Poor Christians are deluded by 'grab it' gospel

[SavedByGrace3]

1st April 2003 at 12:39 PM Blackhawk said this in Post #60

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. 

And if we were talking about sin and it's consequences, then I think you would have a point. But the ultimate goal in the lives of both of these people (the blind man and Job) was that they be healed and glorify God. If you are using this as example, then please also take the point also. The man was healed, and that was the work that God wanted to display... not the sickness. If we are to follow this logic, then the goal of all sickness is for it to be healed.... not go on being sick(or impoverished, or demon possessed, or comdemned to hell).

What I would do with Job is point out that he was sick and impoverished for 3 or four months... tops. At which point he had everything restored to him and more. If we are to use Job as the example of God's dealing with man and his suffering... then we have to take the point also. Be sick or impoverished for a few months if you have to... but then glorify God by being healed and delivered from your poverty.
But in all honesty... I cannot use Job(and I do not think anyone else can either) because Job was not a NT believer with the gospel and the name of Jesus on his side. He was an OT... and most likely a pre-law believer. That means he did not even have the OT coveant blessings of Deut 32 to rely on. He was in some sort of pre-law convenant that relied on sacrifices. He was eat up with fear and dread... and the things that he greatly feared came upon him! This is definately not NT theology. This is not how a born again believer is to operate. We have the name of Jesus, the blood of Jesus, the Fatherhood of God, and the power of the Spirit not to mention the reborn spirit of Christ within us.
If satan were to approach God today (and it is questionable if he could even do that) and attempt to pull what he pulled on Job, we have Jesus at the right hand of the Father who is operating as our advocate! No way would He allow one of His blood bought children to fall victim to this sham! The devil was defeated soundly and completely by Jesus. Jesus has given the Church (His body) authority over the devil and all his works.


Eph 1
:20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set [him] at his own right hand in the heavenly [places],
21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22 And hath put all [things] under his feet, and gave him [to be] the head over all [things] to the church,
23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.


If the devil has been placed under the feet of Christ, and you are the little toe of the body of Christ, then the devil is still under you!

 

[Blackhawk]

1st April 2003 at 06:10 PM hobart schmedly said this in Post #61



And if we were talking about sin and it's consequences, then I think you would have a point.

I think this response was to one who said that sickeness is caused by sin in one's life.   

But the ultimate goal in the lives of both of these people (the blind man and Job) was that they be healed and glorify God. If you are using this as example, then please also take the point also. The man was healed, and that was the work that God wanted to display... not the sickness. If we are to follow this logic, then the goal of all sickness is for it to be healed.... not go on being sick(or impoverished, or demon possessed, or comdemned to hell).

My point was to show that God brings sickness into one's life not just because of sin.  He does everything to glorify himself.  So what you are saying is not a point that makes a difference to my point. 

What I would do with Job is point out that he was sick and impoverished for 3 or four months... tops. At which point he had everything restored to him and more.

Wow it seems that you are downplaying what happened to Job.  That was a rough 3 months that must of sure felt like 30 years to Job.  But the point still stands whether it is 3 months or 20 or so years as in the blind man.  God brought sickness into someone's life not because of any particular lack of faith or sin on the part of the person being sick. 

  If we are to use Job as the example of God's dealing with man and his suffering... then we have to take the point also. Be sick or impoverished for a few months if you have to... but then glorify God by being healed and delivered from your poverty.

You are being too simplistic.  Job shows one way in which God has dealt with one man.  It is a guide and shows us some of the whys and hows of God's delaings.  God is a complicated being though and I would never use this as THE EXAMPLE of how God deals with man and his suffering.  I used it to  prove a point that God does not always do things like some are saying he does by using the Word of God. 

 But in all honesty... I cannot use Job(and I do not think anyone else can either) because Job was not a NT believer with the gospel and the name of Jesus on his side. He was an OT... and most likely a pre-law believer. That means he did not even have the OT coveant blessings of Deut 32 to rely on. He was in some sort of pre-law convenant that relied on sacrifices. He was eat up with fear and dread... and the things that he greatly feared came upon him! This is definately not NT theology. This is not how a born again believer is to operate. We have the name of Jesus, the blood of Jesus, the Fatherhood of God, and the power of the Spirit not to mention the reborn spirit of Christ within us.
If satan were to approach God today (and it is questionable if he could even do that) and attempt to pull what he pulled on Job, we have Jesus at the right hand of the Father who is operating as our advocate! No way would He allow one of His blood bought children to fall victim to this sham! The devil was defeated soundly and completely by Jesus. Jesus has given the Church (His body) authority over the devil and all his worksYou take a view of the covenants in which I do not.   


Eph 1
:20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set [him] at his own right hand in the heavenly [places],
21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
22 And hath put all [things] under his feet, and gave him [to be] the head over all [things] to the church,
23 Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.


If the devil has been placed under the feet of Christ, and you are the little toe of the body of Christ, then the devil is still under you!

I do not see how Job being in the New covenant or old has anything to do with this.  OT hereos had God's power also.  Heck Elijah never died.  Christ dies for Abrahamand Job just as much as he died for us. So you are saying that God let Satan do it to one of the old guys who are blood bought but not us?  Can you give me scripture that shows what changed to make this occur? 

Also the man in John 9 had all of the law.  So that can't be what is the difference.  But where do you find that the New Covenant gives us welath and health if we just have enough faith and the OC did not?  I am all ears. 

 

[SnuP]

Umm... reread my post. I never mentioned sin.

Sickness comes from being under the law yet not able to keep it.

Please just reread the post.

 

[SnuP]

1st April 2003 at 09:24 AM 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.

nope nothing about sin here.

 

[Andrew]

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

Firstly, I'm not pentecostal, never was. I'm non-denom. Was Methodist most of my Christian life, but have broken away from traditions after becoming non-denom. (I'm talking abt traditions like God makes people sick, wants them to stay that way, prosperity is evil, Christians ought to be poor to be holy, etc.) So I'm no longer bound by these traditions of man. But the majority of Christians still are.

I do not think you answered me about what you do with Job or the Israelite nation?

I believe I already mentioned in an earlier post that you have to bring the cross in and not have theology that mixes old and new cov and talk as if Jesus did not die. A great man of God (I think Spurgeon) once said that the problem with most Christians having flawed theology is that they fail to rightly divide between OC and NC, and just lump everything together.

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?Ê

I think I also mentioned earlier that God chastens us with his WORD to our spirit. Read Hebrews 12 which talks abt God's chastening. In fact, the original Greek meaning of the word chasten is to child train. The orignal meaning never had any concept of punishment in it. It was only Augustine (I think) who, to make his misbehaving people more fearful of the verse and hence 'behave', added the idea of 'punishment' to the Greek meaning of the word 'chasten'. This was mentioned by my Pastor as he was reading up some Greek study book on the Bible.

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

Agreed, but that is a 'consolation' thing. ie if one can't handle riches, then it is 'better' to not have them etc. But that is not God's perfect will for us. He wants us to prosper so we can better finance spread of the Gospel and hasten his return. One simply can't do that as effectively if he can't even feed himself.

 

[SnuP]

I think that the biggest problem is that many don't believe that God has the power to make them perfect, sinless. That the distructive nature of the flesh will alway be with man until he dies, even though Christ dealt with that problem on the cross.

They seem to believe that the effects of the cross are only spiritual and have no real or lasting effect on any thing that is natural.

Apperantly satan has more power over the flesh then God does.

 

[Blackhawk]

1st April 2003 at 10:35 PM SnuP said this in Post #63

Umm... reread my post. I never mentioned sin.

Sickness comes from being under the law yet not able to keep it.

Please just reread the post.

What do you call not keeping the law?  I call it sin.  If we do not keep the law we still sin but Christ paid the penalty for our sin. 

 

[Blackhawk]

1st April 2003 at 10:42 PM SnuP said this in Post #64



nope nothing about sin here.

huh?

Did you not say this?

"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."

If we disobey god it is sin. 

 

 

[Blackhawk]

2nd April 2003 at 03:29 AM SnuP said this in Post #66

I think that the biggest problem is that many don't believe that God has the power to make them perfect, sinless. That the distructive nature of the flesh will alway be with man until he dies, even though Christ dealt with that problem on the cross.

 


I believe God has the power to do anything.  However I believe God has not chosen to sanctify us until we die or Christs 2nd coming whichever comes first.  Not even Wesley with all his talk about Christian perfection believed that one could become entirely sanctified in this life. Also I do not see the bible sugesting that this will be so. 

They seem to believe that the effects of the cross are only spiritual and have no real or lasting effect on any thing that is natural.

Apperantly satan has more power over the flesh then God does.

Have you been reading my posts?  I have stressed the point that God is fully sovereign.  My point is that God chooses to let evil be apart of this world and chooses to let evil come into the lives of Christians because of their sin and because of other reasons. But mnaybe this post had nothing to do with my posts though. 

 

[Outspoken]

"That the distructive nature of the flesh will alway be with man until he dies, even though Christ dealt with that problem on the cross.
"

Really? I always read about recieving heavenly bodies AFTER we die. Not before. Until then you're stuck with the fallen nature of the body. Notice I didn't say sinful nature, there is a difference.

"The orignal meaning never had any concept of punishment in it."

Umm..God works through evil all the time, to make it turn out for good. He even causes things sometimes that we, in our limited perceptions and finite minds, would call evil.

 

[Blackhawk]

2nd April 2003 at 01:40 AM Andrew said this in Post #65



Firstly, I'm not pentecostal, never was. I'm non-denom. Was Methodist most of my Christian life, but have broken away from traditions after becoming non-denom. (I'm talking abt traditions like God makes people sick, wants them to stay that way, prosperity is evil, Christians ought to be poor to be holy, etc.) So I'm no longer bound by these traditions of man. But the majority of Christians still are.

Sorry.   I guess I jsut see you supporting very pentecostal doctrines so I thought you were one.  But my point was that your theology is based much upon tradition also.  Just not the same one as mine but both Christian. 

I believe I already mentioned in an earlier post that you have to bring the cross in and not have theology that mixes old and new cov and talk as if Jesus did not die. A great man of God (I think Spurgeon) once said that the problem with most Christians having flawed theology is that they fail to rightly divide between OC and NC, and just lump everything together.

 


And I asked you to show me where the NC changes how God delas with us and our suffering.  You did not do that.  The NC does not rule out everything from the OC.  

I think I also mentioned earlier that God chastens us with his WORD to our spirit. Read Hebrews 12 which talks abt God's chastening. In fact, the original Greek meaning of the word chasten is to child train. The orignal meaning never had any concept of punishment in it. It was only Augustine (I think) who, to make his misbehaving people more fearful of the verse and hence 'behave', added the idea of 'punishment' to the Greek meaning of the word 'chasten'. This was mentioned by my Pastor as he was reading up some Greek study book on the Bible.

 


But then how do you explain the Israelites?  If God does not use evil to disipline us then why did he do it with them?   

Agreed, but that is a 'consolation' thing. ie if one can't handle riches, then it is 'better' to not have them etc. But that is not God's perfect will for us. He wants us to prosper so we can better finance spread of the Gospel and hasten his return. One simply can't do that as effectively if he can't even feed himself.

Hmm the times in history when the gospel spread the most were usually also the times when the church was persecuted the most.  When the church ws not rich.  So I do not think your point holds up if one looks at it through the eyes of church history.  I do not think it holds up Biblically also.  Sure God wants some to be rich but I do not see where it says that God wants all to be rich.  It seems like to me that god wants us to have riches where "Moth and rust do not spoil."  That God is mostly concerned about us knowing him and us praising him and will use anything to help us do that. 

 

[Outspoken]

"If God does not use evil to disipline us then why did he do it with them?
"

Don't even mention the snakes or any event around the golden calf time

 

[nyj]

Have any of you noticed that the person who started this thread hasn't been back since making the original post? So while you all go tearing each other to pieces, she is sitting there laughing at you guys and not even defending her position. Why no one has called her out specifically (while you all keep going after Brother Max) is beyond me. This is her modus operandi and no one here calls her on it. Sheesh.

 

[Andrew]

But my point was that your theology is based much upon tradition also.

I've already stated what these traditions are and my theology opposes these traditions. So perhaps you shld define what my traditions are. eg Healing is part of redemption. Is that a tradition of traditional churches? Definitely not. The opposite is however, the tradition.

And I asked you to show me where theÊNC changes how God delas withÊus and our suffering.Ê

Dont tell me you do not see any difference between law and grace!? Putting new wine into old wineskins? Jesus has died and risen Ñ and no difference? Ministry of reconciliation where Paul talks abt how God is not counting men's sins against them? "Their sins and lawless deeds I will rem no more"??? Hello, there's been a change.

Hmm the times in history when the gospel spread the most were usually also the times when the church was persecuted the most.Ê When the church ws not rich.Ê So I do not think your point holds up if one looks at it through the eyes of church history.

are we looking at the Word, or history and personal experiences (+ve or -ve) for the truth? So what abt prospering churches that are not being persecuted today?

I do not think it holds up Biblically also.Ê Sure God wants some to be rich but I do not see where it says that God wants all to be rich.

That's like saying Christ bore the sins of some only. When will you see the simple truth that healing and prosperity are part of redemption? And if they are part of redemption, then they are available to all who believe. Now whether the individual wants it or not is up to them, God will not force it upon them.

eg: Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law (Ga 3:13), and one of these curses is poverty. Now, is this verse (Ga 3:13) for all Christians or some Christians. Did God say this verse is for you but not him? Is God a respector of persons?

Have any of you noticed that the person who started this thread hasn't been back since making the original post? So while you all go tearing each other to pieces, she is sitting there laughing at you guys and not even defending her position. Why no one has called her out specifically (while you all keep going after Brother Max) is beyond me. This is her modus operandi and no one here calls her on it. Sheesh.

who cares? we've hijacked her thread and are having a lively discussion *LOL.
And btw, its blackhawk who's been answering, not Br Max, unless the two are the same, which I doubt.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

1st April 2003 at 05:17 PM Blackhawk said this in Post #62

I do not see how Job being in the New covenant or old has anything to do with this. OT hereos had God's power also Heck Elijah never died. Christ dies for Abraham and Job just as much as he died for us...

True.. He did. But they did not see all that we see. They did not call on the name of Jesus for healing or answered prayer. They did not see the cross, did not have reborn spirits, and did not have the Holy Spirit called along side to help in the way that we do. And the things that these people did were not because of the covenant that they were under. The OT heroes did not do the things they did as a result of faith in the work of Christ... or even as a result of the law. It was just God manifesting His power in their individual lives. Your average Jew did not do these things. It was always Prophets or Judges who were specifically called to perform these things. In the NT we all can have faith to appropriate the blessings of God that have already been provided as a result of the work of Christ. There is really no comparison between what the OT heroes did and what we have in Christ. The NT is a better convenant with better promises... not worse.

So you are saying that God let Satan do it to one of the old guys who are blood bought ....

No that is what you are saying. I am saying that God did not "let" satan do anything. Satan did not need permission! All God did was to point out a fact:
"behold" (literally "look"): all that he has is in your power..."
Because of the fear that Job harbored in his life, it opened up everything he had to attack by satan. Satan did not even know this, because God had to point it out to him. The old idea that God sicked satan on Job has no basis in scripture. There was a hedge around Job protecting him. God did not push the hedge down, Job did by his fear.

God let Satan do it to one of the old guys who are blood bought but not us?Can you give me scripture that shows what changed to make this occur?

Job was protected by a hedge, and it was pushed down (regardless of how, who, or why). We have a hedge also... it is a hedge that was errected by the work of Jesus and appropriated by faith in His name. This hedge can never be pushed down, whether it be by God, or satan:
* Is God renegingon the NT? I don't think so. In no case would God say to satan: "Go get Blackhawk... he is righteous, and needs to be tested."
* Is Satan overcoming the hedge that is Christ? No way. Christ has defeated satan. No contest.

If there is a weakness, it is in our faith that appropriates these blessings to ourselves.

As long as we harbor these false images of:
* God as a giver of evil in our lives,
* Satan as someone who overcomes Christ,
* The work of Christ as something that can be ignored by God in His dealings with us, and
* The name of Jesus works sometimes... but not always.

Then these will defeat our faith. We will always be the one(in our own minds) who God is dealing evil to. We will always be the one who satan has been given permission by God to afflict us. We will always be the ones who are the "special case" and for who the Gospel does not apply. Any of these will cause us to not believe.

Also the man in John 9 had all of the law. So that can't be what is the difference. But where do you find that the New Covenant gives us welath and health if we just have enough faith and the OC did not? I am all ears.

Ok Mr Ears:
Gal 3:
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree:

The curse of the Law can be found in Deut 28. It includes every sort of sickness, calamity, and poverty that is imaginable. We have been redeemed from it all. We do not have to endure any of it because of what Jesus did for us. If we do... it is because of ignorance and lack of faith. (I did not say unfaithful in the devotional sense .)

2Co 1:20 For all the promises of God in him [are] yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

All is a very big word. He has made a lot of promises... We can call them ours because of what Jesus did. This is a profession of our faith. It is not a matter of "enough faith". It is a faith fact. It is something that is true regardless of how much faith you have or do not have. The first thing to do is to just acknowledge this(and other scriptures that say the same thing). If a person cannot get past this, then they have no foundation for their faith. Everything is always up in the air. The gospel and the NT have no meaning if we just arbitraily toss out promises. I realize there are some who think that the gospel is not a covenant that was made good by the blood and body of the Lord. They think that every promise is still subject to the immediate approval of God for every individual. They really are not. They have all been made good. They have all been made yes and amen. Only believe!

Jesus told us many times about prayer in His name.
John 14:
12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater [works] than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do [it].

This and many many others. The name of Jesus has authority. We can pray and know that prayers from the heart are heard and granted. Only believe. There are some who suggest that this is not so. In a way they are saying that the name of Jesus has no strength in heaven. They are implying that when the Father hears the name of Jesus, that He scratches His head and says "maybe... we'll see". Not so! We can believe because we know the name of Jesus has all authority in heaven. We know that Jesus did not lie. We know that we can pray from the heart, believe, and receive!

 

[SavedByGrace3]

2nd April 2003 at 12:47 AM nyj said this in Post #73

Have any of you noticed that the person who started this thread hasn't been back since making the original post? So while you all go tearing each other to pieces, she is sitting there laughing at you guys and not even defending her position. Why no one has called her out specifically (while you all keep going after Brother Max) is beyond me. This is her modus operandi and no one here calls her on it. Sheesh.

Oh well. I really do not see anyone tearing each other. We have a good discussion going, but I respect BlackHawk, and I hope he does me. I doubt if the thread owner is laughing at anything. She(is she a she?) maybe went on vacation. Or maybe forgot about even starting the thread. But we are having a good time. Thanks to her for starting it!

 

[Blackhawk]

2nd April 2003 at 08:07 AM Andrew said this in Post #74

I've already stated what these traditions are and my theology opposes these traditions. So perhaps you shld define what my traditions are. eg Healing is part of redemption. Is that a tradition of traditional churches? Definitely not. The opposite is however, the tradition.

I am not going to go through your history but you can't get away from tradition.  You might not believe some of the things that traditional church has held but the other side has a tradition of its own.  It seems that you are equating tradition with what the Traditional churches teaches and that is wrong.  But this is just a side issue so I will not debate you anymore on it.  I guess we can say your position is that you do not hold to some of the positions traditionally held by the church. 

Dont tell me you do not see any difference between law and grace!? Putting new wine into old wineskins? Jesus has died and risen Ñ and no difference? Ministry of reconciliation where Paul talks abt how God is not counting men's sins against them? "Their sins and lawless deeds I will rem no more"??? Hello, there's been a change.

please show me where it says that God uses evil in the lives of his people in the OC but no longer does it in the NC. 

are we looking at the Word, or history and personal experiences (+ve or -ve) for the truth? So what abt prospering churches that are not being persecuted today?

WE look at both.  And the prospering churches in nonpersecuted areas are not growing 1/2 as fast as the ones in persecuted areas.  That is a fact of today's church and of the church in past history. 

That's like saying Christ bore the sins of some only. When will you see the simple truth that healing and prosperity are part of redemption? And if they are part of redemption, then they are available to all who believe. Now whether the individual wants it or not is up to them, God will not force it upon them  

eg: Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law (Ga 3:13), and one of these curses is poverty. Now, is this verse (Ga 3:13) for all Christians or some Christians. Did God say this verse is for you but not him? Is God a respector of persons? 

I have already shown how this is not speaking about riches and health but instead about forgiveness from sins. Here is another person who holds the same view. 


Galatians 3:13

 [From the curse of the law] The curse which the Law threatens, and which the execution of the Law would inflict; the punishment due to sin. This must mean, that he has rescued us from the consequences of transgression in the world of woe; he has saved us from the punishment which our sins have deserved. The word, "us" here, must refer to all who are redeemed; that is, to the Gentiles as well as the Jews. The curse of the Law is a curse which is due to sin, and cannot be regarded as applied particularly to any one class of people. All who violate the Law of God, however that law may be made known, are exposed to its penalty. The word "law" here, relates to the Law of God in general, to all the laws of God made known to man. The Law of God denounced death as the wages of sin. It threatened punishment in the future world forever. That would certainly have been inflicted, but for the coming and death of Christ. The world is lying by nature under this curse, and it is sweeping the race on to ruin.
(from Barnes' Notes)

who cares? we've hijacked her thread and are having a lively discussion *LOL.
And btw, its blackhawk who's been answering, not Br Max, unless the two are the same, which I doubt.

We are not the same. If we were then when I debated him in another thread I would have to have been either really good at posting two different ways or I would have to have mutliple personalities. 

 

[SavedByGrace3]

We are not the same. If we were then when I debated him in another thread I would have to have been either really good at posting two different ways or I would have to have mutliple personalities....

Sometimes I think there are people who are arguing both sides of a point...
More like they cannot make up their mind exactly what they think. I have actually caught myself doing it!

 

[SnuP]

2nd April 2003 at 08:15 AM Blackhawk said this in Post #77


Galatians 3:13

 [From the curse of the law] The curse which the Law threatens, and which the execution of the Law would inflict; the punishment due to sin. This must mean, that he has rescued us from the consequences of transgression in the world of woe; he has saved us from the punishment which our sins have deserved. The word, "us" here, must refer to all who are redeemed; that is, to the Gentiles as well as the Jews. The curse of the Law is a curse which is due to sin, and cannot be regarded as applied particularly to any one class of people. All who violate the Law of God, however that law may be made known, are exposed to its penalty. The word "law" here, relates to the Law of God in general, to all the laws of God made known to man. The Law of God denounced death as the wages of sin. It threatened punishment in the future world forever. That would certainly have been inflicted, but for the coming and death of Christ. The world is lying by nature under this curse, and it is sweeping the race on to ruin.
(from Barnes' Notes) 
 

Thankyou for posting my point.  Although I see where I may have lost you, my focas has always been on the law.  I have not said that it is sin that causes sickness, as you first accused me.  Rather I have said that it is living under the law that causes sickness.  My comment on disobeying the father is based on the premiss that someone who disobeys is under the law.  Obediance and disobediance is always under the law.  I did not think that this concept need to be clarified.  Because it is no longer about obedience or face the consiquences.  Now it is only serve because of love.

Sin in itself can not cause sickness.  It has to have the law inorder for the curse to come.  The curse is alway assosiated with the law.  Anyone who is sick or inpoverishied or facing some type of distruction is under the law and the curse.  This has alway been the point.  There is no sickness out side of the law.  Because all sickness was created to fulfill the curse.

For this reason how we live our lives has nothing to do with the fallen nature of our flesh but rather the fallen nature of our minds.  It is our minds that is (are?) killing our flesh.  When we step into Christ, we leave the law and its curse behind, or atleast we are suppose to.  The proplem is that the full gospel is not taught.

 

[SnuP]

2nd April 2003 at 08:15 AM Blackhawk said this in Post #77

I am not going to go through your history but you can't get away from tradition.  You might not believe some of the things that traditional church has held but the other side has a tradition of its own.  It seems that you are equating tradition with what the Traditional churches teaches and that is wrong.  But this is just a side issue so I will not debate you anymore on it.  I guess we can say your position is that you do not hold to some of the positions traditionally held by the church. 

Your assumption that all church have some traditions in them is incorrect.  I have attended many churches, but the one that I call home has no traditions that were established by anouther church.  We started as just a Holy Ghost meeting in the home of a baptist deacon.  We did not look to anyother penecostal church or charismatic church to tell us how to order our service.  Our services were established soully upon what we felt the Holy Spirit wanted.  Our times aren't even traditional.  Nor our days.  We only started to have Sunday morning services to make our services more excessable to those who only go on Sunday.  We start our worship service at nine thirty in the morning, we don't have sunday school, and the worship service normally ends around one.  If there is anything about our church that looks like another it is one by coinsidence.

Many non-demoninational churches start this way.  Forging from their vantage point, new paths in service order.  The fact that many non-demoninational churches end up looking simular, even in doctrine, is a supernatural coinsidence.  Most of these pastors rely soully upon the Holy Spirit and their ability to discern the annointing to lead them.  If it is annointed by God then it is used.  Than we discover other like us, we form networks of sister churches.  All most all non-denominational church started out as one man moving out from a traditional church and starting his own meetings, with a partial intent to not be like any church, but to serve God.  They then begin to search the scriptures and form their own doctrines and looking for the annointing on other people.

There is no tradition that can make a non-denominational church what it is.