Poor Christians are deluded by 'grab it' gospel

[nyj]

2nd April 2003 at 10:30 AM SnuP said this in Post #80

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.

Oh really? So the Bible was brought to you by angels flying on high? Was it on scrolls of papyrus or bound in gilded leather? No, I doubt it. Obviously someone gave you a Bible, and told you (ie: you didn't find all these books individually on your own and determine their canonicity) they were the infallible word of God and you believed them. That, my friend, is tradition. So yes, all churches have some traditions in them... unless of course they've discarded the Bible.

 

[Blackhawk]

2nd April 2003 at 02:09 PM hobart schmedly said this in Post #76




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!

I respect you and Andrew and Snup.  It is kind of hard keeping up with posting to all y'all though so if I answer too quickly I am sorry.  I think it is great that we can discuss our differences while knowing that we have much more in common with eachother and that what we do have in comon makes us family. 

 

[SnuP]

nyj, we were talking about traditions of men.

If the Bible is the infalible word of God than it cannot be a tradition of man.

Refering to traditions the same way that Jesus refered to them, which excludes the bible, its doctrine, stories, and traditions.

This seems alittle nitpicky to me.

 

[Blackhawk]

2nd April 2003 at 02:06 PM hobart schmedly said this in Post #75



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.

I never said the NC had worse promises but I have yet to see where it promises that through faith we will all be healthy and wealthy.  That is my point.  I think the NC promises are not about health and wealth but about something better.  Knowing Christ.  I agree with much of what you said above except that "There is really no comparison between what the OT heroes did and what we have in Christ."  I do think we have much more but I think no comparison is too strong.  For instance all have been saved through faith whether they lived suring the OC or the NC.  WE have the same God and He does not change.  Also much of how God deals with us is unchaged from the OC to the NC.  The last point is what I am saying.  The NC does not change how God allows evil to come into our lives for his purposes.  I think God does it because He wants us to know Him.  So I can look at Job nad other OC people and see how God dealt with them and see how it is still like how God deals with us today. 

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.

 

But then how is god sovereign?  I think Satan always need permission to do anything. If God did not allow Satan to do it then it would not of been done.  God is sovereign.  He is not bound by things like you state above.  At least that is what I see in scripture.  For example Rom. 8:28 shows that He is sovereign and that even though he allows evil to come into our lives it works out for our good. 

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.

 

"renegingon?"  I do not understand the term.  But anyways I think that God allows everything that comes into our lives. 

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.

 

I am not saying that Satan overcomes Christ.  In fact I think you are saying it.  I am saying that everything that occurs only occurs because God allows it.  I think you are saying that Satan has overcomed God in the past but now can't.  I say that Satan has never and will never overcome God and we can't either.  Also I am not ignoring the work of Christ.  I am just saying that his work is to help us to know Himself not make us rich. 

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 .)

I do not think tht the urse of the law is Deut. 28.  I think those curses were for the Israelites of that time period not us.  Many times in the Bible blessings and curses are not for everyone but for a specific group.  We can take some application from these passages but not claim the promises or the curses as ours.  For instance God told Abraham that His descendants will be like the stars in the sky.  I can't claim that blessing for myself because I am the fullfillment of that blessing.  I guess I should ask why you think that these curses are general and not just for the Israelites of that time only.   

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!

Maybe I am confused but where does this say that we can claim all the promises God ever made to anyone?  It seems to me to be saying that God always fullfills his promises not that we can claim all the promises ever made by God.  That Jesus fullfileld the promise of God.  Can yu show me how this is saying we can claim every promise that God ever made? 

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!

I do not believe that these verses are saying that the name of Jesus is a get your prayers answered card.  I think the confusion lies in the phrase "in my name" It is not saying that if we use his name in prayers then we can get what we ask for.  No it is saying that if we do it for Him.  One commentary I looked at said that "in my name" is equivalent to doing showing for his sake or for his account. 

 

[Blackhawk]

2nd April 2003 at 03:02 PM hobart schmedly said this in Post #78


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!

As my evangelism professor Dr. Fish said in class last week sometimes when we are arguing against a point we argue too far and then we have to go back and back track because what we said against point A maybe went too far or maybe sounds like it goes too far.  I catch myself arguing against a point so strongly that I go too far in the opposite direction and then I have to back track to get back to what I really believe. 

 

[Blackhawk]

2nd April 2003 at 04:30 PM SnuP said this in Post #80



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.

What about your theology?  Has your pastor read any books besids the Bible?  Have you?  Why I say that is because if so then your church has been influenced by tradition.  

 

[Andrew]

I guess we can say your position is that you do not hold to some of the positions traditionally held by the church.Ê

Yes. Traditions of man like God makes people sick or breaks their legs to child-train them. The whole point abt people moving from traditional churches to charismatic or non-denom ones is so they can break away from man-made traditions that cause bondage to freedom in Christ and to be led by the Spirit. Also, I think you are mixing bias with traditions.

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

pls define first what you mean by "uses". Do you mean God authors evil, God purposely looks for evil to use on us, or do you mean shld evil from the devil befall us, God can turn it around for our good? Again, my point is that you cannot develop theology while ignoring the fact that Christ died and rose again and establish a new and better covenant. You cannot deny that there's been a change in covenant. You must 'filter' what ever you read in the Bible thru the cross.

WE look at both.Ê

If you are going to also use personal experiences and history to determine God's truth, then you are on shaky ground. If God's Word contradicts an experience, who are you going ot believe?

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

The fact is that charismatic churches and Pentecostal ones have outgrown traditional ones by leaps and bounds. But as I said, we do not look at ÒexperiencesÓ good or bad to determine God's truths. So your point abt using church history to establish a doctrine is not convincing.

quote:
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 themÊÊ

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?Ê

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

Galatians 3:13

Ê[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)

Firstly, we are never redeemed from sin. We are forgiven our sins. There's abig difference. You'll never find the Bible saying we're redeemed from sin but FORGIVEN. What we are redeemed from then, is the curse of the law. Which states that

Ga 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

The curse of the law as defined by scripture is simply this: That if you fail to fulfill any of the law, you will be cursed. But cursed with what?? That's where Deu 28 with the long list of curses which includes all types of sickness and poverty among other things.

So, if Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, then obviously he has redeemed us from the curses stated in Deu 28. IOW he has redeemed us from the curse of sickness and poverty.

the quote you gave of barnes supports my point too.

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

well, what are these consequences, woes, and punishments that we have been saved or redeemed from? The curses in Deu 28! If not that, then what?

 

[Andrew]

Oh really? So the Bible was brought to you by angels flying on high? Was it on scrolls of papyrus or bound in gilded leather? No, I doubt it. Obviously someone gave you a Bible, and told you (ie: you didn't find all these books individually on your own and determine their canonicity) they were the infallible word of God and you believed them. That, my friend, is tradition. So yes, all churches have some traditions in them... unless of course they've discarded the Bible.

nyj, I've checked your profile and you are Catholic. Pls bear in mind that this is a protestant section and you are not to question and requestion the replies of a protestant, or be sarcastic abt it.

Non-Denominational Protestant Forum Rules

3) Non-Protestant members (eg. Catholic members) can only post fellowship posts here or posts to ask a question regarding Protestant or Evangelical doctrine. Once the question is answered, there shall be no debate over the answer in this forum by the Non-Protestant. Any debate posts by Non-Protestants will be deleted or moved to the Interdenominational Doctrine Debate forum. In other words, only Protestant members can debate here.

 

[Caedmon]

2nd April 2003 at 02:07 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 don't understand this. The Catholic Church has had the healing sacrament of Anointing of the Sick in its Tradition for centuries.

 

[Blackhawk]

3rd April 2003 at 01:44 AM Andrew said this in Post #87

Yes. Traditions of man like God makes people sick or breaks their legs to child-train them. The whole point abt people moving from traditional churches to charismatic or non-denom ones is so they can break away from man-made traditions that cause bondage to freedom in Christ and to be led by the Spirit. Also, I think you are mixing bias with traditions.

The problem is that they are still not getting away from tradition they are just getting away from a specific tradition within Christianity. 

pls define first what you mean by "uses". Do you mean God authors evil, God purposely looks for evil to use on us, or do you mean shld evil from the devil befall us, God can turn it around for our good? Again, my point is that you cannot develop theology while ignoring the fact that Christ died and rose again and establish a new and better covenant. You cannot deny that there's been a change in covenant. You must 'filter' what ever you read in the Bible thru the cross.

This is what I mean by uses.  God is soveriegn.  What he allows to happen occurs.  Another way of saying this is what is in his sovereign will occurs.  That means that things like Jesus death on the cross, Paul's conversion and just plain old sin is part of his sovereign will.  He is not the author of sin or evil but he has defined it and allowed it to occur.  Now what I mean by allow is not that God if he wanted to would stop it without any trouble at all.  He allowed man to be tempted by the devil although He did not want man to sin.  He allowed Moses to strike the rock although he wanted him to just say words to it.  So God allows evil to come into our lives.  That is my first major point.

Second God uses evil.  When evil does come into our lives God uses it to bring us closer to him.  All of what he does is to glorify Himself and bring us closer to Himself.  God uses all things for these purposes. Romans 8:28 says so. 

Now my third point is that God God sometimes allows evil into our lives because of sin in our life.  Sometimes we have sinned and God leads us back to repentance by allowing evil to come into our lives.  This is illustrated by the israelite nation throughout the Bible. 

Also God allows evil to come into our lives to bring glory to himself.  This is illustrated by the blind man in John 9.  The blind man did no sin to specifically cause him to be born blind and neither did his parents. God did it because God wanted to bring glory to himself. 

God brings evil into our lives to bring us closer to him. I think this can be illustrated best by the life of Paul.  He was very close to God but he went through so much evil.  He was stoned, shipwrecked, went blind for a period, beaten, thrown in prison, etc.  And this brought Paul closer to him.  For instance the time when Paul went blind was right after his conversion.  God used the blindness to help Paul get close to him. 

Basically God uses what we would call evil in many ways to help us. Now what I do not like about this statement: "should evil from the devil befall us, God can turn it around for our good" is that it makes God seem that he is not fully in charge. That He can't really control the devil and his actions.  I think that is untrue. If God wanted it to be so there would have never been any devil.  Instead for whatever his resons are he let the devil be.  My point is that God is in control and that all things occur only because he allows them to occur. 

 

[Blackhawk]

[

3rd April 2003 at 01:44 AM Andrew said this in Post #87

If you are going to also use personal experiences and history to determine God's truth, then you are on shaky ground. If God's Word contradicts an experience, who are you going ot believe?

 


huh?  

The fact is that charismatic churches and Pentecostal ones have outgrown traditional ones by leaps and bounds. But as I said, we do not look at ÒexperiencesÓ good or bad to determine God's truths. So your point abt using church history to establish a doctrine is not convincing.

I was making a large case in which I was showing that what you are saying is not Biblical, it does not show itself in the history of the church, nor does it show itself in experience.  I have not seen that you have shown that what you are saying is true about anyone of these three. 

Firstly, we are never redeemed from sin. We are forgiven our sins. There's abig difference. You'll never find the Bible saying we're redeemed from sin but FORGIVEN. What we are redeemed from then, is the curse of the law. Which states that

Ga 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

The curse of the law as defined by scripture is simply this: That if you fail to fulfill any of the law, you will be cursed. But cursed with what?? That's where Deu 28 with the long list of curses which includes all types of sickness and poverty among other things.

But how do you get that the curse of the law is just the curses found in Deut 28.  There are many curses throughout the OT are they a part it also?  And why do you use the curses in Deut. 28 instead of teh curse being that we loose our elationship with God.  And notice it is not the curses of the law but the Curse of the law. That it is one curse that the verses is speaking about.  ANd note that Galatians is all about not adding works to salvation but instead that salvation is by grace through faith.  Basically I see no reason to look back at Deut. 28 for specific curses for what Paul is saying in Gal. 3:13.   

So, if Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, then obviously he has redeemed us from the curses stated in Deu 28. IOW he has redeemed us from the curse of sickness and poverty.

I do not see this at all.  Please support why you jump to Deut. 28 for your list of curses of the law. 

the quote you gave of barnes supports my point too.

I do not see that it does.  It speaks about the curse of the law being that we can't be saved through it alone because we can't keep it.  

"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."


See it says that the curse is about us not being able to perform to the standards of the law so we are not saved.  Where does Barnes say that it means that the curse is about wealth and health? 

well, what are these consequences, woes, and punishments that we have been saved or redeemed from? The curses in Deu 28! If not that, then what?

Hell.  Seperation from God now and for eternity.  Our relationship with God is what matters.  Without God wealth and health mean nothing.  But with God we can say as Paul did that we can be content whether in godo or bad times.  And Paul was specifically speaking about finances in the passage below. 


Phil 4:10-19
10 But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at last you have revived your concern for me; indeed, you were concerned {before}  but you lacked opportunity.
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.
14 Nevertheless, you have done well to share {with me} in my affliction.
15 You yourselves also know, Philippians, that at the first preaching of the gospel, after I left Macedonia, no church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving but you alone;
16 for even in Thessalonica you sent {a gift} more than once for my needs.
17 Not that I seek the gift itself, but I seek for the profit which increases to your account.
18 But I have received everything in full and have an abundance; I am amply supplied, having received from Epaphroditus what you have sent, a fragrant aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God.
19 And my God will supply all your needs according to His riches in glory in Christ Jesus.
(NAU)

Paul's basic message though in this passage is that Christ is sufficient no matter if we are healthy or not or wealthy or not. (as in this case)  Those things do not matter comapred to knowing Christ.  Christ is sufficient.  I do not need wealth or health only Christ. 

 

[Andrew]

huh?Ê

The question is simple blackhawk: should one use experiences (positive or negative) to determine what is God's truth, or should one look to his Word? I believe you believe it is the latter. That is my point.

I do not see this at all.Ê Please support why you jump to Deut. 28 for your list of curses of the law.Ê

It is quite obvious blackhawk, in Deu 28, God says that if you obey my laws (obviously it is the 10 Commandments + all the other 360+ Jewish laws, or simply the Law of Moses) you will be blessed with these blessings... health, prosperity, good marriages, etc.
However, if you dont obey my laws, curses like poverty, sickness, etc will come upon you.

So Deu 28 is clearly talking abt the consequences of obeying and disobeying the Law.

Again, what is the curse of the Law? I gave you scripture which says:

Ga 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

now you ask, how did I jump from Ga 3:10 to Deu 28?

The phrase in Ga 3:10 "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." is a quotation from Deu 27:26. Just check your Bible's cross-ref.

There Moses says a long list of Òcursed is the man who carves an image..... cursed is the man who.....Ó and so on

Until he comes to Deu 28. Where he says if you obey God's laws, you are blessed with these blessings.......health, prosperity...etc and if you dont obey, you are cursed with these curses......poverty, lack, sickness....etc

so it is all in the context of Deu 27,28.

Again, put simply, the curse of the Law is that you are cursed if you dont obey the Law. What are you curse with? The Bible tells us in Deu 27,28.

it is not just generally

Hell.Ê Seperation from God now and for eternity.Ê

I have given you the Bible definitions, these are just your general suggestions.

 

[Blindfaith]

I have given you the Bible definitions, these are just your general suggestions

Would you mind terribly, Andrew, explaining what the above quote means?  Thanks.

 

[Andrew]

Would you mind terribly, Andrew, explaining what the above quote means?Ê Thanks.

We are debating on what the curse of the law is.

BH says its "Hell.ÊSeperation from God now and for eternity." I'm saying that's not it. His statement is just a general suggestion not backed up by scripture. IOW the curse of the Law is not hell or separation from God now and for eternity. The curse of the Law applies to now, here on earth (Deu 27,28 curses), not in the after life.

I have told him what it is specifically refering to, backed up by scripture (deu 27,28) in my posts.

 

[Outspoken]

"Because of the fear that Job harbored in his life, it opened up everything he had to attack by satan. "

Wrong-o God himself declares Job to be a rightious man. God gave satan perimission to persecute job to test his faith. Read the first few chapters.

 

[Outspoken]

"The curse of the Law applies to now"

So you haven't read romans chapter 7 then huh?

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Hi BlackHawk, and others...
As is often the case with this discussion, the differences go far deeper than "prosperity and healing". Ultimately it goes to deeper issues like "sovereignty", the theological "omni" factors, and other wider issues invloving the very nature of God. These issues are beyond the scope of this dicsussion, and I do not want to introduce them at this time. It is an old topic that I have been presenting in forums for some time... mainly: "Do the theological "Omni" attributes of God allow for the overuling of the specific elements of the Gospel?"
Of course my position is no. But I find many who are of the "orthodox" (and more specifially those who are against WOF) tend to say yes... that God is in fact so sovereign that He can simply (sovereignly) decide not to honor His word, His promises, and even the work of Christ on the cross. Of course they do not say it in such direct simple words... but the end result is the same.
So while we could continue to go around the block with this, I do not see the point because we are proceeding from different foundations. The arguement at hand is superfical and only scatching the surface of these real issues.
Good luck on this and I pray the Spirit open all our eyes to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[SnuP]

3rd April 2003 at 12:45 AM Outspoken said this in Post #95

"Because of the fear that Job harbored in his life, it opened up everything he had to attack by satan. "

Wrong-o God himself declares Job to be a rightious man. God gave satan perimission to persecute job to test his faith. Read the first few chapters.

Job was rightious because he feared God, that does not make him perfect.  Why would you believe that Job is so perfect that he could not have had any sin or fear in his life.  Though Job was blameless and righteous before God, his heart still had darkness in it.  Why are you ignoring the whole chastising session Job got from God at the end of the book where we see him repent for the attitude of his heart?

More importantly, why when you have argued with me before about whether or not a christian can live sinfree (on another thread), do you profess that Job did?

 

[SnuP]

2nd April 2003 at 02:57 PM Blackhawk said this in Post #86




What about your theology?  Has your pastor read any books besids the Bible?  Have you?  Why I say that is because if so then your church has been influenced by tradition.  

What you fail to realize is that everything that comes into our church as doctrine is carefully scrutinized and discerned.  If there is no annointing or light than it is throne out.  This is heardly the passing of tradition, but accually the looking for the fingerprint of God.  And still we seek God before the issues are presented in the church.  We are not excepting traditions, rather we are looking for God.  When a non-denominational minister reads a book, he will only keep the things that have annointing on them, then he will search then out scripturally, and then pray over them.  At this point the doctrine usually lookes different from the original, much of the minister has been added and it has become a personal revelation to the minister.  This is heardly the passing of traditions, any more than traditions were passed to Paul when he went to see the apostles.

 

[SnuP]

3rd April 2003 at 12:46 AM Outspoken said this in Post #96

"The curse of the Law applies to now"

So you haven't read romans chapter 7 then huh?

Umm that only applies to those who are in Christ.  The minute you try to do something for or of yourself you come under the law and out of Christ.  You have to leave Christ just to sin.  For in Him there is no sin.  You cannot be in Christ and still sin.

Gal. 5:1-9

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.  Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened agaain by a yoke of slavery.      Mark my words!  I, Paul tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.  Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.  You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ;  you have fallen away from grace. . .