K. Hagin & God allowing or causing sickness

LinkH

Regular Member
Jun 19, 2006
8,602
669
✟43,833.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Some Charismatics are influenced by Kenneth Hagin or the type of thought found among some Pentecostals of the decades prior to Hagin's ministry who had this idea that God never does anything 'bad' especially if it involves making people sick.

Kenneth Hagin had a little booklet that referred to someone who said that a certain Hebrew grammatical feature could be translated as 'allowed' or caused. Without checking to see if every case of God executing wrath, vengence, or causing sickness involved this gramamtical feature, Hagin theorized that all such cases were cases of God 'allowing' judgment.

It doesn't make much sense if you look at certain passages. For example, we see in the Bible that God blew the Red Sea down on the Egyptians.

Exodus 15
10 But you blew with your breath,
and the sea covered them.
They sank like lead
in the mighty waters.

Whether God 'allowed' Himself to blow, or caused himself to blow the water on the Egyptians, He did it. You can't blame the Devil for it.

Lots of Charismatics and Pentecostals love the verse that says, "I am the God that healeth thee." It's a great verse. But lets look at the first part.

Exodus 15
26 He said, “If you listen carefully to the Lord your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the Lord, who heals you.”
(NIV)

According to this verse, who brought the sicknesses on the Egyptians. The Lord God did it. Whether He allowed Himself to bring the sicknesses on the Egyptians or 'caused' Himself to do it, He did it. The Hagin allowed versus caused thing doesn't work with this verse.
 

Faulty

bind on pick up
Supporter
Apr 23, 2005
9,467
1,019
✟64,989.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Some Charismatics are influenced by Kenneth Hagin or the type of thought found among some Pentecostals of the decades prior to Hagin's ministry who had this idea that God never does anything 'bad' especially if it involves making people sick.

Kenneth Hagin had a little booklet that referred to someone who said that a certain Hebrew grammatical feature could be translated as 'allowed' or caused. Without checking to see if every case of God executing wrath, vengence, or causing sickness involved this gramamtical feature, Hagin theorized that all such cases were cases of God 'allowing' judgment.

In his book, "I Believe in Visions", he speaks of Jesus visiting him in the hospital after he fell and hurt his elbow and shoulder. Jesus tells him that he could have prevented the injury, but did not want to do so, but let the devil do it through His "permissive" will, rather than His "perfect" will because Hagin had been disobedient at some point.

Jesus also told him that he wouldn' heal his arm, but accelerate the healing process a bit, still requiring weeks of a cast and a sling, and also that he wouldn't heal it 100%, but only 99%. So, a slow and incomplete healing is what Jesus promised him, and incomplete as retaining a reminder in the flesh not to disobey God anymore (sort of like Paul's thorn in the flesh, but I digress), and it stayed with him his whole life, by his own admission.

I do realize this causes an issue with some who claim that perfect healing is promised to all believers at all times, but Hagin wasn't healed by his own admission and that by a direct revelation of God that he would not be completely healed. So, either one needs to jettison the "all healing all the time" philosophy, or admit Hagin was a liar and Jesus told him no such thing, because the two don't go together.

If anyone has that book and wants to read it for themselves, it's on pages 90 through 93.
 
Upvote 0

dkbwarrior

Favoured of the Lord
Sep 19, 2006
4,186
511
58
Tulsa, Oklahoma
✟14,349.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
In his book, "I Believe in Visions", he speaks of Jesus visiting him in the hospital after he fell and hurt his elbow and shoulder. Jesus tells him that he could have prevented the injury, but did not want to do so, but let the devil do it through His "permissive" will, rather than His "perfect" will because Hagin had been disobedient at some point.

Jesus also told him that he wouldn' heal his arm, but accelerate the healing process a bit, still requiring weeks of a cast and a sling, and also that he wouldn't heal it 100%, but only 99%. So, a slow and incomplete healing is what Jesus promised him, and incomplete as retaining a reminder in the flesh not to disobey God anymore (sort of like Paul's thorn in the flesh, but I digress), and it stayed with him his whole life, by his own admission.

I do realize this causes an issue with some who claim that perfect healing is promised to all believers at all times, but Hagin wasn't healed by his own admission and that by a direct revelation of God that he would not be completely healed. So, either one needs to jettison the "all healing all the time" philosophy, or admit Hagin was a liar and Jesus told him no such thing, because the two don't go together.

If anyone has that book and wants to read it for themselves, it's on pages 90 through 93.

I remember reading that, and didn't agree with it when I read it. Scripture always takes precedence over an individual. However, I certainly don't agree with your assertion that either it is "all healing all the time" or Hagin is a liar. What a judgemental world you live in. That would be like me saying that if the writer of 1 Samuel was accurate, then the writer of 1 Chronicles is a liar, because one says that the Lord moved David to number Israel, and the other says that satan moved David to number Israel. God speaks to people in the context of their understanding. He did so in Bble times, and He does so today. Something that sounds contradictory to you doesn't neccesarily mean someone is a liar, unless, of course, you have a heart desire to WANT them to be a liar, in which case you will be looking for reasons to call them that.

Peace...
 
Upvote 0

dkbwarrior

Favoured of the Lord
Sep 19, 2006
4,186
511
58
Tulsa, Oklahoma
✟14,349.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Some Charismatics are influenced by Kenneth Hagin or the type of thought found among some Pentecostals of the decades prior to Hagin's ministry who had this idea that God never does anything 'bad' especially if it involves making people sick.

Kenneth Hagin had a little booklet that referred to someone who said that a certain Hebrew grammatical feature could be translated as 'allowed' or caused. Without checking to see if every case of God executing wrath, vengence, or causing sickness involved this gramamtical feature, Hagin theorized that all such cases were cases of God 'allowing' judgment.

It doesn't make much sense if you look at certain passages. For example, we see in the Bible that God blew the Red Sea down on the Egyptians.

Exodus 15
10 But you blew with your breath,
and the sea covered them.
They sank like lead
in the mighty waters.

Whether God 'allowed' Himself to blow, or caused himself to blow the water on the Egyptians, He did it. You can't blame the Devil for it.

Lots of Charismatics and Pentecostals love the verse that says, "I am the God that healeth thee." It's a great verse. But lets look at the first part.

Exodus 15
26 He said, “If you listen carefully to the Lord your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to his commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am the Lord, who heals you.”
(NIV)

According to this verse, who brought the sicknesses on the Egyptians. The Lord God did it. Whether He allowed Himself to bring the sicknesses on the Egyptians or 'caused' Himself to do it, He did it. The Hagin allowed versus caused thing doesn't work with this verse.

There are mutliplied scores of times in the Bible that it says that God did something that most christians know is not in the character of the God we serve. If that is the only evidence we had, we would still know that God does not do such things, because we believe that God is good. However, the verses that state that God is good, often seem to contradict those places that say or imply that He does evil. For those who wish to remain faithful to the Word, one choice is to believe that God does both good and evil, but that the evil He does is for the greater good. But then, this flies in the face of Jesus statement that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. So what to do, what to do?

Yet the solution is simple, really. The Bible give us the answer, if we search, if we seek him with all of our hearts. I am going to give you a key, I am going to reveal to you a mystery. Do with it what you will.

The Bible says that God killed the firstborn in Egypt, does it not?

29And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote
all the firstborn in the land of Egypt,
from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne
unto the firstborn of the captive
that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.
-Exodus 12:29

But the obvious interpretation of that cannot be all of the truth, because another passage tells us that the destroyer killed the firstborn:

23For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians;
and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts,
the LORD will pass over the door,
and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.
-Exodus 12:23

Now, we know that the destroyer is not God. Jesus said that the thief is the destroyer, in John 10:10, who would be satan.

Further more, (and this is an even more clear example), the Bible says that the Lord moved David to number Isreal:

1And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
2For the king said to Joab the captain of the host, which was with him, Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beersheba,
and number ye the people, that I may know the number of the people.
-2 Samuel 24:1-2

But again, the obvious interpretation of that cannot be all of the truth, because the account in Chronicles of this same event tells us that satan moved David:

1And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
2And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan;
and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it.
-1 Chronicles 21:1-2

Now we know that satan is not God. But it is interesting to note here that satan is called the anger of the Lord. This is womething that we need to keep in mind when we read of the anger or the wrath of God. Whatever you do with your theology, it has to give account of these passages.

It is obvious to me that satan is the enforcer of death. When the Bible says that God did some act of evil, it is because God takes direct responsibilty for these things, as they were all within the allowable parameters of His creation when He gave creatures within it free-will. In other words, they are within His permissive will. But He is not the one responsible for the individual events. We are, or satan and his hosts are. Satan is an angel of the Lord. He may be a fallen one, but the angel of the Lord he still is.

I know you are not doing it on purpose, but the interpretation that you are giving makes God the enforcer of evil. And He is not. If He was the enforcer of evil, then that would make Him evil. In addition, the verses I gave above show clearly that when the Bible says that God did evil, that it really means that satan did evil under the permissive will of God. This brings all statements in the Bible of this kind into a different light, as they all have to be interpreted in this context. And I do not serve an evil God. I serve a good God.

Peace...
 
Upvote 0

Faulty

bind on pick up
Supporter
Apr 23, 2005
9,467
1,019
✟64,989.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I remember reading that, and didn't agree with it when I read it. Scripture always takes precedence over an individual. However, I certainly don't agree with your assertion that either it is "all healing all the time" or Hagin is a liar. What a judgemental world you live in. That would be like me saying that if the writer of 1 Samuel was accurate, then the writer of 1 Chronicles is a liar, because one says that the Lord moved David to number Israel, and the other says that satan moved David to number Israel. God speaks to people in the context of their understanding. He did so in Bble times, and He does so today. Something that sounds contradictory to you doesn't neccesarily mean someone is a liar, unless, of course, you have a heart desire to WANT them to be a liar, in which case you will be looking for reasons to call them that.

Peace...

You can't have your cake and eat it too on this one.

This isn't Hagin saying these things. He's quoting Jesus. Either Jesus said it to Hagin and that's the end of the debate, or Jesus did not say it to Hagin.

When you say you disagree with it, there are only two things to object to, the claim of Hagin that Jesus said what he claims Jesus said, or to the actual words of his Jesus as being incorrect. He's quoting a Jesus who visited him.

Either the words of that Jesus are 100% accurate, or Hagin didn't see Jesus at all. Which is it?
 
Upvote 0

dkbwarrior

Favoured of the Lord
Sep 19, 2006
4,186
511
58
Tulsa, Oklahoma
✟14,349.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You can't have your cake and eat it too on this one.

This isn't Hagin saying these things. He's quoting Jesus. Either Jesus said it to Hagin and that's the end of the debate, or Jesus did not say it to Hagin.

When you say you disagree with it, there are only two things to object to, the claim of Hagin that Jesus said what he claims Jesus said, or to the actual words of his Jesus as being incorrect. He's quoting a Jesus who visited him.

Either the words of that Jesus are 100% accurate, or Hagin didn't see Jesus at all. Which is it?

All scripture is inspired by God. By your logic, if the person writing 2 Samuel was truly inspired by God, then the person writing 1 Chronicles wasn't, because one said that the Lord moved David to number Israel, and the other said that satan moved God to number Israel. But it is not as simple as that, is it? You are not prepared to call one of them a liar, are you?

The biblical conundrum between 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles, as well as the one involving the death of the firstborn in Exodus, show us that God will both place responsibility for evil on satan, and/or place responsibilty on Himself, without either statment being a "lie".

You could theorize on why that is, and if you can come up with a better explanation than I have come up with, I would like to hear it. My explanation is simply that God talks to each of us within the context of our understanding of authority and responsibility at the time. After all, both statements can be correct.

Satan is the one who holds the power of death. The New Testament is clear on that. Yet it is God who put in place the rules and laws by which this creation exists, and even satan has to follow those rules. This makes God ultimately responsible for all things, in the sense that He created a systen where such things were bound to come about.

Keep in mind also that Kenneth Hagin preached for well over 60 years. His theology developed and changed, I am certain, in that time. The event that you describe was earlier in his career, and the Word of Jesus to him may well have reflected his incomplete understanding of authority at the time. This does not make it a lie, any more than the writer of 2 Samuel hearing the Spirit within the confines of his incomplete understanding of authority at that time, makes his statement a lie.

Peace...
 
Upvote 0

Simon Peter

14th Generation PROTESTant
Mar 4, 2004
2,486
258
America
✟4,491.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Keep in mind also that Kenneth Hagin preached for well over 60 years. His theology developed and changed, I am certain, in that time. The event that you describe was earlier in his career, and the Word of Jesus to him may well have reflected his incomplete understanding of authority at the time.



No, Hagin was at the very least 63 years old at the time, and he was 67 when he wrote the book.

During the story about his arm, Hagin says this (page 92):


He went on to say, "You have enjoyed divine health for 25
years. Even now you are not sick. But," He said, "you have been
out of My perfect will for two years and have been walking only
in My permissive will."

(More than fifty years have now passed since I was healed
as a teenager.



NB. There are versions of Hagin's book:

"I believe in VISIONS"

that have had that passage about the arm removed from it!


peace,
Simon
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

dkbwarrior

Favoured of the Lord
Sep 19, 2006
4,186
511
58
Tulsa, Oklahoma
✟14,349.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No, Hagin was at the very least 63 years old at the time, and he was 67 when he wrote the book.

During the story about his arm, Hagin says this (page 92):


He went on to say, "You have enjoyed divine health for 25
years. Even now you are not sick. But," He said, "you have been
out of My perfect will for two years and have been walking only
in My permissive will."

(More than fifty years have now passed since I was healed
as a teenager.



NB. There are versions of Hagin's book:

"I believe in VISIONS"

that have had that passage about the arm removed from it!


peace,
Simon

You get no dispute here, as I am not sure of the dates, and don't want to take the time to look them up. I'll take your word for it. I was simply speaking from my own personal experience. When I became interested in Kenneth Hagin this story was already old news, and had been in print for quite some time. Age 63 would have been 23 years before his death, and would have put the date around 1980. In 1980 the faith movement was still really mainly a one man show, and that was Kenneth Hagin. There was also Charles Capps, and Norvel Hayes, but the movement didn't really start to mature until the mid to late 80's, when Kenneth Copeland began to impact the national stage. Alot of doctinal views were refined and matured among the faith movement during this time. In fact, one of the seminal books written by him was the Midas Touch, published not long before he died.

If there are versions of that book with that part removed, then I would say that is evidence postive of what I am saying. He may well have matured away from that former view of authority. I can't speak for Kenneth Hagin of course, but if it were me, and Jesus had told me that earlier in my life, and then later I came to a clearer understanding of authority, I would not think that the former vision was false; rather I would just reinterpet it in the light of the new knowledge that I had, in line with the difference in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles. I would simply realize that what I heard Jesus say in the vision was from the point of view of being ultimately responsible for what the devil had done, as the creator; and that Jesus had been speaking to me that way because that was the only way that I could hear it at that time in my life.

Peace...
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Simon Peter

14th Generation PROTESTant
Mar 4, 2004
2,486
258
America
✟4,491.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If there are versions of that book with that part removed, then I would say that is evidence postive of what I am saying. He may well have matured away from that former view of authority.

I don't think that's it DKB. The official copy of 'I Believe in VISIONS' I looked at, was printed by Rhema Bible church in 2003 (the year of Hagin's death) and included the arm story.

It was an unofficial internet version that has the passage removed.


peace,
Simon
 
Upvote 0

dkbwarrior

Favoured of the Lord
Sep 19, 2006
4,186
511
58
Tulsa, Oklahoma
✟14,349.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I don't think that's it DKB. The official copy of 'I Believe in VISIONS' I looked at, was printed by Rhema Bible church in 2003 (the year of Hagin's death) and included the arm story.

It was an unofficial internet version that has the passage removed.


peace,
Simon

Well then, why does it matter? If it didn't come from KHM, then why even bring it up?

Look, I can understand this because I spent many years in a somewhat shizophrenic state regarding this issue. I believed that God was only good, and the devil bad, but I could not get away from the fact that the Bible seemed to say quite plainly that God killed people, and poured out His wrath on people. So I kinda believed both things at the same time. (Weird, I know, but I did). I think this has been common for most WOF, even Kenneth Hagin himself.

Until one day God showed me these two examples, the firstborn and the numbering of Israel by David. What is interesting about the numbering of Israel, is that the account in 1 Samuel says that the anger of the LORD was kindled against David, and he moved him to do this. But the account in 1 Chronicles says that satan provoked David to number Israel. This means that the Bible is calling satan the anger of the LORD. Now if satan is the wrath of God, then that changes everything, and answers all of the questions.

God doesn't do evil. Satan does. But satan is doing it as a fulfillment of his role as the one who has the power of death, the enforcer of the curse. God does not adminster the curse; satan does. Satan wants to steal, kill and destroy. He wants to kill, steal and destroy everyone. But he is limited by the laws af the physical universe that God put into play at the beginning of creation. This makes him the unwitting accomplice of the law of God.

Peace...
 
Upvote 0

Tobias

Relationship over Religion
Jan 8, 2004
3,734
482
California
✟21,764.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Private
Considering both statements have made it into scripture, why can't we just accept that BOTH are right? God did it -- AND -- God allowed Satan to do it!


I see the relationship between God and Satan as complicated. We don't have all the details about how they interact. Just like we don't fully understand the Trinity. How can God be both One and Three? But on a practical level things work out fine for us. Some people have deep-rooted daddy issues, and cannot accept God as a father figure. So they see themselves as His bride and Jesus as the groom. For me though, that kind of relationship sounds gay (literally), and my relationship with God is as a Father to son.

Who is correct? Thankfully, both are! The same goes for other complicated biblical doctrines too, IMHO. If someone cannot bear the thought of God breaking someone's arm, then they are free to see it as an act of satan. But for me that sounds like God has lost control and Satan rules, so it is comforting to know that He is in control of everything satan does to me. Both points of view are correct, when taken from the right perspective.

We run into troubles when we try to force our personal preferences (of these fluid doctrines) onto other people. We may rob someone of a close relationship with the Father because we think everyone should be espoused to Jesus, if that is our personal experience. But the Bible gives us options. And we can see we are missing the spiritual truth behind the doctrine when our interpretation completely contradicts certain other scriptures and other people's doctrines built off of them!
 
  • Like
Reactions: dkbwarrior
Upvote 0

dkbwarrior

Favoured of the Lord
Sep 19, 2006
4,186
511
58
Tulsa, Oklahoma
✟14,349.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Considering both statements have made it into scripture, why can't we just accept that BOTH are right? God did it -- AND -- God allowed Satan to do it!


I see the relationship between God and Satan as complicated. We don't have all the details about how they interact. Just like we don't fully understand the Trinity. How can God be both One and Three? But on a practical level things work out fine for us. Some people have deep-rooted daddy issues, and cannot accept God as a father figure. So they see themselves as His bride and Jesus as the groom. For me though, that kind of relationship sounds gay (literally), and my relationship with God is as a Father to son.

Who is correct? Thankfully, both are! The same goes for other complicated biblical doctrines too, IMHO. If someone cannot bear the thought of God breaking someone's arm, then they are free to see it as an act of satan. But for me that sounds like God has lost control and Satan rules, so it is comforting to know that He is in control of everything satan does to me. Both points of view are correct, when taken from the right perspective.

We run into troubles when we try to force our personal preferences (of these fluid doctrines) onto other people. We may rob someone of a close relationship with the Father because we think everyone should be espoused to Jesus, if that is our personal experience. But the Bible gives us options. And we can see we are missing the spiritual truth behind the doctrine when our interpretation completely contradicts certain other scriptures and other people's doctrines built off of them!

I think that this is a very good post. I would use different words, but I agree with your conclusion completely. God deals with us, and speaks to us within the confines of our understanding at the time, and in a way that we can accept.

In fact, with this view, I can read things by authors that I didn't used to be able to stomach. I just reinterpret their words into a manner that I understand. This really helps me, because there are alot of annointed ministers and authors that are not specifically WOF.

For instance, if I am reading a book, or listening to a sermon, and the person says something to the effect of, "If you don't repent, God is going to kill you"; I hear it instead as, "If you don't repent, it is likely that you will walk out from under His protection, and be turned over to satan for the destruction of your flesh". In all actuallity, the result is the same, however you interpret the mechanics.

For you, it may be comforting to know that God is in control of satan. For me however, it would be very uncomfortable to think that God is directing satan in all the abortion, rapes, murders and other horrendous deeds being done all around us. I would rather see it as satan acting as a free agant enforcing the curse wherever he has a legal right. If that means that satan "rules", as you say, then mabey that is why he is called the god of this world.

In any case, I agree totally with your conclusion here. Even though you are coming at it from a different direction than I am.

Peace...
 
Upvote 0

LinkH

Regular Member
Jun 19, 2006
8,602
669
✟43,833.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There are mutliplied scores of times in the Bible that it says that God did something that most christians know is not in the character of the God we serve.


I think this is usually more a case of many believers not having a complete grasp of the character of the God we serve.

If that is the only evidence we had, we would still know that God does not do such things, because we believe that God is good. However, the verses that state that God is good, often seem to contradict those places that say or imply that He does evil. For those who wish to remain faithful to the Word, one choice is to believe that God does both good and evil, but that the evil He does is for the greater good. But then, this flies in the face of Jesus statement that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. So what to do, what to do?

It doesn't fly in the face of the statement that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.

God does stuff that is 'bad' (or 'evil'--there are a couple of Hebrew words at least we could look at) from a human perspective. The 'evil' that God does is not moral evil. All his judgments are just. Whatever He does is good. Even when He executes vengence on the wicked, pours out wrath, or ordered that babies of wicked people-groups to be killed, He was not doing moral evil.

The Bible says that God killed the firstborn in Egypt, does it not?

29And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote
all the firstborn in the land of Egypt,
from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne
unto the firstborn of the captive
that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.
-Exodus 12:29

But the obvious interpretation of that cannot be all of the truth, because another passage tells us that the destroyer killed the firstborn:

23For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians;
and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts,
the LORD will pass over the door,
and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.
-Exodus 12:23

Now, we know that the destroyer is not God. Jesus said that the thief is the destroyer, in John 10:10, who would be satan.


That verse says 'the theif cometh not but to steal, and to kill, and to destroy....'

Your argument would seem to be built on faulty logic. What would you say to the man who says that according to John 10:10, Satan kills. Therefore, no one should ever be tried for murder again, and all those accused of murder should be set free. If Satan kills, doesn't that mean it is impossible for a human to kill?

Of course not. If the Bible says one person, or being, does something, that doesn't prove that another person, or being, doesn't do that same thing. If Satan kills, that doesn't mean that humans can't kill. And it doesn't mean that Satan can't use humans to kill.

The verse does NOT say that God never takes, slays, or destroys. God doesn't steal 'for the earth is the Lord's and everything in it.' He does take, as it is written, 'the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.' And He does destroy.

Mattthew 10:28
"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

Further more, (and this is an even more clear example), the Bible says that the Lord moved David to number Isreal:
1And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
2For the king said to Joab the captain of the host, which was with him, Go now through all the tribes of Israel, from Dan even to Beersheba,
and number ye the people, that I may know the number of the people.
-2 Samuel 24:1-2

But again, the obvious interpretation of that cannot be all of the truth, because the account in Chronicles of this same event tells us that satan moved David:

1And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
2And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan;
and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it.
-1 Chronicles 21:1-2

Now we know that satan is not God. But it is interesting to note here that satan is called the anger of the Lord. This is womething that we need to keep in mind when we read of the anger or the wrath of God. Whatever you do with your theology, it has to give account of these passages.

I don't think your conclusion holds water. What would you say if the Lord was wroth with Satan? How would you explain that?

God uses agents to accomplish his will. We might say that William the Conquerer conquered England. But he didn't go out there on horseback and beat five or eight thousand men all by himself with a sword. He took an army. He used agents to do most of the work. Yet we still say he conquered England, even though he used others to do it.

God uses agents. Sometimes He works through righteous angels, but we see He has also used Satan. In the account of Rehoboam, He thwarted Rehoboam's plans and took most of the kingdom away from him and gave it to Jeroboam-- through the foolish council of young men. God can use angels, Satan, or people. He may have used Satan because He was angry with Israel, but I don't think it stands to reason to say that Satan is God's wrath. that is almost attributing deity to Satan. Christ is God's Word. God's Word is eternal and has always been with God. We shouldn't say such things about Satan. Satan is not an aspect of His being like the Word is.


I know you are not doing it on purpose, but the interpretation that you are giving makes God the enforcer of evil. And He is not. If He was the enforcer of evil, then that would make Him evil.


God quite often uses agents. That would seem to be the norm. If not, the Father also works through the Spirit if He wants to do things more directly.

God enforcing His wrath would not be 'evil' either. Executing judgment o the wicked is not moral evil. It is good.

In addition, the verses I gave above show clearly that when the Bible says that God did evil, that it really means that satan did evil under the permissive will of God.

No it doesn't. It shows in that particular case, God's will was accomplished through Satan. Other passages show other agents He has used-- human beings, Abaddon, other angels, etc. Do you think the angel that struck Herod was Satan? What about when Elymas was struck with blindness after Paul spoke a word, or when Ananias died after Peter spoke a word? Satan filled the hearts of the ones who lied to the Holy Spirit in that passage, but the passage does not say that he killed them directly.

 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dkbwarrior

Favoured of the Lord
Sep 19, 2006
4,186
511
58
Tulsa, Oklahoma
✟14,349.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
[/size][/font]

I think this is usually more a case of many believers not having a complete grasp of the character of the God we serve.

I'm sorry, but you will have to do better than that. I showed you plianly two places where it said that God did something that one may consider evil, only to tell us in a different place in the Bible that it was satan that did it.

This clearly creates a rule that when the Bible says that God does something of this nature, it is not slam dunk proof that He did. Nothing you have said changes that fact.

Peace...
 
Upvote 0

LinkH

Regular Member
Jun 19, 2006
8,602
669
✟43,833.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This clearly creates a rule that when the Bible says that God does something of this nature, it is not slam dunk proof that He did. Nothing you have said changes that fact..

Sure it is. There is no reason to think that God didn't do it. God does thing through people and other beings all the time in scripture.

If you think Satan is the wrath of god, do you mean a different god? Do you consider the wrath of God to be the wrath of God, or the wrath of someone else?
 
Upvote 0

Simon Peter

14th Generation PROTESTant
Mar 4, 2004
2,486
258
America
✟4,491.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Well then, why does it matter? If it didn't come from KHM, then why even bring it up?


Two reasons:

1. There are people out there that want to propagate Hagin's book, but who have doctored it, perhaps for doctrinal reasons. The influence of Hagin and some of his incongruous beliefs are the very substance of the OP.

2. I think people should be aware that if they search for Hagin's book online, the version they find may not be correct. Which I would think could cause some confusion, among other issues.



peace,
Simon
 
Upvote 0

Leimeng

Senior Member
Sep 25, 2004
981
119
Arizona USA
✟1,772.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Republican
~ There are people out there who hate God.
~ There are people how there who hate God's servants.
~ There are people out there are who are unwilling to think.
~ The Bible says that Satan is the god of this world.
~ The Bible teaches that things happen that are not in God's will.
~ Continue to discuss amongst yourselves...

Peace,

Leimeng

Flatulo Ergo Sum ~~~

(***Insert Personal One Liner Here***)
 
  • Like
Reactions: dkbwarrior
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tobias

Relationship over Religion
Jan 8, 2004
3,734
482
California
✟21,764.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Private
I think that this is a very good post. I would use different words, but I agree with your conclusion completely. God deals with us, and speaks to us within the confines of our understanding at the time, and in a way that we can accept.

In fact, with this view, I can read things by authors that I didn't used to be able to stomach. I just reinterpret their words into a manner that I understand. This really helps me, because there are alot of annointed ministers and authors that are not specifically WOF.

For instance, if I am reading a book, or listening to a sermon, and the person says something to the effect of, "If you don't repent, God is going to kill you"; I hear it instead as, "If you don't repent, it is likely that you will walk out from under His protection, and be turned over to satan for the destruction of your flesh". In all actuallity, the result is the same, however you interpret the mechanics.

For you, it may be comforting to know that God is in control of satan. For me however, it would be very uncomfortable to think that God is directing satan in all the abortion, rapes, murders and other horrendous deeds being done all around us. I would rather see it as satan acting as a free agant enforcing the curse wherever he has a legal right. If that means that satan "rules", as you say, then mabey that is why he is called the god of this world.

In any case, I agree totally with your conclusion here. Even though you are coming at it from a different direction than I am.

Peace...


Sorry I took so long to get back to this... but I think you managed to put it in better words than I did! :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0