LouisBooth
Well-Known Member
"My study is exhaustive"
obviously not enough since I found 2 examples you didn't hit in a few seconds.
obviously not enough since I found 2 examples you didn't hit in a few seconds.
Upvote
0
25 years in Faith Movement:The TRUTH
- Thread starter SavedByGrace3
- Start date
- Status
- Jun 6, 2002
- 19,741
- 3,717
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Neither of these use the word theou as mk 11:22 does and neither uses the phrase "in God"
Upvote
0
LouisBooth
Well-Known Member
"Neither of these use the word theou as mk 11:22 does and neither uses the phrase "in God""
Umm...hobs...the phrase used is Faith in..then God. the word "in" is probably added because of the cordination with the word theos. I showed you two other instances. I showed you why it was used and even cited 2 examples to back me up
Umm...hobs...the phrase used is Faith in..then God.
the word "in" is probably added because of the cordination with the word theos. I showed you two other instances. I showed you why it was used and even cited 2 examples to back me up
Upvote
0
Dear Readers,
Hobart: quote:
Originally posted by mjwhite
You simply ignore any biblical point that you can't reconcile with your false doctrines, and now you are inventing another imagination.
Why have you failed to address the points I have raised?
Why have you ignored the Scriptures I have brought to your attention?
His answer was:
http://www.christianforums.com/show...8716#post268716
This is not an adequate answer to my objections. Read the whole thread, see the points I raise. You will see for yourself how Hobart ignores the scriptures I bring up. Oh, not every verse, but many of them.
Hobart: quote:
Originally posted by mjwhite
You simply ignore any biblical point that you can't reconcile with your false doctrines, and now you are inventing another imagination.
Why have you failed to address the points I have raised?
Why have you ignored the Scriptures I have brought to your attention?
His answer was:
http://www.christianforums.com/show...8716#post268716
This is not an adequate answer to my objections. Read the whole thread, see the points I raise. You will see for yourself how Hobart ignores the scriptures I bring up. Oh, not every verse, but many of them.
Upvote
0
Dear Hobart and readers of this thread,
I issue a CHALLENGE to the doctrine Hobart is defending, the one that says that he can have whatever he desires by speaking the word in faith.
Speak me off this thread Hobart, and type out your prayer for all to read. If i don't come back, you will have proven your point. You said Paul removed the thorn in his side, which you said was the persecution of evil.
Well I think your doctrines on the faith part of the faith movement are wrong and you are teaching falsehoods.
For example:
God doesn't have faith, or need it. God doesn't always discipline His in a kind gentle nuturing way but as Hebrews 12 tells us, sometimes uses a whip [figuratively] and causes us sorrow. The poor in Africa can not all get a brand new car and a big house by simply believing and speaking it.
I will post after your every post. or close to it, until you give up trying to spread these false hoods. Of course if you believe God wants me not to point out that your message is false then do nothing. But if you believe God doesn't want me to bother your posts then speak me away and prove your theory.
I issue a CHALLENGE to the doctrine Hobart is defending, the one that says that he can have whatever he desires by speaking the word in faith.
Speak me off this thread Hobart, and type out your prayer for all to read. If i don't come back, you will have proven your point. You said Paul removed the thorn in his side, which you said was the persecution of evil.
Well I think your doctrines on the faith part of the faith movement are wrong and you are teaching falsehoods.
For example:
God doesn't have faith, or need it. God doesn't always discipline His in a kind gentle nuturing way but as Hebrews 12 tells us, sometimes uses a whip [figuratively] and causes us sorrow. The poor in Africa can not all get a brand new car and a big house by simply believing and speaking it.
I will post after your every post. or close to it, until you give up trying to spread these false hoods. Of course if you believe God wants me not to point out that your message is false then do nothing. But if you believe God doesn't want me to bother your posts then speak me away and prove your theory.
Upvote
0
- Jun 13, 2002
- 21,665
- 1,466
- 70
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Single
Please be patient with the beginning of this post. It is relevent.
We must polish the Polish furniture.
He could lead if he would get the lead out.
The farm was used to produce produce.
The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
The soldier decided to desert in the desert.
This was a good time to present the present. (This last could mean "gift" or "era of time.")
A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.
When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
I did not object to the object.
The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
The bandage was wound around the wound.
There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
They were too close to the door to close it.
The buck does funny things when the does are present.
They sent a sewer down to stitch the tear in the sewer line.
To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.
The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
After a number of injections my jaw got number.
When seeing the tear in my clothes I shed a tear.
I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.
How can I intimte this to my most intimate friend?
As you can see by this little list, the english language is greatly flawed in it's ability to convey what it means using a word that means only one thing.
That seems to be the real problem here. The things that Hobie has taken great pains to write so clearly are not being understood because appariently they mean different things to the readers who are objecting.
I can see that he's answered ALL questions in great detail. Sometimes, several times. With many scriptures, that are not taken out of context. Yet, some keep saying he has not. Could it be that you have so concluded that whatever it he says is false that you have become deaf to whatever he says. Even when he's agreed with you?
He keeps re-stating and rephrasing and re-going over with whoever has asked but then is bombarded with silly rabbit trail statements and questions.
If you think that the teaching is false then by all means choose not to read anymore. Please do not keep those who want to read and sincerely desire to grow in this area from doing so.
I'm a very productive Christian who is quite active in my church, neighborhood, and job. If I were to be arrested for being a christian, there is nothing in my life that would prove otherwise.
I can promise you, I have a very close relationship with God and this is not misleading me in any way. I'm a big person now, I can think for myself. I stand before God without shame in anything.
Asking honest questions with sincere desire to learn is one thing. . but asking merely to create diversion and be argumentive is another.
I have asked questions of several of you on other sites and not gotten adequate responses. I've asked questions regarding your conclusions on things and have received no response. Yet, you continue to badger for that very same thing and you have been answered.
Should we be in another part of this site where we can share and learn from each other without being bombarded by those who only want to mock? It was my impression that everyone could come here without being crusified over and over and over again. Was my impression wrong?
We must polish the Polish furniture.
He could lead if he would get the lead out.
The farm was used to produce produce.
The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
The soldier decided to desert in the desert.
This was a good time to present the present. (This last could mean "gift" or "era of time.")
A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.
When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
I did not object to the object.
The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
The bandage was wound around the wound.
There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
They were too close to the door to close it.
The buck does funny things when the does are present.
They sent a sewer down to stitch the tear in the sewer line.
To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.
The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
After a number of injections my jaw got number.
When seeing the tear in my clothes I shed a tear.
I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.
How can I intimte this to my most intimate friend?
As you can see by this little list, the english language is greatly flawed in it's ability to convey what it means using a word that means only one thing.
That seems to be the real problem here. The things that Hobie has taken great pains to write so clearly are not being understood because appariently they mean different things to the readers who are objecting.
I can see that he's answered ALL questions in great detail. Sometimes, several times. With many scriptures, that are not taken out of context. Yet, some keep saying he has not. Could it be that you have so concluded that whatever it he says is false that you have become deaf to whatever he says. Even when he's agreed with you?
He keeps re-stating and rephrasing and re-going over with whoever has asked but then is bombarded with silly rabbit trail statements and questions.
If you think that the teaching is false then by all means choose not to read anymore. Please do not keep those who want to read and sincerely desire to grow in this area from doing so.
I'm a very productive Christian who is quite active in my church, neighborhood, and job. If I were to be arrested for being a christian, there is nothing in my life that would prove otherwise.
I can promise you, I have a very close relationship with God and this is not misleading me in any way. I'm a big person now, I can think for myself. I stand before God without shame in anything.
Asking honest questions with sincere desire to learn is one thing. . but asking merely to create diversion and be argumentive is another.
I have asked questions of several of you on other sites and not gotten adequate responses. I've asked questions regarding your conclusions on things and have received no response. Yet, you continue to badger for that very same thing and you have been answered.
Should we be in another part of this site where we can share and learn from each other without being bombarded by those who only want to mock? It was my impression that everyone could come here without being crusified over and over and over again. Was my impression wrong?
Upvote
0
LouisBooth
Well-Known Member
I agree, the english language is impresised, but changing a phrase and making it mean something totally opposite to what it means is, quite simply, changing a phrase.
Have faith in the chair
against
Have the faith OF the chair.
These are 2 very very different things and even in "crude" english you can see that. That's what I was pointing out.
Have faith in the chair
against
Have the faith OF the chair.
These are 2 very very different things and even in "crude" english you can see that. That's what I was pointing out.
Upvote
0
- Jun 6, 2002
- 19,741
- 3,717
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Exactly, why would someone take:
pistin theou...
which is literally, word for word "faith of God", take out the "of", and replace it with an "in"?
Proof:
Darby:
(DRB) And Jesus answering, saith to them: Have the faith of God.
Literal Translation of the Holy Bible:
(LITV) And answering, Jesus said to them, Have faith of God.
Modern King James:
(MKJV) And answering Jesus said to them, Have faith of God.
Youngs Literal:
(YLT) And Jesus answering saith to them, `Have faith of God'
Douay-Rheims Translation
And Jesus answering, saith to them: Have the faith of God.
In the margin of the KJV, a translator's note:
or "the faith of God"
Clark:
Have faith in God - Å÷åôå ðéséí èåïõ is a mere Hebraism: have the faith of God
Gill:
have faith in God; or "the faith of God", so the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Persic, and Ethiopic versions; that is, exercise, and make use of that faith which has God for its author, which is the work of God, and of his operation...
The Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge:
faith in God. or, the faith of God...
Upvote
0
- Jun 6, 2002
- 19,741
- 3,717
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
From:
E.W.Kenyon, and His Message of Faith
THE TRUE STORY
PG 256
" We've established that many respected Christian leaders of Kenyon's day taught about the "faith of God" and its meaning for the believer. However, one may still ask, "What if they were sincerely wrong? Is there really a basis in the Greek of Mark 11:22 for translating it "the faith of God?"
One author quoted some Greek scholars to prove that the faith teachers are teaching "a truth that has escaped the notice of orthodox Christian scholars for the last two thousand years.". He began his discussion of scholarly opinion with a man he described as "almost universally accepted as the final word on Greek grammar." The man is A. T. Robertson.
He told us of Robertson's findings and assured us that no Greek scholars accept the "faith of God" idea. In his footnote he even cited Robertson's highly respected work A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, page 500, where he quoted Robertson as saying "we rightly translate [Mark 11:22] have faith in God."
Now here is the irony. Robertson was quoted correctly, but incompletely. The whole quote was not given because it would prove embarrassing to the argument. Here is the whole statement from Robertson:
Here again we must appeal to the root idea of the genitive [genitive is the name of one of eight Greek eases that show word relationships] as the case of genus or kind. The resultant idea is due to the context and one must not suppose that the Greek genitive means all the different English prepositions used to translate the resultant idea, Thus in Mark 11:22 [he then gives the Greek phrase] we rightly translate 'have faith in God, though the genitive does not mean 'in,' but only the God kind of faith."
This is amazing! The scholar who is being quoted to disprove the "faith of God" is actually the source of that very phrase that has drawn tremendous criticism to the Faith movement, "Have the God kind of faith." And this critic quoted part of the very sentence in which Robertson said it, and yet argued that "these perversions find no basis in the original Greek!"
Also notice that Robertson describes the Greek case used in Mark 11:22 as the cast that indicates "genus or kind." That is why the following seven sources of Greek scholarship also say the phrase could be understood as referring to the faith of God.
Albert Barnes, S. A. Alexander, and Adam Clarke each say that Mark 11:22 is literally, "Have the faith of God." The Numeric New Testament, The Bible in Basic English, and Godbey's translation all say, "Have God's faith? Douay-Rheims and Worrell give us "Have the faith of God," and Young's Literal Translation offers "Have faith of God." The above-mentioned author told us that this idea is "a truth that has escaped the notice of orthodox scholars for the last two thousand years"!
It's not my intention to "prove" which is the right interpretation of Mark 11:22. I simply want to make it plain that credible Greek scholars have held to the interpretation suggested by the Faith teachers. Too many people have been persuaded otherwise due to scholarly-sounding quotes from experts.
I call this heresy hunting technique "smiting by scholarship!' Most people have a great respect for scholarship and if enough scholars are quoted they will believe whatever is proposed. There are many divergent views among scholars. A little charity in these matters would seem called for. We are all entitled to our opinion and to do our own research. But it is not right to cry "heresy" when someone disagrees with our understanding and then to validate our accusations with one sided documentation.
Writing this book has brought me into contact with the sad realities of apologetics in the church today. Some who call themselves researchers have mastered the ability to quote out of context and to paint a warped view of what others in the body of Christ teach. They can search through vast amounts of orthodox materials and find a sentence or phrase which, quoted out of context and placed side-by-side with a similar sounding phrase from a known heretic, makes the author of the first quote sound like a heretic. Kenyon's writings have been treated in just this manner. (These things should not be so, my brethren, as the apostle Paul said [James 3:10].)"
E.W.Kenyon, and His Message of Faith
THE TRUE STORY
PG 256
" We've established that many respected Christian leaders of Kenyon's day taught about the "faith of God" and its meaning for the believer. However, one may still ask, "What if they were sincerely wrong? Is there really a basis in the Greek of Mark 11:22 for translating it "the faith of God?"
One author quoted some Greek scholars to prove that the faith teachers are teaching "a truth that has escaped the notice of orthodox Christian scholars for the last two thousand years.". He began his discussion of scholarly opinion with a man he described as "almost universally accepted as the final word on Greek grammar." The man is A. T. Robertson.
He told us of Robertson's findings and assured us that no Greek scholars accept the "faith of God" idea. In his footnote he even cited Robertson's highly respected work A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, page 500, where he quoted Robertson as saying "we rightly translate [Mark 11:22] have faith in God."
Now here is the irony. Robertson was quoted correctly, but incompletely. The whole quote was not given because it would prove embarrassing to the argument. Here is the whole statement from Robertson:
Here again we must appeal to the root idea of the genitive [genitive is the name of one of eight Greek eases that show word relationships] as the case of genus or kind. The resultant idea is due to the context and one must not suppose that the Greek genitive means all the different English prepositions used to translate the resultant idea, Thus in Mark 11:22 [he then gives the Greek phrase] we rightly translate 'have faith in God, though the genitive does not mean 'in,' but only the God kind of faith."
This is amazing! The scholar who is being quoted to disprove the "faith of God" is actually the source of that very phrase that has drawn tremendous criticism to the Faith movement, "Have the God kind of faith." And this critic quoted part of the very sentence in which Robertson said it, and yet argued that "these perversions find no basis in the original Greek!"
Also notice that Robertson describes the Greek case used in Mark 11:22 as the cast that indicates "genus or kind." That is why the following seven sources of Greek scholarship also say the phrase could be understood as referring to the faith of God.
Albert Barnes, S. A. Alexander, and Adam Clarke each say that Mark 11:22 is literally, "Have the faith of God." The Numeric New Testament, The Bible in Basic English, and Godbey's translation all say, "Have God's faith? Douay-Rheims and Worrell give us "Have the faith of God," and Young's Literal Translation offers "Have faith of God." The above-mentioned author told us that this idea is "a truth that has escaped the notice of orthodox scholars for the last two thousand years"!
It's not my intention to "prove" which is the right interpretation of Mark 11:22. I simply want to make it plain that credible Greek scholars have held to the interpretation suggested by the Faith teachers. Too many people have been persuaded otherwise due to scholarly-sounding quotes from experts.
I call this heresy hunting technique "smiting by scholarship!' Most people have a great respect for scholarship and if enough scholars are quoted they will believe whatever is proposed. There are many divergent views among scholars. A little charity in these matters would seem called for. We are all entitled to our opinion and to do our own research. But it is not right to cry "heresy" when someone disagrees with our understanding and then to validate our accusations with one sided documentation.
Writing this book has brought me into contact with the sad realities of apologetics in the church today. Some who call themselves researchers have mastered the ability to quote out of context and to paint a warped view of what others in the body of Christ teach. They can search through vast amounts of orthodox materials and find a sentence or phrase which, quoted out of context and placed side-by-side with a similar sounding phrase from a known heretic, makes the author of the first quote sound like a heretic. Kenyon's writings have been treated in just this manner. (These things should not be so, my brethren, as the apostle Paul said [James 3:10].)"
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jun 6, 2002
- 19,741
- 3,717
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Just to clarify the last post. The critic of the faith movement tried to disprove the translation "have faith of God" by quoting a Greek expert. The guy quoted this:
"...Thus in Mark 11:22 [he then gives the Greek phrase] we rightly translate 'have faith in God, "
and conveniently left off the rest of the quote:
"...though the genitive does not mean 'in,' but only the God kind of faith."
Amazing! And this phrase the critic left off is the exact phrase used by Hagin, Copeland, and others!
HAVE THE GOD KIND OF FAITH!
"...Thus in Mark 11:22 [he then gives the Greek phrase] we rightly translate 'have faith in God, "
and conveniently left off the rest of the quote:
"...though the genitive does not mean 'in,' but only the God kind of faith."
Amazing! And this phrase the critic left off is the exact phrase used by Hagin, Copeland, and others!
HAVE THE GOD KIND OF FAITH!
Upvote
0
Dear Readers,
it was said by Quaffer,
#167
As you can see by this little list, the english language is greatly flawed in it's ability to convey what it means using a word that means only one thing.
That seems to be the real problem here. The things that Hobie has taken great pains to write so clearly are not being understood because appariently they mean different things to the readers who are objecting.
I can see that he's answered ALL questions in great detail. Sometimes, several times. With many scriptures, that are not taken out of context. Yet, some keep saying he has not. Could it be that you have so concluded that whatever it he says is false that you have become deaf to whatever he says. Even when he's agreed with you?
Hobart has answered some things. He has failed to answer some things. Could it be that you, also blinded by the same false doctrines as Hobart cannot see through the fog that obscures truth from you?
For example, when Hobart spoke about Hebrews 12 and the discipline of the Lord, he left out some of the Scriptures. Hebrews 12:6 says that the Lord scourges every son whom He recieves. Included in this idea is verse 11a where the Spirit tells us that no chastening seems to be joyful for the present time, but painful; ...
He was willing to go into the Greek for other words in this same context, but was silent when I asked him about the scourging and painful parts of the Lord's discipline, instead he just reiterated that God was nuturing.
And since you thought he answered me there, please give me the thread number and page he answered me on. Or you could, like Hobart did, paste an answer that when linked upon leads inquiring minds away from this thread altogether. But that only shows he doesn't want others to delve into what he maintains as truth too deeply.
Quaffer then said,
He keeps re-stating and rephrasing and re-going over with whoever has asked but then is bombarded with silly rabbit trail statements and questions.
If you think that the teaching is false then by all means choose not to read anymore. Please do not keep those who want to read and sincerely desire to grow in this area from doing so.
If the teaching is false, why would i want others to desire to grow in this area? And since the teaching is false, why should i not oppose it? Why should I let what seems like a christian forum teach through men like Hobart false doctrines? If the forum advises me that I am no longer welcome because i oppose false teachings then I will of course leave and wipe its dust from my keyboard, but the forum has not asked me or Hobart to leave [as far as I know that is] and therefore i will continue to oppose what I believe are false teachings.
As to the faith IN God versus the faith OF God debate, I asked Hobart why God needed faith, who the object of God's faith is, why God needed hope [a component of faith] AND Hobart has not answered one of these questions. Are these silly rabbit trail staements and questions? Maybe they are silly to you, but I hope concerned readers do not think so.
it was said by Quaffer,
#167
As you can see by this little list, the english language is greatly flawed in it's ability to convey what it means using a word that means only one thing.
That seems to be the real problem here. The things that Hobie has taken great pains to write so clearly are not being understood because appariently they mean different things to the readers who are objecting.
I can see that he's answered ALL questions in great detail. Sometimes, several times. With many scriptures, that are not taken out of context. Yet, some keep saying he has not. Could it be that you have so concluded that whatever it he says is false that you have become deaf to whatever he says. Even when he's agreed with you?
Hobart has answered some things. He has failed to answer some things. Could it be that you, also blinded by the same false doctrines as Hobart cannot see through the fog that obscures truth from you?
For example, when Hobart spoke about Hebrews 12 and the discipline of the Lord, he left out some of the Scriptures. Hebrews 12:6 says that the Lord scourges every son whom He recieves. Included in this idea is verse 11a where the Spirit tells us that no chastening seems to be joyful for the present time, but painful; ...
He was willing to go into the Greek for other words in this same context, but was silent when I asked him about the scourging and painful parts of the Lord's discipline, instead he just reiterated that God was nuturing.
And since you thought he answered me there, please give me the thread number and page he answered me on. Or you could, like Hobart did, paste an answer that when linked upon leads inquiring minds away from this thread altogether. But that only shows he doesn't want others to delve into what he maintains as truth too deeply.
Quaffer then said,
He keeps re-stating and rephrasing and re-going over with whoever has asked but then is bombarded with silly rabbit trail statements and questions.
If you think that the teaching is false then by all means choose not to read anymore. Please do not keep those who want to read and sincerely desire to grow in this area from doing so.
If the teaching is false, why would i want others to desire to grow in this area? And since the teaching is false, why should i not oppose it? Why should I let what seems like a christian forum teach through men like Hobart false doctrines? If the forum advises me that I am no longer welcome because i oppose false teachings then I will of course leave and wipe its dust from my keyboard, but the forum has not asked me or Hobart to leave [as far as I know that is] and therefore i will continue to oppose what I believe are false teachings.
As to the faith IN God versus the faith OF God debate, I asked Hobart why God needed faith, who the object of God's faith is, why God needed hope [a component of faith] AND Hobart has not answered one of these questions. Are these silly rabbit trail staements and questions? Maybe they are silly to you, but I hope concerned readers do not think so.
Upvote
0
Susan
退屈させた1 つ (bored one)
- Feb 16, 2002
- 9,292
- 124
- 40
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
And I do wonder why some of our posters feel that every post must be in a very large font. It's very annoying. 
Could it be that some people may need glasses, despite allegedly *always* being healed?
Could it be that some people may need glasses, despite allegedly *always* being healed?
Upvote
0
- Jun 6, 2002
- 19,741
- 3,717
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Originally posted by Susan
And I do wonder why some of our posters feel that every post must be in a very large font. It's very annoying.
Some have complained that the font size is too small, so out of concern for them I post in a larger font. Sorry if it annoys you.
Upvote
0
- Jun 6, 2002
- 19,741
- 3,717
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I cannot take a single instance such as this, which even you admit is figurative, and try and paint God as a child abuser. Not when there are dozens of direct statements in the Word that tell us exactly, with no figurative or metaphoric language, what He is like. If you disagree and still want to frame Him in that light, then that is up to you. But I am not going to build a doctrine up around this and a few other instances when the overwhelming revelation of God is that of loving, saving, delivering, healing, and providing.
You may repost your objection a thousand times if you like, and if the moderators don't care then there is nothing I can do about it (Louis may even cheer you on). If you have decided to be a "thorn in my side", and dedicated yourself to continually harass me, then that is the price all believers must be willing to pay for being faithful. I love God and will not tell lies about Him or paint Him as a monster God. He is good. He is kind. He is loving. He sent His only begotten Son to die for me. If your theology and religion shows you a different God, then do what you will against me. Do your worst. I consider myself in good company.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jun 6, 2002
- 19,741
- 3,717
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
As we have said again and again and again... if you imagine that God is beating you up for something you are doing wrong, then the thing to do is to stop your evil ways and start obeying Him. I can't believe that you would think He is slapping you around just for fun. I mean I had to punish my kids when they were little, but I never whipped them with a cat-o-nine-tails, certainly not to the point where they dripped blood like you are suggesting that God does to us. I personally have never been beaten into the ground by God. I suspect you have not either. But if God is cracking you up side the head for you evil ways, then repent brother! Actually, my experience is that we reap what we sow. The devil and the world do not need any help from God to crush us into dust when we do something wrong. People are sick, impoverished, and oppressed enough... they don't need a God who kicks them while they are down.
You guys have such a wierd image of Him.
I can't imagine it.
Upvote
0
- Jun 6, 2002
- 19,741
- 3,717
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
This is a very good opportunity to once again state what we do believe, what we do not believe, and why people do/do not receive the things they ask for/confess.
#1. In regards to yor challenge. I immediately knew how I would respond, which was to simply restate (again) what we (Andy, Quaffie, myelf, and others) have been saying all along. Then it occurred to me that the restating (again) of what we have said dozens of times already would likely not do any good, since the content of your challenge shows that you either have not read our posts or that you have been somehow blinded from seeing what they are saying. I know you and Louis (bless his heart) and the others on the "opposition" are pretty smart fellows. You have a fairly thorough knowledge of the scriptures, and are certainly proficient in presenting your views.
#2 Since you are not dunces, and because I want to believe that you are sincere in your hearts concerning these matters, I decided to ask the Lord if I should not take a different approach.
I asked the Lord about your challenge. I told Him that I really did not desire you to be "removed" because despite your pestering ways I like you guys. Your questions and "challenges" give us a very good format to present our teachings, solidify our knowledge of the word, and get the Word out. Of course He already knows that I do not believe nor do I teach nor do I "defend" a doctrine that says "I can have whatever I desire by speaking the word in faith". I do teach that if you said something and believed in your heart that it happened (when you said it), then it did. Jesus said so... And He does not lie... And He knows what He is talking about.
#3The answer I got was this:
"This is the burden and cross you must bear. People will harass you, persecute you, and even mock you because of your faith in me and my Word. If you believe in me and my word, then this is going to happen. It is a guarantee. They did it to me, they did it to my apostles, and they will do it to anyone who sides with me and my word."
When suffering or persecution comes along because of the word, they immediately fall from faith.
Do what you will... I am helpless to stop you.
Upvote
0
Well thank you for FINALLY answering Hobart.
At least a partial answer.
Well at least you acknowledged the question.
Instead of addressing the Scripture, you mischaracterized me and my interpretation of it.
Why not simply explain how your doctrine matches up with the Word?
You said: I cannot take a single instance such as this, which even you admit is figurative, and try and paint God as a child abuser
Did i say God was a child abuser? Does the Bible say that? I said the Bible says that He scourges us with a whip which was figurative speech since God doesn't use a whip to mete out discipline.
I said that the Word says this discipline causes us pain and is unpleasant which is in DIRECT contrast to your false theology.
I asked you to explain and you DID NOT.
But you did agree with me when i said your doctrines are incomplete and don't give the full picture because you said this: But I am not going to build a doctrine up around this and a few other instances when the overwhelming revelation of God is that of loving, saving, delivering, healing, and providing.
Not only are willing to ignore this verse, but you admit that there are other verses that support this idea. Now that is a strange position for you to take Hobart. Before that you said: Not when there are dozens of direct statements in the Word that tell us exactly, with no figurative or metaphoric language, what He is like.
YET you take ONE VERSE, Mark 11:22 and build a whole doctrine around it, a doctrine that says God has faith. So why are you picking and choosing with such care Hobart?
Why are you ignoring some verses which contradict your version of God [like Hebrews 12: 6, 11 and the otherverses you have already admitted coincide with this idea] BUT making a whole doctrine out of a single verse[Mark 11:22]?
Why? because that is how false teachers back up their false teachings, by picking and choosing, by over-emphasising or ignoring various parts of the Word.
So now that you have agreed that the Word is in conflict with your doctrine, how are you going to change your doctrine to be true to the Word?
Or would you just rather be true to Hobie's word?
At least a partial answer.
Well at least you acknowledged the question.
Instead of addressing the Scripture, you mischaracterized me and my interpretation of it.
Why not simply explain how your doctrine matches up with the Word?
You said: I cannot take a single instance such as this, which even you admit is figurative, and try and paint God as a child abuser
Did i say God was a child abuser? Does the Bible say that? I said the Bible says that He scourges us with a whip which was figurative speech since God doesn't use a whip to mete out discipline.
I said that the Word says this discipline causes us pain and is unpleasant which is in DIRECT contrast to your false theology.
I asked you to explain and you DID NOT.
But you did agree with me when i said your doctrines are incomplete and don't give the full picture because you said this: But I am not going to build a doctrine up around this and a few other instances when the overwhelming revelation of God is that of loving, saving, delivering, healing, and providing.
Not only are willing to ignore this verse, but you admit that there are other verses that support this idea. Now that is a strange position for you to take Hobart. Before that you said: Not when there are dozens of direct statements in the Word that tell us exactly, with no figurative or metaphoric language, what He is like.
YET you take ONE VERSE, Mark 11:22 and build a whole doctrine around it, a doctrine that says God has faith. So why are you picking and choosing with such care Hobart?
Why are you ignoring some verses which contradict your version of God [like Hebrews 12: 6, 11 and the otherverses you have already admitted coincide with this idea] BUT making a whole doctrine out of a single verse[Mark 11:22]?
Why? because that is how false teachers back up their false teachings, by picking and choosing, by over-emphasising or ignoring various parts of the Word.
So now that you have agreed that the Word is in conflict with your doctrine, how are you going to change your doctrine to be true to the Word?
Or would you just rather be true to Hobie's word?
Upvote
0
- Jun 6, 2002
- 19,741
- 3,717
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Faith is an action and attribute of a spiritual being
Matt 17:20 (YLT)
And Jesus said to them, `Through your want of faith; for verily I say to you, if ye may have faith as a grain of mustard, ye shall say to this mount, Remove hence to yonder place, and it shall remove, and nothing shall be impossible to you,
Mark 11 (YLT)
22 And Jesus answering saith to them, `Have faith of God;
23 for verily I say to you, that whoever may say to this mount, Be taken up, and be cast into the sea, and may not doubt in his heart, but may believe that the things that he saith do come to pass, it shall be to him whatever he may say.
In each of these passages, there are two components:
1. A belief in the heart, and:
2. Saying the same thing that is believed.
Some refute the concept that God exercises faith, and so refute the literal translation of Mark 11:22: "...Have faith of God." or "have the God kind of faith".
This translation is supported by the word for word Greek, where the Greek word "en" (in) is not found, and the word for "God" is correctly translated "of God". (see the literal translation above) Furthermore see the following note from the Treasury of Scriptural Knowledge:
Mark 11:22 TSK
Have. # 9:23 2Ch 20:20 Ps 62:8 Isa 7:9 Joh 14:1 1:1
faith in God. or, the faith of God.
The entire context of the passage supports the concept that belief + words create results. Jesus had cursed a fig tree the day before... *with words*.
He spoke to it:
Mark 11:14 (YLT)
and Jesus answering said to it, `No more from thee--to the age--may any eat fruit;' and his disciples were hearing.
The next day they walked by the tree and saw it dried up from the roots. They were amazed, and that is when He told them to have the "God kind of faith". The "God kind of faith" is faith that believes and speaks. In the next verse, He speaks quite plainly. If you speak to a mountain, and believe you have what you say, then it will happen.
His words are echoed in 1 Cor 13
"... if I have all faith, and could remove mountains..."
God used words to create the universe.
2 Peter:
5 for this is unobserved by them willingly, that the heavens were of old, and the earth out of water and through water standing together by the word of God,
Psalms 33
6 By the word of Jehovah The heavens have been made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host.
Hebrews 11:3
by faith we understand the ages to have been prepared by a saying of God, in regard to the things seen not having come out of things appearing;
Here we see the same faith formula that Jesus referred to. Speaking what is believed in the heart. (The speaking is self evident, and the believing is clearly implied... unless you want to say that God spoke things that He did not believe!?)
Look at:
Romans 4:17 (YLT)
who is father of us all (according as it hath been written-- `A father of many nations I have set thee,') before Him whom he did believe-- God, who is quickening the dead, and is calling the things that be not as being.
In the great scholarly work "Word Pictures in the New Testament", there is the following entry:
Word Pictures NT - Roma 4:17 "
....{Calleth the things that are not as though they were}
(\kalountos ta onta h sonta\).
"Summons the non-existing as existing."
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Dear Hobart,
Repentance is an act of a spiritual being as well. Does God turn from sin?
Faith is being sure of what you do not see and certain of what you hope for.
When we trust God and act properly in His will, we will recieve what we ask for because God is trustworthy and able to [as Romans 4 tells us] as he promises.
Jesus, as a man, trusted God, and did have faith in Him. He lived by faith, but His faith was in the Father. Since Jesus had emptied Himself, and humbled Himself to become like us, He had to walk as we walked and as we should walk, as men with faith in God.
But God does not need faith, nor is there any reason for God to have faith. Who does He trust? What does He not already know that He does not already know?
Faith is not the speaking of the Words, that is the work of faith. Faith is the trust we have in God that enables us to speak the words with confidence, knowing even as Abraham knew, that He who has promised is able to deliver.
God does speak the Word, but He does out of His own power without the need of trusting any other as we do.
But the charge remains: you choose to make a whole doctrine out of ONE verse BUT refuse to deal with MANY verses that contradict your beliefs.
So are you going to change your doctrine to match the WORD of GOD, or are you going to keep preaching a false doctrine, the word of Hobart?
Repentance is an act of a spiritual being as well. Does God turn from sin?
Faith is being sure of what you do not see and certain of what you hope for.
When we trust God and act properly in His will, we will recieve what we ask for because God is trustworthy and able to [as Romans 4 tells us] as he promises.
Jesus, as a man, trusted God, and did have faith in Him. He lived by faith, but His faith was in the Father. Since Jesus had emptied Himself, and humbled Himself to become like us, He had to walk as we walked and as we should walk, as men with faith in God.
But God does not need faith, nor is there any reason for God to have faith. Who does He trust? What does He not already know that He does not already know?
Faith is not the speaking of the Words, that is the work of faith. Faith is the trust we have in God that enables us to speak the words with confidence, knowing even as Abraham knew, that He who has promised is able to deliver.
God does speak the Word, but He does out of His own power without the need of trusting any other as we do.
But the charge remains: you choose to make a whole doctrine out of ONE verse BUT refuse to deal with MANY verses that contradict your beliefs.
So are you going to change your doctrine to match the WORD of GOD, or are you going to keep preaching a false doctrine, the word of Hobart?
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
