C. Alan Martin

didaskalos · #**181** 16th August 2006, 08:05 PM

http://www.christianforums.com/showt...8&postcount=13

didaskalos · #**182** 16th August 2006, 08:09 PM

Moving toward 10000

didaskalos · #**183** 16th August 2006, 08:13 PM

Actually I see the spirit of Christ in us as if it were one of those little pegboard toys. Our spirits are empty pegboards that can recieve "beliefs pegs" shaped like the associated pegholes. Christ is the pegboard of God and has all beliefs. We only start with a few... but the Holy Spirit begins to build them into us through time. It is the goal of God to fill as many of these pegholes as possible.... and in the process we become more like Him.

didaskalos · #**184** 16th August 2006, 08:15 PM

You cannot confess what is not in there to start with.
Confess means to "say the same thing"... in this case it means to "say the same thing as you believe"

WoF does seem to present a case for confession creating belief... IOWs if you confess something over and over, eventually it will generate belief within you. I would get into the "can we generate beleif by choice" thing again, but I see no evidence that we can choose to believe anything, and so the belief has to come for other sources.

didaskalos · #**185** 16th August 2006, 08:17 PM

There are a couple people who frequent P/C who I find are absolute conversation killers. It seems no matter what you say or how nice you say it, they always come back with "I feel condemned" or "stop judging me". And of course if you dare say anything in response, you are considered the heavy, uncompassionate, and cruel. Of course I think that is the intention all along. It has worked for them all their lives and so here they are again and why not try it again?
Beyond that, there are other members who I call "baby pinchers" who have no scruples about pinching the afore mentioned babies and then pointing at you as if you did it. Kind of like the mischievous older brother who knows how to get his brother in trouble. And again, they do this on purpose. They simply do not know how to discuss issues objectively... and since they cannot "win" a debate based on the facts, they fall back to these devious methods to achieve their purpose... which is to shut down the conversation. If you cannot win... then pinch the babies, get them crying, and then nobody can get a word in edgewise. End of discussion.
They get very angry when I point these things out... even worse when I liken them to the atheists in GA. Same logic, same methods, same superficiality.

As far as discussion in WoF.. there are some very good uses of this forum which I have taken advantage of many times.
One is to use the forum as a study tool. Throw out ideas against people and get feedback. Explore possibilities. Suggest different possibilities. As you mentioned, people here do tend to agree with each other in most areas. Use this fact to your advantage. There are concepts and possibilities I have floated here that I can no where else because frankly, most people out in the suburbs do not have a clue as to what we are talking about. Know it or not, people in this subforum are heads to shoulders above them. I am not being arrogant.. I am just stating a fact. They don't believe in faith or the integrity of the word, so as far as I am concerned trying to carry on anything above a goo-goo conversation is just a waste of time. Most of them have no clue as to what I am talking about when I introduce a baby level topic like "revelation knowledge" or "confession of the word". So this forum is great because we speak the language of the word, and not the language of "mere theism". If I want pagan ideas, I will go to the suburbs. If I want people who know the word and what faith in God is all about, I come here. Of course some will read this and get offended...
what can you do

didaskalos · #**186** 16th August 2006, 08:22 PM

The doctrine of personal suffering comes from unbelief and doubt.
It worms its way out of an unbelief that Jesus really meant it when He said "it is finished". They do not believe the Jesus really did everything that was needsd to save us from start to finish. They doubt that He is the author and finisher of our faith. They do not believe that He can save us "to the uttermost".
SO...
They feel like they therefore have to start adding some works of their own. A little suffering here, a little poverty there.... all designed to "make up" for what they fear Jesus did not accomplish.
WoF teaches that Jesus accomplished it all. He has done everything needed to save us in every way we can be saved, spiritually, soulically, and physically.
He has already given us all things that pertain to life and godliness.
He has already given us all spiritual blessing in heavenly places.
He has already made all the promises of God yes and amen.
He has already been made a curse for us so that we would be redeemed from every curse listed in the law that came as a result of sin.
He already gave us His name to use... they doubt that name has all authority in heaven.
We have already been made the righteousness of God in Him.
We do not have to do any works or suffering to add to that godliness. To attempt to add suffering in order to improve your spirituality is a result of your doubting that He has given us all things to be holy.

Another reason the sect of religious suffers assign their suffering to God is the absence of fellowship with God in their life. They are so desperate to see the hand of God in their lives, that they will assign anything that happens to his Hand. In doing this, they can feel like He is active in their lives. We know that the method God uses to perfect and refine His people is edification, comfort, and exhortation. Not sickness, poverty,and suffering. When we walk in faith toward Him and His word, we have fellowship based on faith, the Word, and the Spirit. They choose to base their fellowship on their sicknesses, suffering, and in many cases self inflicted poverty. None of this helps them spiritually one iota. Jesus Accomplished it all, and their efforts are nothing more than dead works that we have been called to repent from. It is the very first doctrine of Chirst listed in Hebrews 6. Since this is called a "foundational doctrine", it has many other teachings built upon it. Because they have gross error in their teachings, they also have gross error in their faith. Hence they find it very difficult both to change their doctrine and change their faith

didaskalos · #**187** 16th August 2006, 08:27 PM

I suppose one would have to ask if "awareness" is "belief"?
Does knowing a thing equate to believing a thing?
Is it possible to know something from a perceptional pov and not actually believe it?
Is it possible to believe a thing in the spirit and not know it perceptually?
Could it be that perception (even of things future) does not proceed to belief?
Where does empathy enter in? Knowledge without empathy may not generate belief. Hence reading the book "Star Wars" does not create the entire star wars universe as reality. Knowing is not believing. Empathic drive is what moves knowledge to beleif. Until one exercises the empathic drive (holding a thing know as a thing real) regarding a thing... that thing remains simply a concept or a blueprint.
Speaking is what moves a belief from the mere empathic concept to reality. God knows that whatever He says comes to pass. But then faith has to remain in order for that thing to remain in existance. Faith holds real things together. So IMHO faith is needed even when a thing exists and is known. We walk by faith not by sight. That also means we do not walk according to things that we see and beleive. Faith brings it into existance, and then faith causes it to continue to exist.

didaskalos · #**188** 16th August 2006, 08:28 PM

One of my favorite movies is "Being There" with Peter Sellers.
Fantastic move.
We like to listen to the educational channels on TV sometimes. Every once in a while a guy will get on there and get to talking and the wifey will say: "that guy is either really smart, or really stupid, because I have no idea what he is talking about...". I do not think anyone here is stupid. Unless of course they dummy down to the "omni factors" and just give up trying to know anything about the super duper unknowable God.

WoF does not do that... at least not the theology of Kenyon/Hagin, which is my base for understanding WoF.

One thing about launching out into unknown (at least to us) territory is that you do not know what you do not know... else you would already know it.

What I am wondering is how God "knows" the future if it does not exist. I can see the possiblity of it not actually existing and am proceeding from that assumption for this discussion. So where might He get that knowledge? How does He know that the "abomination that makes desolate" is going to rise up in the end? Is there some mechanism that enables Him to know something that is unknown?

didaskalos · #**189** 16th August 2006, 08:30 PM

There are so many differences in the nature and abilities of God that I am not sure we are really addressing the issues.
We as humans cannot see all things at once. In fact we have a hard time focusing on more than one thing at a time. Yet it seems God has the ability to see and perceive all things simultaneously. As to our current discussion... it would seem that God is not only aware of all things immediate, but all things at every instant of their existence, past, present, and future(all at once, also known as omnipercipience). This boggles the noodle and puts Him in a class of being that is truly beyond what we can conceive.
You know my opinion of the "omni factors" and how we should default to the Jesus image. I think this is partially why. We see people trying to manage their faith life according to aspects of God that are simply beyond our abilities to comprehend. Instead of allowing these "omni factors" to augment their faith in a God that can literally do anything... they miss-use the "omni-factors" in such a way as to destroy knowledge of God. They put God out of reach and beyond comprehension... and so beyond our ability to believe and therefore have faith. Hence God sending Jesus to show us the simple truth about who and what the Father is. I refer to this as the image of God that He intends for us to know and act on. Jesus is the image of God that is manageable, that we can see, believe, and comprehend. This, I think, is what the revelation of John is all about in his gospel and epistles.

1 John 1:1-4 (KJV)
[1] That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
[2] (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us)
[3] That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
[4] And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.

Without this "manageable" revelation that came in Jesus... God can only exist in type and shadow. The heavens declare the glory of God... and we have yet to even find an end to those heavens. The firmament declares His handiwork... and we cannot even explain why things work. Without Jesus, the best we have is a backside image of God and a passing shadow. In Jesus we have an exact image of how God wants us to perceive and understand Him. That image does not always seem to line up with the omnis, and shadows, and types... but He is the image we are to accept and believe. That is what makes us Christians... and not mere theists.

didaskalos · #**190** 16th August 2006, 08:32 PM

I personally believe that God the Father does have a physical body. Jesus is literally sitting at the right hand of the Father... which requires He has a right hand to sit next to. When Stephen saw the heavens open, He saw the two... Father and Son.

Acts 7:55-56
55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

I do not think this was symbolic. It was the real Jesus and the real God. If God existed in some form other than "human-like" then how did Stephen know Him to be God? What else might he have seen? A giant tuna? A cow?
A bar of soap?