Confidence Ikedinma

Christian|| Boy Child Advocate ||Conversationalist || CS and Product.

[Confidence Ikedinma @confidenceife]

@DrFeruke Christ!!! In him ALL things hold together.

[Confidence Ikedinma @confidenceife]

Be thou an example of the believers

[Gideon Odoma @gideonodoma]

SPEAKING SOLEMNLY

Anyone living in sexual sins (fornication, adultery, pornography, etc), has no place in Christian ministry. Immorality is a very big deal, scripturally. The believer's BODY is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Yes, the BODY. Therefore, what you do with God's dwelling place must be of colossal significance. Don't you see it?

And, because of the sacredness of Christian ministry, while you can legitimately be a struggling Believer for a season, you cannot be a struggling minister, if the struggle is that you have not overcome sexual immorality. In this regard, the category of a struggling minister does not exist, biblically considered.

This is not about being a "wounded soldier." But in any case, if a soldier takes a bullet during combat, we don't hand him over to the enemies, yes. And we also don't leave him in the frontline to continue fighting – with his wound. We take him out and away for treatment. Whether he can even return to active duty later on depends on the severity/impact of the 'wound' sustained and the assessment of the team managing his case. Taking him out of combat is a responsible act of love and not a case of "condemning our own."

Back from the digression. It is alien to the spirit of Christ, to say someone is a minister of the gospel, even though he commits immorality. The practice of immorality cannot coexist with legitimate practice of ministry. A fornicator or an adulterer is not a Minister. Cannot be.

A minister of the gospel MUST be above reproach. People MUST be safe under his care. Money, too, MUST be safe under his care. The bible insists that he sustains a high level of integrity – morally, ethically, socially.
This is why the Charismata, the gifts of the Spirit are never mentioned as qualification or eligibility for ministry. Check the texts.

So, the practice of equating giftedness with eligibility for ministry is unbiblical and should be discouraged. Being a gifted speaker, for instance, does not qualify anyone for Christian ministry. If you know all the Rhema in the book, and all the historic fine points of orthodoxy, but you're an intermittent fornicator/adulterer, you are ineligible for Christian Ministry. You need to be discipled, you should not be discipling anyone, at all.
Read the passage below carefully, to the very last verse, please: It says a Pastor:
"...must be a good man whose life cannot be spoken against. He must have only one wife, and he must be hard working and thoughtful, orderly, and full of good deeds. He must enjoy having guests in his home and must be a good Bible teacher. He must not be a drinker or quarrelsome, but he must be gentle and kind and not be one who loves money. He must have a well-behaved family, with children who obey quickly and quietly. For if a man can’t make his own little family behave, how can he help the whole church? The pastor must not be a new Christian because he might be proud of being chosen so soon, and pride comes before a fall. (Satan’s downfall is an example.)  Also, he must be well spoken of by people outside the church—those who aren’t Christians—so that Satan can’t trap him with many accusations and leave him without freedom to lead his flock"

On the last point above, many people who work in Hotels don't take the church seriously because the see the behind-the-scenes lifestyle of Pastors. A minister must have one life, must be not be two-faced. And he must be an example to both insiders and outsiders.

If the church is weak, Satan is only a remote cause. If the church is weak anywhere, the church is the reason why.

And now, may the glorious Lord of the church step into this seeming perpetual desolation, and pour us the blessing that is Revival.

#CryForRevival

[Confidence Ikedinma @confidenceife]

@monsieurshyne1 @olumidecapital Bamboo. I recommend

[Confidence Ikedinma @confidenceife]

@bolutifeawakan Brand

[Confidence Ikedinma @confidenceife]

@LegacySiu Palmer!!!!🥶🥶🥶

[Confidence Ikedinma @confidenceife]

@Reaverick @Mohsule_ Are we going to do this again?

[Confidence Ikedinma @confidenceife]

@surecr7 @SpiricocoNg Chief you’re doing serious Combined service o. Dunsin mixed with Olamide and Wizkid. Haba nau

[Confidence Ikedinma @confidenceife]

@gutsyphilip @gutsyphilip shey you no go write book like this?

Marry Cargan Book "Inspired" on how to build Tech products that customers love really buttresses these things.

You na my oga normally. I hail thee

[Confidence Ikedinma @confidenceife]

@israelostudios @DunsinOyekan 😂😂😂

[Confidence Ikedinma @confidenceife]

@israelostudios @DunsinOyekan Upper room Onitsha no go bad o

[Confidence Ikedinma @confidenceife]

@drjoshagunbiade Great Grace, Much Power!!!

[Confidence Ikedinma @confidenceife]

If the Bible doesn't say it don't say it.

[Lekan Olayinka @lekan_olayinka1]

I didn’t always hold the view on alcohol that I now share here on CT.

My stance changed during our last debate, where I was confronted with Scripture and points that I couldn’t honestly refute.

@chukaobi pointed out that God instructed His holy people to drink wine and strong drink in His own presence.

That completely dismantled my earlier argument, which claimed that the Bible only permitted non-alcoholic wine, not strong drink.

Based on that, I had concluded we could only consume non-alcoholic beverages today.

But that verse alone disproved my position instantly. Then came even more comprehensive exegesis about the use of wine in the New Testament.

The final straw for me was Christian history. For 1,800 years, Christians around the world drank wine.

I had to ask myself: Is there an interpretation I could offer that forbids wine for Christians today, which somehow escaped every Christian thought leader for 1,800 years?

Some might hold on to that delusion—but I couldn’t.

So I yielded. And I saw clearly: the Bible only forbids drunkenness, not the consumption of wine.

This, I believe, is how we must approach Scripture—as believers who tremble whenever the Bible takes a clear stance, regardless of our personal views.

The same thing happened to me regarding infant baptism.

I initially considered it unscriptural. Then someone here challenged me.

He showed how Paul baptized the entire household of the jailer.

I countered, saying the Bible didn’t explicitly mention infants. He replied that I was arguing from silence—just because the Bible didn’t mention infants didn’t mean they weren’t included.

He then pointed to the writings of early Church Fathers and Church history, where infant baptism was widely practiced.

So what did I do? I yielded.

I wouldn’t personally baptize infants. I still don’t support the practice.

But I no longer believe it’s unchristian, not with the weight of evidence I’ve now seen.

It’s a more nuanced issue—not as clear-cut as the Scripture on alcohol.

But the principle remains: When Scripture is clear, we have no say.

To resist it is to tell God to His face that we know better—that He made a mistake in giving that instruction.

[Confidence Ikedinma @confidenceife]

@Toke_nusi @theniyifagbemi Really??

[Confidence Ikedinma @confidenceife]

@Wendi_Pangracia @RasineIrem Career??

[Confidence Ikedinma @confidenceife]

@Socrates_9ja @gideonodoma @Thatnsukkaboy_ It's totally fine to read and not comment with something this ridiculous. Thank you

[Confidence Ikedinma @confidenceife]

This really blessed me.

[Gideon Odoma @gideonodoma]

CT-NAIJA BLOCKADE
– A rather long & needless one (so, just read #2)

When you think through it, a Christian blocking a Christian is quite problematic or is at least spurious, for many reasons.

1. And, this is the least of all. It is simply self-sabotage. People you block can't access your material on the platform. You must think what they have to say is superior, is more important than anything you could ever say – to give them such treatment. As in, you think what they say is so effective that you are unable to counter or just ignore, so much you are willing to lose your own voice and your reach to them. You let them decide if you should hear them & also if they should hear you. Personally, I don't see why I would rate anyone that much. I have infinitely more things to say that people need to hear than any annoying or insulting thing anyone can ever say to me. This is more so because:

2. If you don't want to see someone's tweets, you can simply mute them? That way, they can see your tweets, but you won't see theirs unless you intentionally go fishing for them. You would also not be notified about their activities. Such a win, right?! Yes, because I value what I have to say even if I don't value what you have to say. Muting someone means that if they choose, they can see & engage your post, which then gives the world a chance to decide if any of you is a problem. If someone wants to be an insufferable egghead or be egregious, it will be obvious to all – that they, indeed, are the problem, not you. Again, you lose nothing. So why not mute instead of block?

3. I think it speaks of intellectual/ideological insecurity & fragility. Anyone who has any form of post-secondary education should have basic intellectual capacity for the ideological detachment needed to survive arguments, insults, disagreements, & everything else that tempt people to utilize the block feature online. Blocking people whose posts stress you is easy & very convenient, but like someone observed, following the path of least resistance makes all rivers & many men crooked. It may be convenient, but convenience is not always an ally in life. In fact, if I may ask, blocking people may be convenient for what? Again, because,

4. If in the name of guarding your "mental health" or liking your "peace," you keep blocking people, you'd eventually end up in a sterilized echo chamber. You'd create a false world where (mostly) everyone agrees with you, where there is hardly anything to trouble you into reconsidering your cherished & pet beliefs, even if you've arrived at them uncritically & even if they are misleadingly inaccurate. This is lazy & crippling. It leaves you in a false world of non-existent but curated utopia. There might even be some sort of intellectual fantasy-fetish underlying this disposition. However, the real world is messy, sadly. People disagree, people can be discourteous & opinionated. Yes, till Christ returns, people will be wrong, you will be wrong too.
To artificially and antiseptically isolate yourself into a peaceful cocoon impoverishes you. Because somehow, conflict management matures you. Dealing with disagreements can help you grow. You need to be able to read something inflammable and ignore it. Such ignored posts may trouble you for a bit, but that is how you grow... By dealing with it. By personally absolving or resolving it and making no fuss, no replies, no reference about it on the timeline. You just look, read, and walk away, like you saw nothing. This 'grace' comes (or settles) with practice.

I could say more, but let me apply the brakes here for now ... after all, some of those who need to read this won't read it, well, can't read it because – you are right – they've blocked me.

Next – if you don't block me before then – I want to talk to you about something heavy & serious: DRY PULPITS.

[Confidence Ikedinma @confidenceife]

@gideonodoma God bless you Sir!!!!!!

[Confidence Ikedinma @confidenceife]

@Dayizo @SpiricocoNg I be wan ask this question. Sadly there are

[Confidence Ikedinma @confidenceife]

@busayo_thomas @SpiricocoNg No more two by Gbile Akanni is solid

[Confidence Ikedinma @confidenceife]

@praizeemeka @pst_iren So it's nothing because Ronaldo did not win it. Una dey shock me o