God is Said to do that which He Merely Allowed or Permitted

Hi Harry,
I don't believe there's a new breed of wof.

I was replying to Victoryword's post.

There is founding wof teaching.

There is teaching outside of wof.

When you mix the 2 you don't get a new breed of wof, you get independent thinking that departs from wof.

How do you know who is wof and who is making a new independent mixture of wof and non-wof?

IF you listen ONLY to the teachings of our founders, you will learn wof.

If you listen ONLY to the teaching of someone who isn't one of our founding teachers, you'll learn something else like grace, or whatever that teacher publicly declares himself to be teaching.

IOW, Wommack, Meyer, Prince, Osteen, etc are:
1. not founding wof teachers,
2. declare themselves as preachers of grace, God's goodness, etc.

If these kind of teachers, non-founders of wof, are your mainstay for teaching, you will depart from purely wof doctrine, and become an idependent thinker, (which is totally fine with me), but you will have at various points departed from purely wof doctrine.

I was saying to Victoryword, that what he sees as new breed wof, isn't really wof, it's independent thinkers who've departed from wof at various points.

A second dynamic I notice is, when a person mixes wof and non-wof teaching and departs from purely wof doctrine at various points, they start to fail.

IOW, our founding teachers, who are purely wof, (and worked through scripture together to live it first and preach it secondly), have results that far outshine the results others get.

WOF who follow these founding teacher's interpretation of scripture closely, get outstanding results of the same caliber.

WOF, or independent thinkers, who mix wof and non-wof teachings together into an new concoction, DON'T get the same degree of success.

My recommendation to any who struggle with getting high quality results from wof teaching is: Listen ONLY to founding wof teachers (Hagin, Capps, Copeland, and their company), until your errors of thought, belief, and application, get straightened out, and you get the same results as our founding teachers do.

A third dynamic I see is the independent thinkers in this forum create new doctrines that depart from wof, as a purely mental exercise.

IOW, your new independent theology, which departs from founding wof teachers interpretation of scripture, HASN'T been lived out practically yet.

You're espousing new untried unverified doctrines. This is dangerous to the success of people listening to your new independent thinking.

You say you're wof teachers, yet you disagree with founding wof teaching, AND you haven't got a track record of success with your new independent theology. In fact you start to make GOD and HIS promises smaller by speaking against wof interpretation of scripture on finances, etc.

I believe the source of your departure from purely wof doctrine is you failed at wof (you didn't get the same results as our founding teachers).

Instead of doubling down into deeper study our founding teachers interpretation of scripture, you've PREMATURELY departed from their interpretation, claiming the founding teachers teach in error, and have created your own new and unproven theology.

All of this you've done in an attempt to explain your failure at wof founding teaching.

This is exactly what every critic, or every independent thinker does when they fail to get results from scripture.

They blame GOD, blame the teacher, blame anyone other than themselves.

Success comes to those who refuse to depart from scripture, not those who re-interpret scripture.

This is what I see my brothers.

I've been criticized on this forum for sticking with our founding teachers interpretation of scripture, like that's an unscriptural thing to do.

Yet I have results of a similar caliber to our founding teachers.

As does anyone here who applies scripture in the same manner as our founding teachers do.

I see how mixing wof and non-wof is hurting some of you, and causing you to think wof is in error.

Think about every testimony of failure you've heard on this forum.

Everyone of them was listening to someone OTHER than our founding teachers because they thought Meyer, Wommack, Prince, Osteen, Hinn, etc, etc, etc, are wof.

And everyone of them is failing to get the results Hagin, Capps, Copeland, and their company get.

I want to see us all succeed my brothers.

I am, and those who line up closely with purely wof teaching are as well.

Yes you are correct to say that "God, due to His omnipotence and sovereignty, is held responsible for all that happens, even if He is not the direct cause of it."

The Scripture asserts God's sovereignty. Everything is attributed to Him because HE is sovereign, even though He is not direct cause.

roman2819 said:

Yes you are correct to say that "God, due to His omnipotence and sovereignty, is held responsible for all that happens, even if He is not the direct cause of it."

The Scripture asserts God's sovereignty. Everything is attributed to Him because HE is sovereign, even though He is not direct cause.

Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum Roman! I sent you some reps to get you started!

Peace...

CGL1023 said:

One obvious example of God changing the way He relates to man is that with the crucifixion of Jesus, He started identifying Himself as Father.

I agree with you that God does not change. I should rather have stated that God changed the way He interacts with man. I agree that what God has done was His plan from the beginning

9“For this is like the waters of Noah to Me;
For as I have sworn
That the waters of Noah would no longer cover the earth,
So have I sworn
That I would not be angry with you, nor rebuke you.
10 For the mountains shall depart
And the hills be removed,
But My kindness shall not depart from you,
Nor shall My covenant of peace be removed,”
Says the Lord, who has mercy on you.


I've displayed the text of Isa 54:9-10. This is a prophesy that is activated with the cross of Christ. We are living under its provisions which are spelled out in verses 9,10.

I cannot add anything for additional clarification because the language is so clear that it can't be misunderstood. I will accept whatever the bible scholars say this passage means.

Click to expand...

Isaiah 54:9-10 was activated immediately after the flood my brother. It didn't have to wait until the cross of Christ.

The nature of YHWH's powerful living words are that they have layers of multiple meanings and applications (past, present, future, natural, spiritual, literal, metaphorical, individually, corporately, separately at different times and places, conglomerately all at once, etc, etc, etc.).

YHWH has always been known as Father to the Israelites:

"Therefore David blessed the Lord before all the assembly; and David said: “Blessed are You, Lord God of Israel, our Father, forever and ever." - 1 Chronicles 29:10

"O Lord, You are our Father; We are the clay, and You our potter; And all we are the work of Your hand." - Isaiah 64:8

"You, O Lord, are our Father; Our Redeemer from Everlasting is Your name." - Isaiah 63:16

In fact the Israelites knew YHWH as Father before the they came out of Egypt:
"When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." - Hosea 11:1

A non-wof like Wommack, will point out errors in wof.

Yet successful wof who follow the scriptural interpretation of our purely wof founding teachers, see truth not error.

IOW, successful wof disagree with failing wof on which interpretation of scripture is correct.

If you fail at wof, you have 2 choices: Correct yourself, or re-interpret scripture.

There's a huge difference between how Hagin, Capps, Copeland interpret scripture AND Wommack, Meyer, and others interpret scripture.

The disagreements that have happened recently in the wof forum are between those who follow purely wof teaching, and those who follow Wommack, Meyer, and others.

I like some non-wof teachers like Prince, Osteen, etc, but when they disagree with wof founding teaching, I take Hagin, Capps, Copeland's scripture interpretation OVER and above non-wof.

Why? Because I like the results of our founding wof teachers much better than the results of the others.

AND our founding wof teachers have been successful in applying scripture for many more years than these relative new comers.

It's a choice we each have to make.

Follow our founding wof teachers, or follow others who see error with the teaching of our founding wof teachers.

Those who see error with our founding wof interpretation of scripture are critics, not adherents.

Criticism of wof does not belong in the wof forum.

Agreement with wof founding teaching belongs in the wof forum.

Truthfrees said:

A non-wof like Wommack, will point out errors in wof.

Yet successful wof who follow the scriptural interpretation of our purely wof founding teachers, see truth not error.

IOW, successful wof disagree with failing wof on which interpretation of scripture is correct.

If you fail at wof, you have 2 choices: Correct yourself, or re-interpret scripture.

There's a huge difference between how Hagin, Capps, Copeland interpret scripture AND Wommack, Meyer, and others interpret scripture.

The disagreements that have happened recently in the wof forum are between those who follow purely wof teaching, and those who follow Wommack, Meyer, and others.

I like some non-wof teachers like Prince, Osteen, etc, but when they disagree with wof founding teaching, I take Hagin, Capps, Copeland's scripture interpretation OVER and above non-wof.

Why? Because I like the results of our founding wof teachers much better than the results of the others.

AND our founding wof teachers have been successful in applying scripture for many more years than these relative new comers.

It's a choice we each have to make.

Follow our founding wof teachers, or follow others who see error with the teaching of our founding wof teachers.

Those who see error with our founding wof interpretation of scripture are critics, not adherents.

Criticism of wof does not belong in the wof forum.

Agreement with wof founding teaching belongs in the wof forum.

Click to expand...

What???!!

Wommack, Prince, Meyer? Not Word/Faith?? I'll agree, perhaps, on Osteen, but these other three??

Who in these forums will define Andrew Wommack, Joseph Prince and Joyce Meyer as non-WoF?? Please respond.

One reason people find it so hard to escape the "allowed/permitted" trap is they have the wrong foundation of truth. Their foundation of truth starts with a definition of God whose identity begins with sovereignty, control, Omnipotence, omniscience, etc, etc. As a result everything they see and think about God is colored by these concepts.

Yet the NT does not lay down such a foundation. The NT and more importantly the Jesus revelation of the Father presents a God whose identity is defined by Love, Grace, and Faith(fullness). These unfortunates cannot see that the God whose identity is Love and Grace can, by sovereign act of will, lay aside His divine rights and power. God did not and does not esteem these divine rights and power to be so important that they cannot be put aside. Indeed, in order to accomplish the "prime will" and purpose of creation, He in fact did lay aside these factors.
It is man and Satan that places a great importance on sovereignty and power. Satan esteemed sovereignty and power to be of such great importance that he offered the entirety of the world's share to Jesus. Jesus refused. He refused because He knew Love, Grace, and Faithfulness eclipsed raw sovereignty and power. He knew that sovereignty and power in this world were and are the mere tools of Love, Grace, and Faithfulness. Satan, being the god of this world, has the world believing that sovereignty and power are the most important things in creation. He does not get it. The world does not get it. How confused Satan must have been when Jesus refused His offer! How confused Satan must have been when God sent Jesus to be tortured to death and sent into the bowels of the earth. Of course his mind was darkened also. He and all the princes of the world were fools. I think they figured it out on the third day. Jesus had laid aside sovereignty and power so He could suffer and die because, shockingly, sovereignty and power could not accomplish the heart dream of the Father! God could not by a raw act of sovereign power create for Himself a family that loved and worshiped Him.
We need to understand that ultimately, in the end of all things, sovereignty and power will be absorbed back into Love. Love, Grace, and Faithfulness are the things that define God. Not worldly manifestations of sovereignty and power.

didaskalos said:

One reason people find it so hard to escape the "allowed/permitted" trap is they have the wrong foundation of truth. Their foundation of truth starts with a definition of God whose identity begins with sovereignty, control, Omnipotence, omniscience, etc, etc. As a result everything they see and think about God is colored by these concepts.

Yet the NT does not lay down such a foundation. The NT and more importantly the Jesus revelation of the Father presents a God whose identity is defined by Love, Grace, and Faith(fullness). These unfortunates cannot see that the God whose identity is Love and Grace can, by sovereign act of will, lay aside His divine rights and power. God did not and does not esteem these divine rights and power to be so important that they cannot be put aside. Indeed, in order to accomplish the "prime will" and purpose of creation, He in fact did lay aside these factors.
It is man and Satan that places a great importance on sovereignty and power. Satan esteemed sovereignty and power to be of such great importance that he offered the entirety of the world's share to Jesus. Jesus refused. He refused because He knew Love, Grace, and Faithfulness eclipsed raw sovereignty and power. He knew that sovereignty and power in this world were and are the mere tools of Love, Grace, and Faithfulness. Satan, being the god of this world, has the world believing that sovereignty and power and the most important things in creation. He does not get it. The world does not get it. How confused Satan must have been when Jesus refused His offer! How confused Satan must have been when God sent Jesus to be tortured to death and sent into the bowels of the earth. Of course his mind was darkened also. He and all the princes of the world were fools. I think they figured it out on the third day. Jesus had laid aside sovereignty and power so He could suffer and die because, shockingly, sovereignty and power could not accomplish the heart dream of the Father! God could not by a raw act of sovereign power create for Himself a family that loved and worshiped Him.
We need to understand that ultimately, in the end of all things, sovereignty and power will be absorbed back into Love. Love, Grace, and Faithfulness are the things that define God. Not worldly manifestations of sovereignty and power.

Click to expand...

Good word brother. This sums it up well.

ABlessedMan said:

What???!!

Wommack, Prince, Meyer? Not Word/Faith?? I'll agree, perhaps, on Osteen, but these other three??

Who in these forums will define Andrew Wommack, Joseph Prince and Joyce Meyer as non-WoF?? Please respond.

Click to expand...

You need to read my posts more carefully brother.

IF you listen to ONLY Wommack, Meyer, Prince, etc you will not learn wof. You'll learn grace, relationship, etc.

IF you listen to ONLY Hagin, Capps, Copeland, and their company you will learn wof, because these are our founding teachers whose ENTIRE focus is to teach wof.

Wommack, and Prince say their focus is grace, not wof.

Meyer when asked straight out on her web page if she's wof won't say yes. She also said wof prayers don't work so she no longer prays the wof way.

IOW, founding wof teachers are the only ones who teach pure wof.

The others teach their own independent thoughts mixed in with wof, and have openly said wof is wrong in areas where wof teaches different than they teach. (Which is also what you do my brother.)

Notice how they DON'T say WE WOF are wrong (as though they're one of us).

They say wof is wrong (as though they're apart from us, which they are).

They don't consider or claim themselves to be wof, and they certainly aren't one of our founding teachers.

Truthfrees said:

Success comes to those who refuse to depart from scripture, not those who re-interpret scripture.

This is what I see my brothers.

I've been criticized on this forum for sticking with our founding teachers interpretation of scripture, like that's an unscriptural thing to do.

Yet I have results of a similar caliber to our founding teachers.

As does anyone here who applies scripture in the same manner as our founding teachers do.

I see how mixing wof and non-wof is hurting some of you, and causing you to think wof is in error.

Think about every testimony of failure you've heard on this forum.

Everyone of them was listening to someone OTHER than our founding teachers because they thought Meyer, Wommack, Prince, Osteen, Hinn, etc, etc, etc, are wof.

And everyone of them is failing to get the results Hagin, Capps, Copeland, and their company get.

I want to see us all succeed my brothers.

I am, and those who line up closely with purely wof teaching are as well.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it's just me...

But it seems very odd speaking on what the founding teachers of a group advocated when you've already seemed to go against some of the things they did and is essentially an innovation on some level. And I say that in light of things occurring within this year alone as it concerns advocating for Messianic Judaism.

None of the WOF Founders ever came close to exalting or praising the Messianic Judaism movement as a whole - and in saying that you don't support others in the forums whenever people like Joseph Prince comes up, I find it odd since you actually said not too long ago that you supported him due to where he brings in others from Jewish culture for consulation - as seen here when you said the following:


The focus on Jewish culture was something you noted here as well....

I've been a long-time friend of both victoryword AND ABM due to the fact that we both did a lot of battles in regards to addressing false claims from others as it concerns the world of the Faith Movement (which I grew up in, more so the second tier generation like T.L Osborn or Keith Moore, Oral Roberts and others as well as the first generation like Kenneth Hagin). I've even commented and participated in a number of discussions since 2008 - with reference being easily given.

Although we've all done battle together, there have been many times disagreements have occurred flatly. Due to the older CARM forums being offline or disconnected, I can't go back and bring them up for reference - but that's besides the point. The point is that there have always been differing teachers within WOF who taught core principles and yet they expressed them differently or had points of divergence - and one of the things that kept them strong was the ability to come together and not allow strife to be present - or throw out things on others they disagreed with prior to seeing if they were even consistent to begin with.

I say that because I've been lurking on the forums at times trying to see where the discussions have gone - and I must say that it is a bit odd whenever it is said "We have to report those things which are counter to WOF!!"or "Those people over there are just innovators in WOF" by other WOF and the accusations toward other WOF members as not being WOF or allowed to teach there. I find it a bit odd coming from you on the matter since others have felt the same in regards to you being over on the Messianic Judaism forum OPENLY teaching/debating against others present there - even though you are not Messianic in your Title, Signature or ICON. That has long been against the rules and many things you said were in disagreement with other Messianic Jews and what has been covered on the forum before - yet because a couple of other Messianics accepted it, you were good.

I don't agree with everything ABM - and in fact, I tend to agree with Victoryword more on many points while other times I find ABM to be more in line with the scriptures. But It just seems odd being quick to report others like ABM and people you disagree with for not being WOF in your view when you already were openly teaching with/disagreeing with others who did not see you as Messianic. For reference on where you were openly teaching in the Messianic Judaism forum (against the rules as a non-Messianic), one can go here or here or here.

And for other places on where you were openly teaching/debating on the forum despite not being a Messianic Member, one can go to the following for more verification:

• I'm reading an essay by Mark D. Nanos in the...

• I agree with one thing you said here, they are...

To be clear, I'm not saying that all the things you were advocating about Jewish culture being important or the Torah being important are wrong. I've noted the same before, just as I've said that Eastern culture is important for understanding the scriptures due to how the scriptures developed from an Eastern background. This has been said before here, here and in the following:

• Is there a GENUINE argument against WoF? (WOF ONLY)

Also, as it concerns where you came into the forum on the MJ section and were teaching, it should be noted that it's not wrong for Non-Messianics to be over on the discussion forums participating since we've had many of them in the past before and dialogue was good since it was done for the sake of learning and there were times people could handle disagreements reasonably and hash them out - as long as it was remembered that the SOP of the forum advocated that Non-Members could not teach or openly contradict others in pushing something.

We've even had others from the WOF world come over to the forum on a number of occassions to ask questions - such as here in TORAH observant tithing.... - and there have been others talking about where others in the WOF world referenced the Messianic Judaism movement with regards to the Torah....like Has Messianic Judaism been positively or adversely affected by Word Faith Teachings? However, if others came onto the forum teaching and then went to other forums saying others couldn't teach, it was easily seen as a bit inconsistent.

From the outside looking in, it really seems like a civil war going on and all sides trying to become dominant when the truth is that there can be reference to all of the views here for years - and it's unfortunate that it seems to be coming to this. And it is unecessary as well. As it relates to the sin of failing to show charity, overbearing, pride and boasting, I'm reminded of how plenty of people that've fit the description of Diotrophes in the Bible:



Anyone studying Diotrophes will quickly see in him an example of what not to do when Jesus made clear on the state of our attitudes He taught on servant-leadership in the church ( Matthew 20:24-26 / Matthew 20 / Philippians 2:6 /1 Timothy 3:2-4 / 1 Timothy 3 /1 Peter 5:2-4/ 1 Peter 5 ). For many times, its amazing that we're quick to be like watchdogs when we greet others....quick to sniff out error/bite and yet unable to sit down with the person/show the love of Christ in the simple things like breaking bread/having coffee and conversing.....showing compassion/mercy or taking time out to ask how one can be prayed for before we choose to denounce---and not trying to DEMAND others be like us in order to be considered acceptable to Christ.

Or being quick to assume that differences in expression are the same as differences in content. There are numerous WOF teachers in the WOF movement and one of the long-standing critiques is that not all people within the camp are even AWARE of one another. I've had it before bringing up the people I grew up with (such as Pastor Claude and Rosa Bevier who are with WOF minister Bill Winston ..one who has worked with Copeland/Jessie Duplantis and others in bringing the Kingdom of God) - but others were NOT aware of it because they were so focused on the WOF teachers they grew up hearing. It is a very large movement and grace, IMHO, needs to be shown in disagreements rather than reacting in war and back-biting.


My two cents. Shalom

hhodgson said:

From listening to the "old breed"(Kenyon, Wigglesworth, Hagin etc.), and spawned out of the "old breed" brought Copeland, Creflo, Price, Capps, Winston... just to name a few. They were/are all independent thinkers. IOW, they just don't go (along for the ride) of always in agreement with each other. Copeland may believe this or that about an area of (WoF teaching) and Winston and other favorites may look at it through a different lens. So who would be right? If they see things differently, then one of them is wrong. Right? You may not like my answer. But BOTH are wrong and both are right to a degree.

Example:

If eight of our top Word of Faith teachers (past or present) teach on various true Word of Faith teaching. All (8) will be RIGHT/WRONG in (some areas) with each other... even in our "core" doctrine. So who IS right? Who are the REAL Word of Faith teachers? Please stand up! With these (8), I would expect ALL of them to stand up and shout, "we all are all Word of Faith teachers?"

In your thinking (Truthfrees) wouldn't all (8) of them be teaching (false) Word of Faith if all (8) are at odds with each other. All (8) KNOW that they ALL disagree in some areas (But!)... they are all good friends and pretty well regularly take turns ministering in each others church. They crusade and have conferences together. By listening for years to EACH one of these favorites, I've heard NONE... bad mouth, or put down any of each others teaching (right or wrong). It's called respect. If any one of them gets WAY out of line, I'm sure instead of (them) debating, arguing... they come together in Love, and help the one... and UNITE together in Love and continue to do what God ordained them to do... (same as us) "win the lost and equip the saints." This can be done without being inflammatory.

Is is possible that when these WoF teachers get together and discuss their differences that they actually may come into agreement on some of those differences? Absolutely! IOW, somebody may changed their minds. One may say, "you know, I have been teaching on this particular area of (WoF) for years and you showed me where I was wrong on some things, bro!"

Example:

I watch Creflo Dollar a lot (with my notebook of course) and several months ago I noticed a very noticeable change in his way of thinking on a few issues. I have watched him for years and thinking, "Why all of a sudden is he teaching on this differently? Each day I would continue listening to him in this different light, so to speak. I have already "recognised" the difference and who Creflo was styling this from.

I thought, "hey... he is sounding just like... Andrew Wommack! This went on for several days and then Creflo announced to his congregation that he really appreciated Andrew Wommack who had recently ministered and have ministered various times at World Changers International.

Now... did Creflo see some things from Wommacks' teaching that may have changed his view on some things? And (do you suppose) that maybe Wommack seen some things Creflo teaches from a different light also? Whether some of their differences were both right or wrong, or not. They respect each other. Whether there is a (little difference or a major difference) in the way we look at things in WoF teachings, Someone will be wrong but in reality... through God's eyes we ALL miss the mark.

Click to expand...

I definitely think that's a very reasonable response as it concerns the diversity within WOF.

Hi GXG,
IF you've been in wof long enough you'll know that Dad Hagin said we can't understand scripture properly with our western eyes. He said we need eastern understanding to properly understand scripture.

This is all I've said. Studying Scripture from the Jewish perspective lines up with what one of our founding teachers (Hagin) said. I've also pointed out that Prince is looking at scripture from the Jewish perspective also.

I've also NOT ever spoken against Prince. I like Prince. BUT he's not wof. He's grace. Saying this is not in anyway speaking against him.

When I point out who's a founding teacher, and who's not, that DOESN'T mean I don't like the others.

I'm saying to those who say WOF is in ERROR, "wof is NOT in error".

THIS IS THE ONLY POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE: The critics are listening to non-wof teaching, agreeing with it, and then bringing it back into the wof forum as an EXCUSE to attack wof teaching, claim wof teaching is in error, teach AGAINST wof teaching.

If anyone teaches AGAINST wof teaching in the wof forum, this is against the forum rules.

If anyone tries to correct wof teaching, that's against the rules.

If anyone posts in agreement with wof teaching that is in line with the forum rules.

My brother, you will not find one post anywhere in the world where I:
1. criticized wof founding teachers or their teachings
2. taught something contrary to wof founding teachers and their teachings
3. said something unkind, or untrue about a non-wof teacher. In fact I've defended non-wof teachers (like Benny Hinn) when they were publicly attacked.

We shouldn't attack anyone. We shouldn't go into someone's forum and tell them their teaching is wrong. We shouldn't teach against any forum's teaching.

Perhaps one should suggest that God allows/permits everything to happen by default. In this way no single instance of allowance or permission has any significance.
This is a creation where everything is allowed/permitted by default, and only when God intervenes do we see Him and His nature.
To say God is allowing or permitting individual events of evil is to say that evil would not exist unless God released it, hence God is the source of all evil. Individual instances of evil would not exist if God did not release them into the world.
This is a strange approach.

ABlessedMan said:

The issue I have here is that permissiveness and activeness (causation) is not defined as such. In the verse in question here the word 'create' has a mood as a participle used in active voice. There are participles in Hebrew in either the active voice or the passive. If active, the subject is the doer.

Here is a site (deep as it is) that will teach these grammatical rules:
Hebrew Participles

Here you can find the grammatical links. I'm sure you can find many other sites to give this information:
Isaiah 45 - Hebrew English Translation Massoretic Text MT Interlinear Holy Name King James Version KJV Strong's Concordance Online Parallel Bible Study

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.​

In the active voice in Hebrew I (God) is the subject and create is the active voice participle, or continuous action either past, present or future.

There is, grammatically, no permissiveness to this verse. It is a causal action by the subject, "I", which is God.

Click to expand...

I think that it would be beneficial to have more examples within the scriptures for whichever point one is seeking to make on the issue. For me, when seeing where you're coming from, it all goes back directly to what happened in the Exodus account with the 10 plagues of Egypt. The Lord sent the full force of His might upon the world when disobediance occurred - and it was at his command rather than his allowing for anything to occur.

Exodus 9:14

13 Then the Lord said to Moses, “Get up early in the morning, confront Pharaoh and say to him, ‘This is what the Lord, the God of the Hebrews, says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me, or this time I will send the full force of my plagues against you and against your officials and your people, so you may know that there is no one like me in all the earth.


Deuteronomy 28:58-60
58 If you do not carefully follow all the words of this law, which are written in this book, and do not revere this glorious and awesome name—the Lord your God— 59 the Lord will send fearful plagues on you and your descendants, harsh and prolonged disasters, and severe and lingering illnesses. 60 He will bring on you all the diseases of Egypt that you dreaded, and they will cling to you.

​

Of course we realize that the 10 plagues each had a purpose in being brought up since they each were done for the purpose of condemining the Egyptian Gods. .it was essentially a showdown on who the REAL God of the world was - and the God of the Hebrews avenging himself on the Egyptians who suppressed them.

The plagues reveal many things, but their most impressive theme is "God’s Glory."

• The First Plague: Water turned to blood (Exodus 7:14-24) - and Major gods insulted were Osiris and Hapi, spirit of the Nile....as well as Khnum, guardian of the Nile.

• The Second Plague: Frog infestation (Exodus 8:1-15) and the god insulted was Heqet (who had a frog head)

• The Third Plague: Lice (Exodus 8:16-32)...and the god insulted was Geb, who was "god" of the earth or vegetation, father of Osiris and husband of Nut...and the other god was Aker, god of the earth.

• The Fourth Plague: Large Insects (Exodus 8:20-32).

• The Fifth Plague: Death to Animals Outdoors (Exodus 9:1-7) - The Apis bull was considered the sacred animal of the God Ptah. Only one sacred Apis bull; twenty-eight distinctive marks that identified him...and Hathor, goddess of love & beauty represented by a cow.

• The Sixth Plague: Boils on Man and Beast (Exodus 9:8-12) - This insulted Sekmet, a healing goddess (also goddess of war).

• The Seventh Plague: Hail (9:13-35) - The plague devastates except in Goshen (Genesis 9: 22-26) and it insults Seth, Patron of: winds, storms, chaos, evil, darkness, strength, war, conflict, Upper Egypt...and it also insulted Nut, the sky goddess.

There were many other gods besides those listed who were harmed in the plagues - more here, for a basic review:













But even as the Lord was bringing the 10 plagues on Egypt, those things were not arising outside of Him. Including the Darkness Plague itself and the others involving the Angel of Death who was brought to slay the firstborn.

The Angel of Death was also used to bring destruction to several others - be it with armies in 2 Kings 19:35 and Isaiah 37:36 or Acts 12:23 when King Herod was struck down by an angel for his pride and he was eaten by worms. There was a direct usage of power to make a point by the Lord. We can see the same with others like King Uzziah who was given leprosy for his actions - "When Azariah the chief priest and all the other priests looked at him, they saw that he had leprosy on his forehead, so they hurried him out. Indeed, he himself was eager to leave, because the Lord had afflicted him."

Other dynamics can go in regards to acts of nature (i.e. volcanoes, storms, earthquakes, etc.) which the Lord made and were interpreted in terms of "darkness" rather than happiness....but it never seemed to be EVIL itself as a whole which the Lord made. Evil calamities that are used for judgement are one thing - and in that sense, I do agree with victoryword that the proper context is one where executing judgment is the focus since the things God did people often claimed to be "evil" and yet God corrected them by saying it was He who was in control.

However, to say the Lord made all forms of evil (i.e murder, rape, etc.) is not true since those things came with the Fall of man.

didaskalos said:

Perhaps one should suggest that God allows/permits everything to happen by default. In this way no single instance of allowance or permission has any significance.
This is a creation where everything is allowed/permitted by default, and only when God intervenes do we see Him and His nature.
To say God is allowing or permitting individual events of evil is to say that evil would not exist unless God released it, hence God is the source of all evil. Individual instances of evil would not exist if God did not release them into the world.
This is a strange approach.

Click to expand...

Very good. This hits the nail on the head. Everything has been allowed/permitted by default (as far as God is concerned) since the garden when God gave dominion of this planet to mankind. Whatever happens on this earth is not Gods fault. It is entirely dependent upon man.

Peace...

ABlessedMan said:

What???!!

Wommack, Prince, Meyer? Not Word/Faith?? I'll agree, perhaps, on Osteen, but these other three??
.

Click to expand...

Prince is one that I find a bit surprising for anyone to claim as non-WOF, especially in light of the fact that he is indeed WOF. r the reality is that Joseph Prince has long been accepted within WOF and his teachings based DIRECTLY off from what Hagin has already said. Having Hagin's books and tapes growing up, it was nothing new that Prince said - and as said before:

Hi GXG,
Another point.

I started finding good Jewish scripture treasure, which I tried to share in this forum, but there was misunderstanding of what I was trying to do, so I stopped sharing these treasures in this forum.

No problem.

Now if I can stop sharing things that get misunderstood by others, for the good of this forum, why do some who insist wof is in error find it impossible to stop sharing how Wommack says wof is in error, etc?

The peace and safety of this forum should be primary concern. Why? Because people learn best when they can learn in peace and safety.

The rules support forums having peaceful loving interaction.

Saying wof is in error is NOT creating a peaceful loving forum.

Correcting wof and teaching against our founding teachers is not creating a peaceful loving forum.

Trying to say Hagin and Copeland were at odds with each other (when neither of them has EVER said a negative word about the other) is not creating a peaceful loving forum.

I understand that 2 or 3 people with wof shields are serious about publicly correcting wof in the wof forum, but this is the wrong forum for that.

We were told in one of the closed threads that even wof shields can't teach against wof founding teachers (Hagin, Capps, Copeland, and company).

Unorthodox is where these few can go to correct wof teaching.

If the rules are respected, we'd all be better off, don't you think my brother?

When I was in the MJ forum I never taught against MJ teaching, only for their teaching, debating those who taught against their teaching.

Teaching against any groups teachings is a rule breaker in every forum.

Civil war is not what's happening here my brother. Saying "wof is in error", and "correcting wof" in the wof forum is the problem.

Joel and Joseph have wof roots but they're not teaching wof. I have non-wof roots. Does that make me a non-wof?

didaskalos said:

Perhaps one should suggest that God allows/permits everything to happen by default. In this way no single instance of allowance or permission has any significance.
This is a creation where everything is allowed/permitted by default, and only when God intervenes do we see Him and His nature.
To say God is allowing or permitting individual events of evil is to say that evil would not exist unless God released it, hence God is the source of all evil. Individual instances of evil would not exist if God did not release them into the world.
This is a strange approach.

Click to expand...

dkbwarrior said:

Very good. This hits the nail on the head. Everything has been allowed/permitted by default (as far as God is concerned) since the garden when God gave dominion of this planet to mankind. Whatever happens on this earth is not Gods fault. It is entirely dependent upon man.

Peace...

Click to expand...

Yes. This is the interpretation our founding teachers give to scripture.

Too often many of us read the Scripture and try to figure out words using logic. What we miss out is the approach that the scribes (of OT) and disciples (who wrote NT) used: Their approach was to say God allows everything = He causes everything. Their approach is not based on "logic" and hence we cannot use logic to figure out what they mean.