Aaron Ben Elijah

Christian || Researcher || Lover of History

[Aaron Ben Elijah @ben_bowei]

“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”

- C.S Lewis

[Gideon Odoma @gideonodoma]

IS Grok REALLY, REALLY an AI chatbot?

Stuck in traffic this morning and trying to distract myself from the prospect of missing my flight, I decided to grok a bit, just to confirm if I am the only mad one or if Grok shares in some of my alleged insanity.

"This guy you want to marry, is he really, really born again?" Whenever I reference such popular statements in my teaching, it is usually to say how theologically inaccurate it is, even though the intent may be noble. I would then say that the born again experience itself cannot be improved, therefore there are no degrees of born-againness, meaning that you are either born again or not born again. I would then clarify that what such statements actually intend to query is transformation and not regeneration. Anyone who has not heard me teach this hasn't heard me teach on holiness or transformation, at all.

So, seeing that there has lately been some noise about a clip of me saying there is a gradient in holiness or something of that hue (truth is, I haven't watched that clip, but I know what I have said – here & there – in that regard), I decided to disturb Grok this morning.

First I asked Grok to theologically differentiate between Righteousness & Holiness. It came back with the typical, orthodox response associating Righteousness with Justification (imputed & positional) and linking holiness with Sanctification (practical & progressive).

I followed up with the question in the screenshot. I asked:
"Theologically therefore, can a Christian be more holy than another, even though they are both equally righteous?"
First line of Grok's response, was:
"Yes, theologically, one Christian can be more (progressively) holy than another, even while both are equally righteous in the sight of God."

The last paragraph of Grok's response went:
"In short: Equal in Christ’s righteousness and positional holiness—yet capable of real differences in progressive holiness here and now. This is the consistent biblical and theological framework across historic Protestant, Reformed, and evangelical teaching."

I chucked to see Grok appealling to "historic Protestant, Reformed, and evangelical teaching." As if to say, "if you think I am insane in saying theologically, a Christian can be said to be more holy (progressively) than another, I got my view from historic Protestant, Reformed, and evangelical teaching."

WHERE THE CRITICS ARE RIGHT, but...
Granted, a theological case can be made for the view that in a sense a believer can be more holy than another, yet, it is another matter how believers express it.
Some believers pray in tongues more than others, yet, it isn't Christlike to boast to a whole church: "I thank my God that I pray in tongues MORE THAN you ALL..." Therefore, if you wake-up and begin to flaunt your supposed superior holiness in the faces of believers, it may actually be the evidence that you are not so holy after all, because flaunting in this case is synonym for boasting. Boasting, in context is not one of the evidences of holiness. Here then, the critics would be right, if there was no context to the clip other than just an attempt to say I am more holy than some believers (real or imagined).
But there is a context. It is that everytime some believer comes up to charge the church to holy living, some other believers (trying to discredit or discourage the preacher), would say things like: "see how he is talking as if he is more holy." It is against the backdrop of this blackmail strategy that I usually respond with, "So what? I may actually be holier than you, and you may truly be holier than me, because we are not all holy to the same degree." I say it in more or less a polemical context, to bite the bullet and return to the main issue of advocating for purity.

If context is missing in clip, I'd still expect critics to at least say, "I can grant the theology, but I don't see the piety – without context."
But Gotcha!

NB:
I just asked Gemini too
https://t.co/VjIBwRXvMp

[Aaron Ben Elijah @ben_bowei]

@SpiricocoNg The Transfiguration 🥹

[GodLogic_GL @GodLogic_GL]

Always remember to pray for the Christians in Nigeria🙏

[Gideon Odoma @gideonodoma]

LAST GBAS-GBOS (for now)... WITH A PERSONAL ANGLE

One of the recurring problem on CT–Naija is due to many saints not having allowance for significant disagreement on secondary points so that they can still consider the other (dissenting) side as legitimately Christian – enough to be accepted into genuine fellowship.

I have a lot of non-Pentecostal friends and mentors. A man I admire greatly and have learnt a lot from, is a cessationist.

In fact, I was a card carrying member of a non Pentecostal church till around COVID. I only fully embraced the Pentecostal label about 5 years ago. I grew up in a non Pentecostal church while being discipled in a Pentecostal 'fellowship.' It is why people like me can be at home on both sides of the isle.

Understanding where we disagree, and accepting that they are on non-essentials, make for healthy, respectful relationship and fellowship. I don't agree on all points of doctrine even with my Pentecostal friends and teachers. We know where we disagree, and we occasionally debate them, sometimes for long hours. But we agree that our disagreements do not touch on the heart of the Christian faith. We believe alike per the historic, essential doctrines of the faith. So, we share fellowship.

When I attend prayer meetings in certain circles, I try, out of respect for others, not to be heard blasting away in tongues, but my non Pentecostal friends knowing that I pray in tongues, don't feel violated if they hear (catch) me utter prayers in tongues, while they utter theirs in English language. Yes, because these are small group settings, even though my prayers are in muffled sounds (when the prayer leader says, "let's all talk to the Lord concerning XYZ..."), they definitely would hear me praying in tongues occasionally. They know I am not projecting. And they understand.

Here on CT, it is different many times. Every subject is easily stretched into an absolute, essential, make-or-mar issue. I even saw someone posit that if you believe in the 'Pentecostal' teaching of "Subsequence", you believe "another gospel". These things break my heart. And they weary the soul. Vehement disagreement can exist on the non essentials of our faith, but locating Subsequence at the heart of Christianity is ridiculously un-called for and uncharitable. But CT rolls like that some times... in fact, too many times.

Again, Pentecostals here are more generous to, and accepting of other legitimate blocs than can be said of our Calvinists/Reformed non-Pentecostal friends. This observation, by the way, has also been made by Reformed folks on this app. It is not an unwarranted generalization. And, we could all do better. Gbas–Gbos is not hard. But it is not always helpful. We can continue to disagree where needed, without being disagreeable while at it.

[Mex Asher @Thatnsukkaboy_]

My dear puritan, you have not tasted this life, please don't wish for it or feel bad that you don't have these experiences, they are not good ones at all, we sincerely regret these actions and many only escaped the consequences by whiskers.

I thank God for you that kept yourself

[Gavin Ortlund @gavinortlund]

It is another great day to tune out the noise, make our heart happy in Christ, meet needs around us, and remember that the struggle of this life is not meaningless. God bless you all.

[Dunsin Oyekan of #Geni @DunsinOyekan]

Can we make this trend today?

JESUS is my NUMBER ONE...

#Jesusmynumberone

[Gideon Odoma @gideonodoma]

Jesus!

[Michael Taiwo @AskMichaelTaiwo]

There was this boy who was on a journey to see who the most powerful was.

So he goes up to Iron and he asks Iron, he says, “Iron, are you the most powerful?”

Iron says, “No, you put me in fire and I melt.”

So the boy goes over to fire and says, “Fire, are you the most powerful thing in the world?”

And fire says, “No, you put water on me and I’m done.”

So the boy walks over to water and he says, “Water, surely you’re the most powerful thing in the world. You could put out fire.”

And water says, “Unfortunately, no. You leave me out in sun too long, I bake up and I’m done.”

So the boy looks up to the sun.

It’s powerful and beautiful.

And he says, “Sun, surely you are the most powerful thing.”

And he said, “No, see that little cloud over there that goes in front of me? I’m put away.”

So the boy again is just trying to find this and he goes to the cloud.

He says, “Cloud, surely you’re powerful. You could cover up the sun.”

He says, “No, just a little bit of wind pushes me away.”

So he goes to the wind. He says, “Wind surely you’re the most powerful.”

And the wind says, “No, I cannot move that mountain.”

So the boy goes to the mountain, says, “Mighty mountain, surely you are the most powerful thing.”

And the mountain says, “Even though I’m firmly planted right now, when man comes and chisels me away, I’m broken.”

So the boy goes to the man and he says, “Man, surely you are the most powerful out there.”

And the man shook his head and said, “No, son. Death comes to us all.”

And so the boy is kind of discouraged and he walks lonely and he finds Death.

And he goes over to death and says, “Death, surely you are the most powerful of all.”

And Death smiles big and proud.

And he says, “I have taken out kings and peasants, taken out rich and poor, but there was One. They crucified Him.” They were cheering. And I was so excited. I took His body and I was ruling for three days and I was celebrating.

But then He got up and He rose. He took away my power. He took my keys. He made me bow to Him and I could not have any power over Him.”

And the boy said, “What’s His name?”

He said, “His name is Jesus Christ.

He is the most powerful of them all.”

Happy Easter!

He. Is. Risen.

[Gavin Ortlund @gavinortlund]

There is an old Hussite slogan: "Truth prevails."

The more you think about that little slogan, the more profound it becomes. And Hus' story dramatizes it so powerfully.

[Gideon Odoma @gideonodoma]

And, if like Moses, Aaron and Hur, your own labour is in the secret spiritual frontline of intercession, while the Joshuas fight in the open fields, there should be an understanding, an agreement between both camps. I mean the Joshuas should KNOW there is a formation in the background that is funneling critical spiritual supplies into Joshua's open field context of the contest.

[Aaron Ben Elijah @ben_bowei]

If you’ve ever experienced a miracle, you’ll know miracles are real.

Are there false miracle claims? Quite a lot.

Should miracle claims be questioned or verified? Certainly!

But know this: the presence of fakes doesn’t negate the reality of originals.

#I_Believe_in_Miracles

[Gavin Ortlund @gavinortlund]

A simple practice that can help us all right now: log off and take regular breaks from the internet.
Let your nervous system return to baseline.
Re-center your heart in God, hope, nature, and friends.
This is a healthier place to speak from.

[Gavin Ortlund @gavinortlund]

If Christianity is true, it is not only good news, but the best news imaginable. It offers not just hope, but the best possible hope: that all who repent can experience eternal fullness of joy in fellowship with God.

[Spiricoco Twittter @SpiricocoNg]

How to fight your battles

[Aaron Ben Elijah @ben_bowei]

Quite a long piece but well worth the read!

[Mex Asher @Thatnsukkaboy_]

Nicaea, Constantine, and the Myth of an “Invented” Divine Christ and Doctrine of Trinity.

Few claims are repeated with more confidence, and less historical care, than the assertion that the Council of Nicaea invented the divinity of Jesus, imposed the Trinity on Christianity, and censored books from the Bible under imperial pressure. To understand how mistaken this claim is, one must first understand what Christianity was before Constantine, why Nicaea was convened, and what was, and was not decided there.

Christianity Before Power: A Church Born in Blood
For nearly three hundred years, Christianity existed without political leverage, military backing, or cultural dominance. The early Church survived by faith, endurance, and unwavering allegiance to Christ in the face of persecution.

Martyrdom did not mean dying with a sword in hand; it meant laying down one’s life rather than laying down one’s confession. The words of Jesus in Matthew 26:52 “All who take the sword will perish by the sword” echoed deeply in the Christian conscience. The Church fought no battles. It bore witness.

This is why Acts 1:8 is so striking. The word translated “witnesses” is martus, from which we derive martyr. To testify to Christ was, very often, to sign one’s own death warrant. As Paul declared, “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”

The Roman attempt to exterminate Christianity became, paradoxically, the means of its expansion.

It was a Roman governor—Pontius Pilate—who ordered the crucifixion of Jesus, thereby inaugurating the very faith Rome would later try to destroy. Some decades later, the historian Tacitus recorded that Emperor Nero “falsely charged with guilt, and punished with fearful tortures, the persons commonly known as Christians.” It was during this persecution that Peter and Paul were martyred.

As Tertullian famously wrote:
“We multiply whenever we are mowed down by you; the blood of Christians is seed.”
Persecution was not sporadic alone; it was often systematic. In AD 303, Emperor Diocletian unleashed the most severe persecution the Church had known. Churches were destroyed. Scriptures were burned. Christians were tortured unless they sacrificed to Roman gods.

The historian Eusebius, an eyewitness, records in Ecclesiastical History that:
“Royal edicts were published everywhere, commanding that the churches should be razed to the ground, the Scriptures destroyed by fire…”
This was the crucible out of which the post-persecution Church emerged.

Constantine and the End of Persecution
Against this backdrop arose Constantine the Great.

In AD 312, on the eve of battle at the Milvian Bridge against a rival force twice his size, Constantine reported seeing a vision of a radiant cross with the words “By this, conquer.” He ordered his soldiers to mark their shields with Christian symbols, an astonishing act given that Christians had been a persecuted minority only months earlier.

The following day, Constantine won a decisive victory and entered Rome as emperor.

In AD 313, Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, ending state-sponsored persecution and granting freedom of worship to all religions, including Christianity. This did not make Christianity the state religion, nor did it coerce belief. It simply allowed Christians, for the first time, to worship openly, preserve their Scriptures, and assemble without fear of death.

For the first time since the crucifixion, Christian leaders could gather publicly, not to invent doctrine, but to defend the faith they had already suffered for.

Why the Council of Nicaea Was Convened
The pressing issue facing the Church was not pagan pressure, but internal division—specifically the teachings of a presbyter named Arius.

Arius taught that:
The Son had a beginning.
The Father alone was eternal.
The Son was divine, but not God in the fullest sense.

In Arius’ own words:
“There was when He was not.”

Though Arius used exalted language for Christ, the logic of his position was clear: God created a secondary divine being. This was not biblical monotheism, it was a refined form of polytheism.

To address this crisis, Constantine called for a council at Council of Nicaea in AD 325. He invited bishops from across the empire, from Spain to Syria. Though over a thousand were invited, around 250–318 bishops were able to attend.

These were not political opportunists. They were, as later historians described them, “an assembly of martyrs.”

Some bore the scars of torture.
Paul of Neo-Caesarea had his hands permanently disabled by hot iron.
Paphnutius of Egypt had lost an eye.
Others bore the marks of imprisonment, exile, and mutilation.

These men had survived persecution without surrendering their confession of Christ. It is implausible—indeed insulting—to suggest they suddenly invented a new theology to please an emperor.

What Nicaea Actually Decided
Arius was given a fair hearing. His position was examined carefully. When its implications became clear, the bishops recognized that it contradicted:
Scripture (John 1:1; John 20:28; Philippians 2:6),
Apostolic teaching,
The Church’s long-held confession of one God.

The result was the Nicene Creed, affirming that the Son is:
“Begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father.”

This was not a philosophical innovation, it was a theological safeguard. The creed did not invent Christ’s divinity; it protected it.

The vote was decisive: over 300 bishops affirmed the creed, with only a handful dissenting.

Nicaea did not:
Invent the Trinity,
Deify Jesus for the first time,
Remove books from the Bible,
Impose pagan philosophy on Christianity.

It did one thing: it drew a boundary around the faith the Church already believed, preached, and died for.

Conclusion: A Creed Written in Scars

The doctrine of Christ’s divinity was not born in an imperial palace. It was forged in prayer, proclaimed in persecution, and sealed in martyrdom long before Constantine ever saw a cross in the sky.

Nicaea did not create orthodoxy; it clarified it.
It did not corrupt the Church; it defended her.
And it did not replace Scripture; it bowed to it.

The Nicene Creed is not the product of power—it is the testimony of a Church that had already conquered the empire without a sword, by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony.

[Gideon Odoma @gideonodoma]

Welcome to 2026!

[Aaron Ben Elijah @ben_bowei]

“Don’t let your intelligence slip away because you were too lazy to do something intellectuals have been doing for thousands of years.”

[Michael Taiwo @AskMichaelTaiwo]

Smart people read books.

Read fiction. Read non-fiction. Read history. Read philosophy.

Take notes along the way because ideas will jump out. Dots will connect. Patterns will emerge.

You might never look at your notes again. But the magic of reading books is finding that one idea that could change your life.

Don’t let your intelligence slip away because you were too lazy to do something intellectuals have been doing for thousands of years.

[Spiricoco Twittter @SpiricocoNg]

Merry Christmas, everyone!

O the Incarnation.
The eternal God born as Jesus of Nazareth.
The One who has always been God added humanity to His divinity, so that humanity might partake of divinity.

The One against whom we sinned eternally, deserving eternal punishment, offered His eternal blood as payment for our sins, that we might be eternally justified.

The holy, sinless God offered Himself as our substitute in the place of judgment, so that our sin was punished in Him, and His sinlessness was credited to us.

O the sacrifice that paid for sins.
O the substitution that satisfied God’s wrath.
O the redemption that bought us back from death.
O the propitiation that appeased God’s judgment.
O the expiation that removed our guilt and punishment.

O Jesus, who stepped from eternity into time, so that at the end of time we might dwell in eternity with You.

O Son of God, thank You. We worship You. To You be glory forever. Amen.

[Nathaniel Bassey @nathanielblow]

A good time to make this spread and trend again…….
Let’s go !

Jesus just has to be who He says He is. No one gives this joy that He gives.
We celebrate our king, JESUS !