Finis Dake's view of Foreknowledge and Omniscience

[TheScottsMen]

I have to say brothern your doctrine understanding is good from the flesh view point. Does God the Father see you after your new birth or His son? I believe He see His son. And his son's outcome is finished nothing can be added or taken from it. I'm cover in the blood and just a voice out of it that is a aroma unto Him. Even when I make a mistake Jesus intercedes on my behalf (this is in a pray realm). Everything else in Him is perfect. Faith not sight. I just believe it's alot more simple then all this theory so to speak.

I don't argue that. The bible is the simplest book to understand in the entire world. That's not the problem. Heck, think back to the early church times. Churches then HAD Paul, Peter, John and all the rest and yet they couldn't get it right half the time! Paul, Peter, Jude, John and the rest had to right epistles to correct these churches and encourage them. To go from the simple things of the gospel (heb 6) from milk to meat. To have an answer to all men.

 

[enoch son]

My i ask doesn't wof have alot of works in it? We have the faith of Christ, how can I make that any better? I believe the thrid heaven is in me now. That is where God dwells, and He place it there with His seed at the new birth. It up to me to used my priesthood to move in His perfect will. Which is all men come to the knowledge of salvation. I must say if I hear Him say "Say to the mountian" that baby is gone. It's not in our speaking but in our hearing then speaking.

 

[TheScottsMen]

#My i ask doesn't wof have alot of works in it?#
Just the opossite . WOF = Word of Faith. Works just follow those with faith and have nothing to do with salvation.

 

[Theophilus7]

Indeed, caution is required in regards to “literalism.” However, one must not be too extreme in either direction. Your heading seems to be in regards to antropomorhisms, which, indeed need to be taken in light of God’s revelations to men. An extension to hermeneutics may be to take literally those phrases which logically may be taken literally. Obviously, God does not use the earth as His footstool, as He does not have feet! Nor does He have wings (Ps. 36:7), etc.

Balance must be taken, however, when discounting the use of plain language. Remember, God knows our frame, that we are dust (Ps 103:14), so He must also know how to communicate His truths to us with this limitation in mind. I do believe God means what He says, and says what He means. If we go too far to the extreme of trying to read into everything written, black become white, white becomes black, and everything can mean anything to anyone!

He knows how to ensure we are getting His message clearly.

Thank you for the positive criticism. I have modified my article in the hopes of guarding against the danger of swinging to the other extreme. I have highlighted the parts I think help. See what you think.

---

Did God really speak when He created?​

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”. But did He really do it in an audible voice (Gen. 1:3,6,9,11,14,20,24,26)? It is, when we stop to think about it, impossible to accept the idea that God literally spoke words in the original act of creation. A spoken word requires air in which to speak it and organs with which to produce the sound. Granted, a God who is in control of air molecules could set up the necessary vibrations with a thought, but even God the Almighty cannot produce vibrations in a gaseous medium that doesn't exist yet. That is nonsense.

We may wonder, then, why the Genesis account repeatedly records the creative acts with the words, “God said”, as opposed to “God thought” or some other language that might better befit God’s dignity and true nature. Wouldn’t that have been preferable? Isn’t the choice of words a little crude and irreverent in describing the actions of this transcendent spirit? I believe the answer to both of these questions is “no”. There are good reasons for preferring “God said” to “God thought”, and there are also good reasons for abstaining both from literalisms and criticisms of biblical anthropomorphisms in general.

Firstly, in order to correctly interpret these verses in Genesis, we must recognise that speech is fundamentally the revelation of thought. In a human being, breath is released from the lungs and passed through the mouth. The sound of the words is determined by the various things to which the air is subjected before it departs between your lips. Essentially, a man wills to think about something and his breath carries the thought outside of himself and manifests it in the form of sound waves. "Speech is the index of what is thought, willed and done". It is a fitting analogue for God’s work in the beginning. God didn’t merely ponder the act of creation - He willed to think creative thoughts, and those thoughts were indeed, in a sense, carried by God’s breath; the Holy Spirit. God made something outside of Himself. His will was wrought in substance! To record that "God said" is a vastly more appropriate means of recalling each creative act than to say merely, "God thought".

It shouldn't be too surprising that human speech is offered as a useful analogy in Genesis 1 (no more than that, but no less), as long as we maintain our grasp on two important touchstones in the Bible. Firstly, like the Roman coin in Mark 12:16-21, stamped with the image of Caesar, man has been created in the image and likeness of God. Nevertheless, a coin does not contain the true nature of the person in whose image it was made. This is the second point. That God is both like us (Gen. 1:26) and unlike us is indisputable (Jer. 10:6-7). He amply testifies to both throughout scripture, though He often has to remind people that He is not nearly as similar to human beings as they tend to imagine Him to be (Num. 23:19; Isa. 29:16; Acts 17:24-30).

For the benefit of all mankind, the Bible frequently frames God’s thoughts and actions in human terms. The Infinite describes Himself in language composed out of the stuff of human life, which we can all readily relate to. Because man is in God’s image, there is sufficient God-likeness within him and even in creation in general for the Absolute to meaningfully draw upon. But we must also hold within our minds the counter-balancing truth, essential to a worshipful and reverential mind, that God is also unlike us, that He is higher than us, that He is, in fact, a transcendent being and not a man (Isa. 55:8-9), if we are to avoid making an idol from the analogue. For the good philosopher knows how earth-bound human language is, carved out by experience in the realm of the five physical senses, yet indispensable in describing the realities that exist on higher plains. There is no difficulty in relating a historical account of the appearance of earth and sky, vegetation and animal life in quite literal terms (cf. Gen. 1-2). But what about the higher matters? When we wish to discuss mental things we are obliged to borrow almost all the words we apply from the material world. Learning is said to enlighten the mind, because it is to the mind what light is to the eye, enabling it to discover things that were previously hidden[1], but no sane person really supposes a little light bulb comes on between his ears when he thinks. In this way, by appropriating phraseology from a lower sphere, we are able to discuss the metaphysical together. And this holds true for the ways and workings of the divine too, which are higher still. Whenever we try to imagine what God is like, we are compelled to use “that-which-is-not-God” as the raw material, putting together picture-words in an effort to describe the many facets of an invisible being (1Tim. 1:17).

But only “let there be in our minds proper notions of God, and the tropical language we must and ought to employ in speaking of divine things will derive no taint of error from its original application to their human analogues”[2]. The Bible itself readily supplies us with map and compass and sufficient illumination of the true nature of God to steer the enlightened reader away from mishandling any metaphorical language in scripture and forming obtuse conclusions: Our assurance of God’s omnipresence in Psalm 139 forbids us from taking literally the image of the earth as a stool for His ‘feet’ to rest upon (Is. 66:1). The teaching of God’s omniscience in passages like Job 37:16 and 1John 3:20 prevents us from interpreting God’s “repentance” in Genesis 6:6 as the admission of an error in divine wisdom. And “do you not know? Have you not heard?” (Is. 40:28); the truth of the divine nature, inexhaustible in power, puts a stop to anyone suggesting God occasionally runs down and needs to take time out (Gen. 2:2-3). God isn’t a creature, and although the Bible often pictures Him doing creaturely things, like whistling (Is. 7:18), as if He had a mouth, or even blowing smoke from His ‘nostrils’ (Ps. 18:8), as if He were a dragon (!), we need not take these passages literally and struggle to reconcile them with the rest of God’s Word, anymore than we should feel constrained to accept the idea that God, who created everything, literally spoke words into an uncreated, eternal atmosphere when He made the heavens and the earth.

How indeed can the Bible tell you and me, simple fellows that we are, anything at all about God and the unfamiliar, without drawing upon the familiar? What other bridge is there over which we may pass to the unknown? The scriptures reveal that God is like an eagle (Deut 32:11), a mother hen (Mat. 23:37), a lion (Is. 31:4), a lamb (Is. 53:7), a rock (Deut. 32:4), a fountain (Ps. 36:9), a shield (Ps. 84:11), a temple (Rev. 21:22), the sun (Ps. 84:11) and a great many more things in creation, but will you really push these different similes to the point of absurdity? To demand that the description precisely conform to the reality of the thing described is to end with nothing higher than our own thoughts and experiences - no God at all, in fact, and no faith.

For this reason, a slavish literalism is inexcusable when the Holy One is in the hotspot of biblical revelation. When the God of the Bible condescends to describe His thoughts and actions to us, stooping into the realm of human language and scooping up the earthly materials of our experiences to compound them into a mosaic of images bearing “the likeness of the appearance” of different things we have witnessed in creation, let us be careful not to press the language under our feet and trample on the divine nature by thoughts of God that are no higher than our muddy boots.

---

[1] Webster’s dictionary
[2] Albert Barnes’ Commentary

 

[Theophilus7]

Hi,

God having a body? The bible speaks of God having a body over 1000 times in scripture. But wait you say! That means he has WINGS HUH? Well, we were created in Gods image, do we have wings? Nah, I think not, but you never know now adays with all that cloning stuff going on. Thus we take that is being figurative.

I think we've met before . Let me state your principle in concise terms:

The ascription of parts to the deity is to be understood metaphorically except where those parts are found in human-beings.


​

The justification for your hermeneutic appears to be based on the following premise:

In the image of God means an actual copy, not a representation or a likeness. Everything present in man's original condition is a literal replica of an original present in God.


​

Thus you reason:


1. Man has a body.
2. Man is a replica of God.
3. Therefore God has a body.

Thus if someone comes along and demonstrates that either 1) "the image of God" does not mean a replica, or 2) the Bible denies that God possesses something ascribed to man which would have been true of his unfallen state, you will abandon this hermeneutic, yes?

I'll believe plain scripture, you interrupt [interpret?] it.

Everyone interprets. If you choose to take Jesus literally when He called the bread "my body" and the wine "my blood" you are still interpreting.

Pip pip for the present,

Theophilus7

 

[look]

Hmm...What is very interesting to me is, I haven't noticed any theologians who are strong in this type or style of hermeneutics, walking in the manner commanded of us by Jesus in Matthew 10;

7. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
8. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

Care to explain that, Theophilus7?

 

[Theophilus7]

Hmm...What is very interesting to me is, I haven't noticed any theologians who are strong in this type or style of hermeneutics, walking in the manner commanded of us by Jesus in Matthew 10;

7. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
8. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

Care to explain that, Theophilus7?

Surely . It means, make Satan cry.

 

[victoryword]

HA! Good one Theophilus7

 

[victoryword]

Whoah! Great post again! Pretty much sums up everything I believe on the subject!

#I like this definition (which I think is very close to Dake's as well)#

I agree again. The Full Life Study Bible and Dake are right in the middle. Though, I think Open Theism in general may be a bit more radical.

Dakes view on a lot of Gods attributes are different then most peoples.

Yeah, OV is somewhat radical but it is not that new. It has been taught well over a century. Moral Government Theology, advocated by Gordon C. Olson, Harry Conn, and a few others were teaching OV long before it began being called OV. Winkey Pratney was teaching it in YWAM circles.

Your statement about Dake is true. I noticed when I first began to read him that he REALLY meant what he said about taking the Bible literally. While I enjoyed his teachings on faith, healing, and prosperity, I could not quite get with him on the other stuff.

God is Omnipresent (God is not omni-body) Because Dakes theology states that God has a spirit body he thus cannot be everywhere at the same time. So, the doctrine of Omnipresent is wrapped up this way - Presence is governed by relationship, not bodily sight. When the body of anyone is not literally present, one cannot say that it is present. The presence of two persons may be felt though thousands of miles may separate them bodily. In such a case, presence consists of union, relationship, memory, acquaintance, and association to the same end of life. The closer two persons are to each other in any relationship, the more they feel each other's presence in the thought life. So it is with God. God dwells in Heaven and persons on earth that know Him are in union with Him in spirit and feel His presence in their lives regardless of where they are on the Earth or under the Earth.

I still have to do more study on his understanding of omnipresence. I am not quite there yet with him on it and not totally sure if I could get there. Perhaps I'll have to do a better study of his reference. Heck, it took me eleven years before I finally began to agree with Dake on foreknowledge.

Omniscient - God's eternal plan for man is known from the beginning to the end and what He plans to bring to pass on Earth He has power to do, but concerning the free actions of free moral agents HE does not know from all eternity what they will do before they are in existence and are here to have a part in His plan. He does not know which ones will be saved and which ones will be lost. He has made a plan for all to be saved alike and all who conform to His plan are blessed with the predestined blessings. Those who willfully rebel will be cursed with the predestined punishments according to the plan. It is the plan that is known from the beginning to the end, not the individual conformity to it by free more agents. It is left up to each person to choose his own destiny. God wills all men to be saved but if man does not choose to be saved that is his responsibility ( 1 Tim 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9; John 3:16; Rev 22:17)

It has taken me a long time but I have finally come to agree with the above. It has taken much research and Scripture meditation. I have prayed several times that God would show me if the above is wrong because I did not want to be in error. On the other hand, if it is Scripturally based, I would not be concerned if people said that I was in error. Being right in God's eyes means more to me than being orthodox in man's eyes.

Word-Faithers should understand that it is difficult to prove "the faith of God" concept if they differ with Dake on this.

The majority of non-calvinist Christians should have no problems with Dake on his other definitions that you have quoted, even if they disagree with him on everything else.

I never have asked other WOF'ers their view on this theology much. What about you? Going back to the hermeneutical thought on Dakes, its a shame that more Ministries and Colleges do not teach more on these grounds.

After I finally "gave in" and became an Open Theist and came "out of the closet" I began to challenge some of them on one forum that is frequented by WoFers. Most of them did not seem to want to discuss it. Many seem to just accept the fact that God has exhaustive foreknowldge and leave it at that, never thinking about how it contradicts with their theology on "The God-Kind of Faith" and the many teachings on "how we can change our destiny" that are found within Word-Faith circles.

Hopefully I may someday get some to see differently.

Even in a WOF college its hard to find good lit. I had required reading for my HERM2 authors Gordon D. Fee, Douglas Stuart, D. Brent Sandy & Ronald L. Giese Jr. Let me quote from one of Mr.Fees book

"Even among more theologically orthodox people, however, many strange ideas manage to gain acceptance in various quarters. For example, one of the current rages among American Protestants, especially charismatics, is the so-called wealth and health gospel. The "good news" is that God's will for you is financial and material prosperity! One of the advocates of this "gospel" begins his book by arguing FOR THE "PLAIN SENSE" of the Scripture and claiming that he puts the Word of God first and foremost throughout his study. HE says that it is not what we THINK it says but what it actually SAYS that counts. The "plain meaning" IS what he is after. But one begins to wonder what the "plain meaning" really is when financial prosperity is argued as the will of God from biblical scriptures. One may rightly question whether the plain meaning is being sought at all; perhaps the plain meaning is simply what such a writer wants the text to mean in order to support his Pet ideas."

Now keep in mind, I attend a WOF church AND COLLEGE and this is the type of garbage that is available for Hermeneutics courses! Its no wonder people will willingly live in poverty, sickness and and fall to other weapons of the devil! There not told to BELIEVE what the Word says but to interpret the Word to such a degree that it becomes a cold science and not living waters. Just imagine if we had the Word in such a degree in us that all the promises of scripture became a reality not just in thought but in heart! Praise God when that day comes full swing! When instead of watching the news and seeing that bad things happening on this planet that instead we hear,see and become these believers of Christ raising the dead, healing the sick and casting down every weapon of the devil that holds this world hostage! Glory be to God in the day! But who knows, all it takes is one spark to inflame the barn. Maybe it will happen today or even tomorrow.

TSM

I don't get it TSM. Most Word-Faithers know that Gordon Fee is no fan of Faith Teaching. Why would you have your students learn theology from someone normally opposed to your theology? It doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps once you graduate, you might be able to help make a difference. However, at this point, having Gordon Fee books in a WoF college as part of the curriculum (at least his literature that criticizes the Faith Movement) seems counterproductive and could cause one to turn away from the very truths you are trying to instill within them.

Yesterday I picked up a book by Bob Sorge. The whole book was about how God gave him some sickness for some reason that I never had a chance to read and find out. He mentioned Hagin and others and was very kind in his criticism of what he called "The Confidence Camp". He stated how much good he learned from them but then began to chastize them for teaching that God never gives sickness as a blessing.

I thought for a minute that though I disagree with his doctrine, at least he was kind to the Faith Teachers. But then I also thought how this is an even subtler tactic to work against a person than if he had outright criticized them. Had he staunchly criticized them, I would never had read any further in the book. But because he was nice, I read more of what he had to say. however, I could already feel my faith draining as I read more about God giving sickness to people for good ....

I believe Sorge is a good man but I will not buy a book like that (unless it was for research purposes. Certainly not to gain any insights). I feel that a Word-Faither could easily fall into problems if his own Word-Faith professors are advocating anti-WoF material at the college.

 

[TheScottsMen]

Yup, and we have discussed this very issue in another forum.

#Thus you reason:
1. Man has a body.
2. Man is a replica of God.
3. Therefore God has a body.#

Yupperz.

##Thus if someone comes along and demonstrates that either 1) "the image of God" does not mean a replica, or 2) the Bible denies that God possesses something ascribed to man which would have been true of his unfallen state, you will abandon this hermeneutic, yes?#

And im sure again we will discuss this and disagree as we did in the previous forum experience. But hey, thats alright

Genesis 1:26

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

[image] Hebrew: tselem (HSN-6754), shade, resemblance. Its usage proves it refers to
outward form, not to attributes (Genesis 1:26-27; Genesis 5:3; Genesis 9:6; Exodus
20:4; Leviticus 26:1; Psalm 73:20; Psalm 106:19; Isaiah 40:19-20; Isaiah 44:9-17;
Isaiah 45:20; Isaiah 48:5; Jeremiah 10:14; Jeremiah 51:17; cp. Romans 1:20; 1 Cor.
11:7; James 3:9).

[likeness] Hebrew: demuwth (HSN-1823), resemblance, model, shape; it refers to
outward form as proved by usage (Genesis 1:26; Genesis 5:1,3; Isaiah 40:18; Ezekiel
1:5,10,13,16,22,26,28; Ezekiel 8:2; Ezekiel 10:1,10,21,22).

Doctrine Of Man:

The word man is found 2737 times in Scripture. Several Hebrew and Greek words are translated man with various meanings, including Adam, male, husband, mortal, mighty man, and a human being.

1.Man's creation:

(1)Inner man created (Genesis 1:26-27; Genesis 5:1-2).

(2)Body formed of dust (Genesis 2:7; Genesis 3:19).

(3)Made in God's own bodily image. Hebrew: tselem (HSN-6754), shape,
figure, physical form (Genesis 1:26,27; Genesis 5:3; Genesis 9:6; Numbers
33:52; 1 Samuel 6:5,11; 2 Kings 11:18; 2 Chron. 23:17; Psalm 73:20; Ezekiel
7:20; Ezekiel 16:17; Ezekiel 23:14; Amos 5:26).

(4)Made in God's own bodily likeness. Hebrew: demuwth (HSN-1823), model,
shape, similitude, resemblance (Genesis 1:26; Genesis 5:1,3; Isaiah 40:18;
Ezekiel 1:5,10,13,16,22,26,28; Ezekiel 8:2; Ezekiel 10:1,10,21-22). The Greek:
eikon (GSN-1504) confirms the idea of physical image and likeness (Matthew
22:20; Romans 1:23; 1 Cor. 11:7; 1 Cor. 15:49; 2 Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15; Hebrews
10:1; Rev. 13:14-15; Rev. 14:9,11; Rev. 15:2; Rev. 16:2; Rev. 19:20; Rev.
20:4).

(A)Neither Deut. 4:15 nor any other scripture does away with the physical form
of God. Just because Israel did not see any form when God spoke is no proof
that He is bodiless and without form any more than someone else who might
be heard and whose body is not seen. Many in Israel did see God's body
(Genesis 18; Genesis 32:24-30; Exodus 24:9-11; Joshua 5:13-15; Judges 6:11-
23; Judges 13:3-23; 1 Chron. 21:16-17; Job 42:5; Isaiah 6; Ezekiel 1:26;
Daniel 7:9-14; Daniel 10:5-6; Acts 7:56-59; Rev. 4:2-5; Rev. 5:1-7; etc.) See
Anthropomorphism.

(B)There is no question that man was made in the likeness of God in soul and
spirit (Ephes. 4:22-24; Col. 3:10), but this does not do away with the bodily
image and likeness of God, as in all the above passages. All angels and spirit
beings have bodies as well as souls and spirits.

(C)Even resurrected human bodies are called spiritual (1 Cor. 15:42-44), yet they
will also be material (Luke 24:39; Phil. 3:21). Misunderstanding of this
subject comes from not knowing what spirits are like. See The Spirit World.

(5)The body is wonderfully made (Psalm 139:14). It consists of various
chemicals—iron, sugar, salt, carbon, iodine, phosphorus, lime, calcium, and
others. The body has 263 bones; 600 muscles; 970 miles of blood vessels; 400
cups on the tongue for taste; 20,000 hairs in the ears to tune in to all sounds; 40
pounds of jaw pressure; 10,000,000 nerves and branches; 3,500 sweat tubes to
each square inch of skin (or 40 miles long); 20,000,000 mouths that suck food as
it goes through the intestines; 600,000,000 air cells to the lungs that inhale 2,400
gallons of air daily; and a communication network that relates to the brain
instantly any known sound, taste, sight, touch or smell. The heart beats 4,200
times an hour and pumps 12 tons of blood daily.

(6)Man's soul is the seat of the emotions, passions, desires, appetites, and all
feelings.

(7)Man's spirit is the seat of the intellect, will, and conscience. It is capable of all
divine powers only in a lesser degree. See Spirit.

(8)The inner man, consisting of soul and spirit, is eternal. See note, §1 Peter 3:4.

(9)Man was made a little lower than angels (Psalm 8:5; Hebrews 2:7).

(10)He was created sinless, but capable of sin (Genesis 2:17; Romans 5:12-21; 1
John 3:4).

(11)He was made a threefold being—body, soul, and spirit (1 Thes. 5:23; Hebrews
4:12).

(12)His flesh differs from all other creatures (1 Cor. 15:39).

(13)Both male and female are represented in man (Genesis 1:26-28; Genesis 5:2;
Matthew 19:4).

(14)Material and spiritual natures of man are clearly distinguished in Scripture, as
follows:

(A)Soul and spirit not dust (Genesis 2:7).

(B)Spirit leaves body at death (James 2:26; Luke 8:49-56; Luke 16:22; Luke
23:43; Acts 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:8; 2 Cor. 12:3-4; Phil. 1:21-24; Hebrews 12:23; 2
Peter 1:13-15; Rev. 6:9-11; 1 Kings 17:20-22; Job 14:10; 2 Samuel 12:19-23;
Eccles. 12:7).

(C)Soul and spirit are in man's body, but are not the material of the body (Job
14:22; Job 32:8; Proverbs 20:27; Zech. 12:1; 1 Cor. 2:11; 1 Cor. 7:34).

(D)The body can be killed but not the soul (Matthew 10:28; Luke 12:5).

(E)The spirit can be willing; the flesh powerless to execute (Matthew 26:38-41).

(F)Both flesh and spirit are to glorify God (1 Cor. 6:20).

(G)Both flesh and spirit can be filthy or holy (2 Cor. 7:1).

(H)The inner man is eternal; the body mortal (2 Cor. 4:16-18).

(I)The inner man is fully conscious after leaving the body (Matthew 10:28;
Matthew 17:3; Luke 16:19-31; Luke 20:38; John 11:25-26; Acts 2:27; Ephes.
3:15; Ephes. 4:8-10; 2 Cor. 5:8; 2 Cor. 12:1-4; Phil. 1:21-24; Hebrews 2:14-
15; Hebrews 12:23; note, §1 Peter 3:4; Rev. 6:9-11).

(J)The spirit and soul are not the breath (Job 34:14-15). To prove this try
substituting breath for spirit and soul in scriptures and see how ridiculous it
is. Try this with Psalm 19:7; Psalm 106:15; Luke 12:19; Acts 23:8-9;
Romans 2:29; 2 Cor. 2:11; 2 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 6:20; 2 Cor. 7:1; Galatians 5:25;
1 Thes. 5:23; Hebrews 4:12; Hebrews 10:38-39; Rev. 6:9-11.

(K)Souls can be dead while the bodies are alive (Matthew 8:22; Ephes. 2:1-9; 1
Tim. 5:6; Rev. 3:1).

(L)Souls of the righteous have eternal life even after the body dies (John 3:16;
John 5:24; John 6:47,53,63; John 11:25-26; John 14:19).

(M)Souls of the wicked are also conscious after the body dies.

(N)Resurrection of the dead refers to the bodies coming to life again, not the
souls (Daniel 12:2; John 5:28-29; 1 Cor. 15:35-54; Rev. 20:11-15).

(O)Souls of the righteous go to heaven at death (2 Cor. 5:8; Ephes. 3:14-15; Phil.
1:21-24; Hebrews 12:23; Rev. 6:9-11). Their bodies go to graves (Daniel
12:2; John 5:28-29).

(P)Souls of the wicked go to hell while the bodies go to the grave (Isaiah 14:9;
Luke 16:19-31; Rev. 20:11-15).

(Q)The body is the house of the inner man (Job 4:19; Job 14:22; Job 32:8; Zech.
12:1; 1 Cor. 2:11; 2 Cor. 5:1-8; Phil. 1:21-24; 2 Peter 1:13-15). The soul and
spirit design; the body executes. Man through his body has consciousness of
the material world; through the soul, self-consciousness; and through the
spirit, consciousness of God.

(R)Man has a body but he is not just a body; a soul but he is not just a soul; and a
spirit but he is not just a spirit being (1 Thes. 5:23).

(S)Man has a will, making him in every sense a free moral agent and a
responsible being (John 3:16; John 7:17; Romans 7:18; 1 Cor. 7:36-37; 1 Cor.
9:17; 2 Peter 1:21; Rev. 22:17).

(T)The body can be put off and put on again (2 Cor. 5:1-8; 2 Peter 1:14). This
requires a separate inner man from the body itself.

(U)Souls are now immortal (note, §1 Peter 3:4); bodies are not.

 

[enoch son]

I'm sorry but so what! I do not worship him in body, for it is dead. I WORSHIP HIM IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH! The body thing get work out later.

 

[look]

Surely . It means, make Satan cry.

Why are you being so evasive??? If I'm wrong, it should be no big deal for you to answer my question, right?

So, where are they???

 

[Theophilus7]

Why are you being so evasive??? If I'm wrong, it should be no big deal for you to answer my question, right?

Oh, I do apologise . I only glanced at your post and evidently misunderstood your question. I thought you were implying I was scared of taking the plain meaning of scripture and teasing me as to how I would interpret that particular verse away.

So, where are they???

Dr. Jack Deere springs to mind as someone who is both theologically educated and used in the gifts of the spirit.

 

[look]

Dr. Jack Deere??? I'm not trying to make you uncomfortable, really...But isn't he one of those ones who go around barking and roaring like a lion? That is the only thing I've heard of him. I guess he doesn't go around healing, casting out demons and raising the dead. I don't believe he is a WoFer but I'm not familar with his theology.

Have you ever heard of the Lord actually using him in any of those capacities??? You know, like Smith Wigglesworth was?

 

[look]

I'm not trying to derail this thread, I am simply pointing out that the type of hermeneutics Theophilus7 espouses must be faulty because Jesus told us that these signs (healing the sick, raising the dead and casting out demons) would follow the Word being preached as confirmation...By denying certain attributes of God, it would be impossible to have the "God kind of faith". Which is, in my opinion, one of the requirements of being led by the Spirit in your everyday lives. How could you execute a command from the Holy Spirit if you don't have the kind of faith God has???

Theo, I know what you are saying, all I can tell you is, that stuff drains the spiritual life out of me. I'm sorry, but it does not edify me, on the other hand, it actually takes something away from me. I know what it is! I believe what Finnis Dake is teaching is correct and that flies right smack in the face of religious ideas and man-made doctrine and traditions. Sorry!

Also Theophilus7, we really are not supposed to be engaged in "doubtful disputations", or in other words, verbal activity that creates doubt. Rather, we are to edify (decrease doubt).

That's all for now, remember the men God used mightily, great men of God like John G. Lake, Smith Wigglesworth and many others who did not buy into that style of hermeneutics. Rather, they were taught by the Holy Spirit, they didn't go to a theological school. I'm not saying that going to school is bad, but discern the materials...Victoryword spoke of this earlier...

Pip pip!!!

 

[victoryword]

Dr. Jack Deere springs to mind as someone who is both theologically educated and used in the gifts of the spirit.

Jack Deere's book Surprised by the Power of God is one of my favorite books. I love it (though I differ with him concerning some of his reasons why God does and does not heal).

The Vineyard/Thrid Wavers have done the best job I have seen so far in producing apologetic literature refuting the false (but popular) cessationist theology. As you know, Vineyard/Thrid Wavers differ with Word-Faith on several things, but I have probably learned more about how to DEFEND what I believe from them than I have from anyone else (perhaps with the OVers being a possible exception). We Word-Faithers have as well in the area of apologetics as the Vineyard/Third Wavers have done.

However, have you read Ken Blue's book on healing? What do you think of his chapter on "Divine Determinism"?

 

[victoryword]

I'm not trying to derail this thread, I am simply pointing out that the type of hermeneutics Theophilus7 espouses must be faulty because Jesus told us that these signs (healing the sick, raising the dead and casting out demons) would follow the Word being preached as confirmation...By denying certain attributes of God, it would be impossible to have the "God kind of faith". Which is, in my opinion, one of the requirements of being led by the Spirit in your everyday lives. How could you execute a command from the Holy Spirit if you don't have the kind of faith God has???

Theo, I know what you are saying, all I can tell you is, that stuff drains the spiritual life out of me. I'm sorry, but it does not edify me, on the other hand, it actually takes something away from me. I know what it is! I believe what Finnis Dake is teaching is correct and that flies right smack in the face of religious ideas and man-made doctrine and traditions. Sorry!

Also Theophilus7, we really are not supposed to be engaged in "doubtful disputations", or in other words, verbal activity that creates doubt. Rather, we are to edify (decrease doubt).

That's all for now, remember the men God used mightily, great men of God like John G. Lake, Smith Wigglesworth and many others who did not buy into that style of hermeneutics. Rather, they were taught by the Holy Spirit, they didn't go to a theological school. I'm not saying that going to school is bad, but discern the materials...Victoryword spoke of this earlier...

Pip pip!!!

Look

While I enjoy the study of theology, I am like you in that I have to avoid the type of stuff that will drain my faith.

One thing I can say is that after over two years and studying this view of the God-kind of faith verses God's "eternal now" and "omniscience", I am convinced that God is a FAITH GOD. He is a God who takes risks. The Bible can hardly be understood in it's plain literal sense without believing this.

It seems to me that our theologians have to spend more time explaining why the Bible does NOT mean what it actually says right there in the text than it would take to simply understand that it just means what it says. We seem to have to pollute the theological pool with big words like metaphor, anthropomorphism, omniscience, omnipresence, derterminism, etc., etc., etc.

Jack Deere, who Theophilus7 mentions above gives an illustration in his book of a person who just got saved, goes intoa closet, and reads his Bible. If he is not prejudiced by cessationist theology, he will never come to the conclusion that miracles are not for today. Well, I would also take Jack Deere's same illustration and apply to other forms of theology. A person who is not influenced by all of the theological jargon today would never come to some of the conclusions like God not believing anything, God living in some "eternal now" vortex, etc. These are things that we were TAUGHT, and now we read them into the Biblical text rather than allowing the text to speak for itself.

 

[look]

Look, Jack Deere, who Theophilus7 mentions above gives an illustration in his book of a person who just got saved, goes intoa closet, and reads his Bible. If he is not prejudiced by cessationist theology, he will never come to the conclusion that miracles are not for today. Well, I would also take Jack Deere's same illustration and apply to other forms of theology. A person who is not influenced by all of the theological jargon today would never come to some of the conclusions like God not believing anything, God living in some "eternal now" vortex, etc. These are things that we were TAUGHT, and now we read them into the Biblical text rather than allowing the text to speak for itself.

Very true, Victoryword...

God had a big influence on the people who gave me instruction from the moment I got born-again!!! The person God used to bring me to Jesus also introduced me to the Dake's Bible, Kenneth Hagin's teaching books (some of those books still have the $1.00 sticker!), Kenneth Copeland's teachings and the pre-trib view of the rapture...

However, what about some of the people God used in a mighty way? Smith Wigglesworth was illiterate but after he got saved, his wife taught him to read using the Bible and he did pick up on some false doctrines along the way as he went from the Methodist, Salvation Army and others. When He was baptised in the Holy Spirit, then God began to re-educate Smith about healing, faith and other areas. Smith had a humble heart in that he changed his thinking whenever God corrected him.

Then there is the fact that in the less developed countries, where the Word of God is hindered by Islamic and governmental oppression, God is using people left and right in mighty miracles. These people don't have Bibles, but are taught by word of mouth. You can trace the injection of doctrinal theologies, even the timing (the where and when) by the decrease of Jesus confirming His Word!!!

For instance, cessationist missionaries experience far less (although some) confirmatory miracles compared to the non-cessationist missionaries. I'm sorry, but that's a fact...think about that!

To use a more obvious example...God doesn't use atheists to work mighty miracles, such as raising the dead, healing the sick and casting out demons. Why? Because they have not renewed their minds to the Word of God!!! Even dad Hagin has had to change his theology when God corrected him. Hagin started out as a Baptist, remember?

The point I was trying to make, is bad theology will limit the effectiveness of any of God's ministries through people.

Well, enough for now...

 

[Theophilus7]

Dr. Jack Deere??? I'm not trying to make you uncomfortable, really...

I'm glad to hear it.

But isn't he one of those ones who go around barking and roaring like a lion? That is the only thing I've heard of him.

I think that is rather doubtful. It does not seem consistent with the psychology of the man who wrote Surprised by the Power of the Spirit. However, I have never been to any of his meetings. I cannot comment. Certainly, Deere's books are respected in academic Pentecostal/Charismatic circles. The Pneuma Foundation recommends his literature.

I guess he doesn't go around healing, casting out demons and raising the dead.

Yes, Deere has been used in the gifts of the spirit. There was one case, I believe, where a possible resurrection took place, though it wasn't perfectly clear if the man who collapsed had definitely died. The healing/resurrection occurred before a diagnosis. I suggest you take a look at Surprised by the Power of the Spirit and Surprised by the Voice of God.

I don't believe he is a WoFer but I'm not familar with his theology

There are a great many people involved in the healing ministry who are not connected with the Word of Faith movement. John Wimber and his associates kept their distance from WoF, I believe. victoryword can probably give you more information than I can, though.

Pip pip,

Theophilus7

 

[Theophilus7]

Hello,

I'm not trying to derail this thread, I am simply pointing out that the type of hermeneutics Theophilus7 espouses must be faulty because Jesus told us that these signs (healing the sick, raising the dead and casting out demons) would follow the Word being preached as confirmation...By denying certain attributes of God, it would be impossible to have the "God kind of faith". Which is, in my opinion, one of the requirements of being led by the Spirit in your everyday lives. How could you execute a command from the Holy Spirit if you don't have the kind of faith God has???

Sorry look, but I'm finding it a little difficult to follow you here. I think you must be connecting your comments to a critique of "the God-kind of faith" I offered in another thread (specifically, victoryword's recent thread on Luther) and to the article I posted above on biblical interpretation. I don't see what bearing any of that has, however, on the charismata.

Theo, I know what you are saying, all I can tell you is, that stuff drains the spiritual life out of me.

I think you are referring to the article about anthropomorphisms (?)

I'm sorry, but it does not edify me, on the other hand, it actually takes something away from me. I know what it is! I believe what Finnis Dake is teaching is correct and that flies right smack in the face of religious ideas and man-made doctrine and traditions. Sorry!

I'm not sure what you feel you have lost by discounting some of Dake's ideas. I think his "thoughts of God are too human" (as I think Luther once said to Erasmus). Worship is either pure or base as a man's thoughts of God are high or ignoble. We cannot worship a God in our own reflection - that would really be a contradiction in terms. We were intended to find a highest good, our greatest delight, in God. When we take something away from Him (in our minds) we invariably take something away from ourselves. Of course, there is a balance here. Calvinism, in my opinion, goes too far. It makes God too remote, to unlike us. In its more extreme manifestations, Calvinism can claim that God's white is our black and our black is God's white (total depravity), which could, in a sense, turn Christianity into a form of demon worship.

Also Theophilus7, we really are not supposed to be engaged in "doubtful disputations", or in other words, verbal activity that creates doubt. Rather, we are to edify (decrease doubt).

I'm sorry you were not edified by something I wrote. I always try to be gentle and not overbearing, but at the same time I feel obliged to comment when I think my brothers and sisters may be erring. It would help, however, if you could be more specific. I'm not always quite sure what you are referring to.

That's all for now, remember the men God used mightily, great men of God like John G. Lake, Smith Wigglesworth and many others who did not buy into that style of hermeneutics. Rather, they were taught by the Holy Spirit, they didn't go to a theological school. I'm not saying that going to school is bad, but discern the materials...Victoryword spoke of this earlier...

I'm not aware that Wigglesworth concept of the deity was very different from my own.

However, I am not unsympathetic to the sentiments you have expressed. There is a danger of placing too much emphasis on the intellect and neglecting the formation of the heart. There is also the danger of becoming too obsessed with doctrinal perfection and neglecting "the weightier matters" of ministering to the needs of a dying and hurting world.

God bless,

Theophilus7