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

[ABlessedAnomaly]

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...

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.

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

Greg

Where are you getting Greg from?

 

[Truthfrees]

Where are you getting Greg from?

He said he's traveling and using his ipad.

Maybe it's the auto-correct spelling feature that's doing it.

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

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...

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.

 

[dkbwarrior]

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.

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)]

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.

Respectfully,

That's actually NOT what Open Theism speaks of - and this has been noted by several within the world of Open Theism (which can easily be documented if necessary) when it comes to some of the caricatures others have had to deal with on the matter since they already noted where God knows the future and the issue for them is how He chooses to know - including ALL Possibilities for each/every option. More was said in Why Open Theism is Frightening for Some Christians | as well as Open Theism and the Assemblies of God
and Of God and Time |

It was never as if someone going to Hell when the die is told by God "I always knew you'd go to Hell anyway" (as if double-predestination) - nor is it something where others who were saved made it in and God said "I was hoping you'd make it" (as if He didn't have in mind how to ensure we'd all make it spotless like Jude 1:29 speaks of when it says "To him who is able to keep you from falling and present you before his glorious presence without spot or wrinkle" ). The categories were never that strict - and as others noted best, the future free choices of moral beings made in the image and likeness of God involve contingency, i.e., a "may or may not" aspect that is not open to "pre knowledge" in any fixed or determinate way. ​.. God's openness to man's response and willingness to forgive sin and change His mind accordingly is the true hallmark of the God revealed in the Bible.

One person wisely stated that "BECAUSE God is sovereign, he knows exactly what he intends to do…and that he can do it. The ultimate future, that is, what God has purposed must happen, he obviously knows because he’s decided he’ll do it and no power can stop him. However, that same sovereignty also allows God (that phrase is almost blasphemous…he’s “allowed” to do whatever he wants) to release to his creatures, anything he wants…that is, God can delegate decisions if he chooses. And if God delegates a choice, he truly releases it. This is why God is not lying or speaking symbolically when he tells Israel that “I have set before you life & death…therefor choose life” (see Deut. 30:19). God really means Israel can CHOOSE. He has released the choice to them…and until they make it, he doesn’t know which they’re going to choose. And further, though his will (wish) is that they choose life, in point of fact they chose death. God was disappointed…but I doubt he was surprised.



As it is, we already see where God tests people “to know” their character ( Genesis 22:12; 2 Chronicles 32:31, Deuteronomy 8:2, 8:21, 13:1–3; Judges 3:4) and God changes His mind. (E.g., Jeremiah 18; Joel 2:12–13; Jonah 4:2) - there are 39 passages that explicitly state that God changed his mind in response to a new development after he’d already announced his plan to go in a certain direction (e.g. Ex 32:14; Jer. 18:1-12; 1 Chr. 21:15, Gen 6:6; I Sam.15:10, 35) and over 200 places in the biblical narrative that reflects a change in God’s plan without explicitly stating it, leading to the question of "how can God change his mind in response to new developments if his mind is eternally certain of all that shall come to pass?" Some things set in stone and other things where it is truly open - and other Open Theists have long noted where God knows the future and is omniscient. To argue that God is omniscient and thus HAS to always know all things would be akin to arguing that Christ is not omniscient due to where he already said "No one knows the hour, not even the Son" (Matthew 24:36) - even though He is fully God and yet there are limitations in the Trinity when it comes to what things are allowed to be known.

IMHO, one would need to give direct quotation of other Open Theists, as well as addressing those not fitting what you note, in order for a claim to be true. Otherwise, it's throwing out something that no one ever said. To argue otherwise would be like someone claiming all Reformed individuals believe that humans have no capacity of choice or that all in WOF believe that doctors are of the devil because of the extremes done with Freeman. Are there limits within the extemes of Open Theism? Of course - but that doesn't mean that all concepts of openeness on aspects of the future are off.

I appreciate others opening up the dialogue of what it means for God to experience the world (more inhttps://afkimel.wordpress.com/2014/04/22/the-god-of-open-theism-meets-the-god-of-radical-transcendence/ or An Open Theism Theodicy | The Centrality and Supremacy of Jesus Christ ) - and on the issue, it really comes down to the Incarnation itself. What it means for Christ to experience the world (as God and Man) and relate to His own Creation in ways we cannot imagine - even being SUrprised (like Matthew 8 with the Roman Centurion who had more faith in Israel than any he met).

And for God to be impacted by the world as well.....a God who actually grieves, just as He did when he showed regret in Genesis 6 over what He had made.

The dynamics all go down to the main three positions within historical Christianity. As another said best (for brief reference):

In evangelical Protestant Christianity, there are essentially three positions on the relationship between God's sovereignty and human agency. (Not counting Molinism, which would be a possible fourth position). The first position is Calvinism, or more accurately theological determinism. In this view, God possesses comprehensive control over all things to the exclusion of free human agency. (Many, if not most, Calvinists will object at this point and claim their position does not exclude human freedom. To be clear, I am only considering a Libertarian theory of human agency genuine freedom. "Compatibilism" remains deterministic and is therefore ineligible to be considered genuine freedom in this discussion.)

The second position is Arminianism, or more broadly: "Free Will theism." In this view, God possesses comprehensive control over all things, yet it is claimed, however illogical, that human beings also possess genuine free agency. The Classical Arminian will appeal to mystery, antinomy, or paradox when confronted with the logical contradiction these two premises naturally form. The third position is a type of "Free Will theism," considered by some to be a form of Arminianism, yet more logically consistent. This position is called Open theism, the Open View, or just Open theology. In the Open View, God grants human beings genuine free agency by exercising providence in a dynamic fashion. In "real time," God is responding to and influencing human beings, as they together shape the future.

- See more at: The Real Answers: Damon Lindelof, Writing Lost, and the Providence of God | Theological Graffiti - Digital Etchings on Life and Faith​

That said, I do think Victoryword hit the nail on the head when speaking on the issue in the past - as noted here in the the older thread called Predestination, Foreknowledge or.......:

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.
Cindy

Originally 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.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Progressive revelation does not contradict previous revelation, but it clarifies it, interprets it, or replaces it.

Peace...

 

[dkbwarrior]

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.

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:

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.

Peace...

 

[dkbwarrior]

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 “Third Way”: Seeing God’s Beauty in the Depth of Scripture’s 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 Yahweh’s War Against the Nephilim

Thoughts?

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...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

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...)

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.

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...

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 forgot to mention that the idea of the Nephilim being in the Promised Land used to go right past me until I read further in the Scriptures....

Numbers 13:32-33
New International Version (NIV)

32 And they spread among the Israelites a bad report about the land they had explored. They said, “The land we explored devours those living in it. All the people we saw there are of great size. 33 We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”​

Genetics were a very real and present deal in the OT - and it's not hard considering how much the Lord was vehemently against genetic abominations. With things becoming so perverse in Noah's time, it's no surprise that he was spared and seen as a preacher of righteousness - not just spiritually pure but physically as well....something that would line up with the whole narrative since Noah was consistently noted within scripture to be a preacher of righteousness and one who lived properly before the Lord.

Hebrews 11:7
By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
Hebrews 11:6-8 / Hebrews 11 (

2 Peter 2:5
if he did not spare the ancient world when he brought the flood on its ungodly people, but protected Noah, a preacher of righteousness, and seven others;
2 Peter 2:4-6

Ezekiel 14:13-15/Ezekiel 14
Son of man, if a country sins against me by being unfaithful and I stretch out my hand against it to cut off its food supply and send famine upon it and kill its men and their animals, 14 even if these three men—Noah, Daniel[a] and Job—were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness, declares the Sovereign Lord.
​

As it concerns genetics and some of the other things happening in the time of Noah, more was shared on the matter in a recent thread on Giants/Nephilim - as seen here in #5 and here in #192. Years ago, I was following a dialouge between two well known scholars in the body of believers..known as Dr. Michael Heiser and another scholar when they were discussing the Nephilim/their identity, as seen if one goes online/looks up an article entitled "Random Reflections - Boyd and Heiser Dialogue On The Nephilim Question ( ). As was noted elsewhere (for brief reference):

Heiser marshals a number of convincing arguments against those who try to argue that the “sons of God” in this passage refer to the righteous lineage of Seth and that the “daughters of men” refer to the unrighteous lineage of Cain. Making use of his expertise in Ancient Near Eastern languages, he also refutes those who attempt to argue that the word Nephilim means “fallen ones” (as in fallen people) rather than supernaturally conceived giants. He thus defends the uniform ancient Jewish and early Christian understanding of this passage as a report of angelic beings (called "Watchers") who took on flesh, had intercourse with women and beget hybrid, quasi-divine creatures who were extraordinarily tall, strong and violent. According to Heisner, these Nephilim are the offspring of ha nachash that Yahweh had earlier prophesied would war against humans. Satan’s strategy, presumably, was to pollute the human gene pool in order to prevent the arrival of the fully human descendant of Eve (Jesus) who would overthrow Satan’s reign on earth.

Humans were apparently willing participants in this rebellion, for the Genesis account says the “sons of God” took “wives.” In other words, they didn’t rape women. According to I Enoch (which Heiser thinks is passing on reliable traditions), this unnatural intermingling began in the “days of Jared,” who is referenced in Genesis 5:18. This means this rebellious angelic activity had been going on for centuries before God decided it was time to judge humanity, the fallen angels and their hybrid children in Noah’s day. Moreover, Heiser argues that by telling us that only Noah and his immediate family were unsullied at this time, the Genesis author was showing that the seed of the woman “had nearly been eclipsed.” The purpose for the author inserting this strange episode at this point in the narrative was to justify God’s drastic action in flooding the land.

But the flood didn’t permanently solve the problem, Heiser argues. The Genesis author himself notes that the Nephilim existed not only before the flood but also afterwards (vs. 4) and we find descendants of the Nephilim all over the place in the land of Canaan. How is this possible? Heiser suggests that perhaps the flood was local, not global. (It’s important to remember that the word “earth” (eretz) in the Bible doesn’t refer to a planet [they had no such concept] but to whatever land a given writer had in mind when he or she wrote). On the other hand, if the flood was in fact global, perhaps the rebel gods resumed their project of creating hybrid-creatures once again after the flood. In support of this, Heiser notes that Genesis 6:4 could be translated: “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days – and also afterward – whenever (not simply when) the sons of God went to the daughters of humans beings and had children by them.”


​

I'm Thankful to know the Nephilim aspect is going to be taken seriously when it comes to the Cannanite scenario that took place. For more information, more can be found at his organization known as "The Divine Council - Michael Heisner"..... I take what Dr. Heisner seriously. He is a well-trained scholar in Near-Eastern/Middle Eastern studies and Semitic languages. And as said before, He also works with Logos Bible Software, used throughout the Body of Christ and well known for their excellence in the programs they give out. He has done a lot of work on topics that can be of a controversial nature... I remembered when I was first able to investigate some of his views on the Nephilim in an article he wrote entitled "Why Mylipin; / Myliypin; (Nephilim) - Michael S. Heiser" ( \), noting Numbers 13:32-33 and the reasons behind why the Nephilim were still present in the Promise Land just as they were in Genesis 6. Very engaging, as well as refreshing since it is often noted by many scholars that the Nephilim are to be demonized as the offspring of angels and men....even though the scriptures do not note that they sinned as the angels did.

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

 

[victoryword]

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...

Exactly!

 

[victoryword]

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

My apologies for the mistake on the name. Also just lost all of a long response to you that I don't feel like re typing. 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.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

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...

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 (

The Fifth Theological Oration: The Progressive Revelation of the Spirit​

) - but 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.

As said best:

It seems legitimate—and even necessary—to preserve the idea of progressive revelation insofar as it conforms to the teaching of Scripture itself. If Isaiah 1:11 calls for the abolition of ritual sacrifice, and, with the prophecy of Amos, summons Israel rather to acts of mercy and justice, it is because the people have reached a stage of spiritual maturity and commitment to God that henceforth makes such a calling both mandatory and acceptable. St Paul counts on a similar maturation among his audience at the Areopagus, as he issues a call to universal repentance (Acts 17:30, “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now He commands all men everywhere to repent…”). The Gospel of John is especially clear about the progressive quality of divine revelation. The prolog (1:17) declares, “the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”​

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

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...

Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

My apologies for the mistake on the name.

Not a problem

Also just lost all of a long response to you that I don't feel like re typing.

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.

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.

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).

Copeland actually noted this rather directly a number of times as did others. For reference, this is exactly what Gloria Copeland had said:

We think we live in dangerous times today, but the years just before the Flood beat anything we’ve ever seen. People were so wicked, they didn’t have any good thoughts. They were plotting evil all the time. Even so, God, in His great mercy and patience, put up with them as long as He could. Jewish sages tell us that one reason Methuselah lived so long was because his name meant “When he dies, judgment will come.” That’s exactly what happened. The Flood came the year Methuselah died. What a wonderful testimony to God’s mercy! It endures a long, long time. God is so merciful, He refused to send the Flood until the last possible moment. He waited until there was only one God-fearing family left on the earth that He could depend on.


He postponed judgment until just one man, Noah, stood between the annihilation of the human race and future generations. I’m telling you, Noah lived in a dangerous era! That ought to encourage us today because we’re living again in a time when violence is rampant in the world. Wickedness is again increasing. As a result, a certain amount of judgment is going to come. Many people who are committed to sin and refuse to repent and honor God will die early. They’ll fall prey to disease or catastrophe. Romans 6:23 says the wages of sin is death, and for those who work hard at sinning, payday comes too early. But we, as believers, are like Noah. We’ve found grace in the eyes of the Lord (Genesis
6:8)​

And Dr. Lester Sumrall also noted the same as it concerns his work The Mystery of Death when he said "Over the Next 700yrs, the filthy heart of man had become so wicked and disgusting to God that HE DECIDED to wipe out the world's population at that time - except for Noah and his family."

Lester Sumrall also noted the same in his book entitled The Cup of Life when he stated "We are all familiar with the devastating flood that God sent in Noah's day."

There was never any attributing the Flood to anything less than God Himself - and even if arguing an angelic mediator was the one who did the action, it was ultimately God who called for it and Gave the order - with God being responsible.

Additionally, I am aware of where Hagin himself noted that it was God who intended on destroying Sodom and Gommorah - not the enemy. This was noted by Hagin in his work entitled The Will of God in Prayer (also found in podcast format where Hagin preached, as seen here )when noting "God came down and talked with him before destroying those wicked cities. Abraham pleaded with God not to destroy the cities if as many as ten righteous people could be found...".

Hagin also said (in his work entitled "The Bible Prayer Study Course" ) on pg.104 that "Abraham asked God to spare Sodom and Gomorrah for the sake of ten righteous people, and God agreed to stay judgment if ten righteous were found. I believe Abraham surely thought there would be at least ten righteous in Sodom and Gomorrah. Think about that! God would have spared that city which was full of corruption and immorality for the sake of ten righteous people. The Bible says God never changes - He is forever the same (Mal. 3:6). Will He not do in our day what He did in Abraham's day?"


The same can be found in Hagin's work entitled "The Interceeding Christian" when speaking on how "We can hold backjudgment even on the unsaved, and give them a little more of a
chance to hear the Gospel" (pg.11)...with this similar to what Charles Capp said in his book on Angels/ series on Angels/Judgment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2HqW9ud0A0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjGvBPr0w5c

Also, As said there in his work entitled Authority in Prayer – :

In Genesis chapter 18, we read that God intended to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of their great sin. But Abraham-who understood his covenant rights in prayer-intervened on behalf of the two cities, and made a deal with God!

​

Hagin placed emphasis on the city living or dying based on what God desired - not the devil.

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.

I checked out that scripture before - and the version you used was the (KJV). That said, in differing translations:

1 Corinthians 10:9-11New International Version (NIV)
9 We should not test Christ,[a] as some of them did—and were killed by snakes. 10 And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel.​

Destroying angel is used in a couple of other places - with it being in reference to the Angel of the Lord since it was never just the enemy seen to destroy:

2 Samuel 24:16 15 So the Lord sent a plague upon Israel from the morning till the appointed time. From Dan to Beersheba seventy thousand men of the people died. 16 And when the angel stretched out His hand over Jerusalem to destroy it, the Lord relented from the destruction, and said to the angel who was destroying the people, “It is enough; now restrain your hand.” And the angel of the Lord was by the threshing floor of Araunah[c] the Jebusite.

7 Then David spoke to the Lord when he saw the angel who was striking the people, and said, “Surely I have sinned, and I have done wickedly; but these sheep, what have they done? Let Your hand, I pray, be against me and against my father’s house.

1 Chronicles 21:18
Therefore, the angel of the Lord commanded Gad to say to David that David should go and erect an altar to the Lord on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.

1 Chronicles 21:30
But David could not go before it to inquire of God, for he was afraid of the sword of the angel of the Lord.

1 Chronicles 21:11-13 New King James Version (NKJV)

11 So Gad came to David and said to him, “Thus says the Lord: ‘Choose for yourself, 12 either three[a] years of famine, or three months to be defeated by your foes with the sword of your enemies overtaking you, or else for three days the sword of the Lord—the plague in the land, with the angel of the Lord destroying throughout all the territory of Israel.’ Now consider what answer I should take back to Him who sent me.” 3 And David said to Gad, “I am in great distress. Please let me fall into the hand of the Lord, for His mercies are very great; but do not let me fall into the hand of man.”


​

David chose the option of a plague since he knew it would be delivered by the Angel of the Lord - seeing it as a means of falling into God's Hands ....not the Devils, since the enemy was never referenced at any point in scripture as the Angel of the Lord. This goes back to the concept of understanding who the Angel of the Lord is - with him consistently referenced in the Jewish worldview as an agent of God and others saying it was God Himself (Genesis 16:7, Genesis 22:11, Exodus 3:2, Numbers 22:22, Judges 6:21, Judges 2:4, Judges 13:16, 1 Kings 19:7, 2 Kings 1:3, Psalm 35:5, Psalm 34:7, Zechariah 3:1, Acts 7:30, Acts 8:26, etc.). He's also referenced directly in the account of the prophet Baalam when it came to God's judgment:

Numbers 22:21-34 New King James Version (NKJV)


Balaam, the Donkey, and the Angel
22 Then God’s anger was aroused because he went, and the Angel of the Lord took His stand in the way as an adversary against him. And he was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him. 23 Now the donkey saw the Angel of the Lord standing in the way with His drawn sword in His hand, and the donkey turned aside out of the way and went into the field. So Balaam struck the donkey to turn her back onto the road. 24 Then the Angel of the Lord stood in a narrow path between the vineyards, with a wall on this side and a wall on that side. 25 And when the donkey saw the Angel of the Lord, she pushed herself against the wall and crushed Balaam’s foot against the wall; so he struck her again. 26 Then the Angel of the Lord went further, and stood in a narrow place where there was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left......

28 Then the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?”

29 And Balaam said to the donkey, “Because you have abused me. I wish there were a sword in my hand, for now I would kill you!”

30 So the donkey said to Balaam, “Am I not your donkey on which you have ridden, ever since I became yours, to this day? Was I ever disposed to do this to you?”

And he said, “No.”

31 Then the Lord opened Balaam’s eyes, and he saw the Angel of the Lord standing in the way with His drawn sword in His hand; and he bowed his head and fell flat on his face. 32 And the Angel of the Lord said to him, “Why have you struck your donkey these three times? Behold, I have come out to stand against you, because your way is perverse before Me. 33 The donkey saw Me and turned aside from Me these three times. If she had not turned aside from Me, surely I would also have killed you by now, and let her live.”​

And of course, in the time of Hezekiah when he was being attacked by Assyria, the same Angel of the Lord came and wiped out enemy nations:

2 Kings 19:35
[ Sennacherib’s Defeat and Death ] And it came to pass on a certain night that the angel of the Lord went out, and killed in the camp of the Assyrians one hundred and eighty-five thousand; and when people arose early in the morning, there were the corpses—all dead.​

For more reference, from the ESV Study Bible:

"Ex. 3:2 Where the angel of the Lord appears in the OT, he is often described as acting or speaking in a manner that suggests he is more than simply an angel or messenger and that he is closely identified with God himself (e.g., Gen. 22:11–18). Here he appears to Moses in a flame of fire, which is a sign of God's presence throughout the events narrated in the book of Exodus: in the pillar of fire and cloud that leads and protects the Israelites (Ex. 13:21–22); in the signs of God's presence on Mount Sinai (19:18); and in the tabernacle (40:38). The angel also protects Israel when they come out of Egypt (14:19), and God promises that he will go before Israel into the land of Canaan (23:20; 33:2). In 3:4 this angel of God is identified as “the Lord” and “God.”​

For reference on the concept of Theophanies and how the Destroying Angel was indeed Christ:

• The Angel of God in Exodus 23 and 33

• Parashat Vayera - The Three Visitors

• The Hebrew Scriptures & The Writings of The Jewish Sages - The Deity of Yeshua Confirmed

• Theophany in Old Testament - The Face of God | Michael Bittle - Academia.edu

• The Angel of the Lord

• Theophanies in the Old Testament - Answers in Genesis

• Angel of the LORD

• Theophanies in the OT

 

[Gxg (G²)]

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.

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...

 

[now faith]

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.

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.

 

[now faith]

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 New Testament confirms the Flood and Sodom and Gomorrah.
2 Peter: 2. 4. For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; 5. And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6. And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

Any supernatural hybrid mutants would have been destroyed.
Genesis: 7. 21. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 22. All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 23. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.


Here are the generation's of post flood people who were cursed by Noah.
This includes Canaanites and Sodom and Gomorrah.

Genesis: 10. 6. And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan. 7. And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtecha: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan. 8. And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. 9. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD. 10. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. 11. Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, 12. And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city. 13. And Mizraim begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim, 14. And Pathrusim, and Casluhim, (out of whom came Philistim,) and Caphtorim. 15. And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth, 16. And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite, 17. And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, 18. And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite: and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad. 19. And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza; as thou goest, unto Sodom, and Gomorrah, and Admah, and Zeboim, even unto Lasha. 20. These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations.

 

[now faith]

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...

Amen Bro.
I was commenting on progressive revelation that moves outside of God's Word.
Example: Open Thesim,LDS,Urantia,Kabbalah,Jehovah's Witness.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

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]

If I may say...

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" ..

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.

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.

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 יְהֹוָ&#1492 walking 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.