THE FORBIDDEN FRUIT (1st part)

eve-picked-the-forbidden-fruit-and-gives-the-apple-to-adam-cpadh4         God called, of the forbidden fruit, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They did not eat just a fruit. It was beyond the knowledge of an enjoyment of a juicy delicacy. What is evident in this scenario is that: An approach to the tree, the pluck, and the eating of the forbidden stuff, is a plunge into the characteristic putrefaction of the lake of disobedience. To disobey God is to throw a challenge of a long duel at Him. What makes the original sin more grievous is the fact that they had seen and known (at the closest range) the LORD God, who had walked into the Eden Garden every coolness of evening. He had warned them of the deadly consequence of disobeying His Word.

forbidden-fruit-19731410

A brew of good and evil can never be a child’s toy. Only God has the capability to control the intricacies involved in an amalgam of good and evil, simply because the personification of evil is His creation. Lucifer had had connection with the earth eons before the creation of our pristine parents. The true test of Adamic dominance capability of the once corrupted earth will, therefore, be a proof of his moral strength to maintain a deference to God’s word and a total disregard for a strange discourse. The occupation of the Garden of Eden was, as a result, a probationary abode.

adam-and-eve-04

“But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” [Gen 2:17]. The Hebrew has “in dying thou shalt die” (speaking of two deaths – spiritual and physical deaths). This is the probatory proof in scripture. The word ‘die’, in Hebrew, is mûth (mooth): ‘to die (literally or figuratively); causatively to kill’. It was, no doubt, a strange vocabulary to a newly created being, especially in the likeness and in the image of their Creator. None had died. The day Adam ate the forbidden fruit he died. He did not live to celebrate his thousand year’s birthday from the point of the view of 2Peter 3:8. They polluted their spiritual life with the sin of disobedience. And that was what they technically ate – disobedience – and not a fruit in the real spiritual sense.

persephone__forbidden_fruit_by_maliceumbra

The woman was fed with a humanistic disobedience. She enjoyed the taste of it. Most definitely. The word of God said categorically, “thou shalt surely die“. The Bible’s account of the Devil’s words is, “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die” (emphasis mine) [Gen 3:4-7]. All he had to do to prove his deadly subtlety was just to add an innocuous looking ‘not’ to God’s own words, making it look the same as the statement of Divinity, which reminds me of the Pauline Galatians 1:6-7, “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7) Which is not another;….” The first ‘another’ of the 6th verse is technically not the same as that of the 7th. For the ‘another’ in the 6th verse, it is heteros (het’-er-os): ‘(an-, the) other or different (i.e. one not of the same nature, form, class, kind – opposed to some former person or thing)’. ‘Another’ of the 7th verse is allos (al’-los): “else”, that is, different (in many applications) which speaks of (another of the same kind)’. The spirit behind the ophidian intrusion made sure that he screwed the lid of the coffin tightly with this Humanism philosophy of: “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” Genesis 3:5. The satanic goal of secular humanism is to remove an individual’s eyes of deference to the celestial Deity, and placing it unto himself. The woman thought she had got a good thing.

woman-with-apple

Genesis 3:6, “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat”. Ask yourself this. Why did the first woman decide to eat it first before giving it to her husband? Humanists tend to see the individual as the centre of spiritual attraction. She warmed up to the enemy’s deception. The acceptance of the subtly deceit gave the enemy the victory over her organs of judgment. Her eyes believed because her heart said yes to Satan. (…to be continued…)

I KNOW WHY THE CHURCH IS IN DISARRAY (part 2)

Hail Mary! Mother of God!?

Hail Mary! Mother of God!?

History, it is believed, has had its documentation overly tampered with. A fictitious Apostle Simon Peter had for over a millennium been touted as the first pope of Roman Catholic Church. Someone believes that Catholicism began around 50 A.D. Could Peter have gone through the rituals of “Hail Mary, Queen of heaven”? Could it be true that Magus Simon, the sorcerer who simonized Peter, was the true founder of Catholicism? We know of certainty that it was never the Peter of the Bible, never! Why will Catholicism still thrive with all the overwhelming scriptural references that we have poured forth to prove the futility of the naughtiness characterizing their evil dogmas? It is simply because they have decided to be used by man’s greatest enemy, Lucifer, the Devil. When I look at the contribution of Catholicism to the disarray of the Church of God I have neither a doubt nor an apology in seeing it as the biggest religious fraud on earth! It took about a thousand and a half years for a protestant voice to effect a break from the iron clutches of Papal Catholicism!
I just cannot get over the fact of the dearth of biblical understanding among Christians when I hear something like the one that filtered into my ears from a pastor, “The Roman Catholic can’t be ignored, after all it is our mother church.” I wondered, “What, where did you get that! Don’t you know the Church was inaugurated in the ‘upper room’ on the day of Pentecost?” It was birthed by the Holy Spirit HIMSELF (to establish God’s eternal ownership) on Pentecost Day (for whosoever will be involved in this epochal movement shall have the second death pass over him. Amen!). Catholicism interloped! The Bible says in Hebrews 9:27, “And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:” so how come Catholicism teaches still of purgatory? Simony is definitely the hidden answer! Are billions of souls not involved in this heinousness? Is it not for this reason Jesus warned, “…broad is the way…?” Catholicism is of the firm belief that the Church is to be placed above scripture, the express Word of God, instead of subject to it, little wonder the Protestant angst. Philosophical isms thrived under the Catholic hegemony of the Church, unfortunately.
Pelagianism, Scholasticism (9th-17th c.), humanism (13th c.), and their offshoots: existentialism, liberalism or modernism and neo-orthodoxy received a flourishing Catholic espousal. Pelagius (circa 354–420/440 A.D.) was an ascetic who denied the need for divine aid in performing good works. His teachings influenced Arminian belief that one can lose one’s salvation. Scholasticism, a tradition or school of philosophy, originating in the Middle Ages, combines classical philosophy with Catholic theology; “It is a philosophic and theological movement that attempted to use natural human reason, in particular, the philosophy and science of Aristotle, to understand the supernatural content of Christian revelation. It was dominant in the medieval Christian schools and universities of Europe from about the middle of the 11th century to about the middle of the 15th century. The ultimate ideal of the movement was to integrate into an ordered system both the natural wisdom of Greece and Rome and the religious wisdom of Christianity” (from Encarta 2009).

Secular Humanism

‘In the beginning,’ humanism believes, ‘man made God’

Humanism is a term freely applied to a variety of beliefs, methods and philosophies that place central emphasis on the human realm; and though much of its activity was Christian intentioned, the relationship between Christianity and humanism is complex and not wholly untroubled: for Erasmus, Calvin and Melanchthon did approach scripture humanistically. Kierkegaard (1813-1855) who taught that Abraham’s acceptance to sacrifice Isaac made Abraham a murderer (forgetful of Genesis 22:1), is the founder of Liberalism, a philosophy which rejects the Bible as the infallible word of God and disparaging objective, intellectual truth, is based on subjective, emotional and personal experience. These incursions create in many church leaders, a sense of individualism.
It does not surprise me, therefore, when in some churches the pastors give a prayer point to members thus, “Pray to God to give you the power of the Holy Spirit, in order to overcome witches!” Have these pastors and or evangelists forgotten what Jesus promised in, Acts 1:8 “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth”? Right from the upper room event of the day of Pentecost (Acts chapter 2), every born again Christian is endowed with the Holy Ghost power. You will also hear a prayer instruction like, “Call the name of Jesus three times before you pray this prayer” or “Call the name of Jesus seven times and say Holy Ghost Fire three times then pray harrrrd!” Where, in the Bible do you have this formula? Methinks it is faith, Mark 11:24, “Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.” “Today, you are going to give offering for each of your business, career, house, home, Sunday worship, end of the year, the incoming year and whichever you’ll wish to add and make sure not forget that of your first fruit.” The monied members, especially, the very rich are the ones who will satiate the pastors’ filthy lucre mindset. The millionaires have the church leaders’ ears and unalloyed attention. Their huge expenditure and influence (satanic) have drawn another roadmap for the ecclesiastics. You will hear the head of the local assembly warning, “God doesn’t want to see the hair of women, therefore cover your head tightly, leaving not even a strand of hair loose; fear God!”
I was explaining to Sunday and Segun, two colleagues at Household of God Church, how I believe 80% of Christians believe that salvation can be lost and Sunday said, “You are not even talking about 90%,” while Segun’s understanding was, “In fact it’s like 99%!” Please read my post, a five-part “Why Go Arminianistic Soteriology” with over 130 treated verses to show that if you are truly born again you cannot lose your salvation. Some are too holier than thou such that they dare not put on a foot wear the minute they are dressed for church service, God will, no doubt, be wroth with them! I can tell you in all sincerity that this insistence on bare foot worship is not in any way from the Bible, it emanates from the occult practices.

Read the 3rd & concluding part. Click Here

THE GENESIS OF HUMANISM (2)

After the Deluge we see Nimrod, whose name means ‘rebellion’ or ‘valiant’ championing a desire to, “Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth” [Genesis 11:4]. It was not for the reverential Creator. It was for a personal ‘us’. Humanism is a masquerading toga of satanic rebellion. It is his medium of expressing his distaste for God and His mission on earth. Humanism is a tower of Babel, a huge confusion. As they scattered abroad they took two things with them, to their various nations, the instructive words of Noah, passed down generations and the destructiveness they learned from the leadership of Nimrod; a reminiscence of what the pristine parents ate – fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. Lucifer was never faced with a dearth of receptacles to keep and disseminate his nefarious doctrines!

Oratory renaissance of Greece produced global philosophers whose ideas fashioned universal intellectualism which crept into every facet of human endeavours. Docetism found an inroad into the Church, teaching that Christ was merely a consciousness which came on Jesus, left Him and to another person, disparaging the Incarnation and consequently the existence of an Almighty Jehovah. Satanic beat must go on, and observing that his religious grip a la Catholicism was weakening he had to check his receptacles and he found a willing Brunetto Latini to hoist the flag of Humanism, laced with the philosophies of Greek Aristotle and Italian Cicero. Earlier Bishops of Catholicism like Augustine were known to have expressed humanistic values. Humanism seems humane but the spiritual underlying currents are quiet ominous! It employs highfalutin rhetoric, poetry and philosophy to deceive unsuspecting and ear itching fellows. The erudition of Roman Catholic priest, Erasmus stems from his humanist proclivity. So was Philipp Melanchthon and also John Calvin. The teaching of James Arminius, which catechizes that for a born again to finally make it to heaven he will have to keep contributing moral goodness (quiet humanistic), was influenced by the humanism of Erasmus and Melanchthon. An estimate of over 90% of Christians still believe (humanistically, unbeknown to them) that Christ’s vicarious death is inadequate to get them to heaven unless a personal act (of individualism) is performed! Please do read my blog titled, “Why Go Arminianistic Soteriology” (5 parts) which has over 130 treated verses of scripture to prove security of salvation.

Secular Humanism, they will tell you, is not a religion. Humanists are of the pinion that a humanist religion is an oxymoron. Do they not believe in something? Do they not see themselves as gods? Pre-Socratic philosophic writings prove the existence of humanistic beliefs. They were discovered through Muslim sources and translated from Arabic to European languages. Secularism is a term invented by George Jacob Holyoake in 1851, to describe a form of opinion which concerns itself only with questions, the issues of which can be tested by the experience of this life. Secular humanism postulates that human beings have the capability to be ethical or moral without religion or a god. It holds a strong viewpoint that ideology –religious or political –must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Do you know what the Bible says concerning faith, in Romans 1:17, 4:5; Hebrews 11:6? It says somewhere that without faith no man can please God. A faithless humanistic value is definitely Godless. An essential part of secular humanism is a continual search for the truth, primarily through science and, of course, philosophy. Science cannot answer all because there are things quite beyond it. Philosophy can also be erratic for knowledge is a developing fact. Utilitarianism and positivism and the likes are some of their guiding lights to happiness and no wonder their logo, internationally is the ‘Happy Human’.

'Happy Human'

‘Happy Human’ logo

Scholasticism is the philosophic and theological movement that attempted to use natural human reason, in particular, the philosophy and science of Aristotle, to understand the supernatural content of Christian revelation. Humanism was intended to replace an unsatisfactory scholasticism of the eleventh century. Both of these philosophies thrived with the help of Catholicism. This is why one has to be very careful in the hearing and the study of the Bible. Too many dogmatic pollutions pervade the catechisms in Christendom. Philosophy is the bane of the theological disruptions the Church is grappling with. Lucifer slipped it into ecumenical plantation, using his warped Judases. The Bible is clear enough except for technicalities arising from the original writings of Hebrew and Greek (which are not impossible to study). Those who will want to have it their way will always find a way of distortion, misrepresenting the truth of the word of God to suit the purposed intention. Cabbala, Docetism, Gnosticism, Arianism, Hegelianism, Spiritism, Aminianism, Liberalism, Existentialism and what have you? They have taken their ill tolls in making a nonsense of God’s protocol. Thank God there will always be Christians to straighten the unholy twists. Amen!

THE GENESIS OF HUMANISM (1)

Human history places the rise of humanism, brought forth by an Italian Chancellor, Brunetto Latini (c. 1220-94), somewhere in the mid of the twelfth century. The truth, according to the revelation of Divine protocol (HIS story), is that it is a Luciferan proclivity, which he displayed before the throne of the Majesty on high, to proclaim and to establish the spirit of individualism. In the darkened, egoistic resolve of Lucifer, a messenger, we find the location of the genesis of humanism.

Seraphic_Lucifer

Seraphic Lucifer

Collins Dictionary defines humanism thus: “1. the denial of any power or moral value superior to that of humanity; the rejection of religion in favour of a belief in the advancement of humanity by its own efforts. 2. A philosophical position that stresses the autonomy of human reason in contradistinction to the authority of the Church. 3. (Often capital) a cultural movement of the Renaissance, based on classical studies.” Basically, humanism is against the worship of Jehovah and His Christ which will invariably jettison the dependence on the Holy Spirit. Lucifer failed in his nefarious attempt to actualize his utopian philosophy of individualism, which was intended to make him another personage of celestial adoration. Four is the scriptural numeration for creation so if he had succeeded he would have become the fourth Person in the Godhead, not by acquiescence of the Trinity, but by mere rationalism. Lucifer called himself God, when he is not the Creator, in heaven where the first church commenced. Humanism bestows deity on all humanists. So, you see, it did not begin on earth, in Italy, in the thirteenth century A.D.

                Put these scriptures, Jeremiah 4:23-26; 2Peter 2:4; Jude 6-7; 1Peter 3:18-20 & 22, together and you will find out that there is a difference between demons and fallen angels. While angels do not need to seek for a habitat to operate on earth for the simple reason that they, as spirit beings, can dwell anywhere as God’s messengers and can easily adapt (Genesis 6:1-4), a demon has lost his right to dwell on terra firma, having been stripped of his body (disembodied spirit) is constantly looking for a habitat (especially) human, to exercise his evil will. Jesus did descend deep down to preach dooms day to fallen angels. Evil spirits on earth will therefore be the foul demons who had inhabited the earth pre-Adamically whom the Devil persuaded, promising a utopian deification and leading to being their own lords, free forever. Humanism! The demons, no doubt are enjoying the utopia of being worshipped but for how long? A short time (Rev.12:12).

One thing I know about the Devil is that he never changes his modus operandi (which gives us an edge over him). In his Luciferian ophidism he had no choice but to preach, as always, an appealing oratorical, humanism. “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” Genesis 3:1. Lucifer, the Devil, asked thus to impeach the credibility of God’s verbalism. He needed to slander the Creator to win her over thus separating her from God with, “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” Genesis 3:4-5. This is pure individualistic indoctrination, with the sole attempt of making the Woman to believe that she did not need God after all; leading to a spiritual independence from the Most High!

She, like humanists, began to develop her own thoughts. She carried the thoughts to the evil conclusion, culminating in an evangelism of spiritual meretriciousness (for she, who belonged to God willingly did Satan’s bidding). Steeped in humanism, she did not see the preeminence of her husband but her own individualistic supremacy. So, she made sure that she must be the first one to acquire the knowledge. Individualism of humanism! Today’s wife thinks she is smarter than the man. She will rather dwell on gender inequalities, plunging steeply into vexatious state, instead of submitting to her husband. To Adam, the man, was the ordination of the Divine afflatus, hence, the priest, enjoying domestic superintendency. This is what her humanist induction blinded her to acknowledge (because, like Rev. Chris Okotie would say, Satan was taking them somewhere). The fructification of the injection of the opium of humanism into the woman led to Divine judgment and an inevitable eviction. It found a permeation in the first procreation. Cain.

Secular Humanism

                 Secular Humanism “Man, in the beginning, they believe, made God.

Humanism as a pure religion on earth finds its seminar in,”…neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die;” Genesis 3:3. Religion adds inconsequential taboos to one’s life unnecessarily, in a bid to bind one fanatically to it. When Cain must stand in worship of the God of his parents he decided to do it in his own way, sourcing his stance from the spirit of individualism. Such was the ossification of the heart of Cain as he displayed contumacy before God, as he turned his back on God’s saving elixir of sin offering, because he had found another god in himself, and earning the title of the first antichrist for himself as he strolled arrogantly away, like Lucifer, his spiritual father, to build the first city on earth! Cain, like every true humanist, saw in himself an achiever of greatness. True to humanistic type, Cain jettisoned his role in God’s plan, to the first family of man, to pursue an individual agenda. Cain means spear or javelin. His role, therefore is to protect the first human family, by warding off all external evil forces. Cain pitched against God’s intention. Every act of initiation receives a religious stance but when it runs contrary to God’s word it engenders evil omen. Cain sired Enoch, his first child, whose name means ‘initiate.’

Read the concluding part here

WHY GO ARMINIANISTIC SOTERIOLOGY (5th and concluding part)

Desiderius Erasmus

Desiderius Erasmus

James Arminius

James Arminius

Philipp Melanchthon

Philipp Melanchthon

Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) an erudite, international linguist who taught human freedom humanistically, did espouse a kind of Christian hedonism, justifying it from a religious perspective. Erasmus described himself as a poet and orator rather than an inquirer of the truth. Excerpt from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Erasmus reads, “In the practice of Erasmus and many other humanists, rhetoric functioned as a sort of anti-philosophy, a rival to the dialectical philosophy that had ruled medieval scholastic thought. The term rhetoric did not mean the windy, verbose decoration of oratory and writing that the term implies today – ‘mere rhetoric’. Humanists regard it as a practical way to investigate questions on which dialectical argumentation based on logic had proved unable to produce certitude. As noted earlier, rhetoric was the procedure to be used in pursuit of conclusions that could not be proved beyond doubt but were the most probable choice among alternatives explored. Many humanists, Erasmus among them, thought that many (or perhaps all) conclusions about abstract issues, including theological questions, were beyond reach of human reason. Nevertheless, they believed, careful consideration of the various alternative solutions of a question could determine which was the probable opinion.

Thus for Erasmus, rhetoric is the art of probable argumentation, ending not in the certitude claimed by the logicians but in a conclusion that one of the outcomes was more probable than others and could tentatively be regarded as true.” This humanistic rhetoric employed by Erasmus resulted in a psychological inflammation of individualism, the spirit of which rose up to idealize the thought of aiding the already finished work of sozo in him, which he taught as a Roman Catholic priest. Erasmus used rhetorical argumentation based on comparative study of all relevant biblical texts as well as the Church Fathers and later theologians to because to him any biblical question is open to debate unless the Bible, the Church decrees and the Fathers dictate otherwise, in which case he will believe what the scripture declares and what the church determines even if he does not understand the reason.

Philipp Melanchthon (Feb. 15th, 1497 – Apr. 19th,1560) who allowed his humanistic approach to becloud his theological office, called for, in 1518, a return to Classical and Christian sources in order to regenerate theology and rejuvenate society. He laid more emphasis on law as a principle of sanctification. In his ‘Instruction for Visitors’ articles of 1528, he urged pastors to instruct in the necessity of repentance and to bring the threat of the law to bear upon men in order to instill faith. (Now you can, I believe, understand the emergent source of the Remonstrant 5th point). To Melanchthon what secures a believer is the coexistence of justification and good works. (Good works a la humanitas). Humanism is anthropocentric, with a well spring of Greek and Roman Classical, pagan thoughts, where the writings of Greek Plato or Italian Cicero were never outdated or worn out. “Humanism (from the Latin humanitas),” according to Britannica 2014, “is the development of human virtue in all its forms, to the fullest extent. It implies well beyond the modern word humanity (i.e. understanding, benevolence, compassion, mercy) to such as the more aggressive characteristics as fortitude, judgment, prudence, eloquence and even love of honour. It necessitates participating in active life. It included not only realistic social criticism but also utopian hypotheses, not only painstaking reassessments of history but also bold reshaping of the future. In short, humanism calls for the comprehensive reform of culture; the transformation of what the humanist termed the passive and ignorant society of the ‘dark’ ages into a new order that would reflect and encourage the greatest human potentialities.” This is the philosophy behind what James Arminius crept into theology.

Humanism embraces realism; and realism is a philosophy that rejects the traditional assumptions and aimed instead at the objective analysis of perceived experience. This is what those who influenced him strongly believed in. The fifth point of the Remonstrant says, “Believers are able to resist sin through grace and Christ will keep them from falling, but whether they are beyond the possibility of ultimately forsaking God or becoming devoid of grace must be more determined.” What this whole grammar is trying to say concisely is that: a born again Christian can lose his salvation! Many, who are of the body of Christ, do not see the danger posed by this 5th Arminian point. I, hereby, do uncover it. It engages the believer in the nursing of the fear of an eventual fall, this struggle may likely lead to a constant life of an uncomfortable fear! Can a true Christian really live a life of no sin at all? Is it absolutely possible (days of minor ‘flimsy’ doubts; wrong decisions/judgments; misplaced thoughts)? 2Timothy 1:7 says, “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” The word ‘fear’ is deilia (di-lee’-ah): ‘timidity, fearfulness, cowardice.’ Deilia is different from the ‘fear’ we have in 1Peter 2:17, “Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.” Fear, in this verse is: phobeō (fob-eh’-o): (From phobos i.e. dread; reverence for one’s husband), it means: ‘to frighten, that is, (passively) to be alarmed; by analogy to be in awe of, that is, revere.’ Sōphronismos (so-fron-is-mos), which is what ‘sound mind’ is in the Greek, meaning: ‘discipline, that is, self-control.’

Are you aware of another sinister portent hanging ominously on Arminian perception of salvation? It is the annulling effect it wields on the magnanimity of the graceful assurance of soteriology. So misleading, what you started, James Arminius! Your perseverance point reeks of uncertainty. It makes one to think aloud, “This is a dicey situation.” The reason is simply that you do not know when you will die and what you are capable of doing at any given time of your life. We are left in the hands of the unpredictability of chance (or relentless luck). There is an objective revelation of God’s assurance to those who are truly born again in Romans 3:25, “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;” where ‘forebearance’ is anochē (an-okh-ay): ‘selfrestraint, that is, tolerance;’ in 1John 5:13, “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” The second ground stems from your need to exercise faith in God’s promise to save you in Revelation 3:20, “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” His Word is life. He eats, first, with you so that you will learn and know how to keep supping with Him. This is the third: the subjective experiences of being led, answers to prayers and love for the brethren that nurture assurance in the believer’s life, Romans 8:24; 1John 3:21-22 & 2:10. Assurance scriptures are: Romans 4:21; Colossians 2:2; 1Thessalonians 1:5; Hebrews 6:11 & Hebrews 10:22, which reads, “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.” The noun ‘assurance’ is plērophoria (play-rof-or-ee’-ah) means ‘entire confidence,’ which comes from a root word   {plērophoreō (play-rof-or-eh’-o): to carry out fully (in evidence), that is, completely assure (or convince), entirely accomplish: – most surely believe, fully know (persuade), make full proof of)}. The economics, ceteris paribus, Latin maxim is not applicable in this spiritual matter. Does the Bible, anywhere, paint in the most obscure available picture of soteriological incertitude (definitely not in the light of 1Peter 1:2-5 and 1Timothy 2:15)? If God should decide to go half way of the salvific work and be expecting a fallible nature like mine to complete what He had begun, then He is definitely leaving me at the mercy of the relentless Lucifer.

Why will one not have every reason to gibe or fleer at notable Arminians like the global headships of the U.S. based Baptist, The Apostolic Faith, British based Wesleyans, Nigerian based Deeper Life’s W.F. Kumuyi, Redeemer’s E.O. Adeboye and the fire spitting D.O. Olukoya of Mountain of Fire (to mention a few) if any of them should beat his chest and say, “I’m heaven bound.” “You’re not sure!” I will readily pose a remembrance. In one of the periodic publications of Mountain of Fire & Miracles Ministries, “Fire In The Word,” a testimony of someone who experienced heaven after death was mentioned in the printed sermon. In it, the testifier was said to have been asked in heaven whether Christians were not dying on earth again to which he answered that several Christians had been dying. He said the one who asked the question said it had been a very long time someone had made it to heaven, because all who had been showing up were being sent to hell, which was why he was wondering whether Christians were not dying. For the General Overseer of this church, Dr. D.K. Olukoya, to preach this which got into their publication is an indication of his acquiescence of this erroneous celestial fact. The first thing is: No one goes to heaven and comes back to give a report of it, John 3:13. How can anyone say that no born again Christian had died in the last decade or so? Second no one can be said to have received any judgment to hell after having made an unrighteous appearance in heaven: because the sentence to hell will only take place at the White Throne Judgment. Third thing is that an egregious beclouding of Arminianism exegesis is solely responsible for an acceptance and a subsequent believing of such unscriptural testimony and this is the result of imbibing wrong exegesis. You, most definitely, do not know who and what you are as a born again Christian. Now let us see who a Christian is.

In the book of Deuteronomy 14:1,”Ye are the children of the LORD your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead.” The word ‘children,’ in the Hebrew is ben (bane): ‘a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition.);’ ‘ben’ is from banah (baw-naw’): ‘to build (literally and figuratively).’ This is what a Christian is: building God’s family and name, as lively stones, yes, the choicest stones available in the eternity to come. Eternity, and that, is what God is looking at. Before the Holy Spirit enters anyone who is born again, that one would have satisfied God’s eternal gaze at this particular one. In the New Testament, in Matthew 5:9 we have, “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” The word children in Greek is huios (hwee-os) ‘a “son;” those who in character and life resemble God; those who are governed by the spirit of God.’ This brings us to Romans 8:14, For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” Verse 15, For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father;’ and verse 16, “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and I like to cap it all with verse 17, “And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.” What gave us this sonship status is found in Galatians 3:26,For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” The truth is that the huios is traditionally a legality; the huios, from the very moment he is pronounced so assumes an equality of status with his father and whatever he says concerning his father’s business is as final as it is binding, why? Because he has been given the spirit of his father. When Jesus called Himself the Son of God, what happened? They, in John 5:18, “….sought the more to kill him….but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.” As long as you cannot show me from the New Testament scriptures, where a child of God loses his sonship or where the Holy Spirit leaves a born again person you cannot sustain the Arminian 5th point. Does he or she still from the core of the heart believe that Jesus is the Saviour of his life and her heart? Heaven, then, is a surety.

         Any Christian who cannot control his acts needs to check himself well, maybe he is faking regeneration. Is it not a sin to harbour, in your heart, fear? For fear is in a diametrical opposition to faith. Where God says, ‘It’s ok,’ fear drives you crazy with, ‘Ha! You are in the deepest trouble!’ So, I ask, how can you commence your walk with God in faith (faith in HIS Word, not yours) and decide to use the faulty works of carnality to bring to perfection what God started in the eternity past? With the kind of fear that Melanchthon has successfully planted in unsuspecting hearts, are many Christians not in spiritual trouble? I am not against this Arminianistic teaching because of any theological persuasion I feel towards Calvinism. I am in favour of Calvinist ‘perseverance of saint’ not because I love everything about John Calvin but for the fact that the Bible clearly approves it, no more no less. I believe I have just settled another scriptural controversy. Let the true word of God prevail in the lives of HIS people! Amen!!