Question 1:
Certainly, the apostles in the early church era or even the Apostle Paul heard from God or were inspired by God as are our ‘men of God’ these days. However, we know that no man is perfect, and the best of men are men at best. And with recent revelations in Nigeria, we can now see that even our ‘men of God’ or those we esteem highly spiritually are imperfect too, and they can also recant their once tightly held ‘godly beliefs and opinions.’ In the same vein, while we may not be able to tell, could there be a possibility that if the apostles, even the Apostle Paul, lived in our century, would we witness them going back on their beliefs, commandments, doctrines, instructions, and practices like we are witnessing these days?
Answer 1:
The easy answer to your question is, YES.
That is why the letter kills. It is the Spirit that gives life. Never forget, "The TESTIMONY (person, account) of Jesus is the SPIRIT OF PROPHECY (the RHEMA, profession, and fullness of God)." [Revelations 19:10]
When we read the logos, our aim is not to fill our heads with them, but to extract or be inspired by the RHEMA therein. If all we do is fill our heads with the logos, we will be no different from the Pharisees of old. The Pharisees knew the law and the prophets, but the law and the prophets did not know them.
They had a mental assent to the word, hence remained carnal. They did not allow the word to seep from their head into their heart. We see an example today in the market men and women. They spend the whole day reading the bible, yet their lives are no better. They can quote the scriptures, but the scriptures cannot quote them.
This has nothing to do with dispensation, necessarily. People, whose accounts are shared in Hebrews 11, lived ahead of their times. They allowed the spirit of prophecy to push them into God.
So, yes, not everything the Apostle Paul necessarily said is gospel truth. We judge every scripture with scripture. Some of the things he shared were tainted by the culture and limitations of his time. So, we can and should judge it. Not by our senses, though, but by the inherency of scripture itself.
That is why the Apostle Peter tells us that scriptures are not for private interpretation. [2 Peter 1:20] Whatever one part says MUST ALWAYS agree with the whole.
Chief amongst Paul's possible digressions is his take or disposition on women and their place in public worship.
I hope this answers your question. I'll wait to get your reply before moving on to #2.
Odee Odiri Onogoro
ReplyDeleteThank you so much Uncle Akin, I knew you would never disappoint. Since not all that the Apostle Paul said is gospel truth, and that we should judge by the inherency of the scriptures, isn’t there a possibility that we might come to a road block because all the epistles are tainted in a certain time and culture?
Not true. The sanctity of scripture is guarded and guided by God Himself. I love the way one of my foremost puritans puts it. He said the tainting is proof that it was not cooked up. You see if Christianity was a cooked-up religion, practices, or way of life the taints will not be there. God intentionally left the taints. That way, He is needed all the way by true worshippers. We don't worship the bible. We don't worship the Apostle Paul. We worship God, Himself, in all His fullness and glory.
DeleteOdee Odiri Onogoro
ReplyDeleteThank you for your patience and detailed explanations. For example, amongst others, majority of the practices and widespread marital beliefs/doctrines of today’s church comes from the Apostle Paul. Nevertheless that he was never married, and as you mentioned most of the things he shared were tainted in time and culture. Aren’t we witnessing a road block in marital issues because of what he said in his epistles? Isn’t it because there are no other authorities in the epistles that spoke extensively about marriage, that is why majority of the female Christians today are tied up in bad marriages?
Not necessarily. We have the benefit of the totality of scriptures, not just the epistles. So, we are without excuses. We know and can understand issues from first creation, just like the Apostle Paul did. We are better positioned to understand God than he was. We have all he had at his disposal plus much more.
DeleteOdee Odiri Onogoro
ReplyDeleteWhile I’m still finding it hard to agree that there are no possibilities of road blocks emanating from the epistles, I must mention that I deliberately left out the Old Testaments. This is because it’s a whole kettle of fish, and it’s relevancy in today’s century will be a huge task. Not withstanding, maybe after reading your replies severally God will guide me and give me wisdom to grasp what you are saying.
They're sure roadblocks in the whole of scripture, and it is intentional. God does not want to give His pearls to pigs. He INTENTIONALLY hides His truth, His treasures, so that only the qualified can and will find it. [Proverbs 25:2] That, also, is the essence of being born again, [John 3:3] it gives us the access card to have the road blocks removed. [Romans 5:1-3; John 1:12] Whether they are actually removed or not is a function of what we do with the access.
DeleteOdee Odiri Onogoro
ReplyDeleteI understand that with the totality of the scriptures we are better positioned to know God. Again, in regards to most of Apostle Paul’s tainted instructions, do you think there can be a totality of the scriptures when we do not know better on some instructions and practices because no other book in the Bible spoke further?
The taints we are referring to are truly insignificant compared to the totality of revelations God exposed through him.
DeleteOdee Odiri Onogoro:
ReplyDeleteGreat to see you are now admitting to the roadblocks. I’m born again…Do you think being born again really removes all the roadblocks? This discourse has reached this length because of the possibilities of roadblocks. Ok, why will a married Christian women believe in ‘hating divorce’ and choose to pray and believe it will get better while she gets battered daily. Is it not because God hates divorce, did the Bible talk about divorce except on the grounds of adultery? Hope you now see what I mean by roadblocks for an average Nigerian who will only do according to the Bible? As born agains, the Bible is our go-to, and we look for the rhema to come alive to us while we read the logos. It’s no denying that the level of rhema one can possibly get can be limited to the amount of logos they are exposed to. This could be worse for a traditional Christian who has a fixed mindset, and does not believe the Bible is tainted in culture and time.
Being born again opens the prison gates. Whether we choose to walk out of the prison or not, is another issue altogether. The roadblocks are removed altogether, spiritually speaking, when we get born again. Whether or not we walk in the reality, and to what extent is dependent on us continuing in the word and fellowship with the Holy Spirit. We are the ones in the driver's seat.
DeleteA married woman should believe in hating divorce because that is God's mind in such a matter. There is no divorce in the first creation. When God created marriage, divorce was NEVER a consideration. As Jesus later told us, divorce was instituted because of the hardness of men's minds. Their corrupt nature had the better of them.
There is nothing wrong with praying that one's marriage gets better. What is wrong is staying in the line of fire while praying. Staying in the line of fire is the only foolish thing in the process. You can only receive the miracle result of your prayer if you are alive. The woman needs to get out of the line of fire as soon as possible and remain away, unless and until the man has been to counseling, signs a guarantee of right behavior, agrees to mentorship and accountability.
The bible talks about divorce in several places, inclusive of the two instances you have referred to. These being God-hating it and allowance in the case of adultery.
Odee Odiri Onogoro:
ReplyDeleteTrue, we cannot deny the totality of revelations especially that of God’s grace. However, isn’t it worth it enough to separate the revelations from the taints which have become the order of the day for Christianity not only in Nigeria but the world over? Is it worth it enough to separate the revelations from the taints which have for so long placed yokes, bridles, and bits on human for ages? Isn’t the taint what the churches have refused to talk about, especially in tithing, giving, marriage, etc.?
We do not tell the scripture what to speak to us. Rather, we open ourselves to what it has to say. There are no taints on the issues of Tithing, Giving, and Marriage. If you suppose otherwise, I will be willing to address your supposition one after the other.
DeleteOdee Odiri Onogoro:
ReplyDeleteI know you may think that I'm going atheistic or something. But I bet you I definitely know what I'm talking about. Hopefully, you realize that we are having this 'sane' conversation because we both have Pentecostal backgrounds? Hopefully, you realize that there are a great number of God's children in other denominations? Hopefully, you realize that these God's children who believe in the logos and not always looking for 'Rhema', are going to heaven just like any other Pentecostal? And they will receive as many rewards as any other Pentecostal when they stand before the judgment seat of Christ? The last time I checked, Romans 10:9-10 was the basis of salvation leading to this same heaven we are all aiming for. I hereby submit to you, that the problem of Christianity today is being too over-exegetical or drawing 'too much rhema' from the logos all in the name of being inspired by God, or hearing from God. This, unfortunately, have become the grounds from where those in spiritual authority have manipulated mankind for ages. And what has been the result of our 'MOG's' being too over exegetical or drawing 'too much rhema' from the logos all in the name of being inspired by God, or hearing from God, we see many of them recanting their stances after many years past; we see Christians who are brainwashed and shortchanged.
I don't think anything. My first take is to assume positive intent until proven otherwise. Your conclusions on overdrawing on Rhema are yours, and you are entitled to your conclusions. That does not make them right, though. Irrespective of what is, or was, the word of God stands supreme above all.
DeleteIrrespective of who is reading the bible, scriptures stay the same. The letter will always kill, and the spirit will always give life. A man will never be able to understand God, nor His word except by the spirit of God. That will NEVER change irrespective of whether you are Pentecostal, charismatic, Anglican, Catholic, etc.
Odee Odiri Onogoro:
ReplyDeleteYou made mention of Apostle Paul's stand on women and their place in public worship which in your own words is a 'possible digression.' You mentioned not everything he said is gospel truth, and they were things he shared that were tainted by the culture and limitations of his time, and you quoted 2 Peter 1:20. Ok, take, for example, I'm not of a Pentecostal background, I don't look out for exegesis or 'rhema', and most importantly, I'm on my way to heaven, how do you intend to get across to me/have a 'sane' conversation with me through logos. How do you intend to communicate with a logos-driven Christian who is on his way to heaven if you want to 'judge every scripture with scripture?' What happens when the scriptures are silent on some issues? There's the issue of women prophesying with their heads uncovered, do you know most churches take it literally for what it is? And the scripture does not elaborate further, hence, you cannot 'judge every scripture with scripture' in the logos way? Do you know Christians from such denominations frown at people from other denominations who leave their hair uncovered? And all these 'Christians' are on their way to heaven? Does the Bible elaborate further on hair covering, are Christians who uncover their hair not acting on God's grace, human discretion, or conviction? Do you see the roadblock and tainting I'm talking about which is worthy of being recognized?
You seem to think you know some things I am not aware of. That is very unfortunate. So, let me give you some historic perspective. I attended Catholic elementary and secondary school. So, I am versed in Catholicism. My parents were born Anglicans, and I grew up Anglican, in addition to the Cherubim and Seraphim church they attended.
DeleteI got born again in a Scripture Union Student camp, in 1983, which I attended via the Anglican church we attended. My first exposure to Pentecostalism was on the University campus, and I have so associated. When I lived and worked out in California, I attended a Lutheran Church, as well as a Calvinistic leaning church.
So, I am not sure what you think you have seen that I have not seen or encountered. I have endeavored to be transparent in this discussion, but I am beginning to feel you are not. So, I think we are at the point where we need to exit it.