness to you, I can understand why you don't seem to fathom it.



There is a difference between traditional religion and Christianity. Don't let your tradition get in your way of understanding the message of the Cross. Tradition and religion will not lead you to heaven only Jesus can do that.

eccle 10

Fools base their thoughts on foolish
assumptions, so their conclusions will be
wicked madness;


prov 10

Sin is not ended by multiplying words, but
the prudent hold their tongues.

OLAADEGBU:
The question is, how many souls did he win for Christ? and I do not mean for Roman Catholicism.

I must leave you with your stu.pidity I can't waste precious time on you.

1200AD, Christianity and Catholicism is synonymous

PaChukwudi44:
Rubbish write up.St Anthony of Padua one of the greatest ever fransiscans was a great preacher. The fransiscans has contributed more to the great commission than all the Pentecostal churches put together

don't even talk about St Anthony of Padua.

st Francis was himself a great preacher, solid in teaching true in spirituality. one of the best preachers of his time who lived the gospel to a most heroic degree and left people who continued his work, the work of the gospel.



how many of your pastors can leave all the riches they are entitled to and go and preach with 2 clothes, 1shoe and a staff, going from place to place preaching, no purse no money, no property?

after preaching in Europe he went to the Islamic Ottoman empire and preached there, how many modern pastors will you see in Saudi Arabia?

it is really funny when kids are asking if achievers, elders who were before them are sissy.

otr1:
There must be many Lucians, obviously. The one I'm referring to was never in Alexandria. The Lucian I'm talking about grew up in the churches of Judea. He founded a college at Antioch which strove to counteract the dangerous ecclesiastical alliance between Rome and Alexandria. Lucian opposed Alexandria's policies and for this has been bitterly hated and his name kept in the background.
"The Gnostic theology of Alexandria which was followed by the Church of Rome, was hostile to anything Jewish, even Jewish Christianity. Therefore it is safe to conclude from these historic developments that primitive Syrian Christianity was not organized after the pattern of the Church of Rome, but followed an evangelical Judean and Biblical type of church organization" (from the book, Truth Triumphant)
Historian Newman aptly describes the difference between the theology of Antioch and that of Alexandria:
"In the great christological controversies of the fourth and following centuries Alexandria and Antioch were always antagonists, Alexandria representing a mystical transcendentalism and promoting the allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures; Antioch insisting on the grammatico-historical interpretation of the Scriptures, and having no sympathy with mystical modes of thought."

That was a mistake, Lucian was of the antiochian school not the alexandrian,...
The church of rome never followed gnosticism, in fact the Roman Church condemned gnosticism in all its forms. The Roman Church was also in Communion with the jewish Church all through those centuries it is laughable you think the Roman Church hated the jewish christians. The church of antioch was also in Communion with the Church of rome during those centuries so it is surprising that you believe they were against each other.

The school at antioch were literalist when it came to scriptures, that is why Origen castrated Himself after literally reading that anything that causes sin should be cut off. This type of stupid interpretation usually causes trouble between the scholars and their bishop... Even lucian was out of Communion with his bishop several times until he came back to Communion under the bishop cyril. Lucian literalist interpretation was the seed bed for the arian heresy, lucian trained a host of heretics even he Himself wasn't a heretic, that and the fact that he didn't write is why he isn't popular.

otr1:
If you're talking about the 20th or 21st century syriac Church, I can relate with.
I'm talking about the Syriac church of the time following the time of the Apostles...before there is anything called catholic. I'm talking about the Syriac church of the 3rd century when Lucian edited the original greek NT manuscript (the Received Text). This edition preceeded the Latin Vulgate of the Roman Church. The wonderful man that did this job was never credited for it, just like many others. He and many others were never in agreement with any doctrine of the Catholic church. The fact that churches where they once lived now adopt catholic doctrines can not invalidate their labor.

You guys are just ignorant.


The syraic orthodox Church and all the orthodox churches are ancient churches, they don't add up new doctrines, infact since they broke Communion with the Roman Church 1000yrs ago they have not adopted any Roman Catholic practice, they have their bishops with apostolic succession, they have valid sacraments and ancient doctrines.


The entire ancient Church always had mariology and saints and images and all these doctrines, that is why they are all similar to the Roman Catholic Church.


If you check the syraic orthodox Church of the 19th,18th 17th 16, 15, 14,..... 10... 8.. 6 5 4 3, 2... Century you will still meet these teaching.


In case you don't know lucian was a priest in the alexandrian Christian school, he was in Communion with bishop cyril, cyril was in Communion with the Roman pope.
That means
Lucian was a Catholic priest... Who had the misfortune of teaching heretics like arius.

BlueAngel444:
What you or I think is not important, how do you know Adam's name if not for what was recorded. Let's stop assuming and stick with facts

as I earlier said, I won't debate that point, you do not believe that adam acknowledged his creator because it isn't explicitly written, I think he had a good relationship with his creator before the fall and acknowledged him... Neither is explicitly written so i won't argue it with you so as not to make an argument from silence.

OLAADEGBU:
It depends on what "spirit" you are talking about.

I am not surprised you are ignorant of the spirit Christ gave his Church, I wonder what your endtime churches teach you if you are so ignorant.

For the avoidance of doubt the Holy Spirit, the spirit of truth is what is given to the Church.

OLAADEGBU:
I trust you that you will equate or even exalt your church tradition over the author of the Truth Himself.

the Church is Christ''s and Christ own the Church, he shed his blood for her and gave her the Holy Spirit and promised her his perpetual presence.


It is Jesus who Paralleled the Church with Himself when he asked saul '' why are you persecuting me''. The church is the body of Christ and Christ is her head ..
,

That is fact, it is the Church Christ established that scriptures speak about not your manmade enterprise.

UnchangeableGod:
There is nothing like ministerial priesthood in the New Testament sir. The Bible states that "God gave (appointed) some Apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some teachers and some pastors for the perfecting of the saints............." (Ephesians 4:11-14). As such there are Apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (of the word of God) where I worship.

If your pastor is truly a minister then he would actually exercise priestly ministry. That is the ministerial priesthood, the priesthood a minister exercises in Service of the gospel.


But since your pastor are ignorant of the ministerial priesthood the i believe they aren't true minister.



Romans 15:15-16 --"But I have
written to you rather boldly in
some respects to remind you,
because of the grace given me by
God to be a minister of Christ
Jesus to the Gentiles in performing
the PRIESTLY service of the Gospel
of God, so that the offering up of
the Gentiles may be acceptable,
sanctified by the Holy Spirit."

That passage show there is a ministerial priesthood.

Paul received ministry by laying of hands. Act 13


Then after
fasting and praying
they laid their hands
on them and sent them
off. So, being sent out
by the Holy Spirit, they
went down to
Seleu’cia; and from
there they sailed to
Cyprus.

He called Timothy to ministry and ordained him by laying hands.


2 Timothy 1:6 Hence I
remind you to rekindle
the gift of God that is
within you through the
laying on of my hands;

Timothy then is empowered to lay hands

1 Timothy 5:22 Do not
be hasty in the laying
on of hands . . .

Knowing the name of my pastor is not important. The authority to preach the word of God was given to Him by God (Matthew 28:18-20). What we have in common with the Apostles of Christ is by His grace, the sound teachings of the word of God to enable sinners find the need to make their ways right by coming to Christ the only Saviour and Sanctifier and for the saints to be edified to continue with His word, in His will and by His grace be steadfast till the end (Ephesians 2:20). Of course, our gathering is that of men, women, youths and children who come in mostly as sinners and through the sound teachings of the word, become converted to saints and heavenly candidates in Christ. Thanks.

Every Christian is to bear witness to the good news , but the ministry to teach in the house of God isn't granted to all, it is for those who have been sent.


Romans 10:15 And
how can men preach
unless they are SENT ?
As it is written, “How
beautiful are the feet of
those who preach good
news!”

those who are sent in the first place are the apostles and the 70.

Luke 9:1-2 And he . . .
gave them power and
authority over all
demons and to cure
diseases, and he sent
them out to preach the
kingdom of God and to
heal.
John 17:18 As thou
didst send me into the
world, so I have sent
them into the world.
John 20:21 Jesus said
to them again, “Peace
be with you. As the
Father has sent me,
even so I send you.”
Luke 10:1-3 After this
the Lord appointed
seventy others, and
sent them on ahead of
him, two by two, into
every town and place
where he himself was
about to come.


Those who Jesus sent started sending others after pentecost.

Acts 13
Then after
fasting and praying
they laid their hands
on them and sent them
off. So, being sent out
by the Holy Spirit, they
went down to
Seleu’cia; and from
there they sailed to
Cyprus.
Acts 15:22, 25 Then it
seemed good to the
apostles and the elders,
with the whole church,
to choose men from
among them and send
them to Antioch with
Paul and Barnabas.
They sent Judas called
Barsab’bas, and Silas,
leading men among the
brethren, it has seemed
good to us, having
come to one accord, to
choose men and send
them to you with our
beloved Barnabas and
Paul,




So were all sent, even the pastor in my Church was sent by a successor of the apostles,

You sent your pastor? Who gave him authority to teach in the house of God?

BlueAngel444:
I am going to be editing the text to make it more readable.

Prove them wrong, Nigerians do read

This isn't new, Catholics on nairaland had already said as much.

Tithing is not a new testament Law, it is not a Biblical injunction for today.
It wasn't practiced as a Law in antiquity, the Early Church fathers were more of sell what you have and give it to the poor , they usually practiced that advice in the most literal way, but they didn't make it Law. Certainly it isn't divine Law.

Tithing latter became Ecclesiastical Law because it was at the time deemed important for the functioning of the Church, the bible says the labourer deserves his wages and those who work on the alter may eat from it. Again this was Ecclesiastical law as the times dictated not divine Law.

The church also repealed those laws as they were no longer needed and reverted back to each man giving what is on his mind out of free will.



A few people still sell all they own and give it to the poor even today as was practiced by the Church fathers but again it isn't Law.

aaccountable1:
Vows are not alien to the Christian faith. But the kind extracted by the Catholic Church ( the vow never to leave) from her priest are the same that characterise occultism not Christianity.

There is no such thing as a vow not to leave, don't speak about things you know nothing about so you don't end up lying.

BlueAngel444:
The much recorded about Adam doesn't state much of what he did not do, not to talk of how he felt.
The only interaction Adam had with God was on a defensive note like one would speak to a powerful friend and then God made him garments of skin.


But did Adam worship God, don't thick so, in fact it was Seth his son who during His time began to call upon the Lord.


Cain was the one who began worship because he brought the first sacrifice to adore and seek God's favor

So you do not think adam had reverence for God... I'll let your point be, I won't want to make an argument from silence.

aaccountable1:
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

 30  For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. (Matthew 11:29,30)

compare with:

"For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers" (Matt 23:4)

Do not intentionally misunderstand me. we are looking at the way of Christ. Jesus gave his Desciples the choice to leave if they so choose. He will not compel you to remain in His service even against your will. only cults do that.

Atleast it seems you are aware that there exist a burden in Christ. Now listen to that burden



Lk 14:26,27


“If any man come to Me and
hate not his father and
mother, and wife and children,
and brethren and sisters, yea,
and his own life also, he
cannot be My disciple.
And whosoever doth not bear
his cross and come after Me
cannot be My disciple.


That is the burden of discipleship, you must deny yourself, hate mother and father and family and chose God instead that is the demand the gospel make.


All these are chosen willingly and no body is compelling anyone to remain a priest against his will, infact it is the opposite every one in this case is making sure that fr edet is free, his bishop is makingThe sure he is allowed to pursue his new choice.

And lastly fr edet isn't simply a disciple he is also a presbyter.

aaccountable1:
I repeat that such vows are unchristian and unscriptural.
Jesus never extracted such vows from his Desciples or made it a prerequisite for them, like the Catholic Church has done. He gave them liberty to depart if they so choose.

I have already shown you that vows are scriptural and have quoted scriptures that clearly say so. That you close your eyes and refuse to see is not my business.

UnchangeableGod:
If so, that is what you should be preaching to those who are yet to be saved. The emphasis should not be on Church membership, but on getting the spiritual experiences that will transform a sinner, who is on his/her way to eternal perdition, to a saint and then make him/her heaven worthy. Thanks.

That is not just the emphasis, speaking the truth is important and that is what i have been doing.



First i have showed you that there exist a ministerial priesthood in the new testament as Paul testify, I have showed you that it is conferred by the laying of hands and that has continued since the time of the apostles till today for 2000yrs.


Do you have the ministerial priesthood in your church? Does your church have any relation to the apostles or is it a gathering of men?


Who is Your pastor and who gave him authority to teach in the house of God.

johnw74:
yes dictus, for about the third time, i did say that, and of course it is true

rcc priests comitting sexual assult on children is from satan
and it's also clear that the rcc doctrines that go against God's word is also from satan


see dictus, how disbelieving God and hating God causes u great confusion

1Co_14:33  For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

^^^ of course that leaves out the rcc being a church of the saints

And your church is the Church of the saints right. Free from sin.


God save us from hypocrites.

UnchangeableGod:
OK sir. I just hope that from your complete Bible, you have been saved from sin, sanctified and made ready for heaven. If not, your owning a 'complete' Bible is of no eternal benefit. Thanks.

I have been saved from sin, sanctified and made ready for heaven.

UnchangeableGod:
That is not the issue sir. The issue is that conversion and right living should be basic requirements to serve God in any capacity. I think those should be the emphasis of the Church. Theological and secular education though necessary, are not as important as the life and character of a servant of God. Paul was first of all saved before he ventured into the ministry of saving souls because the blind cannot lead the blind and one cannot give what he doesn't have.

Sir Stop shifting the goal post.

But
You claimed the Catholic priesthood is unbiblical after i showed you the new testament priesthood and its ordination, you are here talking about something else.



Who told you that the Catholic Church doesn't consider genuine conversion and right living as important requirement for the priesthood?

701ecilana:
Even you know that you are lying right now.

sorry dear i don't lie, that you do such doesn't mean i do same.

NoToPile:
Seems you missed where I said "christains from all denominations" you removed the "christains" and placed emphasis on denominations.

Lool at the bolded is it a competition?

I will still say it again, the "church" referred to in the bible is all christains irrespective of the whereever the worship (whatever denomination). Sorry that doesn't go down well with you, I really can't help that you have a problem with it.

Bros have a good night, I don't argue religion.

There are no denominations just one Church with one baptism, one Lord and one faith.

Does your denominational Christian fit the bill?

johnw74:
i said child sexual abuse comes from satan,
and un Bibical doctrine that is part of rcc is from satan

but dictus, u roman catholics love to twist things around-lie:

Joh_8:44  Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

This is what you said,




with the rcc being rife with priests comitting
sexual assault on children
it's clear that their god-their originator of church
doctrine which goes against God's word, is
satan.









it is still fall actions.

BlueAngel444:
Isn't Cain and Abel the first set of people to worship God in the bible. Are you defining tradition or religion

worship noun 1. the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.


Did Adam feel of express reverence and adoration for God?

OLAADEGBU:
You should rather consult the Holy Spirit who is the author of the Bible.

Or the pillar and bulwark of truth, on whom has been bestowed the spirit. The Catholic Church established by Jesus.