Poor Christians are deluded by 'grab it' gospel

[Blackhawk]

Today at 05:06 AM Andrew said this in Post #35

That's really lumping the devil's works and God's works together!

John 10:10
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full.

I didnt know God came to kill, steal and destroy too.

God is sovereign.  If God did not let the devil be he would not be.  All throughout the Bible God lets things happen to his people to bring them closer to Him.  The Israelites are the best example of this but peter is another good one.  I am not saying that God makes people sick but that he allows people to be sick.  If God did not allow it to occur it would not occur.  God's ultimate purpose in our lives is to bring us into communion with him.  He allows riches to come into our lives but his purpose is not top make us rich. (not saying you said that) all throughout the Bible we see God bringing good and bad things into our lives that ultimately lead to our good. (Rom. 8:28) See what I am saying?

 

[Blackhawk]

Today at 12:57 PM hobart schmedly said this in Post #36



Thanks for your comments BH, I looked again at Phil 3 and the passage is saying nothing about being rich, poor, sick, or well.

 


the main reason why I cited phil. 3 was because that is where Paul said that compared to knowing Christ everything else is dung. 


Phil 3:8
8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ,
(NAU)

What paul was saying when he said rubbish was that it was dung.  I like to use dung because it shows how much those other things are lesser than knowing Christ.  It sounds nicer though to say rubbish.   

However there is verse 10. 


Phil 3:10
10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death;
(NAU)

Paul is saying that he wants to not only be like Christ in his power but also like him in his sufferings. Christ suffered while on earth and so will we if we are little Christs.  WE are to take up our cross daily and follow him. 

Paul is talking about all the religious things that would cause him to gain and be well accepted by the religioius people (in this case, the Jews) of his day:

(Phi 3:3) For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
(Phi 3:4) Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
(Phi 3:5) Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
(Phi 3:6) Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
(Phi 3:7) But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
(Phi 3:8) Yea doubtless, and I count all things [but] loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them [but] dung, that I may win Christ,

Paul turned his back on his jewish heritage and zeal. These are the things he counted as dung.... not the blessings of healing, health, and prosperity.

Again my citing was to show that knowing Christ is the greatest thing one can know.  That any other blessing is not as great as knowing him.  I was not saying anything more than that by citing Phil. 3 although verse 10 does show that there is a thing called the "fellowship of his sufferings. 


Philippians 3:10

 [The fellowship of his sufferings]-- by identification with Him in His sufferings and death, by imputation; also, in actually bearing the cross laid on us, after His example, so `filling up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ' <Col. 1:24>; and in the will to bear anything for His sake <Matt. 10:38; 16:24; 2 Tim. 2:11; 1 Pet. 4:13>. As He bore all our sufferings <Isa. 53:4>, so we participate in His.
(from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary)



Philippians 3:10  PP3

 [And the fellowship of his sufferings] That I may participate in the same kind of sufferings that he endured; that is, that I may in all things be identified with him. Paul wished to be just like his Saviour. He felt that it was an honor to live as he did; to evince the spirit that he did, and to suffer in the same manner. All that Christ did and suffered was glorious in his view, and he wished in all things to resemble him. He did not desire merely to share his honors and triumphs in heaven, but, regarding his whole work as glorious, he wished to be wholly conformed to that, and, as far as possible, to be just like Christ. Many are willing to reign with Christ, out they would not be willing to suffer with him; many would be willing to wear a crown of glory like him, but not the crown of thorns; many would be willing to put on the robes of splendor which will be worn in heaven, but not the scarlet robe of contempt and mockery.
 They would desire to share the glories and triumphs of redemption, but not its poverty, contempt, and persecution. This was not the feeling of Paul. He wished in all things to be just like Christ, and hence he counted it an honor to be permitted to suffer as he did. So Peter says, "Rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings;" <1 Pet. 4:13>. So Paul says <Col. 1:24> that he rejoiced in his sufferings in behalf of his brethren, and desired "to fill up that which was behind, of the afflictions of Christ," or that in which he had hitherto come short of the afflictions which Christ endured. The idea is, that it is an honor to suffer as Christ suffered; and that the true Christian will esteem it a privilege to be made just like him, not only in glory, but in trial. To do this, is one evidence of piety; and we may ask ourselves, therefore, whether these are the feelings of our hearts. Are we seeking merely the honors of heaven, or should we esteem it a privilege to be reproached and reviled as Christ was-- to have our names cast out as his was-- to be made the object of sport and derision as he was-- and to be held up to the contempt of a world as he was? If so, it is an evidence that we love him; if not so, and we are merely seeking the crown of glory, we should doubt whether we have ever known anything of the nature of true religion.
(from Barnes' Notes)



Col 1:24
24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions.
(NAU)


Matt 10:38
38 "And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me.
(NAU)

Matt 16:24
24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.
(NAU)

1 Pet 4:12-14
12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening to you;
13 but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation of His glory you may rejoice with exultation.
14 If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you.
(NAU)

 

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Today at 02:34 PM Blackhawk said this in Post #42

 


the main reason why I cited phil. 3 was because that is where Paul said that compared to knowing Christ everything else is dung.....;

Thanks TH.
You are absolutely correct to say the most important thing is to know Christ. But I do not see where we are to consider the blessings of God such as healing, health,, and answered prayer to be dung. I do not see where He askes us to choose one over the other. I mean, we all have to be saved and walk in love... and we all can expect persecution for following after righteousness and for the Word... but where does it say anything about living in a dung hut, eating dung, or wearing dung for clothes?
I am not sure I am following you.

I kind of thought that the referecne to dung came in when considering those religious things that people think make them holy and spiritual. In fact I have suspected that Paul was alluding to the prophet Isaiah who said "all our righteousness are as filthy rags..."

(Paul knew what they were filthy with!!!)

We might even say that a religion that is full of pious self denial in an attempt to be righteous is exactly what he was talking about. He might consider outward Asceticism to be dung. Our relationship and righteousness is not obtained, retained, or perfected by such religious activity. It is expected in that we are required to renew our minds and crucify our flesh... but to say that we are in any way adding to the work of Christ is coming close to the teaching of the Judaizers. When we do this and offer this up to God.... He sees it as dung. All we can come to Him with is the blood of Jesus. Our own acts of self denial and suffering do not add to salvatoin one iota. He did it all. There is nothing left to do.
Suffering for the name of Jesus is the cross we are to bear. It is the inevitable result of that faith.

 

[Blackhawk]

Today at 08:57 PM hobart schmedly said this in Post #43



Thanks TH.
You are absolutely correct to say the most important thing is to know Christ. But I do not see where we are to consider the blessings of God such as healing, health,, and answered prayer to be dung. I do not see where He askes us to choose one over the other. I mean, we all have to be saved and walk in love... and we all can expect persecution for following after righteousness and for the Word... but where does it say anything about living in a dung hut, eating dung, or wearing dung for clothes?
I am not sure I am following you.

My point as Paul's was to say that nothing can compare to knowing Christ.  Material welath is dung compared to knowing Christ.  It is not that material welath is such a bad thing but that knowing Christ is such a great thing.

Now about choosing one over the other I think we do have to do that.  WE can't love two masters.  We either love Christ or his creation.  we need to love Christ and Him only not just the blessings that he gives us.  Again I am not saying these blessings are bad per se but we are not called to strive after blessings but instead to strive after God, the author of the blessings.  We all know MAtt. 6:33.  "Seek ye first the kingdom of God...."  That is what we are supposed to do then "all these things shall be added unto you."  WE do not seek God first so we get the "all things." Instead we focus on seeking God and let the "all things" come as God grants us them. 

Now I am not saying we have to live in poverty.  My view is in between the poverty=Christ-likeness and the Rich=Christ-likeness arguments.  Christians can be rich or poor as God determines.   The point I am making is that we are not to strive for material welath but instead we are to strive to have a closer walk with God.  That is why Paul said in Phil. 4 that He had learned to be content in any circumstance.  That Christ is his sufficency and that he can do all things (live in any circumstance.  rich or in need) because Christ stregnthens him.  (Phil 4) 

I kind of thought that the referecne to dung came in when considering those religious things that people think make them holy and spiritual. In fact I have suspected that Paul was alluding to the prophet Isaiah who said "all our righteousness are as filthy rags..."

(Paul knew what they were filthy with!!!)  

True but those are not the only things that nowing Christ is better than.  See he gave examples, in his own life, of things that, as you said, "people think make them holy and spiritual."  He instead argued that what makes one spiritual is knowing Christ more and more. 

We might even say that a religion that is full of pious self denial in an attempt to be righteous is exactly what he was talking about. He might consider outward Asceticism to be dung. Our relationship and righteousness is not obtained, retained, or perfected by such religious activity. It is expected in that we are required to renew our minds and crucify our flesh... but to say that we are in any way adding to the work of Christ is coming close to the teaching of the Judaizers. When we do this and offer this up to God.... He sees it as dung. All we can come to Him with is the blood of Jesus. Our own acts of self denial and suffering do not add to salvatoin one iota. He did it all. There is nothing left to do.
Suffering for the name of Jesus is the cross we are to bear. It is the inevitable result of that faith.

I agree with what you said above.  know that I am not saying that one is more spiritual if he is either rich or poor.  That is not what it is about.  I am not advocating poverty for everyone.  I think some might need to do that because of God's leading but it is clearly not for all.  And I think the same about being rich.  Some are called to be wealthy but many are not.  The point is not to search for welath or poverty but instead to search for God Himself.  Then no matter if we are rich or poor materially we will be rich spiritually. 

Does this make sense.  Basically I think both the monastics and the name it claim it preachers are wrong.  Neither are evil as a whole (I think soome on both sides have been evil) but just wrong.  God promises Himself to us not wealth and health.  And He is all we need.  And that was my point. 

 

[Andrew]

Blackhawk,

God is not the author of chaos Ñ dis-ease, deaths, accidents etc. The devil is, for he comes to steal, kill and destroy.

Yes God may allow bad things to happen, but that doesnt mean He sent it for some 'purpose'. Just as we dont break our children's legs to teach them not to play near the road, neither shld we accuse God of doing such horrendous acts to his children.

As long as you can see the difference between 'allowing' and 'authoring', I'm satisfied.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Yesterday at 02:22 PM Blackhawk said this in Post #41



God is sovereign.  If God did not let the devil be he would not be.  All throughout the Bible God lets things happen to his people to bring them closer to Him.  The Israelites are the best example of this but peter is another good one.  I am not saying that God makes people sick but that he allows people to be sick.  If God did not allow it to occur it would not occur.  God's ultimate purpose in our lives is to bring us into communion with him.  He allows riches to come into our lives but his purpose is not top make us rich. (not saying you said that) all throughout the Bible we see God bringing good and bad things into our lives that ultimately lead to our good. (Rom. 8:28) See what I am saying?

I know what you are saying. But I wonder if this is by permission, by design, or just nature taking it's course. You know some people do not draw closer to God when bad things happen to them. Some people turn away. Some even insist that a God of Love would never allow such things to happen in the first place and so deny the existance of God altogether.
I think God warns us. He tells us what will happen if we do or do not do something. Bad things that happen to us are never in the design of God. They come from the devil, from nature, or from out own action/inaction.

If we are saved and in fellowship with Him, there is never any reason to expect anything but goodness, blessings, and health. Sickness, poverty, and woe do not bring us closer to Him. Faith causes us to come closer to God. Sickness, poverty, and woe may cause us to come to faith.... but we could have had the faith to start with... without the sickness, poverty, and woe.

In the end, it is always the faith that brings us closer. Veer away from faith and you will end up in a ditch. God does not want you in the ditch... He did not put you in the ditch. He made the ditch, but not for you to end up in. You would have stayed out of the ditch if you had exercised faith to start with.

 

[Blackhawk]

Today at 05:28 AM Andrew said this in Post #45

Blackhawk,

God is not the author of chaos Ñ dis-ease, deaths, accidents etc. The devil is, for he comes to steal, kill and destroy.

Yes God may allow bad things to happen, but that doesnt mean He sent it for some 'purpose'.

I agree that God is not the author of any evil but that God does allow it to occur.  However He does use evil to bring about good in our lives.  He did this many times in his dealings with the israelites.  Paul is a great example from the NT also.  He went physically blind for a time period so that God could work in him in other ways.  now this does not mean that we should not ask for healing.  Many times I think God wants to work out a better good in us through a healing. but sometimes He does it without the healing. 

I think the best reason that I have for strongly emphasizing this point is that if God does not allow evil for a reason then it limits his sovereignty.  Can he not stop evil for some reason?  He is allowing it but since it is not for any reason we must assume that he does not want to allow it.  The only other is that God is careless and I think that is a worse senario than if God is not completely sovereign. 

Just as we dont break our children's legs to teach them not to play near the road, neither shld we accuse God of doing such horrendous acts to his children.

As long as you can see the difference between 'allowing' and 'authoring', I'm satisfied.

Hmm  Many parents do allow a small evil to come to our child teach a child something if it will stop the child from experiencing a greater one though.  God gave us nerves for this partly for this purpose.  I touch a hot frying pan and I get slightly burned.  That is bad but it teaches me not to jump into a larger fire.  Lepers are a good example of what happens if we do not have these small evils to teach us to stay away from greater ones.

 

[Andrew]

HmmÊÊMany parentsÊdo allow a small evil to come to our childÊteach a child something if it will stop the child from experiencing a greater one though.Ê God gave us nerves for this partly for this purpose.Ê I touch a hot frying pan and I get slightly burned.Ê That is bad but it teaches me not to jump into a larger fire.Ê Lepers are a good example of what happens if we do not have these small evils to teach us to stay away from greater ones.

I'm rather shocked by your comment. I'm not a parent yet, yet I know enough not to send evil or even allow evil on my kids just to teach them something!

Its one thing to get hurt when a kid touches a frying pan but its criminal! if a parent forces the hand of his child onto a hot frying pan! Gosh, they put such parents in a place called "jail". I certainly hope you dont do such things to your kids.

I think the best reason that I have for strongly emphasizing this point is that if God does not allow evil for a reason then it limits his sovereignty.

The belief that God is sovereign in the absolute sense, is a myth. God is not sovereign in that He is limited by His Word. He cannot go against his Word. God is however, sovereign in that he didnt have to ask for our permission b4 he sent His Son into the world. He is also not sovereign in the sense that he cant force you to be saved.

I agree that God is not the author of any evilÊbut that God does allow it to occur.Ê

He has to allow it to occur becos on our part, we missed him. eg when we are disobedient or not following his Word, then we are asking for trouble, and God has no choice but to allow it to happen becos we have chosen to be out of his will and protection.

HoweverÊHe does use evil to bring about good in our lives.

Yes in the sense that he works things out for our good. But no in that he does not intentionally seek evil to use it in our lives.Ê

 

[Blackhawk]

Today at 01:57 AM Andrew said this in Post #48



I'm rather shocked by your comment. I'm not a parent yet, yet I know enough not to send evil or even allow evil on my kids just to teach them something!

First all human analogies break down when talking about God.  Humans are not sovereign so it is very hard to make analogies that work.  But I used the example of a child touching a stove for a reason.  I did it to show that sometimes pain teaches us things that other things can't.  I believe God uses all things that come into our lives to teach us to know Him better.  That is the goal of all life.  To know and love God.  I can't see how you can have a God who is anyway sovereign and not say that God uses bad things that come into our life to teach us.   

  Its one thing to get hurt when a kid touches a frying pan but its criminal! if a parent forces the hand of his child onto a hot frying pan! Gosh, they put such parents in a place called "jail". I certainly hope you dont do such things to your kids.

Again the analogy breaks down.  However it is not criminal for a parent to let a teen child go out on his own some and allow pain to come into his life so that later the child will be able to adapt to adult life. 

The belief that God is sovereign in the absolute sense, is a myth.

 


Oh really.  Since much of the Bible was written to tell us that he is sovereign (i.e. Genesis 1)  I beg to differ. 

 God is not sovereign in that He is limited by His Word. He cannot go against his Word. God is however, sovereign in that he didnt have to ask for our permission b4 he sent His Son into the world. He is also not sovereign in the sense that he cant force you to be saved.

 


God can't go against his word only because it is not in his nature to do so.  That does not limit his sovereignty. His wor is not some outside force that is limiting him or his power.  If it was in God's nature to be able to lie then he could lie.  No one or no thing is stopping God from doing anything.  God limits God that is all. 

He has to allow it to occur becos on our part, we missed him. eg when we are disobedient or not following his Word, then we are asking for trouble, and God has no choice but to allow it to happen becos we have chosen to be out of his will and protection.

 

God always has a choice. However he has made the choice to allow us to be able to do evil.  You make it sound like what we do changes God's plan or limits him in some way. God is not limited by us or by our actions. We are limited by God and his actions though.  God allows us and allows all things to be.  If God wanted to make the choice for us not to be able to do evil we would not be able to do it.  Also if God's nature would someday change (not saying it will) He would then be able to go against his word.  We have no assurance of anything outside of God. He makes all things the way they are.  So in other words if God changed then the world would change.  God won't change though but I can only say that based upon an assurance from God Himself.  Nothing but God is making it so that He does not change.

Yes in the sense that he works things out for our good. But no in that he does not intentionally seek evil to use it in our lives.Ê

hmm then how do you explain the Israelites?  Look at this passage from 1 Kings. 


IKing 9:1-9
CHAPTER 9

1 Now it came about when Solomon had finished building the house of the LORD, and the king's house, and all that Solomon desired to do,
2 that the LORD appeared to Solomon a second time, as He had appeared to him at Gibeon.
3 The LORD said to him, "I have heard your prayer and your supplication, which you have made before Me; I have consecrated this house which you have built by putting My name there forever, and My eyes and My heart will be there perpetually.
4 "As for you, if you will walk before Me as your father David walked, in integrity of heart and uprightness, doing according to all that I have commanded you {and} will keep My statutes and My ordinances,
5 then I will establish the throne of your kingdom over Israel forever, just as I promised to your father David, saying, "You shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.'
6 "But if you or your sons indeed turn away from following Me, and do not keep My commandments and My statutes which I have set before you, and go and serve other gods and worship them,
7 then I will cut off Israel from the land which I have given them, and the house which I have consecrated for My name, I will cast out of My sight. So Israel will become a proverb and a byword among all peoples.
8 "And this house will become a heap of ruins; everyone who passes by will be astonished and hiss and say, "Why has the LORD done thus to this land and to this house?'
9 "And they will say, "Because they forsook the LORD their God, who brought their fathers out of the land of Egypt, and adopted other gods and worshiped them and served them, therefore the LORD has brought all this adversity on them."'
(NAU)


Here God shows that He intentionally allows evil to come into the lives of his people.  He does this because he wants to bring us back to Himself. 

 

[Blackhawk]

Yesterday at 07:51 PM hobart schmedly said this in Post #46


I know what you are saying. But I wonder if this is by permission, by design, or just nature taking it's course. You know some people do not draw closer to God when bad things happen to them. Some people turn away. Some even insist that a God of Love would never allow such things to happen in the first place and so deny the existance of God altogether.
I think God warns us. He tells us what will happen if we do or do not do something. Bad things that happen to us are never in the design of God. They come from the devil, from nature, or from out own action/inaction.

In a sense you are right.  God is not the author of evil in one sense.  Also you are right that God has chosen to let us choose to repent or not.  But God dos not just allow evil because we sinned or because we have dome somthing wrong.  Not personally that is.  The good and bad sometimes come just because God has chosen to give it to us for other purposes.  Look at some verses. 


Matt 5:44-45
44 "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on {the} evil and {the} good, and sends rain on {the} righteous and {the} unrighteous.
(NAU)

Now this is about God loving his enemies thus he allows rain so they can grow crops and such.  And thus we shoud love our enemies also.


John 9:1-3
1 As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth.
2 And His disciples asked Him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?"
3 Jesus answered, "{It was} neither {that} this man sinned, nor his parents; but {it was} so that the works of God might be displayed in him.
(NAU)

The man's blindness was not caused by sin.  He did not do something before birth (personally) that caused God to allow it.  It occurred for another reason.  So it is clear that God brings the good and bad and that God allows us to experience bad things for many reasons. 

If we are saved and in fellowship with Him, there is never any reason to expect anything but goodness, blessings, and health. Sickness, poverty, and woe do not bring us closer to Him. Faith causes us to come closer to God. Sickness, poverty, and woe may cause us to come to faith.... but we could have had the faith to start with... without the sickness, poverty, and woe.

But that goes against what I have seen in my own experience and it goes against how he treated the Israelites in the OT.   God used other nations to bring Israel closer to Him.  He allowed other nations to take them over to make Israel repent.  It also goeas against the testimonies of much of the lives and writings of the church fathers and great Christian thinkers.  For example God used the crusades to bring St Francis of Assisi closer to Him. 

In the end, it is always the faith that brings us closer. Veer away from faith and you will end up in a ditch. God does not want you in the ditch... He did not put you in the ditch. He made the ditch, but not for you to end up in. You would have stayed out of the ditch if you had exercised faith to start with.

Yes and no.  sure we will stay out of many ditches if we stay close to Him.  however we live in a fallen world and God does indeed let good and evil come upon all people.  Look at this unusual part of Hebrews 11. 


Heb 11:36-38
36 and others experienced mockings and scourgings, yes, also chains and imprisonment.
37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated
38 ({men} of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground.
(NAU)

The people that the writer of Hebrews was speaking of here did not lack faith but look what happened to them.  Look at Paul.  He did not lack faith but he was beaten and ship wrecked and put into prison many times.  So faith is the way to God but in this world it does not guarantee that bad things won't happen to us.  God does not promise that to us. 

 

[Andrew]

First all human analogies break down when talking about God.Ê

Then Jesus must have made a mistake when he used a human analogy to talk about the nature of his Father:

Mat 7:9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? 10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

ÊÊI can't see how you can have a God who is anyway sovereign and not say that God uses bad things that come into our life to teach us.Ê

You shld study Hebrews 12 to see how earthly fathers chasten us and how our heavenly Father chastens us. There's a big difference. God uses His Word and chastens us to our spirit. He is the Father of spirits, not a Father of flesh. He does not use sickness or pain. That is totally unscriptural.

God can't go against his word only because it is not in his nature to do so.Ê That does not limit his sovereignty.

However you want to define it, its clear God can't do certain things, like lie. U may not see it as a limitation, but 'absolute sovereignity' it is surely not.

*** 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

However it is not criminal for a parent to let a teen child go out on his own some and allow pain to come into his life so that later the child will be able to adapt to adult life.

that's just being a totally irresponsible parent. There may not be a law against it but it sure is immoral or unethical. Does that mean you allow your daughter to go out on her own and let her be raped or to come home drugged out so she wld learn to be good? gosh!

God tells us to train up our children ourselves with the Word, not let the hard knocks of the world or evil men teach them. That's shrugging off responsibility.

You make it sound like what we do changes God's plan or limits him in some way. God is not limited by us or by our actions.

Of cse it does. God does not force us to do anything. You make it sound as if God created robots.

Here God shows that He intentionally allows evil to come into the lives of his people.Ê He does this because he wants to bring us back to Himself.Ê

you are speaking as if Christ did not die.

"6Ê"But if you or your sons indeed turn away from following Me, and do not keep My commandments and My statutes which I have set before you, and go and serve other gods and worship them,"

Are you still living under the law?

 

[Blackhawk]

Today at 09:20 AM Andrew said this in Post #51



Then Jesus must have made a mistake when he used a human analogy to talk about the nature of his Father:

Mat 7:9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? 10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? 11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

No.  He like us used analogies to help us understand more what God is like.  However I do not see Jesus saying that this analogy is a perfect representation of what God is like and what God's situation is like.  Do you? 

You shld study Hebrews 12 to see how earthly fathers chasten us and how our heavenly Father chastens us. There's a big difference. God uses His Word and chastens us to our spirit. He is the Father of spirits, not a Father of flesh. He does not use sickness or pain. That is totally unscriptural.

 


Totally unscriptual?  Then what about John 9. 


John 9:1-3
1 As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth.
2 And His disciples asked Him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?"
3 Jesus answered, "{It was} neither {that} this man sinned, nor his parents; but {it was} so that the works of God might be displayed in him.
(NAU)

You might argue by saying "Didn't jesus heal him."  But then you are missing the point.  The point is that God used teh sickness of this man for a reason.  The man did not do anything wrong and God did not say that it was because he did not have enough faith. 

Also again you are completely forgetting about Job and how God dealt with the Israelite nation.  In both instances God allowed pain and evil into their lives for reasons.  So what I said is very scriptual. 

Also I do not see anything on Hebrews 12 that says that God does not use pain and suffering to acheive what he desires.  You know I just thought of this and I can't believe I just did but what do you do with Jesus?  He is the best example there is.  He came down to earth and lived a holy life yet died for our sins.  Now I do not know where one can find a better example of God using evil than that. 

However you want to define it, its clear God can't do certain things, like lie. U may not see it as a limitation, but 'absolute sovereignity' it is surely not.

*** 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Why?  If I limit myself then how am I any less sovereign?  If a king chooses to rule one way on a mtter and not another is he losing his power just because he chose to rule one way and not the other?  I am very confused. 

that's just being a totally irresponsible parent. There may not be a law against it but it sure is immoral or unethical. Does that mean you allow your daughter to go out on her own and let her be raped or to come home drugged out so she wld learn to be good? gosh!

You are taking something I said a blowing it way out of proportion.  Stop arguing against a strawman.  But tell me what good parent does not let his/her child when they are of age take a few steps of freedom on their own knowing full well that they will get hurt?  Thus a good parent lets the child experience some evil in order to stop the child from experiencing much more.  For if a child does not learn, that learning comes much from the cmistake that child makes, then the child will not be able to function in society and will experience much more evil after the parent is gone.  Even if the parent is there the child will nto experience the true best but only a not so much evil that the parent is able to save them from.   

  God tells us to train up our children ourselves with the Word, not let the hard knocks of the world or evil men teach them. That's shrugging off responsibility.

Sure you are to train them with the word.  I am all for that.  However knowledge of the word is helpful but one has to apply the word for it to really be a use.  So that means the child has to apply ot the world that we live in.  Thus the child will learn from their mistakes and tehir experience of the hard knocks of life. 

Of cse it does. God does not force us to do anything. You make it sound as if God created robots.

Wow I am not usually the one that gets accused of God making us robots.  But no we are not robots. But God's plan does not change because of what we do.  God knows exactly what we are going to do at every moment in time.  He even knows the ways we could of chose but chose not to.  God is sovereign and He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.  Do you think that if Pilate would of chosen to let Jesus go that it would of been outside of God's plan? 

you are speaking as if Christ did not die.

"6Ê"But if you or your sons indeed turn away from following Me, and do not keep My commandments and My statutes which I have set before you, and go and serve other gods and worship them,"

Are you still living under the law?

No I am not.  I am only showing you that the our unchanging God does let pain come into our lives sometimes to help teach us something. It is not always for that reason directly although I think it is should always be one thing that occurs from whatever happens to us.  Basically we should strive to learn from everything that happens to us.  That we should learn more about God and learn how to deepen our relationship with him or just plainly a situation should deepen our relationship with Him. 

But are you saying that in the old covenant God used evil to teach us but not in the new covenant?  How do you support that if so? 


Here are some more verses that support what I am saying. 

Heb 13:8
8 Jesus Christ {is} the same yesterday and today and forever.
(NAU)

Basically God does not change. 


Phil 3:10-11
10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death;
11 in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.
(NAU)

WE are called to share in his sufferings.  But wait aren't sufferings evil?  Why woudl God call us to share in something that he does not use in anyway or for any reason? 

Phil 4:11-13
11 Not that I speak from want, for I have learned to be content in whatever circumstances I am.
12 I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity; in any and every circumstance I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need.
13 I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.
(NAU)

Here Paul is telling the Phillipians that Christ is his suffieciency.  That he can live in want or in plenty because Christ stregthens him to do it.  But this makes no sense if God is like you say.  Why would Paul be in need?  Why would he have been beaten and stoned and shipwrecked and finally matyred?  If God does not use evil to help us then is there any hope for us really? 

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Today at 10:30 AM Blackhawk said this in Post #52




No.  He like us used analogies to help us understand more what God is like.  However I do not see Jesus saying that this analogy is a perfect representation of what God is like and what God's situation is like.  Do you? 

I kind of side with Andy on this one. Jesus in fact was reporting to us exactly what the Father is like, and also what He expected us to be like in return. I think that is the whole point of the sermon on the mount. Jesus summerized the sermon with this:

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Mat 5:48)

He in essance was saying: this is exactly what the Father is like, and this is exactly what is expected of you. Be exactly like this. This sermon really blows away a lot of commonly accepted theology and I would trust it as the #1 rule of detemining what the Father is like and what His will is. I think this the defining passage of the Christian faith.

 

[SnuP]

There are really two main points in the WOF doctrine that should be noted.

One is to produce a desire to bless those around us.  This accually produces greater unity.  And greater dependence upon each other.  The real purpose of is to produce less selfishness not more.  The definition of abundace is "God meeting our needs with enough left over to meet the needs of some one else."

Secondly is to produce a greater trust in God as our provider.  Rather than the trust in our selves as provider.

 

I am sure that you agree with the priciple of sowing seed.  That if you take care of your neighbor that God will take care of you.  But if you think that the ministeries that preach the word of faith doctrine is not good soil that don't sow.  But the priciple still remains a biblical truth.

 

[Andrew]

I kind of side with Andy on this one. Jesus in fact was reporting to us exactly what the Father is like, and also what He expected us to be like in return. I think that is the whole point of the sermon on the mount. Jesus summerized the sermon with this:

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Mat 5:48)

He in essance was saying: this is exactly what the Father is like, and this is exactly what is expected of you. Be exactly like this. This sermon really blows away a lot of commonly accepted theology and I would trust it as the #1 rule of detemining what the Father is like and what His will is. I think this the defining passage of the Christian faith.

Amen Hobie.

My Pastor said that Jesus came to reveal the name Father, God as Father. the Jews know about God as healer, provider etc, but ÒDaddyÓ God was something they cld not understnd or accept becos they were too religious. This fact still sumbles a lot of Christians today. Until a Christian has revelation on Daddy God, he will always question God's willingness to bless in terms of healing, prosperity etc. They just cant believe God is that good! (although they sing about it)

 

[Blackhawk]

28th March 2003 at 08:36 PM hobart schmedly said this in Post #53

I kind of side with Andy on this one. Jesus in fact was reporting to us exactly what the Father is like, and also what He expected us to be like in return. I think that is the whole point of the sermon on the mount. Jesus summerized the sermon with this:

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Mat 5:48)

He in essance was saying: this is exactly what the Father is like, and this is exactly what is expected of you. Be exactly like this. This sermon really blows away a lot of commonly accepted theology and I would trust it as the #1 rule of detemining what the Father is like and what His will is. I think this the defining passage of the Christian faith.

First I think you missed my point.  I was saying that analogies break down when we speak about God. That we can't describe the totality of God by using an anology. God is in his own special class that nothing else is in. So God is not exactly like a human father nor is the Trinity exactly like an egg or whatever.  WE can use analogies to better understand certain traits of God but they do not do the totality of God justice.  I can't say god's holiness is sompletely like anything but God's holiness. 

Now about the verse you quoted.  First we do not know exactly how God is holy.  We can understand some of it but not all of it.  So I do not think it is a command to be as holy as God because we can't and we do not understand how God is holy completely. 

Matthew 5:48

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.


 [Be ye therefore perfect ...] The Saviour concludes this part of the discourse by commanding his disciples to be "perfect." This word commonly means "finished, complete, pure, holy." Originally, it is applied to a piece of mechanism, as a machine that is complete in its parts. Applied to people, it refers to completeness of parts, or perfection, where no part is defective or wanting. Thus, Job <Job 1:1> is said to be "perfect;" that is, not holy as God, or "sinless"-- for fault is afterward found with him <Job 9:20; 42:6>; but his piety was "proportionate"-- had a completeness of parts was consistent and regular. He exhibited his religion as a prince, a father, an individual, a benefactor of the poor. He was not merely a pious man in one place, but uniformly. He was consistent everywhere. See the notes at that passage. This is the meaning in Matthew. Be not religious merely in loving your friends and neighbors, but let your piety be shown in loving your enemies; imitate God; let your piety be "complete, proportionate, regular." This every Christian may be; this every Christian MUST be.
(from Barnes' Notes)

I think this is a good rendering of the passage because of the verses before were speaking about loving all and not just some.   


Matt 5:44-47
44 "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on {the} evil and {the} good, and sends rain on {the} righteous and {the} unrighteous.
46 "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
47 "If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing {than others?} Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
(NAU)

So this is a great example of what I was saying but is a side note to the real discussion. 

 

[Andrew]

First I think you missed my point.Ê I was saying that analogies break down when we speak about God. That we can't describe the totality of God by using an anology.

But who's talking abt describing the TOTALITY of God from one single analogy?

So the analogy Jesus used does not "break down". He was presenting a simple but powerful truth, that God is Father to us too, of cse, God being the much better / 'all the more' Father compared to flawed earthly fathers.

So it is not wrong to say that since earthly parents dont put sickness on their kids or break their legs to discipline them, neither does our heavenly Father. It's a simple truth. Only the religious bound in tradition can't understnd this!

 

[SnuP]

It all lines up with the diffinition of love.

While it is true that God allows us to bear the consiquences of our action, that does not mean that God puts burdons upon us, but we put the burdon on ourselves despite the pleading of the Spirit.

A loving father will not put sickness upon his children, but if they disobey him then he may let them bear the consiquences of that action depending upon their ability to understand those consiquences. God is exactly the same. All sickness is the consiquence of us trying to do something of ourself out of the law. This is basic scripture.

 

[Blackhawk]

1st April 2003 at 08:40 AM Andrew said this in Post #57

But who's talking abt describing the TOTALITY of God from one single analogy?

So the analogy Jesus used does not "break down". He was presenting a simple but powerful truth, that God is Father to us too, of cse, God being the much better / 'all the more' Father compared to flawed earthly fathers.

Okay but again my point which I kow you agree is that this analogy does not explain all of what God is.  So like I was saying analogies are good to teach truths but not if taken too far which I think was what was occuring in the analogy we employed.  

So it is not wrong to say that since earthly parents dont put sickness on their kids or break their legs to discipline them, neither does our heavenly Father. It's a simple truth. Only the religious bound in tradition can't understnd this!

First I am bound in tradition and so are you.  We both are.  You have your pentacostal tradition and I have my evangelical one. 

But again my point which I kow you agree is that this analogy does not explain all of what God is.  So like I was saying analogies are good to teach truths but not if taken too far which I think was what was occuring in the analogy we employed.  But let's move on and discuss the main point we have been talking about.

I do not think you answered me about what you do with Job or the Israelite nation? They kill your theology of God not using evil to discipline us. By the way if he does not use evil then what does God use?  Proverbs tells us that God does discipline us so what does he use? 

Also what about Christ or the apostel Paul?  Below are all verses that help prove my point.  Riches are not evil but the Bible has good and bad things to say about them.  Sometimes the Bible seems to say that it would be better for one to be poor than rich. 


Prov 28:11
11 The rich man is wise in his own eyes, but the poor who has understanding sees through him.
(NAU)

Prov 18:23
23 The poor man utters supplications, but the rich man answers roughly.
(NAU)

Prov 18:11
11 A rich man's wealth is his strong city, and like a high wall in his own imagination.
(NAU)

Job 34:19
19 Who shows no partiality to princes nor regards the rich above the poor, for they all are the work of His hands?
(NAU)

1 Sam 2:7
7 "The LORD makes poor and rich; He brings low, He also exalts.
(NAU)

Ruth 3:10
10 Then he said, "May you be blessed of the LORD, my daughter. You have shown your last kindness to be better than the first by not going after young men, whether poor or rich.
(NAU)

Luke 6:24
24 "But woe to you who are rich, for you are receiving your comfort in full.
(NAU)


Eccl 3:1-8

1 There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven--
2 A time to give birth and a time to die; a time to plant and a time to uproot what is planted.
3 A time to kill and a time to heal; a time to tear down and a time to build up.
4 A time to weep and a time to laugh; a time to mourn and a time to dance.
5 A time to throw stones and a time to gather stones; a time to embrace and a time to shun embracing.
6 A time to search and a time to give up as lost; a time to keep and a time to throw away.
7 A time to tear apart and a time to sew together; a time to be silent and a time to speak.
8 A time to love and a time to hate; a time for war and a time for peace.
(NAU)

Eccl 5:10-11
10 He who loves money will not be satisfied with money, nor he who loves abundance {with its} income. This too is vanity.
11 When good things increase, those who consume them increase. So what is the advantage to their owners except to look on?
(NAU)

Eccl 5:12-20
12 The sleep of the working man is pleasant, whether he eats little or much; but the full stomach of the rich man does not allow him to sleep.
13 There is a grievous evil {which} I have seen under the sun: riches being hoarded by their owner to his hurt.
14 When those riches were lost through a bad investment and he had fathered a son, then there was nothing to support him.
15 As he had come naked from his mother's womb, so will he return as he came. He will take nothing from the fruit of his labor that he can carry in his hand.
16 This also is a grievous evil-- exactly as a man is born, thus will he die. So what is the advantage to him who toils for the wind?
17 Throughout his life {he} also eats in darkness with great vexation, sickness and anger.
18 Here is what I have seen to be good and fitting: to eat, to drink and enjoy oneself in all one's labor in which he toils under the sun {during} the few years of his life which God has given him; for this is his reward.
19 Furthermore, as for every man to whom God has given riches and wealth, He has also empowered him to eat from them and to receive his reward and rejoice in his labor; this is the gift of God.
20 For he will not often consider the years of his life, because God keeps him occupied with the gladness of his heart.
(NAU)



 

 

[Blackhawk]

1st April 2003 at 03:24 PM SnuP said this in Post #58

It all lines up with the diffinition of love.

While it is true that God allows us to bear the consiquences of our action, that does not mean that God puts burdons upon us, but we put the burdon on ourselves despite the pleading of the Spirit.

A loving father will not put sickness upon his children, but if they disobey him then he may let them bear the consiquences of that action depending upon their ability to understand those consiquences. God is exactly the same. All sickness is the consiquence of us trying to do something of ourself out of the law. This is basic scripture.

While I agree that sickness itself is caused by sin God does not just give it because of sin.  Look at the verses below. 


John 9:1-3
1 As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth.
2 And His disciples asked Him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?"
3 Jesus answered, "{It was} neither {that} this man sinned, nor his parents; but {it was} so that the works of God might be displayed in him.
(NAU)


Was Jesus wrong?

Also what do you do with Job? 

Now all sickness is caused by disobedience in a way but not in the way you are saying above.