­
15 49.0138 8.38624 1 4000 1 https://hoojewale.com 300 0

H.O. Ojewale

H.O. Ojewale

February 2025

Didactic Incongruity With The Scripture (IV)

February 26, 2025
by hoojewale
0 Comments
Damina teaches on wealth acquisition. I quote him verbatim: “If you follow the Bible to make money, you’ll be poor all your life. That’s why the poorest people are in Church.” According to this man, who believes he is a Bible teacher, “The Bible is a poor material for money making.” This is what Dr. Damina has to say about the great Patriarch of Israel, “Abraham was a shrewd, wicked businessman. When he discovered he was broke, he used his wife as collateral to bring money.” Is Dr. Abel Damina truly called by Jesus to pastor in the Lord’s vineyard? When I told a concerned Christian Brother, Joseph Uwana, that Damina probably takes something to enhance his idiosyncratic faux pas when it comes to biblical didacticism, the dear Brother said, “I believe he takes very huge doses of the substance:” which I want to agree with. Is it impossible that some haters of Jesus could have approached Damina with huge amount of money to get him to distort the Bible? One cannot rule out Damina's possibility of having dined with Satanism, ergo, his spirited voracity to impugn revealed words of theological flawlessness. The first thing to ask is how he came about the empirical data proving that the Church habours the poorest of the globe. We need to understand what the Bible is. It is the express Word of God, aimed at Adamic growth, restoration, salvation and nurture in all ramifications. God surrounded Adam and his Woman with everything that makes the unknown – phenomenality of lack – a nonexistent issue. The four rivers that ran out of Eden were filled with untold riches. Who put these riches there, Adam? If God is the Creator of wealth, can His love letter (the Bible) not contain modus of wealth acquisition? But trust Damina and his arcane sophistry. Damina will use eisegetical wickedness to debunk scriptural clarity – as if that does not constitute evil rascality when it comes to running a bucolic office of the Lord’s vineyard. Today’s Churches are truly filled with ear-itchy ignorant mass. They will choose to believe wrong teachings. Anyone who tells you that the Bible cannot make you rich is conversely saying that God cannot make one rich. Is God not the Author of the Bible? Is the Church, which is the house of God, not the pillar and ground of truth? Does it make any sense at all, that an architectural structure that domiciliates the assemblage of God’s children, cannot teach anyone how to become very wealthy? Is the Bible bereft of wealth creativity for the children of God?Read More
born again, Christianity, Doctrinal Issues, Jesus Christ, The Bible
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Didactic Incongruity With The Scripture (III)

February 22, 2025
by hoojewale
0 Comments
The philosophy of modalism has its quiddity sourced from linguistic manipulation to the enthronement of faces or modes culminating in the jettisoning of the theological Trinity. The sovereignty of the Most High Jehovah cannot, as a matter of fact, stop Him from using different faces of Divine manifestation. The problem of modalistic view arises from its detachment from revealed principle of the Bible. Modalism establishment of faces for Divine modus operandi stands a repudiation of Bible's distinction of Persons of the Godhead. Get them Scripturally cornered and what do you hear from their linguistic manipulation, “The Bible is filled with metaphorical innuendos.” Quite apropos is the facticity that the Author of the Bible must have the preeminence of being the first subject of reference in the first opening words of The Book. It says, “In the beginning God created…” and should it surprise me if they come up with, “The plurality of elohiym is metaphorically a mere deference to the Most High.” Whoever conjures that must reach deeper into the hat for more magical rabbits: for the same Bible has the Hebraic singular Eloah for the same Most High! Who constitute the “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...” of the empyrean council as pertaining to the creationism? Was God engaged in divine soliloquy? Yes, He can decide what to do, but it is equally absurd to soliloquize Genesis 1:26, in the light of Trinitarian concept. Could He be addressing angels? They cannot be participatory authors of creationism for the obviosity of making them equally Gods of empyrean worship. Does the throne of the Rainbow Administration of Jehovah suffer vacuity? Modalism’s strictly oneness portrayal of Divinity means that He manifests as Christ, Father or Holy Spirit of His individualism. Does He leave one of His faces on the throne when He makes His divine manifestation away from heaven? The throne had never been unoccupied.Read More
born again, Christianity, Doctrinal Issues, Jesus Christ, The Bible
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Didactic Incongruity With The Scripture (II)

February 17, 2025
by hoojewale
0 Comments
Some teachers of Bible believe this modalistic position of Monarchian sect, which by the reason of its Scriptural baselessness, makes it an incursion of Satanism with ineluctable ternary motto of come to steal, kill and destroy. The first sentence of the Bible bespeaks the Trinitarian concept. The fourth word of Genesis 1:1, ‘God’, is Elohiym, a plurality of the Members of the Godhead. The Father spoke in commencement of creationism. The ipseity of the Second Member, Christ, the Light of verse three, manifested physically to consummate re-creationism. In verse two, it says, “And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” (Genesis 1:2). Was God talking to two disposable faces in the divine decision of Genesis 1:26? This One, Who walked up to and took from the One Who sits on the throne, possesses the feet and arms of eternality, ergo, He could achieve that feat of taking from the eternal hand of God, Who Himself is very God of very God. Did the LORD God divide Himself into the Eternal Father and the Lamb, the Son of God? The Bible says, “And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb,” signifying the absolute ipseity of the Second Member of the Godhead, Jesus Christ. Will the angelic awesome foursome bow in latria before another, other than the Eternality of the seated Father? You know something? Hawkers of the teaching of Divine oneness anomalism will want to argue that it is only the Christ – one of the masks of the Godhead – that is being given the latria in this verse.Read More
born again, Christianity, Doctrinal Issues, Jesus Christ, The Bible
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Didactic Incongruity With The Scripture (I)

February 13, 2025
by hoojewale
0 Comments
Lucifer sought to promote himself to the status of a member of the council of the Godhead, in conspicuous flagrancy that tended to make nonsense of the Creator’s decision in creating him a serving angel and not a member of the Godhead. This stray turned Lucifer into the Devil. It is quite easy to become God’s antagonistic evil of Satanism. The minute you veer yourself off God’s scriptural tandem, something happens: the author of Satanism, who has actually devised and wished for you to follow him, will begin to open other books to feed your new vagrant estate. Why do philosophers continue to struggle with life without Jesus? They think they are too wise to be spiritually driven by the Word of God. We should be very careful about what we imbibe into our spiritual system. You cannot think outside the box, as far as the Holy Bible is concerned. Someone dared to embrace the inimical invitation of Lucifer’s teaching, forgetting that Satan comes to steal, kill and destroy. That someone is a North African Sabellius of Libya, born in the early third century AD, decided, on account of his satanic indoctrination, to float an egregious anomaly known as Sabellianism, also known as modalistic monarchianism. According to Epiphanius of Salamis, Sabellius used the sun’s characteristics as an analogy of God’s nature. Just as the sun has “three powers” (warmth, light, and circular form), so God has three aspects: the warming power answers to the Holy Spirit; the illuminating power, to the Son; and the form or figure, to the Father. Sabellius used the term “prosopa” which is Greek for “faces” to describe how the person of God has three faces, this idea is found in 2Corinthians 4:6 “…God’s glory displayed in the face (prosopon – singular form of prosopa) of Christ.”Read More
born again, Christianity, Doctrinal Issues, Jesus Christ, The Bible
, , , , , , , , , ,

Covenant Between God And Man (five)

February 9, 2025
by hoojewale
0 Comments
The same LORD God Who took upon Himself the flesh of humanity did sit among His disciples for the inauguration of the New Covenant. Remember He told them in John 6:56 “He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him”? Only if they knew this One present in their gaze was at once in heaven and very present before them – John 3:13 – is the Omnipresent Jehovah, would they have left Him, knowing that Jesus is the LORD of Sabbath? The Adonai Jesus entered into the physical covenantal transaction with them when He handed them the bread and the wine – elements of the communion. Do they understand what ‘communion’ means? Moses caught the serpent by its tail, the most dangerous part to hold a live snake of mortiferous venom. This victory of Moses over the serpent proved that as dangerous as Lucifer and his Pharaoh were, they would not overcome the prophet of God. The choice of Moses could not have been a reality without the covenant. Exodus 4:22 “And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:” how did Israel become God’s son? Was it through the biological modus of the Adamic matrix? No, it was through the covenant God entered into with Abraham, the father of faith, faith that alone ignites gregarious rapport between Divinity and His creature, made in His image and likeness. Praise the LORD!Read More
born again, Christianity, Doctrinal Issues, Jesus Christ, The Bible
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Covenant Between God And Man (four)

February 4, 2025
by hoojewale
0 Comments
The covenant must be brought to the historicity of Adamic acquiesce. As it was an event in the eternal past of pre-creationism, so must it receive a historical compact between the Author of grace and the Adamic recipient of God’s soteriological beneficence – fulfillment of Scriptural pattern. God had decided to take full responsibility for the creation of Adamic free moral agency. There is a good reason in the heart of the Divinity for the creation of Adam. The historically first sinner, called Lucifer, before God, the eternal Judge, must be brought to judgment. The cup of Luciferian shenaniganry needs to be allowed to become full to its devilish overflow; proving fairness of Divine judgment. God looked into the world and found people whose hearts desire to worship the true God. His Omniscience saw that their sincerity was worthy of trust. The Members of the Godhead could not be wrong, so, man was privileged to enter into covenant of salvation with the gracious I AM THAT I AM. It was of utmost concernment that the I AM Whose existence, before the matrix conceived Abraham, had been in the eternality of the past, must sit in the presence of the Adamic recipient of the covenant for the codification of Luke 22:19-20.Read More
born again, Christianity, Doctrinal Issues, Jesus Christ, The Bible
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

H.O Ojewale

Archives