I was wrong

SpiritPsalmist · Mar 11, 2007

New_Wineskin said:
Ok . Thanks , for listening . It still looks like you are saying that the Lord cannot be the liar in those passages because the lying spirit that He sent did the lying even though He knew that the spirit would succeed and was obeying His order . *shrug* Oh , well . Thanks , again .

No matter how our un-perfect minds see it "God is not a man that He should lie". I don't think He told the spirit "go lie". I think the lying spirit was hanging around looking for a place to go (just like with Job) and God said something like, "ok, go." The lying spirits did what they do.

Lying spirits come to us routinely yet it's our choice of whether we believe them or not. Are we to view it as God doing the lying to us because the lying spirit came? Does God giving His ok for a lying spirit to come lie to us mean that the spirit is going to succeed with its lies? No one is forced to believe a lie. If a person knows God they will not listen to the voice of another. Nor will they follow it. Gods ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. Trying to understand God based on our perception is not Truth. God does not lie.

John 10:4 "And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice."

John 10:5 "And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers."

John 10:27 "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:"

The point God seems to be making in all the situations where lying spirits are sent out is "who will be listening with ears that hear correctily" and who will not.

Matt 11:15 "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

Matt 13:9 "Who hath ears to hear, let him hear."

Matt 13:15 "For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."

Matt 13:16 "But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear."

New_Wineskin · Mar 11, 2007

Quaffer said:
No matter how our un-perfect minds see it "God is not a man that He should lie". I don't think He told the spirit "go lie". I think the lying spirit was hanging around looking for a place to go (just like with Job) and God said something like, "ok, go." The lying spirits did what they do.

He is reported to have said much more than "ok , go" .

21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.' 22 " 'By what means?' the LORD asked.
" 'I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,' he said.
" 'You will succeed in enticing him,' said the LORD. 'Go and do it.' (NIV)

You will succeed in your lies - so , go do it .

Again , I am not saying whether He can lie or not . I was going after the idea that being an accomplice or being one part removed of something is being innocent of the act . Looking at someone sending someone or something to deceive and saying that they themselves are not to blame isn't a good idea to hang your hat on . That is why I presented the person having a hitman to murder another . The person who sends the hitman does not pull the trigger .

All , I am saying is that there may be a better way than that line of logic to look at those passages about the lying spirit .

No matter how our un-perfect minds see it "God is not a man that He should lie".

Perhaps , imperfect minds are not correctly translating or interpreting that sentence correctly , either .

SpiritPsalmist · Mar 11, 2007

The lying spirits succeed because the hearers do not have ears to hear who was talking.

God is not a man that he should lie. To me it does not matter if a lying spirit is sent out or not and it does not matter what God said in the situation. What does matter is whether I have ears to hear who is doing the talking or not. It is not God doing the lying. The Lord did not "will" the success of the lie. The Lord knew that the hearer had lost his ears to hear and therefore would believe whatever the lying spirit said. We cannot blame God for anyone choosing to believe a lie.

SpiritPsalmist · Mar 11, 2007

New_Wineskin said:
Again , I am not saying whether He can lie or not . I was going after the idea that being an accomplice or being one part removed of something is being innocent of the act . Looking at someone sending someone or something to deceive and saying that they themselves are not to blame isn't a good idea to hang your hat on . That is why I presented the person having a hitman to murder another . The person who sends the hitman does not pull the trigger .

All , I am saying is that there may be a better way than that line of logic to look at those passages about the lying spirit .

I see your point. The difference though between God sending a lying spirit and a mob head sending a hitman is that God is not out to destroy His people. He did not send a lying spirit so that His people would be misled. He sent a lying spirit so that His people, in their choosing to listen to "another" could see that their ears were not hearing correctly and they needed to repent and return.

Maybe my example is not perfect. I'm not claiming perfection in explaining what I'm thinking. I'm sure there is a more perfect way but as of yet have not come up with it.

JimB · Mar 11, 2007

churchlady said:
Will you address this, JimM ?

Ill give it my best shot.

1 John 3.9 No one born (begotten) of God [deliberately, knowingly, and habitually] practices sin, for God's nature abides in him [His principle of life, the divine sperm, remains permanently within him]; and he cannot practice sinning because he is born (begotten) of God.

He cannot keep on sinning, not because it is impossible for a believer to do so, but because of his new nature a believer will not keep on sinning.

How many believers do you know that do keep on repeating the same stupid sin/s? I have known more than just a few. Heck , I see some the same stinking attitudes from the same posters cropping up in CF from time to time. Some are judgmental, some are unkind, some are insulting, but from some people, they never stop. So, habitual sin must not be an impossibility, even for a believer.

\o/

Life is like drawing without an eraser.

SpiritPsalmist · Mar 11, 2007

Not that I think you're talking about me Jim (I hope you're not) but just in case I try to not come across judgemental, unkind, or insulting but sometimes no matter how hard I try to word things perfectly they just are not received that way. I don't see that the sinful action is always on the side of the one conveying the message but may as well be on the side of the receiver. Else, I think we could legitimately blame God for everything foul in our lives, since it's HIS message that we have misunderstood so much of the time.

churchlady · Mar 11, 2007

Jim M said:
Ill give it my best shot.

1 John 3.9 No one born (begotten) of God [deliberately, knowingly, and habitually] practices sin, for God's nature abides in him [His principle of life, the divine sperm, remains permanently within him]; and he cannot practice sinning because he is born (begotten) of God.

He cannot keep on sinning, not because it is impossible for a believer to do so, but because of his new nature a believer will not keep on sinning.

How many believers do you know that do keep on repeating the same stupid sin/s? I have known more than just a few. Heck , I see some the same stinking attitudes from the same posters cropping up in CF from time to time. Some are judgmental, some are unkind, some are insulting, but from some people, they never stop. So, habitual sin must not be an impossibility, even for a believer.

This answer completely ignores the clear teachings of Romans 7, which shows us that after we are born again, the law of sin and death still resides in the fleshly members and wars against the spirit.

The law of sin and death is not in our new creation spirit man.

Any habitual sin in a christians life is because he chooses to continue to walk after the flesh, and not listen to the desires of his spirit man.

Also, you used a translation of I John 3:9 that gives an entirely different interpetation than the King James, or the New American Standard (which is considered one of the most faithful to the original manuscripts).

If I walk after the spirit, I cannot sin.......there's no sin nature there to draw from.

If I walk after the flesh................well...we know where that leads.

DreamerOfDreams · Mar 11, 2007

Jim M said:
Ill give it my best shot.

1 John 3.9 No one born (begotten) of God [deliberately, knowingly, and habitually] practices sin, for God's nature abides in him [His principle of life, the divine sperm, remains permanently within him]; and he cannot practice sinning because he is born (begotten) of God.

He cannot keep on sinning, not because it is impossible for a believer to do so, but because of his new nature a believer will not keep on sinning.

How many believers do you know that do keep on repeating the same stupid sin/s? I have known more than just a few. Heck , I see some the same stinking attitudes from the same posters cropping up in CF from time to time. Some are judgmental, some are unkind, some are insulting, but from some people, they never stop. So, habitual sin must not be an impossibility, even for a believer.

\o/

Life is like drawing without an eraser.

Jim,
The logic of this verse is that the reason we cannot sin is that our Father cannot sin and we inherited His sinless nature. Therefore we do not sin because He does not sin.
To introduce the bogus concept of "habitual sin" into this verse makes God a sinner by association... howbeit just not a "habitual sinner."
No... God does not sin at all much less "habitually."

Adding words into the verse is always a bad practice.... not something we should do "habitually."

J4Jesus · Mar 11, 2007

Foadle said:
This was never intended as a debate thread------------------
----------------------
-------------------------------------
Thank you for your support.

This is a person who was not too proud to admit when she was wrong. She humbled herself and apologized, IMO this is commendable and she should not to be treated in this way. THAT was her only PURPOSE for this thread. Nothing else. And debating her intentions and what she said is certainly not "support."

THIS IS NOT A DEBATE THREAD. Please have some respect and take it somewhere else.

Luke 17:2
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones

Questioning Christian · Mar 12, 2007

scratching my head, wondering if I should post in this topic

Questioning Christian · Mar 12, 2007

Okay, let me sum up my thoughts this way ...

Never mind the debate part of this topic ...

Let us just focus on Leah, and on her heartfelt statement. She's trying to pour out her soul to us, to express feelings that are in her inward being.

We don't speak for Leah. Leah speaks for Leah. So if she says it was a revelation, who is anyone to argue to the contrary? Then to come out and accuse her of trying to stir the pot, and to assign wrongful motives to her, this is atrocious.

You need to put your swords away, and beat them back into plowshares, saith the Lord.

Preacherchick99 · Mar 12, 2007

Good Word Stephen!

You basically said what I was gonna say.

Ya'llz that are arguing--Shut it.

Don't be thread jackers.

Foadle was apologizing for a "revelation" she recieved. If she asks for an apology--Just forgive her if you feel it is necessary and say something NICE! Don't come all up in here all ghetto starting more crap when she has humbled herself.

Gosh ppl.

There's the spirit of stupid running rampant all over this place today >.< Yeah I said it--The spirit of STUPID.

SpiritPsalmist · Mar 12, 2007

foadle said:
Hi guys. I don't know how many of you remember a thread a while back on whether or not God can lie. I argued that God could indeed lie but that he did not. I was very wrong. God can't lie. sorry to you all for expressing what was not truth.

Thank you for letting us know where your mind has been changed on a particular issue.

jrlinz · Mar 12, 2007

It is truly a sad state of affairs when people are so eager to push their doctrine that they have zero respect for someone like Foadle, who came with a contrite heart, to tell of a change of heart she had, presumably from the Lord. They just plow through with utter disregard.

God bless you, Foadle.

JimB · Mar 12, 2007

Questioning Christian said:
Okay, let me sum up my thoughts this way ...

Never mind the debate part of this topic ...

Let us just focus on Leah, and on her heartfelt statement. She's trying to pour out her soul to us, to express feelings that are in her inward being.

We don't speak for Leah. Leah speaks for Leah. So if she says it was a revelation, who is anyone to argue to the contrary? Then to come out and accuse her of trying to stir the pot, and to assign wrongful motives to her, this is atrocious.

You need to put your swords away, and beat them back into plowshares, saith the Lord.

Thanks for the lecture, QC. But more than a decade ago I had a revelation of my own that exposed the physical-healing-in-the-atonement (PHIA) doctrine as a seriously erroneous teaching and I painfully repented of and abandoned it. Subsequent study on the subject with my mind cleansed from its false teaching confirmed to me that I had indeed received revelation on the matter.

Now, in this forum, in discussions on the subject, I have not claimed “revelation” because PHIA is so much an ingrained part of the psyche of some that I cannot expect them to receive a revelation as I did, so I have, instead, tried to reason with them from scripture (with some positive results) instead of just pulling the God-card on them and claiming special revelation.

Claiming to have received truth only by revelation from God on a matter is not fighting fair. How am I/you to know you/I have actually received a revelation of truth or whether you/I simply swallowed a lie? It is impossible to know. And, because I/you do not know you/me, we cannot make an honest judgment on the matter. But what I cannot and will not do is simply take anyone’s word for it that they have received a revelation of “true” doctrine. This is a ploy that has been used by cult founders for ages. It is called “mystical manipulation”.

Look at this very unimpressive list of those who have received alleged revelatory “truth” and founded cults on those "revelations":

Joseph Smith

Brigham Young
Mary Baker Eddy
Ellen G. White
Jim Jones
David Koresh
L. Ron Hubbard
Etc.

So, no, of course, I do not accept foadle’s “revelation” at face value just because she claims to have received one. That does not mean I do not respect her or love her. It’s just that I do not know whether she has actually received a revelation or not. She could be wrong. She may very well just think she has received it and so order her entire life based on it, but she is going to have to convince me in some other way (i.e., from scripture and reason) and not simply pull a revelation-card on me, especially on a subject that I and others are just as convinced from scripture that she is wrong about.

She could expect the same from me.

\o/

Life is like drawing without an eraser.

jrlinz · Mar 12, 2007

It is likewise, as possible that your 'revelation' on healing was something you just 'think' you recieved from God, Jim. But i really doubt Foadle opened this thread for the purpose of stirring the pot. Was that your impression? Nevertheless, the pot was stirred.

JimB · Mar 12, 2007

jrlinz said:
It is likewise, as possible that your 'revelation' on healing was something you just 'think' you recieved from God, Jim. But i really doubt Foadle opened this thread for the purpose of stirring the pot. Was that your impression? Nevertheless, the pot was stirred.

I cannot judge Foadles motives,of course, but to tell me (and others) that she has received an imagined revelation of truth about something I (and others) am convinced is horribly wrong (and which some may think they have received same kind of revelation about, too) is, in effect, indirectly calling the rest of us deceived. Foadle may have meant this as just a way of receiving a pat on the back from those who agree with her new-found revelation but expecting the rest of us to just say, Okay, then, I guess we were wrong, is asking quite a lot.

If Foadle saw the light it just may be the proverbial train coming from the other end of the tunnel.

IMO, of course.

\o/

Life is like drawing without an eraser.

jrlinz · Mar 12, 2007

Appears to be conviction, or something like it, Jim (JMHO). However, I do not wish go further from the original purpose of the thread, so I will drop it.
God bless.

JimB · Mar 12, 2007

Okay. But dropping a subject with an insult – “appears to be conviction” - is a cheap shot, JR. That’s sort of like a drive-by shooting.

\o/

Life is like drawing without an eraser.

probinson · Mar 12, 2007

Jim M said:
Well, my Bibles (NIV, NLT) say that “God does not lie”. It does not say he “cannot” lie. Apparently your preferred translation readsl like that but mine says “doesn’t”, not can’t.

Not to but;

Can God lie? 20 translations say NO!

I was wrong

Heavy lean toward Messianic

Contributor

Heavy lean toward Messianic

Heavy lean toward Messianic

Legend

Heavy lean toward Messianic

De Oppresso Liber

DreamerOfDreams

Guest

MY HEART BELONGS TO JESUS

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Heavy lean toward Messianic

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Well-Known Member

Legend

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency