Anyone Remember what happened to Carlton Pearson? Also, how to deal with Inclusion Doctrine in WOF?

[Gxg (G²)]

Shalom..

Something that came to my mind recently when going through the boards was the following:

If you follow the "God is sovereign" reasoning to its logical conclusion you'll end up at one of two destinations. Predestination teaches that some are pre-ordained for salvation and others are pre-ordained for damnation, therefore if a person goes to hell it must be due to the sovereignty of God. Otherwise you'd have to remove His sovereignty from the equation and make the faith and the will of the individual in question the determining factors. On the other hand Universalism teaches the ultimate reconciliation of all. It goes something like this. Since God is sovereign, and since He isn't willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance, in the end He will see to it that all come to Him and share in His eternal kingdom. Nobody can resist His grace.

Both lines of thinking are obviously flawed, because even though God is sovereign, and even though He doesn't want anybody to perish, He will not take away from anybody their free will. That's why the bible talks about the will of the individual. Do a quick rundown on the words "whoso" and "whosoever" in your concordance and you'll see that God values and honors our free will.

Seeing how things can be taken to extremes (and I appreciated what Simon said on the matter), I was writing due to how I have seen a trend within the world of WOF at certain parts of the camp - and that specifically is in regards to the subject of God's Word not being something that is central in the lives of others - above all else. Specifically, this has been brought up in regards to how the message of God's grace has been taken to such extremes as to make it seem as if everyone will go to Heaven regardless - and growing up in the Faith Movement, this was always something that was a HUGE problem I was warned on.

Others have discussed the issue in-depth recently (such as Dr. Michael Brown - when taking others like Joseph Prince out of context in saying he advocates 'easy grace' without boundaries and the same in regards to others). However, it is difficult since many are using teachings wrongly in claiming that people like Joseph Prince and several others believe that certain sins are not to be condemned. This is not the first time such events have occurred historically.

I was immediately reminded of others such as Carlton Pearson when he was impacted by that (before he was disconnected from Oral Roberts publically )and took the concept of grace so far out that he went into left field in the Faith Movement. And for reference:

• The Dangers of Carlton Pearson's "Doctrine of Inclusion ...
  
  
• What is Carlton Pearson's Doctrine of Inclusion? - Tentmaker
• Confessions of a Universalist — Charisma Magazine

You remember how he was on TBN and with many other prominent leaders in WOF:

​

And yet in time, he went off the rails because he did not have balance ​

​

What I am seeing in the times we live in - especially in regards to things such as sexual immorality (i.e. sleeping around, adultery, inappropriate contentagraphy, LGBTQ, etc.) is that avoiding condemnation of behaviors while encouraging others to trust in God as they seek repentance from those behaviors is not being maintained.

And while I do pray for others such as Carlton Pearson to come to awareness of God's truth and remember who the Lord is, I also pray that the impact his teaching is having with making a resurgence (really the same thing that has come up before in past times since the Early Church is seriously addressed).

Does anyone here have any thoughts? Has anyone ever encountered such behavior in the movement?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Shalom..

I was writing due to how I have seen a trend within the world of WOF at certain parts of the camp - and that specifically is in regards to the subject of God's Word not being something that is central in the lives of others - above all else. Specifically, this has been brought up in regards to how the message of God's grace has been taken to such extremes as to make it seem as if everyone will go to Heaven regardless - and growing up in the Faith Movement, this was always something that was a HUGE problem I was warned on. Others have discussed the issue in-depth recently (such as Dr. Michael Brown - when taking others like Joseph Prince out of context in saying he advocates 'easy grace' without boundaries and the same in regards to others). However, it is difficult since many are using teachings wrongly in claiming that people like Joseph Prince and several others believe that certain sins are not to be condemned. This is not the first time such events have occurred historically.

I was immediately reminded of others such as Carlton Pearson when he was impacted by that (before he was disconnected from Oral Roberts publically )and took the concept of grace so far out that he went into left field in the Faith Movement. And for reference:

• The Dangers of Carlton Pearson's "Doctrine of Inclusion ...
  
  
• What is Carlton Pearson's Doctrine of Inclusion? - Tentmaker
• Confessions of a Universalist — Charisma Magazine

To be clear, when it comes to what I've been exposed to within the WOF world, what I witnessed was that the emphasis of grace was always to encourage repentance and not simply think all things are acceptable if one is to believe God's love is present. This is something that others have spoken on before and I am thankful they shared on it, for some examples:

​

Also, on where I grew up and what I experienced in the Faith Movement,

What follows are things I was taught in the Faith Movement (from Pastor Jason Kerr, of Lester Sumrall ministries - with Pastor Jason being on TBN a couple of times, verification here ) preached on it many times - more shared here as well as here:

• - 2010 Grace Revisited Two 3-14-2010
• - 2010 Grace Revisited Three 3-14-2010
• - 2010 Grace Revisited One 3-14-2010
• - 2012 Freedom in Grace One Part A 12-2-2012
• - 2012 Freedom in Grace One Part B 12-2-2012
• - 2012 The Grace Effect One Part A 12-9-2012
• - 2012 The Grace Effect One Part B 12-9-2012
• - 2012 Jesus Christ Our Foundation Five UNCUT 8-26-2012
• - 2012 Jesus Christ Our Foundation Four Part A 8-19-2012
• - 2012 Jesus Christ Our Foundation Four Part B 8-19-2012
• - 2012 Resurrection Sunday The Stone UNCUT 4-8-2012.mp4
• - 2012 Jesus Christ Our Foundation Six Part A 9-23-2012.mp4
• - 2012 Jesus Christ Our Foundation Six Part B 9-23-2012
• - 2012 Jesus Christ Our Foundation Seven Part A 9-30-2012
• - 2012 Jesus Christ Our Foundation Seven Part B 9-30-2012

Other people I grew up with within the Faith Movement have said the same....others coming to mind being people like Judah Smith (son of the late Pastor Wendell Smith), who has worked with others in the Faith Movement, is very big on trusting God by faith and who has often pointed out whenever it comes to the grace we have been given in Christ:

• “Jesus Is Better Than Angels” - Judah Smith

• Jesus Is Better Than Moses and Joshua: MP3 online hören - The City Church with Judah Smith (Audio) - Audio 221982145

• Jesus Is Better Than Angels: MP3 online hören - The City Church with Judah Smith (Audio) - Audio 221982146

• Jesus Is a Better Mountain: MP3 online hören - The City Church with Judah Smith (Audio) - Audio 221982138

At no point were we taught to believe that all sins are accepted and not to be condemned if we were to promote the love of Christ.

Again, if anyone has any thoughts on the matter, I'd love to hear. The following scripture comes to mind:

Jude (KJV)
1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.

3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.

6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

16 These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.

20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.

22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:

23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,

25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
​

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

Shalom..

Something that came to my mind recently when going through the boards was the following:

​

Seeing how things can be taken to extremes (and I appreciated what Simon said on the matter), I was writing due to how I have seen a trend within the world of WOF at certain parts of the camp - and that specifically is in regards to the subject of God's Word not being something that is central in the lives of others - above all else. Specifically, this has been brought up in regards to how the message of God's grace has been taken to such extremes as to make it seem as if everyone will go to Heaven regardless - and growing up in the Faith Movement, this was always something that was a HUGE problem I was warned on.

Others have discussed the issue in-depth recently (such as Dr. Michael Brown - when taking others like Joseph Prince out of context in saying he advocates 'easy grace' without boundaries and the same in regards to others). However, it is difficult since many are using teachings wrongly in claiming that people like Joseph Prince and several others believe that certain sins are not to be condemned. This is not the first time such events have occurred historically.

I was immediately reminded of others such as Carlton Pearson when he was impacted by that (before he was disconnected from Oral Roberts publically )and took the concept of grace so far out that he went into left field in the Faith Movement. And for reference:

• The Dangers of Carlton Pearson's "Doctrine of Inclusion ...
  
  
• What is Carlton Pearson's Doctrine of Inclusion? - Tentmaker
• Confessions of a Universalist — Charisma Magazine

You remember how he was on TBN and with many other prominent leaders in WOF:

​

And yet in time, he went off the rails because he did not have balance ​

​

What I am seeing in the times we live in - especially in regards to things such as sexual immorality (i.e. sleeping around, adultery, inappropriate contentagraphy, LGBTQ, etc.) is that avoiding condemnation of behaviors while encouraging others to trust in God as they seek repentance from those behaviors is not being maintained.

And while I do pray for others such as Carlton Pearson to come to awareness of God's truth and remember who the Lord is, I also pray that the impact his teaching is having with making a resurgence (really the same thing that has come up before in past times since the Early Church is seriously addressed).

Does anyone here have any thoughts? Has anyone ever encountered such behavior in the movement?

I haven't seen much in the way of Universalism with people that I deal with personally. The people I know who are Christian are in the other ballpark, where there simply is not any grace at all toward the sinner. I know people who avoid and will not willfully come in contact with a homosexual, a Mormon, a Muslim, etc.

I ask them: how will these people ever get saved if you do not share with them? And the answers range from "someone else can talk to them" to "oh, let them burn in hell." And their justifications are always: "don't fellowship with the sinner" and "wipe the dust from your feet."

I don't know if I'm heading in the right direction to your question, but that's what hit my mind when I read your post.

Shalom, bro!!


(and as I post this, I see you've already added to the discussion.)

 

[Simon the Tanner]

I lived in Tulsa for 20 years and I visited Pearson's church once. He never really was WoF, although there was naturally some overlap being a Charismatic pastor in Tulsa and all. It's interesting that you should bring him up, because I'm reading his book The Gospel of Inclusion for research on a blog post I'm writing about universalism. The guy is all over the place, theologically. One minute he's spouting New Thought, the next it's New Age, then he dabbles a bit in yin and yang/dualism. In one chapter he'll cite scripture to support what he says, and the next chapter he'll tell you how unreliable the Bible is. Bottom line, he has no set theology. It's all about Carlton and his childhood trauma from the doctrine of hell.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I haven't seen much in the way of Universalism with people that I deal with personally. The people I know who are Christian are in the other ballpark, where there simply is not any grace at all toward the sinner. I know people who avoid and will not willfully come in contact with a homosexual, a Mormon, a Muslim, etc.

I ask them: how will these people ever get saved if you do not share with them? And the answers range from "someone else can talk to them" to "oh, let them burn in hell." And their justifications are always: "don't fellowship with the sinner" and "wipe the dust from your feet."

I don't know if I'm heading in the right direction to your question, but that's what hit my mind when I read your post.

Shalom, bro!!


(and as I post this, I see you've already added to the discussion.)

Saddened to see anyone say "let them burn in hell" and run from people Jesus went out of his way to encourage/give truth, but many people do not know how approach others. I've seen, for example, that many do not know how to approach Muslims based on fears they've been trained to have via the media but there is no real relationship or practical tools they have available in order to encourage them. The same goes for those trapped in sexual sins/lifestyles, although what has been a bit of a problem (as it concerns the direction of the thread) for that one has been that others take the dynamic of not abandoning others and then assuming that active practice of the lifestyle means one is never in danger or that salvation is guaranteed regardless.


Of course, I am also keeping in mind what you noted plainly years ago in addition to others:

Coming late to this party....I agree with this. I'll go back and see what started it all, but...

3 For even though I am absent physically, I am present in spirit. And I have already judged the one who did this, just as though I were present. 4 When you gather together in the name of our Lord Jesus, and I am with you in spirit, along with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 turn this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. 6 Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast affects the whole batch of dough? 7 Clean out the old yeast so that you may be a new batch of dough - you are, in fact, without yeast. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 So then, let us celebrate the festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of vice and evil, but with the bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.
1 Cor 5:3-8 (NET)​

Paul was talking here about a man who had sex with his mother. Forbidden in scripture, just as homosexuality is forbidden. Unrepentant sin will corrupt that which is holy. And Paul, indeed God through Paul, left no room for this defilement to enter in.


So, a homosexual (or fornicators or idolaters or ...) who do not yet know that their actions are wrong, have not yet been taught that they live in sin, can be allowed in for the purpose of instructing them in righteousness. But once they understand that they are practicing sin (1 John 3) and they continue in it, then they identify themselves as children of the devil and not prodigal children.

That's false teaching. True shepherds would not allow wolves in to try and teach them to not be wolves because the end result shall be sheep being hurt. This is a very basic concept that even a baby Christian should understand. I'm referring to those that think being gay is OK and they have no plans to repent because they see nothing wrong with it - they should be put out of the church.

Hi Farm Truck,

Nice post. Stay with me here, as I'll stay with you through this discussion. Remember, we are talking, discussing, not fighting (as your last sentiments seem to say). There are many places in this post where you make my argument for me so that you can knock it down. That's called a straw man. Better if you simply make your point and respond to my points instead of making my argument for me.

You are likely right that I won't convince you and you won't convince me, but we will plant seeds, and the good seeds of the Word will grow. We both love the Lord and desire His will, so the ground is fertile and good.

Let's have a good discussion (passion is ok!) and not let that slip away.

------

One other point I'd like to make is that while I believe God's Grace is wonderful, and I am OSAS, but there is a difference between a teacher of Grace and a teacher of "extreme Grace." You are correct that the extreme grace person seems to think that they have a license to sin. We know this isn't the case for Paul told us so in Romans 6. So please, don't count me in that crowd.

So, are you up for discussion?


Not quite sure why OSAS's truthfulness stands or falls on God's image. As far as sowing and reaping is concerned it is correct.

7 Do not be deceived. God will not be made a fool. For a person will reap what he sows, 8 because the person who sows to his own flesh will reap corruption from the flesh, but the one who sows to the Spirit will reap eternal life from the Spirit.
Gal 6:7-8 (NET)​

If we sow to the flesh we reap ... what? "Corruption from the flesh." Sickness. Disease. Galatians 6 is not speaking of salvation, but our walk, our deeds, carrying our load. This is speaking of physical matters.



Yes, Jesus is the High priest. But unlike the OT priests He doesn't make atonement for our sins daily (or yearly).

11 And every priest stands day after day serving and offering the same sacrifices again and again - sacrifices that can never take away sins. 12 But when this priest had offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 where he is now waiting until his enemies are made a footstool for his feet . 14 For by one offering he has perfected for all time those who are made holy.
Heb 10:11-14 (NET)​

The OT priests stood day after day. Jesus took away our sins with ONE sacrifice for all time. Perhaps, maybe, this was one sacrifice but we repent over and over for our sins. But that's not what verse 14 says: one offering has perfected all whom are made holy for all time.


So who are the ones being made holy? Well, we missed that by one verse above. Let's back up one to see:

By his will we have been made holy through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Heb 10:10 (NET)​

We are made holy. How? Through the offering of Jesus Christ. How long does it last? For all time (v14).


You mention verse 26 in your quotes. Let's take a look.

26 For if we deliberately keep on sinning after receiving the knowledge of the truth, no further sacrifice for sins is left for us, 27 but only a certain fearful expectation of judgment and a fury of fire that will consume God's enemies .
Heb 10:26-27 (NET)​

What does this say? "Deliberate, repeated sin." Understand one thing as we look at this phrase, that "receiving the knowledge of the truth" is NOT salvation -- it is simply hearing the Gospel message. Look at Matthew 13:18-23. The Word is sown AND it is heard, received. The seed on rocky ground was even "received with joy!". But it had no root. There is no salvation resulting from it. People receive the knowledge all the time and do nothing with it.


So, these people commit "deliberate, repeated sin." They practice sin. They do not desire to stop. Well, the Word tells us about such people:

7 Little children, let no one deceive you: The one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as Jesus is righteous. 8 The one who practices sin is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was revealed: to destroy the works of the devil.
1 Jn 3:7-8 (NET)​

Practice righteousness, you are of God. Practice sin, you are of the devil.

According to what Bob posted (ABlessedMan), that (truth) may have already came out about T.D. Jakes. We'll wait and see how Brian Houston at Hillsong Church deals with it. And for those who don't know. Brian Houston pastors the Hillsong Church in Sydney, Australia. Some years ago I was in Sydney, Australia and if his ministry was there at the time, It would have been nice to go check it out.

Let's not (pre-judge) and give up on them FT, or any other ministry that may need to proclaim what to say behind their pulpits concerning this very powerful, and highly influential end-time deception movement of the "Gay Revolution" that's (already) accepted in every facet of leadership in our country, including the executive, legislative, judicial, and even the military branches of our goverment. They are everywhere from the top down in our society and God forbid... yes, even in our churches. Satan would love to see our nation as the (gay capital country) of the world. Hmmm... Just remembered. (Sodom and Gomorrah?) Remember this... View attachment 162033

We'll have to keep our discerning spiritual eyes open to this "Gay Revolution" (LGBT), that I believe (may) be the "leading deception" of "hypocrisy" of the coming end-time last days that would lead millions to the "great falling away" before Jesus returns.

Does the Lord have something in (His plan) to counter this "abounding" SIN..? (hint)

While this ungodly Gay Revolution abomination is running wild, there is a returning godly movement re-gaining momentum as well, that some call... The Grace Revolution that initially began... after the Ressurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ (from the dead) who offered Himself as the sin sacrifice for the whole world. I use the word "re-gaining" because over the years God's GRACE has been so diluted, polluted and watered down by mixing with law (our efforts) that had little to no affect. We can thank God that He raised up saints such as Joseph Prince and others to re-teach the whole counsel of God as the full Good News message of the Gospel. "The just shall live by faith" (and) "Without faith, it is impossible to please God." Hebrews 10:38a, Hebrews 11:6a. The Lord said that if we draw back (from faith) that He shall have no pleasure in us.

The writer of Hebrews says it very clearly. "but if any man draw back, My soul shall have no pleasure in him." Hebrews 10:38b. Hebrews 4:2 "For to us was the gospel preached, as well as to them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it."

The critics call this full GRACE teaching (you've heard them all)... hyper-grace, extreme grace, exaggerated grace, cheap grace, greasy grace, modern grace, false grace, tickle grace, licentious grace, etc. It just amazes me that some are teaching or (suggesting) that... the end-time "great falling away" will be caused by none other than this modern day "Grace Revolution" View attachment 162028... when actually, it's teaching the whole counsel of God.

The critics of the (modern grace message) are quick to quote these (below) scriptures describing this false message (as they say)... as the end-time apostasy.

2 Peter 2:1-3 "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality (sexual immorality?), and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their "judgment" from (long ago) is not idle, and their "destruction" is not asleep. (Could this bold part be describing the judgment and distruction of Sodom and Gomorrah?)

Jude 1:4 "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, (turning the grace) of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ."​

Notice the bold parts? So I think maybe a question that we should ask ourself and the critics is... "how..? and where..?" is the modern grace gospel (denying) the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ?? Even Dr. Brown admits that they are God loving saints without a doubt. (Dr. Michael Brown wrote the popular book... Hyper-Grace: Exposing the Dangers of the Modern Grace Message)

Dr. Michael Brown..."Some people gravitate to the hyer-grace message because they have sensitive consciences or because they have been burned by legalism or they feel as if they always fall short or they were not raised by a loving and affirming father. They really do love the Lord and they are not looking for and excuse to sin, and finally, hearing this message, they have found a place of rest and acceptance in the Lord, and they are actually working harder for Him than ever."​

Are there any abusers of this modern full GRACE message? Absolutely! No different than any other doctrine or movement. Name just one doctrine that don't have something that someone else would consider heretical? If time permits, along with interest, we'll deal with some of the abuses, the misunderstandings, and misrepresentations of some that are calling this a "distorted and dangerous" message that could lead millions to hell. Dr. Michael Brown said something similar in his book.


Let's compare the Gay Revolution and the Grace Revolution. How did Jesus say we would know them? Matthew 7:16 "You will know them by their fruits. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.… Galatians 5:22-23

If we were to examine the fruit of these grace teachers. What would we find? Listed below are some of the major proponents of the modern grace gospel message for those reading this may be familiar with some of them...

I could list many, many more teachers of the Grace Revolution, some known, some well known such as Joseph Prince, Clark Whitten, Steve McVey, Paul Ellis (Escape to Reality), Andrew Farley, Rob an Ryan Rufus, John Chowder, John Sheasby, Simon Yap, Andrew Wommack, Watchman Nee, Dudly Hall, Judah Smith, also (our own) Benjamin Conway (King Zzub). Has anyone listened to Creflo Dollar lately?​

So which is it (that is more in line) to cause millions to fall away from the end-time deception? The Gay Revolution or the Grace Revolution? Also consider this... (This is big!) Let's not forget the video I brought up earlier about the New Message and the New GOD. This group is really growing and has much of Holywood's elite. If the Body of Christ really speaks out about the "Gay Revolution" even in our mega-churches and they do get rooted out. "Where will they go?" The New Message of the New God movement will have open arms for them. This group along with other new age theologies will be a part of the end-time deception coupled with the Gay Revolution.


Back to my question above... What (could) be the Lord's plan to counter this "Gay Revolution" hypocrisy? "When sin abounded, grace did much more abound" (Romans 5:20).

The current "status quo" isn't working too well Farm Truck. I believe Romans 5:20 is one major end-time scripture message the Lord wants us to embrace for the times just ahead of us. And, I believe this full grace message of the gospel is awakening the Body of Christ in preparation for the end-time harvest of souls.

View attachment 162032​

Now as for anyone who has ties to a homosexual, this does not immediately "open a door" for demonic activity. We deal with people who have sin in their lives on a daily basis. If such interaction opened us to spirits entering us, then mankind would be infested with demons and Christianity would cease to exist. Homosexuality is a sin. It is no different from any other sin. Sin cannot be in the presence of God; God abhors sin. And Jesus' blood will wash sin away from us and we are to stop practicing our sins. It is this practicing that defines whether we are God's or whether we are the devil's (see 1 John 3).

So when we interact with someone who practices sin, our first reaction should be to teach them the error of their ways. When they reject this teaching we need to have patience, for this is how sinners will react to being told that they need to run from their sin. We need to have patience and continue to witness to them with longsuffering (the same way that God dealt with each and every one of us!). There will come a time to wipe the dust from our feet, but that time comes after much, much, much, much witness to the sinner.

So as for the leader who has a gay son living with him: does the leader witness the Word regarding the sin of homosexuality to the son? Or has the leader taken a position that it is ok that his son is gay? For this latter is not ok. And if the church follows the Word, and if this latter case is true -- if the leader says it is ok -- then the church leadership needs to remove this person from leadership. If the leader does not accept his son's homosexual desires, and if he is in continual witness to help his son overcome this sin, then it is not an immediate problem for him to have the son living at home. And it certainly will not be a portal for evil spirits to enter in.

• the Reason for Old Testament "Holy Wars"

Good thoughts, regardless, and thank for sharing

 

[de1929]

Does anyone here have any thoughts? Has anyone ever encountered such behavior in the movement?

I have a lot of thoughts on this issues. some leaders in start with something and now become another thing. Very normal. the gospel must be spread, at all cost. That includes, leaving some doctrines, and / or accepting new doctrines.

It's only doctrines. why worries ?

Psychology study says: if we are not like them, then they will not open to us. so ? we retrofit the bible interpretation to fit their need, so they will accept us.

remember brian houston from hillsong ? what is bryan houston position on LGBT issues ? what do you think brian position after you read the post below ?
http://www.christianpost.com/news/h...ngs-of-paul-are-clear-on-this-subject-128282/

the gospel must be spread, at all cost

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I lived in Tulsa for 20 years and I visited Pearson's church once. He never really was WoF, although there was naturally some overlap being a Charismatic pastor in Tulsa and all.

He was with Oral Roberts, of course, so in that sense he was very much WOF AND connected with the Faith movement. As many times as the man was on TBN with many WOF Leaders, I had to wonder at times how well accepted he was - and he did used to work with others such as Joyce Myers and Paul and Jan Crouch among others...even T.L Osborn (Who was a Founder within WOF). For reference:

Of course, having an endorsement does not mean the man was on point since you can easily endorse someone and still be off track in the decision - and they all turned back on Carlton rightfully for where he went off course, after seeing Oral Roberts lead the way in addressing his spiritual son for going off course.. The only one prominently close to what Pearson did would perhaps be Joel Osteen, as based on something he said in one interview:

I was intrigued by the way that Benny Hinn sought to call out Joel Osteen when he was on Larry King (despite the fact that Benny Hinn has YET to show himself spotless and did not seem to acknowledge that Osteen actually noted the exclusiveness of Christ later):

It's interesting that you should bring him up, because I'm reading his book The Gospel of Inclusion for research on a blog post I'm writing about universalism. The guy is all over the place, theologically. One minute he's spouting New Thought, the next it's New Age, then he dabbles a bit in yin and yang/dualism. In one chapter he'll cite scripture to support what he says, and the next chapter he'll tell you how unreliable the Bible is. Bottom line, he has no set theology. It's all about Carlton and his childhood trauma from the doctrine of hell.

It is indeed sad to witness the ways that the man is truly all over the place with his theological stances when it comes to Inclusion take to the degree as he did. And it's unfortunate in light of the fact that he did not take the time to truly honor God's Word as He was meant to do and instead made the Word of God fit what it is that he wanted. What you're reading about is what Hagin, Copeland and many others warned on many times when it comes to playing around with what it takes to have salvation.

Nonetheless, as much as it's unfortunate when others go off the rails, that's why it is important to note rather directly how Jesus alone is the Way to Salvation - there is NO salvation outside of Him and nothing whatsoever is open for discussion when it comes to that key doctrine (As the WORD OF God already commands us to be on our guard):

◄ 1 Timothy 4:16 ►
Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I lived in Tulsa for 20 years and I visited Pearson's church once. He never really was WoF, although there was naturally some overlap being a Charismatic pastor in Tulsa and all. It's interesting that you should bring him up, because I'm reading his book The Gospel of Inclusion for research on a blog post I'm writing about universalism. The guy is all over the place, theologically. One minute he's spouting New Thought, the next it's New Age, then he dabbles a bit in yin and yang/dualism. In one chapter he'll cite scripture to support what he says, and the next chapter he'll tell you how unreliable the Bible is. Bottom line, he has no set theology. It's all about Carlton and his childhood trauma from the doctrine of hell.

Unfortunately, a lot of people really do not deal with the Gospel - and it will never be the gospel to claim that others are able to remain in their sins actively without repentance and not change. That is not what the scriptures teach and God was very plain about that, which is why I hope others like Pearson will come to their senses. Some good video presentations on the matter that I was very glad for when it comes to seeing the real fruit of trusting in Christ Jesus:

Jesus is the only means we have to ensure we're not condemned - but the apostles were clear that being made children of wrath and born outside of Christ placed on within the realm of the influence and authority of the enemy.....and as such, its why men had to be RESCUED from the power of the Devil - the one whom the whole world is under the sway (1 John 5:18-20) of due to not being connected to the transformative Holy Spirit of God that was lost in the garden - and can only be regained in Christ.

On the enemy of the devil on those who are not saved, we cannot ignore what Christ said and what John noted in I John 3 alongside Paul in II Corinthians 10-11 when it came to the concept of others being servants of the enemy.

John 8:31-46
38 I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with[l] your father.”

39 They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.”

Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this. 41 You do the deeds of your father.” Then they said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we have one Father—God.”


42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. 43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word.

44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me.

1 John 3:8
He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil.

1 John 3:9-24
9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

The Imperative of Love
10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. 11 For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, 12 not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous.

​

The issue of Cain being of the Evil one goes right alongside what the Lord promised in Genesis 3:15 when it came to the Lord promising Satan that he would place emitity between his seed and that of the womans, whom the Messiah would come. Cain was of the evil one spiritually, regardless of his being born physically as a man.....and Cain, though severely punished for murdering his brother, had no sense of repentance. This theme of others reflecting the enemy's character continued throughout Genesis, as it concerns Genesis 4:19-26 when it came to violence being on the rise and two distinct groups appearing: (1) those who show indifference to sin and evil (like the devil) and (2) those who call on the name of the Lord (the descendants of Seth, Genesis 4:26). In I John 3:15, John clearly echoed Jesus's teaching that whoever hates another person is a murderer at heart (Matthew 5:21-22)....and with Cain, his jealous anger drove him to murder.....and that made him of the devil, seeing how Jesus noted in John 8:44-45 that the enemy was a murderer from the beginning.



And for good scriptures to keep in mind in regards to anyone claiming that GOD's Word/doctrine is not important when it comes to the Word of God.

1 Corinthians 6:8-10 (NKJV)
8 No, you yourselves do wrong and cheat, and you do these things to yourbrethren! 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

I John 3:4-15
Sin and the Child of God
4 Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness. 5 And you know that He was manifested to take away our sins, and in Him there is no sin. 6 Whoever abides in Him does not sin. Whoever sins has neither seen Him nor known Him.

7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God.

The Imperative of Love
10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. 11 For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, 12 not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous.

13 Do not marvel, my brethren, if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not lovehis brother abides in death. 15 Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

The Outworking of Love
16 By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 17 But whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?

18 My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth. 19 And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him. 20 For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. 21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God. 22 And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight. 23 And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.

The Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Error
24 Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us.

2 John 1:8
Beware of Antichrist Deceivers
7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 8 Look to yourselves, that we do not lose those things we worked for, but that wemay receive a full reward.

9 Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; 11 for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.
​

 

[de1929]

JESUS by doctrine, and communicating JESUS are 2 different things. communicating JESUS means preaching the gospel.

Why would you sacrifice preaching gospel at the expense of doctrine ?

Calvary job is for doctrine or for lost soul ?

wof supposed to be rhema based, not doctrine based. have you seen truthfrees replied in my thread ?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I lived in Tulsa for 20 years and I visited Pearson's church once. He never really was WoF, although there was naturally some overlap being a Charismatic pastor in Tulsa and all. It's interesting that you should bring him up, because I'm reading his book The Gospel of Inclusion for research on a blog post I'm writing about universalism. The guy is all over the place, theologically. One minute he's spouting New Thought, the next it's New Age, then he dabbles a bit in yin and yang/dualism. In one chapter he'll cite scripture to support what he says, and the next chapter he'll tell you how unreliable the Bible is. Bottom line, he has no set theology. It's all about Carlton and his childhood trauma from the doctrine of hell.

Forgot to mention earlier (as it concerns founders within the WOF movement) that others such as Lester Sumral actually did a really good job breaking down ways to have true change and that laid the foundation for showing why others are not able to be delivered because of childhood trauma ...and instead make a habit of glorifying their sin habit.

And T.L Osborn brought the issue of the Gospel up in ways that were truly simple.

Being on the mission field multiple times where the Power of God was present and people had less to work with - with it being the case that the Holy Spirit would encounter others even if they lacked scriptural awareness (due to a lack of training or Biblical education, scripture, etc.) and help them till others arrive to share God's Word/Scriptures and increase their faith to be complete - I greatly appreciate T.L Osborn for always keeping things centered on the way that Jesus Himself has risen from the dead....that message being what should and will always lead people to true change.

Any message that leaves people stuck in the same manner they were BEFORE they got saved is not the Gospel - and that's something I am glad I saw on the mission field said many times, as even people without access to scripture and having to rely more on the Holy Spirit (be it in the West Indies or Latin America or China) noted that any message claiming to be of God and yet saying a person didn't need to repent of sin to demonstrate love for God is not a message Jesus preached


True Gospel always leaves people changed

That said, Do you have any good books you'd recommend when it comes to dealing with the issue of what you saw problematic with Carlton Pearson and others in the Faith Movement who chose to do as he was doing in claiming sound doctrine was less important than being appealing at the expense of preaching the Good News of Christ and the Gospel as Jesus taught it? I had some recommended to me and was seeking to see which ones you had studied.

Going over the issue, I am reminded more and more on what St. Paul broke down when stating that the Gospel at no point ever said others were allowed to remain active in their sins - without repentance - and claim trust in Christ since that is no where close to what Jesus taught repeatedly when he noted "Repent" nor is it what was discussed in the Faith Movement repeatedly. God's Word has already been direct and clear on the matter when it comes the warnings of the apostles REPEATEDLY to have sound doctrine and guard against anything that was not of it.

1 Timothy 6:3-5
If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain​

Of course, when it comes to repentance, the behavior has to match the character of CHrist - and while it'd be easy to focus upon sexual sin as an obvious, there are other things which are far more subtle. One of the biggest ones would be unforgiveness and hatred, as an example. ..some of this which was shared more in-depth elsewhere if you ever wanted to join into that conversation (as noted there):

If I may say..

From what I've seen, I think sometimes we may read past some very direct things when it comes to what unforgiveable sin is - and perhaps it's just me....but as I John was focused on God as Love and our relationship to God as expressed to others (such as I John 4 when he calls us to love others if we love GOD or else we're liars when claiming to believe in Him - and we love because he first loved us), I tend to be open to the thought that the unforgiveable sin is simply failure to truly love.

And one key aspect of love is forgiveness..

Love is a gift from the Lord He has given freely in light of how we're able to experience His Mercy Daily and have even before knowing of Christ - is something we have to offer to others.....the gift of forgivness being something necessary if one is to truly be a part of the Kingdom of God since a lack of forgiveness is something the Lord repeatedly warned on

Luke 6:37
[ Do Not Judge ] “Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.



Mark 11:25
[ Forgiveness and Prayer ] “And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses.

Matthew 6:13-14
13 And do not lead us into temptation,
But deliver us from the evil one.
For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.[c]
14 “For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.


Matthew 18:29-31
29 So his fellow servant fell down at his feet[d] and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you all.’[e] 30 And he would not, but went and threw him into prison till he should pay the debt. 31 So when his fellow servants saw what had been done, they were very grieved, and came and told their master all that had been done. 32 Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him.

35 “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”[f]​

​

When Jesus taught his disciples to pray, he made forgiveness the cornerstone of their relationship with God. For God has forgiven our sins and so we must forgive those who have wronged us - but to remain unforgiving shows we have not understood that we ourselves deeply need to be forgiven. When we don't forgive others, we are denying our common ground as sinners in need of God's forgiveness. Of course, God's forgiveness of sin is not the direct result of our forgiving others, but it is based on our realizing what forgiveness (Ephesians 4:32).....and there's a reason St. James noted that we should speak and act as those who're going to be judged by the law that gives freedom because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful - Mercy TRIUMPS over judgment (James 2:12-13).

And in many respects, when it comes to lacking mercy, this is something the Pharisees whom Christ spoke against sadly fell into. They saw others healed from being demon-possessed and even others who were blind or mute being healed - and yet while others were rejoicing over the matter, they could only accuse...their hearts were ones not concerned with showing mercy/compassion to others as they needed it ...and interestingly enough, in that culture, there was often a mindset that people born with the things Jesus healed were ones who deserved to deal with them - a matter of God's judgment (the view akin to Retribution Theology that was widespread in Biblical times and an issue that often had to be addressed by Christ) -with the dynamics of leaving others to their fate almost like how a caste system would be when you feel others were meant to be where they are.... and thus, certain Pharisees wouldn't be concerned with helping them or doing anything. That's what happens when we think ourselves deserving more of God's Mercy/touch more than others - we end up slandering it in others whom receive it. And in doing so, we slander the Lord..

The Pharisees had blasphemed against the Spirit (as noted in Matthew 12:22-38) by attributing the power by which Christ did miracles to Satan instead of the Holy Spirit. They had done this before in Matthew 9:32-34 when Jesus earlier healed those who were demon-possessed, even though Jesus didn't say anything at the time. In fact, in Matthew 9, the Pharisees accused Jesus of four different sins: blasphemy (when proclaiming forgiveness for the man who was paralyzed man in Matthew 9:1-4 ...perhaps needing to know indeed God had brought forgiveness to Him ...a vital part of proclaiming the Kingdom of God), befriending sinners (Matthew 9:10-12 - when he was at the house of Matthew the tax collector), impiety and serving Satan....Jesus was maligned by those who should have received him the most gladly.....and the Pharisees did all this because (1) Jesus bypassed their religious authority, (2) He weakened their control over the people and (3) he challenged their cherished beliefs while exposing their insincere/hypocritical motives.

But again, the Pharisees in their first accusation of "By demons he casts out demons" in Matthew 9 was left alone by Christ...and later on, Christ chose to address the matter for what it was. What occurred was a culmination of what was in their hearts - a lack of love for both God (whom they didn't want to submit to by rejoicing in His work for others - the essence of love) and Man (by having no desire to see others be forgiven or healed/transformed by God even as they would want God to work in their lives). When you attiribute to the devil what is a work of the Holy Spirit, it reveals a heart-attitude of unbelief and unrepentance...deliberate, ongoing rejection of the work of the Holy Spirit is blasphemy because it is rejecting God himself. And thus, Jesus said they couldn't be forgiven - not because their sin was worse than any other, but because they would never ask forgiveness nor extend it. This is something that is intimately tied to what Jesus noted when speaking on prayer in Luke 18 - first speaking on the importance of consistent prayer like the widow did with the unjust judge (in contrast to God who gives justice to those crying out for it) ..and yet noting afterward what can keep prayer from being answered when pointing out the Parable of the Two Men who prayed (as it concerns those confident in their own righteousness/looked down upon others) and showing how the Pharisee exalting himself compared to others considered the "worst of the worst" would not be justified before God ...while the one Tax Collector crying out for God's Mercy/not even looking to Heaven was accepted since he humbled himself.

With the unforgivable sin being unforgiveness or mercy, you can see how the religious leaders did this often - similar to people today speaking on how much God's mercy is available for all and yet they deny it to others they don't like ...or how, to be personal, I may choose to hold a grudge toward people who were living wild ...repented...and yet they were quickly able to advance a lot/seem MORE blessed when compared to myself or others who served God for a long time/felt that they didn't do anything to deserve THAT much of God's mercy or blessing.

To assume "It's not fair - they don't deserve God's forgiveness or blessing in their life..but I do" - that's a lack of understanding God's heart....and what I refuse to extend for others, God will refuse to extend for me. By saying "It's not right that you delivered them rather than letting them suffer as they deserve - I REFUSE to even pray anything good for them", we'd be saying "Holy Spirit - the work you're doing in their hearts is not truly a GODLY Work...it's of the Devil" - and in doing so, I cut myself off from working with the Lord since He cannot truly work in my own life when I cut off being merciful or giving forgiveness.

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit results in Spiritual death (Mark 3:29) and the book of Hebrews describes the spiritual death of the person who turns against Christ - and With I John 5:17, when it comes to saying there is a sin that leads to death, the love (with forgiveness/mercy) dynamic seems hard to escape seeing that St. John already noted what it meant to be in death...as seen here:

1 John 3:8-24

The Imperative of Love

10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. 11 For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, 12 not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous.

13 Do not marvel, my brethren, if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother[a] abides in death. 15 Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.

The Outworking of Love

16 By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 17 But whoever has this world’s goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?

18 My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth. 19 And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him. 20 For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. 21 Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God. 22 And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight. 23 And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us[c] commandment.​

​

Not having love is death - and although there are other sins that don't automatically lead to ultimate death in eternity (like sins hindering us from being fully effective/productive in this life even as we seek the Lord - besetting sins we battle with ..addictions to bad habits/mindsets or deceptions..hidden faults like Psalm 19:13 that can enslave us...things St. James said we're to do with confession of sins like James 5:15-16 or St. John in I John 1:1-10), the reality is that the one sin which will hinder us is choosing not to LOVE God/others.

And love covers..

Proverbs 10:12
Hatred stirs up strife,
But love covers all sins..​

​

St. Paul noted the same dynamic in I Corinthians 13 when it came to the issue of what it meant when seeing how one had NOTHING if they had not love - the thing we're to strive for the most.

And the concept was so important that even St. Peter - after warning on being in the End Times and needing to be alert - seemed to repeat it as if saying even in being aware and yet imperfect, the one thing we needed to do above all else was have fervent love..as if that would truly cover everything else.

1 Peter 4:7-9 (NKJV)
Serving for God’s Glory

7 But the end of all things is at hand; therefore be serious and watchful in your prayers. 8 And above all things have fervent love for one another, for “love will cover a multitude of sins.”[a] 9 Be hospitable to one another without grumbling.​

Archimandrite Irenei explored a series of patristic texts that deal with the imperative of forgiveness, and the need to forgive as the gateway into the life offered by Christ in the Church....as seen in "Shall We Forgive? The Fathers on Forgiveness as the Gateway to Salvation" g

Like Paul, John the Baptist, Jesus, and all the other apostles preached the gospel, calling on all people to repent (see Matt.3:2; 4:17; 11:20; Mark 6:12; Luke 5:32; 13:3, 5; 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 11:18; 20:21; 26:20; Rom. 2:4: 2 Pet. 3:9). Several times in the book of Revelation, John is amazed that unregenerate people don’t repent while suffering God’s judgments (see Rev. 9:20-21; 16:9, 11) - and Jesus pronounced woe upon all the people of Chorazin and Bethsaida because they didn’t repent, obviously indicating He believed they had the capacity to repent (see Matt. 11:21). Moreover, He also declared that the wicked people of Tyre and Sidon, who didn’t repent, would have repented if they had seen miracles like the people of Chorazin and Bethsaida had seen!

In both cases, Jesus believed that those who didn’t repent had the capacity to repent and should have repented

Yeshua expected everyone of His generation to repent, because He stated that the men of Nineveh, who repented at Jonah’s preaching, would rightfully condemn His generation for not repenting.

Again, if you're only going to focus on the scriputures with Paul saying others were granted repentance and yet willfully skip over all of the others where Paul also said "God has commanded men everywhere to repent"/placed it upon them, one's proof-texting and not dealing fully with the Word.

Acts 2:38
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 2

Acts 3:19
Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,
Acts 3

Acts 8:22
Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord. Perhaps he will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart.
Acts 8

Acts 17:30
In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.
Acts 17

Acts 20:21
I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.
Acts 20:20-22 / Acts 20

Acts 26:20
First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.
Acts 26

Romans 2:4
Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?
Romans 2

2 Corinthians 7:10
Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.
2 Corinthians 7:9-11/ 2 Corinthians 7
​

I think your analogy with the drive-by shooting would be more accurate if seeing it from the perspective of one who had something like unforgiveness in his heart - and remembering that how we're treated is based on how we treat others.

Matthew 7

Judging Others
1″Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Luke 6:37
Do Not Judge
37 “Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.”


​

I’ve always been under the impression that the way I treat others determines the way I’ll often be treated in return and, to a degree, how even the Lord responds to me. As a Christian, I can’t earn my salvation but through Christ, and I have the Lord’s Mercy/Forgiveness available so that there’ll never be one sin in my life where Christ’s Blood cannot cleanse.

Still, when Jesus said this, He wasn’t simply talking to a crowd of unbelievers alone; he was talking to believers and unbelievers alike. There doesn’t seem to be anything in the surrounding context that seems to indicate this is solely for unbelievers or that it applies only to when before you placed your faith in Christ…….


Regardless of what side of the fence you’re on, here’s my take:

Matthew 6:12:
The Lord’s Prayer
12Forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.


Matthew 6:14-16
14For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.


Mark 11:25
25And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.”[a]


​

There seems to be something of a law of forgiveness that Christ taught throughout the Gospels, and a strong warning that Jesus gives: If I refuse to forgive others, God will also refuse to forgive us. The reason why is because choosing not to forgive others means that “we are denying our common ground as sinners in need of God’s forgiveness”….

If I’m asking/believing for God to forgive my sin and simply believing that forgivenes is automatic apart from what I do, but never ask myself “Have I forgiven the people who wronged me?, something is off….

Does that mean that God’s forgiveness of sin is the direct result of our forgiving others? Not necessarily…

James 2:12-13
“12Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!”


​

God does not forgive us because we forgive others, but soley because of His Great Mercy. To do otherwise would limit God’s sovereign grace to anything less than a amazing gift we could only humbly accept with gratitude/joy….something you could buy and pay back God for, but have to live with the fear that you’d always not have enough to keep it (Ephesians 2:1-10)

Still, if we withhold forgiveness from others after having recieved it ourselves, we show that we don’t or appreciate God’s Mercy toward us….(Ephesians 4:31-32)….and we set ourselves “outside and above Christ’s law of love.”

As we come understand the mercy of God, we’ll desire to be like Him, and pass on the forgiveness we’ve recieved from Him to others….just as Christ was willing to forgive even those who crucified Him (Luke 23:34)

To do otherwise would be to mock the Charachter of God…and God has still made clear in His Word that He’ll not allow this:

Matthew 18:21-35
The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant
21Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?”

22Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.[f]



23″Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents[g] was brought to him. 25Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.
26″The servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ 27The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.
28″But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii.[h] He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded.
29″His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.’
30″But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.



32″Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ 34In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.


35″This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart.”
​

With the Sin nature aspect...

In the New Covenant we have, we have been given NEW Natures and having the correct application of what having the New Self is about, the concept of the carnal man being available to walk in at any time just as it is with daily choosing to walk in the new nature via Christ/The Holy Spirit is more than consistent in Scripture---Romans 13:13-14 / Romans 13 being one of the best examples, as there'd never be a need/command from Paul stating to put on Christ--just as it is with putting on the new self as seen in Colossians or Ephesians--if there wasn't the capacity to do so.

Your new nature in Christ (empowered by the Holy Spirit) cannot sin...and when in it, one's on point. Yet, on the same token, your old nature's available to walk in as well (i.e. the flesh/sinful nature)..and Just like having two pairs of clothing---as the clothing did not decide to get up by itself and one has a choice whichever one to walk in--it's the same dynamic.

In the book of Colossians, Paul exposed the wrong reasons for self-denial since false teachers were promoting a heresy stressing self-made rules (legalism) and spiritual growth by discipline of the body (asceticism) and visions (mysticism)--which were all based in self-centered efforts and created pride (Colossians 2:11 ). In Colossians 3, he explains true Christian behavior--putting on the new self by accepting Christ and regarding the earthly nature as dead, as we change our moral/ethical behavior by letting Christ live within us so that He can shape us unto what we should be.

On Colossians 3, Paul begins by making clear that we have been raised with Christ and therefore should set our minds on things above---for as he states, "For you died"....which means that we should have little desire for the world as a dead man would have. The Christian's true home is where Christ lives...and this truth gives us a different perspective on our lives here on earth. Our lives have been "Hidden with Christ"--which means concealed/safe...and this is not only a future hope, but an accomplished one right now since our service and conduct do not earn our salvation...but they are results of our salvation. Without that understanding, one has little incentive to bear fruit for the Lord. Becaus our eternal destiny is sure, Heaven should fill our thoughts...


We should consider ourselves dead and unresponsive to sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires, and greed....and just like diseased limbs of a tree, these practices must be cut off before they destroy us. We must make a conscious, daily decision to remove anything that supports or feeds these desires and rely on the Holy Spirit's power. That's part of what it means to "put to death/put off the old man"------as the believers in Colosse had forgotten these things (alongside the wrath of God coming because of them)....and Paul was appealing to the commitment the believers had made and urging them to remain true to their confession of faith. They were to rid themselves of the old life and "put on" the new way of living given by Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit. Their conduct should've matched their faith......


Hence, it's the reason Paul made clear that we're now to CLOTHE OURSELVES anew with the new GARMENTS OF CHARACTER CALLED OF US!!

Colossians 3
12Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.
​

This does not mean we're perfect...for Every Christian is in a continuining education program. And the more we know of CHRIST and His Work, the more we are being changed to be like Him. Because this process is a lifelong journey, we must never stop learning and obeying. It goes hand in hand with the central teaching of Christ regarding taking up one's cross/daily denying themselves to follow Him Matthew 10:37-39/ /Matthew 16:23-25 / Matthew 16 /Mark 8:33-35 / /Luke 9:22-24 / Luke 9

The Word does make clear in I John 3 clearly that one in Christ does not sin----and in that sense, it is indeed logical to say that a Christian may not necessarily be a "Sinner" as much as allowing the "Sinner" of our old self to come back into place...giving our (new man) allowance to let the old man lead.

With Ephesians 4, when I read the whole of God's Word, I see clearly that there was no need to say "When you put on the old self" since the scriptures made clear the people Paul was speaking to were believers who had already done so---and hence, why he had to write to them to put the old self off/put it to death just as they were already taught by him when he worked with them previously---as the letter was sent with one of the workers he had with him named Tychicus ( Acts 20:3-5 / Acts 20 /Ephesians 6:20-22 / Ephesians 6 ) to strengthen the churches in the area since Paul had met with the Ephesian CHURCH at Miletus (Acts 20:28 ) --a meeting that was filled with great sadness snce he was leaving them for what he thought would be the last time. ( Ephesians 4:21-23 /Ephesians 4 ), just as in other passages where the mentality was repeated.

Ephesians 4:16-18 / Ephesians 4
Living as Children of Light
17So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. 19Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.
​

Prior to Paul bringing up the terminology of "put on the new self", Paul made clear that people should be able to see a difference between Christians and Non-Christians because of the way Christians live. We are to live as Children of Light (Ephesians 5:7-9 Ephesians 5 )...and Paul told the Ephesians to leave behind the old life of sin, since they were followers of Christ. For living the Christian life is a process. Although we have new natures, we don't automatically think all good thoughts and express all right attitudes when we become new people in Christ. But if we keep listening to God, we will be changing all the time. And those changes are part of what constitutes the attitudes characteristic of the NEW MAN created to be like Christ---which Paul went into extensive detail immediately after reminding the believers to put on the new self as seen in all of the imperatives he gives to believers such as choosing to walk in compassion, not sinning in anger, and various other things (Ephesians 4:26). And for more info on our new nature in Christ, Romans 6:8 and Romans 8:9 alongside Galatians 5:16-15 are great places to go..

Our old way of life before we believed in Christ is completely in the past..and therefore, we should put it behind us like old clothes to be thrown away. This is both a once-and-for-all decision when we decide to accept Christ's gift of salvation ( Ephesians 2:4-6 Ephesians 2:7-9/ Ephesians 2/ )..and also a daily conscious commitment. For we are not driven by desire and impulse, but we must put on the new role, head in the right direction, and have the new way of thinking that the Holy Spirit gives. ( Galatians 5:15-17 / Galatians 5 /Romans 6:6 )

Both of these passages (Colossians and Ephesians) are ones in which Paul clearly made a distinction between two areas of life we have a choice in walking in-----and never did it become an issue of losing one's salvation and undoing the Work of Christ to believe that what Christ died for us to have is something we're given a choice in and that our old self can be operated in at anytime. The "Old Man" and the "New Man" contrasts the old lifestyle dominated the spirit of DISOBEDIANCE (Ephesians 2:1-3/ Ephesians 2 ) with the believers NEWLY CREATED CAPACITY for a life-style of obediance by the Holy Spirit's power (Ephesians 3:15-17/ Ephesians 3 )


Unless Paul did not mean that the OLD self was something one had to choose to put off alongside the NEW one, one would have to show in the text what the phrase "PUT ON THE NEW MAN" mean---and if it indeed meant something other than something that had to be taken up daily. This brings us to the last verse that needs to be dealt with):

Romans 13:13-14 / Romans 13
10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. Put on Christ 11 And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed. 12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light.

13 Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness, not in lewdness and lust, not in strife and envy. 14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts.
​

The word "provision" is pronoia (pron-oy-ah). From Strong's #4307...andit means "FOREPLANNING, foresight, forethought, predmediated plan, making preparation for, providing for." Derived from words pro, "before," and noeo, "to think," "contemplate." Paul prohibited his readers from planning ahead and making any preparations for gratifying their carnal nature. Paul emphasizes a high standard of moral conduct, paticularly in view of the nearness of the Lord's return, when our salvation will be consummated. The way to moral excellence is twofold. Positively, we must PUT ON the Lord Jesus Christ, submitting to His Lordship, accepting His moral standards, living in constant fellowship with Him, and depending upon his strength. Negatively, we are to make no provision for the flesh, doing nothing to foster its sensual desires and appetities.

If it were not possible for Christians to make room for the sins of the flesh, there'd logically never have been warning against it to begin with---and all of this, to be clear, was DIRECTLY after Paul was speaking on the new nature that has been made available to us in Christ in Romans 5-8. Yet there was no contradiction seeing that the mindset of those who were listening is that the new work Christ made for us was that we'd be able to have a new nature via the opportunity to participate in His righteousness and no longer be forced to choose sin as our masters. We're free to do so---just like with putting on dirty clothes---but it's not something we're destined to do so anymore. Being a new creature DOES NOT mean that the old nature/flesh (clothing) is not available for us to walk in if we so choose to do so. Plenty of believers do so all the time. Annias and Saphria did so clearly- in Acts 5 when they lied to the church--alongside a couple of others who chose to do so.

To extend the "clothing" analogy so that it makes more sense, have you seen the movie "Spiderman 3"? Sorry I have to go to the T.V for my references....but I used to be a comic buff and I thought the Movie was excellent and probably one of the best examples illustrating the concept of the war between the OLD Man and the the NEW Man.

For Parker was bitten by a radioactive spider---given a gift that literally made him into a new creature. Still human, of course, in many ways....but significantly enhanced/developing with abilities not found in mere men. But when the symbiote got attached to him, it brought out the worse of what he was. And it drove him. Parker had the ability to reign in the symbiote/Venom...but it was difficult and something he had to consciously choose to do.

1 Peter 2:11

Dear friends, I urge you, as aliens and strangers in the world, to abstain from sinful desires, which war against your soul.


(1 Peter 2

1 Peter 4:1
[ Living for God ] Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because he who has suffered in his body is done with sin. 2As a result, he does not live the rest of his earthly life for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. 3For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. 1 Peter 4:1-3 /1 Peter 4
​

This may bless you, as the viewpoint of Orthodoxy is excellent when explaining what it means to be saved. For we've been saved, are being saved, and will be saved. Salvation is a journey and continual development...

• Holiness in the Early Church - CRI/Voice, Institute
• Response to Michael Horton | Orthodox-Reformed Bridge
• Salvation is a Journey, Not an Event — Classical Christianity
• The Orthodox Teaching on Personal Salvation - Православие.Ru
• Salvation According to Coptic Orthodox Traditionx - Church of the
• Ancient Christian Defense: Outside the Church There Is No Salvation

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

JESUS by doctrine, and communicating JESUS are 2 different things. communicating JESUS means preaching the gospel.

Why would you sacrifice preaching gospel at the expense of doctrine ?

Calvary job is for doctrine or for lost soul ?

Why do you separate the two? Jesus didn't.

15 And the Jews marveled, saying, “How does this Man know letters, having never studied?”
16 Jesus answered them and said, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. 17 If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority. 18 He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who seeks the glory of the One who sent Him is true, and no unrighteousness is in Him.
John 7:15-18 (NKJV)​

Jesus knew the letters (v15). In other words, He knew the scriptures known at the time (and then some!). He taught doctrine. It was God's doctrine, AND it agreed with the letters. Note (as shown in other verses) it was not the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees. It was the doctrine of the Gospel.

So would I "sacrifice preaching gospel at the expense of doctrine?" To leave doctrine out is indeed sacrificing the gospel.

Is "Calvary job ... for doctrine or for lost soul." Both. Doctrine is part of the Gospel message to win the lost soul.

Now, what doctrine? As shown already we see Jesus' doctrine and we see the Pharisee's doctrine. In churches today we have doctrines of different denominations and movements. So what is doctrine when it comes to the Gospel of Christ.

It is the accepted essential teachings of the Christian Church. It is what is the commonality between the denominations that make them a part of the Christian Church. It is what excludes the Mormon doctrines from being a part of the Christian Church. It is what excludes the Jehovah's Witnesses from being part of the Christian Church.

So separating the two is not good.

wof supposed to be rhema based, not doctrine based. have you seen truthfrees replied in my thread ?

Have you looked closely at truthfrees replies? He upholds doctrine just as much as rhema (and correctly so -- if I've come across in my arguments as diminishing the Spirit and the charisma in our walk, then I apologize).

It is not one or the other. It is both together. The doctrine that is preached must not be dry and dead, but must be given life through the rhema of the Spirit of God. The Rhema that is embraced must not be, as verse 18 begins in John 7 above, what he speaks from himself, but rather must agree with the scripture, must agree with the doctrine of the Christian Church.

THIS is what Word of Faith not only is supposed to be, but what it is.

 

[Simon the Tanner]

That said, Do you have any good books you'd recommend when it comes to dealing with the issue of what you saw problematic with Carlton Pearson and others in the Faith Movement who chose to do as he was doing in claiming sound doctrine was less important than being appealing at the expense of preaching the Good News of Christ and the Gospel as Jesus taught it? I had some recommended to me and was seeking to see which ones you had studied.

None in particular. My views have been formulated by studying doctrines on my own, using books on systematic theology, comparing translations, and attending church for half a century. The two years I attended Rhema instilled in me a respect for God's Word. As much as Brother Hagin ministered by the unction of the Holy Spirit, he was first and foremost committed to the Word. As I learned the WoF there and studied theology on my own, I sensed the Holy Spirit telling me that the message of faith is totally compatible with the principles of hermeneutics and systematic theology. As I have sought further insight into these issues I have found that to be the case.

 

[de1929]

Why do you separate the two? Jesus didn't.

Jesus did ... if you spend more time with RHEMA instead with LOGOS, you will find more revelations.

15 And the Jews marveled, saying, “How does this Man know letters, having never studied?”
16 Jesus answered them and said, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. 17 If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority. 18 He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who seeks the glory of the One who sent Him is true, and no unrighteousness is in Him.
John 7:15-18 (NKJV)

the doctrine is not mine, it's his who sent me. It means there is separation between JESUS property and SENDER property. But JESUS and SENDER are GOD correct ? it's trinity anyway.

whether from GOD or My own authority. It means separation between from GOD's and JESUS own authority. But GOD and JESUS are same right ? it's trinity anyway.

JESUS knews, people later ages will collect all scriptures and canonize it and make it a book. GOD is alpha and omega anyway, so HE knows what's gonna happen.

HE knows the book will facilitate spreading gospel.
HE also knows the book will facilitate confusing among christians, particularly text intepretation.

It starts with wills to do HIS will
"from GOD" meanings LOGOS
"My own authority" is RHEMA.

---- so what's the problem ---
1. many teachers here, using head-knowledge to decipher LOGOS, instead of going into GOD's presence to get RHEMA.
2. only RHEMA has the power and authority. LOGOS don't. Have you seen this testimony ? it's RHEMA loaded, mininum LOGOS.
https://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopic=3811462&st=0&p=77973387&#entry77973387
It influences a lot of people, yet at the expense of bible scholar. Just like JESUS time.
3. Do you and bible teachers here, have any testimony about walking in faith, like what i did on no 2 ? it's important to feed people the right mindset, the right focus, right expectations, because wrong teachings has hefty penalty (matthew 18:5 -6).

Matthew 18:5 - 6
5"And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; 6but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Why do you separate the two? Jesus didn't.

15 And the Jews marveled, saying, “How does this Man know letters, having never studied?”
16 Jesus answered them and said, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. 17 If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority. 18 He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who seeks the glory of the One who sent Him is true, and no unrighteousness is in Him.
John 7:15-18 (NKJV)​

Jesus knew the letters (v15). In other words, He knew the scriptures known at the time (and then some!). He taught doctrine. It was God's doctrine, AND it agreed with the letters. Note (as shown in other verses) it was not the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees. It was the doctrine of the Gospel.

So would I "sacrifice preaching gospel at the expense of doctrine?" To leave doctrine out is indeed sacrificing the gospel.

Is "Calvary job ... for doctrine or for lost soul." Both. Doctrine is part of the Gospel message to win the lost soul.

Now, what doctrine? As shown already we see Jesus' doctrine and we see the Pharisee's doctrine. In churches today we have doctrines of different denominations and movements. So what is doctrine when it comes to the Gospel of Christ.

It is the accepted essential teachings of the Christian Church. It is what is the commonality between the denominations that make them a part of the Christian Church. It is what excludes the Mormon doctrines from being a part of the Christian Church. It is what excludes the Jehovah's Witnesses from being part of the Christian Church.

So separating the two is not good.


Have you looked closely at truthfrees replies? He upholds doctrine just as much as rhema (and correctly so -- if I've come across in my arguments as diminishing the Spirit and the charisma in our walk, then I apologize).

It is not one or the other. It is both together. The doctrine that is preached must not be dry and dead, but must be given life through the rhema of the Spirit of God. The Rhema that is embraced must not be, as verse 18 begins in John 7 above, what he speaks from himself, but rather must agree with the scripture, must agree with the doctrine of the Christian Church.

THIS is what Word of Faith not only is supposed to be, but what it is.

Thanks for sharing this. Every single founder in WOF has noted this reality and it's something there is and will never be any compromise on when it comes to either studying and loving God's Word - or following God's Rhema.

In practical example, same sex relationships are wrong and LGBTQ. God never approved of them, never accepted them or blessed them. Anyone saying "The Holy Spirit says to me that they are GOOD!!!" is not following the Holy Spirit as he has revealed Himself in the Word - since God already condemned that flatly in Genesis 19 with Sodom and Gommorah and other ministries. There are others today who seek to say otherwise, but they show by practice that they neither know God NOR do they love Him because God said plainly those who love him will obey His commandments.

The same goes for saying, as an example, that murder is wrong. Someone claiming "Well, doctrine is not of God or good - my Rhema says murder is RIGHT!!!", they would be flatly wrong....and to preach otherwise would be against Christ since he already condemned murder multiple times.

Anytime God says something is a sin in the scriptures or he preached against something and others come along claiming "Oh, that's not true", it really is corrupt in GOD's sight and does not need to be followed.

The bottom line is that the Gospel NEVER - at ANY POINT - ever claimed that one could remain in their sin and be accepted before the Lord. It is not a laughing matter and one of the reasons why it has been said throughout WOF that anyone speaking on Rhema or God's spirit while being unable to condemn sin is really approving of things GOD said to be wicked.

And of course, as has been the case with others on the forums doing such behavior, of course those doing so are NOT welcome throughout the Faith Movement. The Gospel is NOT a liscense to sin and that is what others are doing today which is against the Word of God. Jesus/God already spoke on the subject

Ezekiel 18:21-23 But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions that he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness that he has done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?

Mark 1:15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”

Matthew 4:16-17 the people who sat in darkness have seen a great light. And for those who lived in the land where death casts its shadow, a light has shined.” From then on Jesus began to preach, “Repent of your sins and turn to God, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near.”

Luke 13:3 No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.

Luke 15:7 Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance.

Matthew 7:16-17 You’ll recognize them by their fruit. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree produces good fruit, but a bad tree produces bad fruit.

Luke 3:8-14 Therefore produce fruit consistent with repentance. And don’t start saying to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you that God is able to raise up children for Abraham from these stones! Even now the ax is ready to strike the root of the trees! Therefore, every tree that doesn’t produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.” “What then should we do?” the crowds were asking him. He replied to them, “The one who has two shirts must share with someone who has none, and the one who has food must do the same.” Tax collectors also came to be baptized, and they asked him, “Teacher, what should we do?” He told them, “Don’t collect any more than what you have been authorized.” Some soldiers also questioned him: “What should we do?” He said to them, “Don’t take money from anyone by forceor false accusation; be satisfied with your wages.”

​

And this is the witness of the Apostles themselves on the matter...

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 3:19 Repent therefore, and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out

Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

Acts 5:31 God has exalted to his right hand this very man as our Leader and Savior in order to extend repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel.
​

And as Jesus again says to the Churches flatly concerning sin....

Revelation 2:5 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.

Revelation 3:3 Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you.

​

People, usually if they are commited against the Lord with regards to refusing to preach repentance, will go for the argumentation that "Well, my interpretation is different than yours - but I still love the Word!!!!" - and that, of course, goes RIGHT Back to ignoring clear passages and the concept of starting with the Word. You cannot dismiss where God flatly dismissed something by claiming the scriptures may cause confusion when God went out of his way to make things plain.

As an example of what has occurred in real life, I came across a picture recently and was surprised to see others offended by what the picture noted. As it stated:

And as I said to them in response:​

​

As much as it'd be easy to trip over Steve Harvey messing up the awards for Ms. Universe, this has been something on my mind with the reactions we take to things that are less serious than others. After taking classes pertaining to Identity/Gender Studies - learning about Queer Theory and others from Judith Butler to Cathy Cohen and others, I am grateful for in the friends I made in it and having expanded awareness on the complexities in LGBTQ communities and it not being as monolithic as many assume it to be). Nonetheless, I am glad that there are others aware of the subject of transgender dynamics and I gladly support other leaders such as Daniel Delgado (

), Sy Rogers (

) and Christine Sneeringer (http://www.daystar.com/ondemand/video/?video=4151408045001 ) or Rosaria Champagne Butterfield (

) and others in their compassion/understanding of how to address it after coming from that lifestyle and seeing Christ.

And to be upfront, I do not make apologies for it: Bruce may have changed his identification/gender, but his sex will always be a male biologically (as it concerns chromosones), regardless of whether or not one wants to be called "she." I'll call others by their first name but it'd be off saying "she feels this way" when that pronoun is not descriptive of who someone is biologically.

There are plenty of people who've spoken on the issue of how religious ideology always makes a world of difference - and if your own religious background does not allow for calling others opposite of who they were naturally, there are ways around that easily. One can simply call them "they" or refer to them by their first name they've chosen - hence, why others have no issue calling Bruce "Catlyn" instead of saying "she" when that is not who the person was biologically. It's the dynamic of seeking to live (if possible) with everyone (Romans 12) in peace and going as far as you'd be allowed. I actually had a professor who was an open lesbian and older but she understood where I was coming from when I called her "ma'am" in respect for her position and then asked "Is that something you prefer?" since a lot of professors would demand to be called "sir." If she said she preferred that, I'd simply refer to her by her first name and say "Professor ________" (fill in the blank) - and she let me know how she got where I was coming from. From there it was a very enjoyable class. It is not a monolithic thing within the LGBTQ community when it comes to pronoun usage anyhow . And glad for others noting that it goes both ways when it comes to respect - thus meaning that others who find the "he/she" dynamic appealing to them with regards to their transgendered perspective need to be respectful of folks who do have that view ......one of the reasons why I again have no issue with using gender-neutral pronouns (i.e. "They were really passionate about the vote") or simply calling them by their first name (https://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1412/02/1412022843495.jpg ).

But again, I am not allowed to simply go with whatever one claims to be the norm when my faith in Christ will not make that available. And as it is, not everyone was on board with Jenner for being nonimated "Woman of the Year" when pointing out how much it actually sent the message that a man was able to be a better woman than other women. Tons of women were highly incensed at the actions and thus it needs to be dropped with the false accusations that it was somehow only Christians bothered on the issue - more in "Caitlyn Jenner Can't Be Woman Of The Year - The Federalist" ( http://thefederalist.com/2015/10/23/caitlyn-jenner-cant-be-woman-of-the-year/ ) and "Husband Returns 'Woman Of Year' Award Over Caitlyn Jenner" ( http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/16...ward-attacks-caitlyn-jenner-for-accepting-it/ ).....and "The Woman of the Year in 1903 vs 2015 PERFECTLY ..." ( http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/...fectly-illustrates-the-degradation-of-society ). Women did radical things in shaping society and creating wonders - yet Jenner chose to have a surgery and is celebrated as the person of the hour above all other women? That is not honoring women.

Regardless, men and women have come out of the transgendered lifestyle and found freedom in Christ - and it is not a small issue with regards to others who have preached the Gospel and made available what can only be found in Jesus. Some may feel it is automatically "bullying" simply because someone disagrees with a transgendered lifestyle as a sign of who someone is - although I always find it problematic when others come out of that life and are shut down for disagreeing. There's no room for speaking on discrimination when being willing to say those who no longer advocate for Transgendered ideology are automatically called as "not loving God" - it goes both ways. And Jesus did not play with others taking His Word out of context,...or saying that others were automatically "judging" simply for noting what God the Father already stated in the Scriptures. There comes a point there has to stop being a reaction to anything you disagree with .

Jackie Hill (who was a former lesbian) did an amazing job breaking the issue down when sharing on her own background, as seen here in "Former lesbian Jackie Hill-Perry responds to Bruce Jenner's ...Rapzilla" ( http://www.rapzilla.com/rz/features...l-perry-responds-to-bruce-jenner-s-sex-change ) and "MY LIFE AS A STUD by Jackie Hill OFFICIAL P4CM POET" (

) and "Jackie Hill on Same-Sex Attraction" (

)

And for good resources on the issue:

-"Sy Rogers - Transgendered Disorders" ( https://vimeo.com/3320087 )

-"Sexuality Series - Calvin College" ( http://livestream.com/calvin-college/SexualitySeries )

-"Sexual Perfection? Wholeness, Identity, and Virtue" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaCDt5xeDMw )

-"Megan DeFranza | Eerdmans Author Interview Series" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qka0U7_ZO0 )"

-"Intersex and Imago: Sex, Gender, and Sexuality " ( http://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1116&context=dissertations_mu )

-"Sex Difference in Christian Theology by Megan K. DeFranza ..." ( http://www.evangelicalsforsocialact...ce-in-christian-theology-by-megan-k-defranza/ )

-"A female soul in a male body?: a theological proposal - Thoughts Theological" ( http://thoughtstheological.com/a-female-soul-in-a-male-body-a-theological-proposal/ ).

-"Transgender 104: Reconsidering the scope of the Fall - Scholastica's Seedlings << Megan's musings on theology, sexuality, and other mysteries" ( http://0370025.netsolhost.com/wordp...nder-104-reconsidering-the-scope-of-the-fall/ )

-"Eunuchs: Intersex or Infertile men? Responding to Preston Sprinkle - Scholastica's Seedlings << Megan's musings on theology, sexuality, and other mysteries" ( http://0370025.netsolhost.com/wordp...infertile-men-responding-to-preston-sprinkle/ )

-"“WE are the Human Race. You are tolerated only to a point - Scholastica's Seedlings << Megan's musings on theology, sexuality, and other mysteries" ( http://0370025.netsolhost.com/wordp...human-race-you-are-tolerated-only-to-a-point/ )

-"Pure Intimacy - Hope in a World of Gender Confusion" ( http://www.pureintimacy.org/h/hope-in-a-world-of-gender-confusion/ )

-"Intersex and Christian Theology - Patheos" ( http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theologyintheraw/2015/10/intersex-and-christian-theology/ ) / ( https://www.facebook.com/Paul.and.AT/posts/10101791941087723 )

-"Problems with the Genderbread Person | Wisdom & Folly" ( http://wisdomandfollyblog.com/problems-with-the-genderbread-person/ )

-"He or She? How Should I Refer to Transgender Friends - John Piper" ( http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/he-or-she-how-should-i-refer-to-transgender-friends )

-"A Wesleyan View of Gender Identity and Expression | The .Wesleyan Church" ( https://www.wesleyan.org/2275/a-wesleyan-view-of-gender-identity-and-expression )

-"Understanding Homosexuality: An Orthodox Christian Perspective" ( http://www.antiochian.org/node/17905 )

-"Bruce or Caitlyn? He or she? Should Christians accommodate transgender naming?" ( http://www.dennyburk.com/bruce-or-caitlyn-he-or-she-should-christians-accomodate-transgender-naming/ )

-"What About Intersexuality? Focus on the Family" ( http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/sexuality/transgenderism/what-about-intersexuality ) and "Yale University: Old Testament Theology" ( http://theopenacademy.com/content/l...rpora-je-exodus-p-leviticus-and-numbers-and-d & http://oyc.yale.edu/english/engl-300/lecture-23 ).

I don't think anyone can claim that an orientation is a sin anymore than you can claim temptation is a sin. Are there certain actions that are called "sin" for Hebrews in the Law? Yes. Should we ostracize people based on their commission of this sin? Of course not. Should we teach them to be upright and honorable, trusting that they will make the right decision? Yes,

We live in a fallen world where we often get fallen/broken bodies due to sin and life....and what we need is understanding. Seeing the amount of men/women I've met who said they would love to make desires go away, its sad to see others say they're "abnormal" just for having that desire.. Teaching them is what is needed...and loving them through it as well.

And on the issue, we cannot give overly simplistic answers for complex issues. For example, on the issue of changing desire, I wonder about those who didn't choose to be in such a position simply because of them being born one way.

In example, on a more realistic level, consider this scenario. Suppose your child was originally created as a male....and yet, when the child was born, one of the procedures for aiding the birth process resulted in the child losing his privates.....and the doctors decided that to "correct" the problem they'd do some work so that the child would become female and never know.

For more info, Circumcision Deaths/Disasters Headlines (http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/deaths-d.htm )....and in example of cases (for brief excerpt):

_________________________________

1969
"Penis Destroyed by Electrical Instrument During Circumcision, Boy of 8 Months Raised as a Girl" Justice Weekly (Toronto), 10/25/69.

-1975
"Circumcision Botched; He's Now She (Family Awarded $850,000" L.A. Times, 10/30/75. "Child awarded damages" Leader Post Regina, SK [Canada], November 1975. ("SEATTLE (AP) A three-year-old child who is undergoing sex change operations because he was badly burned during a routine circumcision has been awarded $750,000 ... a military doctor ... burned the baby's genital area so badly that physicians eventually advised changing the child's sex to female ... The greatest danger, doctors said, is of deep psychological trauma if the child learns she was born a male.")

-1985 "Sex change should give circumcision victim near-normal life" Atlanta Constitution, 9/21/85. ("A month-old Atlanta child who underwent a sex-change operation two weeks ago as result of a circumcision accident at Northside Hospital could lead a near-normal life as a female, a doctor familiar with sex-change procedures said Friday

_____________________________________​

For those children who grew up thinking that they were born one way...only to be shocked/realize that they were meant to be another, what would happen with them? If someone had surgery done to them to make them appear like a girl---and they ended up liking other guys but realized that it wasn't what they were meant for, would that mean that they would have to convert back into a male? What if their entire identity was based upon what they felt was being a female in the image of God? Does anyone consider the sheer psychological trauma they may have to go through when it comes to issues of orientation and not feeling like the fit?

From here, one can also see the issue of those who are Hermaphodites---born with both MALE and FEMALE sex organs. What does the Lord say of them?

There're numerous other scenarios such as this-----and the Church amazingly has rarely addressed the issue, seeing that it doesn't seem to be something really important or "immediately within their radar"....

But those people are there - both in the media and in real life...

And yes, in the event that it should be assumed that anyone in the LGBTQ community who is aware of Bruce Jenner is automatically in support of gay marriage, it should be noted that there's an extensive amount of history and current protesting against gay marriage equality as it concerns LGBT communities - plus others who are in the LGBTQ community who disagree with the actions of Jenner while also not wanting to assimilate into anything done with LGTQ.There is a LARGE spectrum and it helps to be aware of it. For resources:

-"Marriage » Against Equality
When it comes to gay marriage, the times, they are a-confusing" ( http://www.againstequality.org/about/marriage/ )

-"ANARCHISTS ON GAY MARRIAGE" ( http://www.anarchistagency.com/press-briefs/on-gay-marriage/ )

-"Gay Marriage Victory Is Not About Equality << Real News Network" (http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14117)

-"Open Letter to LGBT Leaders Who Are Pushing Marriage Equality" ( http://katebornstein.typepad.com/ka...eaders-who-are-pushing-marriage-equality.html )

-"Gay Assimilationists versus Radical Queers: The Death of Queerness?" ( http://angelmatos.net/2013/04/06/gay-assimilationists-versus-radical-queers-the-death-of-queerness/ )

Moreover, on things I learned from one of my classes on Identity/Gender Studies, Reading on people such as Cathy Cohen (of "Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens: The Radical Potential of Queer Politics?" and Rodrick Ferguson (who suggested that examining sociological arguments about the social construction of sexuality reveals how white gays and lesbians became increasingly more accepted as American citizens and that this white gay and lesbian acceptance into American citizenship is due to the race and class of that particular group of people) for my Queer Theory/Identity and Groups Class was really fascinating and timely....it helped me realize how much the arguments have been framed the wrong ways repeatedly.

--"Professor Cathy Cohen, "Whose Black Lives Matter? The Politics of Black Love and Violence" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfO4AViCgZ8 )

--"UnCommon Core | Beyond Bullying, Marriage, and Military: Race, Radicalism and Queer Politics" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbG1TGoQGP8 )

---"Punks, Bulldaggers, and Welfare Queens: The Radical Potential of Queer Politics?" by Cathy Cohen (http://www.isabelcporras.com/punks+bulldaggers+cohen.pdf )

---"Abberations in Black: Toward a Queer of Color Critique" by Roderick Ferguson ( http://researchmethodswillse.voices.wooster.edu/files/2012/01/Ferguson.pdf and http://985queer.queergeektheory.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Ferguson-Something-Else-To-Be.pdf)

-"'My Man Bovanne': A Black Feminist Critique of Black Power" by Dr. Roderick Ferguson (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TI1TE_c8-38 )

Finally......as I approach things from a Christological perspective as a disciple of Christ, it is not something I can compromise on for anyone - just as those wIthin Islam or Judaism and Abrahamic religions will consistently seek to ensure that they are not changing their views for the sake of agreement with society alone. And I have to note that because there has often been much in regards to claiming that following Jesus means approving of a lifestyle choice rather than realizing that one can choose the lifestyle, still be loved and yet not have their choices loved ....

Consistent with scriptural witness, it is imperative to remember that Christ noted at one point (when questioned on an insincere question from the Pharisees on marriage to trap him since they were abusing things like divorce which God gave as an necessary but imperfect means to help people determined to not honor marriage) ....and he said to them what the Lord's original intention when saying that God created people “in the beginning” as male and female, and that marriage is the union of one man and one woman joined together as “one flesh.” (Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9).

He also said that marriage is not something everyone was made for in Matthew 19, noting that some have either been made eunuchs by birth, against their will or by choice - and to be a eunuch in those times meant you really didn't fit normal categories anyhow. Plus, Christ used the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah as dramatic examples of God’s wrath (Matthew 10:15, Mark 6:11, Luke 10:12, and Luke 17:29).

Throughout the Old Testament, prophets described these cities as being notorious for the practice of abuse/same-sex relationships championed (although those same groups also did things which Christians tend to remain silent for since Ezekiel 16:49 notes rather plainly, after God punished Israel, on how his people did the same things as Sodom/Gomorrah which they justified since it says "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."...and for many, that is something that is left out when people speak on LGBT as the only reason God harmed those places and yet ignore where things Christians do all the time were also means of God getting ticked ...and we Jesus did NOT like it when the poor were mistreated or marginalized).

For anyone interested, they may want to check out the following here as it addresses the issue of how there were many things Christ didn't speak on because it was enough where Scripture references where Christ supported the OT Torah (mentioning already how children not supporting their parents - in his culture - were said by Moses to be punished in Mark 7 and noting in Matthew 5 he didn't come to do away with the Law...but to fulfill it/complete it).

So with Christ and same-sex relationships, my mindset is that it never ceased being a problem with the Lord - but he noted his focus to be dominant in one thing: YOU ALL NEED to look to ME for SALVATION...and walk out true love for others by how you care for them (Luke 10:25-39).

-Is it True that Jesus Never Addressed Homosexuality?
by Mike Riccardi" ( http://thecripplegate.com/is-it-true-that-jesus-never-addressed-homosexuality/)

-"HOMEDIOCESESPARISHESDEPARTMENTS & ORGANIZATIONSCALENDARCONTACT
Understanding Homosexuality: An Orthodox Christian Perspective By Fr. George Morelli" ( http://www.antiochian.org/node/17905)

--"What has this world come to? Transgender bathroom setups?" ( http://www.christianforums.com/thre...gender-bathroom-setups.7778645/#post-64270961 )

Jesus did not mince words when it came to taking His Words or the Law out of context and it's something we cannot do so either. There are groups in existence who have sought to do so, chief among them being Mel White with SoulForce when it comes to pushing the concept of Gay Christian or saying one's consistently Christian while also advocating for behaviors which the first century Judaic culture never really condoned. This is something that has been addressed before on a number of occasions - and for reference:

-A Study Guide and Response to MEL WHITE’S A Study Guide and Response to What the Bible Says— and Doesn’t Say— About Homosexuality - Wheaton College ( http://www.wheaton.edu/~/media/File...CACE/booklets/StanJonesResponsetoMelWhite.pdf )

-"Our Response to Mel White's Essay" (http://www.ourlutheranchurch.org/documents/ResponsetoMelWhiteEssay.pdf )

-"Mel White: “Don't discuss the Bible” | Gay Christian Watch" ( https://gcmwatch.wordpress.com/2007/07/05/why-gay-christians-wont-discuss-scripture/ )

--"Homosexuality & The New Testament | The Dunamis Word 2" ( https://dunamis2.wordpress.com/homosexuality-the-new-testament/ )

Also, here's something from one of the men I greatly appreciate in Christ - as he grew up living a same-sex lifestyle before coming to Christ and understanding what it means being born in a fallen world/having battles with desires out of place. So appreciate the man speaking on the issues and helping others in the area while going on God's Word...

-Homosexuality and Truth by Joe Dallas (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLc2p4AgRTQ )

-"Love Won Out: Understanding Male Homosexuality" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY4TfNYDxjs )

-"Love Won Out: Understanding Revisionist Gay Theology" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_k4juiHT2Y )

And my dude who speaks a lot on the real issue on knowing how to reach folks with compassion (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7a2RJgAGcM )

Really set some things into place.....and for me,it always is in the back of my mind. Later....thank you again Hazakim Mike-Tony for bringing the attention to mind And for anyone who disagrees and gets upset at me saying as I did, before you respond, I ask "Did anyone ask you to follow me?"

 

[de1929]

do you need to accept the sinner and deal with sin later ? (no condemnation verses)
or
do you need to rebuke the sin and offense the sinner ? (sin-go-to-hell verses)

If you think LOGOS can resolve that issues easily. You are blinded.
different person needs different revelation.

I call it Mr A and Mr B theory. It depends on rhema
Rhema says: Mr A goes the blue way
Rhema says: Mr B goes the red way

As you can see, RHEMA resolves most people problems, at the expense of bible teachers opinions.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I don't intend spending too much time speaking to this except asking for you to please respect the OP subject..

J

---- so what's the problem ---
1. many teachers here, using head-knowledge to decipher LOGOS, instead of going into GOD's presence to get RHEMA.
2. only RHEMA has the power and authority. LOGOS don't. Have you seen this testimony ? it's RHEMA loaded, mininum LOGOS.
https://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopic=3811462&st=0&p=77973387&#entry77973387
It influences a lot of people, yet at the expense of bible scholar.

Please Quit referencing a closed thread for a topic that was banned on another forum, as trying to spread the same thing in threads it was not asked for is not respectful. Others spoke there plainly in regards to the matter and the teaching against God's Word - the reason it was banned to begin with - including when rules were broken rather than honoring the leadership there, as one of the moderators there (Fusion X) took the time to point out directly (in dex.php?s=71d2d4a5bd8af94558c4356d1f46d3a8&amp;showtopic=3801614&view=findpost&p=77768823 and https://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?...mp;showtopic=3801614&view=findpost&p=77764636 ) and (https://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?...mp;showtopic=3801614&view=findpost&p=77808756 ).

As you brought out a public thread, others able to read what was said publically can easily see where there were many wrong things done by yourself that had nothing to do with God's Rhema or God's Spirit. And as it is, it is NEVER God claiming that God's Logos does not have power and authority. To say otherwise goes directly against Jesus in what he said on several levels and is always going to be resisted just as others did so when addressing false teaching in the Scriptures.

• “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16)

• “… knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:20)
• • “For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” (Hebrews 4:12)
  • “So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it.” (Isaiah 55:11)
  • 
    “This is my comfort in my affliction, for Your word has given me life.” (Psalm 119:50)
  
  “… as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby, if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is gracious.” (1 Peter 2:2)

• … that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that He might present it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish.” (Ephesians 5:26)

• “How can a young man cleanse his way? By taking heed according to Your word. With my whole heart I have sought You; Oh, let me not wander from Your commandments! Your word I have hidden in my heart, that I might not sin against You. Blessed are You, O Lord! Teach me Your statutes.” (Psalm 119:9-12)

• ” … and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.” (James 1:21)

• “For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13
• • “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another …” (Colossians 3:16)

Jesus already said plainly“Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.” (John 17:17) and He is the standard. And Jesus made no distinction -

• Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:31)

do you need to accept the sinner and deal with sin later ? (no condemnation verses)
or
do you need to rebuke the sin and offense the sinner ? (sin-go-to-hell verses)

If you think LOGOS can resolve that issues easily. You are blinded.
different person needs different revelation.

I call it Mr A and Mr B theory. It depends on rhema
Rhema says: Mr A goes the blue way
Rhema says: Mr B goes the red way

As you can see, RHEMA resolves most people problems, at the expense of bible teachers opinions.

Respectfully, as the topic of the OP is something you really have not dealt with, God has already noted how he feels on sin and the need to actively rebuke it - and he dealt with what the Word said multiple times on the matter when it came to how he operates - both LOGOS and RHEMA - addressing it.

Jesus never lost sight of the fact that both the LOGOS and RHEMA always go together at the same time, although one may be shared more so than the other. Never can the two contradict each other - but both are necessary.

A person who is struggling with sexual sin may need a Rhema Word where they have someone do like Jesus did in John 4 with the woman at the Well, where he read her mail - told her she was married multiple times - and then brought all things back to Himself as the Messiah and referencing the Word/Scriptural history. Or a person may need to have the Word of God placed forth first when it comes to others claiming things that are not true - and needing to know what God said before going into hearing God's Spirit, just like it was for Jesus when he was going into the Temple turning over tables/chairs and noting plainly to others "My Father's house is to be a house of prayer" (citing Isaiah) and then brought others in to minister/prophesy to them ..more shared here and other times when He would remind of what ...and another time when he/his disciples were falsely accused of working on the Sabbath and Jesus simply quoted the Word of God to them when 'He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need?..."( Mark 2:25 )



LOGOS/WRITTEN Word was always referenced by Christ repeatedly (Mark 7, Matthew 15, John 10, etc.) to address issues easily - so it'd be moot claiming anyone is 'blind' for noting what Jesus did directly.

He actually did that plainly in John 8 when it told the woman caught in adultery to "go and SIN no more" after noting to her he did not condemn her like her accusers - and before that, he dealt with her accusers by choosing to quote the Law against them. And for reference on where that was discussed:

Christ came to highlight God's mercy, love and forgiveness. With the example of John 8 and the situation of the adulterous woman, this is seen clearly.
Others came claiming to support "Law", which Jesus in Matthew 5 already claimed that He was about/often referenced or pointed others to when questioned.


Reading John 8 is interesting when seeing how the Jewish leaders had already disregarded the Law by arresting the woman without the man being present...for the Law required that both parties to adultery be stoned (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22). The leaders were trying to use the woman was a trap so that they could trick Jesus. For if Jesus said the woman should not be stoned, they could EASILY accuse Him of violating the Torah/Mosaic Law.

However, if he urged them to execute her, they would report hm to the Romans since they did not permit Jewws to carry out their own executions (John 18:31).

Jesus was not helpless, thankfully. Anyone studying Jesus knows that he was often seen as one who was a MASTER at persuasion/avoiding traps and cornering others who tried to pin him in a debate---as seen in Matthew 22:15-22 (Mark 12:13-17 and Luke 20:20-26) when he was questioned about payiong taxes or Matthew 21:23-27 (Mark 11:27-33, Luke 20:1-8) when the Pharisees tried to trap him by asking where he gained his authority to do as he did......and the same when he was questioned about healing on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6 (Matthew 12:9-14, Luke 6:6-11). Mark 12:28-35 (Matthew 22:23-33) also comes to mind when Christ quoted the OT to a lawyer trying to trap him, as Jesus showed that God's laws were not meant to be burdensome---and can be summed up into two simple principles: love God and love others (Deuteronomy 6:5, Leviticus 19:18).


The Pharisees, who had classified over 600 laws, often tried to distinguish the more important from the less important....but in that instance when the "expert in the law" asked Jesus to identify the most Important, Jesus showed the Lawyer that when you love God completely and care for others as you care for yourself, then you have fulfilled the intent of the Ten Commandments/Decalouge and the other OT Laws.


Later, Jesus also went further in inditing the religious leaders for not truly living out the heart of God's Law that was meant to give freedom when it came to their not loving LOVE/JUSTICE and Mercy (Matthew 23:23)--with another lawyer being put in check later when trying to go around what Jesus said about loving our neighbors by asking who ones' neighbor was....as seen in the Good Samaritan Parable (Luke 10:25-37). There were many other instances besides the ones mentioned thus far...but all of that is stated to show how Jesus truly lived out the expression we use in the hood to express tact---the phrase being "Mamma didn't raise no fool."

Jesus was truly the ultimate teacher/student of the Law.... and with those in John 8 trying to trap it, Jesus flipped it on all of them by saying, "Let he without sin cast the first stone".....for because Christ upheld the legal penalty for adultery (stoning), Jesus could not be accussed of being against the Law. And if the leaders did all things in order and for right reasons, there's no reason to think Jesus would have said stonning was not permissible. Jesus was a Jew who lived under the Law and said in Matthew 5:17-20 that he did not come to break it. However, by saying only a sinless person could throw the first stone, he highlighted the importance of compassion and forgiveness that was to always be remembered whenever administering the Law occurred.



When Jesus said only the sinless could throw the first stone, the leaders slipped quietly awat from the eldest to the youngest. Some may claim others thought, "Man, mabye the woman doesn't deserve death..I'm not perfect, after all.."---but its most probable to consider that they were walking away due to how Jesus's comment highlighted their OWN sins in the process.


The older men were more aware of their sins than the yougner...and for the sake of humour, if stonning someone without going through PROPER chain of command/process, they could ALSO be killed themselves for violating God's command......as they already were false witnesses (Exodus 23:1-3, Exodus 20:15-17 , Numbers 35:29-31, Deuteronomy 17:1-8, Deuteronomy 19:14-20, Psalm 27:11-13 , Psalm 35:11, ).


Queen Jezebel --the most WICKED woman in Scripture ( 1 Kings 16:30-32, 1 Kings 18:3-5, 1 Kings 19:1-3 , 1 Kings 21:24-26, 2 Kings 9:6-11, 2 Kings 9:30-37, Revelation 2:19-21, etc) did that, if you recall, when she sought to use the Law in gaining the vineyard of Naboth in I Kings 21. She devised a scheme that appeared legal to get the land for her husband.


Two witnesses were required to establish guilt, and the punishment for blasphemy was death by stoning (Acts 6:11, Exodus 22:28, Leviticus 24:15-16). In that instance, she was like those who twist the law and legal procedures to get what they want.....being more sophisticated in how they go about it, but still being guilty of the same sins.


Jezebel used the Law craftily to make it seems as if the man was guilty of a crime he didn't commit----and then, when the smoke cleared, she took it while maintaining the public image that her husband was innocent. That was directly in violation of what the WORD ALReady said on how to do justice and not bearing false testimony against your neighbor since it could endanger another's life( Exodus 20:15-17 , Exodus 22:28, Deuteronomy 5:19-21 , Deuteronomy 19:17-19 , Proverbs 6:18-20, Proverbs 12:17, Proverbs 14:5, Proverbs 14:25, Proverbs 19:5 , Proverbs 19:9, Proverbs 21:28, Proverbs 25:17-19 . Matthew 19:17-19 , Leviticus 24:15-16, Matthew 26:59, Acts 6:11).


The scriptures make clear that anyone bringing a false witness against another out of malicious intent and not being in line with all procedures of the Law was to be treated as they desired others to be. Something else that stands out to me is that my mom once noted something saying that for them to have caught the woman in the very ACT of adultery could easily mean that they had to actively be WATCHING the process to see what went down (voyureism, inappropriate contentagraphy in seeking to see people having sex).

They had to be looking at someone's window seeing the act of perversion---and thus, they could be said to have been perverted in that sense as well.


This becomes especially relevant when seeing how Jesus in Matthew 5:27-30 made clear that the act of Adultery was not simply in physical interaction. For adultery begins in the heart. The OT Law said it was wrong for a person to have sex with someone other than his or her spouse (Exodus 20:14, Deuteronmy 5:18) ). But Jesus said that the desire to have sex with someone other than your spouse and lust is MENTAL adultery...and thus, sin. Jesus emphasized that if the act is wrong, then so is the intention.

To be faithful to your spouse with your body but not your mind is to break the trust so vital to a strong marriage.....and thus, it could've easily been the case that the men accusing the woman caught in adultery were also guilty of ADULTERY themselves. They simply were engaging in it in differing forms..



Ultimately, as they were ready to throw stones, Jesus utilized the situation to ensure the equivalent of a "Mexican standoff"..and if unaware of what that means, it is a slang term defined as a stalemate or impasse-- a confrontation that neither side can foreseeably win. The term is most often used in lieu of 'stalemate' when the confrontational situation is exceptionally dangerous for all parties involved since in popular culture, the Mexican standoff is usually portrayed as two or more opponents with guns drawn and ready, creating a tense situation. For neither side is willing to shoot for fear of being shot in return, yet neither side wants to relinquish its weapons for fear that its opponents will shoot them.

Jesus's questions placed everyone in check since what he did was essentially say, "If you want someone to die, Fine. But be ready to go ALL THE WAY with it since EVERYONE'S ABOUT to go down hard." Jesus tested them, as they tried to do with him...and He proved he was more "Gangsta" than all of them since NO one wanted to "pull the trigger" (so to speak)/do something.

When it came to the Law, Jesus showed consistency with it. aAnd with the woman, Jesus didn't condemn the woman accussed of adultery, but neither did he ignore or condone her sin. He told her to leave her life of sin. For Jesus stands ready to forgive any sin in our life as long as we confess and repent. Something else to consider is that Jesus technically was never in the POSITION to declare her in need of dying.

With John 8:11, where he says "Neither do I accuse you", this evidently can be taken in the sense of judicial condemnation, or of passing sentence as a magistrate. For this was what they (her accusers) had set her up for her for. It was not to obtain his opinion about adultery, but to obtain the condemnation of the woman. As Jesus claimed no civil authority, he said that he did not exercise it, and should not condemn her to die.

As said best by one Commentary:

-​

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
Neither do I condemn thee - Bishop Pearce says: "It would have been strange if Jesus, when he was not a magistrate, and had not the witnesses before him to examine them, and when she had not been tried and condemned by the law and legal judges, should have taken upon him to condemn her. This being the case, it appears why Jesus avoided giving an answer to the question of the scribes and Pharisees, and also how little reason there is to conclude from hence that Christ seems in this case not enough to have discouraged adultery, though he called it a sin.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
She saith, no man, Lord,.... No man said a word to me, or lift up his hand against me, or moved a stone at me:
and Jesus said unto her, neither do I condemn thee; Christ came not into the world to act the part of a civil magistrate, and therefore refused to arbitrate a case, or be concerned in dividing an inheritance between two brethren, Luke 12:13. Nor did he come into the world to condemn it, but that the world, through him, might be saved, John 3:17; nor would he pass any other sentence on this woman, than what he had done; nor would he inflict any punishment on her himself; but suitably and agreeably to his office; as a prophet, he declares against her sin, calls her to repentance, and bids her go and sin no more; lest as he said to the man he cured at Bethesda's pool, a worse thing should come unto her. Wherefore the Jew (s) has no reason to object to this conduct of Christ, as if he acted contrary to the law, in Deuteronomy 13:5. "Thou shalt put the evil away from the midst of thee"; and also to the sanctions of all civil laws among men, which order the removal of evil, by putting delinquents to death; and he observes, that those that believe in him, do not follow him in this, but put adulterers and adulteresses to death; and that indeed, should his example and instructions take place, all courts of judicature must cease, and order be subverted among men: but it should be observed, that our Lord manifested a regard, even to the law of Moses, when he bid this woman's accusers that were without sin, to cast the first stone at her; though as for the law in Deuteronomy 13:5, that respects a false prophet, and not an adulterer or an adulteress; nor do the civil laws of all nations require death in the case of adultery; and did they, Christ here, neither by his words nor actions, contradicts and sets aside any such laws of God or man; he left this fact to be inquired into, examined, and judged, and sentence passed by proper persons, whose business it was: as for himself, his office was not that of a civil magistrate, but of a Saviour and Redeemer; and suitably to that he acted in this case; he did not connive at the sin, he reproved for it; nor did he deny that she ought to suffer according to the law of Moses, but rather suggests she ought; but as this was not his province, he did not take upon him to pronounce any sentence of condemnation on her; but called her to repentance, and, as the merciful and compassionate Saviour, gave her reason to hope pardon and eternal life.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
8:1-11 Christ neither found fault with the law, nor excused the prisoner's guilt; nor did he countenance the pretended zeal of the Pharisees. Those are self-condemned who judge others, and yet do the same thing. All who are any way called to blame the faults of others, are especially concerned to look to themselves, and keep themselves pure. In this matter Christ attended to the great work about which he came into the world, that was, to bring sinners to repentance; not to destroy, but to save. He aimed to bring, not only the accused to repentance, by showing her his mercy, but the prosecutors also, by showing them their sins; they thought to insnare him, he sought to convince and convert them. He declined to meddle with the magistrate's office. Many crimes merit far more severe punishment than they meet with; but we should not leave our own work, to take that upon ourselves to which we are not called. When Christ sent her away, it was with this caution, Go, and sin no more. Those who help to save the life of a criminal, should help to save the soul with the same caution. Those are truly happy, whom Christ does not condemn. Christ's favour to us in the forgiveness of past sins should prevail with us, Go then, and sin no more.
​

Honestly, even if the woman came back for the same offense, the reality is that it seems most likely the Lord would've said the SAME thing to her due to the fact that Jesus was not a MAGISTRATE--and thus, didn't have the power to give her up. During the first time she was brought forth, the people bringing the woman to Christ were also in error on THAT front as well since she should have been brought toward the judges of the town. One witness wasn't enough ( Deuteronomy 19:15-25 )--and one needed to be a WITNESS to stone anyway.


And in many ways, as much as people focus on the woman recieving mercy from Christ, it could also be said that Jesus was showing the PEOPLE mercy as well. For if they had truly applied the Law as they claimed they were concerned for, again, they would ALL have been dead very quickly. Jesus diffused the situation in a way where all could see why it was so important to understand the GRACE of the Lord.

But even if He was to say she deserved to die for committing adultery, Roman Law would not allow the Jews to do Public executions. Not being allowed to do public executions was the reason the religious leaders of Christ's day had to bring Him to Pilate in order to do the deed:

​

As Clarke's Commentary said best:

Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
It is not lawful for us to put any man to death - They might have judged Jesus according to their law, as Pilate bade them do; but they could only excommunicate or scourge him. They might have voted him worthy of death; but they could not put him to death, if any thing of a secular nature were charged against him. The power of life and death was in all probability taken from the Jews when Archelaus, king of Judea, was banished to Vienna, and Judea was made a Roman province; and this happened more than fifty years before the destruction of Jerusalem. But the Romans suffered Herod, mentioned Acts 12:1, etc., to exercise the power of life and death during his reign. See much on this point in Calmet and Pearce. After all, I think it probable that, though the power of life and death was taken away from the Jews, as far as it concerned affairs of state, yet it was continued to them in matters which were wholly of an ecclesiastical nature; and that they only applied thus to Pilate to persuade him that they were proceeding against Christ as an enemy of the state, and not as a transgressor of their own peculiar laws and customs. Hence, though they assert that he should die according to their law, because he made himself the Son of God, John 19:7, yet they lay peculiar stress on his being an enemy to the Roman government; and, when they found Pilate disposed to let him go, they asserted that if he did he was not Caesar's friend, John 18:12. It was this that intimidated Pilate, and induced him to give him up, that they might crucify him.
​

Also, according to Barnes Notes on the Bible:

The Jews were accustomed to put persons to death still in a popular tumult Acts 7:59-60, but they had not the power to do it in any case in a regular way of justice. When they first laid the plan of arresting the Saviour, they did it to kill him Matthew 26:4; but whether they intended to do this secretly, or in a tumult, or by the concurrence of the Roman governor, is uncertain. The Jews themselves say that the power of inflicting capital punishment was taken away about 40 years before the destruction of the temple; but still it is probable that in the time of Christ they had the power of determining on capital cases in instances that pertained to religion (Josephus, Antiq., b. 14: John 10, Section 2; compare Jewish Wars, b. 6 chapter 2, Section 4). In this case, however, it is supposed that their sentence was to be confirmed by the Roman governor. But it is admitted on all hands that they had not this power in the case of seditions, tumults, or treason against the Roman government. If they had this power in the case of blasphemy and irreligion, they did not dare to exert it here, because they were afraid of tumult among the people Matthew 26:5; hence, they sought to bring in the authority of Pilate. To do this, they endeavored to make it appear that it was a case of sedition and treason, and one which therefore demanded the interference of the Roman governor. Hence, it was on this charge that they arraigned him, Luke 23:2. Thus, a tumult might be avoided, and the odium of putting him to death which they expected would fall, not on themselves, but upon Pilate!
​

Jewish authorities, Jesus was brought--under all but Peter's account--to the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate. The reason, according to John, was that the death penalty was not an available option for the Sanhedrin under Roman law. It should be noted, however, that the Sanhedrin operated during these times with less than complete independence to implement Jewish law, having a dual political and religious status. There is, however, strong reason to believe that Jewish authorities could, had they so desired, executed Jesus. The well-substantiated executions--by stoning--of two first-century Christians, Jesus's brother James in 62 C.E. and Stephen, show that capital punishment was--at least within a few decades of Jesus' trial--practiced by Jewish authorities. Moreover, Temple inscriptions from the period warn of death to Gentiles that pass into certain restricted areas.

At those points, it may've been the case that the Jews were allowed to get away with more than they could due to the Romans turning a blind eye on some cases since the relationship between Rome and the Jews was very hostile---and at times, it was easier to let others simply get away with things not legal just as governments may allow "black market" activities/illegal activities to occur in certain cases.


Those bringing Christ before the woman had no right to try to get Christ to declare judgement on her--and trying to get Him to do so would mean He'd possibly get in trouble. As Christ was wise, He would probably work within the regulation of the law to save her...just as He did before (even though she was guilty).

As another said best here

What we should acknowledge is that this woman has been caught. No one disputes her sin.


Jesus&#8217; Word to the Accusers was silence.(vs 6b-9a) Instead of words He stooped and wrote in the dirt. Jesus relies on the due process built into Torah to expose this rush to judgment.

Perhaps Jesus first wrote:

Deut 19 v 15 &#8220;A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed. &#8220;If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing, then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days. &#8220;The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. &#8220;The rest will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you. &#8220;Thus you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
​

​

Jewish civil law had very strict conditions under which this crime was punishable by execution. God is clear, &#8220;On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.&#8221; It required more than one!



There are numerous witnesses. The Torah is clear that the witness should be the ones to cast the first stone. They must be the ones to cast the first stone of execution so perjury becomes murder, if they are false. It is no small thing to be a wit*ness as you are also the first to carry out the judgment.
Those false witnesses would not only guilty of perjury. They risked the same death penalty their perjury supported and they were required to carry out her execution.
Jesus did not ignore them.

Instead, He used the due process of Torah to free her!


The charge of adultery required that they be caught in the act (Num. 5:13). Rabbi Samuel said, &#8220;In the case of adulterers, they (the witnesses) must have seen them in the posture of adulterers.&#8221; Another scholar of Talmudic law says, (It is not just an issue) of their having seen the couple in a &#8216;compromising situation,&#8217; for example, coming from a room in which they were alone, or even lying together on the same bed. The actual physical movements of the couple must have been capable of no other explanation, and the witnesses must have seen exactly the same acts at exactly the same time, in the pres*ence of each other, so that their depositions would be identical in every respect.

But the same law stated that both parties were to be produced and prosecuted.​

Jesus is one who came bringing grace (John 1:17) in harmony with the Law. LAw and grace are both aspects of God's nature that he uses in dealing with us. ....as seen in Exodus 32:9-14 when God was ready to DESTROY the whole nation because of their sin. For there, Moses pleaded for MERCY ..and God spared them. Its one of the countless examples in the Bible of God's Mercy. For although we deserve his anger, he is willing to forgive/restore us to Himself.....and when God showed Mercy, he did not go against his desire for Justice. When God relented in the Golden Calf incident, he was acting consistently with his mercy---just as he was acting consistently with his Justice when he first wanted to destroy the people. Though God's Mercy was often seen in the OT/Law, Moses emphasized God's Law and justice,

But with Christ, it was always so much more...and His PRIMARY mission while on the Earth was one of Mercy/pointing others to where that could be found---regardless of how messed up they may've

​

Jesus used the LOGOS to set others free ....we see where Jesus speaks in regards to both Rhema and Logos clearly with the Woman at the Well - and for more break-down on the Law, one can go here to Lesson 7 Chapter 5 - Torah Class - Rediscovering the Old Testament


For another example on where the LOGOS was used to free people and emphasized....On the Jewish perspective, on John 10:31-33, within its larger context:

John 10:20-33
....Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[c]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”​

With John 10:31-33, one must remember that the Jews had already made clear that they claimed the ENTIRE Torah was theirs and that they were going to stone Jesus for it when he seemed to break it for claiming He was God. They felt that the Law God had given them in Exodus 20 was being broken when it came to Jesus doing what it was that they were going to stone Him for previously in John 8:59...and that issue was self-identificaiton as God, which they understood to be blasphemy. Their understanding of BLASPHEMY was based on how claiming to be God and, specifically, pronouncing God's name (as Yeshua had just done) were punishable by death (Leviticus 24:15-16 and Mishna Sanhedrin 7:5, "The blasphemer is not guilty until he pronounces the NAME.")

With John 10:34-36, the phrase "Your Torah" is something that is often read without other considerations. For here, "Torah" means "Tanakh, " since the passage quoted is from the Psalms, not the Pentateuch. When Jesus says "You people are Elohim", here Greek theoi ("gods"), in the Hebrew text of Psalm 82 the word "elohim" may be translated "God," "gods," "judges" or "angels." Yeshua's rabbinic mode of Bible citation implies the context of the whole psalm (Matthew 2:6), which plays on these meanings:

"Elohim [God] stands in the congregation of EL [God]:
He judges among the elohim [judges/angels/gods]: How long
will you judge unjustly?..I have said , "You are elohim [judges/angels/gods],
All of you are sons of the Most High."
Nevertheless you will all die like a man
And fall like one of the princes.'
Arise, Elohim [God (the Judge)], and judge the earth,
For you will inherit all the nations." (Psalm 82:1-2, 6-8).
​

And again, to be clear, it needs to be understood that in Judaism the citation of a Scripture text implies the whole context, not merely the quoted words. And with what Jesus quoted on Psalm 82, the first and last "Elohim" mean "God," but the others should be rendered "judges," "gods" or "angels." Yeshua's wordplay implies a rabbinic-style kal v' chomer argument (Matthew 6:30): if humans, who do evil works as they "judge unjustly" are elohim, how much more is Yeshua, who does good works (John 10:25, John 10:32-33, John 10:37-38, etc) Elohim; and if "all of you are sons of the Most High," how much more does the description "Son of God" apply to Yeshua.

And that was done with the Lord using LOGOS/Rhema. It was never a matter of claiming 'You're blind to think GOD'S law is what settles it"

Moving beyond that, one can also consider again John 15:24-26

24 If I had not done among them the works no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. As it is, they have seen, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25 But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: ‘They hated me without reason.’[a]​

The phrase "Their law ..." stresses the inordinate regard the priests had for the external features of Moses' law (which is what Christ was frequently against when it came to the Pharisee's interpretation of the Law in legalistic/"Letter of the Law" thinking rather than the intent of the Law---Love, which is what God has repeatedly noted is the TRUE Law. With the religious leaders, it was "theirs" in the sense of the affectionate regard they professed for it, while actually denying it by their sinful conduct. Note that the quotation ascribed to "the law" was not from the Pentateuch, thus revealing that the term "law" was a reference to the entire Old Testament..

But Jesus often quoted the Psalms (LOGOS ) in reference to Himself to show He was the Messiah - and always set the record straight when it came to showing who He was by using the WORD (LOGOS) of God. This is the Biblical model - and this has been shared before, as seen here:

Additionally, if interested, there's actually an excellent book on the issue of how the Hebrew Bible came to be as it was---and how their view of "books" isn't necessarily the same as how we see it today. It's called Scribal culture and the making of the Hebrew Bible" by K. van der Toorn

​

For more, one can go online and consider the following:

• Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible
• Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible by Karel van der Toom - Biblical Archeology Review ...

The Apostles in their assembly didn't stay for long when they traveled from church to church. After all - how many churches can they visit and stay at, leaving others unvisited for months at a time? The Apostles taught them to listen to the Spirit. And they taught them to use the Septuagint for their Scriptural studies. It was only after the fact that their own letters, their memoirs written decades later, would be considered Scripture too. So does that mean that God was incomplete in their lives until these memoirs were written? And after their memoirs were distributed, does that mean God stopped revealing Himself to His children? Of course not...for there are others who've never had a Bible and yet did amazing exploits---and its amazing to see what went down with others who knew how to be led by the HOLY Spirit (just as it was with others whenever it came to their not having all the facts...like it was in Scripture who were only aware of the teachings of Christ or the Baptism of John rather than the new truth of the Holy Spirit (Acts 19)

As said before, there has been debates amongst many when it comes to Jesus referencing the Psalms (especially Messianic Ones) and calling them "Law" and others noting that Jesus Himself often referneced things from the Talmud itself--despite the fact that it wasn't considered "Torah" or "Law" either. His discussion in Matthew 23 is evidence of that when it comes to him denouncing the Pharisees.. as discussed elsewhere in #1 .

As the Jews often had discussion on some of the things that have been discussed here on the boards as edifying--such as debate about the role of Esther and whether or not that should be considered apart of the Cannon"

it concerns the Ketuvim (The Writings ), its understandable to argue that the definition of scripture that the Jewish people had (including Jesus) was radically different than what we have with us today....and of course, that doesn't mean one cannot be certain of what Christ/other Jews used in their early communities. Even in saying that what's considered a part of the "Holy Scriptures" today is different because of how the other Writings were not yet compiled, one cannot escape the fact that the Psalms were already in use (alongside the story of Daniel)...and thus, with the Torah (1st 5 Books) and the Prophets, there's already a good indicator of what was their version of "cannon" ....and of course, one can add to that the dynamic of the Oral Law.

For more in-depth discussion, one of the best references on the issue can be found if going online/looking something under the name of "Writings Section of Original Bible of the Jews - a knol of Staford Rives" ( ).

As said there (for a brief excerpt):

The Sadducees only accepted the Torah as inspired, and the "other books were prized and read as edifying books." The Jews of Alexandria and Egypt accepted the Torah as inspired, but also "revered the Prophets and Writings." The Samaritans only accepted the Torah as inspired and to be revered. Thus, Sadducees and Samaritans rejected the Writings section as inspired. It was edifying.



The latter view predominated by the time of Christ. Books that claimed to be prophetic but which did not yet have any prophecy fulfilled were thus kept in the Ketuvim section to reflect their as yet unproven inspired status. The most important example and proof of this fact is the book of Daniel:

The book of Daniel is found in the third section of the Hebrew Bible known as the 'Writings,' rather than the second section 'the Prophets.' (Joel Osteen, Hope for Today Bible (2009) ...

​

Who accepted the Writings section as more than edifying? The Pharisees. One scholar notes that the "Pharisaic Jewish historian" gives a picture of canon where the Law, Prophets and Writings were all sacrosanct. (Hayes, supra, at 22.)


Jesus spoke of the "Law and the Prophets" never fading away. He never spoke the same about the "Writings" (Kevutim) which would have meant to adopt the Pharasaical view of the Bible. Jesus thereby deliberately drops off the expanded Pharisaical view of the Bible when Jesus speaks only of the validity of the "Law and the Prophets" (Matt. 5:17.) See also Acts 28:23.

The way the ancient Jews divided canon was also done by explaining three levels of inspiration with the Law and Prophets clearly trumping the third level. While for a Christian these three levels would all appear equal, the point is that this is how Rabbis back then explained the three tiers of the canon so that "Writings" (Ketuvim) would never be on par with the Law and Prophets. In an article entitled "Inspiration" by Rev. James Gardner from 1858, we read:

The Jews were accustomed to speak of three different degrees of inspiration. Moses, they alleged, possessed the highest degree, with whom God spake mouth to mouth; the second, according to their view, was the gift of prophecy; and the lowest, the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, from which proceeded the holy writings or Hagiograplia. (Rev. James Gardner, "Inspiration," The faiths of the world: an account of all religions and religious sects, their doctrines, rites, ceremonies, and customs (A. Fullarton & co., 1858) ...

​

It is possible Jesus makes a reference to the third level of inspiration Himself in Matthew 22:43 where He says that David composed Psalm 110 "in the Spirit." This would be very consistent with the Jewish view of the Psalms which belonged to the Ketuvim. They are written "in the Spirit," but this is distinct from a claim of any claim of equivalence to the Torah or Prophets.


Indeed, Job is a book that illustrates the issue the Jews had with the Ketuvim and why they place Job within the Ketuvim despite Moses authoring Job (according to Jewish tradition).

First, in Moses's account in Job, the words of the man Job are clearly not inspired like a prophet. This is because God does not appear until very late in the story, and then speaks directly only to Job, and then says 'who is this darkening' God's counsels. (Job 38:2.)[4] The immediate next verse is God angrily saying to Job: "Brace yourself like a man; I will question you." This would have to mean God rejected the accuracy of Job's earlier conversation with his friends. Hence, quoting the man Job as a prophet cannot possibly be correct. While God praises Job for his steadfast faithfulness under dire stress, God never tells us the words of the man Job are true and prophetic.

Hence, for reasons such as this, the Jews obviously did not regard the book of Job as 100% inspired. It had moments of inspiration when God speaks, but one cannot lift quotes out of context, and say words from Job, for example, are a prophetic true message from God. Thus, this is likely why it was placed in the Ketuvim section of the OT, and not even the Prophetic section even though Moses wrote it. (Moses also wrote Psalm 90, and that too is not in the prophetic section of the OT canon. Psalm 90 is placed with David's psalms written many centuries later.) Thus, Jews must have regarded certain writings, even by inspired prophets, as not worthy of being treated on par with prophecy because only distinct portions were inspired and some portions were obviously not. The solution was to place them in the Ketuvim section.​

Outside of that, there's also the issue of how Christ celerated Holidays not found in the Prophets or the Torah, as seen in his celebration of Channakuh---recorded in the Book of I-IV Maccabbessa and condoned by many Jews at the time.

On the ways "Law" seemed to be defiend differently, some things to consider are John 10:31-33, within its larger context:

John 10:20-33
Further Conflict Over Jesus&#8217; Claims
The works I do in my Father&#8217;s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father&#8217;s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.&#8221;

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, &#8220;I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?&#8221;

33 &#8220;We are not stoning you for any good work,&#8221; they replied, &#8220;but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.&#8221;

34 Jesus answered them, &#8220;Is it not written in your Law, &#8216;I have said you are &#8220;gods&#8221;&#8217;[c]? 35 If he called them &#8216;gods,&#8217; to whom the word of God came&#8212;and Scripture cannot be set aside&#8212; 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, &#8216;I am God&#8217;s Son&#8217;? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.&#8221;
​

With John 10:31-33, remember that the Jews had already made clear that they claimed the ENTIRE Torah was theirs and that they were going to stone Jesus for it when he seemed to break it for claiming He was God. They felt that the Law God had given them in Exodus 20 was being broken when it came to Jesus doing what it was that they were going to stone Him for previously in John 8:59...and that issue was self-identificaiton as God, which they understood to be blasphemy. Their understanding of BLASPHEMY was based on how claiming to be God and, specifically, pronouncing God's name (as Yeshua had just done) were punishable by death (Leviticus 24:15-16 and Mishna Sanhedrin 7:5, "The blasphemer is not guilty until he pronounces the NAME.")

With John 10:34-36, the phrase "Your Torah" is something that is often read without other considerations. For here, "Torah" means "Tanakh, " since the passage quoted is from the Psalms, not the Pentateuch. When Jesus says "You people are Elohim", here Greek theoi ("gods"), in the Hebrew text of Psalm 82 the word "elohim" may be translated "God," "gods," "judges" or "angels." Yeshua's rabbinic mode of Bible citation implies the context of the whole psalm (Matthew 2:6), which plays on these meanings:

"Elohim [God] stands in the congregation of EL [God]:
He judges among the elohim [judges/angels/gods]: How long
will you judge unjustly?..I have said , "You are elohim [judges/angels/gods],
All of you are sons of the Most High."
Nevertheless you will all die like a man
And fall like one of the princes.'
Arise, Elohim [God (the Judge)], and judge the earth,
For you will inherit all the nations." (Psalm 82:1-2, 6-8).

​

And again, to be clear, it needs to be understood that in Judaism the citation of a Scripture text implies the whole context, not merely the quoted words. And with what Jesus quoted on Psalm 82, the first and last "Elohim" mean "God," but the others should be rendered "judges," "gods" or "angels." Yeshua's wordplay implies a rabbinic-style kal v' chomer argument (Matthew 6:30): if humans, who do evil works as they "judge unjustly" are elohim, how much more is Yeshua, who does good works (John 10:25, John 10:32-33, John 10:37-38, etc) Elohim; and if "all of you are sons of the Most High," how much more does the description "Son of God" apply to Yeshua.

But it is interesting to see the ways that Jesus would show His Divinity by referring to Himself in the Psalms---things that are not exclusively based IN TORAH....

We have to follow the example of Jesus

If you think LOGOS can resolve that issues easily. You are blinded.
different person needs different revelation.

But as you claim others are 'blind' for doing what Jesus said, please be aware - nothing you say has dealt with God's Word and it is what Paul resisted when it came to false teaching. Sin is always condemned when preaching and Jesus did this.

Period.Sin is always condemned when preaching and Jesus did this.

Period.

Sin is never acceptable when following or claiming Jesus Christ. Period.

https://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopic=3811462&st=0&p=77973387&#entry77973387
It influences a lot of people, yet at the expense of bible scholar. Just like JESUS time.
3. Do you and bible teachers here, have any testimony about walking in faith, like what i did on no 2 ? it's important to feed people the right mindset, the right focus, right expectations, because wrong teachings has hefty penalty (matthew 18:5 -6).

Matthew 18:5 - 6
5"And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; 6but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

Sincerely It will never be a 'testimony' promoting something opposite of what Jesus Chris said- one of the reasons your own thread was banned/others noted it to be a massive problem with teachings not based on what God said


Rhema will NEVER condone what God said directly that he hated. Period. It is already well known you do not condemn certain sins and have made no secret of that, as noted on the forums elsewhere.....as seen here in the thread entitled Gay Conversion Therapy: Kidnapped for Christ

:

Fundamentalist Christians who send their gay children to a foreign boarding school to "turn them straight" are cuckoo for cocoa puffs. It should be illegal.

that's because many christians are banned to listen to Joseph Prince / Joel Osteen. you can google / youtube them.

Joel Osteen approach gay using motivational appraoch, which labelled too humanism by some fundamentalist.
Joseph Prince approach gay using grace approach (i.e. removing condemnation), which labelled too humanism by some fundamentalist.

The thread you referenced from another website led to other places showing you say the exact same thing, despite where it is not based on anything Jesus said or others. Osteen nor Joseph Price ever said sin was acceptable and they have condemned sin repeatedly when speaking on the issue. So to misrepresent them is not a good thing. Please stop.

As you can see, RHEMA resolves most people problems, at the expense of bible teachers opinions.

Those teaching they know Rhema must show that what they define as Rhema actually lines up with the character of the Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, many times they cannot and that is because they do not actually know the character of God's Spirit which is revealed/showed in how He operated in the life of CHRIST and throughout the Scriptures. This is a reality that will never be avoided whatsoever when it comes to the reality that people do not show understanding of Rhema by avoiding what the scriptures say - and trying to make it into an issue of claiming "Well this is at the expense of Bible teachers" since they act at the expense of God's Spirit/Rhema being honored.

If it is not in line with how God's Spirit operated in the scriptures, it is not really Rhema.

As the Apostles note:

1 John 3:24–4:6 ​

I John 3:24
And by this we know that he abides in us, by the Spirit which he has given us.

I John 4:1-6
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already. Little children, you are of God, and have overcome them; for he who is in you is greater that he who is in the world. They are of the world, therefore what they say is of the world, and the world listens to them. We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
​

Verse 2 says, "By this you know the Spirit of God." In other words John is giving a test by which you can know if someone is being led by the Holy Spirit or by some other spirit.....and it is always based on whether something lines up with what Christ said.

This is something the WOF Movement has spoken on before and others such as Derek Prince noted it when it came to discernment - as seen in
The Spirit of Antichrist - Derek Prince Ministries

​

And Pastor Fred Price has also noted the same thing as well:

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

None in particular. My views have been formulated by studying doctrines on my own, using books on systematic theology, comparing translations, and attending church for half a century. The two years I attended Rhema instilled in me a respect for God's Word. As much as Brother Hagin ministered by the unction of the Holy Spirit, he was first and foremost committed to the Word. As I learned the WoF there and studied theology on my own, I sensed the Holy Spirit telling me that the message of faith is totally compatible with the principles of hermeneutics and systematic theology. As I have sought further insight into these issues I have found that to be the case.

That makes sense - and it definitely something that makes a world of difference when seeing how things play out.

 

[de1929]

Please Quit referencing a closed thread for a topic that was banned on another forum, as trying to spread the same thing in threads it was not asked for is not respectful. Others spoke there plainly in regards to the matter and the teaching against God's Word - the reason it was banned to begin with.

d, nothing you say has dealt with God's Word and it is what Paul resisted when it came to false teaching. Sin is always condemned when preaching and Jesus did this.

Period.

Sin is never acceptable when following or claiming Jesus Christ. Period. Rhema will NEVER condone what God said directly that he hated. Period. It is already well known you do not condemn certain sins and have made no secret of that, as noted on the forums elsewhere.....as seen here in the thread entitled Gay Conversion Therapy: Kidnapped for Christ

:

​

The thread you referenced from another website led to other places showing you say the exact same thing, despite where it is not based on anything Jesus said or others.

please don't tell me that you condemning sin. please...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

please don't tell me that you condemning sin. please...

As said before, if one does not wish to condemn sin, this thread is not the place for them since that is what Jesus Christ did - and Jesus is the example to be followed. If one is unable to deal with scriptures noting directly where Jesus both actively condemned sin and encouraged others to REPENT with wickedness (i.e. sexual immorality, murder, theft, anger, etc.), they are not truly dealing with Jesus AND are doing what the Apostles themselves resisted when it came to others going against the scriptures in order to have a license to sin instead of seeing where God's Grace/Christ never made sin have a pass. It's also NOT WOF in the slightest and that has been said on the forums before.

From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 4:17)

I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. (Luke 5:32)

The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. (Matthew 12:41)

Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. (Luke 13:3, 5)​

Jesus, the Son of God, warned people of the judgment to come, and offering escape if we will repent. If we will not repent, Jesus has one word for us, “Woe, to you” (Matthew 11:21). This is always to be kept in mind when seeing that the demand for repentance is part of his central message that the kingdom of God is at hand. “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15).

And Jude, the brother of Jesus, had to deal with the same issue when it came to others in his day doing exactly what others here are resisting since he had others in his time say "Why condemn sin?" and he addressed it flatly:

Jude 1:4 (KJV)

4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.


Jude (KJV)
1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.

3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.​

I will go with the Biblical example.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I lived in Tulsa for 20 years and I visited Pearson's church once. He never really was WoF, although there was naturally some overlap being a Charismatic pastor in Tulsa and all. It's interesting that you should bring him up, because I'm reading his book The Gospel of Inclusion for research on a blog post I'm writing about universalism. The guy is all over the place, theologically. One minute he's spouting New Thought, the next it's New Age, then he dabbles a bit in yin and yang/dualism. In one chapter he'll cite scripture to support what he says, and the next chapter he'll tell you how unreliable the Bible is. Bottom line, he has no set theology. It's all about Carlton and his childhood trauma from the doctrine of hell.

What happens when we're children can drastically alter how we see the Lord.....and I do pray for Carlton to have healing.