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

[Gxg (G²)]

To be even clearer, this would mean that all such acts described in the scripture are passive insofar as God goes, regardless of the 'voice' used in scripture to describe it. This isn't so far fetched as you might think at first glance. Nearly all new revelations have come from redefining word usages in the Bible. Think of how the entire faith movement was born out of redefining what the word 'faith' actually means. Faith went from meaning 'trusting in a higher power' (which God cannot do-there is no higher power) to 'believing that the words you speak will come to pass' (which God is fully capable of-and does regularly). Is this redefinition of words justified? You bet it is, because words change meaning over time (I do not doubt for a minute that satan himself is not encouraging this) and the scripture specifically tells us how to avoid misinterpretation

Growing up in the Faith Movement, I never saw any of the Faith teachers saying that faith did not also include the traditional meaning of "trusting in a Higher Power" since they often said that was the kind of faith we were to have in God....and the kind of faith often described in scripture when it came to walking in faith/believing in Him. However, what did happen was that they expanded the definition of faith (paticularly with scriptures like Mark 11 that note having the "Faith of God" or God Kind of Faith where one actively believes with assurance in the same way God does. Brother Troy did an excellent review on the issue in the following:

• Have the Faith of God: When You Pray! Parts 2 & 2-1a June 15, 2014 - Association of Clergy International - AOCI

• The God-Kind of Faith - Part 1 | HopeFaithPrayer

• The God-Kind of Faith - Part 2 | HopeFaithPrayer

The meaning of the words doesn't change so much as there is more understanding of how previous understandings can be reconciled with new ones.

20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
-II Peter 2:20-21

Or, in other words, to put it in DanSpeak, "No word, phrase, passage or story in the Bible can be interpreted by modern, evoluted language definitions. Rather, every word, phrase, passage or story in the Bible must be interpreted in light of their contextual use by the Holy Spirit in the greater context of the scriptures which were imparted to holy men of God down through the ages".

You have to start with the nature of God; and that nature is revealed most accurately in the life of Jesus. I agree with the following posting that Gxg made:

Christ is ultimately the end goal of all the Scriptures and all things have to point back to how He saw things - with Him often noting the original intent behind how things were and how they were to be seen in relation to him.

Although it seems he draws a slightly different end result from that affirmation than I do. Reading through the gospels, I do not see a God (as manifested in Christ) that creates or uses evil/death/destruction in an active sense anywhere.

Once you determine that the nature of God does not allow for these things, you can interpret what actions are passive and what actions are active by measuring them against that yardstick. God is perfect and holy in all His ways; and the originator and administrator of good in all its forms, including the application and enforcement of the blessing. Satan is the originator and administrator of evil in all its forms, included the application and enforcement of the curse itself.

One thing that I do think has to always be remembered is that even when it comes to the nature of Christ revealing the character of God, it is fascinating to see how Christ NEVER dismissed what the OT said or said it was all wrong - something that often happens whenever it comes to others saying Jesus was against all that happened in the OT (i.e. God sending the Plagues on Egypt, God punishing the Israelites with Fire from the Lord's Presence, Sending Enemies when they turned to idolatry and other scenario where he created or uses destruction in an active sense to illustrate a point/demonstrate His Holiness or Wrath against sin, etc.). He came to show Grace and what was not made available with the Israelites before.

We truly have a BETTER Covenant in Christ - and others like the pastor I grew up in within the Faith Movement (Pastor Jason Kerr, of Lester Sumrall ministries - with Pastor Jason being on TBN a couple of times, verification here ) preached on it many times - more shared here as well as here:

to see his presentation on God's grace:

• - 2010 Grace Revisited Two 3-14-2010
• - 2010 Grace Revisited Three 3-14-2010
• - 2010 Grace Revisited One 3-14-2010
• - 2012 Freedom in Grace One Part A 12-2-2012
• - 2012 Freedom in Grace One Part B 12-2-2012
• - 2012 The Grace Effect One Part A 12-9-2012
• - 2012 The Grace Effect One Part B 12-9-2012
• - 2012 Jesus Christ Our Foundation Five UNCUT 8-26-2012
• - 2012 Jesus Christ Our Foundation Four Part A 8-19-2012
• - 2012 Jesus Christ Our Foundation Four Part B 8-19-2012
• - 2012 Resurrection Sunday The Stone UNCUT 4-8-2012.mp4
• - 2012 Jesus Christ Our Foundation Six Part A 9-23-2012.mp4
• - 2012 Jesus Christ Our Foundation Six Part B 9-23-2012
• - 2012 Jesus Christ Our Foundation Seven Part A 9-30-2012
• - 2012 Jesus Christ Our Foundation Seven Part B 9-30-2012

Other people I grew up with within the Faith Movement have said the same....others coming to mind being people like Judah Smith (son of the late Pastor Wendell Smith), who has worked with others in the Faith Movement, is very big on trusting God by faith and who has often pointed out whenever it comes to the grace we have been given in Christ:

• “Jesus Is Better Than Angels” - Judah Smith

• Jesus Is Better Than Moses and Joshua: MP3 online hören - The City Church with Judah Smith (Audio) - Audio 221982145

• Jesus Is Better Than Angels: MP3 online hören - The City Church with Judah Smith (Audio) - Audio 221982146

• Jesus Is a Better Mountain: MP3 online hören - The City Church with Judah Smith (Audio) - Audio 221982138

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko5txGuaD2s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnasoUSY780
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkOHIF8wePw

Nonetheless, what many forget are that Laws are in CONNECTION/COVENANT - with aspects from the Mosaic Law included in the New Law we have (Law of Christ) rather than us Solely limited to the 613 of the Mosaic Law (just as the Mosaic Law included aspects from the Abrahamic Law and the Adamic Law before it) - all noted in his PDF on the issue of "The Law of Moses and the Law of Christ." and better understood when seeing "The Eight Covenants of the Bible"(more shared here in The Dispensations of God and Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum - The Eight Covenants of the Bible). Dr. Arnold said much in Theonomy or Antinomianism? The Law of Moses and The Law of Messiah

We see Christ who noted affirmation (rather than dismissal) for the the Mosaic Law, noting that those teaching against it would be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven if/when they advocated for not keeping of the "least of these commandments" (Mat. 5:17-19) - and He actually called out the Pharisees whenever they dishonored what God had already said before:

• "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying... `He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say..." Matthew 15:3-4

• "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men..." [Jesus] said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother; and 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say... hat if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”" Mark 7:8-11

Jesus was never against the OT Law since the Lord had commanded it - but He was VEHEMENTLY against the misinterpretation of that law - and where Christ said "You have heard it said 'Eye for an Eye' and 'Tooth for a Tooth'..but I say....", it was him speaking specifically against personal vengence rather than saying God's OT Law was wrong for noting where the death penalty was commanded by God Himself for those transgressing it.

With Christ came grace - and it was His grace that transformed things. Nonetheless, His grace also showed the intent and purpose of the Law and noted it to be beautiful. Jesus noted to them plainly after sharing in parables like Matthew 13:51-53 "

51 Jesus said to them,[e] “Have you understood all these things?”

They said to Him, “Yes, Lord.”[f]

52 Then He said to them, “Therefore every scribe instructed concerning[g] the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old.”
​

If you examine what occurred with the Woman caught in the Act of Adultery, one realizes where Christ did not speak against the Law - but actually used the Law properly by showing how everyone deserved to die due to how all present broke the Law and the penalty (death) was to be applied to everyone since the death penalty is prescribed for both partners in cases of adultery (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22) but only ONE was brought - with there being no concern for justice and meaning that Jesus would have broken the Law/shown disrespect for the Torah if he had approved of their actions (mored shared in the thread called The woman caught in adultery - MJ).


The nature of God was already understood as having multiple levels - with the New Testament showing what was concealed in the Old Testament and the Old Testament showing what was New Testament later revealed (the Old Testament being the New Testament concealed and the New Testament being the Old Testament revealed)....so rather than throwing off old understandings of who God was in the OT, what happened was more revelation given for completion. Jesus did not say "God never advocated punishment or judgement with destruction in the OT" - but said "God did punishment via destruction actively in the OT for these reasons ....and now, this is what you have available in me so that you can appreciate the better Covenant you now get." You don't divorce what you know of history when learning new ideas or concepts - they are all seen in unison in the same way that you consider the development of automobiles and appreciate older models displayed in a museum while also seeing in the same place new models that incorporate what the older ones had..... - and that's something I am glad I was able to discover with seeing how things go together and how the Church understood things to be.

For me, seeing the full nature of God and what he did allow (including moments of destruction He noted of himself as bringing and prescribed in His Mosaic Law), consistency means that I have to interpret according to the text what is either active or passive - and let the text stand for what it is rather than trying to make the text fit what I would prefer because of a view of God that the authors did not really have at the time. Satan may have had moments where he applied the curse to others who were no obediant - but the Scriptures also note that God Himself was the one punishing the people and applying the consequences to them for resisting Him - with Satan absent. And that view being the dominant view within the early Jewish culture and standing for thousands of years long before our time, I have to be faithful to what I see.

Blessings...

 

[now faith]

Well God created a storm for Jonah,then repented.

 

[now faith]

Correction he repented not from the storm but the evil he was going to judge Niveveh with.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

On control of the weather:would Christ create a storm to rebuke it?

No doubt on 2 occasions Christ had dominion over storms,rebuking one and walking on the water in another.

Why would he create them then turn and quite them.

Could Satan have sent them?

Good questions to consider...

Mark 4:35-41
Jesus Calms the Storm
35 That day when evening came, he said to his disciples, “Let us go over to the other side.” 36 Leaving the crowd behind, they took him along, just as he was, in the boat. There were also other boats with him. 37 A furious squall came up, and the waves broke over the boat, so that it was nearly swamped. 38 Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, “Teacher, don’t you care if we drown?”

39 He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Quiet! Be still!” Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.

40 He said to his disciples, “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?”

41 They were terrified and asked each other, “Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!”​

I think the bigger question for me on the issue would be "Why was Jesus sleeping?" - and I say that because for Christ, he was the ONLY one on the boat who was not worrying. Christ often took times to teach His disciples by having them literally experiencing occurrences where they would be tested on what they had already learned. If Christ controlled the waves/weather already, it's no surprise to see how he could sleep through the ENTIRE event - and of course, God the Father was Sovereign over nature and Christ trusted in the Father at all times. As a result, it would be no surprise to me that Jesus rested confident the entire time as the disciples freaked out believing they would die.

It's like choosing to walk on a mountain, knowing God has called you to cross it. You're not fearful of the dangers since you know God has called you to the other side - and thus, as God made the mountain/gravity (which will impact you whether you like it or not - if you lean over the cliff and fall over) or the cold weather around it, you deal with it looking to Him.

The same goes for heading through something like a Tornado ridden area in the Mid-West to make it to a healing revival on the West Coast. The area is nature at work - and yet if you know God has called you to drive through it, you don't fear the danger since you know you'll be along for as long as your mission is on point. You have wisdom, of course - but you know God is in control. In the same way, God made the weather and the weather does what it does - but He was in control. So it would not be a problem for him resting in the midst of a storm because it is simply business as usual.

Something else to consider - the disciples did indeed have a real fear of dying since the Sea of Galilee is 680 feet below sea level and surrounded by hills. Winds blowing across the land intensify close to the sea - often causing violent and unexpected storms. The dynamics of natural occurrences causing bad weather are no different than hurricanes beginning because of warm weather in the tropics impacting things....or droughts happening in areas where the Sun is out and water dries up - even though there are things man can do naturally to damage the environment/cause bad weather . But that's besides the point. The main issue is that bad weather happens naturally all the time - and it was the case in Galilee that the seas were often unpredictable.....with you hoping you didn't get caught in it. Even being a seasoned fisherman spending live fishing on the great lake didn't mean you would not panic if you got caught at the wrong time.

But for the disciples, they should have trusted in Christ and His power since he already showed power - and something to consider.....EVEN IF THEY DID end up drowing and Jesus didn't wake up, it would not have mattered since God could easily raise them up - just as it was for Abraham who believed God would raise up Isaac after the sacrifice of him (Genesis 22 and Hebrews 11). For Christ, the mission would be accomplished - one way or another. But for me, it makes perfect sense for Christ to not be fearful of his own creation. It's significant that he did the same thing of not tripping over nature when he walked to the disciples on the water /called them to walk to him...and later calmed the waves, all of this right after he multiplied food (Matthew 14:13-33, Mark 6:45-52, John 6:14-22)

Jesus seemed to lead the disciples into rough places and not fearful at all. And something else to consider: What if Christ was able to sleep through a storm due to the fact that he appreciated nature for what it was - and thus, rested at all times? You aren't fearful of bad weather when you realize how it can be a moment to glorify the Lord ...and realize another side of who He is which will make you in awe of him. The destructive side of nature is just as reflective of the Lord as the serene side.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldV8nHJqhxQ

Tornado Destruction​

Rogue Waves | Video - ABC News
Huge eruption of DR Congo volcano ​

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLzgzvVxUV4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MU4xDd9GRJM

I can admit that some of my bias may play a factor into things. As said elsewhere, I'm a supporter of Old Earth Creationism and the thought that not all things within creation were originally peaceful as in the Garden of Eden, it seems reasonable to say that even those things deemed to be destructive in nature were made by the Lord as a reflection of how all of creation should always be in awe/fear of Him--and knowing what exactly they must face should they go outside of Him - as it concerns the Wrath of God. More was discussed here and here--and an article entitled Why Were Dangerous Animals Created?. IMHO, folks like David Snokes have done alot of excellent work on the subject. For I used to believe that earthquakes or Hurricanes or Tornadoes and other destructive things were simply there due to the sins of Adam---but after reading Snokes, I had to reconsider.​

I think God created a world of good and bad forces....and among these topics is what Snokes describes as dangerous forces in Creation. He implies that some conclude that these forces were only products of the fall but the author declares that these forces are good. It boils down to the fact that the Bible declares that “The darkness, the sea, the leviathan and the lion that catches its prey are all good things for which God is praised” ( Psalm 104:4, Job 41:1-3 / Job 41, Psalm 74:13-15 /Psalm 74 , Isaiah 27:1-3 , etc ). In his book, the discussion leads up to the conclusion that “God is dangerous and powerful"... in which the author quotes Romans 1:20 “for his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.”

This according to the author includes the dangerous forces also. He states “The entire Gospel revolves around the idea of avoiding God’s wrath: in fact, God pours out his wrath on his Son so that we may avoid it.” For some good places for review on such:

• Exile from Eden (Gen 3)
• Paul, Christ, and Adam | internetmonk.com
• In the King's Garden (Gen 2), part one | internetmonk.com
• In the King's Garden (Gen 2), part two | internetmonk.com
• Another Look: Surd Evil, Serpents, and the Cosmic Battle | Internetmonk
• Another Look: Life in the King's Garden (Bible Studyâ,Genesis 2) |Internetmonk
  
  

But all of that is noted that I don't automatically assume that the storm the disciples caught themselves in was an attack of Satan.....and it could have been an opportunity to rest as Christ was doing - trusting in the Lord and worshiping Him for all that occurs.​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Correction he repented not from the storm but the evil he was going to judge Niveveh with.

Jonah 1:4-16
4 Then the Lord sent a great wind on the sea, and such a violent storm arose that the ship threatened to break up. 5 All the sailors were afraid and each cried out to his own god. And they threw the cargo into the sea to lighten the ship.

But Jonah had gone below deck, where he lay down and fell into a deep sleep. 6 The captain went to him and said, “How can you sleep? Get up and call on your god! Maybe he will take notice of us so that we will not perish.”

7 Then the sailors said to each other, “Come, let us cast lots to find out who is responsible for this calamity.” They cast lots and the lot fell on Jonah. 8 So they asked him, “Tell us, who is responsible for making all this trouble for us? What kind of work do you do? Where do you come from? What is your country? From what people are you?”

9 He answered, “I am a Hebrew and I worship the Lord, the God of heaven, who made the sea and the dry land.”

10 This terrified them and they asked, “What have you done?” (They knew he was running away from the Lord, because he had already told them so.)

11 The sea was getting rougher and rougher. So they asked him, “What should we do to you to make the sea calm down for us?”

12 “Pick me up and throw me into the sea,” he replied, “and it will become calm. I know that it is my fault that this great storm has come upon you.”

13 Instead, the men did their best to row back to land. But they could not, for the sea grew even wilder than before. 14 Then they cried out to the Lord, “Please, Lord, do not let us die for taking this man’s life. Do not hold us accountable for killing an innocent man, for you, Lord, have done as you pleased.” 15 Then they took Jonah and threw him overboard, and the raging sea grew calm. 16 At this the men greatly feared the Lord, and they offered a sacrifice to the Lord and made vows to him.​

God did seem to cause the storm to cease immediately after sending it after Jonah and seeing the sailors give Jonah up - so there was a change going on.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Hmm. You decide:

23 Some traveled on the sea in ships,
and carried cargo over the vast waters.
24 They witnessed the acts of the Lord,
his amazing feats on the deep water.
25 He gave the order for a windstorm,
and it stirred up the waves of the sea.
26 They reached up to the sky,
then dropped into the depths.
The sailors’ strength left them because the danger was so great.
27 They swayed and staggered like a drunk,
and all their skill proved ineffective.
28 They cried out to the Lord in their distress;
he delivered them from their troubles.
29 He calmed the storm,
and the waves grew silent.
30 The sailors rejoiced because the waves grew quiet,
and he led them to the harbor they desired.
31 Let them give thanks to the Lord for his loyal love,
and for the amazing things he has done for people!​

Powerful scripture...

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

Christ is ultimately the end goal of all the Scriptures and all things have to point back to how He saw things - with Him often noting the original intent behind how things were and how they were to be seen in relation to him.

Although it seems he draws a slightly different end result from that affirmation than I do. Reading through the gospels, I do not see a God (as manifested in Christ) that creates or uses evil/death/destruction in an active sense anywhere.

Once you determine that the nature of God does not allow for these things, you can interpret what actions are passive and what actions are active by measuring them against that yardstick. God is perfect and holy in all His ways; and the originator and administrator of good in all its forms, including the application and enforcement of the blessing. Satan is the originator and administrator of evil in all its forms, included the application and enforcement of the curse itself.

Peace...

Perhaps this recent link can help edify.

Did God create evil? - Kenneth Copeland Ministries

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I think you are saying what I have been saying, especially in what I bolded above in your quote. I take minor issue with the language that Lucifer created music. Did he make a note that didn't exist before? Was he the first to think that a string will vibrate and make that vibration produce sound? That would be creation. Making a song that didn't exist before with notes and vibrations that did exist is certainly in the realm of what man and Lucifer can do. Make new things from existing things: rearrange, glue together, cut apart (which can certainly be seen as a perversion). But the first and final result has no new items that make up the things. No bread from a brick.

Regarding what you noted, part of knowing the dynamic with the use "create" comes from knowing the audience one is speaking to and the heart of the author. I don't believe that I ever said the devil CREATED Music - as if He was the one who made it up. I said he created music when it came to his original design - He was music - with Ezekiel 28:13 noting that "the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created"...music being a very core of who he was...and to be more specific, Music - beautiful music - was intrinsic to him.

But the concept of music came from God.....who made the enemy to walk that out, before he fell. Music is a part of God's nature/being - but He can make others who reflect that aspect in a certain way ....just as He made us with creative capacity/reason even though creativity/reason are central to His person.

Only God, as Christianity has long taught, created the universe with no use of preexisting materials - creation ex nihilo (Hebrews 11:3, Colossians 1:16, Psalm 90:2, Proverbs 3:19, Genesis 1:1 ). However, someting to consider is that God's creation out of nothing only applies to God's initial creation of the universe since God's subsequent creation of the animals (Gen. 2:19) and of humankind (Gen. 2:7) involved some use of preexisting materials (namely "the dust of the ground"). Mankind does the same thing - and so does the enemy. This type of creation is known as creatio ex materia...

And with creating out of nothing, it only exists for believers based on the fact that we have the ability to create (with pre-existing materials) things that have NEVER been in existence previously - whether that be by glorious innovation/invention or by heinous perversion. Much of it all goes back to realizing how every beautiful and wonderful idea ultimately finds its root in God, who made everything in existence ("Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows" - James 1:16-17.....all truth is God's truth and everything from cures for diseases to learning laws of physics to travel in space ultimately comes from the Lord since others create based on what He made available to work with . God allows for us to create new things out of what He made.....or essentially discover what can be made out out of what has been made available.

I may buy LEGOS for my kids to make wonderful creations - and I may see instructions for them on how to build what the box said. But they also have the gift of creativity to make new things I never saw before - and that honors me and reflects well on me. You'd be amazed at how others make things that no one ever expected from materials meant to be connected to build something else:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdJ6RtdlJgI

But on creating new things (and God loves seeing his kids create as any good Father ) - there are things we can make which were not present before. Be it with combinations or designs.

Satan, as a guardian cherub of worship (the highest one ), was made to create music - the abilties to do so coming from God who is the origin of music. Vocal chords and skills came from the Lord - but creating new things from them was given to the enemy to do....and the perversion of that carried on into his work when it came to twisting truth. Jesus noting in John 8:42-47 wasn't mincing words when he noted directly that Satan was the Father of lies - although this can be similar to noting how others were considered a father or mother of a scientific field or a literary field or any other. Satan took from what was existing (truth) and was the first to begin the process of perverting it - thus making him the "father of lies" or the originator of where lies came from or the concept of obstruction of God's Work. He - not God - is the original liar...there were no liars before He came into existence and it is NOT in God's nature TO lie since He has no sin in Him.

But all the falsehood in the world owes its existence to Satan...and this occurs not in the same way as God does (ex-nihilo) but out of existing material to make something perverted that NEVER existed before. ...in the same way others did things that were NEVER in God's mind:

Jeremiah 32:35

Jeremiah 7:31

Jeremiah 19:5

Jeremiah 7:31
There they burned their own sons and daughters as sacrifices, something I never commanded. It never even entered my ·mind [ L heart; Lev. 18:21; Deut. 12:3​

This type of creation is known as creatio ex materia

Sin and corrupting mankind came from the enemy in his influence - And this work was what Christ came to destroy:

1 John 3:8
The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work


Hebrews 2:14-18
14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. 16 For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. 17 For this reason he had to be made like them,[k] fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. 18 Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Perhaps this recent link can help edify.

Did God create evil? - Kenneth Copeland Ministries

Thanks for the verification on what was said by Copeland directly....

 

[dkbwarrior]

Perhaps this recent link can help edify.

Did God create evil? - Kenneth Copeland Ministries

Yes, I saw this link when Troy posted it; however, I don't see it as being quite the slam dunk that you imply Bob. First off, Copeland defines evil as being the punishment for sin, not sin itself; and secondly he qualifies it by saying that only "... in the sense" that God created the law of sowing and reaping could He be said to have created evil (or, the punishment for sin). If we are talking about the creation of sin itself, Copeland specifically says that God did not create sin; rather, God created the law of sowing and reaping, which means you reap what you sow. In effect, one could say you create your own punishment, not God.

What is the purpose of the law anyway? Did God establish laws in order to hurt us? I don't think either of us believe that. God established laws to protect us, and to bless us. However, if we misuse those laws, violate them, then we reap bad consequences. I look at it like the law of gravity. The law of gravity was not created to kill people. It was created to hold things, including mankind, to the planet surface; and in a larger sense to hold the entire universe together. A result of walking off a cliff or throwing oneself off the pinnacle of the temple as satan tried to get Jesus to do, is a long fall and likely death. But that was never the purpose of the law of gravity. It is an unintended side effect of not respecting the law.

Peace...

 

[dkbwarrior]

Growing up in the Faith Movement, I never saw any of the Faith teachers saying that faith did not also include the traditional meaning of "trusting in a Higher Power" since they often said that was the kind of faith we were to have in God...

Hmmm... The Bible does not define faith that way; faith is the substance and evidence of things hoped for but not seen, that is what faith is. If faith was trusting a higher power, then what higher power would God look to in order to have faith? But lets leave that alone for now, as it is not neccesary to my argument. Follow to many little trails and it is hard to find the path again. Better to focus on one issue. Suffice it to say that faith is not 'believing in a higher power':

19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
-James 2:19​

The word 'faith' in the English language has many different possible meanings, but in a religious sense, the common definition for faith over the past century and still today has been "belief in a higher power":

faith:
: belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs
-Merriam/Webster Online Dictionary​

Thus my point remains, words change meaning, and words in their common meaning are not always representative of their meaning within scripture. You didn't really address this, and it was the main point of my argument.

The meaning of the words doesn't change so much as there is more understanding of how previous understandings can be reconciled with new ones.

I disagree emphatically. Here is another example:

7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
-II Corinthians 2:6-7​

The word 'let' or 'letteth' used to mean 'hold' or 'withhold', exactly the opposite of its meaning today. This in fact can be seen in the context itself, looking at the verse before it:

6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.​

This can be determined by using the law of contextual definition. Now, to be fair, this egregious example has been corrected in most modern translations, but that is not the point. The point is that WORDS CHANGE MEANING OVER TIME. Sometimes into the exact opposite of their original meaning. I can give you scores of other examples of this very phenomenon in the pages of scripture.

One thing that I do think has to always be remembered is that even when it comes to the nature of Christ revealing the character of God, it is fascinating to see how Christ NEVER dismissed what the OT said or said it was all wrong

This is quite true, but Christ was speaking to two different groups of people during His ministry. He spoke to Israel, and He spoke to his disciples, who were to be the founders of the church. He did not speak to them the same.

He spoke to the Jews in parables, but he expounded all things to his disciples. The law came by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. He spoke to the Jews within their framework of understanding, that is, the law. He spoke to the disciples under a new paradigm, that of grace, (which wasn't really new, but was not understood by Israel at the time, nor still today).

We have to understand that there are 3 groups of people in the world today. The Gentiles, the Jews and the Church:

32 Give none offence,
neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:
33 even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit,
but the profit of many, that they may be saved.
-I Corinthians 10:32
​

God speaks differently to each one of these groups.

We see Christ who noted affirmation (rather than dismissal) for the the Mosaic Law, noting that those teaching against it would be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven if/when they advocated for not keeping of the "least of these commandments" (Mat. 5:17-19) - and He actually called out the Pharisees whenever they dishonored what God had already said before:

Yes, but teaching against the law for whom and to whom? The Gentiles have no law but their own conscience, the Jews have the law of Moses, but the Church is not under the law but under grace.

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law:
and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God,
but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law,
do by nature the things contained in the law,
these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts,
their conscience also bearing witness,
and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another)
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men
by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
-Romans 2:12-16

14 For sin shall not have dominion over you:
for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
-Romans 6:14​

God speaks differently to each group of people, and so do we, as His representatives, His ambassadors.

With Christ came grace - and it was His grace that transformed things. Nonetheless, His grace also showed the intent and purpose of the Law and noted it to be beautiful.

The intent and purpose of the law was to bring us unto Christ that we might be justified by grace:

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
-Galatians 3:24​

You don't divorce what you know of history when learning new ideas or concepts

No, you dont divorce it, but you do die to it. And those that are dead in Christ are released from the bondage of the law:

1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,)
how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth;
but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man,
she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law;
so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ;
that ye should be married to another,
even to him who is raised from the dead,
that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
-Romans 7:1-4​

Peace...

 

[victoryword]

Yes, I saw this link when Troy posted it; however, I don't see it as being quite the slam dunk that you imply Bob. First off, Copeland defines evil as being the punishment for sin, not sin itself; and secondly he qualifies it by saying that only "... in the sense" that God created the law of sowing and reaping could He be said to have created evil (or, the punishment for sin). If we are talking about the creation of sin itself, Copeland specifically says that God did not create sin; rather, God created the law of sowing and reaping, which means you reap what you sow. In effect, one could say you create your own punishment, not God.

What is the purpose of the law anyway? Did God establish laws in order to hurt us? I don't think either of us believe that. God established laws to protect us, and to bless us. However, if we misuse those laws, violate them, then we reap bad consequences. I look at it like the law of gravity. The law of gravity was not created to kill people. It was created to hold things, including mankind, to the planet surface; and in a larger sense to hold the entire universe together. A result of walking off a cliff or throwing oneself off the pinnacle of the temple as satan tried to get Jesus to do, is a long fall and likely death. But that was never the purpose of the law of gravity. It is an unintended side effect of not respecting the law.

Peace...

That's exactly what I got out of it. Otherwise I would never have given the link. I am not sure how anyone gets the idea from that link that Copeland teaches That God created evil in the sense that He called it into existence.

 

[victoryword]

There are numerous examples in which The Bible itself clarifies what is meant by God is said to do that which He merely allowed. Notice how God is said to have killed King Saul:

1 Chronicles 10
13 So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the Lord, even against the word of the Lord, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it;
14 And enquired not of the Lord: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.​

Makes God appear to be a little vindictive, don't you think? Yet, several verses before this Saul is said to have committed suicide:

1 Chronicles 10
4 Then said Saul to his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. So Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.
5 And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise on the sword, and died.​

So the question you all must ask is "does God use His divine energy to override the will and push people to kill themselves" or is God simply taking responsibility for a free will choice? We report, you decide.

Anyway, what does it say about free will if God is the one who pushes suicide what does this say about His character? How could He present Himself as the moral judge of the universe if He moves people to sin, including self murder.

 

[dkbwarrior]

And who killed Jesus?

27 And Jesus saith unto them,
All ye shall be offended because of me this night:
for it is written,
I will smite the shepherd,
and the sheep shall be scattered.
-Mark 14:27

22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth,
a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs,
which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23 Him, being delivered by
the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God,
ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death:
because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
-Acts 2:22-24​

Peace...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Hmmm... The Bible does not define faith that way; faith is the substance and evidence of things hoped for but not seen, that is what faith is. If faith was trusting a higher power, then what higher power would God look to in order to have faith? But lets leave that alone for now, as it is not neccesary to my argument. Follow to many little trails and it is hard to find the path again. Better to focus on one issue. Suffice it to say that faith is not 'believing in a higher power':

19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
-James 2:19​

The word 'faith' in the English language has many different possible meanings, but in a religious sense, the common definition for faith over the past century and still today has been "belief in a higher power":

faith:
: belief in the existence of God : strong religious feelings or beliefs
-Merriam/Webster Online Dictionary​

Thus my point remains, words change meaning, and words in their common meaning are not always representative of their meaning within scripture. You didn't really address this, and it was the main point of my argument.

Respectfully, One would have to prove that faith - as it was used in the early church - was always a matter of believing God had a higher power to believe in for that scenario to work. Of course, that was not the case since they saw faith as trusting in God - and with the way the word actually works, it was never just about "trusting in a higher power" - nor was it ever implying that God had a higher power when it came to us trusting in Him.

You have to use words in the context they were used in and not get distracted with what was never present. Martin Luther himself spoke on the reality of faith several times - and as he noted in An excerpt from “An Introduction to St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” Luther’s German Bible of 1522 by Martin Luther, 1483-1546:

“Faith is not enough,” they say, “You must do good works, you must be pious to be saved.” They think that, when you hear the gospel, you start working, creating by your own strength a thankful heart which says, “I believe.” That is what they think true faith is. But, because this is a human idea, a dream, the heart never learns anything from it, so it does nothing and reform doesn’t come from this `faith,’ either.

Instead, faith is God’s work in us, that changes us and gives new birth from God. (John 1:13). It kills the Old Adam and makes us completely different people. It changes our hearts, our spirits, our thoughts and all our powers. It brings the Holy Spirit with it. Yes, it is a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever. He stumbles around and looks for faith and good works, even though he does not know what faith or good works are. Yet he gossips and chatters about faith and good works with many words.

Faith is a living, bold trust in God’s grace, so certain of God’s favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it. Such confidence and knowledge of God’s grace makes you happy, joyful and bold in your relationship to God and all creatures. The Holy Spirit makes this happen through faith. Because of it, you freely, willingly and joyfully do good to everyone, serve everyone, suffer all kinds of things, love and praise the God who has shown you such grace.​

We can also see the Greek, in how faith was defined when seeing the word PISTIS. From Strong's Greek commentary:

4102 pístis (from 3982/peithô, "persuade, be persuaded") – properly, persuasion (be persuaded, come to trust); faith.

Faith (4102/pistis) is always a gift from God, and never something that can be produced by people. In short, 4102/pistis ("faith") for the believer is "God's divine persuasion" – and therefore distinct from human belief (confidence), yet involving it. The Lord continuously births faith in the yielded believer so they can know what He prefers, i.e. the persuasion of His will (1 Jn 5:4).

...1. The root of 4102/pistis ("faith") is 3982/peithô ("to persuade, be persuaded") which supplies the core-meaning of faith ("divine persuasion"). It is God's warranty that guarantees the fulfillment of the revelation He births within the receptive believer (cf. 1 Jn 5:4 with Heb 11:1).

Faith (4102/pistis) is always received from God, and never generated by us.

Ro 12:3: "For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith (4102/pistis)" (NASU).

Eph 2:8,9: " For by grace you have been saved through faith (4102/pistis); and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast" (NASU).

Gal 5:22,23: "22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,

patience, kindness, goodness, faith (4102/pistis), 23gentleness,

self-control; against such things there is no law."

2 Thes 1:11: "To this end (glorification) – indeed each time we pray about (peri) you for the purpose (hin) of our God counting you worthy of the call – even that He may fulfill (His) every good-pleasure that comes from (His) goodness and work of faith, in (His) ability."​

Moreover, If you wanted to take things further, faith is defined exactly that way on SEVERAL differing occasions, even though there are multiple kinds of faith. What you're describing is what Hebrews 11 talks about when it comes to faith in the sense that God says - but there are other kinds of faith besides that:

1 Corinthians 2:5
so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.

Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

Ephesians 1:15
[ Thanksgiving and Prayer ] For this reason, ever since I heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all God’s people...

Ephesians 3:12 In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence.

Colossians 2:12
having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

1 Peter 1:21
Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.

Faith has ALWAYS included the definition of "trust in God" - and to be more specific, As it concerns differing types of faith, there are converting faith (the faith we exercise following the new birth and through which we are justified), continuing faith (the faith we exercise daily as an expression of dependence upon and confidence in God), and charismatic faith.

As another leader in the Charismatic movement (who worked with John Wimber ) noted wisely in The Beginner's Guide to Spiritual Gifts (for brief reference):

Charismatic faith is the faith noted in several texts that appears to be spontaneous and functions as the divinely enabled condition on which the more overtly supernatural activities of God are suspended. This, I believe, is the “gift of faith” in 1 Cor. 12:9. Some possible examples of the gift of faith are found in Mark 11:22-24; cf. Mt. 17:20-21; 21:21-22; 1 Cor. 13:2; and James 5:15.....

Secondly, there is faith in God’s ability to heal. Jesus took special delight in healing those who were open and receptive to his power to perform a mighty work. In Mt. 9:28-29 Jesus asks the two blind men only if they believe he is able to heal them. He wanted to find out what they thought about him, whether or not they trusted his ability. “Yes, Lord,” came their response. “Be it done to you according to your faith,” and they were instantly healed. Jesus regarded their confidence in his power to help them as “faith” and dealt mercifully with them on that basis.

The leper in Mt. 8 said to Jesus, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean” (v. 2). The leper didn’t question Christ’s ability. He trusted that completely. He did have doubts about the willingness of Jesus to do it. But Jesus didn’t rebuke him for such doubts, as if it were a shortcoming in his faith that might jeopardize his healing. He healed him because of his confidence that he could do it (cf. Mark 5:34).

Third, there is faith in God’s heart for healing. This is faith in God’s goodness and his desire to bless his children (see Ps. 103:1-3; Luke 11:11-13).

....


1. Conversion Faith (“saving faith&#8221 is the faith through which we are justified. This is the faith identified in Scripture as that trust or confidence or belief in the atoning sacrifice of Christ that occurs at the moment of conversion.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9

2. Continuing Faith (“measure of faith&#8221 is the faith we exercise daily as we look confidently to God to do in and through our lives all that he has promised to do.

3 For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.
Romans 12:3

3. Charismatic Faith (“gift of faith&#8221 is the faith, noted in several texts, that appears to be spontaneous and functions as the divinely enabled condition on which the more overtly supernatural activities of God are suspended.

8 For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,
1 Corinthians 12:8-9


​

You don't go to the ENGLISH from our day in order to establish a point about how others saw faith in the days of antiquity - this was the point made earlier that it seems you skipped over when it came to dealing with things in their historical context.

There's no evidence whatsoever that believers within the early centuries of the Church (or others prior to Christ who followed God) ever saw faith solely in terms of believing in a Higher power and thus expecting God to believe in one as well - and thus, your scenario doesn't fit the narrative that Scripture noted.
\

 

[dkbwarrior]

Who Blinds the mind of the unbeliever?

7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for;
but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded
8 (according as it is written,
God hath given them the spirit of slumber,
eyes that they should not see,
and ears that they should not hear)
unto this day.
-Romans 11:7-8

3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not,
lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God,
should shine unto them.
-II Corinthians 4:4​

I like that, we report, you decide...lol...

Peace...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I disagree emphatically. Here is another example:

7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.
-II Corinthians 2:6-7​

The word 'let' or 'letteth' used to mean 'hold' or 'withhold', exactly the opposite of its meaning today. This in fact can be seen in the context itself, looking at the verse before it:

6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.​

This can be determined by using the law of contextual definition. Now, to be fair, this egregious example has been corrected in most modern translations, but that is not the point. The point is that WORDS CHANGE MEANING OVER TIME. Sometimes into the exact opposite of their original meaning. I can give you scores of other examples of this very phenomenon in the pages of scripture.

Part of understanding words historically, again, means actually showing what the wording meant in the time it was used. Most of what you did just now was simply using ENGLISH DEFINITIONS in the modern sense rather than showing within the first century how the text of scripture (included within the Tanak for the Jewish people) saw the words - it would be like trying to understand language in the text of Scripture without knowing what Middle Eastern idioms actually meant at the time when the word was used.....and thus, it's not TRUE contextual definition so much as it is fitting the text based on how we understand language.

Most of the translations of language still go back to the reality of interpretation - someone saying "The roof is on fire!!!" can wrangle all day about how "Well the literal word for fire means this.." but the reality is CULTURE: How was the phrase interpreted when it came out? The audience saying at a party "The Roof is on Fire!!" knows that there is a figurative sense in how it is being used which can be understood when you know the setting - whereas in another setting, the same phrase can literally mean danger is around since the roof is truly ON FIRE and help is needed.

This goes back to the rule of intepreting scripture and words within their immediate setting in order to see what the understanding was - and thus, for your view to work, you would actually have to show historically where the Apostles or accounts of early believers (with access to the same scriptures) actually felt the way you do. Otherwise, it's really you against history.

There's no need for "scores of examples" in scripture as I've seen/dealt with the argument before on a number of occassions when it comes to the whole counsil of God.

This is quite true, but Christ was speaking to two different groups of people during His ministry. He spoke to Israel, and He spoke to his disciples, who were to be the founders of the church. He did not speak to them the same.

He spoke to the Jews in parables, but he expounded all things to his disciples. The law came by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. He spoke to the Jews within their framework of understanding, that is, the law. He spoke to the disciples under a new paradigm, that of grace, (which wasn't really new, but was not understood by Israel at the time, nor still today).

Respectfully, none of that actually goes with the entire Word of God since Christ always spoke to multiple groups and there were actually several: It was Israel, the Gentiles, the Samaritans and the Disciples. Many instances he spoke to them all the SAME - as the Sermon on the mount was NOT just to Israelities.....and other times, what he spoke to his disciples were special revelations that had applications for both JEW and Gentile. Other Gentiles who followed Christ heard him speaking to Jews and seeing where he was referencing them.

But at the end of the day, ALL of what was recorded in scripture was given for the learning/instruction of Jew AND Gentile alike. Christ was always meant to be the Messiah for the Gentile - and the law was not simply used for the Jewish people, as murder is STILL murder according to God's 10 commandments and adultery is still adultery. St. Paul actually pointed this out directly:

Romans 7:8-12
What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.




I Timothy 1:8
8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Galatians 3:17-20

Children of God
The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But Scripture has locked up everything under the control of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

Children of God
23 Before the coming of this faith,[j] we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith.
​

The Law itself was never something that God condemned as a whole - but when people looked to it alone/assumed they did not need grace, that was a problem. It was - and STILL is - problematic when people forget the uses of the word "Law" and have no idea the context of what was spoken on, assuming all things OT were gone by the time the new came around when the reality is that the OT was reinterpreted to have a new function and purpose - being guard rails rather than the way. You don't ignore the things you learned going to school bus when you were a child - but when you grow up, you remember them....appreciate them....and then build on your knowledge/move on.

This isn't to boast - but after having to do a lot of battles with others elsewhere who tried enforcing all aspects of Mosaic Law onto Gentiles, Some of this is rather old to me, to be truthful, after expericing life in the Messianic world - and on where it was already covered:

• [open] Acts 15 - Is it necessary to keep the law of Moses?

• Does God yet have a plan through the Law?

• Who believes this to be true: The Torah is not for Gentiles

• 
  [*]Orthodox Jewish Chicken Sacrifice & Seeing if Sacrifices Are Appropriate Today
  [*]

Jews knew in the time that Christ not only spoke to them in their context - but he ALSO understood where Jews grew up being accostomed to differing frames of thought outside the Hebrew worldview - as Jews were also HELLENISTIC and utilizing the Greek worldview on a number of occasions as well as others....although you will find many assuming that anything that is NOT Jewish must automatically be bad - and I've had to wrestle with others on the issue before (more here and here ). There were also multiple accounts of Grace WITHIN the OT if studying it as it was the case that Christ came to emphasize grace in the New Covenant rather than grace coming out of nowhere.

Psalm 45:2
You are the most excellent of men and your lips have been anointed with grace, since God has blessed you forever.​

That said...

Yes, but teaching against the law for whom and to whom? The Gentiles have no law but their own conscience, the Jews have the law of Moses, but the Church is not under the law but under grace.

The Gentiles actually had the covenant of Noah established in Genesis 9 - and with the Mosaic Law, there was the Abrahamic Covenant that preceeded it and began the Hebrew nation. Romans 2 does a great job noting this while also noting that those who do not know of God's law will still be judged based on what they do know - and yet that doesn't mean the Law still did not have things it spoke to on. This can be easily shown when seeing
Acts 18:24-28, where its clear that Apollos only knew of the Baptism of John...suggesting that He had not heard at all of the Baptism which Jesus commanded after His resurrection in Matthew 28:19....and which began to be administered to all believers in Christ on and after that day of Pentecost (Acts 2:41, Acts 8:12, etc). Therefore, Apollos KNOWLEDGE of the Christian Gospel must have been deficient in SOME ways, though HE TAUGHT accurately the things concerning Jesus as far as he knew them.. He certainly knew about Jesus' life and teachings, but He may not have known about Jesus's death and resurrection...or about the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. God blessed Him by sending Him others who gave more full awareness of it (Acts 19:1-20:1 ). And of course, we also have what occurred with the Ethiopian Eunuch and the fact that Gentiles experienced the Holy Spirit in the time of Christ. The Samaritan woman is another big example, as she didn't become Jewish just because she met Jesus - yet Christ spoke in a way she understood with the Lawas Samaritans saw it/the Messiah. But Isaiah noted Gentiles would be included in the priesthood later


The OT Law is still present in many ways - otherwise, adultery is no longer adultery and murder is still murder - this now being known as The Law of Moses and the Law of Messiah (with the Law of Christ being distinct since it reinterprets what Moses noted and shows it in unision with all the other Covenants - leading to the covenant we have with Christ) - Of course, the OT Law has been reinterpreted. And as St. Paul noted:

Romans 3:31
“We uphold the law”


“So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good” (Romans 7:12).

“I delight in God’s law” (Romans 7:22).​

The entire book of James 2 notes those who broke God's law when it came to what He noted with mistreating the poor and favortism - and the same goes for James 5 with regards to the law of fair wages and how others were not being paid

The intent and purpose of the law was to bring us unto Christ that we might be justified by grace:

24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
-Galatians 3:24​

Indeed - and part of being justified by grace means actively understanding the dynamics of the Law and the differing TYPEs of law.

No, you dont divorce it, but you do die to it. And those that are dead in Christ are released from the bondage of the law:

Dying to trying to be justified by the law isn't the same as understanding grace and seeing how the Law was meant to point us to what was already present in Christ

When people read II Corinthians 3-4 on the Law of Moses being a "ministry of death" and assume "All things in the Mosaic Law were BAD!!!" (which is obviously error), it seems apparent that the fact that Paul deemed it to be a "ministry" means that it was still building/ministering something to believers the Lord wanted - and is it not possible that the Law of Moses was good in ministering death since it produced a death in people by showing them the inability they had in relying on themselves for righteousness - and helping them to die to pride/self-reliance and (in the process of sanctification) see what the ministry of Messiah was meant to do which the Law of Moses could never achieve?


Acts 13:35-39 and Romans 3 seem to point to that reality

 

[dkbwarrior]

Respectfully, One would have to prove that faith - as it was used in the early church - was always a matter of believing God had a higher power to believe in for that scenario to work. Of course, that was not the case since they saw faith as trusting in God - and with the way the word actually works, it was never just about "trusting in a higher power" - nor was it ever implying that God had a higher power when it came to us trusting in Him.

You have to use words in the context they were used in and not get distracted with what was never present.

Are you reading my post at all? What you said is exactly the argument I was making about context. We may disagree on the trust=faith argument, but the need for a contextual definition is the point I was making, and I stated that.

You don't go to the ENGLISH from our day in order to establish a point about how others saw faith in the days of antiquity - this was the point made earlier that it seems you skipped over when it came to dealing with things in their historical context.

There's no evidence whatsoever that believers within the early centuries of the Church (or others prior to Christ who followed God) ever saw faith solely in terms of believing in a Higher power and thus expecting God to believe in one as well - and thus, your scenario doesn't fit the narrative that Scripture noted.

Lol... Again, that is EXACTLY what I was saying. I made no attempt to use todays English to interpret ancient meaning. Just the opposite, I SAID words change meaning over time, so you CANNOT USE THEIR COMMON MODERN MEANINGS. You MUST LOOK AT THE CONTEXT, and that includes their immediate context, and the greater context of how they are used throughout scripture. I don't understand what it is about that which you are not seeing, or why you are arguing with me about a point that we seem (from your last two posts) to be in agreement on.

Peace...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Are you reading my post at all? What you said is exactly the argument I was making about context. We may disagree on the trust=faith argument, but the need for a contextual definition is the point I was making, and I stated that.

LOL - actually, you've not been really dealing with what I had noted - as I said context is about seeing terms in how they are used HISTORICALLY. Not based on the English language alone. This was said directly in regards to claiming that God has to have a higher power if faith meant having faith in a higher power and yet not dealing with where the context for early believers was trusting in God/looking to Him - it is bringing an argument that was never in the picture.

This is the point of contextual addressment - if we don't deal with phrases on their OWN terms, we're not dealing with phrases...we go back to the Greek and see how it was used and how the early Church (which was closest to Christ and the APostles) actually walked things out when it came to their own testimonies of how they saw God.


And in regards to what was said earlier:

Lol... Again, that is EXACTLY what I was saying. I made no attempt to use todays English to interpret ancient meaning. Just the opposite, I SAID words change meaning over time, so you CANNOT USE THEIR COMMON MODERN MEANINGS. You MUST LOOK AT THE CONTEXT, and that includes their immediate context, and the greater context of how they are used throughout scripture. I don't understand what it is about that which you are not seeing, or why you are arguing with me about a point that we seem to be in agreement on.

Peace...

Saying words change meaning over time but using examples from modern day language rather than antiquity is exactly that - it is using modern understandings instead of dealing with the culture and the IMMEDIATE context they interpreted things in. It is not a difficult concept when it comes to showing what Jewish believers (or Gentile, for that matter) in the early church ever interpreted faith in God as not being about trust in Him - and they had access to the entire Tanak and were closer to Christ in his time.

Moreover, several points you've made have been on things I NEVER said - thus seeming like you're arguing with something you read into context rather than what I stated. But that's another issue

And in regards to what was said earlier:

We have to understand that there are 3 groups of people in the world today. The Gentiles, the Jews and the Church:

32 Give none offence,
neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:
33 even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit,
but the profit of many, that they may be saved.
-I Corinthians 10:32
​

God speaks differently to each one of these groups.

There are actually several kinds of groups besides that - as Jesus also spoke to Samaritans (John 4, Luke 9, Luke 10:25-39, etc.) and when Paul was speaking about Jews/Gentiles, it was done in regards to the audience present in his midst (i.e. Jews and Gentiles) since those were often who his congregations were made of.

And to be more accurate, it was never just the Jews ..the Gentiles...and the Church. The early Body of Christ saw ONE Israel united together - also called the Church. More on this was shared elsewhere, as seen here:

The subset of believers is what I refer to as spiritual Israel, as in spiritually living, but remnant works as well.

Israel is truly complex - and it is myth whenever people take the concept of being added into the CommonWealth of Israel/assuming they are "Israel" in the same sense as Ethnic Jews. For the Ethnic Jews are descendants of Israel reaching out to the Unsaved people of Israel - while the other people are sanctified via identifying with God's Israel (of which the Ethnic/Saved Jews are apart of ) - no different than being Jamaica/being Jamaican in the British Empire (as it was a CommonWealth) and identifying with the Empire and yet still retaining your cultural norms.

​

As said elsewhere, there was a good review on the issue with some good illustrations as well - from Israel and the Church - What's the Relationship?/Israel and the Church - Hebrew for Christians ..on the concept of Remnant Theology:​

​

​

Scriptures make a distinction between being an ethnic Jew (i.e., one born Jewish) and one who is considered to be a member of she'arit Yisrael, the faithful remnant of Israel. It seems logical to note that a person can be 1) outside of relationship to Israel altogether (i.e., a Gentile); 2) within ethnic Israel by virtue of birth (to a Jewish mother); or 3) within both ethnic Israel (i.e., of Jewish lineage) and part of the faithful remnant (as a Jew who trusts the God of Israel). I'm thankful for others who've taken the time to point out these distinctions as important because there are many who oversimplify the matter and confuse ethnic Israel with the "remnant of Israel chosen by the grace of God" (Rom. 11:5) - despite the fact that the Remnant of Israel is a sovereignly chosen subset of ethnic Israel that has been faithfully preserved by the LORD over the centuries. Its existence is evidenced in the Old Testament Scriptures as is seen in the following cases:

• Isaac was chosen over Ishmael (Gen. 17:19)
• Jacob was chosen over Esau (Gen. 28:13-15)
• Joseph was chosen over his other brothers (Gen. 45:7)
• Israel was chosen (as a nation) at Sinai and a remnant preserved after the sin with the Golden Calf (Ex. 32)
• Caleb and Joshua were chosen among all those of the desert generation to enter into the Promised Land (Num. 14:38)
• Elijah was told that God preserved 7,000 faithful during apostasy (1 Kings 19:18)
• Ezekiel was told that a remnant would be preserved from the northern kingdom after their captivity (Ezek. 37:19)
• The returning exiles from Babylon were chosen (Zech. 8:5)

And within the NT (as Hebrew4Christians notes well) it is further evidenced repeatedly:

• John the Baptist distinguished between those merely born Jewish and those who are part of remnant Israel (Matt. 3:9)
• God chose a remnant of Israel to receive the Messiah (Rom. 11:5)
• After the destruction of the Temple by the Romans, God preserved a remnant of Israel which has continued to this day.
• Paul spoke of the remnant of Israel chosen by God's grace (Rom. 2:28-29; 9:27, 11:5) and the one "New Man" composed of Jews and grafted in Gentiles (Eph. 2:15).
• During the coming Great Tribulation, God will preserve a remnant of Israel (Rev. 7:4).

It seems more than Biblical to understand that Remnant Theology is the best way for understanding the scriptures - as Remnant Theology understands that the Church is "grafted in" or "in-placed" within remnant Israel, and not the other way around -- i.e., remnant Israel is NOT understood to be placed within the Church

​

A person can be 1) outside of relationship to Israel altogether (i.e., a Gentile); 2) within ethnic Israel by virtue of birth (to a Jewish mother); 3) within both ethnic Israel (i.e., of Jewish lineage) and as part of the faithful remnant (as a Jew who trusts the God of Israel), or 4) a Gentile who partakes of the blessings given to the faithful Remnant of Israel.​

​

​

....Out of all the foreigners, IMHO, Jethro is the most interesting. For Jethro stood outside of the Covenant Community...yet displayed uncanny knowledge of God. With Jethro, in Exodus 18, he was a priest of Midian (Exodus 3:1, Exodus 4:18)...and in light of the difficulty of both Egypt and the journey to Rephidim, Jethro's coming to meet Moses displays a relational posture of peace and encouragement, similar to when Aaron met Moses "at the mountain of God on his return from Midian (Exodus 4:27-31). Amazingly, after simply hearing about what the Lord had done on Israel's belalf, Jethro's words and actions represent a more faithful response than came from many of those who had experienced the events in Egypt (not to mention Egypt itself, as well as Amalek).

When he says, "Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods" in verse 11, he echoes the purpose that the Lord said the plagues were to have for both Israel (Exodus 6:7) and Egypt (Exodus 7:5, Exodus 7:15). When Jethro brought burnt offerings and sacrifices and ate before God with Moses, Aaron and the elders, he prefigured the pattern of life that the Lord would reveal further at Mount Sinai (Deuteronomy 12:5-7). And as said before, Jethro was used by the Lord to help him find a faithful and workable way to have others bear the burden of judging the people and ensuring their well-being --His words becoming central to Israel's makeup in choosing judges (Exodus 18:13-26).

In all of that, God's People were united under him - differing levels and interactions - and none of it involved people looking the same or being the same at all points. Yeshua emphasized this as seen in

• Luke 4:18-26 of Naaman the Syrian (from II Kings 5) as the only one who was healed/blessed of God despite all the other Israeli lepers because of his trust in the Lord,
• The Widow in Sidon that Elijah went to despite all the other widows in Israel and that Yeshua also noted in Luke 4
• John 4 with the woman at the well/her town coming to faith in Him,
• Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-39 in emphasizing what it meant to reflect the Lord and how even Samaritans were able to do that
• The Roman Centurion in Matthew 8 who had greater faith than anyone in Israel
• The Samaritan leper in Luke 17 who ended up healed/placing faith in Yeshua
• The Demonized man in Gentile territory in Mark 5 who was told to go back to his people/testify of what Yeshua had done
• The Greeks who came to hear of the Messiah in John 12:20-25
• The Syrian-Phonecian Woman in Matthew 15 whose daughter was healed because of her faith in Him
• The Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8 who was able to read of the Messiah because of Philip
• The Samaritan Towns in Acts 8 which were evangelized by Philip, the towns evangelized by Paul
• Cornelius in Acts 10-11 during the Gentile Pentecost and the Holy Spirit coming upon them

All of that was in addition to the Law itself (more discussed in in #11 (as well as #146, #147 #77 and #75 )... t

​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

And who killed Jesus?

27 And Jesus saith unto them,
All ye shall be offended because of me this night:
for it is written,
I will smite the shepherd,
and the sheep shall be scattered.
-Mark 14:27

22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth,
a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs,
which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23 Him, being delivered by
the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God,
ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death:
because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
-Acts 2:22-24​

Peace...

One would need to deal with what the prophet Isaiah said when prophesying on what the Lord himself desired of Christ when it came to his death:

Isaiah 53
He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression[a] and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[c] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.​

Christ and the Ressurection, seeing that sinful acts were necessary for Christ to die (i.e. "betrayal", "accusation", "trial", "beatings", etc) and were apart of God's plan...yet God still made clear that even with it being apart of His Sovereign plan the people chose freely/were responsible. That's something worth pausing on. One must naturally ask the question of whether or not the Resurrection/The Death of Christ involved men choosing out of their own free-will to help make it happen WITHOUT THE LORD KNOWING the outcome of it all or whether it was the Lord divinely setting it up to where men's hearts were influenced toward a certain course of action in crucifying the Messiah, begging the question of if those men doing so were ever fully in control or aware......

Acts 4:11
You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:
" 'Why do the nations rage
and the peoples plot in vain?
26The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the Lord
and against his Anointed One.[a]'[b] 27Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people[c] of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 28They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.

Acts 2:23 Acts 2:4
22"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men,[d] put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him

John 11:49-51 / John 11
Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! 50You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."
51He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. 53So from that day on they plotted to take his life




​

Christ was not a victim of circumstances.....and his death wasn't the result of circumstances, caprice, chance, fortune or luck. It was all a matter of the Lord being in control. From here, however, thoughts naturally come up of whether or not people like Judas chose to betray Christ or whether it was already set up for him to take the fall. And the same with those who chose to murder the SOn of God. On the aspect of man's will being affected for the purposes of the Cross, it'd make perfect sense as to why the Son of Man had such an ability to forgive them even when they were sinning against him--for to a significant degree, they REally didn't know what they were doing....and had they knew the full ramifications of it, they'd probably would've stopped--just as it is with nearly all sinful activities where people willfully choose sin and yet are not really aware of the full ramifications of it when in the process of committining.

Luke 23:34
Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.
Luke 23:33-35 (in Context) Luke 23 (
​