Calling things that are not as though they are.

[lismore]

No doubt in my mind!

When you see the fig tree blossom..................

Yea, not long now

 

[TreeOfLife]

Hmmm....i hadn't thought about that possibility. Well then, if the Lord should tarry, I plan on being a spry, eccentric, crazy fun old man when I'm eighty!

 

[KingZzub]

I thought that was what you are now, Tree

 

[TreeOfLife]

I thought that was what you are now, Tree

Yup, just haven't made the eighty mark yet!

 

[KingZzub]

Enoch would have said: 80? What a child!!!

 

[TreeOfLife]

Enoch would have said: 80? What a child!!!

A mere pup. A whipper-snapper!

 

[probinson]

Well, to be fair to Martha (and to get it right)... Jesus wasn't anywhere near her when he said that it wouldn't end in death. Mary and Martha sent word to Him and He told his disciples that it wouldn't end in death. The sisters didn't get to hear that part...

Well, the sisters heard something:

John 11:40
Then Jesus said, "Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?"

Pete, I'm sorry, but I think you're really reading something into the text that is not there. It says that

Jesus loved Martha, Mary and Lazarus. In context, I believe it is clear that Jesus wept because the weeping of Mary and others moved Him to tears... He was weeping out of compassion, I think...

"33When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. 34"Where have you laid him?" he asked.
"Come and see, Lord," they replied.
35Jesus wept.
36 Then the Jews said, "See how he loved him!"
​

I believe that if Jesus had wept because of their unbelief, it would have said something else. The text makes no mention whatsoever of Jesus being troubled by anyone's lack of faith. Instead, it talks of Him being moved and troubled by their tears. I think He wept because He loved them and because their grief moved Him.

That just makes no sense at all. Why would Jesus be "deeply moved and troubled in His spirit"? I've had family members die. I was emotionally troubled, but my spirit was quite calm, knowing that while I would miss that person, that they were in a much better place.

Jesus KNEW what He was about to do. He KNEW He was about to raise Lazarus from the dead.

The passage does not speak of Jesus being moved by their tears. That simply is not there. Granted, neither is the explanation I've given, but it is far from "clear" that Jesus was moved by their tears.

Consider this. Mary, Martha, the disciples, EVERYONE standing around wailing did not believe Jesus. Not one of them. Martha went so far as to try to stop Jesus from having the stone rolled away. "But surely he stinks by now!" Jesus even prayed aloud, saying that He was doing it for the sake of those standing around so that they would believe.

Amen about the miracle!! And, I would like to add that, if, as you have asserted, Lazarus was bound by unbelief and the sisters were 'unbelieving' then it is pretty contrary to your theory (I think) that Jesus went ahead and raised Him from the dead. I thought the WoF doctrine was that Jesus couldn't do anything if the people didn't believe it? Or that the unbelief of one person can nullify the belief of others?

Uh, no. That's not the WoF doctrine at all. As I've pointed out many other times, you can be like the man at the pool and wait for Jesus to come heal you and that day may or may not come. Or you can be like the woman with the issue of blood who fought and pushed her way through the crowd to touch Jesus in faith. Both are valid and you can receive healing either way. I choose to push through the crowd.

However, I think it's very wrong to call Mary and Martha unbelievers here. They believed in Jesus, they recognized Him as the Christ. They trusted Him, saying, essentially: 'our brother is dead, but we know you can still do something about it.' That doesn't demonstrate unbelief.

See, that's not AT ALL what Mary and Martha said, they said, our brother is dead and we know he'll rise again in the last day. I'm not calling Mary and Martha "unbelievers" in the sense you're implying. But it's quite clear that in this instance, Mary and Martha did not believe what Jesus had told them.

In any event, nobody's unbelief shackled Lazarus... as I mentioned before, Jesus let him die on purpose so that He could raise him again. The sisters sent word to Jesus as soon as he got sick, believing, undoubtedly that Jesus would come heal him.

The word that the sent to Jesus might as well have been a medical report. The word they sent did not request Jesus to do anything. It simply said, "The one you love is sick". We are left only to assume that they undoubtedly believed that Jesus would come heal him, since the word they sent said no such thing.

Again, please go re-check the chronology... Mary and Martha were not present when Jesus said the sickness would not end in death. They were completely ignorant of that promise. You cannot say they have lack of faith for not believing something they never heard.

And again, please read John 11:40

Then Jesus said, "Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?"

Sorry, this just doesn't make any sense to me. Like I said before, Joshua and Caleb trusted that God would do what He said He would do. I am not disputing that. However, there is no need (and no Biblical support) for the idea of agreeing with or not agreeing with 'circumstances.' Circumstances are what they are... God can change them...We have faith in God and know that He can do and does do what He says. There is no need to even think about whether we 'agree' with 'circumstances' ... We believe God no matter what the circumstances are, so no matter how circumstances line up or change, our faith in God should remain the same. Acknowledging circumstances is just acknowledging reality. We also acknowledge the reality of what God has said. Therefore, when circumstances look bad, we also acknowledge that God can do all things, that He has promised such-and-such and we don't doubt God's word, His promises. But we can do all that without ever once having to 'disagree' with 'circumstances.'

What I am trying (and obviously failing) to say when I say "agree with your circumstances" is this. If you get a report that you have an illness and you are going to die, that is a fact. You can concede that fact, or you can counter it with truth.

I'm sorry, again, this doesn't make any sense to me. Circumstances are not a person or an opinion to be agreed with or disagreed with. Those people's denial of the cancer's "right to exist in their body" is not a disagreement with circumstances... It's faith that the circumstances will be changed; faith that the cancer would leave.

Your circumstances have an outcome. That's what I'm talking about. Do you affirm the outcome of your circumstances, or do you believe that the outcome will change.

I think maybe we're just playing a semantics game here, and that you and I don't actually disagree much; but the ramifications of this "calling things that are not as though they are" is very troubling to me. First, because the whole 'catch-phrase' of it is a twisting of Scripture (as it was clearly God who calls things into existence, not anyone else); Second, because it seems to me that regardless of what you call it (either denying reality, or disagreeing with circumstances) it seems obvious to me that to support those ideas, you have to do some pretty serious eisegesis to make the texts fit your theory. The doctrine assumes certain things about the Biblical characters' attitudes, it takes words and phrases out of context (i.e. "evil report") to make it seem like it says something which the context does not suggest. Third, I think it takes the focus off of God and puts it onto our own mental processes. turning it into a pop-psychology/pseudo-New-Age kind of thinking pattern by telling people not to believe (or agree with) reality.

New age philosophy is nothing more thant the devil's counterfit. I've called thing that are not as though they were. I believed that I was healed, even though the doctors said I would never be healed. I thanked God for healing me even before that healing was manifested in my body.

By definition circumstances are "The sum of determining factors beyond willful control" We can't control them so there's no reason to either agree or disagree with them. We believe that God can control them... so we Trust in Him. Also, I don't believe we are called upon to 'agree' with God... We believe Him, we have faith in Him. Saying we 'agree' with Him suggests, imo, that His performance of promises is dependent on us, it suggest that if we don't 'agree' with Him, he'll withhold a promise... I believe that if we place our trust in God, he's not going to withhold anything from us because we failed to 'disagree' with our circumstances. He wants us to love Him, trust Him, not play mind games with ourselves over what reality is.

Is your salvation reliant on you? Would you be saved if you did not confess with your mouth what you believed in your heart? Will God "withhold" salvation from you if you don't believe in Him?

God is the author and finisher of our faith. But we have to put our faith into action:

Mark 11:23
I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him.

That's pretty conditional. We must confess, not doubt and believe. It's God's modus operandi. It's how we received our salvation. It's how we receive anything from God.

 

[charityagape]

Here this might help:

John 11

The Death of Lazarus

1Now a man named Lazarus was sick. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. 2This Mary, whose brother Lazarus now lay sick, was the same one who poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair. 3So the sisters sent word to Jesus, "Lord, the one you love is sick." 4When he heard this, Jesus said, "This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God's glory so that God's Son may be glorified through it." 5Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. 6Yet when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days.

Verse 3 says the sisters sent word to him, and immediately after it says Jesus said, this seems to me to be a reply to them, word sent back to them. Cause in the next verst it says "Then he said to his disciples:

7Then he said to his disciples, "Let us go back to Judea."
8"But Rabbi," they said, "a short while ago the Jews tried to stone you, and yet you are going back there?"
9Jesus answered, "Are there not twelve hours of daylight? A man who walks by day will not stumble, for he sees by this world's light. 10It is when he walks by night that he stumbles, for he has no light."
11After he had said this, he went on to tell them, "Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep; but I am going there to wake him up."
12His disciples replied, "Lord, if he sleeps, he will get better." 13Jesus had been speaking of his death, but his disciples thought he meant natural sleep.
14So then he told them plainly, "Lazarus is dead, 15and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him."
16Then Thomas (called Didymus) said to the rest of the disciples, "Let us also go, that we may die with him."

Jesus Comforts the Sisters

17On his arrival, Jesus found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb for four days. 18Bethany was less than two miles[a] from Jerusalem, 19and many Jews had come to Martha and Mary to comfort them in the loss of their brother. 20When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went out to meet him, but Mary stayed at home. 21"Lord," Martha said to Jesus, "if you had been here, my brother would not have died. 22But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask."
23Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again."
24Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day."
25Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"
27"Yes, Lord," she told him, "I believe that you are the Christ,[b] the Son of God, who was to come into the world."
28And after she had said this, she went back and called her sister Mary aside. "The Teacher is here," she said, "and is asking for you." 29When Mary heard this, she got up quickly and went to him. 30Now Jesus had not yet entered the village, but was still at the place where Martha had met him. 31When the Jews who had been with Mary in the house, comforting her, noticed how quickly she got up and went out, they followed her, supposing she was going to the tomb to mourn there.

32When Mary reached the place where Jesus was and saw him, she fell at his feet and said, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died."
33When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. 34"Where have you laid him?" he asked.
"Come and see, Lord," they replied.
35Jesus wept.
36Then the Jews said, "See how he loved him!"
37But some of them said, "Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?"

Jesus Raises Lazarus From the Dead

38Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance. 39"Take away the stone," he said.
"But, Lord," said Martha, the sister of the dead man, "by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days." 40Then Jesus said, "Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?"
41So they took away the stone. Then Jesus looked up and said, "Father, I thank you that you have heard me. 42I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me."
43When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come out!" 44The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face.
Jesus said to them, "Take off the grave clothes and let him go.

"

 

[BarbB]

Here this might help:



Verse 3 says the sisters sent word to him, and immediately after it says Jesus said, this seems to me to be a reply to them, word sent back to them. Cause in the next verst it says "Then he said to his disciples:




"

But where the Bible is so clear on other actions and speech, it does not say that here. It simply does not. Clearly Jesus said that to his disciples, but it's simply not in the scriptures in either place that Jesus said this to Martha.

Forgive me if I'm assuming something here, but it sounds as though this was used as a Word of Faith teaching and the link was made and accepted, but to me, there simply is no link.

What is clear to me is that Martha would have believed whatever Jesus said to her. She believed in the resurrection; she believed that Jesus could have healed Lazarus. She would have had no reason to disbelieve him if he had said that Lazarus would not stay dead!

 

[psalms 91]

The reason Jesus said this and tarried is because among the Jewish there was a belief that if a person was dead over three days the soul left the body and could not be brought back so when Jesus raised him after four days He showed Himself to be the Son of God.

 

[BarbB]

The reason Jesus said this and tarried is because among the Jewish there was a belief that if a person was dead over three days the soul left the body and could not be brought back so when Jesus raised him after four days He showed Himself to be the Son of God.

I agree, Bill - the 4 days was crucial to what Jesus was going to demonstrate.

 

[Tamara224]

Well, the sisters heard something:

John 11:40
Then Jesus said, "Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?"

Yes, they heard *something* ... but they didn't hear Jesus tell the disciples that the sickness wouldn't end in death. Jesus told them if they believed in Him, they would see the glory of God. God's glory can be displayed in many ways. Jesus didn't tell them that they had to believe that Lazarus would be raised from the dead in order for them to see that glory. And, they did see the glory when Lazarus came out of the tomb without having believed, specifically, that Jesus would do that exact thing.

That just makes no sense at all. Why would Jesus be "deeply moved and troubled in His spirit"? I've had family members die. I was emotionally troubled, but my spirit was quite calm, knowing that while I would miss that person, that they were in a much better place.

I don't think Jesus was moved to tears by the fact of Lazarus' death, but by the grief of the sisters. It was sympathetic weeping. I have been to a funeral where I didn't even know the person who died, but the grief of the mourners moved me to tears and troubled my spirit. I think that the love Jesus had for these women caused him to weep for their grief... He was 'sharing their pain' so to speak. Also, it is noted that the Jews who were there saw His tears as a sign of His love for Lazarus... I think that since those witnesses saw His facial expressions and body language, etc, their impression of the cause of His tears could be considered pretty accurate... especially since their interpretation of His tears is not contradicted in the passage.

Jesus KNEW what He was about to do. He KNEW He was about to raise Lazarus from the dead.

The passage does not speak of Jesus being moved by their tears. That simply is not there. Granted, neither is the explanation I've given, but it is far from "clear" that Jesus was moved by their tears.

Perhaps, but the statement "Jesus wept" is not preceded or followed by any mention of unbelief... it is preceded and followed by mention of people weeping. It says that "when Jesus saw her weeping...he was deeply moved in Spirit and troubled." When he saw their tears, he was moved. I think it is clear that the tears were what moved him to weep. What is less clear is what it was about the tears, exactly, that caused him to weep. It may be that their tears troubled him, causing him to weep because He saw them as a sign of unbelief... However, that just doesn't seem to me to be supported by the passage.

Consider this. Mary, Martha, the disciples, EVERYONE standing around wailing did not believe Jesus. Not one of them. Martha went so far as to try to stop Jesus from having the stone rolled away. "But surely he stinks by now!" Jesus even prayed aloud, saying that He was doing it for the sake of those standing around so that they would believe.

True. But they believed in Jesus (at least, Mary and Martha did)... they believed He was Son of God and that He was capable of having healed Lazarus before He died. I think they didn't have a full understanding, yet. It may not have occurred to them to think that it wasn't too late for Jesus to do something and He performed the miracle so that they would believe to the fullest extent, I think.

Uh, no. That's not the WoF doctrine at all. As I've pointed out many other times, you can be like the man at the pool and wait for Jesus to come heal you and that day may or may not come. Or you can be like the woman with the issue of blood who fought and pushed her way through the crowd to touch Jesus in faith. Both are valid and you can receive healing either way. I choose to push through the crowd.

Okay, Pete, I believe that this is what you believe WoF doctrine is.... but I've heard too many other WoFers say otherwise, here on this forum and elsewhere for me to believe that this is an accurate statement of that 'doctrine.'

See, that's not AT ALL what Mary and Martha said, they said, our brother is dead and we know he'll rise again in the last day. I'm not calling Mary and Martha "unbelievers" in the sense you're implying. But it's quite clear that in this instance, Mary and Martha did not believe what Jesus had told them.

It is what Martha said: "21"Lord," Martha said to Jesus, "if you had been here, my brother would not have died. 22 But I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask." Jesus told her he would rise again, and I think perhaps Martha assumed He was comforting her by reminding her of the final resurrection. She didn't doubt that God could raise him, she just didn't understand, I think, that Jesus meant 'right now.'

And again, please read John 11:40
Then Jesus said, "Did I not tell you that if you believed, you would see the glory of God?"

I'm sorry, Pete, but your interpretation of that verse requires a big assumption...It requires that we assume that when Jesus told them to believe He was referring to and they understood specifically that he meant believe He would raise Lazarus from the dead. In fact, we have no way of knowing when Jesus told them this... it could have been days or months before. In fact, since it's not recounted in this chapter, we must assume that it was said at least 5 days before this event (Jesus wasn't in Bethany). So, if Jesus was sitting and talking to them and He said to them (before Lazarus ever even got sick) "If you believe, you will see the glory of God," there is no way for them to have assumed that He meant by this that they would see Him raise Lazarus from the grave.

What I am trying (and obviously failing) to say when I say "agree with your circumstances" is this. If you get a report that you have an illness and you are going to die, that is a fact. You can concede that fact, or you can counter it with truth.

Sorry, I'm still not getting it... You give the option of either conceding a fact or countering it with truth. However, this is not a logical proposition... facts are countered with facts. Facts can be true or false. You counter a false fact with a true fact, but you don't counter a (neutral) fact with Truth.

True Fact - Jane has cancer
True Fact - God can heal her
True Fact - Jane believes in God's healing power
True Fact - God heals her

There is no need whatsoever for Jane to enter a false fact into the equation by saying that she doesn't have cancer when she clearly does. To believe that God can heal her is for her to believe one of the facts of the circumstances. It is a fact, a true fact, that God can and does heal. Therefore, she believes it, she asks for healing and God heals her thereby changing the outcome.

Your circumstances have an outcome. That's what I'm talking about. Do you affirm the outcome of your circumstances, or do you believe that the outcome will change.

Affirming the present likely outcome does not equal believing it cannot change. Again though, I don't believe that what we believe or acknowledge or agree with changes reality. If I have cancer, I have cancer whether I admit it or not. There is a physical reality beyond my mind, beyond what I think or hear or see. It is objective, it is not dependent on whether I admit it or not. The prognosis is death in 6 months whether I admit it or not. Believing in God means that I know He can change my prognosis. There's no reason for me to start lying about my current condition in order for God to heal me. I can believe that God will heal me and wait upon Him for healing without ever once saying "I am healed" before I actually am healed. Does this mean I'm passively waiting by the pool, hoping he'll come along? No, I can bring my petition before Him constantly, pester Him for it every day. Again, though, I see no reason to say anything even remotely untrue with regard to it.

Is your salvation reliant on you? Would you be saved if you did not confess with your mouth what you believed in your heart? Will God "withhold" salvation from you if you don't believe in Him?

No, my salvation is not reliant on me. No, I would not be saved if I didn't confess and believe. It is not God withholding salvation, but my refusal to believe that would determine damnation.

Salvation is not the same thing as current physical healing. I do not accept what is in my opinion a false doctrine built on one misunderstood proof text (i.e. that current physical healing was provided for in the atonement and is, in essence, already 'done.')

Mark 11:23
I tell you the truth, if anyone says to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will be done for him.

That's pretty conditional. We must confess, not doubt and believe. It's God's modus operandi. It's how we received our salvation. It's how we receive anything from God.

Well, believing that a thing will happen (future tense) is not the same thing as saying it has already happened, even though the facts of the case say otherwise. It is not doubt when a person acknowledges facts, it is, imho, foolishness to do otherwise.

 

[TreeOfLife]

If it doesn't make sense to my mind, then golly gee, it just doesn't make sense and cannot be true!

Jesus wept.

 

[BarbB]

...
Jesus wept.

imho, Jesus wept at the pain and grief that his much loved friends, Martha and Mary, were feeling at the death of their beloved brother. Jesus - the supreme empathizer - who came to earth wholly man and felt everything that we feel.

 

[TreeOfLife]

imho, Jesus wept at the pain and grief that his much loved friends, Martha and Mary, were feeling at the death of their beloved brother. Jesus - the supreme empathizer - who came to earth wholly man and felt everything that we feel.

Well then I must disagree. Jesus wept at the astounding lack of faith He found. The context, and the presence of pro-wailers, supports my interpretation.

 

[Tamara224]

If it doesn't make sense to my mind, then golly gee, it just doesn't make sense and cannot be true!

I don't trust in my own understanding of things, I trust in the Lord. However, as Rush Limbaugh says, I have "talent on loan from God." He gave me a brain and He expects me to use it. If something doesn't make sense to my mind, I don't automatically reject it, but it does raise a red flag indicating the thing needs to be further explored. If, after further exploration, the things still doesn't make sense, then I really question it. Applying logic to the Word of God to reason things out is a requirement of a Christian. This is what I try to do. I don't trust my own understanding, but God is logical so if something is illogical, if it doesn't make sense according to Scripture and clear reasoning as well as the prompting of the Holy Spirit... then it's not true.

 

[TreeOfLife]

I don't trust in my own understanding of things, I trust in the Lord. However, as Rush Limbaugh says, I have "talent on loan from God." He gave me a brain and He expects me to use it. If something doesn't make sense to my mind, I don't automatically reject it, but it does raise a red flag indicating the thing needs to be further explored. If, after further exploration, the things still doesn't make sense, then I really question it. Applying logic to the Word of God to reason things out is a requirement of a Christian. This is what I try to do. I don't trust my own understanding, but God is logical so if something is illogical, if it doesn't make sense according to Scripture and clear reasoning as well as the prompting of the Holy Spirit... then it's not true.

Really? You do realize that scripture says the exact opposite of that right?

 

[BarbB]

Well then I must disagree. Jesus wept at the astounding lack of faith He found. The context, and the presence of pro-wailers, supports my interpretation.

And yet there's only words of pain and empathy in those verses - nary a word about unbelief.

JN 11:33 When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who had come along with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled. [34] "Where have you laid him?" he asked.
"Come and see, Lord," they replied.
JN 11:35 Jesus wept.
JN 11:36 Then the Jews said, "See how he loved him!"
JN 11:37 But some of them said, "Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?"
JN 11:38 Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to the tomb.

Nowhere does the scripture say that He felt their unbelief - just their pain; not anger and disgust on his part, but empathy for the suffering of the sisters. In fact, if there was so much unbelief, by your own testimony AND the verses about Jesus in Nazareth and other towns, he would not have been able to raise Lazarus.

 

[TreeOfLife]

And yet there's only words of pain and empathy in those verses - nary a word about unbelief.



Nowhere does the scripture say that He felt their unbelief - just their pain; not anger and disgust on his part, but empathy for the suffering of the sisters. In fact, if there was so much unbelief, by your own testimony AND the verses about Jesus in Nazareth and other towns, he would not have been able to raise Lazarus.

Nah, your Jewish tradition starts the narrative to late. Look at the whole story and you will see the anguish in the tears of our Lord. He is utterly surrounded by Jewish tradition at this point, and the unbelief of it is what causes Him to weep.

Racist apologetics wants to cloud the issue, but it is clear why Jesus wept.

 

[OnlyByHisGrace]

gett ing in kind of late in this thread...sorry.

Did Jesus himself call things that were as though they were not?

Luke 8:52 talking about the little girl he said she was not dead, but sleeping (paraphrasing). Was she in fact dead, or was she sleeping? Just curious.