Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Gxg (G²);66817363 said:And even Hagin noted the reality of where prophesies were both conditional and unconditional. As he stated in The Gift of Prophecy:
There are conditional prophecies and unconditional prophecies. ....
Prophecy itself is something that is not automatically a matter of God saying "I said this would happen - and thus, it'll happen regardless." There's a big level of openess as to what goes down when the Lord declares something...
He said he's traveling and using his ipad.Where are you getting Greg from?
Moses instructions to the Israelites about the genocide of the Caananites is more problematic for me. On the face of it, it appears that these events do not fit within the framework that I have built. I have not yet arrived at an adequate doctrinal solution for this which fits my theology yet, but I am searching. If you have any ideas, I would love to hear them.
Peace...
Progressive revelation beyond the Word of God relies on philosophy.
There are no reasonable elements to determine if the revelation is concocted or based on a deeper study of God's Word.
Urantia is progressive revelation,it relies on part Bible and a cohesive group who has agreed on their revelation.
The Devil is a Liar.
When we reach a point where we agree some of the Old Testament are fables,then we can reach further and deny the New Testament as well.
This is my opinion in that the entire Bible is the Word of God.
Seemingly there are contradictions,but only due to our ability to comprehend.
Respectfully,Open Theism isn't speaking of conditional and unconditional prophecy, it is speaking of whether God knows the future (or enters into time so He can't see the future). A God who does not know the future is not omniscient. The bible defines an omniscient God.
Originally Posted by victoryword Of course God knows all that there is to be known. However, He does not know something that is not in existence and those philosophical "God is outside of time" mantras that have no basis in Scripture will not solve the problem concerning God's supposed knowledge of future free-will actions.
Besides, if God has exhaustive knowledge of every free-will action that will come to pass, which in effect means that the future is already fully settled, then that means that those actions cannot be changed, which means that the actions are no longer free because they MUST be acted upon, which leaves God powerless since He cannot even change the future that He exhaustively knows because if He changes it then that means He did not know the future exhaustively because He changed the future.
The BIBLICAL alternative to this is that God knows every possible action that a person can take in any situation and in His omni-wisdom and omni-resourcefulnes is able to react to each action as if it were the only action. However, God does have hopes and expectations that people will make right choices and the Bible shows Him hurt and disappointed when people fail to take the actions or make the choices that He is hoping that they would make, yet, He is never caught off guard or unprepared.
I think this gives us a more biblical picture of God and a greater more glorious God than one who has to be a control freak by controlling things through "foreordination" (Calvinism) or that helpless picture of God who knows the future exhaustively and can't do anything about it (Arminianism).Originally Posted by victoryword View Post
I also read a book by the late Kenneth E. Hagin which He specifically states that he believes that God knows the future. He based this on an incident in which his brother-in-law rejected Christ. Hagin was praying for him and God told him after some hours to stop praying for his brother-in-law because no matter how much God had attempted to convict the man, he refused to be restored and so he would go to hell. From this situation, Hagin believed that God knows the future.
While I do not doubt that this situation actually happened (I believe that Hagin is a true man of God and one of character and integrity), I could not understand why he would use this incident as the basis for believing in exhaustive foreknowledge. God can simply know that this man would go to hell by virtue of the fact that the man refused to yield to the Holy Spirit.riginally Posted by Cindyis
This can be very serious, as we can see here. Could it be that the Lord told him how his bil believed so he would intercede, as in the case of Jonah being sent to Ninevah? God said he would destroy them. Jonah warned them, as we know, they repented, and God repented of the evil He had intended.
Sometimes we get impressions from the Lord, and we don't quite get it as clear as possible. Now, it is not my place to say what went on between the Lord and Bro. Hagin regarding his bil, but I know from my own experience I can hear the Lord, but it not be quite fine tuned if you know what I mean. Maybe the Lord revealed bil's state in order for him to pray, not cease from praying. But here I am only speculating in something I have no business in. I'm merely trying to gain an understanding in order to know the way in which I should go.
It makes a huge difference, and there are serious implications if we get our wires crossed.
Originally Posted by Cindyis
I find this surprising, that it is not widely accepted by WoF. I do understand how hard it can be to get WoFers to see something new, as with many.
Let me get this right. Open Theism embraces the belief that God moves in the earth in response to prayer, and that prayer will actually alter the course of things.
Well now, it seems to me Smith Wigglesworth believed this, and he is widely accepted, or so I think he is.
And one more thing. OV - "Open View"? Sorry, I don't know all the terms and abbrev.
CindyOriginally Posted by victoryword
Cindy
It surprises me sometimes too. Most WoFers preach as if the future is open but then act like "Arminians" when it comes to dealing with certain theological issues. They don't see the contradiction/inconsistency in the message of faith and prayer that they preach and the views they hold on God's foreknowledge.
Progressive revelation does not contradict previous revelation, but it clarifies it, interprets it, or replaces it.
Peace...
I'm sorry, Dan. The bolded above is problematic, backward. You found a philosophy and now you search to fit scripture to your "theology"?? That's not the Dan I knew. Please explain.
This is my opinion in that the entire Bible is the Word of God.
Seemingly there are contradictions,but only due to our ability to comprehend.
Gxg (G²);66818026 said:But with progressive revelation, I do think it makes a difference what others have said when it comes to seeing what we have in Christ and why the Lord did what he did in the OT with the Cannanites - showing his judgement in order to set the stage for us to appreciate what we have in Christ and what the Lord wants us to see of Him. More was shared here and in
There's also The âThird Wayâ: Seeing Godâs Beauty in the Depth of Scriptureâs Violent Portraits of God ReKnew and here in OT Violence and Christian Behavior when it comes to seeing how Christ radically shifted everything with his emphasis . Also, with Progressive Revelation, many (such as Dr. Michael Heisner) believe that the Canaanite account was really one where the Lord was wiping out others who were Nephilim - more shared in Yahwehs War Against the Nephilim
Thoughts?
Don't know why you apologized - I'm good, as it's easy for things (when extensive) to be missed. I tend to see it as a bread-crumb trail or citations in a book for the sake of reference (if anyone wants further info or verification) rather than something that has to always be checked out. Just the way my mind works and what I tend to prefer with others when it comes to connecting the dots and leaving a path to follow.Sorry, I missed this part earlier. I get lost in your posts sometimes, start following links that you provide, and then never get back to finish reading the whole post. (Yes, I am easily distracted...lol...)
Hope it gives some food for thought, as it concerns at least part of why God called for such extreme extermination in many cases (especially when considering Numbers 13 and it noting that the Nephilim were very much present in the land of Canaan). Seeing that takes the concept of God promoting Holy War to another level..I find this intriguing. I had not heard the idea before that the genocide of the Canaanites may have been related to the purging of the Nephilim. I will look further into this...
Peace...
The term progressive revelation as I used it is not referring to revelation outside of the Bible. It refers to the fact that over time God revealed more about Himself to the fathers by the prophets; thus we have 66 books in the Bible that were written over a span of about 3000 years. This progressive revelation began with the words of Moses and ended with the last of the New Testament books. If the Torah revealed to us ALL that God wished to share with us, then we would have no need for the rest of the Bible. However, God had more to reveal to man, thus the revelation progressed, and we ended up with 66 books of the Bible.
Here is a pretty simple example of progressive revelation:
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
-Matthew 5:21
Progressive revelation does not contradict previous revelation, but it clarifies it, interprets it, or replaces it.
Peace...
Gxg (G²);66817904 said:Troy,
Thank you for taking the time....although I already told you my name is not Greg - so I don't know why you insist on saying such. If it is an oversight, I can more than understand - but Please discontinue that. That said, I am aware of what you have said on the matter since you brought up the same things on CARM years ago - with other WOFers disagreeing with you. Dr. Dollar and other leaders in the Faith Movement have spoken on the issue before when it comes to seeing what it means to be spared from God's judgement and how to avoid that - and I can confidently say that you've not really said anything that I did not already know about since it has come up before over the years and it isn't unable to be dealt with in regards to the whole council of Scripture- although I am glad you considered them. If you want to send an outline, just hit me up on my PM box - or email from my main profile, as the option is there and I'd love to see what you compiled
Perhaps it would be wise to know that progressive revelation on the subject or others needs to be seen as limited on how far things can go....even though the Spirit is continually speaking/teaching (If the Torah revealed to us ALL that God wished to share with us, then we would have no need for the rest of the Bible. However, God had more to reveal to man, thus the revelation progressed, and we ended up with 66 books of the Bible.
Here is a pretty simple example of progressive revelation:
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
-Matthew 5:21
Progressive revelation does not contradict previous revelation, but it clarifies it, interprets it, or replaces it.
Peace...
Bad choice of words, please allow me to rephrase:
I see an apparent contradiction in the scriptures that I have yet to resolve.
Of course we know/believe that there are no contradictions in the Scripture. As now faith said above:
Peace...
Not a problemMy apologies for the mistake on the name.
Unfortunate - although I was curious as to why you didn't PM your email address so I could ask for the outline you had on Noah. I hate it whenever you write a response and it gets deleted due to crazy circumstances.Also just lost all of a long response to you that I don't feel like re typing.
That I can understand when it comes to the issue of how other faith teachers shared things to be. However, I do take it to be significant that many of the older WOF teachers noted that God in the OT did send things that were disaster as a means of judgment (even though it was not his desire that the wicked perish - as the Prophet Ezekiel noted in Ezekiel 18 and other places when it came to him regretting actions).The mist of it is that the faith teachers often explained things like Noah's flood through dispensationally behavior or just one time events. However the foundation of WoF teaching is that God does not send sickness or disaster.
As per a previous post of yours, 1 Cor. 10:10-11 says:
Do not murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
It was the destroyer.
Perhaps paradox would be a really good way of seeing it - or as another said, "truth in tension." Two concepts that seem mutually exclusive are both true and yet don't have to be understood fully in order for God to be God...I see an apparent contradiction in the scriptures that I have yet to resolve.
Of course we know/believe that there are no contradictions in the Scripture.
Sorry, I missed this part earlier. I get lost in your posts sometimes, start following links that you provide, and then never get back to finish reading the whole post. (Yes, I am easily distracted...lol...).
I find this intriguing. I had not heard the idea before that the genocide of the Canaanites may have been related to the purging of the Nephilim. I will look further into this...
Peace...
The term progressive revelation as I used it is not referring to revelation outside of the Bible. It refers to the fact that over time God revealed more about Himself to the fathers by the prophets; thus we have 66 books in the Bible that were written over a span of about 3000 years. This progressive revelation began with the words of Moses and ended with the last of the New Testament books. If the Torah revealed to us ALL that God wished to share with us, then we would have no need for the rest of the Bible. However, God had more to reveal to man, thus the revelation progressed, and we ended up with 66 books of the Bible.
Here is a pretty simple example of progressive revelation:
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
-Matthew 5:21
Progressive revelation does not contradict previous revelation, but it clarifies it, interprets it, or replaces it.
Peace...
If I may say...I would strongly disagree on the E.S.V translation of replacing Christ with a Angel of the Lord.
This theology takes us down the Mormon highway in that they believe Michael was Christ.
/QUOTE]
My understanding was that it was also Jehovah Witnesses that were the ones claiming Michael was Christ - and the same goes for those in Adventism. However, to believe that Christ is the Angel of the Lord isn't automatically Mormonism (which believes God began as a man and that the devil/Christ were "brothers") - others within early Jewish culture understood where Michael was an Archangel and was separate from the Angel of the Lord (who was a theophany and Christ). This went in line with their understanding by Jewish Christians in the first century of Jesus as the Co-Ruler within Heaven (more shared here and here). The early Jewish Sages often called Yeshua "Angel of the Lord" ..
It doesn't seem to support two Divine Beings when it notes that it was "the angel of the Lord" who appeared in the Flame of the Fire - only to switch to saying that God called out to Him from the Flaming Bush.Exodus: 3. 2. And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. 3. And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. 4. And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I. 5. And he said, Draw not nigh hither: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.
Here you can clearly read that there were 2 Devine beings within this passage,first the Angel then God.
Thus, the angel of the Lord may be a christophany Christ in the OT.
I thought it was interesting what one commentary said on the matter whenit came to Joshua 5:14 - as noted here (for brief reference):
Pulpit Commentary
Verse 14. - And he said, Nay. Many MSS. which are followed by the LXX. and Syriac versions, have לו for לאֹ here. The Chaldee and Vulgate read לאֹ, and the Masorites do not reckon this among the 15 passages in which לו is read for לאֹ (Keil). But when Keil adds that a comparison of this passage with Joshua 24:21 decides the point, he is going too far, since כִּי often stands, like the Greek ὅτι, before a quotation, in the place of our inverted commas (see, for instance, Genesis 29:33; Exodus 3:12, etc.). The various reading has no doubt arisen from the ambiguity of the passage, for it appears grammatically doubtful to which part of Joshua's question the particle of negation applies. Yet it is obvious enough practically that it is in answer to the last portion of it. But as captain of the Lord's host am I now come. Literally, "for (or but) I, the captain of the Lord's host, have now come." As though he would say, "the struggle is now imminent; the conflict is all but begun; and now, at the critical moment when my help is needed, I, the captain of the hosts of the Lord, the leader of all that vast army of unseen confederates, who are destined to marshal the forces of nature, the elements of supernatural terror and dismay, on the side of the Israelites, am come to help you." That the Lord's host must mean the angels is clear from such passages as Genesis 32:2; 1 Kings 22:19; Psalm 103:20, 21; Psalm 148:2; St. Luke 2:13 (aft 2 Kings 6:17). Hengstenberg, in his 'Christology,' illustrates by Matthew 26:53. Two opinions have been held by the early Church concerning this manifestation. The first regards it as the appearance of the Son of God in a visible form; the second supposes it to have been a created being - an angel - through whom Jehovah was pleased to manifest Himself. The former opinion was general in the earliest ages of the Church. The appearance of the Arian heresy, however, brought this interpretation into discredit. It was felt to be dangerous to admit it, lest it should lead to the notion that the Logos, however great and glorious a being he might be, however superior to all other created beings, was nevertheless removed by an infinite interval from the Supreme God Himself. The Jewish interpreters differ on the point. Maimonides and others (see next note) do not regard the appearance as a real one. The majority seem to have supposed it to have been the Archangel Michael. We will proceed to examine the scriptural and patristic evidence on the subject. That appearances, believed to be manifestations of God Himself in a visible form, are recorded in Scripture, is a fact which cannot be denied. Thus we have the voice of God (קול יְהֹוָהwalking in the garden (Genesis 3:8). Again, in ch. 15, though first God appears to Abraham in a vision, the nature of the manifestation would seem to have changed in some respects afterwards, for we read" he brought him forth abroad" (ver. 5). Again, in ch. 18, we find that Jehovah "appeared" to Abraham as he dwelt by the oaks of Mature (ver. 1), and the narrative would suggest that Jehovah Himself appeared, and two attendant angels.
This is further corroborated by the fact that Abraham remains in conference with Jehovah, while the two angels who arrived in the evening at Sodom do not appear to have been spoken of as Jehovah, or to have received Divine honours from Lot. The "man" who (Genesis 32:24) wrestled with Jacob is described afterwards (ver. 30) as "God." The "angel of the Lord" who (Exodus 3:2) "appeared" unto Moses "in a flame of fire, out of the midst of a bush," is immediately afterwards described as Jehovah and Elohim (ver. 4), and, as in the present passage, Moses is instructed to remove his shoe from his foot in consequence of the holiness of the place in which so great a Being appeared. And here we are led to investigate the nature of that mysterious being who is described as "the angel of the Lord," the "angel," or, as the word is sometimes translated, "messenger of the covenant." He appears to Hagar (Genesis 16:7), and she immediately proceeds (ver. 13) to express her belief that it is God whom she has seen. The angel who appears to Abraham at the sacrifice of Isaac (Genesis 22:11, 12, 18) speaks of Himself as God. The voice of the angel, again, is regarded by Leah and Rachel as the voice of God (Genesis 31:11, 16), and He calls Himself so (ver. 13). Jacob speaks of the angel as having "redeemed him from all evil" (Genesis 48:16), but here the term Goel, though it means a ransomer, is not necessarily connected with moral evil. After His appearance to Hoses in the bush He becomes the special guide of the children of Israel. His divinity is again asserted in Exodus 13:21, for the Being there spoken of as Jehovah is described in Joshua 14:19 as His angel. The solemn terms in which the God of Israel refers to him in Exodus 23:20, 21 must not be passed over. He is the "Angel of Jehovah." He is sent to "keep" Israel "in the way." They were to take heed and not rebel against Him (so LXX.); for, adds Jehovah, "My name is in His inward parts" (not בּו but בְּקִרְבּו denoting close and intimate union). Cf. ver. 93 and Exodus 32:34; Exodus 33:2. This angel is called the Face, or Faces, of the Lord (Exodus 33:14; cf. Isaiah 63:9), and is thus specially identified with the revelation of Him, like the term εἰκών in the New Testament. The angel that withstood Balaam assumes a tone of authority in harmony with this view (Numbers 22:22-35). Whether the angel at Bochim (Judges 2:1) were a Divine or human messenger does not appear from the narrative, and the word is occasionally, as in Haggai 1:13, used of a prophet. But the appearance to Gideon and Manoah has a Divine character (Judges 6:11-22; Judges 13:8-22). And the special reference to Jehovah, the angel of the covenant, in Malachi 3:1 seems to point in a special manner to the Second Person in the Blessed Trinity. This view, as has been stated, is the view of the earlier Fathers, nor does there seem any reasonable ground for its rejection by those of later date.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?