How do I merit heaven?
Jon Brooks
succeed, you can become a millionair, you can have all the possesions you
could ever want. But what good is all that? what is it worth to own all the
toys you could ever want, but lose your soul?
A rich man comes to Jesus asking how he can have eternal life, Jesus tells
Him to obey the commands of God, the man tells Jesus that he has kept them
all, then this is what Jesus says:
"You still lack one thing, sell everything you have, and give to the poor,
and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come follow Me." Luke 18:22
So we see that having everything in the world even obeying God's law can
not merit anyone heaven, so we see two things, giving all we have
(spiritual and physical), and following Jesus, now I don't think Jesus
expects His followers to live in poverty (though sometimes it seems like a
good idea), but instead He wants His disciples to give up everything that
could come above Jesus, Jesus wants faithful followers, His 12 closest
disciples gave up all, homes, jobs, and most likely even thier families to
follow Jesus.
So now we see that treasure here on earth is not a way to merit heaven.
That giving up yourself and following Jesus gives you reward in heaven. The
difference? Goodies that last maybe at the most 60-70 years, or priceless
treasure that will last for an eternity.
Now what is heavenly treasure? We are told that following Jesus gives us
eternal life, that is even after our body is dust, we will be made
glorified and will live forever without decay, in a place without decay. We
also are told that we will recieve crowns ... that is rewards for "running
the race", "fighting the good fight", basically staying focused towards the
narrow gate, and walking the narrow road,
The narrow gate, Jesus says is Himself, and the narrow road is living the
kind of life He lived, perfect without any stain of sin, blameless before
men and God.
Now obviously we can never live that life fully, but God is gracious and
merciful, and is willing to put up with our imperfections, Jesus-His One
and Only Son was sent to grant us a way to be cleaned from imperfection, so
when we repent, God sees us as perfect, of course we must continually
repent from sin, daily.
I believe it was James the younger half-brother of Jesus who people called
"old camel-knees" because he was on his knees in prayer so much that his
knees became calloused.
May you also be able to be called "old camel-knees" be in prayer before
God's throne daily, even if you do not get down on your knees literally, be
prostrate in your heart, that must be a daily, if not even an hourly thing
to do. and dear friends if you do not know Jesus, my hope is that you will
take heed to His words and "sell everything you have, and...come follow Me"
for then only will you have your reward in heaven.
--
In Christ Jesus, His disciple Jonathan
email at xrist...@hotmail.com
Shema Yisrael Yahveh Eloheinu Yahveh Echad
"Hear Oh Israel, The LORD our God, The LORD is one"
randolph v kluth
Jon Brooks
> A rich man comes to Jesus asking how he can have eternal life, Jesus
tells
> Him to obey the commands of God, the man tells Jesus that he has
kept them
> all, then this is what Jesus says:
>
> "You still lack one thing, sell everything you have, and give to the
poor,
> and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come follow Me." Luke
18:22
I don't think Jesus advocated "perfectionism." He did not require
sinless perfection. Still, he would be negligent if he did not require
absolute commitment to all pure principles. The "rich man" you spoke
of kept the perfect way of morality, and Jesus did not fault him for
that. Jesus faulted him, I believe, for replacing true morality with a
simple facade of morality. It was not that we have to give up money,
marriage or anything that God created or gave us. We simply need to
BECOME moral, and not just observe rituals. It is how we treat others
that provides evidence of our morality. Makes no difference how many
religious services we attend, or how much Bible we memorize. How do we
treat people?? This rich man did not care enough for the poor. He
wasn't giving up money necessarily. He would have gained a Messiah who
could produce gold from stones! Morality is the issue here, not
perfection. In fact, the word for perfect often means maturity--not
sinless perfection. We must mature in our love for people--in this way
we prove how much we love God.
Randy
Prof. Leland Miltong Goldblatt, Ph.D.
specifically what they mean by the gospel. For example, most will agree that
a person must believe the gospel in order to be saved, but most do not agree
on what the gospel is. It is easy to say that the gospel is simply "Christ,"
or "Christ, crucified." It is easy to say that the gospel is merely the
"death, burial, and resurrection of Christ." A preacher in a letter to me
once defined the gospel as "the word of God's promise in Jesus who is the
Christ." This was, as he stated, the gospel in its simplest form. The
problem with all this is that it really does not tell anyone specifically
what the gospel is and what it is not. Many who disagree on such vital
issues as who God is, who Christ is, the sinfulness of man, and the ground
of salvation, can and do agree with the statements above. Also, when we
consider the words of God in Galatians 1:8 -- "But though we, or an angel
from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have
preached unto you, let him be accursed," does this not prove to us that we
need a more specific definition? Of course it does.
Thank God that He has not left us to our own thoughts and imaginations on
this vital issue. He has given us His definition of the Gospel. It is stated
throughout the Bible in many ways and in many forms, but God gives us the
most concise definition by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:1-17 and Romans
3:21-26. The Gospel is GOD'S PROMISE OF ETERNAL SALVATION AND FINAL GLORY IN
HEAVEN CONDITIONED ON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, BASED ON HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS
ALONE. The Gospel, in light of the sinfulness of man (Rom. 1:18--3:21), and
the utter impossibility of any sinner being saved based on that sinner's
best efforts at obedience, reveals how a holy and just God can save sinners
in mercy, love, and grace, and still remain holy and just. The Gospel
reveals that all this is possible based on the merits of a God-sent
Substitute, the Lord Jesus Christ, who would become incarnate, obey the law
perfectly, and satisfy justice by His death on the cross in order to
establish a righteousness whereby God could be both a just God and a Savior
(Isa. 45:21-22).
Shalom,
Reverend Chancellor Leland Milton Goldblatt Ph.D.
"Ignore 'em, m'dear, they're beneath your dignity." -W.C. Fields
http://joinme.net/goldblatt/index.htm
Prof. Leland Miltong Goldblatt, Ph.D.
news:83ctmh$7vbc$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com...
> I don't think Jesus advocated "perfectionism." He did not require
> sinless perfection. Still, he would be negligent if he did not require
> absolute commitment to all pure principles. The "rich man" you spoke
> of kept the perfect way of morality, and Jesus did not fault him for
> that. Jesus faulted him, I believe, for replacing true morality with a
> simple facade of morality.
Wrong!!
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of
sin. -- John 8:34
It is easy for all men and women by nature to place in the category of
servants of sin all who are immoral, irreligious, and insincere. Such people
whose lives and conduct are characterized by such sins are truly servants of
sin. But Christ was speaking to moral, religious men who appeared righteous
outwardly. It would be convenient for us to say simply that they were not
sincere about their religion (and there probably were many of them who were
not sincere), but, on the whole, the Pharisees were the most dedicated and
most sincere. How could Christ say, then, that they were servants of sin? He
was speaking of the sin that is common to all of us by nature and which
deceives all of us by nature. Before salvation, before God justifies a
person by His grace in Christ, that person is a servant of sin no matter
what else may be said of him. He may be religious, sincere, dedicated, kind,
humble (as the world sees it), charitable, but before salvation by God's
grace in Christ, all of this is nothing more than "fruit unto death" (Rom.
7:5). Before we hear and believe God's Gospel, His promise of eternal
salvation and final glory conditioned on Christ alone, based on His
righteousness alone, all we can do in religion and morality is try to
establish a righteousness of our own (Rom. 10:1-3), and this is opposed to
God's glory and Christ's pre-eminence in salvation. It is a denial of Christ
and His Gospel. A servant of sin, then, is one who thinks that something
other than the merits of Christ's obedience and death can in some way
recommend him unto God. All unbelievers are servants of sin. Thank God He
delivers His people from being servants of sin to being servants of
righteousness (Rom. 6:17-18). A person who is by God's grace a servant of
righteousness may have been just as moral and sincere before salvation as he
is after salvation, but now his motive for being moral is different. Now,
being a servant of righteousness, his motive is not legalism. His motive now
is grace and gratitude -- the assurance of all of salvation based on the
righteousness of Christ according to God's grace and mercy.
Jon Brooks
randolph v kluth <rkl...@prodigy.net> wrote in article
<83ctmh$7vbc$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>
>
> Jon Brooks
> > A rich man comes to Jesus asking how he can have eternal life, Jesus
> tells
> > Him to obey the commands of God, the man tells Jesus that he has
> kept them
> > all, then this is what Jesus says:
> >
> > "You still lack one thing, sell everything you have, and give to the
> poor,
> > and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come follow Me." Luke
> 18:22
>
> I don't think Jesus advocated "perfectionism." He did not require
> sinless perfection. Still, he would be negligent if he did not require
> absolute commitment to all pure principles. The "rich man" you spoke
> of kept the perfect way of morality, and Jesus did not fault him for
> that. Jesus faulted him, I believe, for replacing true morality with a
> simple facade of morality. It was not that we have to give up money,
> marriage or anything that God created or gave us. We simply need to
> BECOME moral, and not just observe rituals. It is how we treat others
> that provides evidence of our morality. Makes no difference how many
> religious services we attend, or how much Bible we memorize. How do we
> treat people?? This rich man did not care enough for the poor. He
> wasn't giving up money necessarily. He would have gained a Messiah who
> could produce gold from stones! Morality is the issue here, not
> perfection. In fact, the word for perfect often means maturity--not
> sinless perfection. We must mature in our love for people--in this way
> we prove how much we love God.
>
> Randy
>
my point wasn't that you had to be perfect to merit heaven, or you had to
sell everything,my point was that you can't merit heaven, you must follow
Jesus, and give up all you have for Him, not that you have to sell all your
stuff, i just meant that if you have given all you have to God, then if God
asked you to sell it all and live in poverty, you have enough faith that
you'd do as God asks, kinda like how Abraham was willing to sacrifice
Isaac, even though Abe had waited such a long time, then God promised him a
son at such an old age, Abe's faith was so great that when God asked him to
do it, he was willing, God of course didn't let Abraham go through with it,
but the analogy fits i think
Kevin Stewart
Jon Brooks wrote in message <01bf4995$948d34a0$589d2bd1@fourts>...
>my point wasn't that you had to be perfect to merit heaven, or you had to
>sell everything,my point was that you can't merit heaven, you must follow
>Jesus, and give up all you have for Him, not that you have to sell all your
>stuff, i just meant that if you have given all you have to God, then if God
>asked you to sell it all and live in poverty, you have enough faith that
>you'd do as God asks,
With this kind of revisionist skill, you should think about becoming a
Historian, Jon-boy! Perhaps write Presidential 'damage-control' speeches!
The Bible is fit for correction & reproof. It's divinely inspired. It's
inerrant. It's infallible. It's ***T ***H ***E *** lawbook for life.
But when God II says "Be ye perfect, even as I am perfect.", what it R E A L
L Y means is "Stay away from canned anchovies when adrift in the mid
Atlantic."
[How do you say "NNNNNOOOOOOOOTTTTTTTTT!!!!!" in 72 point flaming lime serif
typeface on a newsgroup?]
Jesus ostensibly knew what he was saying. He knew how 2,000 yrs of saved
slime scum would use it. He knew, again ostensibly, how fanatical,
by-the-book, guilt-ridded, glad-to-dream-of-being-a-doormat-someday parents
would take it at full face and raze... raise...their kids accordingly.
Any person so certain that the Supreme in alllll loving compassion will damn
BILLIONS to hell (and all the acid-burning, flesh-melting
urgently-pleading-for-peace blubbering, damned always -- and beyond
therein), could think of fluffing so impossible an absolute AND EXPECT TO BE
BELIEVED!!!! is overtly, wretchedly fucked up!
God said it. God is not the author of confusion, (it's the fools' fault for
believing there is any possible, potential reality to II Chron 7:14 or
similar, hope-giving verses!). If you are scum -- your revising and blanket
condemnation with its accompanying conceited arrogance damn near makes me
want to agree with you -- you are *divinely* *commanded* to be PERFECT scum.
(You think inability ever negated the punishment a slave recieved for
disobedience, "Disciple" Wordsmith/Laodician Brooks?)
kinda like how Abraham was willing to sacrifice
>Isaac, even though Abe had waited such a long time, then God promised him a
>son at such an old age, Abe's faith was so great that when God asked him to
>do it, he was willing, God of course didn't let Abraham go through with it,
>but the analogy fits i think
I thought they pulled "Fairytale Theater"!
God promised Abraham that his decendents would be as numerous as the stars.
This horde would come through (t)his son. Issac was therefore never at risk.
Abraham had left such pagan practices as child sacrifices to Marduk or
whatever behind. The laws Moses got were already Gods'
(and I don't mean ceremonial/ritual laws), including human sacrifice. (If
Jephsophat[sic] the soldier did kill his daughter for being the 1st living
thing to greet him, it would be the only time such a violation occurred,
AFAIK).
Assuming this "test" actually happened, Abraham would have to have been
faithless to think the order real. But goshgolly if'n he aint in the NT
faith chapter!!!
Here's a major idea you may want to work on as a New Years' resolution,
Jon-boy:
R E A D I N G I S F U N D A M E N T A L
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think Rev. McGuffey's Readers are still available, properly modernized and
doubtlessly simplified for today's active Ninetendo addict or
comprehension-challenged Alexander Scourby buff!
Kevin
II Chron 7:14 -- the "Energizer bunny" of myths!
Biblical accounts are generally treated as real when responding to Xians.
Some incredulity may apply.
snipped
>Shema Yisrael Yahveh Eloheinu Yahveh Echad
>"Hear Oh Israel, The LORD our God, The LORD is one"
Irrelevant! The Gospel that is the 'soul' of the "Great Commision" was
started by Jesus roughly 15 centuries later. This quote is not only
monotheistic, but non-contributory as well! (And like duhhh jon-boy! the use
of like Hebrew, just doesn't lend you know credence to you like it know?
Thus it's both condescending and unnecessarily verbose!)
sam_p...@my-deja.com
> Thank God that He has not left us to our own thoughts and imaginations
> on this vital issue. He has given us His definition of the Gospel.
Yet you forget that God has indeed left us to our own thoughts and
imaginations on the most vital issue of all: salvation. How is one
saved? Through faith alone (Paul) or through faith and works (James)?
What happens to those who have never heard - are they saved or
condemned? What about young children or the mentally retarded who cannot
distinguish good and evil? Does salvation occur the very second that you
accept Christ or sometime later? Is baptism required for salvation? Is
there a purgatory after death? What about those that lived before Jesus
- how were they saved?
These are but a few of the issues that the bible has failed to address.
Theologians, pastors and priests are themselves divided over the
specifics of salvation - undoubtedly the most important issue of all.
I know that if I were God, and I desired that none should perish, I
would state very clearly how one was to be saved. I would probably issue
some sort of an instruction booklet, with a few "Terms and Conditions"
that might include "Offer expires on 6/6/6666" or "Fallen angels and
their relatives need not apply" or even "Offer not valid to Jehovah's
Witnesses".
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
guess who
Jon Brooks wrote:
> The world is a great place...says the world. You can be anything, you can
> succeed, you can become a millionair, you can have all the possesions you
> could ever want. But what good is all that? what is it worth to own all the
> toys you could ever want, but lose your soul?
>
> A rich man comes to Jesus asking how he can have eternal life, Jesus tells
> Him to obey the commands of God, the man tells Jesus that he has kept them
> all, then this is what Jesus says:
>
> "You still lack one thing, sell everything you have, and give to the poor,
> and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come follow Me." Luke 18:22
>
> So we see that having everything in the world even obeying God's law can
> not merit anyone heaven, so we see two things, giving all we have
> (spiritual and physical), and following Jesus, now I don't think Jesus
> expects His followers to live in poverty (though sometimes it seems like a
> good idea), but instead He wants His disciples to give up everything that
> could come above Jesus, Jesus wants faithful followers, His 12 closest
> disciples gave up all, homes, jobs, and most likely even thier families to
> follow Jesus.
excuse me luke makes it very clear that jesus was talking about material
wealth. "a rich man" not a spritual rich man. "sell all you won" you dont sell
spritiual and physical items. "distrubte it to the poor" you dont distrubte
spritual and physical items to the poor. nor does it say to the poor in spirit.
"he was sorrowfull for he was very rich." material wealth.
you have twisted the words of jesus to mean something entirely different from
what jesus said because ***you*** are totally unable to follow them. so you
justify your own position --- the same as the rich man. then you conclude by
showing how the apostales did what the rich man and you refuse to do.
***********************************
What does Christmas have to do with religion?
Norm Macdonald
The Norm Show
December 15, 1999
***********************************
guess who
randolph v kluth wrote:
> Jon Brooks
> > A rich man comes to Jesus asking how he can have eternal life, Jesus
> tells
> > Him to obey the commands of God, the man tells Jesus that he has
> kept them
> > all, then this is what Jesus says:
> >
> > "You still lack one thing, sell everything you have, and give to the
> poor,
> > and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come follow Me." Luke
> 18:22
>
> I don't think Jesus advocated "perfectionism." He did not require
> sinless perfection.
what did jesus mean in matthew 19:21 when he said "if thou wilth be
perfect"?
> Still, he would be negligent if he did not require
> absolute commitment to all pure principles. The "rich man" you spoke
> of kept the perfect way of morality, and Jesus did not fault him for
> that. Jesus faulted him, I believe, for replacing true morality with a
> simple facade of morality. It was not that we have to give up money,
> marriage or anything that God created or gave us.
gee jesus says other wise but in matthen and luke he tells the person to
sell their personally possesions.
> We simply need to
> BECOME moral, and not just observe rituals. It is how we treat others
> that provides evidence of our morality. Makes no difference how many
> religious services we attend, or how much Bible we memorize. How do we
> treat people?? This rich man did not care enough for the poor. He
> wasn't giving up money necessarily.
so giving up material possesions does matter.
> He would have gained a Messiah who
> could produce gold from stones! Morality is the issue here, not
> perfection. In fact, the word for perfect often means maturity--not
> sinless perfection. We must mature in our love for people--in this way
> we prove how much we love God.
if morality is so important then why do you reject the law? what do you
replace it with?
--
*********************************************
Carlos Santana told a packed Mexico City news conference
Wednesday that he's spoken to the Virgin of Guadalupe,
Mexico's most revered religious figure, who he said
appeared before him in church as he prayed. "I started
to cry - I'd never cried before - and she said. 'Calm
down breathe, I am very proud and happy with you." The
52-year-old rocker also told the gathered that marijuana
is not a drug.
Denver Post
December 10, 1999
*********************************************
guess who
Jon Brooks wrote:
> my point wasn't that you had to be perfect to merit heaven, or you had to
> sell everything,my point was that you can't merit heaven, you must follow
> Jesus, and give up all you have for Him, not that you have to sell all your
> stuff,
i guess you could just give it away. you are suppose to give away the money you
recieve when you sell it.
> i just meant that if you have given all you have to God, then if God
> asked you to sell it all and live in poverty, you have enough faith that
> you'd do as God asks,
then if? but he already has
Tim Thomas
nearly everything. In doing this God proved that Job would not turn away
from the Lord because of the things of this world. Job continued to believe
and trust God even though he was unaware of the trial at the time.
We all are tested to see if we really have held onto what the Lord has
given us in our hearts. My heart searches to serve the Lord every day. No
matter the circumstances, we can know by the Holy Spirit these promises.
"I will neither leave you nor forsake you."
"Lo, I am with you always."
Even when we don't FEEL something. We can trust the Lord, that He is
true to His Word. I have seen many people come under much pressure in this
season. Whether it is the cold, shortness of daylight, increased expenses
at this time of year. Whatever it is, God is with you IN your problem.
Merit. I love that word. It can mean many things to many people. Never
could afford to be a Boy Scout myself but a friend gave me a manual when I
was about ten years old.
They had merit badges for many things. Anyway, you cannot MERIT, going
to Heaven. Some people think that you have to earn everything and be self
sufficient.
The whole earth is the Lords. He gave it to us as an inheritance. All
He asked for in return was our firstfruits and we couldn't even get that
right. (Genesis)
Now, when you look at the Word with any sort of a open heart toward God.
As you read the NT, look for these key words:
Faith= From God
Healing= From God
Light= From God
Truth= From God
Love= From God
Sanctification= From God
Deliverance= From God
Righteousness= From God
Holiness= From God
wisdom= From God
Knowledge= From God
Everything that I have came from God. What could I give to trade for my
life? Nothing. Because I believe in Jesus, His Blood cleansed me from all
unrighteousness and allowed me to enter into the presence of the Father
singing praises.
Because God offered all of you the same Mercy He gave me I ask you one
thing: Please show that same mercy to others, today, tomorrow and forever.
Lk:6:37: Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall
not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
Lk:11:4: And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is
indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.
Matthew 18:23-35
23: Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which
would take account of his servants.
24: And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed
him ten thousand talents.
25: But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold,
and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.
26: The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have
patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
27: Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him,
and forgave him the debt.
28: But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants,
which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by
the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.
29: And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying,
Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
30: And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay
the debt.
31: So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and
came and told unto their lord all that was done.
32: Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou
wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
33: Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even
as I had pity on thee?
34: And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he
should pay all that was due unto him.
35: So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your
hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.
So therefore, walk in the Loght of the Gospel and forgiveness to
everyone who has ever wronged you, and you will truly walk in the liberty
and joy of the Holy Spirit.
In Christ, Tim Thomas
Jon Brooks
guess who <joey...@uswest.net> wrote in article
<385CEB5E...@uswest.net>...
>
>
> Jon Brooks wrote:
>
> > The world is a great place...says the world. You can be anything, you
can
> > succeed, you can become a millionair, you can have all the possesions
you
> > could ever want. But what good is all that? what is it worth to own all
the
> > toys you could ever want, but lose your soul?
> >
> > A rich man comes to Jesus asking how he can have eternal life, Jesus
tells
> > Him to obey the commands of God, the man tells Jesus that he has kept
them
> > all, then this is what Jesus says:
> >
> > "You still lack one thing, sell everything you have, and give to the
poor,
> > and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come follow Me." Luke 18:22
> >
no i realise that Jesus was telling the rich man to literally sell all he
had and follow Jesus, i'm aware of that, but that does not mean that
poverty is the only way, it means that if you must be physically poor to be
humble, then so be it, a rich man can enter heaven --if-- he has given it
all up, if that man -can- be willing to give it up, I have a feeling if
that rich man would have been willing to sell it all, God would have
blessed him more abundantly, look at Abraham and Isaac, God told Abe to
sacrifice Isaac, so Abe being the obediant servant he was, said ok, but God
would not allow Abraham to actually kill Isaac, so God stopped abe from
doing it, and supplied Abraham with a permitable sacrifice. a lamb. I
believe Jesus was testing the willingness of the rich man's willingness to
follow Jesus, if that man had sold it and followed Jesus, his reward would
have been 10 fold of that which he sold, I do not believe poverty is
required to follow the Master, but one must be willing to live in poverty,
humility is a requirement to successfully follow the Master, to see what
one must do to be a Christian all one has to do is see how Jesus lived His
life, perfect, sinless, kind, loving, humble, meek, submissive, wise,
faithful, these are the charicteristics of the Savior, and all those who
wish to suffer for the Savior must show these charicteristics, we as people
will never exude these charicteristics fully, obviously perfection is
impossible as fallible human beings, but Christ the Lord, has made a way
for us to come to God unashamed, that is by His sacrifice on Calvary, and
only through His blood can we begin to live a life worth living, showing
these Christlike charicter traits.
--
In Christ Jesus, His disciple Jonathan
email at xrist...@hotmail.com
Shema Yisrael Yahveh Eloheinu Yahveh Echad
"Hear Oh Israel, The LORD our God, The LORD is one"
> ***********************************
Jon Brooks
sam_p...@my-deja.com wrote in article <83ipbr$7bv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>
> > Thank God that He has not left us to our own thoughts and imaginations
> > on this vital issue. He has given us His definition of the Gospel.
>
> Yet you forget that God has indeed left us to our own thoughts and
> imaginations on the most vital issue of all: salvation. How is one
> saved? Through faith alone (Paul) or through faith and works (James)?
> What happens to those who have never heard - are they saved or
> condemned? What about young children or the mentally retarded who cannot
> distinguish good and evil? Does salvation occur the very second that you
> accept Christ or sometime later? Is baptism required for salvation? Is
> there a purgatory after death? What about those that lived before Jesus
> - how were they saved?
>
you don't give anyone enough credit, a small child can have more faith than
an adult, a mentally challenged person can distinguish good and evil, and
both Paul and James agree what equals salvation...faith, but James does
speak of faith being justified by works, your works justify your faith,
faith is required for salvation, but you must take the next step show your
works and show yourself faithful.
--
In Christ Jesus, His disciple Jonathan
email at xrist...@hotmail.com
Shema Yisrael Yahveh Eloheinu Yahveh Echad
"Hear Oh Israel, The LORD our God, The LORD is one"
> These are but a few of the issues that the bible has failed to address.
sam_p...@my-deja.com
"Jon Brooks " <xrist...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> sam_p...@my-deja.com wrote in article
<83ipbr$7bv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >
> >
> > > Thank God that He has not left us to our own thoughts and
> > >imaginations on this vital issue. He has given us His definition of
> > >the Gospel.
> >
> > Yet you forget that God has indeed left us to our own thoughts and
> > imaginations on the most vital issue of all: salvation. How is one
> > saved? Through faith alone (Paul) or through faith and works
> > (James)? What happens to those who have never heard - are they saved
> > or condemned? What about young children or the mentally retarded who
> > cannot distinguish good and evil? Does salvation occur the very
> > second that you accept Christ or sometime later? Is baptism required
> > for salvation? Is there a purgatory after death? What about those
> > that lived before Jesus - how were they saved?
> you don't give anyone enough credit, a small child can have more faith
> than an adult,
And how does this relate to what I've said above? Can a two year old
distinguish good from evil? And where is he/she going if she dies?
Obviously you don't know ... and why not? Because the bible is
notoriously unclear about salvation.
> a mentally challenged person can distinguish good and evil,
That's not what the world's top psychiatrists believe, but what the
heck, I'll take your word for it since you seem to know so much about
how the brain works. Obviously those academics that spend years and
years studying and experimenting are wrong, just like those idiot
evolutionists!
> both Paul and James agree what equals salvation...faith, but James
> does speak of faith being justified by works, your works justify your
> faith, faith is required for salvation, but you must take the next
> step show your works and show yourself faithful.
Whether or not Paul and James preach the same doctrine of salvation is
debatable.
What about the other issues - purgatory, baptism, etc? Do you concede
that you have no scripturally based answers to them? Or if you do have
some answers, please enlightened me.
>
> --
> In Christ Jesus, His disciple Jonathan
> email at xrist...@hotmail.com
>
> Shema Yisrael Yahveh Eloheinu Yahveh Echad
> "Hear Oh Israel, The LORD our God, The LORD is one"
Kevin Stewart
It fits!
Kevin
PS Calvary Kids: Does it ever sink in that Satan can't do squat without
Gods' approval. That God does tempt man, (DDDUUUHHHHH!). That God has no
problem with imperfection in His presence? That Job is a teaching story, not
real (or everything above -- all contradictions to your rose-retina'd
rhetoric -- is true)?
Damn!!! Ageless quandary alert!
Tim Thomas wrote in message <83k27g$rhg$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
Jon-boy's opinion, moderate version.
Tim Thomas
telling us is that Sodom and Gommorah never existed and Jesus was never
here.
The devil is irrelevant to this discussion. It is how we respond, our
faith, where we invested ourselves. When we invest in the SURE Word of God
then He MULTIPLIES it in our hearts and minds.
Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out
of the mouth of God.
In Christ, Tim Thomas
"Kevin Stewart" <ke...@jacksonmi.com> wrote in message
news:s5ro0u5...@corp.supernews.com...
guess who
Jon Brooks wrote:
yes the point that you keep ignoring if he gives it all up.
> I have a feeling if
> that rich man would have been willing to sell it all, God would have
> blessed him more abundantly, look at Abraham and Isaac, God told Abe to
> sacrifice Isaac, so Abe being the obediant servant he was, said ok, but God
> would not allow Abraham to actually kill Isaac, so God stopped abe from
> doing it, and supplied Abraham with a permitable sacrifice. a lamb. I
> believe Jesus was testing the willingness of the rich man's willingness to
> follow Jesus, if that man had sold it and followed Jesus, his reward would
> have been 10 fold of that which he sold,
abraham didnt get 10 kids. he was just stopped from doing what wasnt permitted
-- child sacrifice. but then child sacrifice becomes the standard for
christianity. god so loved the world he gave his only begotten son. unlike
abraham where God stopped abraham from sacrificing is son god never stopped god
from sacrificing his son. so why would he stop the rich man.
>
>
> > ***********************************
> > What does Christmas have to do with religion?
> >
> > Norm Macdonald
> > The Norm Show
> > December 15, 1999
> > ***********************************
> >
> >
> >
--
Rainbow Christian
- > Thank God that He has not left us to our own thoughts and imaginations
- > on this vital issue. He has given us His definition of the Gospel.
-
- Yet you forget that God has indeed left us to our own thoughts and
- imaginations on the most vital issue of all: salvation. How is one
- saved? Through faith alone (Paul) or through faith and works (James)?
- What happens to those who have never heard - are they saved or
- condemned? What about young children or the mentally retarded who cannot
- distinguish good and evil? Does salvation occur the very second that you
- accept Christ or sometime later? Is baptism required for salvation? Is
- there a purgatory after death? What about those that lived before Jesus
- - how were they saved?
-
- These are but a few of the issues that the bible has failed to address.
- Theologians, pastors and priests are themselves divided over the
- specifics of salvation - undoubtedly the most important issue of all.
-
- I know that if I were God, and I desired that none should perish, I
- would state very clearly how one was to be saved. I would probably issue
- some sort of an instruction booklet, with a few "Terms and Conditions"
- that might include "Offer expires on 6/6/6666" or "Fallen angels and
- their relatives need not apply" or even "Offer not valid to Jehovah's
- Witnesses".
-
Greeting!!
I missed the orginal post, so let me just add a few thoughts.
1) God is not as petty a humans.
2) God is more concerned with peoples actions/doings, rather than doctines.
Jeuss give us a clear idea on what basis He wll decide who "merits"
heaven adnd who does not.
Matthew 25: 31 "But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the
holy angels with him, then will he sit on the throne of his glory. 32
Before him all the nations will be gathered, and he will separate them one
from another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He
will set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then
the King will tell them on his right hand, 'Come, blessed of my Father,
inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35
for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave
me drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in; 36 naked, and you clothed
me; I was sick, and you visited me; I was in prison, and you came to me.'
37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you
hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you a drink? 38 When did we see
you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you? 39 When did
we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?' 40 The King will answer
them, 'Most assuredly I tell you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the
least of these my brothers, you did it to me.' 41 Then will he say also to
them on the left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire
which is prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry, and
you didn't give me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink;
43 I was a stranger, and you didn't take me in; naked, and you didn't
clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn't visit me.' 44 Then will
they also answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty,
or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not help you?' 45
Then will he answer them, saying, 'Most assuredly I tell you, inasmuch as
you didn't do it to one of these least, you didn't do it to me.' 46 These
will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal
life."
Nothing in tis taching of Jesus about Dogma, Doctrine, Bible Knowledge, or
whatever..
So it seems to me that Jesus says that the righteous are those who do fo
other, unseflishlessly, lovingly.
The unrighteousness are those who refuse to "do love".
Micah 6:" 6 How shall I come before Yahweh, And bow myself before the
exalted God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, With calves a
year old? 7 Will Yahweh be pleased with thousands of rams? With tens of
thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my disobedience?
The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? 8 He has shown you, O man,
what is good. What does Yahweh require of you, but to act justly, To love
mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?
As for Christians, Jesus hold them to a higher standard, for He said to
us/them, "If you love me, you will keep MY commandements."
All the Commands of Jesus
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/1734/alljesus.html
--
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/1734
-
Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true. whatever is noble, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable - if anything is excellent or praiseworthy - think about such things. Philippiams 4:8
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.ufmcc.com
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
Kevin Stewart
Tim Thomas wrote in message <83l65e$16h$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
snipped
> The devil is irrelevant to this discussion.
The ogre that Christians are to overcome, refute, rebuke and blame all
worldly horrors on is irrelevant to a discussion on how one earns Heaven?
What next? Pregnancy is irrelevant to a discussion on abortion? "People
don't kill people! Death does!"?
Puuhhh leeze!
It is how we respond, our
>faith, where we invested ourselves. When we invest in the SURE Word of God
>then He MULTIPLIES it in our hearts and minds.
And when this e coli-like reproduction has happened, then. . . ?
Hate to burst your blather bubble, but Biblical Christianity is - *W A S* -
ACTIVE!!!!The Great Commission is a "To Do". Being (sounds repugnantly
active) light & salt to the world is a "To Do". Using ones' gifts is a "To
Do". And, most repulsively of alll, Martyrdom was a "To Do".
All this childish "Let Jesus into your heart." crap ignores the "Count the
cost."/"Prove all things"/""Test the Spirits"/"TAKE UP YOUR CROSS AND FOLLOW
[ACTIVE 'TO DO'] ME." mind/effort reality. (BTW, at one time, I won't say
when, it was believed that the heart was what we know the brain is. Hmmmm.)
The redundant sugared-down 'preaching' so common today does nothing to
imform the (potential) believer of the risks, hardships and pain largely
absent from American+ Christianity -- though the "hardships" and "evils" a
'brother' "endures" [aaacccckkkkkkk!!!] is a favored topic for points.
The History of Christianity, especially the evils done (except by "them" =
the false christians responsible for the inquisition/witch hunts) and the
miseries ACTUALLY suffered (ie the first 3 centuries), are ignored in favor
of fads and figures. Preaching is little more than a "Choose Your adventure"
series of verses, (an artifical and recent contrivance lending much to the
fragmentation of the Writings), linked in hopes of making a point. Context
and actual application are sacrificed to clarify some moot idea which has
little use for us today and is forgotten by the noon movie. Of course the
seasonal, pleasant themes are belabored, carefully omitting both origin and
judgement, (ie, criticism of the 3 month commercialization of
Saturn...Christmass, the use of ancient pagan symbols like egg and bunny
(fertility rituals), or evergreen (condemned Biblically for its use as a
reminder of the eternity of the Pagan God dead annually at this time of
year, etc)
> Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth
out
>of the mouth of God.
Whoa!!! King James English! Must be right/sacred. I just love the way
ancient religious/Christian teachings are framed in the KJV! Really
re-inforces their probity!
Unfortunately, the history of Christianity clearly shows how well this
passage has been kept -- theoretical! And the selective use of preferred
verses with the proper 'English' applied negates much of its idealism!
Tell me, O great defender of THE Word, how many of the key items could you
give from memory. All pertain to the Best-selling Book most treasured by
Christians, (so an X'ian should know most of these these at least as well as
an American knows their History [ooopppsss, bad comparison. oh well]):
The sons of Jacob, (founders of the tribes --tho' 10 are actually
namesakes -- the physical forerunner to the "Spiritual Israel" and some say,
leaders in the Kingdom; 11 are mentioned in the listing of the 144,000 in
Rev., so it seems they are relevant still.)
The 12 disciples/apostles, (forefathers of the Christian Church).
The 66 Books of the Bible, (DDDUUUUHHHHHH; to make it easier, ignore their
given order if necessary).
The 10 Commandments, (see above).
I have always had a hard time getting less than 82-85%, though I haven't
read it in 8 yrs or studied it in 16+.
Let me know how knowledgeable you are with a percentage, (there are 100
items so scoring is easy0. To save bandwidth just post your honest,
from-memory score. And don't be embarassed by a low score -- meditating on
the Law day and night is sooo 'Davidian' (no comparision meant) and, baring
ministry prep, few expect any mastery of even the basics of so
(verbally-proclaimed-as) valued and truly crucial a Book!
Kevin
>In Christ, Tim Thomas
I thought God was supposed to be in you! <G>
snipped
amos33
> that rich man would have been willing to sell it all, God would have
> blessed him more abundantly, look at Abraham and Isaac, God told Abe to
> sacrifice Isaac, so Abe being the obediant servant he was, said ok, but God
> would not allow Abraham to actually kill Isaac, so God stopped abe from
> doing it, and supplied Abraham with a permitable sacrifice. a lamb. I
> believe Jesus was testing the willingness of the rich man's willingness to
> follow Jesus, if that man had sold it and followed Jesus, his reward would
> required to follow the Master, but one must be willing to live in poverty,
> humility is a requirement to successfully follow the Master, to see what
> one must do to be a Christian all one has to do is see how Jesus lived His
> life, perfect, sinless, kind, loving, humble, meek, submissive, wise,
> faithful, these are the charicteristics of the Savior, and all those who
> wish to suffer for the Savior must show these charicteristics, we as people
> will never exude these charicteristics fully, obviously perfection is
> impossible as fallible human beings, but Christ the Lord, has made a way
> for us to come to God unashamed, that is by His sacrifice on Calvary, and
> only through His blood can we begin to live a life worth living, showing
> these Christlike charicter traits.
>
What you say here lines up with the word of God. Remember what Jesus
told us:
"By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love
one to another." John 13:35
--
"We don't do good to be saved, we do good because we are saved!"
Dave
gsp...@nohate.poboxes.com (Rainbow Christian) wrote:
>2) God is more concerned with peoples actions/doings, rather than doctines.
I would say that God is VERY concerned with our
doctrines, since they can be a perverting of His Word.
Remember, God looks at the HEART. We are not saved by
"works", but by faith, which is in our hearts.
Kevin Stewart
amos33 wrote in message <385E77...@swbell.net>...
snipped
>What you say here lines up with the word of God.
Except Peter kept his wife, the early church met in members' homes and the
ecclesiastical, (communist) community of share all advocates flopped. Some
followers tried to retain THEIR things, (Annais(?) and his wife), and the NT
is largely Pauline epistles, (repetitive) and rewording of the same
incidences in the life of Jesus, (as any Harmony of the Gospels with show).
The text are also contidictory, convoluted and extremely open to
interpretation based on the mores and morals of a culture, (ie, slavery was
good & Biblical once and I do mean NT-approved = Philemon as well as 250+ of
American history).
Much of the things Jesus did others did to, (to the chagrin of the
incompetent apostles). Much of what Jesus said, others had said, Eastern and
Western Philosophers/Religionists.
Maybe you have the discernment to tell us when Christianity was as Jon-boy
describes it, (was excludes ought/should/may've been, includes is)? Can you
tell us why we should be willing in this fashion for a translated
interpretaion of an idealistic pipedream-cum-control device/war motivator?
No?
well i am surprised
yeah
verily unto shocked
goshgolly
Kevin.
snipped
Tim Thomas
I have counted all of the costs of my salvation and count it as nothing
compared to an eternal relationship with God.
I do not speak of the WORKS I do because many of them are done in secret
as the Word declares. As far as persecution goes, I have had my share and
expect it as long as there are people in the world who are unsaved or
unlearned.
Lastly, the peace and joy in me comes not from a smug attitude, but from
the "Sure Knowledge" that the Lord is with me through every trial. He sent
His Comforter to me as I cry out to Him in prayer and intercession.
My beliefs are such that, even though there is evil in the world, God
promises to raise up against a standard against it on my behalf.
In Christ, Tim Thomas
"Kevin Stewart" <ke...@jacksonmi.com> wrote in message
news:s5sk31...@corp.supernews.com...
>
Tim Thomas
the Holy Spirit. Give God the Glory in all things. Any ability, talent or
Miracle is a gift from God.
That is why we are to manifest the Fruit of the Spirit, to show that we
truly led by the Lord. There is only one way and on name under Heaven
whereby we can be saved, Jesus Christ of Nazaeth. By His Blood we are
cleansed of all unrighteousness.
In Christ, Tim Thomas
"amos33" <amo...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:385E77...@swbell.net...
Kevin Stewart
scripture, it's only true if it is agreeable to the "follower".
BTW, TT, if I am not the one doing a thing, but a 'power' is doing it
through me -- a power quite able to do it all by itself -- what does that
make me? Unnecessary? A puppet? The recipient of whatever glory or shame
goes with the thing done? Completely *un*responsible?
Dang! Where do I sign up?
Kevin
Oh, HELL! I forgot I don't believe that any one but Christ can *BIBLICALLY*
judge a person and that ain't happened yet!
Tim Thomas wrote in message <83nkhd$9ej$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
> I agree, the works I do I do not do them of myself but Christ in me by
>the Holy Spirit. Give God the Glory in all things. Any ability, talent or
>Miracle is a gift from God.
> That is why we are to manifest the Fruit of the Spirit, to show that we
>truly led by the Lord. There is only one way and on name under Heaven
>whereby we can be saved, Jesus Christ of Nazaeth. By His Blood we are
>cleansed of all unrighteousness.
>In Christ, Tim Thomas
snipped
sims...@my-deja.com
sam_p...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> > Thank God that He has not left us to our own thoughts and
imaginations
>
It is easy to see that Paul and James were not divided on this
subject.
Care to discuss?
> What happens to those who have never heard - are they saved or
> condemned?
Didn't Paul explain this in Romans 2:9-16
9. Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of
the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10. But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to
the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11. For there is no respect of persons with God.
12. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without
law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13. (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the
doers of the law shall be justified.
14. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the
things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto
themselves:
15. Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their
conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while
accusing or else excusing one another;)
16. In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus
Christ according to my gospel.
You see that those who haven't heard, still are judged rightly, by God,
seeing they had his law within their hearts.
> What about young children or the mentally retarded who cannot
> distinguish good and evil?
Having seen, just above, that his law is written in our hearts, (the
essence of the New Covenant, even the young know right from wrong.
> Does salvation occur the very second that you
> accept Christ or sometime later?
Read Romans 8:22-25 for the answer to that.
> Is baptism required for salvation?
Of course. Read Acts 2:37-38 and 1 Peter 3:20-21.
>Is
> there a purgatory after death? What about those that lived before
Jesus
> - how were they saved?
Peter said he went and preached to them, after his crucifiction.
>
> These are but a few of the issues that the bible has failed to
address.
They are appropriately addressed, as mentioned above; and with many
more verses than I showed.
> Theologians, pastors and priests are themselves divided over the
> specifics of salvation - undoubtedly the most important issue of all.
Undoubtedly.
> I know that if I were God, and I desired that none should perish, I
> would state very clearly how one was to be saved.
But, he did. Acts 2:37-38. Gal. 5:1-18. James 2:14-26. Romans 8:1-
14; 8:22-25; 8:29-39; 13:8-10 and etc.
> I would probably issue
> some sort of an instruction booklet, with a few "Terms and Conditions"
> that might include "Offer expires on 6/6/6666" or "Fallen angels and
> their relatives need not apply" or even "Offer not valid to Jehovah's
> Witnesses".
This shows when it expires.
James 4:13-17
13. Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a
city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:
14. Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your
life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then
vanisheth away.
15. For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do
this, or that.
16. But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil.
17. Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to
him it is sin.
Peace to you.
Allan Sims
Pastor Dave
wrote:
>In article <83ipbr$7bv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> sam_p...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Thank God that He has not left us to our own thoughts and
>imaginations
>> > on this vital issue. He has given us His definition of the Gospel.
>>
>> Yet you forget that God has indeed left us to our own thoughts and
>> imaginations on the most vital issue of all: salvation. How is one
>> saved? Through faith alone (Paul) or through faith and works (James)?
>
>It is easy to see that Paul and James were not divided on this
>subject.
>
>Care to discuss?
James did not say that works are required for
salvation. What he said was that "faith without works
is dead.". This simply means that one who says they
have faith, yet does not do the things which are of
God, does not have anything but a dead faith and one
must wonder if there is any real faith at all.
Dispute that logic? If so, then look at what else he
says.... "I will show you my faith by my works."
Again, he is simply saying that his works are a result
of his TRUE faith in God.
If salvation required works, as well as faith, then
that would be saying that Jesus' death on the cross
wasn't enough to do the job and that we are capable of
attaining our own salvation, which would contradict
Scripture.....
"For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of
God."
Now, if we ALL fall short of the glory of God, how
could we ever, "finish the job" of salvation?
Let's look at another passage.....
"For it is by GRACE you are saved through FAITH and
that NOT of yourselves, it is the GIFT of God, lest any
MAN should boast."
Now, let's look at those capitilized words.
Where does GRACE require works? Look up the word. It
is a freely given thing.
We are saved through FAITH.
It has nothing to do with us, since it is NOT of
ourselves.
It is a GIFT from God. When did a gift require us to
work for it? Doesn't that negate it being a gift and
make it payment, as if God owes us something?
MAN will not be able to boast about it, which means
that we cannot earn it. If we could, then we could
boast about our works and didn't Jesus lambaste the
Pharisees for exactly that type of thing?
Yet none of this is to say that works are not
important, because as James said, they show our faith
is real. When we have a real faith, it shows inside
and out.
>> What happens to those who have never heard - are they saved or
>> condemned?
>
>Didn't Paul explain this in Romans 2:9-16
I didn't write the message that you responded to, but
to answer it, you cannot apply Scripture that applies
to those who have heard about Jesus. He is speaking of
those who don't even know what the law is, when he
says, "for they who are without the law, have the law
written in their hearts.", or something to that effect.
In other words, they will be judged by what is in their
hearts, since they have never heard of Jesus, or even
God.
sims...@my-deja.com
must work, in order to be saved. But, I do say that if you don't work,
then you prove to yourself (and God) that you have not been born again;
and therefore, do not have grace. You asked below about grace and
works. You quote Eph. 2:8-9; but look at the following nine verses.
We are given this saving grace, a true gift, for a purpose. We are to
do the good works he ordained us to do. If we neglect such a great
gift, then what good is it to have it? (If we do not the good works he
ordained we do?) Also, he combined the man of works and the man of
faith, making one of the two, in order to reconcile us to him. That is
the combination of faith and works that James speaks of. It is also
the doing of righteousness that Paul speaks on in Rom. 8:1-14; and 13:8-
10.
I've interlaced below.
In article <386243ac...@news.optonline.net>,
pcd...@optonline.net wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Dec 1999 04:03:28 GMT, sims...@my-deja.com
> wrote:
>
> >In article <83ipbr$7bv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > sam_p...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > Thank God that He has not left us to our own thoughts and
> >imaginations
> >> > on this vital issue. He has given us His definition of the
Gospel.
> >>
> >> Yet you forget that God has indeed left us to our own thoughts and
> >> imaginations on the most vital issue of all: salvation. How is one
> >> saved? Through faith alone (Paul) or through faith and works
(James)?
> >
> >It is easy to see that Paul and James were not divided on this
> >subject.
> >
> >Care to discuss?
>
> James did not say that works are required for
> salvation. What he said was that "faith without works
> is dead.". This simply means that one who says they
> have faith, yet does not do the things which are of
> God, does not have anything but a dead faith and one
> must wonder if there is any real faith at all.
>
> Dispute that logic? If so, then look at what else he
> says.... "I will show you my faith by my works."
No. You are right on, here.
> Again, he is simply saying that his works are a result
> of his TRUE faith in God.
Exactly.
> If salvation required works, as well as faith, then
> that would be saying that Jesus' death on the cross
> wasn't enough to do the job and that we are capable of
> attaining our own salvation, which would contradict
> Scripture.....
Here we differ. Because nowhere does the Bible say that Jesus' death
was all that was necessary to save us. Keep in mind we are yet to be
saved. We merely have the promise of it. We hope for it. That hope
also saves us. (Rom. 8:22-25) Peter says even our baptism saves us.
Peter also said we must repent; and be baptized.
> "For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of
> God."
We did so, before we were born again.
> Now, if we ALL fall short of the glory of God, how
> could we ever, "finish the job" of salvation?
Simple. We must be led by the Holy Spirit, to fulfill the law that no
one can keep. We do this by being led by the Holy Spirit to love our
neighbour. That is the fulfilling of the law.
> Let's look at another passage.....
>
> "For it is by GRACE you are saved through FAITH and
> that NOT of yourselves, it is the GIFT of God, lest any
> MAN should boast."
> Now, let's look at those capitilized words.
>
> Where does GRACE require works? Look up the word. It
> is a freely given thing.
It is more than a free gift. That describes how we got it. But, it is
peace, joy, liberality. We have peace from sin. We are therefore free
of it. We are free to do the righteousness Christ places within us,
His Holy Spirit. Grace was given us for the very purpose of doing. If
we do not, then we are not led by the Spirit. We therefore do despite
to him; and trod underfoot the blood that sanctifies us. Faith without
works is dead; and can't save you. Works can not save you either. It
is the combination of the two that reconciles us to God, giving us the
hope that saves us.
> We are saved through FAITH.
But, not by faith alone, for a dead faith can't save you. The works,
that must accompany it, are an evidence of what we have become. They
witness to God of what we are. Either enemies worthy of the lake of
fire; or Saints, worthy to be called his.
>
> It has nothing to do with us, since it is NOT of
> ourselves.
It has very much to do with us, for the Holy Spirit must lead us to do
it. If we aren't so led, then we die.
> It is a GIFT from God. When did a gift require us to
> work for it? Doesn't that negate it being a gift and
> make it payment, as if God owes us something?
No. Because that free gift enables us to fulfill the law. We must do
what he gave it to us to do with.
> MAN will not be able to boast about it, which means
> that we cannot earn it. If we could, then we could
> boast about our works and didn't Jesus lambaste the
> Pharisees for exactly that type of thing?
We can't boast, anyway. For the only way we can love our neighbour is
to do so by the power of the Holy Spirit. If we do not love our
neighbour, then we do despite to Him. We dishonor the Holy Spirit. We
are led by the flesh, which means we will die. But,
Philippians 4:13
13. I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.
Therefore, we can fulfill the law.
> Yet none of this is to say that works are not
> important, because as James said, they show our faith
> is real. When we have a real faith, it shows inside
> and out.
That is correct.
> >> What happens to those who have never heard - are they saved or
> >> condemned?
> >
> >Didn't Paul explain this in Romans 2:9-16
>
> I didn't write the message that you responded to, but
> to answer it, you cannot apply Scripture that applies
> to those who have heard about Jesus. He is speaking of
> those who don't even know what the law is, when he
> says, "for they who are without the law, have the law
> written in their hearts.", or something to that effect.
> In other words, they will be judged by what is in their
> hearts, since they have never heard of Jesus, or even
> God.
I don't see your point here, when you say "you cannot apply Scripture
that applies
> to those who have heard about Jesus" . The entire section is about
that very thing. And this set of verses answer the other poster's
question about those who never heard.
sam_p...@my-deja.com
> > Yet you forget that God has indeed left us to our own thoughts and
> > imaginations on the most vital issue of all: salvation. How is one
> > saved? Through faith alone (Paul) or through faith and works
> >(James)?
>
> It is easy to see that Paul and James were not divided on this
> subject.
>
> Care to discuss?
No, it is not easy to see that Paul and James were in agreement upon
this. Christians have tried to reconcile the two. Whether this is what
Paul or James meant is open to debate. However, the fact of the matter
is that it is not as clear as one would expect from an all-powerful God.
>
> > What happens to those who have never heard - are they saved or
> > condemned?
>
> Didn't Paul explain this in Romans 2:9-16
> 9. Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil,
> of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
> 10. But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to
> the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
> 11. For there is no respect of persons with God.
> 12. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without
> law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
> 13. (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the
> doers of the law shall be justified.
> 14. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the
> things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto
> themselves:
> 15. Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their
> conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while
> accusing or else excusing one another;)
> 16. In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus
> Christ according to my gospel.
>
> You see that those who haven't heard, still are judged rightly, by
> God, seeing they had his law within their hearts.
And how much of the law do you have to hear to be judged by the law?
What is the difference between judging by the law and without the law?
If we are as sinful as rags, then how can we be judged by anything
other than faith? Your argument here creates further questions and
complications.
Furthermore, this does not hold fast with Jesus' teaching that "I am
the way, the truth and the light. NO ONE comes to the Father EXCEPT
THROUGH ME." How can we go through Jesus to the Father if we do not
know Jesus?
>
> > What about young children or the mentally retarded who cannot
> > distinguish good and evil?
>
> Having seen, just above, that his law is written in our hearts, (the
> essence of the New Covenant, even the young know right from wrong.
The young do not know right from wrong and it is not written in our
hearts. If this were so morals in every culture and race would be
exactly the same - which it obviously isn't.
All psychiatrists will tell you than young children and the mentally
retarded are unable to comprehend fully between right from wrong.
>
> > Does salvation occur the very second that you
> > accept Christ or sometime later?
>
> Read Romans 8:22-25 for the answer to that.
This does not give any answer at all. All that Paul is mentioning is
that he is eagerly awaiting for the second coming so that he can be
adopted as a son and his body redeemed.
> > Is baptism required for salvation?
>
> Of course. Read Acts 2:37-38 and 1 Peter 3:20-21.
And so what of the unbaptised thief who was crucifed with Jesus who is
told, "Today you will be in paradise with me."
> >Is
> > there a purgatory after death? What about those that lived before
> > Jesus
> > - how were they saved?
>
> Peter said he went and preached to them, after his crucifiction.
You have no answer for purgatory?
1 Peter 2:18-20 to which you refer can be interpreted in any number of
ways:
- As you mentioned above
- Peter is preaching to the unsaved dead (a second chance for
unbelievers)
- Peter is preaching to the fallen angels
Anyone one of these interpretations is just as likely as the other.
There is nothing to prove that your interpretation is more possible or
plausible than the other two.
> > These are but a few of the issues that the bible has failed to
> address.
>
> They are appropriately addressed, as mentioned above; and with many
> more verses than I showed.
>
> > Theologians, pastors and priests are themselves divided over the
> > specifics of salvation - undoubtedly the most important issue of
> > all.
>
> Undoubtedly.
If you have appropriately addressed all the issues, then why the
division over the specifics of salvation?
>
> > I know that if I were God, and I desired that none should perish, I
> > would state very clearly how one was to be saved.
>
> But, he did. Acts 2:37-38. Gal. 5:1-18. James 2:14-26. Romans 8:1-
> 14; 8:22-25; 8:29-39; 13:8-10 and etc.
The fact that we are debating over salvation right now (as theologians
and scholars do) refutes your argument completely. If God had stated
clearly how one is to be saved, we wouldn't be having this debate. Do
you ever see lawyers debating over how to write a proper will? No,
because the procedures for writing up a will is stated clearly and
precisely - unlike the bible's doctrine of salvation.
> This shows when it expires.
>
> James 4:13-17
> 13. Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such
> a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:
> 14. Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is
> your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and
> then vanisheth away.
> 15. For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and
> do this, or that.
> 16. But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is
> evil. 17. Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it
> not, to him it is sin.
It does not say when it expires. All it says is that it will expire
sometime. When is that? We don't know. It could be today, tomorrow, or
fifty years from now.
The Last Church
Most preachers ARE, the blind leading the blind!
Christ says teach only to things, Love and compassion. For when a person
knows these the force, you call God will teach all the rest one on one
with each person.
And if you serve because you think that will buy you into heaven forget
it. ( it won't) We serve because it is the best way to live and will do
so even if their was NO life after death.
We understand Love and compassion for all beings. And That (IS)
heaven. Heaven is not a place you can go to. It is a place you
(come) to.
Their is no need to tell your neighbor his life is all wrong and
your way is better. That is not an act of compassion, but rape.
Compassion is living next to him with out condemning him, until he
figures it out on his own. Excepting him as he is, with unconditional
love, As God does with, your sorry ass!
God condemns no one. He has the time to just sit and let you figure
it out. And we all do figure it out sooner or later.
For those who FEAR GOD, I say you can't LOVE what you fear. God
hurts, nor punishes, anyone for anything. Only people do that, and
mostly to themselves.
That little thing about Abraham being willing to sacrifice his son to
God is bullshit. What they were doing with that store is trying to
tell people to stop sacrificing their children to what they think is
god, on alters as burnt offerings. That was and is still going on today!
Jesus says, Their is NO< NO< sacrifice needed for salvation. It is FREE
to ALL, ALL, ALL!!
And Not one of US is really any better or smarter, than the other,
in the eyes, of the Force you call God.
A person is never so lost as when they say," Only I know the way to
God!" There are as many ways to God as there are people, and each one
is a little different and unique to each person.
The Last Church
sam_p...@my-deja.com
> James did not say that works are required for
> salvation. What he said was that "faith without works
> is dead.". This simply means that one who says they
> have faith, yet does not do the things which are of
> God, does not have anything but a dead faith and one
> must wonder if there is any real faith at all.
>
> Dispute that logic? If so, then look at what else he
> says.... "I will show you my faith by my works."
>
> Again, he is simply saying that his works are a result
> of his TRUE faith in God.
Tell me exactly where he says this.
> If salvation required works, as well as faith, then
> that would be saying that Jesus' death on the cross
> wasn't enough to do the job and that we are capable of
> attaining our own salvation, which would contradict
> Scripture.....
>
> "For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of
> God."
>
> Now, if we ALL fall short of the glory of God, how
> could we ever, "finish the job" of salvation?
>
> Let's look at another passage.....
>
> "For it is by GRACE you are saved through FAITH and
> that NOT of yourselves, it is the GIFT of God, lest any
> MAN should boast."
>
> Now, let's look at those capitilized words.
>
> Where does GRACE require works? Look up the word. It
> is a freely given thing.
>
> We are saved through FAITH.
>
> It has nothing to do with us, since it is NOT of
> ourselves.
>
> It is a GIFT from God. When did a gift require us to
> work for it? Doesn't that negate it being a gift and
> make it payment, as if God owes us something?
Let's look at this argument a little closer. You emphasise the words
GRACE and GIFT. Both imply that salvation is freely given. But is this
the case? No. Because we need faith to receice the gift. More
precisely, salvation is CONDITIONAL on faith. And once something is
conditional on something else, it ceases to be a gift given in grace.
> MAN will not be able to boast about it, which means
> that we cannot earn it. If we could, then we could
> boast about our works and didn't Jesus lambaste the
> Pharisees for exactly that type of thing?
Man can, and is fully able, to boast about having great faith. In fact,
I'm sure you will know that there are many Christians who boast about
their faith. Boasting about faith is exactly the same as boasting about
works.
> Yet none of this is to say that works are not
> important, because as James said, they show our faith
> is real. When we have a real faith, it shows inside
> and out.
Your whole argument implies that James is distinguising "real faith"
from "false faith".
First of all, James has NEVER distinguishes the two in his writings.
Christians have interpreted that James makes a distinction, but this is
not evident in his writings.
Look at some of James' passages:
(James 2:14) "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have
faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?" Now, there is no
evidence here of James telling that how to identify "real faith" or
distinguising between "real faith" and "false faith".
(James 2:24) "You see that a person is JUSTIFIED BY WHAT HE DOES and
NOT BY FAITH ALONE." The meaning is this sentence is quite clear. A
person is justified by what he does. If, as you contend, that James is
telling us that only "real faith" can save us, then he would have
written: "You see that a person is JUSTIFIED BY REAL FAITH and not BY A
FALSE FAITH WITHOUT WORKS."
Secondly, it is quite a foolish thing to have "false faith" - it's a
bit like saying I have "non-existent money". One either has faith or no
faith. There is no such thing as "false faith".
Jon Brooks
The Last Church <the_las...@my-deja.com> wrote in article
<853tqb$2hg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>
> Most preachers ARE, the blind leading the blind!
>
heya preacher!
> Christ says teach only to things, Love and compassion. For when a person
> knows these the force, you call God will teach all the rest one on one
> with each person.
>
can a force talk? nope! can a Living and Self-Existing Creator talk? yep!!!
also Jesus taught to have faith, devotion, hope, selflessness, humilty,
trust in God alone, (not the star wars force thingy you worship mike).
Jesus is so much more then what you would like to think, God is so much
more then what you think, you would be happy if God was just the "star
wars" brand force god you worship, but ADONAI is not a force, He is the
Almighty, He is the Abba Father, He is ADONAI!!!!! the fact that He is
ADONAI makes Him worthy of all praise, worthy of ALLLLL adoration, worthy
of ALLLLLL honor.
> And if you serve because you think that will buy you into heaven forget
> it. ( it won't) We serve because it is the best way to live and will do
> so even if their was NO life after death.
we serve because we love, Jesus said that "no greater love then this: that
a man lay down his life for his friends" Jesus showed us that love on the
cross, He is the greatest love, He is Abba's love, the very representation
of ADONAI's love for mankind. to give His only Son for a rebellious and
sinful race. there is no greater love then that.
heaven is the reward of those who were faithful to ADONAI by accepting the
gift of His Son, but not to you michael, oh no, ADONAI is just a force that
you can apply any dogma to
> We understand Love and compassion for all beings. And That (IS)
> heaven. Heaven is not a place you can go to. It is a place you
> (come) to.
it is the dwelling place of God, the Scriptures say that He will wipe all
the tears from our eyes there, but..you would have us believe that heaven
can come to those here on sinful dying earth, that we can be sinners and
live in paradise...
> Their is no need to tell your neighbor his life is all wrong and
> your way is better. That is not an act of compassion, but rape.
> Compassion is living next to him with out condemning him, until he
> figures it out on his own. Excepting him as he is, with unconditional
> love, As God does with, your sorry ass!
BALAAM SPEAKS!!
> God condemns no one. He has the time to just sit and let you figure
> it out. And we all do figure it out sooner or later.
listen oh prophet of baal-zebub
ADONAI has commissioned His people to be bringers of the Gospel, that if
everyone could just "find thier own way" Jesus came in vain, His Life, His
words, His death, and His ressurection...all in vain,
but then again as you tell me all the time, Jesus never died...oooo eeee
oooo eeee oooo eeee
> For those who FEAR GOD, I say you can't LOVE what you fear. God
> hurts, nor punishes, anyone for anything. Only people do that, and
> mostly to themselves.
>
oooo the trademark phrase of the false preacher, "don't worry, God won't
hurt you for your sin"
let me tell you oh balaam, that many nations have fallen because of those
like you, Isra'el fell because false prophets like you, but only when God
commissioned true and faithful prophets that told the truth did Isra'el and
Judah survive, only when people accepted the truth even when it was really
hard to believe, was the children of Isra'el spared judgment, FEAR GOD, you
do not love God, because you do not fear Him, if you loved Him, you would
fear Him, you would fear He who could in the blink of an eye cause not just
every atom in your body to explode into nothingness, but have your spirit
squeezed out of existence, just by saying the words. you should fear Him
who can do that, that doesn't mean to be terrified, running around thinking
"oh no what if God smites me because i lied to my mother?!?!?!?!" but you
should have such reverance for ADONAI that you acknowledge His immense
power, and then stand in awe because you know that you deserve to be dead,
but He lets you live.
> That little thing about Abraham being willing to sacrifice his son to
> God is bullshit. What they were doing with that store is trying to
> tell people to stop sacrificing their children to what they think is
> god, on alters as burnt offerings. That was and is still going on today!
right... you don't think that God would test someone's faith by doing that?
God had no intention of letting the patriarch do that, but we can see from
that story the kind of devotion one must have for ADONAI, that if we can be
willing to forsake even the most precious of gifts on earth for Him, then
we are true servants...even Jesus said that if you don't hate your family
for His sake, that you can not be His disciple, the idea is, is that God
must be #1 PERIOD
> Jesus says, Their is NO< NO< sacrifice needed for salvation. It is FREE
> to ALL, ALL, ALL!!
only through HIM HIM HIM!!!!
> And Not one of US is really any better or smarter, than the other,
> in the eyes, of the Force you call God.
nor is anyone greater or lesser in the eyes of ADONAI whom I call God
but as Jesus said, that whoever makes himself least, will be greatest in
the Kingdom of God
> A person is never so lost as when they say," Only I know the way to
> God!" There are as many ways to God as there are people, and each one
> is a little different and unique to each person.
again i shout with a loud and annoying voice "BALAAM
SPEAKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
the fool says in his heart "there are many ways to God"
the wiseman will say, "I know God, let me introduce you to Him"
> The Last Church
>
beware of false churches, synagogues of satan
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
In Christ Jesus, His disciple Jonathan
email at xrist...@hotmail.com
"But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood,
a people belonging to God, that you may declare
praises to Him who called you out of darkness, into
His wonderful light."
-1 Peter 2:9
Jon Brooks
sam_p...@my-deja.com wrote in article <8526gl$plb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
> > > Yet you forget that God has indeed left us to our own thoughts and
> > > imaginations on the most vital issue of all: salvation. How is one
> > > saved? Through faith alone (Paul) or through faith and works
> > >(James)?
> >
> > It is easy to see that Paul and James were not divided on this
> > subject.
> >
> > Care to discuss?
>
> No, it is not easy to see that Paul and James were in agreement upon
> this. Christians have tried to reconcile the two. Whether this is what
> Paul or James meant is open to debate. However, the fact of the matter
> is that it is not as clear as one would expect from an all-powerful God.
>
give me one passage where James says anything more then works *JUSTIFY*
faith, Paul said we are SAVED BY FAITH, James said we our faith is
JUSTIFIED BY WORKS, in other words: we are saved by faith, and that faith
is shown by the acts we do, and that if we do not show our faith through
our deeds, then our faith is dead.
God will judge based upon how much we know of His morality, whether we
believe it or not, if we lie and never know that it is wrong to lie, then i
don't think God will judge us on the lies we commit, but since in our
society it's almost impossible to not know lying is wrong, then we will all
be judged based upon our lies. does that make sense? since God knows our
hearts He can judge our hearts
> Furthermore, this does not hold fast with Jesus' teaching that "I am
> the way, the truth and the light. NO ONE comes to the Father EXCEPT
> THROUGH ME." How can we go through Jesus to the Father if we do not
> know Jesus?
>
you can't, you must know Jesus to meet the Father, He is the Narrow Gate,
but who is to say that those who never heard of Jesus will suffer the fate
of those who simply rejected Him. those who had no chance to accept Him
will be judged accordingly, and God is creating a new heaven and a new
earth, I heard one comment that Heaven will be where the saints will go,
and the earth will be where those who didn't get to know Jesus will go, and
that Holy Jerusalem will be the meeting place where all will go, a midway
point between heaven and earth. but that's just an idea, it makes sense,
but i don't see any Scriptural evidence to support it to fact, it's only a
theory,
> >
> > > What about young children or the mentally retarded who cannot
> > > distinguish good and evil?
> >
> > Having seen, just above, that his law is written in our hearts, (the
> > essence of the New Covenant, even the young know right from wrong.
>
> The young do not know right from wrong and it is not written in our
> hearts. If this were so morals in every culture and race would be
> exactly the same - which it obviously isn't.
>
basic morals are, in almost all societies killing is wrong, murder is delt
with in some way or another in almost every, if not every culture on earth.
so basic morality is written on our hearts at birth, but not every moral is
known to every person, but certain things to point to the fact that
wherever you go in every society their are some moral similarities, man is
not void of all good, but the evil over whelms our natures
i would go on to respond to all your points, but i have to go
----In Christ Jesus, His disciple Jonathan
email at xrist...@hotmail.com
"But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood,
a people belonging to God, that you may declare
praises to Him who called you out of darkness, into
His wonderful light."
-1 Peter 2:9
> All psychiatrists will tell you than young children and the mentally
Kevin Stewart
egocentered, judgemental and cliche-powered than before, BUT just as blind
in following an unproven, self-contradicting, hate-filled tome as ever.
Jon Brooks wrote in message <01bf58e0$b058ee40$2d37a8d1@tom-brooks>...
>
>
>The Last Church <the_las...@my-deja.com> wrote in article
><853tqb$2hg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>
>>
>> Most preachers ARE, the blind leading the blind!
>>
>
>heya preacher!
You are "Last Church"? I thought you wanted us to think you are "Last Hope"!
snipped
>also Jesus taught to have faith, devotion, hope, selflessness, humilty,
>trust in God alone, (not the star wars force thingy you worship mike).
He also taught mercy, compassion, tolerance, love and peace -- not the
judgemental, eternally condemning, haughty, cocky, rest-on-your-laurels
bullshit you fling, jehoveh Brooks!
>Jesus is so much more then what you would like to think, God is so much
>more then what you think, you would be happy if God was just the "star
>wars" brand force god you worship, but ADONAI is not a force, He is the
>Almighty,
So is Allah, Jim Jones and Hillary Clinton. Well, at least the first two!
And I can prove it.
They said so.
See? Convincing inareguable certain evidence of the fact. Furthermore Allah
has it attested to in an old Book. And there are more people who believe in
Islam than there are people who consider themselves Protestants!
He is the Abba Father, He is ADONAI!!!!! the fact that He is
>ADONAI makes Him worthy of all praise, worthy of ALLLLL adoration, worthy
>of ALLLLLL honor.
BLAH BLAH BLAH.
I could teach a parrot to regurgitate such rah rah stuff! The problem is,
people are expected to live their christianity. Know many christians who
exceed parrots in doing the word, jehoveh Brooks? (I'd say "any" christians,
but given your delusional mindset, I know you'd claim at least 1!)
>> And if you serve because you think that will buy you into heaven forget
>> it. ( it won't) We serve because it is the best way to live and will do
>> so even if their was NO life after death.
>
>we serve because we love,
Do stick around jehoveh B.! Comedy is always appreciated! "We serve...."!
S E R V E !!! Damn that is a good one! L OV E!!! HHHAAA! If God has ribs, I
think you may have just cracked them!
Jesus said that "no greater love then this: that
>a man lay down his life for his friends" Jesus showed us that love on the
>cross, He is the greatest love, He is Abba's love, the very representation
>of ADONAI's love for mankind. to give His only Son for a rebellious and
>sinful race. there is no greater love then that.
While I know it's mandatory to use cliches, I just want to point out that
man is not a 'race'.
>heaven is the reward of those who were faithful to ADONAI by accepting the
>gift of His Son,
Then why is God coming to earth eventually?
snipped
>BALAAM SPEAKS!!
Well, at least you can tell Balaam from his ass! Good job, mule!!!
>> God condemns no one. He has the time to just sit and let you figure
>> it out. And we all do figure it out sooner or later.
>
>listen oh prophet of baal-zebub
YES!!! Listen as John 3:17 is rephrased by L.C., as the spirit ofJesus' last
words to the adulterous woman is put tersely. Listen as the voice of God for
this NG, the preacher of truth as is is regardless of the Bible rips into
LC. Preacher jehoveh Brooks again shows his ignorance of his Lords' word and
work, demonstrates his utter reliance on cliches and the traditions of men
in lieu of Bible study, contemplation, and some personalizing of 'his'
"faith". Listen as the self-proclaimed avatar makes fun of his Masters'
voice in order to "humbly" gut one not called, (at least according to
jehoveh B.). Bray away, Brighty!
>
>ADONAI has commissioned His people to be bringers of the Gospel, that if
>everyone could just "find thier own way" Jesus came in vain, His Life, His
>words, His death, and His ressurection...all in vain,
I believe Paul said these things were true IF CHRIST WAS NOT
RESURRECTED!!!!! Of course it's in the Bible and [gasp] the NT, so no one
should expect you to know it!
>
>but then again as you tell me all the time, Jesus never died...oooo eeee
>oooo eeee oooo eeee
For the record, jehoveh B, what is death, BIBLICALLY (if you can handle it,
opinion otherwise)?
>oooo the trademark phrase of the false preacher, "don't worry, God won't
>hurt you for your sin"
It's roughly "For as many as He loves, he CORRECTS.". That isn't "[. .
.]FUBARS eternally" jehoveh B, corrects/chastises -- a common father
function, (so I've heard).
>let me tell you oh balaam,
Do you have any idea who Balaam was? In any case, can you (try to) explain
your using his name in this way?
that many nations have fallen because of those
>like you, Isra'el fell because false prophets like you, but only when God
>commissioned true and faithful prophets that told the truth did Isra'el and
>Judah survive, only when people accepted the truth even when it was >really
hard to believe, was the children of Isra'el spared judgment,
I got it! You do read the Bible, but only after several tokes and some
peyote or helium! Do you use a hookah, [sic term(?)]?
When God commissioned true and faithful prophets that told the truth to a
captive Israel/Judah, the nations were temporarily released from
captivity -- a few times. (Even God has a breaking point!) When they told
the truth in good times, they were run off (ie, Elijah), or
imprisioned/killed.
FEAR GOD, you
>do not love God, because you do not fear Him, if you loved Him, you would
>fear Him,
Perfect love cast out fear, jehoveh Brooks! (Sorry, I goota remember that
as a modern christian, I shouldn't expect you to know -- and certainly not
live -- anything Biblical, except what little is preached and the
revisionist cliches.) Granted, perfect love ain't humanly possible, but if
this action-reaction is accurate, God=perfect love wants us to work toward
achieving perfect love = fearlessness+. DDDUUUHHHHHHHH! Your rant is
invalid.
you would fear He who could in the blink of an eye cause not just
>every atom in your body to explode into nothingness, but have your spirit
>squeezed out of existence, just by saying the words. you should fear Him
>who can do that,
Roughly put, "Do not fear them that can destroy the body, but He who can
destroy the soul" Of course we alll know that the soul is endless, but it's
interesting that you use destruction of the material body to (feebly try to)
boost your position, just as all you "hellfire forever" vice-Christs ignore
the fact that your Bible does not teach the dogma of an eternal soul. (Could
it be that that damned -- if there are any in the end -- will have their
souls cease to be, rather than the eternal toasting of non-matter?)
that doesn't mean to be terrified, running around thinking
>"oh no what if God smites me because i lied to my mother?!?!?!?!"
Sure it does, jehoveh B., sure it does! And that is how it has, is, and will
be taught until reality beams aboard spaceship earth.
but you
>should have such reverance for ADONAI that you acknowledge His immense
>power, and then stand in awe because you know that you deserve to be dead,
>but He lets you live.
So, a slime-soaked sludge slug, (aka human being), repents and is forgiven.
God wipes the slate clean, actually forgives and forgets. But the repented
and converted shit sack, (formerly slime-soaked sludge slug, (aka human
being)), is to dwell, not on Gods' call or Christs' kindness, but on his . .
.sorry!!! . . . its' continuing unworthiness???! No wonder christians are
as afraid to die as any other type of believer -- with this approach to
'assurance'!
> That little thing about Abraham being willing to sacrifice his son to
> God is bullshit.
>right... you don't think that God would test someone's faith by doing that?
Hell, no!!! God called Abram away from such things! Furthermore, God told
Abraham that his decendents would be quite numerous and He indicated that
this blessing, (large families were sought heavily, not ZPG), would come
through Issac, not Ishmael or some other future son. God outlawed murder,
remember? Well before Moses. God brought on the flood because of such
heinous activities as human sacrifice and drove Cain away for killing a
human. Even if Abraham did kill Issac, God would have to bring him back.
Abraham knew this. Where's the test?
snipped
>the idea is, is that God must be #1 PERIOD
Whose version? Which part of what scripture? What exegetical by-product(s)
are permitted? KJV only? Women subject to men and slaves to masters, (read
Philemon and get some background on the Roman cure for runaway slaves).
C'mon jehoveh Brooks! You got so many simple statements. How about some
clear answers, definative methods and inarguable reasons?
>only through HIM HIM HIM!!!!
So, what happens to the BILLIONS throughout history who have had no exposure
to the "truth"? What becomes of those exposed but not called? How will those
called but not chosen fare? Keeping in mind we're dealing with THE ultimate
in both love and Father-hood, as well as mercy &co., what will become of
them?
Let's personalize it, jehoveh B! Family, friends, enemies and others are in
a building that is going to blow up. You could deactivate the bomb, but you
don't. You could save everybody -- even the guy that date raped your sister
and those who bad-mouthed you and are doing so now. The bomb will leave
large quantities of phosphorous and acid in the flesh of the survivors that
will burn permanently and most of the victims will survive.
Which version of God do you follow? the Dam to Hell eternal Mardukian sadist
or the universalist version. (Remember, you can't do more than God! And you
will ALWAYS hear the screaming hysterics and the choking on foam spewing
forth from the mouths of all survivors YOU alone CHOOSE to not save.)
While the question isn't rhetorical, I doubt you'll answer it. Ad hominums
are so convenient, aren't they?
>> A person is never so lost as when they say," Only I know the way to
>> God!" There are as many ways to God as there are people, and each one
>> is a little different and unique to each person.
>
>again i shout with a loud and annoying voice "BALAAM
>SPEAKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
>
>the fool says in his heart "there are many ways to God"
>the wiseman will say, "I know God, let me introduce you to Him"
. . . and the christian says, "I have usurped the Master and will dam you to
hell if you don't agree with me entirely! And be quick about it! You may die
in 2 minutes, so I may be your last chance!"
Meanwhile, your Lord has said that there will be some who think/claim they
know God, but don't.
Oooooppppppppppppppssssssssssssss!!!! There goes another one!
snipped
>beware of false churches,
My guess is that Last Church is quite wary of modern churchianity!
>synagogues of satan
Balaams' ass is a Pharisee? Why, jehoveh B! You are really multi-faceted!
Kevin
Roughly, "Not all who say, "LORD, LORD" will get to heaven."
Damn! That Bible is a real problem, ain't it, Preacher/ass Brooks? So much
of its' content is not PC or in keeping with modern churchianity! Care for
"A Course in Miracles"? That's much more relevant for today! And far easier
to use its' words to prove your view!
sam_p...@my-deja.com
> give me one passage where James says anything more then works
> *JUSTIFY* faith, Paul said we are SAVED BY FAITH, James said we our
> faith is JUSTIFIED BY WORKS, in other words: we are saved by faith,
> and that faith is shown by the acts we do, and that if we do not show
> our faith through our deeds, then our faith is dead.
Right here in black and white: "You see that a person is justified by
what he does and not by faith alone" (James 2:24)
Now can you show me one passage where James specifically says our faith
is justified by our works? Or do you have to rely on non-specific
passages and extrapolate them for an interpretation?
> > And how much of the law do you have to hear to be judged by the law?
> > What is the difference between judging by the law and without the
> > law?
> > If we are as sinful as rags, then how can we be judged by anything
> > other than faith? Your argument here creates further questions and
> > complications.
> >
>
> God will judge based upon how much we know of His morality, whether we
> believe it or not, if we lie and never know that it is wrong to lie,
> then i
> don't think God will judge us on the lies we commit, but since in our
> society it's almost impossible to not know lying is wrong, then we
> will all
> be judged based upon our lies. does that make sense? since God knows
> our
> hearts He can judge our hearts
OK, let's assume what you say is true. Mr. X has been a very ethical and
moral person all his life, and one assumes from what you say, that Mr. X
will be saved. One day a group of Christians come to Mr. X and preach to
him for some time. However, Mr. X does not subscribe to Christianity
because of the fact that there are so many competing religions and he
isn't sure whether it is the right one. However, he continues to be the
same moral person governed by his conscience. But now that he has heard,
he will be judged from differently to those that haven't heard, and
since he rejected Christ, he is condemned. Now does that make sense?
Furthermore, your arguments imply that God has two different criteria of
judgement - one for those who have heard, and one for those who have
not. Why not simply have one system for all? He could just as easily
judge people by how well they follow their conscience. After all, this
is a God of fairness.
>
> > Furthermore, this does not hold fast with Jesus' teaching that "I am
> > the way, the truth and the light. NO ONE comes to the Father EXCEPT
> > THROUGH ME." How can we go through Jesus to the Father if we do not
> > know Jesus?
> >
>
> you can't, you must know Jesus to meet the Father, He is the Narrow
> Gate, but who is to say that those who never heard of Jesus will
> suffer the fate of those who simply rejected Him. those who had no
> chance to accept Him will be judged accordingly, and God is creating
> a new heaven and a new earth, I heard one comment that Heaven will be
> where the saints will go, and the earth will be where those who didn't
> get to know Jesus will go, and that Holy Jerusalem will be the meeting
> place where all will go, a midway point between heaven and earth. but
> that's just an idea, it makes sense, but i don't see any Scriptural
> evidence to support it to fact, it's only a theory,
How can you go through Jesus if you don't even know him? This is all
very unclear, and not what you would expect from a God who wishes us all
to be in heaven.
> > The young do not know right from wrong and it is not written in our
> > hearts. If this were so morals in every culture and race would be
> > exactly the same - which it obviously isn't.
> >
>
> basic morals are, in almost all societies killing is wrong, murder is
> delt
> with in some way or another in almost every, if not every culture on
> earth.
> so basic morality is written on our hearts at birth, but not every
> moral is
> known to every person, but certain things to point to the fact that
> wherever you go in every society their are some moral similarities,
> man is
> not void of all good, but the evil over whelms our natures
So only some morals are written in our hearts then? Why didn't God just
write them all?
Pastor Dave
sam_p...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> James did not say that works are required for
>> salvation. What he said was that "faith without works
>> is dead.". This simply means that one who says they
>> have faith, yet does not do the things which are of
>> God, does not have anything but a dead faith and one
>> must wonder if there is any real faith at all.
>>
>> Dispute that logic? If so, then look at what else he
>> says.... "I will show you my faith by my works."
>>
>> Again, he is simply saying that his works are a result
>> of his TRUE faith in God.
>
>Tell me exactly where he says this.
This is simply a matter of understanding the writing
styles of that time and not trying to put a 20th
century twist on the wording and simply using some
common sense. For example.....
James 2:17-18
17) Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being
alone.
Right here, he tells you, if someone is proclaiming
that they have faith in God and you see no good works,
then their faith is not real faith. It's dead. He
still calls it, "faith". Therefore, he IS saying that
it is a "dead faith". i.e., not REAL faith.
18) Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith and I have
works: show me thy faith without thy works and I will
show thee my faith by my works.
Again, James gives us the "acid test" for whether or
not someone's faith is real. He shows that his faith
is a "real faith" and that the other mans faith is not.
So yes, James DOES show the difference between real and
dead faith.
>> If salvation required works, as well as faith, then
>> that would be saying that Jesus' death on the cross
>> wasn't enough to do the job and that we are capable of
>> attaining our own salvation, which would contradict
>> Scripture.....
>>
>> "For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of
>> God."
>>
>> Now, if we ALL fall short of the glory of God, how
>> could we ever, "finish the job" of salvation?
>>
>> Let's look at another passage.....
>>
>> "For it is by GRACE you are saved through FAITH and
>> that NOT of yourselves, it is the GIFT of God, lest any
>> MAN should boast."
>>
>> Now, let's look at those capitilized words.
>>
>> Where does GRACE require works? Look up the word. It
>> is a freely given thing.
>>
>> We are saved through FAITH.
>>
>> It has nothing to do with us, since it is NOT of
>> ourselves.
>>
>> It is a GIFT from God. When did a gift require us to
>> work for it? Doesn't that negate it being a gift and
>> make it payment, as if God owes us something?
>
>Let's look at this argument a little closer. You emphasise the words
>GRACE and GIFT. Both imply that salvation is freely given. But is this
>the case? No. Because we need faith to receice the gift. More
>precisely, salvation is CONDITIONAL on faith. And once something is
>conditional on something else, it ceases to be a gift given in grace.
So you are saying that Scripture is wrong? You pick
one letter in the Bible and try to use it to justify
your stance, which is what I would surmise is a
Catholic stance and then when you are given more
Scriptures from elsewhere in the NT, you dispute what
they say, as if they had no value? Interesting logic.
Salvation is NOT "conditional". It is common sense,
that in order to accept a gift from anyone, you first
have to believe that they exist. Those who come to Him
must believe that he is.
It is also common sense, that if you walk over to
someone to receive their gift to you, that does not
mean that the person didn't give it freely.
>> MAN will not be able to boast about it, which means
>> that we cannot earn it. If we could, then we could
>> boast about our works and didn't Jesus lambaste the
>> Pharisees for exactly that type of thing?
>
>Man can, and is fully able, to boast about having great faith. In fact,
>I'm sure you will know that there are many Christians who boast about
>their faith. Boasting about faith is exactly the same as boasting about
>works.
Man will always find something to boast about. And a
man who is spending his time boasting about his faith,
doesn't have a real faith, does he? Didn't you learn
from what Jesus taught about the Pharisees and how we
should fast, etc.?
Scripture says that salvation is NOT of works,
therefore no man can boast about saving himself. Now
if you THINK that you can work your way into Heaven,
that doesn't change the fact that you can't. Ignoring
this Scripture won't make it go away.
>> Yet none of this is to say that works are not
>> important, because as James said, they show our faith
>> is real. When we have a real faith, it shows inside
>> and out.
>
>Your whole argument implies that James is distinguising "real faith"
>from "false faith".
He is, as I have shown earlier in my response. James
is saying that you would know anyone with real faith by
their real works.
>First of all, James has NEVER distinguishes the two in his writings.
>Christians have interpreted that James makes a distinction, but this is
>not evident in his writings.
Not correct, as I have shown earlier in my response and
you even bury yourself in your next quote of James.
>Look at some of James' passages:
>
>(James 2:14) "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have
>faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?" Now, there is no
>evidence here of James telling that how to identify "real faith" or
>distinguising between "real faith" and "false faith".
There isn't? Didn't you read it? It doesn't say that
faith alone cannot save him. But rather, James asks a
question about the guy who says he has faith but has no
deeds....
"Can S-U-C-H faith save him?"
i.e., If he had the faith that was real and that was
shown by his works, then T-H-A-T faith WOULD save him.
Otherwise, James would not have said, "Can SUCH faith
save him?", showing that this guys TYPE of faith (such
faith) was not real faith at all and therefore had no
salvation attached to it.
>(James 2:24) "You see that a person is JUSTIFIED BY WHAT HE DOES and
>NOT BY FAITH ALONE." The meaning is this sentence is quite clear. A
>person is justified by what he does.
"Justified" is different than "saved". That's why
there's two different words in the language. :)
>If, as you contend, that James is
>telling us that only "real faith" can save us, then he would have
>written: "You see that a person is JUSTIFIED BY REAL FAITH and not BY A
>FALSE FAITH WITHOUT WORKS."
No, he wouldn't have said that. Different issue.
Also, you're trying to put a 20th century twist on his
writings. In order to understand what he is saying,
you must understand the writing styles of THAT time.
>Secondly, it is quite a foolish thing to have "false faith" - it's a
>bit like saying I have "non-existent money".
Yet the Pharisees, the religious and legal leaders of
that time, had exactly that and so most of those today,
who call themselves christians (I would dispute that
they are christians). Don't you remember the
lambasting Jesus gave the Pharisees? :) Don't you
remember when he called them, "white washed
sepulchres"?
>One either has faith or no
>faith. There is no such thing as "false faith".
Exactly and James is telling you how to know the
difference. Your point is correct, but that doesn't
stop people from SAYING that they have faith and James
is telling how to tell the difference between "real
faith" and "dead faith".
Again, you must look at the times and who James is
writing to. Obviously there were people who were
saying that they had faith, yet did not show it. James
wrote this letter to the twelve tribes and he wouldn't
have bothered bringing this point up, if it weren't an
issue. It may also be that there were those who were
entering the church and saying that they had faith, yet
their works showed differently and James is simply
confirming what Jesus said... "By their fruits ye
shall know them.". There is more than one instance in
the letters from the Apostles, where they instruct
people about others coming into the church, who did not
have real faith, but would say they did and how to
recognize them.
And don't you remember what Jesus said about the
Pharisees? They "did their alms before men" to make
men THINK that they were serving God, but in reality,
their faith was dead. Their works were not from the
heart, to serve God and therefore, they had not "works"
that showed "real faith".
Don't you also remember what Jesus said about the tree
bringing forth fruit? A good tree brings forth good
fruit and not vice versa. i.e., true works, from the
heart, which stem from a real faith. Jesus said, "By
their fruits ye shall know them.". Jesus is saying
here that you will know where they stand in their
hearts, by their works.
Now, WHAT would you know about them, by their good
works? You would know that their hearts were right
with God, which would tell you what? That they had
faith in God, which today would tell you what? That
they are Christians, which would tell you what? That
they are saved.
Now since the works are obviously a RESULT of their
salvation (since their works would not truly have been
done for God, had they not been saved, therefore, their
fruit could not have been truly good), then you know
that their salvation is a result of their FAITH in God.
If the works were not a RESULT of salvation, then you
could not "know them" by their works. The works came
as a result of the salvation. What did James say that
he would show you by his works?
James said, "I will SHOW YOU MY FAITH by my works."
i.e., I will show you, as Jesus said, that my faith is
real, by the works which I do.
Again, let's look at what Jesus said about the tree...
Remember, the "good tree" brings forth the "good
fruit". Now the tree obviously brings forth the fruit
and not vice versa.. If the tree is not already right,
it cannot bring forth the good fruit. Therefore, Jesus
is telling you (again, common sense) that the tree is
already right, BEFORE the fruit comes forth and that is
WHY the good fruit comes forth. Because the tree is
"already right". The "good fruit" is the RESULT of the
"good tree". i.e., the "good works" are a result of
the "true faith".
sims...@my-deja.com
and therefore, you can second guess anything I say, allowing yourself
to find alternative means of disregard for anything not meeting to your
satisfaction. You have an agenda; and the recognition of any truth in
what I say is counter-productive to your agenda.
But, I will answer your questions, which are rhetorical in most
respects; and leading toward the goals you set. Nevertheless, I see
need to respond; and I do so, below. To summarize here, you can not
believe in God; nor the Christ until you have been given the faith to
so believe. Through that faith, given, you will then receive the grace
that can save you, if you only ask for it, honestly; and not with a
tempting attitude. (i.e. I'll ask and prove to him that it isn't
true.) It is not a good thing to tempt the Living God.
I've interlaced below.
In article <8526gl$plb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
sam_p...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > Yet you forget that God has indeed left us to our own thoughts and
> > > imaginations on the most vital issue of all: salvation. How is one
> > > saved? Through faith alone (Paul) or through faith and works
> > >(James)?
> >
> > It is easy to see that Paul and James were not divided on this
> > subject.
> >
> > Care to discuss?
>
> No, it is not easy to see that Paul and James were in agreement upon
> this. Christians have tried to reconcile the two. Whether this is what
> Paul or James meant is open to debate. However, the fact of the matter
> is that it is not as clear as one would expect from an all-powerful
God.
Paul teaches that one must be led by the Holy Spirit, otherwise you
will die. He said this to the Christian, who has already believed in
God. Therefore, there are things Christians must do (works, as in
being led) to live. That means eternally, for as he wrote this, older
Christians were dying off, anyway. So, it would have been rather
meaningless for that to have meant physical death. Besides, Paul is
the guy that said "to die is gain; but to live is Christ.
Therefore, there is no difference between what Paul said and what James
said. Paul simply said it in different terms than did James.
The essence of the New Covenant, which every Christian is under, is
that his law is written on our hearts. This is true of all, not just
Christians, for he made us all. You say below that children don't know
right from wrong; but I have a good friend who is a psychiatrist, known
for his treatment of children. He is not a Christian; but clearly
advises me that children know good from bad at an extremely early age.
And that their early interactions demonstrate this underlying fact,
since they are too young to have learned such an abstract concept.
Yet, the readily play well together, which requires equity of actions
between them. That can only occur when there is effort to do good.
Otherwise total selfishness would dominate; and they would fight
constantly.
That is not to say that other selfish needs don't tend to interject
themselves; but, by and large, most kids get along quite well with
others.
> Furthermore, this does not hold fast with Jesus' teaching that "I am
> the way, the truth and the light. NO ONE comes to the Father EXCEPT
> THROUGH ME." How can we go through Jesus to the Father if we do not
> know Jesus?
Who said they would be saved, without Jesus? It merely says that their
judgment is not without justification, seeing that they knew right from
wrong.
> >
> > > What about young children or the mentally retarded who cannot
> > > distinguish good and evil?
> >
> > Having seen, just above, that his law is written in our hearts, (the
> > essence of the New Covenant, even the young know right from wrong.
>
> The young do not know right from wrong and it is not written in our
> hearts. If this were so morals in every culture and race would be
> exactly the same - which it obviously isn't.
Your assumption is faulty, as I stated above. You speak of our morals
and culture. Knowing right from wrong, doesn't guarantee that we won't
do wrong. That is the whole essence of why the Christ came. All know
right from wrong; but the motivations are all to do what is selfishly
justified, without other emphasis. Yeah, you know it's wrong; but you
do it, anyway. So, what you say above isn't true. Cultures place
different pressures on people, even those who know better (and we all
do, if not impaired). Concerning the impaired, you presume that God
makes no allowance for that. Why? You play this card to dishonor
faith in God, I think.
> All psychiatrists will tell you than young children and the mentally
> retarded are unable to comprehend fully between right from wrong.
Not all. And of the psychiatric books I've read, none say that
overtly;
or even in passing. Neither does my friend, mentioned above, go
against his own training. This statement is false.
Children are selfish little toots; but that doesn't keep them from
knowing right from wrong; nor does it keep them from acting on that
knowledge, when it is in their interest (i.e. to play with a group).
Most grownups are the same way. We all, unless impaired, know right
from wrong. It is what we do about that, that God honors; or
dishonors. We are not, as you imply, "totally depraved" incapable of
doing good. Even is that was so, could we accuse God, who made us, of
making us wrongly? No. That's Paul's whole point, since that was the
argument he was answering. You simply try to not include yourself in
the group, while saying the same thing they said.
> >
> > > Does salvation occur the very second that you
> > > accept Christ or sometime later?
> >
> > Read Romans 8:22-25 for the answer to that.
>
> This does not give any answer at all. All that Paul is mentioning is
> that he is eagerly awaiting for the second coming so that he can be
> adopted as a son and his body redeemed.
Of course it does. You choose to not see it.
Romans 8:22-25
22. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in
pain together until now.
23. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits
of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for
the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
24. For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for
what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
25. But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait
for it.
Salvation can't occur the second you "accept Christ". Salvation is an
event that will occur in the future. Yet, say we are saved, because we
have faith that God will do as he promised, based on what we have done
in deference to that promise. We are so confident that this will
occur, to us, it is a done thing; but in reality, we have only the hope
for it. Those who claim they already have it, don't read scripture
very well, because nowhere does it say we already have it. It says we
are saved, in the same sense I use it above; but it clearly says that
we wait for it. Thus, Sir, your question is adequately answered by
reading the verses.
> > > Is baptism required for salvation?
> >
> > Of course. Read Acts 2:37-38 and 1 Peter 3:20-21.
>
> And so what of the unbaptised thief who was crucifed with Jesus who is
> told, "Today you will be in paradise with me."
Again, you grasp at a straw, to dishonor the great ship we sail. The
thief, if in a position to have done so, would he not have gladly been
baptized? But, beyond his control he couldn't be. Is it beyond the
grace of God to overlook that?
Yet, even so, look at the purpose of baptism. It saves us, as Peter
said, not by washing away our filthiness; but by giving us a right
conscience with God. How? By our witness to men; and before men, that
he is the Living God; his Son is the way to him; and that we forsake
all for him, thus honoring God before men. We do this by the public
profession of being immersed in water. We die to our old
unrighteousness, as we go under; and are raised again in newness of
life, just as Jesus, in death, died to corruption; and was raised
again, in newness of life, eternal.
So, the thief, fulfilled the essence of baptism, though he was unable
to so do. He professed before men, without shame, the Christ, and the
Father. He legitimized the purpose of the death of Christ. He
proclaimed his faith. These are all the end results desired of the
baptism. Therefore, he, spiritualy, was baptized there on the cross.
He died with Christ, as we do when baptized; and he was raised in
newness of life, with Christ, as are we, when we come up out of the
water. Our profession, through baptism could not be any better than
his. He did a work, which God honored, as we hope for, ourselves.
> > >Is
> > > there a purgatory after death? What about those that lived before
> > > Jesus
> > > - how were they saved?
> >
> > Peter said he went and preached to them, after his crucifiction.
>
> You have no answer for purgatory?
Why should I? Where is it, in the Bible?
> 1 Peter 2:18-20 to which you refer can be interpreted in any number of
> ways:
> - As you mentioned above
> - Peter is preaching to the unsaved dead (a second chance for
> unbelievers)
> - Peter is preaching to the fallen angels
> Anyone one of these interpretations is just as likely as the other.
> There is nothing to prove that your interpretation is more possible or
> plausible than the other two.
I think I remember referring to 2 Peter 2:17-22; but I did not refer to
1 Peter 2:18-20 unless I made a typing error (quite possible). But, I
have never heard; or read where Peter preaches to fallen angels. For,
that would be totally against bibical teaching. Their lot is cast; and
their course set. Therefore, the verses you refer to, are not, in any
way able to be so construed, regardless of the correct reference; and
certainly not 1 Peter 2:18-20; nor 2 Peter 2:17-22.
>
> > > These are but a few of the issues that the bible has failed to
> > address.
> >
> > They are appropriately addressed, as mentioned above; and with many
> > more verses than I showed.
> >
> > > Theologians, pastors and priests are themselves divided over the
> > > specifics of salvation - undoubtedly the most important issue of
> > > all.
> >
> > Undoubtedly.
>
> If you have appropriately addressed all the issues, then why the
> division over the specifics of salvation?
Because of the lack of faith. Men can not bring themselves to totally
trust in the Living God to save them, so they bring about their own
salvation (only in their own minds) by interpreting verses to conjure
up whatever doctrines they have invented to so justify themselves to
themselves (and as they wrongfully think) in the eyes of God. Having
in themselves a form of righteousness; but not the essence of it, which
is the Holy Spirit. For, if we are led by the Holy Spirit, then do we
fulfill the law; and all righteousness.
> >
> > > I know that if I were God, and I desired that none should perish,
I
> > > would state very clearly how one was to be saved.
> >
> > But, he did. Acts 2:37-38. Gal. 5:1-18. James 2:14-26. Romans
8:1-
> > 14; 8:22-25; 8:29-39; 13:8-10 and etc.
>
> The fact that we are debating over salvation right now (as theologians
> and scholars do) refutes your argument completely. If God had stated
> clearly how one is to be saved, we wouldn't be having this debate. Do
> you ever see lawyers debating over how to write a proper will? No,
> because the procedures for writing up a will is stated clearly and
> precisely - unlike the bible's doctrine of salvation.
Not so. It is by lack of faith that one can't see the truth; and the
clarity of the scriptures. For, in them, the same message is repeated
so many times, in so many ways, that only the force of unbelief can
prevent the seeing of it. It is the hammering on our own anvils that
deafens us to the words so clearly spoken.
You use such a silly example of lawyers. This whole country is twisted
in knots, because lawyers can't see eye to eye. They get paid to not
see eye to eye. My great grandfather's wealth, (considerable) was
squandered in courts, because lawyers wanted the money more than they
wanted us to have it. Put two lawyers in a room, without any subject
to discuss (or material to review); and in thirty minutes, they'll be
at each other's throats, because they can't agree. Give them a
contract; and each will have a different interpretation. Otherwise, we
would not need laws; but just lawyers.
In the same way, this is why the Christ came. We all play lawyer
without a license, interpreting in our own ways; but he set it
straight. No one comes to the Father; but by him. He is the straight
line; and you can test all these various doctrines by him. If they
don't adhere to his measure; and straight ways, then they are false.
Therefore, what is false? Those that say you must not do anything to
be saved; for he commanded us to love one another, even our enemies.
Any doctrine that teaches hatred of another, is not of Christ; and
therefore they will not see God; but only his wrath. What did he say?
Love your neighbour as yourself. Love God, with all your heart, mind
and soul. Love even your enemy. All else is contrived by man.
> > This shows when it expires.
> >
> > James 4:13-17
> > 13. Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into
such
> > a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:
> > 14. Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is
> > your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time,
and
> > then vanisheth away.
> > 15. For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and
> > do this, or that.
> > 16. But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is
> > evil. 17. Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it
> > not, to him it is sin.
>
> It does not say when it expires. All it says is that it will expire
> sometime. When is that? We don't know. It could be today, tomorrow, or
> fifty years from now.
Why keep your eyes closed? It says your life is a vapour. It is one
heartbeat from eternity. It ends for you, when your heart stops. The
next thing you see is the judgment. What does it matter to you about
others? You can't live for them; nor in the place of them. Your
eternity is a heartbeat away. So, we must live today, either for God;
and his Christ; or for the flesh.
Peace to you.
Allan Sims
Pastor Dave
sam_p...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> give me one passage where James says anything more then works
>> *JUSTIFY* faith, Paul said we are SAVED BY FAITH, James said we our
>> faith is JUSTIFIED BY WORKS, in other words: we are saved by faith,
>> and that faith is shown by the acts we do, and that if we do not show
>> our faith through our deeds, then our faith is dead.
>
>Right here in black and white: "You see that a person is justified by
>what he does and not by faith alone" (James 2:24)
"Justification" is a different issue than "salvation".
That's why we have two different words. :)
For example, a man who is about to die, in purity of
heart, realizes that he truly is damned to hell and
confesses Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour and is
truly repentant in his heart, for his wrongs. Is this
man saved? According to you, NO, because he has no
"works" to save him. This would be contrary to
Scripture, which states...
"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord
Jesus Christ and believe in thine heart that God hath
raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
Note that it is a matter of the heart. i.e., "faith".
James is simply saying that someone saying that they
have faith, but living the life that faith in God calls
for, does not have real faith in God. The works are
the RESULT of a real faith. A result of salvation.
>Now can you show me one passage where James specifically says our faith
>is justified by our works? Or do you have to rely on non-specific
>passages and extrapolate them for an interpretation?
See above.
>> > And how much of the law do you have to hear to be judged by the law?
>> > What is the difference between judging by the law and without the
>> > law?
>> > If we are as sinful as rags, then how can we be judged by anything
>> > other than faith? Your argument here creates further questions and
>> > complications.
>> >
>>
>> God will judge based upon how much we know of His morality, whether we
>> believe it or not, if we lie and never know that it is wrong to lie,
>> then i
>> don't think God will judge us on the lies we commit, but since in our
>> society it's almost impossible to not know lying is wrong, then we
>> will all
>> be judged based upon our lies. does that make sense? since God knows
>> our
>> hearts He can judge our hearts
>
>OK, let's assume what you say is true. Mr. X has been a very ethical and
>moral person all his life, and one assumes from what you say, that Mr. X
>will be saved.
I disagree with your logic altogether.
1) You put salvation at the end of the road, as if it
were something that we can't be sure of. Faith is all
about being sure of God and His gift of salvation, as
Paul described it. Salvation comes to us NOW.....
"For if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord
Jesus Christ and believe in thine heart that God hath
raised Him from the dead, thouh shalt be saved."
2) Mr. X can do all of the good works that he wants,
but they aren't done from a real faith in God and this
will show forth evidently. "By their fruits ye shall
know them.".
>One day a group of Christians come to Mr. X and preach to
>him for some time. However, Mr. X does not subscribe to Christianity
>because of the fact that there are so many competing religions and he
>isn't sure whether it is the right one. However, he continues to be the
>same moral person governed by his conscience. But now that he has heard,
>he will be judged from differently to those that haven't heard, and
>since he rejected Christ, he is condemned. Now does that make sense?
Yes, it makes perfect sense. God does not judge those
by the ruler of Christ atoning sacrifice, if they have
never heard of it. But once you have heard the Good
News and are like the "builders who rejected the chief
cornerstone", then yes, your "building" will be judged
by what it is built upon. Jesus stated this in the
parable about the three men who built their houses and
what they built them on.
>Furthermore, your arguments imply that God has two different criteria of
>judgement - one for those who have heard, and one for those who have
>not. Why not simply have one system for all?
Because not all have heard. For example, let's say
that you make a right on red in a state that doesn't
have that rule and you get pulled over. If you explain
to the police officer that every other state that you
have been in has that rule and that you honestly did
not know that you couldn't do it there and that you
truly were obeying the speed limit and every other
traffic law, is it not likely that a good hearted
officer may simply explain to you that you should not
make a right on red anymore and let you go? If he did
not and gave us a hard time, we would not think very
highly of that officer, would we? Of course not,
because he is not seeing the difference between an
honest mistake and an intentional infraction.
Therefore, would we want God to judge us by a ruler
that we never heard of (Jesus Christ)? If he is to
judge us by this ruler, shouldn't we at least have
heard of it?
>He could just as easily judge people by how well they
>follow their conscience. After all, this is a God of fairness.
He does do that, to those who have not heard of Jesus
Christ. However, what you're missing is, that if they
HAVE heard of Jesus Christ and rejected His Son, that
He sent to die for them, then how clear could their
conscience really be? How good could their hearts
truly be, if they would believe that what God did
doesn't matter and reject what He tells them? You want
this same God to ignore this and say that the human who
has heard, knows better than Him?
>> > Furthermore, this does not hold fast with Jesus' teaching that "I am
>> > the way, the truth and the light. NO ONE comes to the Father EXCEPT
>> > THROUGH ME." How can we go through Jesus to the Father if we do not
>> > know Jesus?
>> >
>>
>> you can't, you must know Jesus to meet the Father, He is the Narrow
>> Gate, but who is to say that those who never heard of Jesus will
>> suffer the fate of those who simply rejected Him. those who had no
>> chance to accept Him will be judged accordingly, and God is creating
>> a new heaven and a new earth, I heard one comment that Heaven will be
>> where the saints will go, and the earth will be where those who didn't
>> get to know Jesus will go, and that Holy Jerusalem will be the meeting
>> place where all will go, a midway point between heaven and earth. but
>> that's just an idea, it makes sense, but i don't see any Scriptural
>> evidence to support it to fact, it's only a theory,
>
>How can you go through Jesus if you don't even know him? This is all
>very unclear, and not what you would expect from a God who wishes us all
>to be in heaven.
If you don't know Him, then you can't go through Him.
The only requirement then is that you believe in the
Creator of all things and not worship that which is
created. The Bible speaks of this.
>> > The young do not know right from wrong and it is not written in our
>> > hearts. If this were so morals in every culture and race would be
>> > exactly the same - which it obviously isn't.
>> >
>>
>> basic morals are, in almost all societies killing is wrong, murder is
>> delt
>> with in some way or another in almost every, if not every culture on
>> earth.
>> so basic morality is written on our hearts at birth, but not every
>> moral is
>> known to every person, but certain things to point to the fact that
>> wherever you go in every society their are some moral similarities,
>> man is
>> not void of all good, but the evil over whelms our natures
>
>So only some morals are written in our hearts then? Why didn't God just
>write them all?
Why don't you practice them all? You have the free
will that God gave you.
Seminary Student
By Nick Michalinos
My friend, the Word of God reveals the Mind of God. The desire of God
for the
salvation of man is revealed time and time again in the Scriptures, (II
Pet. 3:9; I Tim.
2:4; John 3:16). Make no mistake, God loves your soul and has made
available to you,
free of charge, as a gift, a WAY to escape the "wages of sin." Christ,
in view of His
death for the sinner's sins (I Pet. 2:24) and His Resurrection for the
sinner's justification
(Rom. 4:25), said: "I am the way . . . no man cometh unto the Father,
but by
Me," John 14:6. This is plain talk, too plain to be misunderstood.
Listed herein are 5 things God wants you to know and believe in your
heart. If
you value your soul in the light of eternity, please read and consider
them.
I. You Must Know That You Are Lost
Only those who honestly admit in their heart they are lost, will be
saved. As one must
first realize his sick condition before going to or calling a
physician, so you must first
realize your lost condition before you will truly desire a Savior. You,
as a lost person,
occupy dangerous ground. Notice God's supernatural view of ALL lost
mankind,
which, of course, includes you.
· Wandered from God--Isa. 53:6; Rom. 3:11b and Rom. 3:12a.
· Guilty before God--Rom. 3:19.
· Ungodly before God--Rom. 5:6, no regard for God in all things they
do.
· Condemned before God--John 3:18; Rom. 5:18.
· Rebels before God--Rom. 1:32.
· Spiritually dead before God--Eph. 2:1; John 5:24; n Cor. 5:14.
· Enemies of God--Rom. 5:10; Col. 1:21.
· Sinners before God--Rom. 3:23; Rom. 5:8.
My friend, are you willing to admit in your heart before God, that He
speaks the truth
about you? You MUST in order to be saved. Only those who see themselves
as God
sees them, will ever be saved.
II. You Must Know That Your Own Works Cannot
Save You
Salvation is the gift of God. If man could save himself by works why
then did Christ have to suffer and die for him? Christ performed all
the "work" needed for our salvation, we cannot perform any of our own
to attain salvation. Notice why man is completely helpless to attain
salvation by his own merits:
· No "righteousness" of our own -- Rom. 3:10-12; Isa. 64:6.
· No "strength" of our own -- Rom. 5:6; Eph. 2:1.
· No "good" of our own -- Rom. 3:12; Psa. 14:1-3; Jer. 13:23.
· No "boasting" from us in salvation -- Eph. 2:9; Rom. 3:27a.
· No "works" from us in salvation -- Eph. 2:9; Titus 3:5; Rom. 4:5.
· Salvation is a "gift" -- Eph. 2:8-9.
· Righteousness is a "gift" -- Rom. 5:17.
· Eternal Life is a "gift" -- Rom. 6:23b.
The above is a death blow to man's pride; but are you willing to
swallow your pride
and admit in your heart, that God spoke the truth and that you accept
it? You MUST in
order to be saved.
III. You Must Know That To Die As A Lost Person Is To Spend Eternity
In
The Lake Of Fire
Both the saved and the lost die physically, but the lost person will
suffer the "second
death" in the Lake of Fire, Rev.20:14. As the saved will spend eternity
in bliss with
God, so the lost will spend eternity in torment and away from God.
Notice the position
of a lost person:
· The wrath of God is ON HIM NOW -- John 3:16.
· He is CONDEMNED ALREADY -- John 3:18b.
· Called "children of wrath" -- Eph. 2:3.
· The Wrath of God will be literally upon the lost at the Great White
Throne Judgment
-- Rev. 20:15.
· This Wrath is for eternity, forever -- Rev. 14:11.
Man does not like to think of any future punishment because of his sins
but it is true just
the same, just as true as God Himself. Will you accept the fact that
God is just in
sending the lost to eternal damnation? Please agree with God in this
because THIS is
what you need to be saved from.
IV. You Must Know That Jesus Christ Is The Only Savior
The job of a Savior is to save, and this, Christ can do. He died on the
cross to bear
your sins, your shame, your guilt, your penalty. He is your substitute.
What you so
justly deserve, because of your lost, sinful condition, He gladly bore
for you. This is
WHY He came into the world, "to save sinners," I Tim. 1:15. The "work"
has been
accomplished on Calvary's cross.
Notice what His death or blood does for us:
· Washes us from our sins -- Rev. 1:5.
· Redeems us -- I Pet. 1:18-19.
· Justifies us -- Rom. 5:9.
· Forgives us -- Eph. 1:7.
· Reconciles us back to God -- Col. 1:20.
· Peace for us with God -- Col. 1:20.
· Propitiates (satisfies) God -- Rom. 3:25.
There is no hope outside of Christ and His Death for:
· He is the only way back to God -- John 14:6.
· He is the only DOOR to enter to be saved -- John 10:9.
· His is the only NAME to obtain deliverance from hell -- Acts 4:12.
Friend, cast away all other so-called Saviors. God's Word only has one,
the Lord
Jesus Christ. Admit this in your heart to be true. You must in order to
be saved.
V. You Must Know That You Must Come To Christ And Have Him As Your
Own
Now, you could know the 4 previously mentioned truths and still be
lost! You must
now claim Christ as your own Saviour; you must receive Him as your own
Saviour;
you as an individual, must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, trust Him
and Him alone,
and "thou shalt be saved," Acts 16:31. It is a personal faith in a
personal Christ
before you can have a personal salvation. As food must be eaten in
order to take
away hunger, and medicine must be taken in order to take away disease,
even so you
must lay hold on Christ by your faith in order for Him to take away
your guilt and
condemnation.
When the Bible tells us to "trust in Christ," Eph. 1:12, it means to
rely completely on
Him, not Him and something else. Suppose a wife told a woman friend of
hers, "I love
my husband and trust him, but just in case, I've hired a detective to
follow him." Is
this trust? Certainly not, and yet, to say you trust Christ for your
salvation but "just in
case," you want to hold on to your own so-called righteous works, this
is not trust in
Christ. This would make Christ a "half-savior." He alone must save or
not at all. Christ
said: "Him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out," John 6:37,
nor bring "into
judgment," John 5:24, but "hath everlasting life. " John 6:47.
The moment you accept Him as Savior, God will forgive you and cleanse
you and
make you a child of His. Believe God's Word that He will do as He has
promised. Will
you do it today? Death is in the pot. "What must I do to be saved? And
they said,
believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved," Acts
16:30-31. Do
likewise and "thou shalt be saved."
My friend, have you understood what you have read in this tract? It
boils down to this.
The Lord Jesus Christ, who was God in the flesh, came into this world
to die in the
place and stead of sinners. His was a substitutionary death. You must
believe this
includes you, that He did it for you, in your behalf. Now, rest
yourself completely in
Him; trust in Him to save you as He has promised; rely wholly in Him
alone to do the
job of saving you from eternal damnation. Believe in Him this very
moment as your
own personal Savior, and the work is done! You are now saved with an
everlasting
salvation.
Say this simple prayer with all your heart, and you will be saved!
Dear God,
I know that I am a sinner and need your forgiveness. I believe that
Christ died in my
place, paying the penalty for my sin. I am willing to turn from my sin.
I now invite Jesus
Christ to come into my heart and life as my personal Savior. I am
willing, by your help,
to follow and obey Christ as the Lord of my life. Amen.
If you just accepted Jesus as your savior...please email me and let me
know...
roman...@hawaii.rr.com
ASSURANCE OF SALVATION:
Jesus has given us many precious promises in His Word. The Bible says
that claiming
these promises by faith makes us partakers of the divine nature NOW (2
Peter 1:4). It
is impossible to believe these magnificent promises and not have
assurance now. That is
why Jesus gave them to us. Following is a list of twenty blessed
promises. There are
many more just as clear.
1. He will keep you from falling, Jude 24
2. Judgement will be given to (or in favor of) the saints, Daniel 7:22
3. He leads you in paths of righteousness, Psalm 23:3
4. He gives you victory now, 1 Corinthians 15: 57
5. He which started a good work in you will complete it, Philippians
1:6.
6. Jesus is your attorney, 1John 2:1
7. The Father also loves you John 16:27
8. He promises forgiveness and cleansing from sin daily, 1 John 1:9
9. He forgets your sin and iniquity, Hebrews 8: 12
10. Jesus assures you and asks that you be bold, Hebrews 10:19-22
11. He promises to confess you before His angels, Revelation 3:5
12. Overcoming is promised by His blood, Revelation 12:11
13. He offers you the wedding garment, (His righteousness) free,
Matthew 22:11)
14. No one takes you out of His hand, John 10:29
15. If you believe on Him you cannot be condemned, John 5:24
16. He always causes you to triumph, 2 Corinthians 2:14
17. Jesus does the miracle-working needed in you, Romans 8:3,4
18. With Him everything is possible for you, Mark 10:27
19. He promises to take your worries, 1 Peter 5:7
20. If you are willing to follow Him, He accepts you, as you are, 2
Corinthians 8:12.
sam_p...@my-deja.com
> >> James did not say that works are required for
> >> salvation. What he said was that "faith without works
> >> is dead.". This simply means that one who says they
> >> have faith, yet does not do the things which are of
> >> God, does not have anything but a dead faith and one
> >> must wonder if there is any real faith at all.
> >>
> >> Dispute that logic? If so, then look at what else he
> >> says.... "I will show you my faith by my works."
> >>
> >> Again, he is simply saying that his works are a result
> >> of his TRUE faith in God.
> >
> >Tell me exactly where he says this.
>
> This is simply a matter of understanding the writing
> styles of that time and not trying to put a 20th
> century twist on the wording and simply using some
> common sense. For example.....
So you don't have an exact passage then? You rely on extrapolating an
interpretation? And you also assume that God is a little bit behind the
times?
First of all, before you start using meaningless phrases like "20th
century twist" you should define what it means. Then, show me
specifically where my "20th century twist" is. Otherwise, what you say
above is just rubbish.
While you're doing that, also define "false faith" and "real faith"
because although the former is an oxymoron and the latter is a
tautology, you use them frequently throughout your posts. If a person
has false faith, does he believe in Jesus Christ as a Saviour? (A
simple yes or no will do quite nicely.)
Good english is precise english, and if James' letter does not support
your argument explicity. But he does explicity say (James 2:24) that
faith and works are required. If there is anyone putting any "twist" in
things, it is you.
Secondly, your statement that I should "understand the writing styles
of that time" is totally baseless unless you are willing to fully
explain this properly. What is it about the writing styles of that time
that makes my interpretation so explicit but yours significantly less
so?
> James 2:17-18
>
> 17) Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being
> alone.
>
> Right here, he tells you, if someone is proclaiming
> that they have faith in God and you see no good works,
> then their faith is not real faith. It's dead. He
> still calls it, "faith". Therefore, he IS saying that
> it is a "dead faith". i.e., not REAL faith.
No he does not. Do you see the words "real faith" in there? What he is
saying is that faith which is not put into action is useless (dead). If
I say: "Money that I can't (not allowed to) spend it useless", do you
automatically assume that my money is counterfeit?
James is arguing that your faith in Christ must lead to deeds. You can
have faith in Jesus and you can believe every single thing the gospels
tell you, yet you may not have any works to show for it. It is still
a "true faith" nonetheless.
> 18) Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith and I have
> works: show me thy faith without thy works and I will
> show thee my faith by my works.
>
> Again, James gives us the "acid test" for whether or
> not someone's faith is real. He shows that his faith
> is a "real faith" and that the other mans faith is not.
This, I'm afraid, it not supported by the verse you quoted above. Where
does James say that his faith is real and the other's is false?
> So yes, James DOES show the difference between real and
> dead faith.
>
> >> If salvation required works, as well as faith, then
> >> that would be saying that Jesus' death on the cross
> >> wasn't enough to do the job and that we are capable of
> >> attaining our own salvation, which would contradict
> >> Scripture.....
Well, that is exactly what I'm trying to show - there are
contradictions in Scripture concerning salvation. (SHOCK, HORROR!)
> >Let's look at this argument a little closer. You emphasise the words
> >GRACE and GIFT. Both imply that salvation is freely given. But is
> >this
> >the case? No. Because we need faith to receice the gift. More
> >precisely, salvation is CONDITIONAL on faith. And once something is
> >conditional on something else, it ceases to be a gift given in grace.
>
> So you are saying that Scripture is wrong? You pick
> one letter in the Bible and try to use it to justify
> your stance, which is what I would surmise is a
> Catholic stance and then when you are given more
> Scriptures from elsewhere in the NT, you dispute what
> they say, as if they had no value? Interesting logic.
This is not a proper rebuttal or a counter-argument. And yes, I am
saying that the Scriptures do contradict each other.
The second part of your argument - "that my interpretation is supported
in other books whilst yours is not" - is really not relevant here, as I
am trying to prove a contradiction in the doctrine of salvation.
> Salvation is NOT "conditional".
Yes it IS. Can I be saved without faith? No. Ergo, salvation is
CONDITIONAL on faith.
> It is common sense,
> that in order to accept a gift from anyone, you first
> have to believe that they exist. Those who come to Him
> must believe that he is.
The Red Cross probably doesn't know or believe or even cares that I
exist, but I'm sure if I sent them a donation they would be able to
receive it.
In exactly the same way, there is no stopping Jesus from giving me
eternal life although I do not believe in him. Although once having
RECEIVED the gift I would believe in him.
> It is also common sense, that if you walk over to
> someone to receive their gift to you, that does not
> mean that the person didn't give it freely.
Huh? The words "gift" and "didn't give it freely (to you)" are mutually
exclusive. A gift, is by definition, FREE.
> >> MAN will not be able to boast about it, which means
> >> that we cannot earn it. If we could, then we could
> >> boast about our works and didn't Jesus lambaste the
> >> Pharisees for exactly that type of thing?
> >
> >Man can, and is fully able, to boast about having great faith. In
> >fact, I'm sure you will know that there are many Christians who
> >boast about their faith. Boasting about faith is exactly the same as
> >boasting about works.
>
> Man will always find something to boast about. And a
> man who is spending his time boasting about his faith,
> doesn't have a real faith, does he? Didn't you learn
> from what Jesus taught about the Pharisees and how we
> should fast, etc.?
First you say "man will not be able to boast about it" and now you say
that "man will always find something to boast about". You contradict
yourself.
You see how narrow-minded you are here? You automatically assume that
there are only two types of faith - real faith and false faith - even
though these terms don't make any sense, and James has never himself
used these terms.
James distinguishes from a faith that manifests itself into works and a
faith that does not. Although both of these can be "true faith" (your
terms). Now, I can go a lot further here but first you must define what
is "true faith" and "false faith".
>
> >(James 2:24) "You see that a person is JUSTIFIED BY WHAT HE DOES and
> >NOT BY FAITH ALONE." The meaning is this sentence is quite clear. A
> >person is justified by what he does.
>
> "Justified" is different than "saved". That's why
> there's two different words in the language. :)
Ever heard of synonyms?
Can a person be saved without being justified? No. So, if a person must
be justified BY WHAT HE DOES, then it follows quite logically that he
must be saved BY WHAT HE DOES.
> >If, as you contend, that James is
> >telling us that only "real faith" can save us, then he would have
> >written: "You see that a person is JUSTIFIED BY REAL FAITH and not
> >BY A FALSE FAITH WITHOUT WORKS."
>
> No, he wouldn't have said that. Different issue.
Is this a way of avoiding a rebuttal or masking an absence of one? My
sentence above ("You see that ... ") perfectly sums up your
interpretation of James. So, if he was saying what you are telling me
he is saying, then why didn't he say that?
> Also, you're trying to put a 20th century twist on his
> writings. In order to understand what he is saying,
> you must understand the writing styles of THAT time.
As my english teacher used to say, "Definitions, definitions and
definitions."
> >Secondly, it is quite a foolish thing to have "false faith" - it's a
> >bit like saying I have "non-existent money".
>
> Yet the Pharisees, the religious and legal leaders of
> that time, had exactly that and so most of those today,
> who call themselves christians (I would dispute that
> they are christians). Don't you remember the
> lambasting Jesus gave the Pharisees? :) Don't you
> remember when he called them, "white washed
> sepulchres"?
>
> >One either has faith or no
> >faith. There is no such thing as "false faith".
>
> Exactly and James is telling you how to know the
> difference. Your point is correct, but that doesn't
> stop people from SAYING that they have faith and James
> is telling how to tell the difference between "real
> faith" and "dead faith".
No, all he is saying is that faith which does not translate into works
is useless. I can't go any further until you make a clear definition
of "false faith" and "true faith" - do both entail a belief in Christ?
The main topic of the thread that I started was that the doctrine of
salvation is extremely hard to decipher from the bible. Your
referencing to all these other books simple proves my point.
Also, the book in contention is the book of James. There is no use in
regarding other sources. You simply can't say "This is what James
really means because Jesus and Paul and other writers say this
too ...", that is just ridiculous.
sims...@my-deja.com
could go to the book store. I'm sorry; but I'm not inclined to read
all that. Especially, since you make no apparent comments about
specific portions of this "document" you've presented me with.
Do I misunderstand? Are you saying (by not saying) that you wrote all
this yourself; and only for my benefit? If so, I apologize. But,
could you summarize it? Or perhaps address which parts, address
specifics I've presented? Then, it would be most interesting.
Otherwise, I'll entertain shorter posts; or long posts that address
specific issues I've raised, point on point, of course.
BTW, did you notice there is a lot of supposition and vagueness, as
well as mistaken concepts in it? I did note that much, as I looked for
something written to me, in it.
Peace to you
Allan Sims
In article <8ERd4.974$Qa5....@hnlnewsr2.hawaii.rr.com>,
Seminary Student
plan of salvation....do you snooze in church (a metafore)
<sims...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:85ba7t$3oe$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
sam_p...@my-deja.com
> >> give me one passage where James says anything more then works
> >> *JUSTIFY* faith, Paul said we are SAVED BY FAITH, James said we our
> >> faith is JUSTIFIED BY WORKS, in other words: we are saved by faith,
> >> and that faith is shown by the acts we do, and that if we do not
> >>show
> >> our faith through our deeds, then our faith is dead.
> >
> >Right here in black and white: "You see that a person is justified by
> >what he does and not by faith alone" (James 2:24)
>
> "Justification" is a different issue than "salvation".
> That's why we have two different words. :)
Even if they are different, does this matter? Since we have to be saved
to be justified, and we are justified by our faith AND works, it follows
logically that we must be faith and works to receive salvation. Hence,
salvation requires faith and works. I said this very thing in my last
post (which you snipped) and you have failed to reply to it, meaning
either that you accept this reasoning or you are unable to fault it.
Also, what happened to my definitions? I would like to know what you
define "real faith" and "false faith" as, seeing as though your
interpretation relies virtually on these concept. Does "false faith"
entail a belief in Jesus as Saviour and Lord?
You have also failed to explain why the writing styles at that time
renders my interpretation invalid.
> >Now can you show me one passage where James specifically says our
> >faith
> >is justified by our works? Or do you have to rely on non-specific
> >passages and extrapolate them for an interpretation?
>
> See above.
So you couldn't. No passage in James was given. This probably means that
one does not exist.
You took a passage from John (if I recall properly) to support your
interpretation. Now it doesn't really matter what John or Mark or Paul
says because the book under question is the book of James. We're
concentrating on what James is saying, not his contemporaries.
Secondly you argue that since my interpretation does not correlate with
the rest of scripture, it is wrong. This is irrelevant anyway, because
what I am trying to show is that there are grey areas in scripture
concerning salvation!
I assume that you refer to the second part of my last sentence? Alright
then, change "will be saved" to "is saved". Does that change anything?
More specifically, does that render my logic or reasoning faulty? And
lastly, what's your point? Putting salvation at the end or right at this
moment changes nothing.
> "For if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord
> Jesus Christ and believe in thine heart that God hath
> raised Him from the dead, thouh shalt be saved."
>
> 2) Mr. X can do all of the good works that he wants,
> but they aren't done from a real faith in God and this
> will show forth evidently. "By their fruits ye shall
> know them.".
Again you have not found any error in my reasoning. I just don't
understand why this is relevant at all to my logic being faulty. In
fact, you said in your very last post (or the one before it) that if Mr.
X does not know God, then he is judged by some other measure (but you
failed to mention what this is). I assume you mean the other measure to
be good works (otherwise, please say so) and with this criteria Mr. X
will be saved, prior to being preached.
> >One day a group of Christians come to Mr. X and preach to
> >him for some time. However, Mr. X does not subscribe to Christianity
> >because of the fact that there are so many competing religions and he
> >isn't sure whether it is the right one. However, he continues to be
> >the same moral person governed by his conscience. But now that he has
> >heard, he will be judged from differently to those that haven't
> >heard, and since he rejected Christ, he is condemned. Now does that >
>make sense?
>
> Yes, it makes perfect sense. God does not judge those
> by the ruler of Christ atoning sacrifice, if they have
> never heard of it. But once you have heard the Good
> News and are like the "builders who rejected the chief
> cornerstone", then yes, your "building" will be judged
> by what it is built upon. Jesus stated this in the
> parable about the three men who built their houses and
> what they built them on.
OK, now that you bring up a different judgment for those who haven't
heard, please define what this is. You say God does "does not judge
those by the ruler of Christ ..." so what is his judgments based on
then? If you do not know, then one wonders how valid this assertion of
yours is.
Now, assuming that this other judgment (for those who have not heard) is
based on works. So your interpretation says that if I know an
exceptionally moralistic person, who is saved because of his good works,
then I had better steer him away from Christianity and evangelists lest
he/she hears about the "good news" and reject it. Does this make sense?
No.
Furthermore, if we are as dirty rags and fall short of God's glory and
the only way for us to be cleaned is by the blood of Christ, then how
can we be cleansed if we do not know him? (This concerns those "saved"
but haven't heard.) You said in your last post that we could not receive
a gift from a person we do not know - which I disagreed with. So how can
those who have not heard be saved?
Lastly, you are advocating a form of salvation, or rather a road to
salvation, without faith in Christ. Never heard = no faith, since you
cannot have faith in someone you do not know. Not only does the bible
fail to support this idea, it rejects it - "No one comes to the father
except through Jesus."
I think you missed my point altogether. You say that there are two
different types or criteria of judgment - one for those who have not
heard, and one for those who have. I'm saying why not simply judge
everyone by how well they follow their conscience? Why make suddenly
change the criteria of judgment for those who have not heard? This would
make former "saved" people "condemned" if after having heard, they
rejected Christianity.
Secondly, when you say " ... how clear can their conscience really be?"
you are assuming that Jesus is truly God and rejecting him is a grave
sin indeed. But Jesus' claim to Godship is not even proven yet, so this
argument is baseless.
> >How can you go through Jesus if you don't even know him? This is all
> >very unclear, and not what you would expect from a God who wishes us
> >all to be in heaven.
>
> If you don't know Him, then you can't go through Him.
> The only requirement then is that you believe in the
> Creator of all things and not worship that which is
> created. The Bible speaks of this.
Let's see some verses.
>
> >> > The young do not know right from wrong and it is not written in
> >> >our
> >> > hearts. If this were so morals in every culture and race would be
> >> > exactly the same - which it obviously isn't.
> >> >
> >>
> >> basic morals are, in almost all societies killing is wrong, murder
> >> is
> >> delt
> >> with in some way or another in almost every, if not every culture
> >> on
> >> earth.
> >> so basic morality is written on our hearts at birth, but not every
> >> moral is
> >> known to every person, but certain things to point to the fact that
> >> wherever you go in every society their are some moral similarities,
> >> man is
> >> not void of all good, but the evil over whelms our natures
> >
> >So only some morals are written in our hearts then? Why didn't God
> >just
> >write them all?
>
> Why don't you practice them all? You have the free
> will that God gave you.
You are diverging from the issue here.
I think I posted another message in reply to you, but which you have not
read or replied yet. It may be in another thread I think. That may
explain why you did not respond to some of the other issues.
sam_p...@my-deja.com
> You make it clear in what you say below, that you wish not to believe;
> and therefore, you can second guess anything I say, allowing yourself
> to find alternative means of disregard for anything not meeting to
> your satisfaction. You have an agenda; and the recognition of any
> truth in what I say is counter-productive to your agenda.
>
> But, I will answer your questions, which are rhetorical in most
> respects; and leading toward the goals you set. Nevertheless, I see
> need to respond; and I do so, below. To summarize here, you can not
> believe in God; nor the Christ until you have been given the faith to
> so believe. Through that faith, given, you will then receive the
> grace that can save you, if you only ask for it, honestly; and not
> with a tempting attitude. (i.e. I'll ask and prove to him that it
> isn't true.) It is not a good thing to tempt the Living God.
Thanks for the psychoanalysis, it's amazing what some people can
decipher from others simply by reading their posts. First of all, let me
say that I was a Christian at one stage, and in the opinion of my
friends, quite a devout one. Countless times I have asked for
greater faith, and even in backsliding I regularly placed prayer
requests for myself. But of course, God did not reply. Right now I'm
bordering between an atheist and an agnostic. If indeed there is a God
of the Christians, I would surely believe in Him even if it meant
humiliating myself. After all, is there any price too much for eternal
life?
My agenda here is simply to show that the bible and indeed Christianity
has some serious problems, and there are grave doubts over its claim to
be the one true religion. Calling my questions rhetoric but failing to
specify why they are so is meaningless.
Lastly, I really detest it when people like you pigeon-hole
non-Christians and those who seek to point out problems in the bible as
people with "agendas" and who have "failed to ask" or "received the Holy
Spirit". It's patronizing and insulting. I always wonder why some
Christians can't have a proper debate or discussion without getting
personal.
Now then, let's take a look at you replies, shall we?
> > > It is easy to see that Paul and James were not divided on this
> > > subject.
> > >
> > > Care to discuss?
> >
> > No, it is not easy to see that Paul and James were in agreement upon
> > this. Christians have tried to reconcile the two. Whether this is
> > what
> > Paul or James meant is open to debate. However, the fact of the
> > matter
> > is that it is not as clear as one would expect from an all-powerful
> > God.
>
> Paul teaches that one must be led by the Holy Spirit, otherwise you
> will die. He said this to the Christian, who has already believed in
> God. Therefore, there are things Christians must do (works, as in
> being led) to live. That means eternally, for as he wrote this, older
> Christians were dying off, anyway. So, it would have been rather
> meaningless for that to have meant physical death. Besides, Paul is
> the guy that said "to die is gain; but to live is Christ.
>
> Therefore, there is no difference between what Paul said and what
> James said. Paul simply said it in different terms than did James.
So what are you saying above? Your words: "there are things Christians
must do (works, as in being led) to live", and later you specify that
"live" means "eternally". What you are basically saying is that works,
and not simply faith alone, is required for eternal life (salvation).
However, this is not what the bible says.
"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord
Jesus Christ and believe in thine heart that God hath
raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
(No mention of works)
Furthermore, you have failed to support your assertion with scripture.
> > And how much of the law do you have to hear to be judged by the law?
> > What is the difference between judging by the law and without the
> > law?
> > If we are as sinful as rags, then how can we be judged by anything
> > other than faith? Your argument here creates further questions and
> > complications.
>
> The essence of the New Covenant, which every Christian is under, is
> that his law is written on our hearts. This is true of all, not just
> Christians, for he made us all.
This is an inadequate reply to my questions above.
1. What is the criteria for judging without the law?
2. If we have all fallen short of God's glory, how can we be judged by
anything else?
3. If Jesus is the only way to God ("No one comes to the Father except
through me") how can those who never heard be saved without going
through Jesus?
> You say below that children don't
> know right from wrong; but I have a good friend who is a psychiatrist,
> known for his treatment of children. He is not a Christian; but
> clearly advises me that children know good from bad at an extremely
> early age. And that their early interactions demonstrate this
> underlying fact, since they are too young to have learned such an
> abstract concept. Yet, the readily play well together, which requires
> equity of actions between them. That can only occur when there is
> effort to do good. Otherwise total selfishness would dominate; and
> they would fight constantly.
> That is not to say that other selfish needs don't tend to interject
> themselves; but, by and large, most kids get along quite well with
> others.
First of all, your friend's opinion is at odds with the profession.
Secondly, if all morals are written in our hearts, then why do different
people from different cultures have different sets of morals? Eg.
polygamy, male superiority over women, etc.?
> That is not to say that other selfish needs don't tend to interject
> themselves; but, by and large, most kids get along quite well with
> others.
>
> > Furthermore, this does not hold fast with Jesus' teaching that "I am
> > the way, the truth and the light. NO ONE comes to the Father EXCEPT
> > THROUGH ME." How can we go through Jesus to the Father if we do not
> > know Jesus?
>
> Who said they would be saved, without Jesus? It merely says that
> their judgment is not without justification, seeing that they knew
> right from wrong.
So are those who haven't heard saved or not? You keep dancing around
this issue - first you seem to imply that they will be saved, now you
say that they won't be saved. I don't know what your assertion here is
because you have not made it clear - are those who have not heard saved?
>
> > >
> > > > What about young children or the mentally retarded who cannot
> > > > distinguish good and evil?
> > >
> > > Having seen, just above, that his law is written in our hearts,
> > > (the
> > > essence of the New Covenant, even the young know right from wrong.
> >
> > The young do not know right from wrong and it is not written in our
> > hearts. If this were so morals in every culture and race would be
> > exactly the same - which it obviously isn't.
>
> Your assumption is faulty, as I stated above. You speak of our morals
> and culture. Knowing right from wrong, doesn't guarantee that we
> won't do wrong. That is the whole essence of why the Christ came.
> All know right from wrong; but the motivations are all to do what is
> selfishly justified, without other emphasis. Yeah, you know it's
> wrong; but you do it, anyway. So, what you say above isn't true.
> Cultures place different pressures on people, even those who know >
> better (and we all do, if not impaired).
So, on the basis on a friend's opinion you simply assume that my logic
is faulty? And let it be known that this is not just my belief - the
majority of psychiatrists are of the opinion that the very young do not
know right from wrong.
Now, let me explain a litte further:
1. Polygamy is not considered sinful in some cultures, most notable in
Muslims (I think) and Tibetans.
2. In the same way, women are considered, and consider themselves,
inferior to men.
3. In some tribe, murder is punishable by death. Obviously others don't
think so, otherwise the US would have the death penalty for murder in
every state.
These are three different moral beleifs from different cultures that I
have managed to gather off the top of my head. By no means are they the
only one. Now if God has written morals in our hearts (as you say) why
these differences? My answer: because God has not written any morals in
our hearts. You failed to address this (the reason for different morals)
in your post, but rather skirted on something irrelevant about people
knowing good but choosing evil. Your lack of reply betrays a weak
argument.
> Concerning the impaired, you presume that God makes no allowance for
> that. Why?
I presume that because he has not said anything about it in his bible.
> You play this card to dishonor faith in God, I think.
Let's not make this personal, okay?
1. It is childish and amateurish.
2. It it a "cheap shot" at your debater.
3. It signals a lack of argument.
4. If you have ever done any debating, you will know that the
adjudicator will severely penalize you for doing so.
> > All psychiatrists will tell you than young children and the mentally
> > retarded are unable to comprehend fully between right from wrong.
>
> Not all. And of the psychiatric books I've read, none say that
> overtly;
> or even in passing. Neither does my friend, mentioned above, go
> against his own training. This statement is false.
Pray, do tell us what these psychiatric books are? I hope you're not
making them up are you?
> > > > Does salvation occur the very second that you
> > > > accept Christ or sometime later?
> > >
> > > Read Romans 8:22-25 for the answer to that.
> >
> > This does not give any answer at all. All that Paul is mentioning is
> > that he is eagerly awaiting for the second coming so that he can be
> > adopted as a son and his body redeemed.
>
> Of course it does. You choose to not see it.
>
> Romans 8:22-25
> 22. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in
> pain together until now.
> 23. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the
> firstfruits
> of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for
> the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
> 24. For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for
> what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
> 25. But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience
> wait for it.
You call this a reply? Just type out the passage from a King James
Version without annotating it? There is nothing in the above which
specifies a time for salvation. Nothing. Maybe you just chose to see it.
Also, although the King James version is considered more poetic and more
like "religious language", scholars will tell you that the NIV version
is a better translation.
> Salvation can't occur the second you "accept Christ". Salvation is an
> event that will occur in the future. Yet, say we are saved, because
> we have faith that God will do as he promised, based on what we have
> done in deference to that promise. We are so confident that this will
> occur, to us, it is a done thing; but in reality, we have only the
> hope
> for it. Those who claim they already have it, don't read scripture
> very well, because nowhere does it say we already have it. It says we
> are saved, in the same sense I use it above; but it clearly says that
> we wait for it. Thus, Sir, your question is adequately answered by
> reading the verses.
So you are distinguishing between "salvation" and "saved" even though
these words have the same etymology?
You say that salvation occurs sometime in the future - when? When
Christians die? Do you regard salvation as the very act of ascending
into heaven?
> > > > Is baptism required for salvation?
> > >
> > > Of course. Read Acts 2:37-38 and 1 Peter 3:20-21.
> >
> > And so what of the unbaptised thief who was crucifed with Jesus who
> > is told, "Today you will be in paradise with me."
>
> Again, you grasp at a straw, to dishonor the great ship we sail. The
> thief, if in a position to have done so, would he not have gladly been
> baptized? But, beyond his control he couldn't be. Is it beyond the
> grace of God to overlook that?
So baptism is not really needed to salvation then? Hmmm ...
> Yet, even so, look at the purpose of baptism. It saves us, as Peter
> said, not by washing away our filthiness; but by giving us a right
> conscience with God. How? By our witness to men; and before men,
> that he is the Living God; his Son is the way to him; and that we
> forsake
> all for him, thus honoring God before men. We do this by the public
> profession of being immersed in water. We die to our old
> unrighteousness, as we go under; and are raised again in newness of
> life, just as Jesus, in death, died to corruption; and was raised
> again, in newness of life, eternal.
>
> So, the thief, fulfilled the essence of baptism, though he was unable
> to so do. He professed before men, without shame, the Christ, and the
> Father. He legitimized the purpose of the death of Christ. He
> proclaimed his faith. These are all the end results desired of the
> baptism. Therefore, he, spiritualy, was baptized there on the cross.
> He died with Christ, as we do when baptized; and he was raised in
> newness of life, with Christ, as are we, when we come up out of the
> water. Our profession, through baptism could not be any better than
> his. He did a work, which God honored, as we hope for, ourselves.
So a Christian can be saved without being baptised although he has
fulfilled the essence of baptism? So you are saying a formal baptism
(dunking oneself in water) is not required? Of course, there are those
who disagree with you.
>
> > > >Is
> > > > there a purgatory after death? What about those that lived
> > > > before
> > > > Jesus
> > > > - how were they saved?
> > >
> > > Peter said he went and preached to them, after his crucifiction.
> >
> > You have no answer for purgatory?
>
> Why should I? Where is it, in the Bible?
A large part of it comes from the book of Maccabees (apocrypha). There
is much information about biblical support for purgatory, too much for
me to write about here. Take a look at this link:
http://ic.net/~erasmus/ERASMUS6.HTM
See the articles by James Atkins and Steve Ray.
Do you believe in the concept of the Trinity? That doctrine has as much
support as the doctrine of purgatory. Jesus never formally taught about
the Trinity. He presented himself as a servant of God. But apparently
you have not trouble accepting this doctrine but rejecting the doctrine
of purgatory.
> > 1 Peter 2:18-20 to which you refer can be interpreted in any number
> > of ways:
> > - As you mentioned above
> > - Peter is preaching to the unsaved dead (a second chance for
> > unbelievers)
> > - Peter is preaching to the fallen angels
> > Anyone one of these interpretations is just as likely as the other.
> > There is nothing to prove that your interpretation is more possible
> > or plausible than the other two.
>
> I think I remember referring to 2 Peter 2:17-22; but I did not refer
> to
> 1 Peter 2:18-20 unless I made a typing error (quite possible). But, I
> have never heard; or read where Peter preaches to fallen angels. For,
> that would be totally against bibical teaching. Their lot is cast;
> and
> their course set. Therefore, the verses you refer to, are not, in any
> way able to be so construed, regardless of the correct reference; and
> certainly not 1 Peter 2:18-20; nor 2 Peter 2:17-22.
It really doesn't matter. All I'm saying is that your interpretation is
one of many, and cannot be considered the right one.
> > > These are but a few of the issues that the bible has failed to
> > > address.
> > >
> > > They are appropriately addressed, as mentioned above; and with
> > > many
> > > more verses than I showed.
> > >
> > > > Theologians, pastors and priests are themselves divided over the
> > > > specifics of salvation - undoubtedly the most important issue of
> > > > all.
> > >
> > > Undoubtedly.
> >
> > If you have appropriately addressed all the issues, then why the
> > division over the specifics of salvation?
>
> Because of the lack of faith. Men can not bring themselves to totally
> trust in the Living God to save them, so they bring about their own
> salvation (only in their own minds) by interpreting verses to conjure
> up whatever doctrines they have invented to so justify themselves to
> themselves (and as they wrongfully think) in the eyes of God. Having
> in themselves a form of righteousness; but not the essence of it,
> which
> is the Holy Spirit. For, if we are led by the Holy Spirit, then do we
> fulfill the law; and all righteousness.
So, you are saying that your interpretation is right and all the
Catholic are wrong. So, you must have more faith than all the Catholics.
Obviously. This answer is so ridiculous as to be laughable.
There is a difference in opinion (not due to a lack of faith) but due to
a lack on God's part to present his doctrines more precisely.
> > > > I know that if I were God, and I desired that none should
> > > > perish,
> > > > I would state very clearly how one was to be saved.
> > >
> > > But, he did. Acts 2:37-38. Gal. 5:1-18. James 2:14-26. Romans
> > > 8:1-14; 8:22-25; 8:29-39; 13:8-10 and etc.
> >
> > The fact that we are debating over salvation right now (as
> > theologians and scholars do) refutes your argument completely. If
> > God had stated
> > clearly how one is to be saved, we wouldn't be having this debate.
> > Do
> > you ever see lawyers debating over how to write a proper will? No,
> > because the procedures for writing up a will is stated clearly and
> > precisely - unlike the bible's doctrine of salvation.
>
> Not so. It is by lack of faith that one can't see the truth; and the
> clarity of the scriptures. For, in them, the same message is repeated
> so many times, in so many ways, that only the force of unbelief can
> prevent the seeing of it. It is the hammering on our own anvils that
> deafens us to the words so clearly spoken.
>
> You use such a silly example of lawyers.
My argument does not depend on the analogy of lawyers. I'm sure that
you or I could explain the specifics of salvation much more clearly than
the bible does. Now, why is the bible so unclear about this - seeing
that salvation is of course the most important issue/doctrine of all.
> This whole country is
> twisted in knots, because lawyers can't see eye to eye. They get paid
> to not
> see eye to eye. My great grandfather's wealth, (considerable) was
> squandered in courts, because lawyers wanted the money more than they
> wanted us to have it.
That's just stereotyping. Obviously, as in every profession, there are
ethical and non-ethical people. That does not mean lawyers are all money
hungry gargoyles bent on cheating people.
> Put two lawyers in a room, without any subject
> to discuss (or material to review); and in thirty minutes, they'll be
> at each other's throats, because they can't agree. Give them a
> contract; and each will have a different interpretation. Otherwise,
> we
> would not need laws; but just lawyers.
Again, stereotyping. Lawyers may seem to disagree because that is what
they are paid to do - one lawyer will try and interpret the law to
benefit his client, while the other will do likewise. Of couse, there
are occasions when contracts and laws are not precisely written but
these only occur on very complex points - eg. Constitutional Law.
> In the same way, this is why the Christ came. We all play lawyer
> without a license, interpreting in our own ways; but he set it
> straight. No one comes to the Father; but by him. He is the straight
> line; and you can test all these various doctrines by him. If they
> don't adhere to his measure; and straight ways, then they are false.
> Therefore, what is false? Those that say you must not do anything to
> be saved; for he commanded us to love one another, even our enemies.
> Any doctrine that teaches hatred of another, is not of Christ; and
> therefore they will not see God; but only his wrath. What did he say?
> Love your neighbour as yourself. Love God, with all your heart, mind
> and soul. Love even your enemy. All else is contrived by man.
Again you seem to say that works are required for salvation. This is
disputed by most Christians, who believe only faith is required. But
then I guess they don't have as much faith as you do because they are
always interpretating it wrongly.
> > It does not say when it expires. All it says is that it will expire
> > sometime. When is that? We don't know. It could be today, tomorrow,
> > or fifty years from now.
>
> Why keep your eyes closed? It says your life is a vapour. It is one
> heartbeat from eternity. It ends for you, when your heart stops. The
> next thing you see is the judgment. What does it matter to you about
> others? You can't live for them; nor in the place of them. Your
> eternity is a heartbeat away. So, we must live today, either for God;
> and his Christ; or for the flesh.
It only says that it will expire when you die. Pretty useless since for
the most part, we do not know when we will die.
sims...@my-deja.com
"Seminary Student" <roman...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> I cant imagine someone too "bored" to read a post detailing the
biblical
> plan of salvation....do you snooze in church (a metafore)
Rom. 13:11
11. And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out
of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.
Doesn't your "plan" say we already have it, merely by believing?
<<big snip>>
I saw a lot of things that aren't in the bible, so I don't think that
is God's plan. Whose is it, anyway?
Peace to you
Allan Sims
sims...@my-deja.com
sam_p...@my-deja.com wrote:
<snip>
> Thanks for the psychoanalysis,
You're welcome.
> it's amazing what some people can
> decipher from others simply by reading their posts.
Yes, it is, isn't it.
> First of all, let me
> say that I was a Christian at one stage, and in the opinion of my
> friends, quite a devout one. Countless times I have asked for
> greater faith, and even in backsliding I regularly placed prayer
> requests for myself. But of course, God did not reply. Right now I'm
> bordering between an atheist and an agnostic. If indeed there is a God
> of the Christians, I would surely believe in Him even if it meant
> humiliating myself. After all, is there any price too much for eternal
> life?
I had a discussion with some atheists a few weeks ago. They said the
same thing; but it became clear that their purpose wasn't to 'find
God'; but rather to throw water on the flames of faith, for those who
do believe. You say you had it; and lost it. I suggest you never had
it; but, if you did, then according to these verses, what can I do for
you?
Hebrews 10:26-27
26. For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge
of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27. But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery
indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
So, according to this, you either never had faith (which is a gift of
God); or you did; and if so, then there remains nothing else to be done
for you.
If you never had it, (faith given by God, himself, as opposed to some
faith within yourself that fizzled), then there is hope for you, even
yet. But, consider, even God's faith can falter in the first 3 of the
following 4 situations.
Matthew 13:3-34
3. And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a
sower went forth to sow;
4. And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls
came and devoured them up:
5. Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and
forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
6. And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had
no root, they withered away.
7. And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked
them:
8. But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an
hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
You can see the interpretation that the Christ provided for this
parable below. It describes your situation. See verses 19 to 23.
But, before you do that, consider the following. This too, is your
condition. You ask, with an unbelieving heart; and yet wonder why you
find nothing.
13. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see
not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By
hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall
see, and shall not perceive:
15. For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull
of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they
should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should
understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal
them.
Focus below on 20, and 21. This is your situation, by your own witness.
18. Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.
19. When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth
it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was
sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.
20. But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he
that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;
21. Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when
tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is
offended.
22. He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth
the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches,
choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
23. But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth
the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth
forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
You see then, the problem isn't with God, nor his word; but with your
heart.
24. Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of
heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25. But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the
wheat, and went his way.
26. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then
appeared the tares also.
27. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir,
didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it
tares?
28. He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said
unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29. But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up
also the wheat with them.
30. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of
harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares,
and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my
barn.
So, you see, he puts up with all disbelief to allow his children, his
harvest to grow, in faith, while tolorating this bashing of his word;
and his honor.
31. Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of
heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed
in his field:
32. Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it
is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of
the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.
So, if you had even then least bit of faith, he could grow it to be a
mighty tree in the kingdom of God.
33. Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like
unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal,
till the whole was leavened.
34. All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and
without a parable spake he not unto them:
Meaning a little faith grows greatly. So, what happened to yours?
Obviously your faith wasn't in him; but rather in yourself?
> My agenda here is simply to show that the bible and indeed
Christianity
> has some serious problems, and there are grave doubts over its claim
to
> be the one true religion. Calling my questions rhetoric but failing to
> specify why they are so is meaningless.
>
> Lastly, I really detest it when people like you pigeon-hole
> non-Christians and those who seek to point out problems in the bible
as
> people with "agendas" and who have "failed to ask" or "received the
Holy
> Spirit". It's patronizing and insulting.
OK. What should I say? You are fully forgiven your sins? Many out
here would say that; and they'd be wrong. Your situation is not a good
one; and you seek to make it worse, by opposing the Living God. It
isn't us you despise, as much as you despise the Christ; and what he
stands for. You want to force your "religion" on us, even as you claim
we do ours to you.
But, no one forces you to stay out here. And, yes, you certainly have
the right to do so. But, we aren't pigeon-holing you, as you yelp
about. You do this to yourself. There are many newsgroups where you
will fit right in; and you will not be singled out. Yet, you linger
here, attempting to dampen the faith of those who do believe, lying
about your purpose, claiming you are seeking 'truth'. For the Christ
is the Truth. He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. There is no
problem within the scriptures for those of true faith. There is only
problems there for people who don't believe, as you profess.
I always wonder why some
> Christians can't have a proper debate or discussion without getting
> personal.
Now, I have presented plenty of material just above to debate about;
but, why debate with someone who has no faith? For the scriptures are
about faith, not your version of 'truth'. How then can an apple mingle
with an orange to yield fruit? If you will deal in terms of faith,
then let's go; but if you cling to this "religion" of no religion, then
what good would it be?
I did not say that. What I said was that it takes faith that generates
good works (not works of the law) to save you. And, I also say that
dependence on works to save you will get you eternally killed. But, it
is the two, together, that reconcile us to God; and to be saved by him.
You see this in the scripture you quoted below. Confess is an action,
a work; and believe is the acting out of faith, also a work; but they
are both as a result of the faith that saves.
> "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord
> Jesus Christ and believe in thine heart that God hath
> raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
> (No mention of works)
You should read it again. I clipped these verses out of the quotes
above to save space; but it is most useful here, because you quote a
verse, yet don't hear what it does say, as I mentioned above.
Matt. 13:13-16
9. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
10. And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto
them in parables?
11. He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to
know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not
given.
12. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more
abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even
that he hath.
13. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see
not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By
hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall
see, and shall not perceive:
15. For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull
of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they
should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should
understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal
them.
16. But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they
hear.
> Furthermore, you have failed to support your assertion with scripture.
I'm sure by now you are sick of the volume of scripture I've already
presented.
> > > And how much of the law do you have to hear to be judged by the
law?
> > > What is the difference between judging by the law and without the
> > > law?
> > > If we are as sinful as rags, then how can we be judged by anything
> > > other than faith? Your argument here creates further questions and
> > > complications.
> >
> > The essence of the New Covenant, which every Christian is under, is
> > that his law is written on our hearts. This is true of all, not
just
> > Christians, for he made us all.
>
> This is an inadequate reply to my questions above.
> 1. What is the criteria for judging without the law?
> 2. If we have all fallen short of God's glory, how can we be judged by
> anything else?
> 3. If Jesus is the only way to God ("No one comes to the Father except
> through me") how can those who never heard be saved without going
> through Jesus?
>
The criteria is in Matt. 25:41-46.
What do you mean by 2 above?
Those that haven't heard of Jesus cannot be saved, unless they be told
of him. Jesus went and preached to those already dead; and buried
(under the law) How, then can we assume he will not make some similar
provision for others that never heard of him? Besides, why are you so
concerned about them? You aren't. You merely want to knock holes in
the faith of those weak enough to listen to your disbelief.
> > You say below that children don't
> > know right from wrong; but I have a good friend who is a
psychiatrist,
> > known for his treatment of children. He is not a Christian; but
> > clearly advises me that children know good from bad at an extremely
> > early age. And that their early interactions demonstrate this
> > underlying fact, since they are too young to have learned such an
> > abstract concept. Yet, the readily play well together, which
requires
> > equity of actions between them. That can only occur when there is
> > effort to do good. Otherwise total selfishness would dominate; and
> > they would fight constantly.
> > That is not to say that other selfish needs don't tend to interject
> > themselves; but, by and large, most kids get along quite well with
> > others.
>
> First of all, your friend's opinion is at odds with the profession.
You have proof? He doesn't think so.
> Secondly, if all morals are written in our hearts, then why do
different
> people from different cultures have different sets of morals? Eg.
> polygamy, male superiority over women, etc.?
Those aren't morals given by God. Those are conventions of man. They
are considered morals, only in the secular concept of ethics based on
convention.
> > That is not to say that other selfish needs don't tend to interject
> > themselves; but, by and large, most kids get along quite well with
> > others.
> >
> > > Furthermore, this does not hold fast with Jesus' teaching that "I
am
> > > the way, the truth and the light. NO ONE comes to the Father
EXCEPT
> > > THROUGH ME." How can we go through Jesus to the Father if we do
not
> > > know Jesus?
> >
> > Who said they would be saved, without Jesus? It merely says that
> > their judgment is not without justification, seeing that they knew
> > right from wrong.
>
> So are those who haven't heard saved or not? You keep dancing around
> this issue - first you seem to imply that they will be saved, now you
> say that they won't be saved. I don't know what your assertion here is
> because you have not made it clear - are those who have not heard
saved?
I can't answer that, any more than you can. I am not God, so how can I
say how he will judge them? You are not God; but you wish to play so.
Paul did say Romans 10:14-21
14. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?
and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how
shall they hear without a preacher?
15. And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written,
How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and
bring glad tidings of good things!
16. But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord,
who hath believed our report?
17. So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
18. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into
all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
19. But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke
you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I
will anger you.
20. But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that
sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.
21. But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my
hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.
From that I think he means they are not saved, if they haven't heard.
But, that doesn't specificly say that. It merely ask the
question, 'how can they be?' Again, that is up to God.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > What about young children or the mentally retarded who cannot
> > > > > distinguish good and evil?
> > > >
> > > > Having seen, just above, that his law is written in our hearts,
> > > > (the
> > > > essence of the New Covenant, even the young know right from
wrong.
> > >
> > > The young do not know right from wrong and it is not written in
our
> > > hearts. If this were so morals in every culture and race would be
> > > exactly the same - which it obviously isn't.
> >
> > Your assumption is faulty, as I stated above. You speak of our
morals
> > and culture. Knowing right from wrong, doesn't guarantee that we
> > won't do wrong. That is the whole essence of why the Christ came.
> > All know right from wrong; but the motivations are all to do what is
> > selfishly justified, without other emphasis. Yeah, you know it's
> > wrong; but you do it, anyway. So, what you say above isn't true.
> > Cultures place different pressures on people, even those who know >
> > better (and we all do, if not impaired).
>
> So, on the basis on a friend's opinion you simply assume that my logic
> is faulty?
No, I believe your logic is faulty because of this.
1 Corinthians 1:19-20
19. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and
will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of
this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
You can beat your own drum all you want. I answered above; and that's
that.
> > Concerning the impaired, you presume that God makes no allowance for
> > that. Why?
>
> I presume that because he has not said anything about it in his bible.
Your purpose isn't care for the impaired; but rather to claim our faith
void.
> > You play this card to dishonor faith in God, I think.
>
> Let's not make this personal, okay?
> 1. It is childish and amateurish.
> 2. It it a "cheap shot" at your debater.
> 3. It signals a lack of argument.
> 4. If you have ever done any debating, you will know that the
> adjudicator will severely penalize you for doing so.
Why not. You are an enemy of the Lord my God. I am not here to
debate; but to proclaim the salvation of the Lord.
Psalms 139:20-24
20. For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy
name in vain.
21. Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved
with those that rise up against thee?
22. I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.
23. Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
24. And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way
everlasting.
Further, I am told not to do this with you.
Matthew 7:6
6. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your
pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn
again and rend you.
> > > All psychiatrists will tell you than young children and the
mentally
> > > retarded are unable to comprehend fully between right from wrong.
> >
> > Not all. And of the psychiatric books I've read, none say that
> > overtly;
> > or even in passing. Neither does my friend, mentioned above, go
> > against his own training. This statement is false.
>
> Pray, do tell us what these psychiatric books are? I hope you're not
> making them up are you?
That is a strange word for you to use, isn't it? No. I have a few,
stuffed away in a closet.
For you that can't see; nor hear, it says that salvation is in the
future. It is what we hope for, the redemption of our bodies. Most
Christians claim to already have salvation; but how can that be if we
are saved by the hope of it? Isn't that clear?
> Also, although the King James version is considered more poetic and
more
> like "religious language", scholars will tell you that the NIV version
> is a better translation.
What do I care what they say? I listen to the Lord. They do so, to
promote their own versions of faith, which deny things they can't
disprove in the KJV. Yet, as I quoted above, God takes the
foolishnessof this world to make the wisdom of it foolishness.
> > Salvation can't occur the second you "accept Christ". Salvation is
an
> > event that will occur in the future. Yet, say we are saved, because
> > we have faith that God will do as he promised, based on what we have
> > done in deference to that promise. We are so confident that this
will
> > occur, to us, it is a done thing; but in reality, we have only the
> > hope
> > for it. Those who claim they already have it, don't read scripture
> > very well, because nowhere does it say we already have it. It says
we
> > are saved, in the same sense I use it above; but it clearly says
that
> > we wait for it. Thus, Sir, your question is adequately answered by
> > reading the verses.
>
> So you are distinguishing between "salvation" and "saved" even though
> these words have the same etymology?
We are saved, in that the Christ died for us. We are saved, in that we
have the promise of it. We are saved, if we obey the commands of God.
We will be saved, at the second coming; and the judgment.
> You say that salvation occurs sometime in the future - when? When
> Christians die? Do you regard salvation as the very act of ascending
> into heaven?
If you aren't in the lake of fire, with Satan and his angels, then you
can say you made it. Until then, I'd hold my breath.
> > > > > Is baptism required for salvation?
> > > >
> > > > Of course. Read Acts 2:37-38 and 1 Peter 3:20-21.
> > >
> > > And so what of the unbaptised thief who was crucifed with Jesus
who
> > > is told, "Today you will be in paradise with me."
> >
> > Again, you grasp at a straw, to dishonor the great ship we sail.
The
> > thief, if in a position to have done so, would he not have gladly
been
> > baptized? But, beyond his control he couldn't be. Is it beyond the
> > grace of God to overlook that?
>
> So baptism is not really needed to salvation then? Hmmm ...
By the election of the Christ himself. You want to bet on that? Oh
yeah, you already have. Personally, I'd rather be safe than sorry.
You put words in my mouth. I did not say, as a convention, that
baptism isn't necessary for salvation. I see, as do all this one
exception. Yet, there were even others, too. But, Peter said be
baptized. The Christ said let it be to fulfill all righteousness. Why
go against that? It's silly. Again, you have no need of any of this,
except to tear holes in it, yet you can't, except in your own depraved
mind. (For, to be without faith is to be depraved.)
> >
> > > > >Is
> > > > > there a purgatory after death? What about those that lived
> > > > > before
> > > > > Jesus
> > > > > - how were they saved?
> > > >
> > > > Peter said he went and preached to them, after his crucifiction.
> > >
> > > You have no answer for purgatory?
> >
> > Why should I? Where is it, in the Bible?
>
> A large part of it comes from the book of Maccabees (apocrypha). There
> is much information about biblical support for purgatory, too much for
> me to write about here. Take a look at this link:
>
> http://ic.net/~erasmus/ERASMUS6.HTM
> See the articles by James Atkins and Steve Ray.
>
> Do you believe in the concept of the Trinity? That doctrine has as
much
> support as the doctrine of purgatory. Jesus never formally taught
about
> the Trinity. He presented himself as a servant of God. But apparently
> you have not trouble accepting this doctrine but rejecting the
doctrine
> of purgatory.
The Christ taught that to blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to never be
forgiven. That alone, equates the Holy Spirit to God status. Yes, I
believe in the Trinity. I don't require the same things you do. I
never saw anything int the Bible on purgatory, so, no, I don't believe
it exists.
Who said I claimed that? I am one of many, as are you. We all have
thoughts. All I say is that mine are predicated on scripture, while
most twist it around.
Not so. I have seen the working of the Holy Spirit within the Catholic
Church. I have seen faith that protestants can only dream of. Yet,
they too, suffer conventions that aren't scriptural. Such as
pergutory; and worship of Mary. Those are no more scriptural than
salvation by faith alone.
> Obviously. This answer is so ridiculous as to be laughable.
In your own mind, maybe.
> There is a difference in opinion (not due to a lack of faith) but due
to
> a lack on God's part to present his doctrines more precisely.
Thus, your religion. This is what you believe; but you can no more
prove it, than I can prove to you that Jesus did walk the earth.
For the same reason that the Christ spoke in parables. Otherwise you
might hear; and turn and be saved.
> > This whole country is
> > twisted in knots, because lawyers can't see eye to eye. They get
paid
> > to not
> > see eye to eye. My great grandfather's wealth, (considerable) was
> > squandered in courts, because lawyers wanted the money more than
they
> > wanted us to have it.
>
> That's just stereotyping. Obviously, as in every profession, there are
> ethical and non-ethical people. That does not mean lawyers are all
money
> hungry gargoyles bent on cheating people.
If you find yourself in a room with a deadly snake, Saddam Hussein and
a lawyer; but find only two bullets in your gun, shoot the lawyer
twice, to be sure you got him. (:-))
They make this doctrine, which isn't in the bible, because, as you,
they lack faith that God will really save them; and because they really
hate people. Therefore, if they believe this faith alone thing, then
they can continue to hate; and they claim they can save themselves, by
simply believing in Jesus (because they think that Jesus' blood saves
them). Therefore, they disclaim any need to prove the faith they have,
thus James said faith without works is dead, being alone. And I say a
dead faith can't save you.
> > > It does not say when it expires. All it says is that it will
expire
> > > sometime. When is that? We don't know. It could be today,
tomorrow,
> > > or fifty years from now.
> >
> > Why keep your eyes closed? It says your life is a vapour. It is
one
> > heartbeat from eternity. It ends for you, when your heart stops.
The
> > next thing you see is the judgment. What does it matter to you
about
> > others? You can't live for them; nor in the place of them. Your
> > eternity is a heartbeat away. So, we must live today, either for
God;
> > and his Christ; or for the flesh.
>
> It only says that it will expire when you die. Pretty useless since
for
> the most part, we do not know when we will die.
Completely useful, for if you are led by the Holy Spirit, then you are
righteous; and acceptable, regardless of when you die. If you do sin,
then you can ask forgiveness; and he will forgive you; and cleanse you
of all unrightousness. But, there is a sin unto death, that can't be
forgiven, if we so transgress.
I have spent a lot of time, in the past, speaking with Atheists; and
find that it violates the scripture to do so. I also, recognize that
your desire for this 'logic' that you worship is an endless well, that
tons of words can be poured down, without again seeing the light of
day. Therefore, I won't answer any more, with the intent of deep
logical exchanges. For, you are convienced of your own logic; and
therefore any other logic is of little value. Further, any statements
of faith, are a target for you to turn and tear. I therefore dishonor
the Christ, by so going against his admonition above. I don't mind
exchanges of light nature; or honest question. I simply will not cast
the pearls before you, that you might tear them apart. It isn't that
you can; but that you can twist words to so mislead those of lesser
faith; and cause them loss, while proving yourself a tare among the
wheat.
I do not hate you; nor detest you; nor look down on you. I honestly
feel for your loss. I think you were never really born again; for had
you been, you would have likely still been of faith, that nothing could
shake; and nothing could keep you from the love of God, nor eternal
life. Rather, I think that you could be a valuable servant of the Most
High.
But, your path is set; and I can do nothing about that. For, faith
that saves is a gift of God; and you have not been given that, I think;
and I hope. For, this way there is hope for you. But, if you did
receive the heavenly gift; and have so turned from it, then there is no
hope of eternal life for you.
Therefore, in either case, I wish you a long life. In the one case,
it's all that you will ever have. In the other case, you may yet come
to a saving faith that will allow you to be "born again"; and therefore
prove yourself a real brother of mine.
Peace to you.
Allan Sims
Seminary Student
<sims...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:85e5tv$7t5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <UOae4.1401$Qa5....@hnlnewsr2.hawaii.rr.com>,
> "Seminary Student" <roman...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> > I cant imagine someone too "bored" to read a post detailing the
> biblical
> > plan of salvation....do you snooze in church (a metafore)
>
> 11. And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out
> of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.
>
> Doesn't your "plan" say we already have it, merely by believing?
>
> <<big snip>>
>
> I saw a lot of things that aren't in the bible, so I don't think that
> is God's plan. Whose is it, anyway?
>
>
> Allan Sims
Please show me what is NOT in the BIBLE in this post...
Thanks 10000
Dolf Boek
Your messaging program does not support Frames.
However, you may still choose to read this WWW-page based contribution to this discussion: >> CLICK HERE <<
- dolf
--
Dolf Boek
Winner: 1997 Rainbow Community Award - "Leadership by gay male"
Author: 'The Sodomite Prophecy' http://www.users.bigpond.com/dolfboek
Email: dolf...@bigpond.com
What's my religion? God described it as, 'Seek ye My Face!'
© 1999, The Metaphysical Is-rælities, All Rights Reserved
sam_p...@my-deja.com
> > Thanks for the psychoanalysis,
>
> You're welcome.
>
> > it's amazing what some people can
> > decipher from others simply by reading their posts.
>
> Yes, it is, isn't it.
> same thing; but it became clear that their purpose wasn't to 'find
> God'; but rather to throw water on the flames of faith, for those who
> do believe. You say you had it; and lost it. I suggest you never had
> it; but, if you did, then according to these verses, what can I do for
> you?
Oh geez, I gave you more credit that you deserve. Oh well, you turned
out to be the typical fundamentalist christian apologist. Since you
can't beat me in argument, you must resort to getting personal. So who
didn't pay attention in English classes then ...
> I'm sure by now you are sick of the volume of scripture I've already
> presented.
Translation: I have no scripture to back up my assertions, but I'm just
to prideful to admit it, and maybe this ploy will help cover up my lack
of knowledge.
> The criteria is in Matt. 25:41-46.
>
> What do you mean by 2 above?
>
> Those that haven't heard of Jesus cannot be saved, unless they be told
> of him. Jesus went and preached to those already dead; and buried
> (under the law) How, then can we assume he will not make some similar
> provision for others that never heard of him? Besides, why are you so
> concerned about them? You aren't. You merely want to knock holes in
> the faith of those weak enough to listen to your disbelief.
>
> > So are those who haven't heard saved or not? You keep dancing around
> > this issue - first you seem to imply that they will be saved, now
> > you
> > say that they won't be saved. I don't know what your assertion here
> > is
> > because you have not made it clear - are those who have not heard
> saved?
>
> I can't answer that, any more than you can. I am not God, so how can
> I
> say how he will judge them? You are not God; but you wish to play so.
Haha, so you don't know! Why didn't you just say this in the first
place instead of rambling on about nonsense. It just goes to prove my
point that God has been decidedly ambigious on the most important
doctrine of all.
Translation: I don't know. I don't want to say one thing or the other
in case I might get caught in a contradiction and make a fool of
myself.
> No, I believe your logic is faulty because of this.
>
> 1 Corinthians 1:19-20
> 19. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and
> will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
> 20. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of
> this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
The definition of circular logic: Quoting scripture to back up
scripture.
> > > You play this card to dishonor faith in God, I think.
> >
> > Let's not make this personal, okay?
> > 1. It is childish and amateurish.
> > 2. It it a "cheap shot" at your debater.
> > 3. It signals a lack of argument.
> > 4. If you have ever done any debating, you will know that the
> > adjudicator will severely penalize you for doing so.
>
> Why not. You are an enemy of the Lord my God. I am not here to
> debate; but to proclaim the salvation of the Lord.
Well, if he was indeed your Lord I guess you could be a little more
well mannered in your posts. If he was indeed your Lord you wouldn't
post any personal attacks. But if you choose to make an ass of yourself
then that's up to you.
> > Pray, do tell us what these psychiatric books are? I hope you're not
> > making them up are you?
>
> That is a strange word for you to use, isn't it? No. I have a few,
> stuffed away in a closet.
Translation: I was just lying - I don't have any books and I don't read
any books. Otherwise, I could at least quote an author or a title.
> > You call this a reply? Just type out the passage from a King James
> > Version without annotating it? There is nothing in the above which
> > specifies a time for salvation. Nothing. Maybe you just chose to see
> it.
>
> For you that can't see; nor hear, it says that salvation is in the
> future. It is what we hope for, the redemption of our bodies. Most
> Christians claim to already have salvation; but how can that be if we
> are saved by the hope of it? Isn't that clear?
This is the third time I've asked you to show me specifically where it
says that. Unfortunately, I don't see one coming in the future.
>
> > Also, although the King James version is considered more poetic and
> > more
> > like "religious language", scholars will tell you that the NIV
> > version
> > is a better translation.
>
> What do I care what they say? I listen to the Lord. They do so, to
> promote their own versions of faith, which deny things they can't
> disprove in the KJV. Yet, as I quoted above, God takes the
> foolishnessof this world to make the wisdom of it foolishness.
Yeah, whatever.
> If you aren't in the lake of fire, with Satan and his angels, then you
> can say you made it. Until then, I'd hold my breath.
Why not hold your breath until the Second Coming?
> > So baptism is not really needed to salvation then? Hmmm ...
>
> By the election of the Christ himself. You want to bet on that? Oh
> yeah, you already have. Personally, I'd rather be safe than sorry.
Translation: No, baptism is not necessary in certain circumstances at
the election of Christ himself. I did contradict myself earlier when I
said it was necessary.
> You put words in my mouth. I did not say, as a convention, that
> baptism isn't necessary for salvation. I see, as do all this one
> exception. Yet, there were even others, too. But, Peter said be
> baptized. The Christ said let it be to fulfill all righteousness.
> Why
> go against that? It's silly. Again, you have no need of any of this,
> except to tear holes in it, yet you can't, except in your own depraved
> mind. (For, to be without faith is to be depraved.)
Is there a dictionary nearby? Check out the definition of depraved
before you use it. Big words weren't meant for small minds.
> The Christ taught that to blaspheme the Holy Spirit is to never be
> forgiven. That alone, equates the Holy Spirit to God status. Yes, I
> believe in the Trinity. I don't require the same things you do. I
> never saw anything int the Bible on purgatory, so, no, I don't believe
> it exists.
And of course, you don't want to quote me scripture? If I remember
correctly, Christ said that blaspheming God is unforgiveable - nothing
about the Holy Spirit. You apparently are quite able to twist the words
of the bible.
> > It really doesn't matter. All I'm saying is that your interpretation
> > is
> > one of many, and cannot be considered the right one.
>
> Who said I claimed that? I am one of many, as are you. We all have
> thoughts. All I say is that mine are predicated on scripture, while
> most twist it around.
So if your interpretation isn't necessarily right, why use it in an
argument?
> > So, you are saying that your interpretation is right and all the
> > Catholic are wrong. So, you must have more faith than all the
> Catholics.
>
> Not so. I have seen the working of the Holy Spirit within the
> Catholic
> Church. I have seen faith that protestants can only dream of. Yet,
> they too, suffer conventions that aren't scriptural. Such as
> pergutory; and worship of Mary. Those are no more scriptural than
> salvation by faith alone.
Catholics (I guess you didn't know) believe in the doctrine of
purgatory, which you disagree with. As you said in your last post, you
believe them to be wrong, and wrong because they lack faith. Hence, you
believe yourself to be more faithful than all Catholics.
> > My argument does not depend on the analogy of lawyers. I'm sure that
> > you or I could explain the specifics of salvation much more clearly
> > than
> > the bible does. Now, why is the bible so unclear about this - seeing
> > that salvation is of course the most important issue/doctrine of
> > all.
>
> For the same reason that the Christ spoke in parables. Otherwise you
> might hear; and turn and be saved.
I just don't understand what you are saying here. Your second sentence
isn't even a proper sentence.
If Jesus loves everyone, he would want everyone to receive his message
in the clearest form possible. God is not the author of confusion.
> > That's just stereotyping. Obviously, as in every profession, there
> > are
> > ethical and non-ethical people. That does not mean lawyers are all
> > money
> > hungry gargoyles bent on cheating people.
>
> If you find yourself in a room with a deadly snake, Saddam Hussein and
> a lawyer; but find only two bullets in your gun, shoot the lawyer
> twice, to be sure you got him. (:-))
A simple "sorry" for the stereotype will do quite nicely, thanks. After
all, you do have to confess to be forgiven, do you not?
> > Again, stereotyping. Lawyers may seem to disagree because that is
> > what
> > they are paid to do - one lawyer will try and interpret the law to
> > benefit his client, while the other will do likewise. Of couse,
> > there
> > are occasions when contracts and laws are not precisely written but
> > these only occur on very complex points - eg. Constitutional Law.
> > Again you seem to say that works are required for salvation. This is
> > disputed by most Christians, who believe only faith is required. But
> > then I guess they don't have as much faith as you do because they
> > are
> > always interpretating it wrongly.
>
> They make this doctrine, which isn't in the bible, because, as you,
> they lack faith that God will really save them; and because they
> really hate people.
"Really hate people"? You presume to know so much about me, don't you?
I'm sure that any reasonable person can tell what type of a person you
are by your replies.
> I have spent a lot of time, in the past, speaking with Atheists; and
> find that it violates the scripture to do so. I also, recognize that
> your desire for this 'logic' that you worship is an endless well, that
> tons of words can be poured down, without again seeing the light of
> day. Therefore, I won't answer any more, with the intent of deep
> logical exchanges. For, you are convienced of your own logic; and
> therefore any other logic is of little value. Further, any statements
> of faith, are a target for you to turn and tear. I therefore dishonor
> the Christ, by so going against his admonition above. I don't mind
> exchanges of light nature; or honest question. I simply will not cast
> the pearls before you, that you might tear them apart. It isn't that
> you can; but that you can twist words to so mislead those of lesser
> faith; and cause them loss, while proving yourself a tare among the
> wheat.
Translation: I just conduct a reasonable debate or discussion without
getting into a frenzy or making personal attacks. And I really hate to
admit when I'm wrong. So I'll take leave now, in case I show myself to
be more of a fool.
> I do not hate you; nor detest you; nor look down on you. I honestly
> feel for your loss. I think you were never really born again; for had
> you been, you would have likely still been of faith, that nothing
> could
> shake; and nothing could keep you from the love of God, nor eternal
> life. Rather, I think that you could be a valuable servant of the
> Most
> High.
Actions speak louder than words. Anyone reading your posts can see what
type of a person you are. You have called me "depraved", portrayed me
as someone with an "agenda" out to turn Christians away, and made other
personal attacks. You seem have a dislike for lawyers (why? didn't get
the marks for law school?) and have no problem in denigrating lawyers.
Also, your rude reply to Seminary Student does not do your image any
good.
PS: From my experience, 9/10 christian apologists just can't stand to
let the other side have the last word. If the statistics are correct,
then I should be expecting a reply to this post, even though you said
you weren't interested in debating anymore. On the other hand, you
might be the lucky 1 in 10.
Pastor Dave
sam_p...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >> James did not say that works are required for
>> >> salvation. What he said was that "faith without works
>> >> is dead.". This simply means that one who says they
>> >> have faith, yet does not do the things which are of
>> >> God, does not have anything but a dead faith and one
>> >> must wonder if there is any real faith at all.
>> >>
>> >> Dispute that logic? If so, then look at what else he
>> >> says.... "I will show you my faith by my works."
>> >>
>> >> Again, he is simply saying that his works are a result
>> >> of his TRUE faith in God.
>> >
>> >Tell me exactly where he says this.
>>
>> This is simply a matter of understanding the writing
>> styles of that time and not trying to put a 20th
>> century twist on the wording and simply using some
>> common sense. For example.....
>
>So you don't have an exact passage then? You rely on extrapolating an
>interpretation? And you also assume that God is a little bit behind the
>times?
I gave you more than one. You simply refuse to see it,
for the reason that you give later in your response.
>First of all, before you start using meaningless phrases like "20th
>century twist" you should define what it means. Then, show me
>specifically where my "20th century twist" is. Otherwise, what you say
>above is just rubbish.
>
>While you're doing that, also define "false faith" and "real faith"
>because although the former is an oxymoron and the latter is a
>tautology, you use them frequently throughout your posts. If a person
>has false faith, does he believe in Jesus Christ as a Saviour? (A
>simple yes or no will do quite nicely.)
If a persons faith is not real, how can he truly
believe? But you define "belief" as a question of
whether or not the person believes that He exists. It
isn't that simple. As James said, "You believe there
is one God; you do well. The devils believe and
tremble.".
Simple belief in His existence isn't the same thing as
having, "real faith".
>Good english is precise english, and if James' letter does not support
>your argument explicity. But he does explicity say (James 2:24) that
>faith and works are required. If there is anyone putting any "twist" in
>things, it is you.
No, it doesn't say, "Faith and works are required to be
saved". For someone who is insisting on exact wording,
you sure don't mind making your own word plays.
It says that a man is "justified" by works. That is a
different subject and that's why there are two
different words ("saved" and "justified").
>Secondly, your statement that I should "understand the writing styles
>of that time" is totally baseless unless you are willing to fully
>explain this properly. What is it about the writing styles of that time
>that makes my interpretation so explicit but yours significantly less
>so?
I'm sorry, but I cannot put years of study of the
writing styles and lifestyles of those times into one
message. I would suggest that you begin on your own
adventure of study.
The fact that you do not have an understanding of these
things, does not make my statement, "totally baseless",
any more than if your teacher told you that you must
have an understanding of atoms, in order to become a
nuclear physicist.
What you're saying is, "I don't know that, so it
doesn't count.". :)
>> James 2:17-18
>>
>> 17) Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being
>> alone.
>>
>> Right here, he tells you, if someone is proclaiming
>> that they have faith in God and you see no good works,
>> then their faith is not real faith. It's dead. He
>> still calls it, "faith". Therefore, he IS saying that
>> it is a "dead faith". i.e., not REAL faith.
>
>No he does not. Do you see the words "real faith" in there? What he is
>saying is that faith which is not put into action is useless (dead). If
>I say: "Money that I can't (not allowed to) spend it useless", do you
>automatically assume that my money is counterfeit?
i.e., if the mans faith were "real", then he would have
put it into action. But since he didn't, his faith is
"dead". My statement is correct and is common sense.
But see later in this message for my definition of
"real" and "dead" faith.
>James is arguing that your faith in Christ must lead to deeds.
That is because that is the natural result of a "real"
faith. James tells you above that otherwise, it would
be a "dead" faith.
>You can
>have faith in Jesus and you can believe every single thing the gospels
>tell you, yet you may not have any works to show for it. It is still
>a "true faith" nonetheless.
Really? Then why would Jesus say, "by their fruits ye
shall know them"?
>> 18) Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith and I have
>> works: show me thy faith without thy works and I will
>> show thee my faith by my works.
>>
>> Again, James gives us the "acid test" for whether or
>> not someone's faith is real. He shows that his faith
>> is a "real faith" and that the other mans faith is not.
>
>This, I'm afraid, it not supported by the verse you quoted above. Where
>does James say that his faith is real and the other's is false?
Ok, you like to think in modern English, so let me give
you an example of what he's saying, in modern English,
knowing that not only must we take the writing styles
of that time into consideration, but also the Old
English.
"show me thy faith without thy works".
This is the same as someone saying to us today, "Show
me the money.", in the sense of, someone can say that
they can make you a star and make you rich and that
they have all kinds of pull in the industry and all of
that and they may believe that. But when you deal with
this person, before you're going to take what they're
saying as truth, you want to "see the money" (contract)
and you want to know that it's being backed up by a
powerful "player" in the industry.
Here James wants you to, "Show him the money". i.e.,
"Show me the fruits that Jesus said that I would know
you by.". "You say you've got all of this pull with
God, because you've got this great faith. So SHOW ME."
We can equate it this way..... We would all agree that
someone can SAY that they love you, but if they abuse
you, is that REAL love? We can agree, I'm sure, that
real love is not just a feeling, but an action. In the
same way, real faith is not just a feeling, or a
belief, but an action. Therefore, real faith, or just
"faith in God", if you prefer that term, is a belief
compounded with action as well. It's not what "saves"
that James is making an issue of, as far as "works" are
concerned, but rather, he is stating that real faith is
shown by the actions of the person and no one can say
that they have the faith that God demands, if they are
sitting on their hands. Works are the natural result
of real faith, just as when Jesus said that good fruit
is the natural result of a good tree.
>> So yes, James DOES show the difference between real and
>> dead faith.
>>
>> >> If salvation required works, as well as faith, then
>> >> that would be saying that Jesus' death on the cross
>> >> wasn't enough to do the job and that we are capable of
>> >> attaining our own salvation, which would contradict
>> >> Scripture.....
>
>Well, that is exactly what I'm trying to show - there are
>contradictions in Scripture concerning salvation. (SHOCK, HORROR!)
As I said, you will not see it for the reason you state
in your response.
>> >Let's look at this argument a little closer. You emphasise the words
>> >GRACE and GIFT. Both imply that salvation is freely given. But is
>> >this
>> >the case? No. Because we need faith to receice the gift. More
>> >precisely, salvation is CONDITIONAL on faith. And once something is
>> >conditional on something else, it ceases to be a gift given in grace.
>>
>> So you are saying that Scripture is wrong? You pick
>> one letter in the Bible and try to use it to justify
>> your stance, which is what I would surmise is a
>> Catholic stance and then when you are given more
>> Scriptures from elsewhere in the NT, you dispute what
>> they say, as if they had no value? Interesting logic.
>
>This is not a proper rebuttal or a counter-argument. And yes, I am
>saying that the Scriptures do contradict each other.
And here is your REAL mission, which is different than
the one you (maybe unknowingly) lead me to believe you
were on. I guess we can say that your "mission" was
not "real". :)
But here's a thought. If Scripture does contradict
each other, then why take James as being the accurate
one, since according to you, this one work contradicts
many others works in the Bible? Why not take all the
rest, which agree on this issue? Of course, I am not
granting that there is a contradiction.
>The second part of your argument - "that my interpretation is supported
>in other books whilst yours is not" - is really not relevant here, as I
>am trying to prove a contradiction in the doctrine of salvation.
If it is a contradiction that you are trying to show,
then the other Scriptures are THE relevant thing, since
what you're trying to show, is that this passage
contradicts those other Scriptures. :)
Since the other Scriptures support what I'm saying and
line up perfectly with James, if one takes him at what
he's saying, then there is no contradiction. Hence my
statement is completely relevant.
>> Salvation is NOT "conditional".
>
>Yes it IS. Can I be saved without faith? No. Ergo, salvation is
>CONDITIONAL on faith.
>
>> It is common sense,
>> that in order to accept a gift from anyone, you first
>> have to believe that they exist. Those who come to Him
>> must believe that he is.
>
>The Red Cross probably doesn't know or believe or even cares that I
>exist, but I'm sure if I sent them a donation they would be able to
>receive it.
By receiving it, they are taking you at your word that
you exist. Otherwise, they would not have cashed the
check, believing it to be a fake identity.
>In exactly the same way, there is no stopping Jesus from giving me
>eternal life although I do not believe in him. Although once having
>RECEIVED the gift I would believe in him.
You don't have the ability to accept the gift, if you
don't believe it exists and even if He did give it to
you anyway, your heart would not be right and you would
reject it.
But let's clarify this. What you're saying is correct
in that it is conditional, but incorrect in that it you
are saying that it is conditional upon God. It is not
conditional upon God. It is conditional upon US.
>> It is also common sense, that if you walk over to
>> someone to receive their gift to you, that does not
>> mean that the person didn't give it freely.
>
>Huh? The words "gift" and "didn't give it freely (to you)" are mutually
>exclusive. A gift, is by definition, FREE.
See above. The thing is, is that while the person is
holding the gift out, as God is holding out the gift of
His Son to us, it is conditional upon us, to believe
that this is happening and accept it.
In other words, someone can hold a soda out to us. We
can either accept it or reject it. That doesn't mean
that the person holding the soda put conditions on it.
It is simply up to us to accept it or reject it. It
only make sense that in order to accept the soda, we
must believe that it exists and we must want to take it
from them.
So yes, there is a "condition", but it is a condition
that we have on ourselves, not one imposed by God. He
is holding out the gift for anyone who wants it to
receive, free of charge.
He is offering the gift and you somehow want to blame
Him, is people don't accept it, saying that He put
conditions on it, when in reality, it was our own
refusal to accept it. i.e., He held it out and we
said, "NO".
>> >> MAN will not be able to boast about it, which means
>> >> that we cannot earn it. If we could, then we could
>> >> boast about our works and didn't Jesus lambaste the
>> >> Pharisees for exactly that type of thing?
>> >
>> >Man can, and is fully able, to boast about having great faith. In
>> >fact, I'm sure you will know that there are many Christians who
>> >boast about their faith. Boasting about faith is exactly the same as
>> >boasting about works.
>>
>> Man will always find something to boast about. And a
>> man who is spending his time boasting about his faith,
>> doesn't have a real faith, does he? Didn't you learn
>> from what Jesus taught about the Pharisees and how we
>> should fast, etc.?
>
>First you say "man will not be able to boast about it" and now you say
>that "man will always find something to boast about". You contradict
>yourself.
No, I didn't. I referenced that man will not be able
to boast that he "earned" his way into Heaven. That is
a specific statement.
It is your definition that they can both be "true
faith", but the Scriptures which you are trying to
prove contradict each other, do not support that line
of thinking.
You're going right by the word "SUCH", in the phrase,
"Can SUCH faith save him?".
>> >(James 2:24) "You see that a person is JUSTIFIED BY WHAT HE DOES and
>> >NOT BY FAITH ALONE." The meaning is this sentence is quite clear. A
>> >person is justified by what he does.
>>
>> "Justified" is different than "saved". That's why
>> there's two different words in the language. :)
>
>Ever heard of synonyms?
They are two different words, with two different
definitions. Research into the original Greek will
tell you that. It is not my "opinion", but fact that
they are NOT a "synonym" for each other.
>Can a person be saved without being justified? No.
The question should be reversed. Can a person be
justified, without being saved. It is your thoughts
that are "narrow minded". You are seeing things only
in the way that suits your purpose and while you claim
that you are trying to show that James contradicts the
rest of Scripture, you haven't even shown an
understanding of what the rest of it says, nor have you
even made a reference to any other part of Scripture,
to show where the contradiction is. You have merely
said, "This contradicts the rest of Scripture.", but
you have given NO references to check against. That
leaves you in a weak position and shows that you do not
have an understanding of the Bible, nor do you know
what it says, where. Yet you wish to try to launch a
debate on whether or not James is contradicting the
rest of the NT, as if you did.
>So, if a person must be justified BY WHAT HE DOES,
I do not grant that, as it is not true as a blanket
statement.
>then it follows quite logically that he
>must be saved BY WHAT HE DOES.
That is not true, nor does James say that. Remember
those "exact words" that you were looking for? You
didn't want to hear logic from me, but wanted "exact
words" from James. Therefore, your logic is no good to
me. Where are the "exact words" from James? You
cannot deny others the use of common sense and then
expect to throw your own thoughts on what something
means in there and have others listen to them.
i.e., they are YOUR rules, so YOU must live by them.
So where does James say EXACTLY that?
Again, you bypass where James says, "Can SUCH faith
save him?".
When when asks if "SUCH faith" can save him, one is
automatically stating that there faith DOES save him.
It is the TYPE OF (SUCH) FAITH that is being
questioned. Your English teacher would have backed me
up on that. :)
>> >If, as you contend, that James is
>> >telling us that only "real faith" can save us, then he would have
>> >written: "You see that a person is JUSTIFIED BY REAL FAITH and not
>> >BY A FALSE FAITH WITHOUT WORKS."
>>
>> No, he wouldn't have said that. Different issue.
>
>Is this a way of avoiding a rebuttal or masking an absence of one? My
>sentence above ("You see that ... ") perfectly sums up your
>interpretation of James. So, if he was saying what you are telling me
>he is saying, then why didn't he say that?
No, it's a way of telling you that you can't mix
issues. "Salvation" and "justification" aren't
identical. The original Greek will tell you that and
both the Old English and modern English bear this out.
The words, "salvation" and "justification" are NOT
"synonyms" for each other in any of these. A
dictionary will tell you that. :)
>> Also, you're trying to put a 20th century twist on his
>> writings. In order to understand what he is saying,
>> you must understand the writing styles of THAT time.
>
>As my english teacher used to say, "Definitions, definitions and
>definitions."
Your English teacher would have also told you that the
language that something is translated from is entirely
relevant, because our language may not have the
appropriate words to truly express the thoughts being
brought forth. i.e., the Greek has words that in our
language, would translate into more than one word and
also may translate into a short sentence in our
language, to ATTEMPT to express the entire thought.
Not only this, but he/she would have also told you that
the Old English would have to be understood, in order
to get the meaning of the wording used in the Old
English. If you read Shakespeare, you can easily see
that we may now, using our modern English, take some
phrases differently than the Old English meant. Hence,
many of us would need teachers, to explain to us what
was actually being said in the Old English.
To say that we can simply sit here, in our modern world
today and read these texts, without any understanding
of both the Greek and the Old English and get the full
meaning of the texts, is simply ridiculous and quite
prideful on our parts. We certainly wouldn't approach
other works that way in school and since the Bible has
so much in it, that has so much meaning, why should we
approach it any differently? Surely you can see that?
>> >Secondly, it is quite a foolish thing to have "false faith" - it's a
>> >bit like saying I have "non-existent money".
>>
>> Yet the Pharisees, the religious and legal leaders of
>> that time, had exactly that and so most of those today,
>> who call themselves christians (I would dispute that
>> they are christians). Don't you remember the
>> lambasting Jesus gave the Pharisees? :) Don't you
>> remember when he called them, "white washed
>> sepulchres"?
>>
>> >One either has faith or no
>> >faith. There is no such thing as "false faith".
>>
>> Exactly and James is telling you how to know the
>> difference. Your point is correct, but that doesn't
>> stop people from SAYING that they have faith and James
>> is telling how to tell the difference between "real
>> faith" and "dead faith".
>
>No, all he is saying is that faith which does not translate into works
>is useless.
Ok, I see the problem here. It is in how we are
defining the word, "faith".
>I can't go any further until you make a clear definition
>of "false faith" and "true faith" - do both entail a belief in Christ?
Yes. Ok, I see your point now and I must say, that I
appreciate your bringing it up in this way and I praise
God for using you to bring me to a fuller understanding
of what He is saying through James. Let's take a
closer look at this, as I think that maybe we can clear
this up.
Let me define my terminology for you and maybe that
will help you understand what I'm saying and I will
corrolate them to modern English .....
Real (true) faith = the faith in God that saves us and
burns in our hearts, which would also make us want to
serve Him. Srving Him is done through not only our
hearts, but our works, which come from our heart.
Dead faith = A belief that Christ is real and is who He
says He is, but in the same manner that they believe
that our boss is real and yet do not do the things we
should do at work, due to a lack of conviction and
passion for our jobs.
In the Greek, the word that James used for "faith"
("Can SUCH faith save him?"), was "pistis" and means,
"persuasion", i.e., credence". Credence simply means,
"belief that it is true".
So what James is saying is, Can a simple belief that
something is true save someone? The answer is, "NO".
Now let's look at it with another verse.....
"Ye believe that there is one God. Ye do well. The
devils also believe and tremble."
i.e., simply believing something to be true isn't
enough. We must ACT on it. In the sense that we must
come to God, believing that He is and that a "real
faith" causes action, in that we give our lives over to
Christ and do what the will of God is, then yes, in
THAT sense, we can say that works play a part in it.
But as to whether or not we are SAVED by works, as in
someone just doing good things, NO. People can do that
without even believing that God exists, so how could
"works" save us?
For example, if someone who is dying, comes to a TRUE
heartfelt conviction of their sins and a TRUE faith in
God on their death bed, then YES, I believe that they
are saved. And yet, what "works" did they have a
chance to do, other than to express this?
Let's take a look at whether or not salvation is based
on works and we'll see that there have been those who
do have a conviction in their heart, but are, at the
same time, not performing the works in the way that God
would have them. i.e., their works are not built on
solid rock (Paul is discussing the reward that we will
receive for our works here on earth, but showing that
salvation is not based on them, but on our faith).....
"If any mans work shall be burned, he shall suffer
loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by
fire." - 1 Cor 3:15
I disagree. Paul called it the "milk", as in being
like babies, who can only take the milk of the word at
that time, but then should prgress on to more mature
things in Christ. Personally, while I agree that James
can be hard at first, I think that you are complicating
the issue of salvation all on your own. :)
>Your referencing to all these other books simple proves my point.
Not at all. It simply proves that the rest of
Scripture supports my point. Salvation is a very
simple concept. So simple, that people refuse to
accept it, thinking that there has to be more to it.
In reality, salvation is summed up as this.....
"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord
Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath
raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
Now, HOW must we believe? You must believe, "in thine
heart". There's that burning desire, in our hearts,
that defines a "real faith".
>Also, the book in contention is the book of James. There is no use in
>regarding other sources. You simply can't say "This is what James
>really means because Jesus and Paul and other writers say this
>too ...", that is just ridiculous.
How can you say that James contradicts the rest of
Scripture and then state that ""There is no use in
regarding other sources."? If you do not regard those
other sources, then how can you claim that James is in
contradiction with them?
i.e......
You) I claim that these two dictionaries contradict
each other on the word, "credence". Here, I'll show
you in Websters.
Me) Ok, I see that definition. Now, what does the
other one say?
You) No, no, you can't look at that one. That one is
irrelevant.
Me) Then how can you claim that they contradict each
other, if you won't even look at the other one?
Pastor Dave
sam_p...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
>> >> give me one passage where James says anything more then works
>> >> *JUSTIFY* faith, Paul said we are SAVED BY FAITH, James said we our
>> >> faith is JUSTIFIED BY WORKS, in other words: we are saved by faith,
>> >> and that faith is shown by the acts we do, and that if we do not
>> >>show
>> >> our faith through our deeds, then our faith is dead.
>> >
>> >Right here in black and white: "You see that a person is justified by
>> >what he does and not by faith alone" (James 2:24)
>>
>> "Justification" is a different issue than "salvation".
>> That's why we have two different words. :)
>
>Even if they are different, does this matter?
Uhhhh, yes. That has been the point all along. :)
>Since we have to be saved
>to be justified, and we are justified by our faith AND works, it follows
>logically that we must be faith and works to receive salvation.
That is YOUR assumption. I have never stated that
faith AND works is what saves you, nor does Scripture.
You can try to state it's a fact all you want, but that
doesn't make it reality.
>Hence, salvation requires faith and works.
Not so.
>I said this very thing in my last post (which you snipped) and you have failed
>to reply to it, meaning either that you accept this reasoning or you are unable
>to fault it.
Your statement is not true at all. I gave you a
lengthy reply, to each of your points and then then
responded to that and also snipped some of MY points.
>Also, what happened to my definitions? I would like to know what you
>define "real faith" and "false faith" as, seeing as though your
>interpretation relies virtually on these concept. Does "false faith"
>entail a belief in Jesus as Saviour and Lord?
See my other message to you on this, which I just sent,
as I responded to you again and I don't feel that we
need to keep two of the same thread going. And btw,
not one word of yours was "snipped".
>You have also failed to explain why the writing styles at that time
>renders my interpretation invalid.
See other message.
>> >Now can you show me one passage where James specifically says our
>> >faith
>> >is justified by our works? Or do you have to rely on non-specific
>> >passages and extrapolate them for an interpretation?
>>
>> See above.
>
>So you couldn't. No passage in James was given. This probably means that
>one does not exist.
It means that I already did. But since, after falsely
accusing ME of snipping your words out, YOU then
proceed to snip mine, you haven't allowed that to show.
>You took a passage from John (if I recall properly) to support your
>interpretation.
"If you recall properly"? If you hadn't snipped my
words out, then you wouldn't have to "recall". It
would be right there for you to read. Therefore, I
cannot discuss what you THINK I said, as being what I
actually said. Nice try at manipulating the debate
though.
>Now it doesn't really matter what John or Mark or Paul
>says because the book under question is the book of James. We're
>concentrating on what James is saying, not his contemporaries.
You are stating that James contradicts the rest of
Scripture. i.e., in your definition, "his
contemporaries". We cannot see if that is true,
without looking at the other writings. See my other
message, as it goes into this.
>Secondly you argue that since my interpretation does not correlate with
>the rest of scripture, it is wrong.
How would you know? You won't look at the rest of
them.
>This is irrelevant anyway, because
>what I am trying to show is that there are grey areas in scripture
>concerning salvation!
No, what you ADMITTED that you are trying to show, is
that there are CONTRADICTIONS in Scripture. Therefore,
the writings of the others are the ONLY relevant thing
in your argument.
Are not these YOUR words?.....
<START>
"This is not a proper rebuttal or a counter-argument.
And yes, I am saying that the Scriptures do contradict
each other.
The second part of your argument - "that my
Interpretation is supported in other books whilst yours
is not" - is really not relevant here, as I am trying
to prove a contradiction in the doctrine of salvation."
<END>
What you are trying to do, by your own admission, is
prove that there is a contradiction in Scripture.
Since THAT is your REAL mission here, you cannot say
that the other writings are "irrelevant".
How can you say that James contradicts the rest of
Scripture and then state that the rest of the writings
are "irrelevant"? If you do not look at the other
writings, then how can you claim that James is in
contradiction with them?
i.e......
You) I claim that these two dictionaries contradict
each other on the word, "credence". Here, I'll show
you in Websters.
Me) Ok, I see that definition. Now, what does the
other dictionary say?
You) No, no, you can't look at that one. That one is
irrelevant.
Me) Then how can you claim that they contradict each
other, if you won't even look at the other one?
No, because this particular person wouldn't be saved,
since he is relying on works to do the job, even if he
doesn't believe. But it would be correct in that
believers are already saved at that point, yes.
>More specifically, does that render my logic or reasoning faulty? And
>lastly, what's your point? Putting salvation at the end or right at this
>moment changes nothing.
But with you, it IS important to note that, since you
keep trying to slip in your statement that "faith AND
works is what saves", as if it were fact, when it's
not.
>> "For if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord
>> Jesus Christ and believe in thine heart that God hath
>> raised Him from the dead, thouh shalt be saved."
>>
>> 2) Mr. X can do all of the good works that he wants,
>> but they aren't done from a real faith in God and this
>> will show forth evidently. "By their fruits ye shall
>> know them.".
>
>Again you have not found any error in my reasoning.
Uhhh, yes I have. You're stating that one can rely on
works to save. That is incorrect.
>I just don't
>understand why this is relevant at all to my logic being faulty. In
>fact, you said in your very last post (or the one before it) that if Mr.
>X does not know God, then he is judged by some other measure (but you
>failed to mention what this is). I assume you mean the other measure to
>be good works (otherwise, please say so) and with this criteria Mr. X
>will be saved, prior to being preached.
No, I disagree with you. Scripture clearly teaches
that it is a matter of the heart, even with those who
have never heard of Jesus.....
Romans 2:14-15
14) For when the Gentiles, which have not the Law, do
by nature the things contained in the Law, these,
having not the Law, are a law unto themselves;
15) Which show the work of the Law written IN THEIR
HEARTS, their conscience ALSO bearing witnes.....
>> >One day a group of Christians come to Mr. X and preach to
>> >him for some time. However, Mr. X does not subscribe to Christianity
>> >because of the fact that there are so many competing religions and he
>> >isn't sure whether it is the right one. However, he continues to be
>> >the same moral person governed by his conscience. But now that he has
>> >heard, he will be judged from differently to those that haven't
>> >heard, and since he rejected Christ, he is condemned. Now does that >
>>make sense?
>>
>> Yes, it makes perfect sense. God does not judge those
>> by the ruler of Christ atoning sacrifice, if they have
>> never heard of it. But once you have heard the Good
>> News and are like the "builders who rejected the chief
>> cornerstone", then yes, your "building" will be judged
>> by what it is built upon. Jesus stated this in the
>> parable about the three men who built their houses and
>> what they built them on.
>
>OK, now that you bring up a different judgment for those who haven't
>heard, please define what this is. You say God does "does not judge
>those by the ruler of Christ ..." so what is his judgments based on
>then? If you do not know, then one wonders how valid this assertion of
>yours is.
I have defined it above.
>Now, assuming that this other judgment (for those who have not heard) is
>based on works. So your interpretation says that if I know an
>exceptionally moralistic person, who is saved because of his good works,
>then I had better steer him away from Christianity and evangelists lest
>he/she hears about the "good news" and reject it. Does this make sense?
>No.
This "other judgement", as you put it, is based on the
heart, as I have shown above, with the quote of Romans.
You see, this is your problem. You refuse to look at
other Scriptures and actually read what they have to
say and so you then make the BLIND assumption, that
whatever your mind comes up with, is what the other
passages say. That is simply ridiculous! How can you
even continue on in a discussion, in that fashion? You
certainly wouldn't do that with any other subject, I
wouldn't think, so why with Scripture?
>Furthermore, if we are as dirty rags and fall short of God's glory and
>the only way for us to be cleaned is by the blood of Christ, then how
>can we be cleansed if we do not know him? (This concerns those "saved"
>but haven't heard.) You said in your last post that we could not receive
>a gift from a person we do not know - which I disagreed with. So how can
>those who have not heard be saved?
See quote of Romans.
>Lastly, you are advocating a form of salvation, or rather a road to
>salvation, without faith in Christ. Never heard = no faith, since you
>cannot have faith in someone you do not know. Not only does the bible
>fail to support this idea, it rejects it - "No one comes to the father
>except through Jesus."
No, I'm not advocating that at all. You're making
assumptions again.
>> >Furthermore, your arguments imply that God has two different criteria
>> >of
>> >judgement - one for those who have heard, and one for those who have
>> >not. Why not simply have one system for all?
No, He really doesn't have two different criteria.
Both are matters of the heart. They are only different
to you, because of your assumption that the second one
means that works save. That is not accurate, as the
quote above of Romans shows.
It is your statement that they are "saved". That is a
very specific term. Again, your assumption and I never
used that word in conjunction with them.
>Secondly, when you say " ... how clear can their conscience really be?"
>you are assuming that Jesus is truly God and rejecting him is a grave
>sin indeed. But Jesus' claim to Godship is not even proven yet, so this
>argument is baseless.
Sure it is. He said so Himself. But that's another
subject. Even if He weren't, He is God's Son and He
also stated clearly that whosoever rejects Me, rejects
the Father.
>> >How can you go through Jesus if you don't even know him? This is all
>> >very unclear, and not what you would expect from a God who wishes us
>> >all to be in heaven.
>>
>> If you don't know Him, then you can't go through Him.
>> The only requirement then is that you believe in the
>> Creator of all things and not worship that which is
>> created. The Bible speaks of this.
>
>Let's see some verses.
I supplied that with the quoting of Romans above. But
here's another ( I assume you know that many pagans
fashioned their idols of their gods, after
creatures).....
Romans 1:20,25
20) For the invisible things of Him from the creation
of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the
things that are made, even His eternal power and
Godhead; so that they are without excuse.
25) Who changed the truth of God into a lie and
worshipped and served the creature more than the
Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
BTW, why do you ask for Scripture references, after
saying that the rest of Scripture (outside of James)
doesn't matter? Just thought I'd ask. :)
>> >> > The young do not know right from wrong and it is not written in
>> >> >our
>> >> > hearts. If this were so morals in every culture and race would be
>> >> > exactly the same - which it obviously isn't.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> basic morals are, in almost all societies killing is wrong, murder
>> >> is
>> >> delt
>> >> with in some way or another in almost every, if not every culture
>> >> on
>> >> earth.
>> >> so basic morality is written on our hearts at birth, but not every
>> >> moral is
>> >> known to every person, but certain things to point to the fact that
>> >> wherever you go in every society their are some moral similarities,
>> >> man is
>> >> not void of all good, but the evil over whelms our natures
>> >
>> >So only some morals are written in our hearts then? Why didn't God
>> >just
>> >write them all?
>>
>> Why don't you practice them all? You have the free
>> will that God gave you.
>
>You are diverging from the issue here.
Not at all. I am responding right on point.
>I think I posted another message in reply to you, but which you have not
>read or replied yet. It may be in another thread I think. That may
>explain why you did not respond to some of the other issues.
How do you know what I've read? I read it, I just
didn't have time to respond to it, until today. I was
working almost all day yesterday and went back to work
last night.
sims...@my-deja.com
"Seminary Student" <roman...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> <sims...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:85e5tv$7t5
$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <UOae4.1401$Qa5....@hnlnewsr2.hawaii.rr.com>,
> > "Seminary Student" <roman...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> > > I cant imagine someone too "bored" to read a post detailing the
> > biblical
> > > plan of salvation....do you snooze in church (a metafore)
> >
> > Rom. 13:11
> > 11. And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake
out
> > of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.
> >
> > Doesn't your "plan" say we already have it, merely by believing?
> >
> > <<big snip>>
> >
> > I saw a lot of things that aren't in the bible, so I don't think
that
> > is God's plan. Whose is it, anyway?
> >
> > Peace to you
> >
> > Allan Sims
>
> Please show me what is NOT in the BIBLE in this post...
> Thanks 10000
I will tell you, if you will tell me who wrote it; and why you don't
write your own stuff, unless you claim to be the author. And if you
are, then why didn't you say so? If you aren't, then why do you pass
it on without checking it against the scriptures? If you say you did,
then you and I have much to talk about. If you didn't, then you should.
I'll do as you ask, as soon as you tell me who wrote it.
Peace to you.
Allan
Seminary Student
ORIGINAL post...
Here it is again...
"Five Things God Wants You To Know"
By Nick Michalinos
<sims...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:85gssj$734$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
sam_p...@my-deja.com
otherwise, then mention them in your replying post. You complained in
the other post that I snipped some of your posts out. Which ones were
these and for what reason (did I fail to respond to a question?) did
you want them included?
> >> >> Again, he is simply saying that his works are a result
> >> >> of his TRUE faith in God.
> >> >
> >> >Tell me exactly where he says this.
> >>
> >> This is simply a matter of understanding the writing
> >> styles of that time and not trying to put a 20th
> >> century twist on the wording and simply using some
> >> common sense. For example.....
> >
> >So you don't have an exact passage then? You rely on extrapolating an
> >interpretation? And you also assume that God is a little bit behind
> >the
> >times?
>
> I gave you more than one. You simply refuse to see it,
> for the reason that you give later in your response.
None was given. All of them were indirect verses. I want a verse in
which James explicitly distinguishes between "real faith" and "false
faith". Note, explicit does not mean "exact wording", nor have I ever
asked for "exact wording".
> >First of all, before you start using meaningless phrases like "20th
> >century twist" you should define what it means. Then, show me
> >specifically where my "20th century twist" is. Otherwise, what you
> >say
> >above is just rubbish.
> >
> >While you're doing that, also define "false faith" and "real faith"
> >because although the former is an oxymoron and the latter is a
> >tautology, you use them frequently throughout your posts. If a person
> >has false faith, does he believe in Jesus Christ as a Saviour? (A
> >simple yes or no will do quite nicely.)
>
> If a persons faith is not real, how can he truly
> believe? But you define "belief" as a question of
> whether or not the person believes that He exists. It
> isn't that simple. As James said, "You believe there
> is one God; you do well. The devils believe and
> tremble.".
>
> Simple belief in His existence isn't the same thing as
> having, "real faith".
This is a matter of definition. The dictionary (Chambers 20th Century)
defines faith and belief as as:
Faith: belief in the statement of another: belief in the truth of
revealed religion
Belief: Persuasion of the truth of anything: faith: the opinion or
doctrine believed
There you go - belief in God is the same as having faith in God.
> >Good english is precise english, and if James' letter does not
> >support
> >your argument explicity. But he does explicity say (James 2:24) that
> >faith and works are required. If there is anyone putting any "twist"
> >in
> >things, it is you.
>
> No, it doesn't say, "Faith and works are required to be
> saved". For someone who is insisting on exact wording,
> you sure don't mind making your own word plays.
>
> It says that a man is "justified" by works. That is a
> different subject and that's why there are two
> different words ("saved" and "justified").
Duh ... when did I ever ask for exact wording in every respect? I asked
for an EXACT PASSAGE, not an EXACT WORDING. That's putting words in my
mouth. I asked this because you are introducing a whole new topic in
the book of James (the difference between real and false faith) and it
is a topic that James does not cover.
> >Secondly, your statement that I should "understand the writing styles
> >of that time" is totally baseless unless you are willing to fully
> >explain this properly. What is it about the writing styles of that
> >time
> >that makes my interpretation so explicit but yours significantly less
> >so?
>
> I'm sorry, but I cannot put years of study of the
> writing styles and lifestyles of those times into one
> message. I would suggest that you begin on your own
> adventure of study.
>
> The fact that you do not have an understanding of these
> things, does not make my statement, "totally baseless",
> any more than if your teacher told you that you must
> have an understanding of atoms, in order to become a
> nuclear physicist.
>
> What you're saying is, "I don't know that, so it
> doesn't count.". :)
What you're saying is my argument stands but I just can't explain it.
Even Greek scholars have a hard time interpretating original Greek
scripture, and of course, there are many differences in opinion.
Furthermore you don't even mention WHICH passages I have read with a
20th century mind.
Now, what you are in effect saying is that the bible translators did
not properly translate the bible - they forgot to update some of
the "1st century writings" into "20th century" ones. But you
supposedly know which ones are which. For all we know, heaven and hell
could be metaphors and not literal places - we were just reading it
with a 20th century mindset! I hardly think that you are qualified
enough to say this.
Let's not forget that you probably learnt all this in bible college or
in theology school. One must wonder about the bias in teaching.
> >> James 2:17-18
> >>
> >> 17) Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being
> >> alone.
> >>
> >> Right here, he tells you, if someone is proclaiming
> >> that they have faith in God and you see no good works,
> >> then their faith is not real faith. It's dead. He
> >> still calls it, "faith". Therefore, he IS saying that
> >> it is a "dead faith". i.e., not REAL faith.
> >
> >No he does not. Do you see the words "real faith" in there? What he
> >is
> >saying is that faith which is not put into action is useless (dead).
> >If
> >I say: "Money that I can't (not allowed to) spend it useless", do you
> >automatically assume that my money is counterfeit?
>
> i.e., if the mans faith were "real", then he would have
> put it into action. But since he didn't, his faith is
> "dead". My statement is correct and is common sense.
> But see later in this message for my definition of
> "real" and "dead" faith.
I have to see those definitions.
> >James is arguing that your faith in Christ must lead to deeds.
>
> That is because that is the natural result of a "real"
> faith. James tells you above that otherwise, it would
> be a "dead" faith.
>
> >You can
> >have faith in Jesus and you can believe every single thing the
> >gospels
> >tell you, yet you may not have any works to show for it. It is still
> >a "true faith" nonetheless.
>
> Really? Then why would Jesus say, "by their fruits ye
> shall know them"?
Yes, really. What did James say? Even the devils believe, and shudder!
Before you go on about faith and belief not being the same thing,
please note that the dictionary lists them as synonyms.
> >> 18) Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith and I have
> >> works: show me thy faith without thy works and I will
> >> show thee my faith by my works.
> >>
> >> Again, James gives us the "acid test" for whether or
> >> not someone's faith is real. He shows that his faith
> >> is a "real faith" and that the other mans faith is not.
> >
> >This, I'm afraid, it not supported by the verse you quoted above.
> >Where does James say that his faith is real and the other's is false?
>
> Ok, you like to think in modern English, so let me give
> you an example of what he's saying, in modern English,
> knowing that not only must we take the writing styles
> of that time into consideration, but also the Old
> English.
>
> "show me thy faith without thy works".
Huh? "Thy" is simply Old English for "you". So there is no difference
in meaning of the above in Old or Contemporary English.
I'll have to really see those definitions to reply to this. See below.
> >> So yes, James DOES show the difference between real and
> >> dead faith.
> >>
> >> >> If salvation required works, as well as faith, then
> >> >> that would be saying that Jesus' death on the cross
> >> >> wasn't enough to do the job and that we are capable of
> >> >> attaining our own salvation, which would contradict
> >> >> Scripture.....
> >
> >Well, that is exactly what I'm trying to show - there are
> >contradictions in Scripture concerning salvation. (SHOCK, HORROR!)
> As I said, you will not see it for the reason you state
> in your response.
See what?
> >> >Let's look at this argument a little closer. You emphasise the
> >> >words
> >> >GRACE and GIFT. Both imply that salvation is freely given. But is
> >> >this
> >> >the case? No. Because we need faith to receice the gift. More
> >> >precisely, salvation is CONDITIONAL on faith. And once something
> >> >is
> >> >conditional on something else, it ceases to be a gift given in
> >> >grace.
> >>
> >> So you are saying that Scripture is wrong? You pick
> >> one letter in the Bible and try to use it to justify
> >> your stance, which is what I would surmise is a
> >> Catholic stance and then when you are given more
> >> Scriptures from elsewhere in the NT, you dispute what
> >> they say, as if they had no value? Interesting logic.
> >
> >This is not a proper rebuttal or a counter-argument. And yes, I am
> >saying that the Scriptures do contradict each other.
>
> And here is your REAL mission, which is different than
> the one you (maybe unknowingly) lead me to believe you
> were on. I guess we can say that your "mission" was
> not "real". :)
And what was my other mission that I supposedly "led" you to believe?
It is quite clear all along that I am trying to show that the doctrine
of salvation is not clearly addressed in the bible - these would
include some contradictions. Whatever you were led to, you went there
yourself.
So, you accept then: it's not a proper rebuttal or argument.
> But here's a thought. If Scripture does contradict
> each other, then why take James as being the accurate
> one, since according to you, this one work contradicts
> many others works in the Bible? Why not take all the
> rest, which agree on this issue? Of course, I am not
> granting that there is a contradiction.
Did I say that James was the correct one? In fact, there is NO NEED to
state which one is correct - it should be quite obvious that to prove a
contradiction, one does not need to say which one is right or wrong
except that they both say different things.
> >The second part of your argument - "that my interpretation is
> >supported
> >in other books whilst yours is not" - is really not relevant here,
> >as I
> >am trying to prove a contradiction in the doctrine of salvation.
>
> If it is a contradiction that you are trying to show,
> then the other Scriptures are THE relevant thing, since
> what you're trying to show, is that this passage
> contradicts those other Scriptures. :)
>
> Since the other Scriptures support what I'm saying and
> line up perfectly with James, if one takes him at what
> he's saying, then there is no contradiction. Hence my
> statement is completely relevant.
OK, led me take you step by step. I don't think you understand the
issue here - which is whether or not James is saying that salvation
requires works.
I am trying to prove a contradiction. To prove this contradiction I
need to interpret the teachings of Paul and James. We seem to agree
that Paul is saying that that only faith is needed for salvation.
However, we do not agree on the what James is saying. So the issue here
is the correct interpretation of James. Follow so far?
Now, to correctly interpret James, you can't simply argue that since
Paul is saying this, James is saying this also. Your argument is summed
as follows: If there is a contradiction, then your interpretation
cannot be correct. This is what you are saying, and I replied that
since I am trying to prove a contradiction, is not valid to argue as
above. OK?
Thus, your scripture references are irrelevant to corretly interpreting
James.
> >> Salvation is NOT "conditional".
> >
> >Yes it IS. Can I be saved without faith? No. Ergo, salvation is
> >CONDITIONAL on faith.
> >
> >> It is common sense,
> >> that in order to accept a gift from anyone, you first
> >> have to believe that they exist. Those who come to Him
> >> must believe that he is.
> >
> >The Red Cross probably doesn't know or believe or even cares that I
> >exist, but I'm sure if I sent them a donation they would be able to
> >receive it.
>
> By receiving it, they are taking you at your word that
> you exist. Otherwise, they would not have cashed the
> check, believing it to be a fake identity.
No they don't. Once the money arrives, the have already received it.
There was no belief in my existence ANYTIME prior to that. Obviously
AFTER they received it, they will KNOW that I exist. In fact, if you
think about it carefully, there was no instance in which they even had
faith in my existence was there?
> >In exactly the same way, there is no stopping Jesus from giving me
> >eternal life although I do not believe in him. Although once having
> >RECEIVED the gift I would believe in him.
>
> You don't have the ability to accept the gift, if you
> don't believe it exists and even if He did give it to
> you anyway, your heart would not be right and you would
> reject it.
Why won't I have the ability to receive the gift? Rather than just
stating your contention, try to fault my reasoning above. I think I've
made it quite clear that it is possible to receive anything from
somebody even if you don't know who they are. Do you ever receive mail-
order catalogues from companies you didn't know exist? Of course.
> But let's clarify this. What you're saying is correct
> in that it is conditional, but incorrect in that it you
> are saying that it is conditional upon God. It is not
> conditional upon God. It is conditional upon US.
It is conditions upon God and us. First on God to give it, THEN on us
to receive it.
> >> It is also common sense, that if you walk over to
> >> someone to receive their gift to you, that does not
> >> mean that the person didn't give it freely.
> >
> >Huh? The words "gift" and "didn't give it freely (to you)" are
> >mutually
> >exclusive. A gift, is by definition, FREE.
>
> See above. The thing is, is that while the person is
> holding the gift out, as God is holding out the gift of
> His Son to us, it is conditional upon us, to believe
> that this is happening and accept it.
>
> In other words, someone can hold a soda out to us. We
> can either accept it or reject it. That doesn't mean
> that the person holding the soda put conditions on it.
> It is simply up to us to accept it or reject it. It
> only make sense that in order to accept the soda, we
> must believe that it exists and we must want to take it
> from them.
Haha, yes! But you are skipping a step here: God does not hold out
sodas to all souls does he? That part of the gift (holding out sodas)
to unrepentant souls is conditional upon God.
> So yes, there is a "condition", but it is a condition
> that we have on ourselves, not one imposed by God. He
> is holding out the gift for anyone who wants it to
> receive, free of charge.
>
> He is offering the gift and you somehow want to blame
> Him, is people don't accept it, saying that He put
> conditions on it, when in reality, it was our own
> refusal to accept it. i.e., He held it out and we
> said, "NO".
"Blame him"? When have I ever blamed God for anything? Geez, try to
stick to the issue instead of trying to sneak in cheap shots at your
opponent, OK?
If God is holding out eternal life, who would say no? If God
said, "Here's eternal life, no questions asked, you don't need to do
anything," then of course I'll say, "Yes, thanks for the GIFT." BUT if
God said, "Here's eternal life but you only get it if you have faith"
then that is not a gift.
> >> >> MAN will not be able to boast about it, which means
> >> >> that we cannot earn it. If we could, then we could
> >> >> boast about our works and didn't Jesus lambaste the
> >> >> Pharisees for exactly that type of thing?
> >> >
> >> >Man can, and is fully able, to boast about having great faith. In
> >> >fact, I'm sure you will know that there are many Christians who
> >> >boast about their faith. Boasting about faith is exactly the same
as
> >> >boasting about works.
> >>
> >> Man will always find something to boast about. And a
> >> man who is spending his time boasting about his faith,
> >> doesn't have a real faith, does he? Didn't you learn
> >> from what Jesus taught about the Pharisees and how we
> >> should fast, etc.?
> >
> >First you say "man will not be able to boast about it" and now you
say
> >that "man will always find something to boast about". You contradict
> >yourself.
>
> No, I didn't. I referenced that man will not be able
> to boast that he "earned" his way into Heaven. That is
> a specific statement.
It's right up there in black at white. If man is able to boast about
anything, then man can boast about earning his way into heaven. Whether
it is a valid boast or not is another matter.
Again the issue here is the correct interpretation of James. Hence, you
simply cannot say my interpretation is wrong because is contradicts
with the rest of scripture. You misunderstand the whole issue.
> >> >(James 2:24) "You see that a person is JUSTIFIED BY WHAT HE DOES
and
> >> >NOT BY FAITH ALONE." The meaning is this sentence is quite clear.
A
> >> >person is justified by what he does.
> >>
> >> "Justified" is different than "saved". That's why
> >> there's two different words in the language. :)
> >
> >Ever heard of synonyms?
>
> They are two different words, with two different
> definitions. Research into the original Greek will
> tell you that. It is not my "opinion", but fact that
> they are NOT a "synonym" for each other.
>
> >Can a person be saved without being justified? No.
>
> The question should be reversed.
Do you agree with the above statement (That a person cannot be saved
without being justified) or not? Yes or no? If yes, then proceed to
part 2 of my reasoning, otherwise tell me why you don't agree with it.
> Can a person be
> justified, without being saved. It is your thoughts
> that are "narrow minded". You are seeing things only
> in the way that suits your purpose and while you claim
> that you are trying to show that James contradicts the
> rest of Scripture, you haven't even shown an
> understanding of what the rest of it says, nor have you
> even made a reference to any other part of Scripture,
> to show where the contradiction is. You have merely
> said, "This contradicts the rest of Scripture.", but
> you have given NO references to check against. That
> leaves you in a weak position and shows that you do not
> have an understanding of the Bible, nor do you know
> what it says, where. Yet you wish to try to launch a
> debate on whether or not James is contradicting the
> rest of the NT, as if you did.
Your criticisms result from you lack of understanding of the issue
here. Once again: we're debating over the correct interpretation of
James. The rest of the NT does not matter.
As for proving a contradiction, I assume that we are agreed that Paul
teaches that only faith is required for salvation?
> >So, if a person must be justified BY WHAT HE DOES,
>
> I do not grant that, as it is not true as a blanket
> statement.
James said the very thing above. Here it is (yet) again:
(James 2:24) "You see that a person is JUSTIFIED BY WHAT HE DOES ...
So are you disagreeing with James?
> >then it follows quite logically that he
> >must be saved BY WHAT HE DOES.
>
> That is not true, nor does James say that. Remember
> those "exact words" that you were looking for? You
> didn't want to hear logic from me, but wanted "exact
> words" from James. Therefore, your logic is no good to
> me. Where are the "exact words" from James? You
> cannot deny others the use of common sense and then
> expect to throw your own thoughts on what something
> means in there and have others listen to them.
No, James did not say that nor did I assert that he did. And I never
asked for "exact words" either, I think you are getting a little
carried away with that. If you disagree with the above, fault the
logic. Don't simply say "logic is no good to me". Why is it no good?
Secondly, I do not deny you the use of common sense (it's just you
blowing a lot of hot air).
> i.e., they are YOUR rules, so YOU must live by them.
> So where does James say EXACTLY that?
Yes, I do try to live by my rules. But I never ruled that exact wording
be used did I? James said exactly that in 2:24 and the rest follows
logically (which you couldn't fault).
> Again, you bypass where James says, "Can SUCH faith
> save him?".
>
> When when asks if "SUCH faith" can save him, one is
> automatically stating that there faith DOES save him.
> It is the TYPE OF (SUCH) FAITH that is being
> questioned. Your English teacher would have backed me
> up on that. :)
Did you read my last post? I said that I have no problem with James
saying that there are different types of faith - BUT I have a problem
with your view that the types of faith James is referring to is real
and false faith.
BTW, my english teacher is a confirmed atheist. Great guy and all that,
but unfortunately it's hellfire for him when he dies.
> >> >If, as you contend, that James is
> >> >telling us that only "real faith" can save us, then he would have
> >> >written: "You see that a person is JUSTIFIED BY REAL FAITH and not
> >> >BY A FALSE FAITH WITHOUT WORKS."
> >>
> >> No, he wouldn't have said that. Different issue.
> >
> >Is this a way of avoiding a rebuttal or masking an absence of one? My
> >sentence above ("You see that ... ") perfectly sums up your
> >interpretation of James. So, if he was saying what you are telling me
> >he is saying, then why didn't he say that?
>
> No, it's a way of telling you that you can't mix
> issues. "Salvation" and "justification" aren't
> identical. The original Greek will tell you that and
> both the Old English and modern English bear this out.
> The words, "salvation" and "justification" are NOT
> "synonyms" for each other in any of these. A
> dictionary will tell you that. :)
Seeing as you can't have justification without salvation and vice
versa, the statement is perfectly fine. In any case, why didn't James
say this: "You see that a person is SAVED BY REAL FAITH and not
BY A FALSE FAITH WITHOUT WORKS."
> >> Also, you're trying to put a 20th century twist on his
> >> writings. In order to understand what he is saying,
> >> you must understand the writing styles of THAT time.
> >
> >As my english teacher used to say, "Definitions, definitions and
> >definitions."
>
> Your English teacher would have also told you that the
> language that something is translated from is entirely
> relevant, because our language may not have the
> appropriate words to truly express the thoughts being
> brought forth. i.e., the Greek has words that in our
> language, would translate into more than one word and
> also may translate into a short sentence in our
> language, to ATTEMPT to express the entire thought.
Yes, that is quite obvious and I did not disagree with that.
> Not only this, but he/she would have also told you that
> the Old English would have to be understood, in order
> to get the meaning of the wording used in the Old
> English. If you read Shakespeare, you can easily see
> that we may now, using our modern English, take some
> phrases differently than the Old English meant. Hence,
> many of us would need teachers, to explain to us what
> was actually being said in the Old English.
First of all Shakespeare wrote in a form of writing called dramatic
poetry or dramatic art which was specifically for stage. Secondly,
Shakespeare's works have not been translated into modern day English.
The bible on the other hand, has been translated to modern day english
from Greek. So what we are reading is the the NIV or RSV or NLT
contemporary English translated from Old English. Now if you want to
say that the translators (Greek scholars) did not properly translate
them, that is your perogative but as I said, whether you are qualified
enough to say that is another matter.
Hence your "writing styles" argument is just not valid because, as we
know, the NT wasn't translated exactly word for word.
> To say that we can simply sit here, in our modern world
> today and read these texts, without any understanding
> of both the Greek and the Old English and get the full
> meaning of the texts, is simply ridiculous and quite
> prideful on our parts. We certainly wouldn't approach
> other works that way in school and since the Bible has
> so much in it, that has so much meaning, why should we
> approach it any differently? Surely you can see that?
See above - the bible that you read today is contemporary English.
Your definitions are not as clear as I would like them, so with your
approval, I'll make some amendments:
Real faith: Believing that Christ is God and Saviour. It is a faith
that translates into works.
> Dead faith = A belief that Christ is real and is who He
> says He is, but in the same manner that they believe
> that our boss is real and yet do not do the things we
> should do at work, due to a lack of conviction and
> passion for our jobs.
False faith: Believing that Christ is God and Saviour. However it does
not translate into works.
Agree with the definitions?
> In the Greek, the word that James used for "faith"
> ("Can SUCH faith save him?"), was "pistis" and means,
> "persuasion", i.e., credence". Credence simply means,
> "belief that it is true".
Credence also means "having faith or trust" in something. It's in the
dictionary.
> So what James is saying is, Can a simple belief that
> something is true save someone? The answer is, "NO".
So what James is saying is, "Can simple faith that something is true
(ie Jesus is God) save someone?" The answer is "NO". You see? You
understand it now?
Now even if you huff and puff about faith not being the same as belief,
then what you say above still contradicts with scripture:
John 3:15 - ... that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.
Now, before you start getting into a fit over my using another part of
scripture consider this: I am not using it to support my interpretation
of another passage, so I am allowed to use this. The rule (as dictated
by logic) is this:
You cannot use scripture to "prove" scripture. This is circular logic.
You do this when you say that James cannot be interpreted this way
because Paul teaches a wholly different doctrine.
> Now let's look at it with another verse.....
>
> "Ye believe that there is one God. Ye do well. The
> devils also believe and tremble."
>
> i.e., simply believing something to be true isn't
> enough. We must ACT on it. In the sense that we must
> come to God, believing that He is and that a "real
> faith" causes action, in that we give our lives over to
> Christ and do what the will of God is, then yes, in
> THAT sense, we can say that works play a part in it.
> But as to whether or not we are SAVED by works, as in
> someone just doing good things, NO. People can do that
> without even believing that God exists, so how could
> "works" save us?
Again, this is not what John or Paul says. See my verse above. Both say
that simple belief is enough for eternal life.
So is there a purgatory or not? What happens to those who have not
heard? What about the children who die before they fully understand
good and evil? Can you answer any of these? If not, then the doctrine
of salvation is hard to decipher.
Funny thing, around the time that the NT was written, Roman law was at
the height of its powers. Many laws regarding land rights, dissolution
of assets of the deceased, etc were recorded. Many of these laws deal
with quite complex concepts. But amazingly, I can read the translated
version today in contemporary English and still understand the main
message! Pity the same cannot be said for the bible ...
> >Your referencing to all these other books simple proves my point.
>
> Not at all. It simply proves that the rest of
> Scripture supports my point. Salvation is a very
> simple concept. So simple, that people refuse to
> accept it, thinking that there has to be more to it.
>
> In reality, salvation is summed up as this.....
>
> "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord
> Jesus and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath
> raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
>
> Now, HOW must we believe? You must believe, "in thine
> heart". There's that burning desire, in our hearts,
> that defines a "real faith".
This is just your interpretation. There are many other intepretations.
> >Also, the book in contention is the book of James. There is no use in
> >regarding other sources. You simply can't say "This is what James
> >really means because Jesus and Paul and other writers say this
> >too ...", that is just ridiculous.
>
> How can you say that James contradicts the rest of
> Scripture and then state that ""There is no use in
> regarding other sources."? If you do not regard those
> other sources, then how can you claim that James is in
> contradiction with them?
For the last time, you have misundestod complete the issue. The issue
is what James is really saying. I'm trying to prove a contradiction,
but the issue is what James is saying.
> i.e......
>
> You) I claim that these two dictionaries contradict
> each other on the word, "credence". Here, I'll show
> you in Websters.
>
> Me) Ok, I see that definition. Now, what does the
> other one say?
>
> You) No, no, you can't look at that one. That one is
> irrelevant.
>
> Me) Then how can you claim that they contradict each
> other, if you won't even look at the other one?
Me: I think James is saying this.
You: James can't possibly be saying that.
Me: Why?
You: Because Paul says this, so James must say this also.
Your dialogue above misrepresents me. I do not of course rule out
referencing to other parts of scripture. However I do rule out using
one part of scripture to support your interpretation of another part of
scriputure.
It may seem a subtle difference, and it does take a discerning mind to
know the difference.
Now, there are some things that I think (I add this so you wouldn't get
all upset) from my last post. If you have replied elsewhere, then
accept my apologies and refer me to your answers. The topic was the
fate of those who haven't heard.
I've cut and past them from the last posting.
More specifically, does that render my logic or reasoning faulty? And
lastly, what's your point? Putting salvation at the end or right at
this moment changes nothing.
> "For if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord
> Jesus Christ and believe in thine heart that God hath
> raised Him from the dead, thouh shalt be saved."
>
> 2) Mr. X can do all of the good works that he wants,
> but they aren't done from a real faith in God and this
> will show forth evidently. "By their fruits ye shall
> know them.".
Again you have not found any error in my reasoning. I just don't
understand why this is relevant at all to my logic being faulty. In
fact, you said in your very last post (or the one before it) that if
Mr. X does not know God, then he is judged by some other measure (but
you failed to mention what this is). I assume you mean the other
measure to be good works (otherwise, please say so) and with this
criteria Mr. X will be saved, prior to being preached.
> >One day a group of Christians come to Mr. X and preach to
> >him for some time. However, Mr. X does not subscribe to Christianity
> >because of the fact that there are so many competing religions and he
> >isn't sure whether it is the right one. However, he continues to be
> >the same moral person governed by his conscience. But now that he has
> >heard, he will be judged from differently to those that haven't
> >heard, and since he rejected Christ, he is condemned. Now does that >
>make sense?
>
> Yes, it makes perfect sense. God does not judge those
> by the ruler of Christ atoning sacrifice, if they have
> never heard of it. But once you have heard the Good
> News and are like the "builders who rejected the chief
> cornerstone", then yes, your "building" will be judged
> by what it is built upon. Jesus stated this in the
> parable about the three men who built their houses and
> what they built them on.
OK, now that you bring up a different judgment for those who haven't
heard, please define what this is. You say God does "does not judge
those by the ruler of Christ ..." so what is his judgments based on
then? If you do not know, then one wonders how valid this assertion of
yours is.
Now, assuming that this other judgment (for those who have not heard)
is based on works. So your interpretation says that if I know an
exceptionally moralistic person, who is saved because of his good
works, then I had better steer him away from Christianity and
evangelists lest he/she hears about the "good news" and reject it. Does
this make sense? No.
Furthermore, if we are as dirty rags and fall short of God's glory and
the only way for us to be cleaned is by the blood of Christ, then how
can we be cleansed if we do not know him? (This concerns those "saved"
but haven't heard.) You said in your last post that we could not
receive a gift from a person we do not know - which I disagreed with.
So how can those who have not heard be saved?
Lastly, you are advocating a form of salvation, or rather a road to
salvation, without faith in Christ. Never heard = no faith, since you
cannot have faith in someone you do not know. Not only does the bible
fail to support this idea, it rejects it - "No one comes to the father
except through Jesus."
>
> >Furthermore, your arguments imply that God has two different criteria
> >of
> >judgement - one for those who have heard, and one for those who have
> >not. Why not simply have one system for all?
>
Secondly, when you say " ... how clear can their conscience really be?"
you are assuming that Jesus is truly God and rejecting him is a grave
sin indeed. But Jesus' claim to Godship is not even proven yet, so this
argument is baseless.
> >How can you go through Jesus if you don't even know him? This is all
> >very unclear, and not what you would expect from a God who wishes us
> >all to be in heaven.
>
> If you don't know Him, then you can't go through Him.
> The only requirement then is that you believe in the
> Creator of all things and not worship that which is
> created. The Bible speaks of this.
Let's see some verses.
>
> >> > The young do not know right from wrong and it is not written in
> >> >our
> >> > hearts. If this were so morals in every culture and race would be
> >> > exactly the same - which it obviously isn't.
> >> >
> >>
> >> basic morals are, in almost all societies killing is wrong, murder
> >> is
> >> delt
> >> with in some way or another in almost every, if not every culture
> >> on
> >> earth.
> >> so basic morality is written on our hearts at birth, but not every
> >> moral is
> >> known to every person, but certain things to point to the fact that
> >> wherever you go in every society their are some moral similarities,
> >> man is
> >> not void of all good, but the evil over whelms our natures
> >
> >So only some morals are written in our hearts then? Why didn't God
> >just
> >write them all?
>
> Why don't you practice them all? You have the free
> will that God gave you.
You are diverging from the issue here.
I think I posted another message in reply to you, but which you have
not read or replied yet. It may be in another thread I think. That may
explain why you did not respond to some of the other issues.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
sam_p...@my-deja.com
only one. All of these have been addressed in the other post. Also, in
your reply to the other one, tell me specifically what is the fate of
those who have not heard. I want to hear your interpretation. I would
also like your views on whether or not purgatory exists.
If you are complaining about snipped points, specify WHY you still need
those points. Otherwise, simply complaining about them with no motive
in mind is just a lot of hot air. Furthermore, I've only snipped your
points which are two or more posting behind.
In article <387b5775....@news.optonline.net>,
sims...@my-deja.com
>>>'s, which were messing it up, anyway.
In article <RfXe4.2130$%85.1...@hnlnewsr1.hawaii.rr.com>,
"Seminary Student" <roman...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> The name of the author of the post was included with the
> ORIGINAL post...
>
> Here it is again...
>
> "Five Things God Wants You To Know"
> By Nick Michalinos
My apologies. I missed it; or deleted it, without recognizing it.
Below, are my thoughts on what doesn't flow from the bible; or
disagrees with it.
> <sims...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:85gssj$734
$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <LGxe4.1523$Qa5....@hnlnewsr2.hawaii.rr.com>,
> > "Seminary Student" <roman...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
<<snipped>>
> > > > I saw a lot of things that aren't in the bible, so I don't think
> > that
<<snip>>
> > > Please show me what is NOT in the BIBLE in this post...
> > > Thanks 10000
> >
<<snipped>>
*** My Comment***
This isn't true, because no one can see themselves as God sees them.
Who has known the mind of God? But, we have the mind of Christ, if we
are saved; and posess the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. But, that
comes after salvation, not before.
***End Comment***
II. You Must Know That Your Own Works Cannot
Save You
Salvation is the gift of God. If man could save himself by
works
why
then did Christ have to suffer and die for him? Christ
performed
all
the "work" needed for our salvation, we cannot perform any of
our own
to attain salvation.
***Comment***
This is not true. No where does the bible say that Jesus did
everything necessary for our salvation? Don't we need accept him?
Don't we need be baptized? Many say no; but Peter said your baptism
saves you. Don't we need to express repentance? Further, don't we
need to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit? If not, don't we die?
If we do, don't we live?
***End Comment***
Notice why man is completely helpless to
attain
salvation by his own merits:
· No "righteousness" of our own -- Rom. 3:10-12; Isa. 64:6.
***Comment***
Yet, Jesus said in Matt. 5:20
20. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed
the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case
enter into the kingdom of heaven.
***End Comment***
· No "strength" of our own -- Rom. 5:6; Eph. 2:1.
***Comment***
Didn't Paul say in KJV Philippians 4:13
13. I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.
***End Comment***
· No "good" of our own -- Rom. 3:12; Psa. 14:1-3; Jer. 13:23.
***Comment***
Are we not to love our neighbour as ourselves?
***End Comment***
· No "boasting" from us in salvation -- Eph. 2:9; Rom. 3:27a.
· No "works" from us in salvation -- Eph. 2:9; Titus 3:5;
Rom. 4:5.
***Comment***
Your friend ignores the 10th verse of Eph, which shows that the reason
we receive the free gift of grace, which saves us, is to do good works.
***End Comment***
· Salvation is a "gift" -- Eph. 2:8-9.
***Comment***
Unto good works (vs 10), which your friend says isn't necessary.
Notice too, that afterward (verses 11-18)he shows the necessity of
works and faith together to allow us to be reconciled to God.
***End Comment***
· Righteousness is a "gift" -- Rom. 5:17.
***Comment***
But, it is to be used. (Rom. 8:1-6; 13:8-10; Gal 5:14-15)
***End Comment***
· Eternal Life is a "gift" -- Rom. 6:23b.
The above is a death blow to man's pride; but are you
willing to
swallow your pride and
admit in your heart, that God spoke the truth and that you
accept it?
You MUST in order
to be saved.
III. You Must Know That To Die As A Lost Person Is To Spend
EternityIn The Lake Of Fire
***Comment***
This implies there is nothing we need do, to affect our salvation.
Yet, there is much said about what we must do. Matthew 7:21
21. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in
heaven.
***End Comment***
Notice what His death or blood does for us:
· Washes us from our sins -- Rev. 1:5.
· Redeems us -- I Pet. 1:18-19.
· Justifies us -- Rom. 5:9.
· Forgives us -- Eph. 1:7.
· Reconciles us back to God -- Col. 1:20.
· Peace for us with God -- Col. 1:20.
· Propitiates (satisfies) God -- Rom. 3:25.
***Comment***
Notice that it doesn't save you; as is implied by this post.
***End Comment***
***Comment***
On the contrary, we only really trust him, when we depend on him to do
his will through us. For he commanded us to love one another; and even
our enemy. How can one do this, without him; and his Spirit to lead
us? We devise a doctrine that tells us he did it all. That there is
nothing to be done, saying 'we are saved by faith alone.' Yet, that
isn't faith in Jesus; nor in God. But, rather, it is faith in our
interpretation to justify us, when we were already justified before
him. And we think this relieves us, of the requirement to love one
another.
***End Comment***
This would make Christ a "half-savior." He alone must save or
not at
all. Christ said:
"Him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out," John
6:37, nor
bring "into judgment,"
***Comment***
To show this doesn't mean you can't unsave yourself. Look at the 27th
verse of that. Who is sealed but those who labour for the meat that
endures to eternal life? And who is saved, that isn't sealed with the
Holy Spirit? Therefore, who comes to him, that he won't cast out (vs
37) except those who so labour for the meat that endures?
***End Comment***
John 5:24, but "hath everlasting life. " John 6:47.
***Comment***
Notice in the two verses preceding this, he speaks of those who honor
the Son and the Father. Look at Matthew 25:41-46
41. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from
me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his
angels:
42. For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and
ye gave me no drink:
43. I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me
not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee
an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison,
and did not minister unto thee?
45. Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you,
Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not
to me.
46. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the
righteous into life eternal.
Who honors the Son; but the Sheep? And what is the criteria of those
that honor him? It is the fruits of their faith, good works, that he
ordained we do, before the world began. These are the criteria of
honoring him. Therefore, consider this when you read John 5:24.
***End Comment***
The moment you accept Him as Savior, God will forgive you and
cleanse
you and make
you a child of His. Believe God's Word that He will do as He
has
promised. Will you do it
today? Death is in the pot. "What must I do to be saved? And
they said,
believe on the
Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved," Acts 16:30-31.
***Comment***
Notice that your friend says nothing of repentance; yet in another
place Peter said you need also to repent and be baptized. The
Statement above is not to be considered exclusive. i.e. to exclude
baptism and repentance; for in other places he speaks of our being
raised in newness of life, by our baptism. How can one be saved, if
not regenerated, by both water and by Spirit? So, don't tell half the
story.
***End Comment***
***Comment***
This isn't bibical. No where does it say it's a done deal, just by
accepting him as saviour. That is just the begining of salvation.
For, we are not saved until our bodies are redeemed. We merely have
the promise of it.
***End Comment***
Say this simple prayer with all your heart, and you will be
saved!
Dear God,
I know that I am a sinner and need your forgiveness. I
believe
that
Christ died in my
place, paying the penalty for my sin. I am willing to turn
from
my sin.
I now invite Jesus
Christ to come into my heart and life as my personal Savior.
I am
willing, by your help, to
follow and obey Christ as the Lord of my life. Amen.
Do
likewise
and "thou
shalt be saved."
My friend, have you understood what you have read in this
tract?
It
boils down to this.
The Lord Jesus Christ, who was God in the flesh, came into
this
world
to die in the place
and stead of sinners. His was a substitutionary death. You
must
believe
this includes you,
that He did it for you, in your behalf. Now, rest yourself
completely
in Him; trust in Him
to save you as He has promised; rely wholly in Him alone to
do
the job
of saving you
from eternal damnation.
***Comment***
Here your friend sets the new Christian up for failure. For to say
there is nothing you can do to affect your salvation, leaves the person
chained to his sins, which he was washed; and cleansed from, by the
blood of Christ. This does despite to the blood that sanctifies us.
(Heb. 10:29)
***End Comment***
Believe in Him this very moment as your
own
personal Savior,
and the work is done!
***Comment***
Again, this isn't bibical. It is a lie.
***End Comment***
You are now saved with an everlasting
salvation.
Say this simple prayer with all your heart, and you will be
saved!
Dear God,
I know that I am a sinner and need your forgiveness. I
believe
that
Christ died in my
place, paying the penalty for my sin. I am willing to turn
from
my sin.
I now invite Jesus
Christ to come into my heart and life as my personal Savior.
I am
willing, by your help, to
follow and obey Christ as the Lord of my life. Amen.
All other things said are right on. I recognize the good heart that
wrote it; and your good heart for attempting to share it; but both of
you are promoting a false doctrine. This salvation by faith alone. It
is not in the Bible.
Peace to you
Allan Sims
Seminary Student
<sims...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:85jnrm$9e0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Sorry about the spacing. My word processor took out more than all the
> >>>'s, which were messing it up, anyway.
>
> In article <RfXe4.2130$%85.1...@hnlnewsr1.hawaii.rr.com>,
> "Seminary Student" <roman...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> > The name of the author of the post was included with the
> > ORIGINAL post...
> >
> > Here it is again...
> >
> > "Five Things God Wants You To Know"
> > By Nick Michalinos
>
> My apologies. I missed it; or deleted it, without recognizing it.
> Below, are my thoughts on what doesn't flow from the bible; or
> disagrees with it.
>
>
> > <sims...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:85gssj$734
> $1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <LGxe4.1523$Qa5....@hnlnewsr2.hawaii.rr.com>,
> > > "Seminary Student" <roman...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> <<snipped>>
>
> > > > > I saw a lot of things that aren't in the bible, so I don't think
> > > that
> <<snip>>
> > > > Please show me what is NOT in the BIBLE in this post...
> > > > Thanks 10000
> > >
John 17:17, "Sanctify them through thy truth: THY WORD is truth."
The BIBLE is the ONLY SOURCE OF TRUTH,
not man, GOD!
>
> II. You Must Know That Your Own Works Cannot
> Save You
>
> Salvation is the gift of God. If man could save himself by
> works
> why
> then did Christ have to suffer and die for him? Christ
> performed
> all
> the "work" needed for our salvation, we cannot perform any of
> our own
> to attain salvation.
>
> ***Comment***
> This is not true. No where does the bible say that Jesus did
> everything necessary for our salvation?
It sure does!
Hebrews 10:10-12, "By the which will we are sanctified through
the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every
priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same
sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he
had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right
hand of God;"
ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS! ONE!
WE ARE ALL SANCTIFIED! Read on...
>Don't we need accept him?
> Don't we need be baptized? Many say no; but Peter said your baptism
> saves you.
Acts 2:38 is where Peter is talking to JEWS who REJECTED Jesus
as God/Messiah, that is the ONLY reason he said to be baptized
in JESUS NAME! No unbelieving Jew would EVER be baptized
in the name of JESUS....Understand now?
God in the FLESH said to be baptised
in the TRINITY...
Matthew 28:18-19, "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying,
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore,
and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"
I believe what GOD says....
Peter was NOT God, and was not talking to Gentiles (US!)
he was addressing JEWS!
Therefore Acts 2:38 DOES NOT APPLY TO US!
Also, Peter NEVER MENTIONS BAPTISM as
NECESSARY FOR SALVATION in LATER VERSUS!
See Acts 10:43, 13:38, and 26:18
NO MENTION OF BAPTISM ANYWHERE!
***
>
> Notice why man is completely helpless to
> attain
> salvation by his own merits:
>
> · No "righteousness" of our own -- Rom. 3:10-12; Isa. 64:6.
>
>
> ***Comment***
> Yet, Jesus said in Matt. 5:20
> 20. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed
> the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case
> enter into the kingdom of heaven.
This was a INSULT directed at them, he was speaking
sarcastically. He was in effect saying "IF you wish to
inhert the kingdom, you had better not try to attain it
the same way these are! You must be BETTER than
they (they = who REJECTED HIM as the Messiah!)
They (Jews) did NOT recognize him as the Messiah....
>
> ***End Comment***
>
> · No "strength" of our own -- Rom. 5:6; Eph. 2:1.
>
> ***Comment***
> Didn't Paul say in KJV Philippians 4:13
> 13. I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.
Yes, he was talking to SAVED PEOPLE! God does NOT
strengthen LOST PEOPLE...think about it!
Phil comes AFTER romans!
> ***End Comment***
>
> · No "good" of our own -- Rom. 3:12; Psa. 14:1-3; Jer. 13:23.
>
> ***Comment***
> Are we not to love our neighbour as ourselves?
You missed the whole point, it was that we are not GOOD
enough to EARN SALVATION...
> ***End Comment***
>
> · No "boasting" from us in salvation -- Eph. 2:9; Rom. 3:27a.
> · No "works" from us in salvation -- Eph. 2:9; Titus 3:5;
> Rom. 4:5.
>
> ***Comment***
> Your friend ignores the 10th verse of Eph, which shows that the reason
> we receive the free gift of grace, which saves us, is to do good works.
The good works come as a RESULT of being saved, not a way TO
BE SAVED.....
> ***End Comment***
>
> · Salvation is a "gift" -- Eph. 2:8-9.
>
> ***Comment***
> Unto good works (vs 10), which your friend says isn't necessary.
> Notice too, that afterward (verses 11-18)he shows the necessity of
> works and faith together to allow us to be reconciled to God.
Nope! He says that GOOD WORKS are a demonstration that
we are infact SAVED. You need to study basic bible doctrines
more. Seems like some knuckle head has taught you a
WORKS SALVATION....
Jesus did ALL THE WORK! If you would MERIT heaven
by WORKS, why did God send JESUS to die on the croos
for OUR sins? He wouldn't have needed to do so!
Also the Apostle Paul says that if WORKS saved,
he would NOT need JESUS!
Philippians 3:4-8, "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: 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; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching
the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things
were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. 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,"
>
> John 5:24, but "hath everlasting life. " John 6:47.
>
> ***Comment***
> Notice in the two verses preceding this, he speaks of those who honor
> the Son and the Father. Look at Matthew 25:41-46
> 41. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from
> me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his
> angels:
LOST PEOPLE is who he is ADDRESSING!
Friend you are totally ignorant of GRACE TEACHING!
It DOES say that you are saved and the work is done!
Read on!
1 John 5:13, "These things have I written unto you that believe on
the name of the Son of God; that YE MAY KNOW that ye have eternal
life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."
I dont have to wait to find out if I have eternal life,
BIBLE SAYS I HAVE IT RIGHT NOW! GLORY!!!!!
John 3:15, "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish,
but have eternal life."
John 10:28, "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish,
neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."
Acts 13:48, "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and
glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal
life believed."
Romans 6:23, "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is
eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
1 John 5:11-13, "And this is the record, that God hath given to us
eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life;
and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have
I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that
ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the
name of the Son of God."
1 John 5:20, "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given
us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in
him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and
eternal life."
>That is just the begining of salvation.
> For, we are not saved until our bodies are redeemed. We merely have
> the promise of it.
Saved (WILL BE SAVED FUTURE) but ARE SAVED NOW
(IN THE PRESENT!)
> Believe in Him this very moment as your
> own
> personal Savior,
> and the work is done!
>
> ***Comment***
> Again, this isn't bibical. It is a lie.
You are ingorant....see ETERNAL LIFE versus ABOVE!
John 10:28-30, "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall
never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man
is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are one."
Funny the above verse says it is done...you calling God a liar?
> ***End Comment***
>
>
> You are now saved with an everlasting
> salvation.
>
> Say this simple prayer with all your heart, and you will be
> saved!
>
> Dear God,
>
> I know that I am a sinner and need your forgiveness. I
> believe
> that
> Christ died in my
> place, paying the penalty for my sin. I am willing to turn
> from
> my sin.
> I now invite Jesus
> Christ to come into my heart and life as my personal Savior.
> I am
> willing, by your help, to
> follow and obey Christ as the Lord of my life. Amen.
>
> All other things said are right on. I recognize the good heart that
> wrote it; and your good heart for attempting to share it; but both of
> you are promoting a false doctrine.
>This salvation by faith alone. It
> is not in the Bible.
But it is! Read on!
Ephesians 2:8-9, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that
not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man
should boast."
I suggest you read Hebrews Chapter 11 AND THEN tell
me salvation is NOT by FAITH AND FAITH alone-
both in the New Testement and the OLD!
Seminary Student
Visit my webpage to hear Benny Hinn:
Benny Says: Jesus was born with a SINFUL NATURE!
Bible Says: 2 Corinthians 5:21, "For he hath made him to be sin
for us, who knew NO SIN; that we might be made the righteousness
of God in him."
HINN AND CROUCH PREDICT
RESURRECTIONS
Benny Hinn: But here's first what I see for TBN. You're going to have people
raised from
the dead watching this network. You're going to have people raised from the
dead watching
TBN. Programs - just plain programs - programs that haven't done much when
it comes to
supernatural manifestations - teaching programs. It's not going to be a
Benny Hinn saying
"Stretch your hands." It's going to be your average teaching program, your
normal
Christian program that's blessing the church. There's going to be such power
on these
programs people will be raised from the dead worldwide. I'm telling you, I
see this in the
Spirit. It's going to be so awesome - Jesus I give you praise for this -
that people around
the world - maybe not so much in America - people around the world who will
lose loved
ones, will say to undertakers "Not yet. I want to take my dead loved one and
place him in
front of that TV set for 24 hours."
Paul Crouch: Benny Hinn! Jesus!
Benny Hinn: I'm telling you. People will be - people - I'm telling you, I
feel the anointing
talking here. People are going to be cancelling funeral services and
bringing their dead in
their caskets, placing them - my God! I feel the anointing here - placing
them before a
television set, waiting for God's power to come through and touch them. And
it's going to
happen time and time - so much it's going to spread. You're going to hear it
from Kenya to
Mexico to Europe to South America, where people will be raised from the - so
much so that
the word will spread that if some dead person be put in front of this TV
screen, they will be
raised from the dead and they will be by the thousands. You wait. Now the
Lord just told
me - and I don't know whether this is true or not - as I'm saying this, the
Lord said He gave
you that word many, many years ago.
Paul Crouch: I have said that, yes.
Benny Hinn: I don't remember you saying that to me ever.
Paul Crouch: No, I didn't.
Benny Hinn: [He said] 'I've told him this already.'
Paul Crouch: Yeah, the Lord spoke that to me in the very beginning of TBN
and I didn't
really -
Jan Crouch: And I had a dream.
Benny Hinn: You had a dream.
Paul Crouch: Yeah, tell him about that little -
Jan Crouch: That's just a dream - people were being raised from the dead.
Years ago.
Paul Crouch: It's on tape. I said the day is coming -
Benny Hinn: I see quite something amazing. I see rows of caskets lining up
in front of this
TV set and I see them bringing them closer to the TV set and as people are
coming closer I
see actually loved ones picking up the hands of the dead and letting them
touch the screen
and people are getting raised as their hands are touching that screen.
...With this program - I'm not talking about my program - I'm talking
programs, plain
programs aired - the glory of God will be so on TBN that there's going to be
divine
resurrection happening as people bring their loved ones to the TV set.
Paul Crouch: Just because it's His time.
Benny Hinn: It's His time. Now here's something else I see. Jesus, I give
You praise for
this, I give You praise for this, I give You praise for this - the day will
come, Paul - and I
pray you'll be here. I pray the Lord will allow you to be here and see it. I
mean, physically
be here. You're in your 60s now. But the day is going to come when the gifts
of the Holy
Spirit will so intensify in the church that young children will be watching
TBN and signs and
wonders will begin to take place through them. Impartations of the Spirit
will come to them.
A little child that knows nothing about the gifts, knows nothing about the
anointing, knows
nothing about the power of God, will be imbued with power from on high as a
child, as that
TV set comes on, and will go out like fire torches to their schools and
their playgrounds and
their families. I see children, I see children, what looks like fire in
their lips spreading - but
I see these kids touching the TV set, receiving it, and going out and
spreading it. And it's
going to happen with children in the U.S., Canada, all over the world. And I
do see people
being raised from the dead here, but I see masses of them overseas.
(Praise The Lord, Trinity Broadcasting Network, October 19, 1999)
IS BENNY HINN LYING AGAIN?
According to Benny Hinn, God moves in "marvelous" ways - even to the extent
of calling off
professional sporting events. Or does He? On the Oct. 22, 1997, installment
of his daily broadcast
of This Is Your Day, Hinn claimed divine intervention for his ministry over
the Miami Panthers, the
southern Florida city's National Hockey League team.
The faith healer asserted that: "The Lord spoke to me while in Miami, here
the first day, and said,
'Come back here for Good Friday.' We were supposed to go somewhere else. And
I said, 'Lord,
open the way.' And guess what? The manager of the Miami Arena canceled the
hockey game so we
can have the arena for Good Friday, April 10th, 1998. And I think that's
marvelous, don't you?"
Author and critic of Hinn's ministry, Yves Brault, contacted the Miami Arena
concerning the alleged
cancellation. His call was directed to the "special events" department of
the facility and he was told
that "no" hockey game was ever scheduled for April 10. Brault was informed
that a game slated for
April 9 between the Panthers and Philadelphia Flyers remains on the
schedule.
The arena spokesperson further stated, "We can't cancel a game because the
tenants take
preference and the Panthers are the tenants in our building. But right after
the hockey game, we'll
start setting up for Benny Hinn."
The schedule of the National Hockey League is released in July. Hinn's Miami
Miracle Crusade,
where he claims God spoke to him concerning the Good Friday service, was
held Oct. 8 and 9 at
the arena.-MKG
Shocking facts about Benny Hinn...
Benny Hinn is a Roman Catholic mystic, who is taking the Pentecostal and
Charismatic Church down
the ecumenical road towards Rome. This has been known for some time. For
example the Italian
Assemblies of God refused to endorse his crusade in Rome (1996), sponsored
by the independent
Pentecostals, who themselves were shocked when Mr Hinn failed to once open
his Bible on the first
night of the Crusade. On the second night the interpreter refused to
interpret Hinn's favourable comments
about the Pope and the Catholic Church and the music group refused to sing.
The up-shot was that the
organisers signed a document of "non-association" with Benny Hinn, and
promised never to invite him
to Italy again. Despite this he was invited as guest speaker to the
Australian Assemblies of God
Conference in May 1997, where once more he spoke favourably of the Pope and
the Roman Catholic
Church. At that Conference he told how he had met with Cardinal Sin of the
Philippines, with whom he
formed an agreement to encourage people who attended his crusade not to
leave the Roman Catholic
Church. The Cardinal in turn promised to encourage Roman Catholics to
attend the Hinn Crusade.
(Things have become worse since then! We have documented evidence that Hinn
is into necromancy -
please see below.)
The most disturbing feature was that no one at the Australian Assemblies of
God Conference raised
public objection to Hinn's comments. Now Benny Hinn has been invited to
conduct a Healing Crusade in
Auckland on June 13, 1998. Those endorsing the Crusade include Wayne
Hughes, Senior Pastor of the
Takapuna Assembly of God, Ian Bilby, Senior Pastor of the Auckland City
Elim Church, Paul de Jong,
Senior Pastor of the Christian Life Centre, Auckland, Hamish Divett, Senior
Minister of the Christian City
Church, Auckland and Peter Mortlock, Senior Pastor of the Bays Christian
Fellowship, New Life
Churches of New Zealand. (Letter dated 4th March, 1998 issued by the New
Zealand branch of the
Benny Hinn Ministries (PO Box 24377, Royal Oak, Auckland - phone 09 521
0133; fax 09 528 7185;
mobile 025 285 1311 - coordinator Averil E Quertier).)
Wayne Hughes is the General Superintendent of Assemblies of God in New
Zealand and was one of the
Church leaders who, together with Ian Bilby, former President of the New
Zealand Elim denomination,
endorsed the visit of Rodney Howard-Browne whose "laughing revival" has
caused so much division
among Churches and Christian families in New Zealand and Australia. The New
Zealand Apostolic
Superintendent also endorsed Rodney Howard-Browne, BUT is not listed as
endorsing Benny Hinn.
CWM alerted Wayne Hughes to the fact of Benny Hinn's documented necromancy
in late January or
early February '98. Despite this he has continued to endorse Hinn and his
ministry, although it is
rumoured that he is concerned that he might be doing the wrong thing. For
the record we have published
a copy of the relevant email. Our strong recommendation to all Christians
is that you do not participate in
any supportive way - by means of donations or otherwise - in the Benny Hinn
Crusade or to the Benny
Hinn Ministries.
John the apostle of our Lord Jesus Christ wrote: - "Whoever transgresses
and does not abide in the
doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of
Christ has both the Father
and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do
not receive him into
your house nor greet him (bid him God speed - AV) for he who greets him
shares in his evil deeds
(biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds - AV)" - 2 John 9-11.
This is THE WORD OF THE
LORD.
Evidence that Benny Hinn practices necromancy...
Further documented proof is supplied in the book - "THE CONFUSING WORLD OF
BENNY HINN"
obtainable from your nearest CWM Office at $25 each including post. (This
book has been enlarged to
include a chapter on Hinn's necromancy. Authors include a USA, AOG pastor.
Increased price mainly
due to the need to get more books from USA by air mail. We also recommend
the two videos"THE
SIGNS & WONDERS MOVEMENT EXPOSED" - Part 1 - MIRACLES and Part 2 - MONEY -
at $30
each including post.)
The following was supplied by Michael Oppenheimer, Let Us Reason
Ministries, HAWAII on Philip
Powell's request following a report that Benny Hinn had caused a great deal
of trouble in the islands
following his Honolulu Crusade in March, 1998.
Taken from a Benny Hinn programme - "THIS IS YOUR DAY" - June 11,
1997 - also repeated at a recent Benny Hinn PARTNER CONFERENCE in
Atlanta.
"Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to tell you something right now. The Lord
showed me a vision about -
goodness it's almost been a year now. And - (I) can tell you I sense now
the time has come when this
vision is gonna be fulfilled. I had a vision of the night. What I saw,
myself walk into a room. I've shared
this before but just in case you - you've not heard it I want you to hear
it. I saw myself walk into a room
and there stood Kathryn Khulman.
And I've not seen Kathryn in a dream or a vision [in] years. Uh, when she
died, the day she died, the
morning she died, I had a dream what I - what I saw in a - in a - in a - in
a casket with a white dress. And
when I woke up in - in the morning, I knew she had died and it was on the
news that same morning. And
so it's been many years.
And there she was standing in this room and she said to me-of course this
was a dream, but really more
of a vision. A lot of times! dreams are really visions of the night, and
the Bible calls them that. When -
when God gives to you in the fashion it really came with me.
When I was a little boy, I saw the Lord in this dream. It was really so
real, it was really a vision because
when - when He appeared to me my body became electric just like electricity
went through me and when
I awoke that electricity was still on my body." (Benny Hinn, This Is Your
Day, June 11, 1997)
"Well, anyway, in this one, in this vision that-that I saw-saw Miss
Khulman. And she said, 'Follow me.'
That's all she said. And I followed her to a second room. In that second
room stood the Lord. When the
Lord, uh-when-when I saw the lord, Kathryn disappeared. She was just gone
[Hinn snaps fingers]. And
now the Lord looked at me and said, 'Follow me.' And I followed him to a
third room. In the third room sat
a gentleman - I still remember his face. I can tell you, I still remember
the man's face. And the man sat
in this wheelchair in that third room. There was a big hole in his neck. A
tube down his throat. He was
crippled on that wheelchair. And he had tubes down his body. Totally
crippled, totally para-totally, of
course, paralyzed. The Lord laid His hands on this man and as He did the
tubes disappeared, the hole
closed, he was completely healed and got up off the wheelchair. It was a
creative miracle. Now I'm
standing watching the Lord in this vision heal this man. And now as the man
wasealed, the Lord looked
at me with piercing eyes - I'll not forget that one I'll tell you. (He)
looked at me with piercing eyes and
said, 'DO IT!' And the [Hinn snaps fingers] - and the dream and the vision
came to an end." (Benny
Hinn, This Is Your Day, June 11, 1997)
Interpretation of the "vision":
"When I woke, when I got up, when I came out of the vision, I was trembling
and perspiring from head to
toes. I know exactly what that vision means. It was Kathryn Khulman who
took me, who introduced me
to the Holy Spirit. That is the meaning of that first room when she said,
'Follow me.' But when Kathryn
was gone, Jesus was there. Kathryn did her job and was gone and the Lord
said, 'Follow me' into a third
room. And there was this man. I believe I'm about to enter that third room.
[Audience applause.] I'm
telling you I feel it. I sense it. I believe that room speaks of a
dimension, a new dimension in the Spirit. I
believe I've been in that second room now for the last seven years. What is
amazing to me, what's
amazing to me is God works or has worked in my life in seven year cycles.
I'm now in the seventh year -
beginning the eighth of the ministry of these crusades. 1990 we started -
March. This is what? '97. And
just now I feel another platform, another dimension, another level is
really coming. ell, saints you're going
to be a part of it. God- God has sent you as partners to be a part of it.
So how many are ready to see
greater things for the glory of God?" (Benny Hinn, This Is Your Day, June
11, 1997)
"Can I tell you something? I've never shared this. Never! I was in prayer
one day and a man appeared in
front of me. Happened for two days in a row, twice one day and the next
day. The same man appeared.
I've never told this, never. ... This is recently. I'm not talking about a
long time ago. He was about six feet
two. Old man. Had a beard. ... Glistening white beard. His face was
somewhat thin, but very bold! Eyes -
crystal blue. He had on a white garment, whiter than my shirt could ever
get. On his head was a shawl,
like a - like a covering. He looked like a priest. Every part of him
glistened like crystal. And I spoke out
and I said, 'Lord, who is this man I see?'
I know you may - you may think I lost my mind, but the lord said, 'ELIJAH
the prophet" ...Seven and half
years ago, just before the ministry started, before these crusades began,
suddenly in front of me I saw a
group of people. I couldn't even tell you who they were. I recognized only
one of them. It was Miss
Khulman. And every one of them seemed to be urging me to pray. Now I know
this sounds crazy, but it's
all right. I don't mind if you call me crazy, because I liked what I saw.
And this - this group was saying,
now I couldn't hear them. I'd been in prayer at least, uh, hours. And
suddenly, just - just this flash came
in front of me. I can not describe it to you except to tell you it was more
real than you sitting right in front
of me right here. It was not a mental thing. It was so alive, pastor. It's
so alive. It was like a flash of
lightening hit me and all I saw was these people's faces. I will tell you,
when I get to heaven. I will
recognize them (at least fifty to seventy of them were sittingn a group),
and they were saying to me,
"Pray! Ask God to give you a healing ministry that will touch the world!"
And suddenly, I heard Kathryn's
voice, [Hinn snaps fingers] and out of the blue, suddenly there - there she
was, it's crystal clear. And she
in her beautiful smile, the way she said, "Ask! We're waiting for you to
ask! We're praying with you to
ask " And the vision disappeared. And suddenly I said, "Lord!" and I asked.
A week later the anointing hit
my life. I believe the saints in heaven urge us to pray. Urge us to do it!
Do you know why I believe it?
'Cause it's in the Bible! You say, "Show it to me." Jesus saw Moses and
Elijah who came to talk to Him
about His passion on the cross! Ladies and gentlemen, there's way more than
you know about God! And
the reason I'm telling you all this? The Lord said to me only a few days
ago, He said, "You're - you're
about to come into a new level. Get ready!" And I'm already feeling the
rumblings in the heavenlies.
Somebody is about to talk to me again. Something is about to happen again.
I don't know what it is. But
I - I'm so excited, I feel butterflies in my tummy. I feel something. I've
had three prophets lately, absolute
people that know the voice of God, that have said to me, "You're about to
walk into a new inheritance in
the Spirit." I don't know what it is, when it is, but it's coming. And
tonight, the Lord is putting upon my
heart to pray for you, that you should walk into a new inheritance in the
Holy Ghost. Stand up, I want to
pray for you. Come on. Hallelujah! ...
You're about to have experiences that people may call you crazy if you tell
them. But lift your hands and
ask that God give you revelations. Come on. Blessed Jesus, I give you
praise. I give you praise. And I
ask you to bring those people into a new inheritance in the Spirit. We've
lived so long on this side of the
fence. We're so accustomed to this world of ours and we're so tired of it
and its pain. Oh, Lord, take us
beyond the veil. Take us into a new inheritance. Trust us to keep it
sacred. Trust us to be faithful in the
blessed name. Ask Him to give that to you. Ask Him to give that to you.
(Recording and original
transcript by: Michael Oppenheimer, Let Us Reason Ministries, Honolulu
Crusade, February 28,
1997
"One of the strangest experiences I had a few years ago [was] visiting
Aimee's tomb in California. This
Thursday I'm on TBN. Friday I am gonna go and visit Kathryn Khulman's tomb.
It's close by Aimee's in
Forest Lawn Cemetery. I've been there once already and every so often I
like to go and pay my respects
'cause this great woman of God has touched my life. And that grave, uh,
where she's buried is closed,
they built walls around it. You can't get in without a key and I'm one of
the very few people who can get
in. But I'll never forget when I saw Aimee's tomb. It's incredibly
dramatic. She was such a lady that her
tomb has seven-foot angels bowing on each side of her tomb with a gold
chain around it. As-as
incredible as it is that someone would die with angels bowing on each side
of her grave, I felt a terrific
anointing when I was there. I actually, I - I, hear this,' I trembled when
I visited Aimee's tomb. I was
shaking all over. God's power came all over me. ... I believe the anointing
has linged over Aimee's body. I
know this may be shocking to you.
... And I'm going to take David (Psalmquist) and Kent (Mattox and Sheryl
Psalmquist) this week. They're
gonna come with me. You-you-you gonna feel the anointing at Aimee's tomb.
It's incredible. And
Kathryn's. It's amazing. I've heard of people healed when they visited that
tomb. They were totally healed
by God's power. You say, 'What a crazy thing.' Brother, there's things
we'll never understand. Are you all
hearing me?"
Seminary Student
Kenneth Copeland has taught the following
That we do not have a god in us but that we are a God.
"You don't have a God in you. You are one!"- The Force of Love
audiotape
That Adam was God manifest in the flesh.
"God's reason for creating Adam was His desire to reproduce Himself. I
mean a reproduction
of Himself, and in the Garden of Eden He did just that. He was not a
little like God. He was
not almost like God. He was not subordinate to God even. . . . Adam is
as much like God as
you could get, just the same as Jesus. . . . Adam, in the Garden of
Eden, was God
manifested in the flesh."
Following the Faith of Abraham I, side 1
God is the greatest failure in the Universe
"I was shocked when I found out who the biggest failure in the Bible
actually is....The
biggest one is God....I mean, He lost His top-ranking, most anointed
angel; the first man He
ever created; the first woman He ever created; the whole earth and all
the Fullness therein; a
third of the angels, at least--that's a big loss, man. . .
Praise-a-Thon program on TBN [April 1988]
God lives on a mother planet
"Heaven has a north and a south and an east and a west. Consequently,
it must be a planet."
Spirit, Soul and Body I 1985 audiotape #01-0601, side 1
"You don't think earth was first, do you? Huh? Well, you don't think
that God made man in
His image, and then made earth in some other image? There is not
anything under this whole
sun that's new. Are you hearing what I'm saying? This is all a copy.
It's a copy of home. It's a
copy of the Mother Planet. Where God lives, He made a little one just
like His and
put us on it."
Following the Faith of Abraham I, 1989 audiotape #01-3001, side 1
The death of Jesus on the Cross did not pay the price
for sins
"It wasn't the physical death on the cross that paid the price for
sin..anybody could do that"
What Satan saw on the day of Pentecost
"Every prophet that walked the face of the earth under the Abrahamic
covenant could have
paid the price if it were a physical death only" "When he said 'It is
finished' on that cross, he
was not speaking of the plan of redemption. The plan of redemption had
just begun, there
were still three days and three nights to be gone through." "[Jesus]
accepted the sin nature of
Satan in His own Spirit, and at the moment that He did so, He cried 'My
God, my God, why
have you forsaken me?'." "He [Jesus] was down in that pit and there he
suffered the
punishment for three horrible days and nights for Adam's treason...
There is a new
birth takes place in the very depths of the earth, when the command of
God says 'That's
enough, loose him and let him go'."
What Happened from the Cross to the Throne
Jesus was raped by homosexual Roman soldiers
everyway possible
"Let me tell you something folks. Anybody in here that's ever been
sexually abused, listen to
me right now. Listen to me very carefully. The bible's very careful
about the way it says these
things. But down there in that dungeon, Romans, ungodly men, ungodly
men, put him (Jesus)
to every kind of abuse that you can think of. There is no sin that
Jesus didn't bare. There is
no thing, there is no such thing as a sexual abuse on somebody that
Jesus doesn't
know firsthand what it's all about. He's been where you are, I don't
care what you've been
through, Jesus has been through it. And everything's done to him that
we we couldn't even
speak of."
The Resurrection Truth
God and Adam are the same size
God spoke Adam into existence in authority with words. These words
struck Adam's body in
the face. His body and God were exactly the same size."
Holy Bible, Kenneth Copeland Reference Edition 1991, 45, emphasis in
original
God has no right to the earth at all, he needs an
invitation
"God had no avenue of lasting faith or moving in the earth. He had to
have covenant with
somebody. . . . He had to be invited in, in other words, or He couldn't
come. God is on the
outside looking in. In order to have any say so in the earth, He's
gonna have to be in
agreement with a man here."
God's Covenants With Man II 1985, audiotape #01-4404, side 1
Other Teachings
"Adam was made in the image of God. He was as much female as he was male. He
was exactly like
God. Then God separated him and removed the female part. Woman means 'man
with the womb.'
Eve had as much authority as Adam did as long as they stayed together."
Sensitivity of Heart KCP Publications, 1984, 23
"He [Jesus] is suffering all that there is to suffer. There is no suffering
left apart from Him. His
emaciated, poured out, little, wormy spirit is down in the bottom of that
thing [hell]. And the
Devil thinks he's got Him destroyed."
Believer's Voice of Victory" program [21 April 1991]. This message was
originally delivered at the Full Gospel
Motorcycle Rally Association 1990 Rally at Eagle Mountain Lake, Texas
"He [Jesus] was literally being reborn before the devil's very eyes. He
began to flex His spiritual
muscles. . . .Jesus was born again--the firstborn from the dead the Word
calls Him--and He
whipped the devil in his own backyard. He took everything he had away from
him. He took
his keys and his authority away from him." (Ibid., 4-6.)
"As a believer, you have a right to make commands in the name of Jesus. Each
time you stand on the
Word, you are commanding God to a certain extent because it is His Word."
Our Covenant with God [Fort Worth, TX: KCP Publications, 1987], 32
General Teachings/Activities
- Tongues-speaking charismatic Kenneth Copeland is considered to be the most
prosperous and well-known in the "Word-Faith"/"Positive Confession"
movement. His
television program is carried nationwide on the Trinity Broadcasting
Network, and he is
the author of numerous charismatic-oriented books and articles. In his
Believer's
Voice of Victory magazine, Copeland teaches the following heresies:
"God has never used sickness to discipline His children" (9/89); "AIDS is
'absolutely not'
God's way
of punishing immoral people" (11/87); Jesus didn't claim to be God when He
lived on
earth (8/88); the New Age/occult techniques of positive imaging and
visualization are for God's people today (9/88); God intends for His people
to be
united, and, "That union won't be based on doctrine" (12/88); healing is for
every
believer (2/93); and tongues are for the entire Body of Christ (1/93).
Copeland also says: "It would have been impossible for Jesus to have been
poor!"
(9/90, Charisma ). (Reported in the 2/15/93, Calvary Contender .)
- As the name "Word-Faith" implies, this movement teaches that faith is a
matter
of what we say more that whom we trust or what truths we embrace and affirm
in our hearts. A favorite term in the Word-Faith movement is "positive
confession." It refers to the Word-Faith teaching that words have creative
power. What you say , Word-Faith teachers claim, determines everything that
happens to you. Your "confessions," that is, the things you say-- especially
the
favors you demand of God--must all be stated positively and without
wavering.
Then God is required to answer (Charismatic Chaos , p. 281). Word-Faith
believers view their positive confessions as an incantation by which they
can
conjure up anything they desire: "Believe it in your heart; say it with your
mouth. That is the principle of faith. You can have what you say "
(Charismatic
Chaos , p. 285).
- Word-Faith is the fastest-growing movement within the professing church.
It has
involved two distinct but closely related factions: the Peale/Schuller
Positive/Possibility
thinkers, with their roots in New Thought, and the Hagin/Copeland Positive
Confession
and Word-Faith groups, which have their roots in E.W. Kenyon, William
Branham, and
the Manifest Sons of God/Latter Rain Movement. In Kenneth Hagin's book,
Having Faith
in Your Faith (Copeland confesses that Hagin's tapes and books
revolutionized his
ministry), Hagin teaches that anyone can develop universal "laws of faith"
to get what he
wants. Hagin teaches that for a pastor or anyone to drive a Chevrolet
instead of a luxury
car isn't "being humble, that's being ignorant" of God's "law of prosperity"
that works for
"whoever you are," saint or sinner. The battle-cry of the Positive
Confession (PC)
movement is:
"Have faith in your faith." This is a far cry from what Jesus taught: "Have
faith in God"
(Charismatic Chaos , p. 281). (Copeland's book, The Laws of Prosperity ,
teaches
these same concepts.)
This is at the heart of the PC movement today, also known as the
"name-it-and-claim-it"
gospel. The PC movement is a charismatic form of Christian Science. This can
be
substantiated by simply comparing the similarities in their common beliefs.
PC is
basically warmed-over New Thought dressed in evangelical/charismatic
language.
(Other well-known PC'ers besides the "father" of the movement, Kenneth
Hagin, and
Copeland, his most successful protegè, are Charles Capps, Frederick K.C.
Price,
Robert Tilton, and David (Paul) Yonggi Cho. Many of them are graduates of
Hagin's
Rhema Bible Training Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma.)
- Copeland's teaching on healing is a particularly destructive lie--in the
2/93 issue of
Believer's Voice of Victory , Copeland says that every Christian is
guaranteed physical
healing and financial prosperity. Multitudes of those who have believed the
charismatic
lies about healing in the Atonement have become confused and disappointed.
Many
have become bitter against God because God did not do what they were
convinced He
had promised to do. The problem with Copeland's teachings is that God has
not
promised health and prosperity to His people in this present world.
Nevertheless, Copeland speaks disparagingly of Christians who "are still
living
in sickness, bondage, and lack." Yet this "sickness, bondage, and lack" is
the
epitaph of a great many of God's choicest saints.
- Copeland is perhaps the best known proponent of the charismatic's "little
gods"
teaching (see below). He says Jesus told him:
"Don't be disturbed when people accuse you of thinking you are God ... They
crucified Me for claiming I was God. I didn't claim that I was God; I just
claimed that I
walked with Him and that He was in Me. Hallelujah! That's what you're doing
..." ("Take
Time to Pray," Believer's Voice of Victory , 2/87, p. 9).
Copeland thus denies the uniqueness of Christ, saying that Christ was not
God, only that
He walked closely with God. And as Copeland says, so does he! Copeland,
thereby,
places himself on the same level as Jesus Christ, willing to blur the
distinction between
the will of God and the will of Copeland. Copeland seems to think that he
and Jesus
have about the same authority for the believer, and sounds like New Ager
Shirley
MacClaine when he says:
"You're all God. You don't have a God living in you; you are one! ... When I
read in the
Bible where God tells Moses, 'I AM,' I say, 'Yah, I am too!'" ("The Force of
Love," Tape
BBC-56).
- Copeland teaches that Adam was "created in the god class"; i.e., he was a
reproduction of God:
"He was not subordinate to God ... [but] was walking as a god with the
authority of a
god. ... What he said went. What he did, counted. [And when he] bowed his
knee to
Satan and put Satan up above him, then there wasn't anything God could do
about it, because a god had placed [Satan] there" ("The Force of Love," tape
#02-0028).
When Adam committed high treason, according to Copeland, even though
"created in
the god class," he fell below the god class, but on the cross, Jesus won the
right for
believers to be born again back into the "god class" (see below). Jesus'
deity,
according to Copeland, encompasses "healing, deliverance, financial
prosperity, mental
prosperity, physical prosperity, and family prosperity." And because
believers are now
back in the "god class," they are guaranteed those blessings here and now
(Charismatic Chaos , p. 272).
- Copeland teaches, as do all the Word-Faith teachers, that "Jesus Died
Spiritually" (JDS). What makes the Word-Faith teachers' version of JDS,
heresy (if not
blasphemy), is their teaching that our redemption comes not from Christ's
death upon
the cross, but from His being tortured by Satan in hell for three days and
nights!
Copeland has, thus, embraced a heresy known as the "Ransom theory of the
atonement." It is the view that Christ's death was a ransom paid to Satan to
settle the
legal claim the devil had on the human race because of Adam's sin. But that
view
contradicts the clear Biblical teaching that Christ's death was a sacrifice
offered to God, not to Satan (Eph. 5:2) (Charismatic Chaos , p. 278).
Copeland, for
example, says:
"He allowed the devil to drag Him into the depths of hell as if He were the
most wicked
sinner who ever lived ... Every demon in hell came down on Him to annihilate
Him ...
[They] tortured Him beyond anything that anybody has ever conceived ... In a
thunder of
spiritual force, the voice of God spoke to the death-whipped, broken,
punished spirit of
Jesus ... [in] the pit of destruction, and charged the spirit of Jesus with
resurrection
power! Suddenly His twisted, death-wracked spirit began to fill out and come
back to
life ... He was literally being reborn before the devil's very eyes. He
began to flex His
spiritual muscles ... Jesus Christ dragged Satan up and down the halls of
hell ... Jesus ...
was raised up a born-again man ... The day I realized that a born-again man
had
defeated Satan, hell, and death, I got so excited ... !" (Believer's Voice
of Victory ,
September, 1991).
It is both fanciful nonsense and heretical to teach that our redemption
comes
through Satan torturing Jesus in hell. That would make Satan our
co-redeemer.
If he didn't torture Jesus enough, we wouldn't be saved--and if he did, do
we
thank Satan? Incredible! Moreover, Satan isn't even the proprietor of hell.
He
hasn't even been there yet. Nor will Satan torture the damned but will
himself be
tortured with "everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels"
(Matt.
25:41) when death and hell have been "cast into the lake of fire" (Rev.
20:14).
Before He died, Jesus cried in triumph, "It is finished" (Jn. 19:30),
indicating that our
redemption has been accomplished on the Cross . Christ told the thief on the
cross who
believed in Him, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise " (Lk. 23:43), not
in hell ! He
said, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" (Lk. 23:46). Yet Hagin,
Copeland, et
al, say He ended up, instead, in the hands of Satan in the depths of hell!
What
blasphemy! (5/93, Berean Call ).
- Word-Faith teachers owe their ancestry to groups like Christian Science,
Swedenborgianism, Theosophy, Science of Mind, and New Thought--not to
classical
Pentecostalism. It reveals that at their very core, Word-Faith teachings are
corrupt. Their undeniable derivation is cultish, not Christian. The sad
truth is that
the gospel proclaimed by the Word-Faith movement is not the gospel of the
New
Testament. Word-Faith doctrine is a mongrel system, a blend of mysticism,
dualism,
and gnosticism that borrows generously from the teachings of the
metaphysical cults.
The Word-Faith movement may be the most dangerous false system that has
grown out
of the charismatic movement so far, because so many charismatics are unsure
of the
finality of Scripture (Charismatic Chaos , p. 290).
"What's Wrong with the Faith Movement? Part Two: The Teachings of
Kenneth Copeland" (an article from the Christian Research Journal,
Spring 1993, page 16) by Hendrik H. Hanegraaff and Erwin M. de
Castro.
The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is
Elliot Miller.
*SUMMARY*
Kenneth Copeland stands today as one of the Faith movement's
leading spokesmen. His voluminous material (in print and broadcast
media), combined with his crusades and international outreach
centers, attest to his vast influence.
Copeland is responsible for spreading many of the Faith
movement's unbiblical teachings. He distorts the biblical concepts
of faith and covenant. He reduces God to the image of man while
elevating man to the status of God. He lowers Jesus to being a
product of positive confession who took on a satanic nature at the
cross. And he promotes the occult practice of creative
visualization.
On the night of November 2, 1962, a young man twenty-five years
of age, struggling against "sin, sickness, and strife," asked Jesus
to "come into [his] heart."[1] His decision came two weeks after
his wife had done likewise.[2] Today, these two individuals head a
ministry that literally stretches around the globe, while remaining
in the forefront of what has come to be known as the "Faith"
movement. They are Kenneth and Gloria Copeland.
Part One of this series explored the roots of the Faith
movement and surveyed some of its leading proponents today. In this
installment, our primary attention will be devoted to cataloging
and critiquing the core theology of one of the most widely
recognized and respected Faith teachers to date -- Kenneth
Copeland.[3]
*FROM OBSCURITY TO CENTER STAGE*
Though best known for his "prosperity" message, Copeland began
his ascent to Faith stardom from a state of financial disarray.
Beset by monetary problems, in 1967 he decided to resume his
education at Oral Roberts University (ORU), where he subsequently
"landed a job as copilot on Oral Robert's [sic] cross-country
crusade flights."[4]
It was not until August of 1967, however, that Copeland
experienced a revolution in his outlook through the preaching of
yet another evangelist -- Kenneth E. Hagin, regarded by many to be
the "father of the Faith movement." With reference to his "distant
mentor," Copeland has been quoted "as saying that he 'learned
nothing' during six months at Oral Roberts University but was so
excited by Hagin's teachings that...[he] spent the next month in
his garage listening to them."[5]
The Copelands returned to Fort Worth, Texas in 1968 where they
established an evangelistic association. Within a few short years
their home-based Bible studies reportedly grew into large revivals,
sometimes with crowds large enough to fill entire "civic centers
and international arenas."[6]
In 1973 the ministry began publishing its own newsletter,
_Believer's Voice of Victory._ Two years later, Copeland claimed
the Lord "commanded him to 'preach the uncompromised Word on every
available voice.'"[7] This prompted him to launch the _Believer's
Voice of Victory_ radio broadcast in 1976. By 1979 Copeland's
ministry was established firmly enough to enter the arena of
television, paving the way for its 1981 venture into satellite
communications. And in August of the following year "the ministry
made history by initiating the first _global_ religious broadcast"
(emphasis in original).[8]
Copeland continues to experience popular acceptance within
various charismatic and Pentecostal circles. His books, booklets,
and taped messages can be found in a number of Christian
bookstores, and his crusades and revivals consistently produce
large turnouts. Furthermore, the ministry's international scope and
influence is well attested by its offices in England, the
Philippines, South Africa, Australia, Canada, and Hong Kong.
While not every Faith teacher holds to all of Copeland's
doctrines, they, along with his followers, consider him a leading
-- if not _the_ leading -- authority on Faith theology. "Many have
already coronated Copeland as the new king of the Faith movement,"
writes one observer. "In a recent article, even _Time_ magazine
refers to Copeland as the 'chief exponent' of the Faith
movement."[9]
*THE FORCE OF FAITH*
Of the multiple views of faith held by Faith teachers,[10]
Copeland focuses primarily on an understanding of faith as a force.
"Faith is a power force," he claims. "It is a tangible force. It is
a conductive force."[11] Moreover, "faith is a spiritual
force....It is substance. Faith has the ability to effect natural
substance."[12] As "the force of gravity...makes the law of gravity
work...this force of faith...makes the laws of the spirit world
function."[13]
Copeland affirms that "God cannot do anything for you apart or
separate from faith,"[14] for _"faith is God's source of power"_
(emphasis in original).[15] Moreover, "everything that you're able
to see or touch, anything that you can feel, anything that's
perceptive to the five physical senses, was originally the faith of
God, and was born in the substance of God's faith."[16] In other
words, "faith was the raw material substance that the Spirit of God
used to form the universe."[17]
Copeland adds that "God used words when He created the heaven
and the earth....Each time God spoke, He released His faith -- the
creative power to bring His words to pass."[18] For "words are
spiritual containers,"[19] and the "force of faith is released by
words."[20]
Copeland derives his definition of faith from Hebrews 11:1:
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of
things not seen" (KJV). He interprets the word "substance" as some
transcendent, primary element that makes up the universe; it was
and is activated by spoken words at the onset of creation (both
God's original creation of the world and all subsequent creations,
whether by God or man).
Contrary to Copeland's view, the word translated "substance" in
the King James Version is the Greek word _hypostasis_ which, in the
context of Hebrews 11:1, means "an assured impression, a mental
realizing."[21] Far from being some tangible material or energetic
force, faith is _a channel of living trust_ stretching from man to
God. It is an _assurance_ that God's promises never fail, even if
sometimes we do not experience their fulfillment during our mortal
existence. Other translations render _hypostasis_ more precisely as
"being sure" (NIV), "to be sure" (TEV), and "assurance" (NASB).
Neither the original Greek text nor any of the modern
translations support Copeland's understanding of faith. The same
holds true for his understanding of spoken words. Besides, the idea
of words functioning as faith-filled containers makes no sense if
there is no such thing as a "force of faith" (requiring packaging
and transportation) in the first place.
*A GOD OF HUMAN PROPORTIONS*
Copeland's view of God fares no better biblically than his
understanding of faith. He describes God as someone "very much like
you and me....A being that stands somewhere around 6'2," 6'3," that
weighs somewhere in the neighborhood of a couple of hundred pounds,
little better, [and] has a [hand]span nine inches across."[22]
Copeland's statement is based on his _hyperliteral_ reading of
Isaiah 40:12 ("Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his
hand, marked off the heavens with a [nine inch] span,..." [AV]).
Yet following the same line of interpretation, one would also have
to conclude that God literally held a basket full of dust and
weighed mountains on a gigantic set of scales (v. 12b) -- an absurd
proposition ruled out by the context of the passage. The fact is
that Isaiah 40 makes extensive use of figurative language to
underscore the vast difference between the Creator and His
creation.
Giving a literal spin on verses that figuratively describe God
in humanlike (anthropomorphic) terms, Copeland makes God out to be
a "spirit-being with a body, complete with eyes, and eyelids, ears,
nostrils, a mouth, hands and fingers, and feet."[23] However, the
Bible never intended to convey the notion that God has physical
features like His human creation. Anthropomorphic descriptions were
simply meant to help us understand and relate to our Maker. Jesus
declared, "God is spirit" (John 4:24), not a spirit-being with a
body (cf. Deut. 4:12). The Creator is, after all, "God, and not
man" (Hos. 11:9).
The idea of God possessing a body (physical or spirit) implies
the unbiblical view that the Trinity is actually composed of three
separate beings. Moreover, a God who has a body with definite,
measurable dimensions cannot truly be omnipresent, unlike the God
of Scripture who is present everywhere in all His fullness (Jer.
23:23-24). (It is true that in His human nature Christ has a body
and is localized in space and time. But in His divine nature He
remains nonphysical and omnipresent, sharing this immutable nature
with the Father and Holy Spirit.) Copeland's deflation of God is
best exemplified by his comment that "the biggest failure in the
Bible...is God."[24] In stark contrast, the biblical God is an
all-powerful being (Dan. 4:35) whose plans cannot be thwarted (Job
42:2) and who considers nothing too difficult (Jer. 32:17; Luke
1:37).
Copeland's diminished view of God is further amplified by a
correspondingly inflated view of the universe in general and man in
particular. He claims that the earth is "a copy of the mother
planet [i.e., heaven] where God lives."[25] Exactly how Copeland
could "squeeze" God on any planet is difficult to fathom,
especially since Solomon pointed out that heaven itself cannot
contain God (1 Kings 8:27).
*MEMBERS OF GOD'S CLASS*
Copeland overemphasizes similarities between God and man to the
point where any distinction becomes virtually nil: "God's reason
for creating Adam was His desire to _reproduce_ Himself....Adam is
as much like God as you could get, _just the same as
Jesus_....Adam, in the Garden of Eden, was _God manifested in the
flesh"_ (emphasis added).[26]
Referring to his so-called _law of genesis,_ Copeland asserts,
"Adam was created in God's own image and likeness, a
spirit-being...[and] takes on the nature of his spiritual father or
lord."[27] In explaining the terms "image" and "likeness" in
Genesis 1:26, he adds: "If you stood Adam upside God, they look
just exactly alike....If you stood Jesus and Adam side-by-side,
they would look and act and sound exactly alike....The image is
that they look just alike, but the likeness is that they act alike
and they are alike....All of God's attributes, all of God's
authority, all of God's faith, all of God's ability was invested in
that man."[28]
Actually, the terms "image" and "likeness" refute Copeland's
point. The Hebrew word for "likeness" (_demuth_) simply means
similarity or resemblance, not identity.[29] Furthermore, the term
itself actually "defines and limits" the word "image" (Hebrew:
_tselem_) in order _"to avoid the implication that man is a precise
copy of God, albeit miniature"_ (emphasis added).[30]
Humans are created in God's image in the sense that they share,
in a finite and imperfect way, God's _communicable attributes_
(e.g, rationality and morality). These attributes, in turn, give
individuals the capacity to enjoy fellowship with God, develop
personal relationships with one another, and take care of God's
creation as He has commanded.[31] God's _incommunicable attributes_
(e.g., omnipotence, omniscience, self-sufficiency), however, remain
solely His.
Along with the "image of God," Copeland also refers to "the
life of God," which he interchanges with the terms "the absolute
life of God," "absolute life," "life force," "life in the absolute
sense," "eternal life," and "everlasting life."[32] He applies
these terms to a quality of life, the source of which is God.[33]
But he also speaks of it as "the substance -- the source, the power
-- the unseen force that makes God, God...[and] places Him above
everything else that exists."[34]
Copeland states that "man was created to know that great _life
force_ and he longs for it in his dreams. Adam had that _life
force_ in him before he committed high treason" (emphases
added).[35] This is yet another sense in which Copeland believes
Adam to be created in God's class. He was made to partake of "the
unseen force that makes God, God" -- once again diminishing
severely if not altogether destroying any final distinction between
creator and creature.
Furthermore, this "force" is at times spoken of as a reality
more ultimate than God Himself, conferring deity not only on the
Creator but on His creation, man. This again puts God and redeemed
man in the same class.
In Copeland's theology, Adam (and, consequently, the rest of
humanity) does not appear to have a uniquely human nature.
Initially possessing the nature of God, "when Adam committed high
treason [sinned] against God and bowed his knee to Satan, spiritual
death -- the nature of Satan -- was lodged in his heart."[36] Adam
had, in effect, allegedly traded in his divine nature for a satanic
nature, otherwise called "spiritual death." However, Scripture
reveals that mankind is wholly distinct from both God (2 Sam. 7:22;
cf. Mark 12:32) and angelic/demonic beings (Ps. 8:5; cf. Heb. 2:7).
And even after the Fall, man is still said to bear the image of God
(1 Cor. 11:7).
Copeland also claims that Adam's transgression empowered Satan
to evict God from the earth. "God's on the outside looking in,"
says Copeland. "He doesn't have any legal entree into the earth.
The thing don't belong to Him."[37] (Psalm 24:1 says otherwise.)
And supposedly, since "the sin of Adam went all the way up to, but
not including, the throne of God...[even] the Heavenly Holy of
Holies had to be purified."[38]
*COVENANT OF CONVENIENCE*
According to Copeland, "God had no avenue of lasting faith or
moving in the earth. He had to have covenant with somebody....He
had to be invited in, in other words, or He couldn't come."[39] In
fact, "the reason that He's making covenant is to get into the
earth."[40] "God is on the outside looking in," says Copeland. "In
order to have any say-so in the earth, He's gonna have to be in
agreement with a man here."[41]
"Since man was the key figure in the Fall," Copeland argues,
"man had to be the key figure in the redemption, so God approached
a man named Abram."[42] An agreement was struck between God and
Abram that "gave God access to the earth."[43] God, in turn,
"promised to care for Abraham and his descendants in every way --
spiritually, physically, financially, socially."[44] Commenting on
the deal, Copeland writes that God "re-enacted with Abram what
Satan had done with Adam, except that God did not sneak in and use
deception...and Abram bought it."[45]
As his comments indicate, Copeland views _divine covenants_ no
differently from _business contracts._[46] They are
benefit-oriented, not relationship-oriented. They are formed by
mutual agreement (for mutual benefit) through negotiation, as
opposed to being initiated by the stronger party offering
non-negotiable help (not of necessity but of grace) -- which is the
traditional Christian understanding of God's covenants. They focus
on the fulfillment of certain terms (performance) rather than
personal loyalty. Copeland himself states that "the Word of the
living God is a contract."[47]
Copeland's view deflates the biblical concept of God in
numerous other ways. He parallels God's actions with those of
Satan. In effect he makes man to be the dominant party over God --
even claiming that Abraham could have told God to "bug off" when
God offered him a "proposition."[48] And he seemingly attributes
the ultimate sacredness of divine covenants not to the figure who
stands behind them (viz. God), but to the fact that they are
composed of words: "Words are the most sacred things....This is a
word planet...governed by words...created by words....Words cause
it to function...cause life...cause death....Words go on
forever....Words are holy."[49]
Copeland maintains that God "used His right that Abraham had
given Him"[50] to provide a way for Jesus to enter the earth.
Abraham gave God what He needed: "the chance to use his [Abraham's]
mouth, because what God was after was a vehicle in the earth that
was a man to get His Word in there."[51]
*THE SPOKEN WORD MADE FLESH
"God is injecting His Word into the earth to produce this
Jesus," Copeland explains. "This [_sic_] faith-filled words that
framed the image that's in Him....He had to sneak it in here around
the god of this world [Satan]."[52] Using a combination of faith
and confession, "God spoke His Word and then spoke His Word
again....He kept saying, 'He is coming. He is coming.'"[53]
However, "the only avenue God had to get His words into the earth
was through men... [t]hrough the mouths of His prophets....Finally,
the great moment came when that Word was brought forth in human
form."[54]
During this final phase, "the angels spoke the words of the
covenant to her [Mary], and the Spirit of God hovered over her and
generated that seed, which was the Word that the angel spoke to
her. And there was conceived in her, the Bible says, a holy thing.
The Word literally became flesh."[55]
The notion of Jesus being the end product of generations of
positive confession is categorically unbiblical. It suggests that
the Word of John chapter one was a creation (the personalization of
the previously impersonal words of God) rather than the eternally
existent Creator (see vv.1-3), thus subverting the deity of Christ
and the doctrine of the Trinity.
Copeland also gave a "prophecy" in which Jesus allegedly said,
"They crucified Me for claiming that I was God. But I didn't claim
I was God; I just claimed I walked with Him and that He was in
Me."[56] Copeland asserts Jesus did not openly claim to be God
because "He hadn't come to earth as God, He'd come as man. He'd set
aside His divine power."[57] Citing Philippians 2:5-7, he states
that the incarnate Christ "had no innate supernatural powers. He
had no ability to perform miracles until after He was anointed by
the Holy Spirit."[58]
The passage Copeland cites (v. 6), however, describes Christ as
"_being_ in very nature God." The participle "being" is rendered in
the present active tense (Greek: _huparchon_), denoting Christ's
_ongoing condition_ as having the nature of God. Christ did not
give up His divine attributes during His incarnation (cf. Col. 2:9;
Heb. 13:8), but instead added to them (_see_ Phil. 2:7, "taking")
a full human nature in the form of a servant. Moreover, Jesus
referred to Himself as the Son of Man (Mark 2:5-10; cf. Dan.
7:13-14) and the unique Son of God the Father (John 5:18;
10:30-33), demonstrating His claim to be God.[59]
In Copeland's view, three basic factors enabled Jesus to
perform miracles. First, "the force of faith was controlling His
ministry."[60] Second, "He exercised that authority by the use of
words."[61] Third, "He used the Covenant to control the laws of
nature."[62] Copeland's view, however, rests upon a false
understanding of faith, the spoken word, and the Abrahamic
covenant, and is therefore erroneous.
*SPIRITUAL DEATH AND REBIRTH IN HELL*
When it comes to defining the Atonement, Copeland says, "It
wasn't a physical death on the cross that paid the price for
sin...anybody can do that."[63] Jesus supposedly "put Himself into
the hands of Satan when He went to that cross, and took that same
nature that Adam did [when he sinned]."[64] Copeland is here
referring to the nature of Satan, as God pronounced that "Adam
would die spiritually -- that he would take on the nature of Satan
which is spiritual death."[65] He adds that "the day that Jesus was
crucified, God's life, that eternal energy that was His from birth,
moved out of Him and He accepted the very nature of death
itself."[66]
During an alleged conversation with Copeland, Jesus is said to
have remarked, "It was a sign of Satan that was hanging on the
cross....I accepted, in my own spirit, spiritual death; and the
light was turned off."[67] We are told that Jesus "had to give up
His righteousness"[68] and "accepted the sin nature of Satan."[69]
Contrary to the teaching that Christ underwent a change of
nature (into a satanic being), the Bible depicts Jesus as having an
immutable divine nature (Heb. 13:8; cf. Mal. 3:6). Moreover, in
saying that "spiritual death means separation from the life of
God,"[70] Copeland tacitly admits that Jesus completely lost His
deity. For, as we noted earlier, Copeland defines the "life of God"
as "the unseen force that makes God, God." However, Scripture
declares that God is eternal and unchanging and thus never ceases
to be God. The Father says of Christ, "But you remain the same, and
your years will never end" (Heb. 1:12).
Finally, the notion of Jesus being overtaken by "the very
nature of death" is contradicted by Jesus' claim that He has
"_life_ in Himself" (John 5:26; cf. 1:4), is "the resurrection and
the _life_" (11:25), and is "the way, the truth, and the _life_"
(14:6). The "spiritual death of Christ" teaching entails an
implicit denial of Christ's deity and, in turn, of the Trinity.
Still, Copeland insists "Satan _conquered_ Jesus on the Cross
and took His spirit to the dark regions of hell" (emphasis in
original).[71] Copeland's description of Christ's ordeal in hell is
nothing short of chilling: "He [Jesus] allowed the devil to drag
Him into the depths of hell....He allowed Himself to come under
Satan's control...every demon in hell came down on Him to
annihilate Him....They tortured Him beyond anything anybody had
ever conceived. For three days He suffered everything there is to
suffer."[72]
The situation seemed hopeless, as Jesus' "emaciated, poured
out, little, wormy spirit is down in the bottom of that thing; and
the devil thinks he's got Him destroyed."[73] However, Copeland
explains that "Satan fell into the trap. He took Him [Jesus] into
hell illegally. He carried Him in there [when] He did not sin."[74]
God found the opening He needed: "That Word of the living God went
down into that pit of destruction and charged the spirit of Jesus
with resurrection power! Suddenly His twisted, death-wracked spirit
began to fill out and come back to life....Jesus was born again --
the firstborn from the dead the Word calls Him -- and He whipped
the devil in his own backyard."[75]
Copeland's account, vivid though it may be, is not in the
Bible. It misuses the phrase "firstborn from the dead" (Col. 1:18)
to bolster the "born again Jesus" doctrine. Actually, the term
"firstborn" (Greek: _prototokos_) primarily denotes primacy,
headship, and preeminence. And the phrase itself points to Christ's
supremacy "over all creation" (v. 15) in general and those who will
be raised from the dead in particular (alluding to Christ's bodily
resurrection -- not some spiritual resuscitation in hell).
Moreover, Jesus was not dragged into hell by Satan, but instead
committed His spirit to the Father (Luke 23:46) and went directly
to paradise (v. 43). Nor was He tortured by a host of demons; He
triumphed "over them by the _cross_" (Col. 2:15). Jesus paid for
humanity's sin in full (Greek: _tetelestai_) at the cross (John
19:30) -- not by becoming a satanic being, but through His
_physical_ sacrifice (Heb. 10:10; Col. 1:22).
*THE BELIEVER'S AUTHORITY*
Copeland's basis for the believer's authority can be viewed in
three distinct stages. First, upon conversion the believer
undergoes a total and immediate change of nature. At the moment of
spiritual birth "the spirit of God hovered over you, and there was
conceived in your body a holy thing _identical to Jesus_....And
there was imparted into you _zoe, the life of God_" (emphases
added).[76] Hence, "you are to think the way Jesus thought. He
didn't think it robbery to be equal with God."[77] Copeland's
remarks, "You are not a spiritual schizophrenic -- half-God and
half-Satan -- you are all-God"[78] and "You don't have a God in
you; you are one,"[79] demonstrate that being born again means
nothing less to him than becoming a god.
Yet Scripture states there is only one God who indwells all
believers (John 14:17, 23). Additionally, the Bible views spiritual
birth _not_ in terms of a change of nature (from satanic to
divine), but as the regeneration of a uniquely human spirit by God
(2 Cor. 5:17; Tit. 3:5).
In the second stage of his discourse, Copeland teaches that the
believer's change of nature (into a god) brings with it a
proportional change in ability. "Every man that has been born again
has had this faith [viz. God's] put inside him," he writes. "This
faith is good enough to make all things possible to the
believer."[80]
Copeland comments, "As a born-again believer, you are equipped
with the Word. You have the power of God at your disposal. By
getting the Word deep into your spirit and speaking it boldly out
your mouth, you release spiritual power to change things in the
natural circumstances."[81]
The believer is thus allegedly able to speak things into
existence by way of faith-filled words, or _positive confession._
But as we have already shown, Copeland's views of faith and words
are without legitimate scriptural warrant, and are therefore
invalid when applied to the believer.
In the third stage of Copeland's teaching on the believer's
authority, we are told that knowing and exercising the rights set
forth under the covenant guarantee success in confession. He
remarks that the Bible "is the wisdom of God placed in covenant
contract....Everything in it is mine....You just keep looking at
it, and keep reading it, and that covenant will turn you into that
kind of person -- whatever it is you decide to be."[82]
Copeland translates his concept of covenant rights into what
has been termed the "health and wealth" or "prosperity" message.
"The basic principle of the Christian life is to know that God put
our sin, sickness, disease, sorrow, grief, and poverty on Jesus at
Calvary," he asserts. "For Him to put any of this on us now would
be a miscarriage of justice."[83]
*PRESCRIBING VISUALIZATION*
Copeland combines his "legal" precedent for prosperity with his
"mechanics" of confession to form a formula for speaking things
into existence. He insists, "You have the same creative faith and
ability on the inside of you that God used when he created the
heavens and the earth."[84] However, he adds that most believers
are not able to make full use of their inner power because "our
imagination...has been so fouled up and fathered up with wasted
useless words [and] wasted useless images."[85]
As a corrective, Copeland instructs believers to "go to the New
Testament, get the words of the covenant that cover the situation
that you hope to bring to pass. Build the image of that hope inside
of you....Keep the word before your eyes."[86] As examples, he uses
an inner picture of an 82-foot yacht that will transform into
reality in the Holy of Holies in heaven, along with a "picture [of
a Bible] that came right out of me and went into the Holy of
Holies,"[87] where it developed into an actual, physical object.
Copeland also claims that "when you get to the place where you
take the Word of God and build an image on the inside of you of not
having crippled legs and not having blind eyes, but when you close
your eyes you just see yourself just leap out of that wheelchair,
it will picture that in the Holy of Holies and you will come out of
there."[88]
Recognizing that his technique "sounds like that visualization
they do in meditation and metaphysical practices,"[89] Copeland
counters by reversing the tables. "What they're doing sounds like
this," he retorts. "The devil is a counterfeiter. He never came up
with anything real. That is the perverted form of the real thing.
Where do you think he got it? That sucker doesn't know anything on
his own. Amen."[90]
During another occasion, however, Copeland revealingly affirms
that both positive confession and creative visualization are based
on the same principle: "Words create pictures, and pictures in your
mind create words. And then the words come back out your
mouth....And when that spiritual force comes out it is going to
give substance to the image that's on the inside of you. Aw, that's
that visualization stuff! Aw, that's that New Age! No, New Age is
trying to do this; and they'd get somewhat results out of it
because this is spiritual law, brother."[91]
Copeland says, "Any image that you get down on the inside of
you that is so vivid when you close your eyes you see it, it'll
come to pass. When God came at the Tower of Babel, He said,
'Anything they can imagine, they can do.'"[92] He fails to note,
however, that those individuals built the tower out of brick and
tar (Gen. 11:3), not simply out of their imagination. Moreover,
their venture incurred God's judgment (vv. 6-9). Copeland can argue
and fuss all he wants, but the fact of the matter is that through
such teachings he has entered the world of the occult.
*FATALLY FLAWED*
Virtually every error we have noted in Copeland's theology can
be attributed to the following four reasons.
First, Copeland seems vehemently opposed to sound reasoning.
"Believers are not to be led by logic," he writes. "We are not even
to be led by _good sense_" (emphasis in original).[93] Copeland's
statement is apparently based on his mistaken belief that the
"ministry of Jesus was never governed by logic or reason....He was
not led by logic. He was not led by the mind."[94] Isaiah 1:18, on
the other hand, quotes God as saying, "Come now, let us _reason_
together."
Second, Copeland fails to observe some basic principles of
biblical interpretation (including fundamental rules of grammar and
usage), at times relying instead on so-called revelation knowledge
(information allegedly derived from direct, one-on-one
communication with God). His neglect in this area is made
embarrassingly apparent by his gross misunderstanding of key words
(e.g., faith) and utter disregard of the context in which they
appear. The Bible, however, stresses the importance of correctly
handling the Word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15).
Third, Copeland does not seem to acknowledge the importance of
systematic theology, as indicated by his statement, "I don't preach
doctrine, I preach faith."[95] Although he may not realize it, _his
preaching on faith and other topics do in fact constitute
doctrines,_ which combined form his theology (however
inconsistent). He would do well to heed the apostle Paul's advice
to "watch your life and your doctrine closely" (1 Tim. 4:16).
Fourth, Copeland displays an open attitude of disdain and
disrespect for the historically established views of the church.
Admittedly, tradition must ultimately be tested by the Word of God.
However, it should be recognized that certain historically accepted
views, especially as they apply to essential Christian doctrine
(e.g., the nature of faith, the nature of God, the nature of man,
and the person and work of Jesus Christ), are significant,
time-tested summations of fundamental Bible-based truths. To
deviate from them is to reject the heart of Christian faith.
It is regrettable that someone so influential within
contemporary Christianity continues to preach a message that
overturns virtually every major biblical teaching. To date,
Copeland refuses to discuss with his critics the issues raised in
this article. We only hope that he will soon realize the dangerous
road he is traveling. As Scripture warns, "Not many of you should
presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who
teach will be judged more strictly" (James 3:1). For now, Copeland,
being a false teacher, has made himself an enemy of the gospel
(Gal. 1:6-9).
*NOTES*
1 Kenneth Copeland, "The Word in My life...," _Kenneth Copeland
Ministries Catalog_ (Fort Worth: Kenneth Copeland Ministries,
n.d.), 3.
2 Kenneth Copeland, _The Music of Ministry_ (Fort Worth: Kenneth
Copeland Ministries, 1991, audiotape #53-0018), side 1.
3 Due to space limitations, this article will confine its focus on
areas of Copeland's teachings that form the framework for
positive confession, which in turn provide the mechanism for the
"health and wealth" gospel. Attempts to contact Copeland to
resolve any possible misunderstanding of his teachings have been
unsuccessful. Still, every effort has been made to present and
evaluate Copeland's views as accurately and fairly as possible.
4 _Living to Give_ (pamphlet) (Fort Worth: Kenneth Copeland
Ministries, n.d.), 4.
5 Charles Farah, "A Critical Analysis: The 'Roots and Fruits' of
Faith-Formula Theology," _PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for
Pentecostal Studies,_ Spring 1981, 15; cited in Bruce Barron,
_The Health and Wealth Gospel_ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 1987), 183.
6 _Living to Give,_ 4.
7 _Ibid.,_ 5.
8_Ibid.,_ 8.
9 D. R. McConnell, _A Different Gospel_ (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1988), 95. Benny Hinn, Jerry Savelle, and Charles
Capps number among those Faith teachers who have been profoundly
impacted by Copeland.
10 _Ibid.,_ 135-42.
11 Kenneth Copeland, _The Force of Faith_ (Fort Worth: KCP
Publications, 1989), 10.
12 _Forces of the Recreated Human Spirit_ (Fort Worth: Kenneth
Copeland Ministries, 1982), 8.
13 Kenneth Copeland, _The Laws of Prosperity_ (Fort Worth: Kenneth
Copeland Publications, 1974), 18-19.
14 Kenneth Copeland, _Freedom from Fear_ (Fort Worth: KCP
Publications, 1983), 11.
15 _Ibid.,_ 12.
16 Kenneth Copeland, _Spirit, Soul and Body I_ (Fort Worth: Kenneth
Copeland Ministries, 1985, audiotape #01-0601), side 1.
17 Kenneth Copeland, _Authority of the Believer II_ (Fort Worth:
Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1987, audiotape #01-0302), side 1.
18 Kenneth Copeland, _The Power of the Tongue_ (Fort Worth: KCP
Publications, 1980), 4.
19 _Forces of the Recreated Human Spirit,_ 15; cf. 14.
20 _Ibid.,_ 17.
21 _The Analytical Greek Lexicon_ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1970), 419.
22 Copeland, _Spirit, Soul and Body I,_ side 1.
23 Kenneth Copeland ministry letter, 21 July 1977.
24 Kenneth Copeland, _Praise-a-Thon,_ TBN, 1988. Copeland has, in
another instance, stated that God "is not a failure" (Kenneth
Copeland, _The Troublemaker_ [Fort Worth, TX: Kenneth Copeland
Publications, n.d.], 23).
25 Kenneth Copeland, _Following the Faith of Abraham I_ (Fort
Worth: Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1989, audiotape #01-3001),
side 1.
26 Copeland, _Following the Faith of Abraham I,_ side 1.
27 Kenneth Copeland, _Our Covenant with God_ (Fort Worth: KCP
Publications, 1987), 7-8.
28 Kenneth Copeland, _Authority of the Believer IV_ (Fort Worth:
Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1987, audiotape #01-0304), side 1.
29 Cf. James M. Kinnebrew, _The Charismatic Doctrine of Positive
Confession: A Historical, Exegetical, and Theological Critique_
(doctoral dissertation, Mid-America Baptist Seminary, 1988),
157.
30 R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke,
eds., _Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament,_ 2 vols.
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1981), 1:192.
31 Millard J. Erickson, _Christian Theology_ (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1988), 510; cf. 514.
32 Copeland, _Walking in the Realm of the Miraculous,_ 74-76.
Copeland's understanding of these terms, derived from the Greek
word _zoe_ (life), is similar to that of ancient Gnostics. _See_
Rudolf Bultmann, "_Zoe_ in Greek Usage," _Theological Dictionary
of the New Testament_ (abridged in one volume), ed. by Geoffrey
W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co./Paternoster Press, 1985), 291.
33 _Ibid.,_ 74.
34 _Ibid.,_ 76.
35 _Ibid.,_ 74.
36 Copeland, _Our Covenant with God,_ 9.
37 Kenneth Copeland, _The Image of God in You III_ (Fort Worth:
Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1989, audiotape #01-1403), side 1.
38 Kenneth Copeland, _Inner Image of the Covenant_ (Fort Worth:
Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1985, audiotape #01-4406), side 1.
39 Kenneth Copeland, _God's Covenant with Man II_ (Fort Worth:
Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1985, audiotape #01-4404), side 1.
40 _Ibid._
41 _Ibid._
42 Copeland, _Our Covenant with God,_ 10.
43 _Ibid.,_ 10-11.
44 _Ibid.,_ 15.
45 _Ibid.,_ 10.
46 _See_ Elmer A. Martens, _God's Design: A Focus on Old Testament
Theology_ (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 72-73. Cf.
William Dyrness, _Themes in Old Testament Theology_ (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1979); and George Mendenhall,
"Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition," _The Biblical
Archaeologist,_ September 1954, 50-76.
47 Kenneth Copeland, "The Abrahamic Covenant" (Fort Worth: Kenneth
Copeland Ministries, 1985, audiotape #01-4405), side 1.
48 Copeland, _God's Covenants with Man II,_ side 2.
49 Copeland, _The Abrahamic Covenant,_ side 1.
50 Kenneth Copeland, _What Happened from the Cross to the Throne_
(Fort Worth: Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1990, audiotape
#02-0017), side 1.
51 Copeland, _The Image of God in You III,_ side 1.
52 _Ibid.,_ side 2.
53 Copeland, _The Power of the Tongue,_ 9-10.
54 _Ibid._
55 Copeland, _The Abrahamic Covenant,_ side 2.
56 Kenneth Copeland, "Take Time to Pray," _Believer's Voice of
Victory,_ February 1987, 9.
57 Kenneth Copeland, "Question & Answer," _Believer's Voice of
Victory,_ August 1988, 8.
58 _Ibid._
59 On Jesus' self-witness, _see_ Robert L. Reymond, _Jesus, Divine
Messiah_ (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing, 1990), 44-126.
60 Copeland, _The Force of Faith,_ 9.
61 Copeland, _The Power of the Tongue,_ 15.
62 Copeland, _Our Covenant with God,_ 21.
63 Kenneth Copeland, _What Satan Saw on the Day of Pentecost_ (Fort
Worth: Messages by Kenneth Copeland, n.d., audiotape #BCC-19),
side 1.
64 Kenneth Copeland, _The Incarnation_ (Fort Worth: Kenneth
Copeland Ministries, 1985, audiotape #01-0402), side 1.
65 Copeland, _Our Covenant with God,_ 9.
66 Kenneth Copeland, "The Price of It All," _Believer's Voice of
Victory,_ September 1991, 3.
67 Copeland, _What Happened from the Cross to the Throne,_ side 2.
68 Copeland, _The Incarnation,_ side 2.
69 Copeland, _What Happened from the Cross to the Throne,_ side 2.
70 Copeland, _Inner Image of the Covenant,_ side 1.
71 Kenneth Copeland, _Holy Bible: Kenneth Copeland Reference
Edition_ (Fort Worth: Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1991), 129.
72 Copeland, "The Price of It All," 3.
73 Kenneth Copeland, _Believer's Voice of Victory_ (television
program), TBN, 21 April 1991.
74 Copeland, _What Happened from the Cross to the Throne,_ side
2.
75 Copeland, "The Price of It All," 4-6.
76 Copeland, _The Abrahamic Covenant,_ side 2.
77 Kenneth Copeland, _Now We Are in Christ Jesus_ (Fort Worth: KCP
Publications, 1980), 23-24.
78 _Ibid.,_ 16-17.
79 Kenneth Copeland, _The Force of Love_ (Fort Worth: Kenneth
Copeland Ministries, 1987, audiotape #02-0028), side 1.
80 Copeland, _The Force of Faith,_ 13.
81 Copeland, _The Power of the Tongue,_ 15.
82 Copeland, _The Abrahamic Covenant,_ side 1.
83 Copeland, _The Troublemaker,_ 6.
84 Copeland, _Inner Image of the Covenant,_ side 2.
85 _Ibid._
86 _Ibid._
87 _Ibid._
88 _Ibid._
89 _Ibid._
90 _Ibid._
91 Kenneth Copeland, _Believer's Voice of Victory_ (television
program), TBN, 28 March 1991.
92 Copeland, _Inner Image of the Covenant,_ side 2.
93 Copeland, _The Force of Faith,_ 7.
94 _Ibid.,_ 7-8.
95 Copeland, _Following the Faith of Abraham I,_ side 2.
Tim Thomas
I had a good time and saw many more people healed than he ever could show on
tv.
My youngest son helped a group of intercessors pray for a woman who was
possesses with many demons of witchcraft before the service. This same
woman was later brought to Pastor Hinn and he prayed for her on the
platform. After that several people took her to his room in back to witness
to her about Jesus. That part was aired on tv.
With regard to your NECROMANCY theory, you're all dried up. Read on:
Mt:17:3: And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with
him.
Mt:17:4: Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us
to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee,
and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
Are you now accusing Jesus of Necromancy as well?
Jesus said, "These things I have done, you shall do, and even greater
things, because I go unto the Father."
If you don't believe in the Gifts of the Holy Spirit and Miracles that
doesn't mean that they don't happen. I only caution you in this because one
of the sins of Blasphemy is saying that a work, done by the Holy Spirit is
actually done by a devil. You have Blasphemed the Holy Ghost.
With regard to your posts on the RCC: Do you not know that there will be
a remnant of the Body of Christ in every Church? Do you think that every
person attending YOUR church will be saved? Do you not know that there are
those you are with who are in a perpetual state of sin? They are
unredeemable. They are the ones saying, "I'm a good person."
God will use whatever means or individuals to spread the Gospel of Jesus
Christ. He is looking for willing and ready soldiers to do His Work. Are you
prepared?
Ephesians 6:11-19
11: Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the
wiles of the devil.
12: For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities,
against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against
spiritual wickedness in high places.
13: Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to
withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
14: Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on
the breastplate of righteousness;
15: And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
16: Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to
quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
17: And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is
the word of God:
18: Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and
watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
19: And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my
mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,
In Christ, Tim Thomas
"Seminary Student" <roman...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Jmff4.2307$%85.1...@hnlnewsr1.hawaii.rr.com...
vince garcia
>
> Http://members.tripod.com/bibletruths/benny.htm
>
> Visit my webpage to hear Benny Hinn:
>
> Benny Says: Jesus was born with a SINFUL NATURE!
> Bible Says: 2 Corinthians 5:21, "For he hath made him to be sin
> for us, who knew NO SIN; that we might be made the righteousness
> of God in him."
>
>
I don't know what Hinn's exact words were, but if you're one of those
who think it was impossible for Jesus to commit sin, and that He didn't
have to make a conscious choice to resist sin and choose righteousness
"because He is fully God", then you misunderstand His nature. If Jesus
was incapable of being tempted, then He has not overcome.
Example: If a gay male comes on to you and you "resist" that--you
haven't resisted anything and haven't overcome anything because that is
no temptation to you in any way. If you resist the advances of a
beautiful woman, then you HAVE overcome because that IS a possible
temptation for you. Ditto with Jesus. He was presented opportunities to
sin by either omission or comission, and there had to be a part of his
human nature that He had to resist in order to choose righteousness. If
not, and He just relied on His divine nature to remove any possible
desire to do other than what God wants Him to do in every situation,
then Jesus has not overcome; in fact, He cheated.
Isaiah 7:15 shows Jesus had to "refuse" evil and "choose" good. If His
divinity makes it impossible to sin while in human form, there is no
choice involved.
v
Pastor Dave
sam_p...@my-deja.com wrote:
>I'm going to snip out things which I feel are irrelevant. If you feel
>otherwise, then mention them in your replying post. You complained in
>the other post that I snipped some of your posts out. Which ones were
>these and for what reason (did I fail to respond to a question?) did
>you want them included?
>
>> >> >> Again, he is simply saying that his works are a result
>> >> >> of his TRUE faith in God.
>> >> >
>> >> >Tell me exactly where he says this.
>> >>
>> >> This is simply a matter of understanding the writing
>> >> styles of that time and not trying to put a 20th
>> >> century twist on the wording and simply using some
>> >> common sense. For example.....
>> >
>> >So you don't have an exact passage then? You rely on extrapolating an
>> >interpretation? And you also assume that God is a little bit behind
>> >the
>> >times?
>>
>> I gave you more than one. You simply refuse to see it,
>> for the reason that you give later in your response.
>
>None was given. All of them were indirect verses.
This is your claim. I do not see that, yet I do see
you doing exactly what you accuse me of.
>> Simple belief in His existence isn't the same thing as
>> having, "real faith".
>
>This is a matter of definition. The dictionary (Chambers 20th Century)
>defines faith and belief as as:
>
>Faith: belief in the statement of another: belief in the truth of
>revealed religion
>
>Belief: Persuasion of the truth of anything: faith: the opinion or
>doctrine believed
>
>There you go - belief in God is the same as having faith in God.
And again, there YOU go. :) Modern English
definitions. Why not go back to the original Greek?
>> >Good english is precise english, and if James' letter does not
>> >support
>> >your argument explicity. But he does explicity say (James 2:24) that
>> >faith and works are required. If there is anyone putting any "twist"
>> >in
>> >things, it is you.
>>
>> No, it doesn't say, "Faith and works are required to be
>> saved". For someone who is insisting on exact wording,
>> you sure don't mind making your own word plays.
>>
>> It says that a man is "justified" by works. That is a
>> different subject and that's why there are two
>> different words ("saved" and "justified").
>
>Duh ... when did I ever ask for exact wording in every respect? I asked
>for an EXACT PASSAGE, not an EXACT WORDING. That's putting words in my
>mouth.
In rereading your statement, you are right. However,
that does not mean, as you later asserted, that they
are "synonyms".
>I asked this because you are introducing a whole new topic in
>the book of James (the difference between real and false faith) and it
>is a topic that James does not cover.
But he does. That's why the word "SUCH" is used, as in
"Can SUCH faith save him?". He IS defining the TYPE of
faith.
>> >Secondly, your statement that I should "understand the writing styles
>> >of that time" is totally baseless unless you are willing to fully
>> >explain this properly. What is it about the writing styles of that
>> >time
>> >that makes my interpretation so explicit but yours significantly less
>> >so?
>>
>> I'm sorry, but I cannot put years of study of the
>> writing styles and lifestyles of those times into one
>> message. I would suggest that you begin on your own
>> adventure of study.
>>
>> The fact that you do not have an understanding of these
>> things, does not make my statement, "totally baseless",
>> any more than if your teacher told you that you must
>> have an understanding of atoms, in order to become a
>> nuclear physicist.
>>
>> What you're saying is, "I don't know that, so it
>> doesn't count.". :)
>
>What you're saying is my argument stands but I just can't explain it.
No, I'm saying that your argument doesn't stand.
You're saying that it does, even though you admit that
you have no understanding of the languages, which means
that you can't possibly get a full picture of what's
being said.
>Even Greek scholars have a hard time interpretating original Greek
>scripture, and of course, there are many differences in opinion.
>Furthermore you don't even mention WHICH passages I have read with a
>20th century mind.
If they have a hard time, knowing the Greek, then what
makes you think that your interpretation, not knowing
the Greek, is valid? That's quite an arrogant stance,
if you think about it. :)
>Now, what you are in effect saying is that the bible translators did
>not properly translate the bible - they forgot to update some of
>the "1st century writings" into "20th century" ones.
No, that's not what I'm saying. You have a weird twist
on wording. No offense, but what you're really doing
here, is interjecting your own thoughts and then
claiming that they are my words.
What I said, was that the KJV was translated into Old
English, which doesn't necessarily word things the same
way as modern English does, in each instance. That's a
far cry from what you're claiming I said.
>But you supposedly know which ones are which.
I never said that I know everything there is to know
about the languages and times of the Bible and the Old
English. What I'm saying is that with years of study
of these things, I have come to a fuller and deeper
understanding of Scripture and am able to get a clearer
picture because of it.
You, on the other had, are saying that none of it
matters. Yet you would not take that approach with
your teacher in school, who told you exactly what I am
saying, which is that a study of things is necessary,
to get a good picture of what's going on and what's
being said.
You know that what I'm saying is common sense. You are
simply on a mission.
>For all we know, heaven and hell
>could be metaphors and not literal places - we were just reading it
>with a 20th century mindset! I hardly think that you are qualified
>enough to say this.
No, we don't "all know this". That is your opinion.
>Let's not forget that you probably learnt all this in bible college or
>in theology school. One must wonder about the bias in teaching.
Both statements would be an assumption on your part,
wouldn't they?
>> >James is arguing that your faith in Christ must lead to deeds.
>>
>> That is because that is the natural result of a "real"
>> faith. James tells you above that otherwise, it would
>> be a "dead" faith.
>>
>> >You can
>> >have faith in Jesus and you can believe every single thing the
>> >gospels
>> >tell you, yet you may not have any works to show for it. It is still
>> >a "true faith" nonetheless.
>>
>> Really? Then why would Jesus say, "by their fruits ye
>> shall know them"?
>
>Yes, really. What did James say? Even the devils believe, and shudder!
>Before you go on about faith and belief not being the same thing,
>please note that the dictionary lists them as synonyms.
And the Greek defines them a little differently. So
what does it matter what a modern, 20th century
dictionary says, when they were originally written in
Greek and translated into Old English. Where does the
modern English enter into the picture? Yet you want to
use a modern English dictionary to define words that
are not from it.
>> >> 18) Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith and I have
>> >> works: show me thy faith without thy works and I will
>> >> show thee my faith by my works.
>> >>
>> >> Again, James gives us the "acid test" for whether or
>> >> not someone's faith is real. He shows that his faith
>> >> is a "real faith" and that the other mans faith is not.
>> >
>> >This, I'm afraid, it not supported by the verse you quoted above.
>> >Where does James say that his faith is real and the other's is false?
>>
>> Ok, you like to think in modern English, so let me give
>> you an example of what he's saying, in modern English,
>> knowing that not only must we take the writing styles
>> of that time into consideration, but also the Old
>> English.
>>
>> "show me thy faith without thy works".
>
>Huh? "Thy" is simply Old English for "you". So there is no difference
>in meaning of the above in Old or Contemporary English.
There is in writing STYLE. We simply wouldn't say the
phrase this way today (even beyond the "thy").
You claim that you are simply trying to show that the
doctrine of salvation is not clearly addressed, but
your real mission is to state that there are
contradictions. Yet, when someone brings up any other
Scriptures, you refuse to consider them and call them
"irrelevant".
If you are claiming that salvation is not clearly
addressed in *_THE BIBLE_* and that there are
contradictions in *_THE BIBLE_*, then you must look at
*_ALL OF THE BIBLE_*.
James does NOT = "The Bible". There is much more to
"The Bible" than just James, so you cannot say that
"The Bible" contradicts itself and then refuse to look
at anything other than James.
>So, you accept then: it's not a proper rebuttal or argument.
I accept no such thing. Rather, I have shown that
while you claim to be showing the Bible to be
contradictory., you are simply contradicting yourself.
>> But here's a thought. If Scripture does contradict
>> each other, then why take James as being the accurate
>> one, since according to you, this one work contradicts
>> many others works in the Bible? Why not take all the
>> rest, which agree on this issue? Of course, I am not
>> granting that there is a contradiction.
>
>Did I say that James was the correct one? In fact, there is NO NEED to
>state which one is correct - it should be quite obvious that to prove a
>contradiction, one does not need to say which one is right or wrong
>except that they both say different things.
It is not obvious that a contradiction is proven, when
you refuse to look at other Scriptures.
>> >The second part of your argument - "that my interpretation is
>> >supported
>> >in other books whilst yours is not" - is really not relevant here,
>> >as I
>> >am trying to prove a contradiction in the doctrine of salvation.
>>
>> If it is a contradiction that you are trying to show,
>> then the other Scriptures are THE relevant thing, since
>> what you're trying to show, is that this passage
>> contradicts those other Scriptures. :)
>>
>> Since the other Scriptures support what I'm saying and
>> line up perfectly with James, if one takes him at what
>> he's saying, then there is no contradiction. Hence my
>> statement is completely relevant.
>
>OK, led me take you step by step. I don't think you understand the
>issue here - which is whether or not James is saying that salvation
>requires works.
You claim that James says that salvation requires
works, contradicting other Scriptures, yet now you say
that the issue is not whether or not James says that
salvation requires works. Are you reading what you
write?
>I am trying to prove a contradiction. To prove this contradiction I
>need to interpret the teachings of Paul and James. We seem to agree
>that Paul is saying that that only faith is needed for salvation.
>However, we do not agree on the what James is saying. So the issue here
>is the correct interpretation of James. Follow so far?
>
>Now, to correctly interpret James, you can't simply argue that since
>Paul is saying this, James is saying this also. Your argument is summed
>as follows: If there is a contradiction, then your interpretation
>cannot be correct. This is what you are saying, and I replied that
>since I am trying to prove a contradiction, is not valid to argue as
>above. OK?
See above.
>Thus, your scripture references are irrelevant to corretly interpreting
>James.
Not at all. That is YOUR twist on it, but you will
refuse to see anything that doesn't allow you to reject
God, because otherwise, you have to face your sin and
you have to give up being the "god" in your life.
>> >> Salvation is NOT "conditional".
>> >
>> >Yes it IS. Can I be saved without faith? No. Ergo, salvation is
>> >CONDITIONAL on faith.
>> >
>> >> It is common sense,
>> >> that in order to accept a gift from anyone, you first
>> >> have to believe that they exist. Those who come to Him
>> >> must believe that he is.
>> >
>> >The Red Cross probably doesn't know or believe or even cares that I
>> >exist, but I'm sure if I sent them a donation they would be able to
>> >receive it.
>>
>> By receiving it, they are taking you at your word that
>> you exist. Otherwise, they would not have cashed the
>> check, believing it to be a fake identity.
>
>No they don't. Once the money arrives, the have already received it.
>There was no belief in my existence ANYTIME prior to that. Obviously
>AFTER they received it, they will KNOW that I exist. In fact, if you
>think about it carefully, there was no instance in which they even had
>faith in my existence was there?
If they thought that it was not actually you who sent
it, they wouldn't cash it. Why do you play these word
games?
>> >In exactly the same way, there is no stopping Jesus from giving me
>> >eternal life although I do not believe in him. Although once having
>> >RECEIVED the gift I would believe in him.
>>
>> You don't have the ability to accept the gift, if you
>> don't believe it exists and even if He did give it to
>> you anyway, your heart would not be right and you would
>> reject it.
>
>Why won't I have the ability to receive the gift? Rather than just
>stating your contention, try to fault my reasoning above. I think I've
>made it quite clear that it is possible to receive anything from
>somebody even if you don't know who they are. Do you ever receive mail-
>order catalogues from companies you didn't know exist? Of course.
Jesus doesn't send salvation through the mail. :) It
is a spiritual thing and you must accept it
spiritually. That means it's up to YOU, if you accept
the gift, or reject it.
>> But let's clarify this. What you're saying is correct
>> in that it is conditional, but incorrect in that it you
>> are saying that it is conditional upon God. It is not
>> conditional upon God. It is conditional upon US.
>
>It is conditions upon God and us. First on God to give it, THEN on us
>to receive it.
I'm not going to play these silly word games with you.
God is holding the gift out already. Do you want it?
>> >> It is also common sense, that if you walk over to
>> >> someone to receive their gift to you, that does not
>> >> mean that the person didn't give it freely.
>> >
>> >Huh? The words "gift" and "didn't give it freely (to you)" are
>> >mutually
>> >exclusive. A gift, is by definition, FREE.
>>
>> See above. The thing is, is that while the person is
>> holding the gift out, as God is holding out the gift of
>> His Son to us, it is conditional upon us, to believe
>> that this is happening and accept it.
>>
>> In other words, someone can hold a soda out to us. We
>> can either accept it or reject it. That doesn't mean
>> that the person holding the soda put conditions on it.
>> It is simply up to us to accept it or reject it. It
>> only make sense that in order to accept the soda, we
>> must believe that it exists and we must want to take it
>> from them.
>
>Haha, yes! But you are skipping a step here: God does not hold out
>sodas to all souls does he? That part of the gift (holding out sodas)
>to unrepentant souls is conditional upon God.
God holds the gift out to everyone. It is up to each
person to accept or reject it.
>> So yes, there is a "condition", but it is a condition
>> that we have on ourselves, not one imposed by God. He
>> is holding out the gift for anyone who wants it to
>> receive, free of charge.
>>
>> He is offering the gift and you somehow want to blame
>> Him, is people don't accept it, saying that He put
>> conditions on it, when in reality, it was our own
>> refusal to accept it. i.e., He held it out and we
>> said, "NO".
>
>"Blame him"? When have I ever blamed God for anything? Geez, try to
>stick to the issue instead of trying to sneak in cheap shots at your
>opponent, OK?
Haven't done that. By stating that it is conditional,
you are making God a liar. Therefore, you are "blaming
Him".
>If God is holding out eternal life, who would say no?
<Pastor Dave holds up a mirror in front of Sam>
>> >> >> MAN will not be able to boast about it, which means
>> >> >> that we cannot earn it. If we could, then we could
>> >> >> boast about our works and didn't Jesus lambaste the
>> >> >> Pharisees for exactly that type of thing?
>> >> >
>> >> >Man can, and is fully able, to boast about having great faith. In
>> >> >fact, I'm sure you will know that there are many Christians who
>> >> >boast about their faith. Boasting about faith is exactly the same
>as
>> >> >boasting about works.
>> >>
>> >> Man will always find something to boast about. And a
>> >> man who is spending his time boasting about his faith,
>> >> doesn't have a real faith, does he? Didn't you learn
>> >> from what Jesus taught about the Pharisees and how we
>> >> should fast, etc.?
>> >
>> >First you say "man will not be able to boast about it" and now you
>say
>> >that "man will always find something to boast about". You contradict
>> >yourself.
>>
>> No, I didn't. I referenced that man will not be able
>> to boast that he "earned" his way into Heaven. That is
>> a specific statement.
>
>It's right up there in black at white. If man is able to boast about
>anything, then man can boast about earning his way into heaven. Whether
>it is a valid boast or not is another matter.
I never used the word, "anything". I used the word,
"it". There's a big difference there. And you accuse
me of putting words in your mouth? Your word twisting
is getting boring.
>> It is your definition that they can both be "true
>> faith", but the Scriptures which you are trying to
>> prove contradict each other, do not support that line
>> of thinking.
>>
>> You're going right by the word "SUCH", in the phrase,
>> "Can SUCH faith save him?".
>
>Again the issue here is the correct interpretation of James. Hence, you
>simply cannot say my interpretation is wrong because is contradicts
>with the rest of scripture. You misunderstand the whole issue.
I didn't say it was wrong for that reason. I said that
the word "SUCH" is there and you are simply ignoring
it, as if it didn't exist. Nut since the whole thing
hinges upon that word and proves my point, I can see
why you're ignoring it.
>> >Can a person be saved without being justified? No.
>>
>> The question should be reversed.
>
>Do you agree with the above statement (That a person cannot be saved
>without being justified) or not? Yes or no? If yes, then proceed to
>part 2 of my reasoning, otherwise tell me why you don't agree with it.
No, I disagree with you. A person CAN be saved, wihout
justification already being present.
>> Can a person be
>> justified, without being saved. It is your thoughts
>> that are "narrow minded". You are seeing things only
>> in the way that suits your purpose and while you claim
>> that you are trying to show that James contradicts the
>> rest of Scripture, you haven't even shown an
>> understanding of what the rest of it says, nor have you
>> even made a reference to any other part of Scripture,
>> to show where the contradiction is. You have merely
>> said, "This contradicts the rest of Scripture.", but
>> you have given NO references to check against. That
>> leaves you in a weak position and shows that you do not
>> have an understanding of the Bible, nor do you know
>> what it says, where. Yet you wish to try to launch a
>> debate on whether or not James is contradicting the
>> rest of the NT, as if you did.
>
>Your criticisms result from you lack of understanding of the issue
>here. Once again: we're debating over the correct interpretation of
>James. The rest of the NT does not matter.
How can it not matter, when you are stating that there
are contradictions between James and the rest of
Scripture?
Besides this, interpretation of any book, requires the
context of the book. You can take any couple of
phrases out and make them mean whatever you want, with
any book. But they may take on an entirely different
meaning, when interpreted in the context of the book.
Ask any teacher. :)
>As for proving a contradiction, I assume that we are agreed that Paul
>teaches that only faith is required for salvation?
The faith that God calls for.
>> >So, if a person must be justified BY WHAT HE DOES,
>>
>> I do not grant that, as it is not true as a blanket
>> statement.
>
>James said the very thing above. Here it is (yet) again:
>
>(James 2:24) "You see that a person is JUSTIFIED BY WHAT HE DOES ...
>
>So are you disagreeing with James?
Not at all. In the case that James is discussing, he
is absolutely correct. However, as a blanket
statement, that would not be true in the exact sense
that James uses it.
>> >then it follows quite logically that he
>> >must be saved BY WHAT HE DOES.
>>
>> That is not true, nor does James say that. Remember
>> those "exact words" that you were looking for? You
>> didn't want to hear logic from me, but wanted "exact
>> words" from James. Therefore, your logic is no good to
>> me. Where are the "exact words" from James? You
>> cannot deny others the use of common sense and then
>> expect to throw your own thoughts on what something
>> means in there and have others listen to them.
>
>No, James did not say that nor did I assert that he did. And I never
>asked for "exact words" either, I think you are getting a little
>carried away with that. If you disagree with the above, fault the
>logic. Don't simply say "logic is no good to me". Why is it no good?
Because James didn't use the word, "saved", but rather,
"justified". You keep trying to sneak that word
"saved" in there, in the place of "justified", hoping I
won't catch it. They are NOT the same.
>> Again, you bypass where James says, "Can SUCH faith
>> save him?".
>>
>> When when asks if "SUCH faith" can save him, one is
>> automatically stating that there faith DOES save him.
>> It is the TYPE OF (SUCH) FAITH that is being
>> questioned. Your English teacher would have backed me
>> up on that. :)
>
>Did you read my last post? I said that I have no problem with James
>saying that there are different types of faith - BUT I have a problem
>with your view that the types of faith James is referring to is real
>and false faith.
No, you asked me where he said that. That's why I
showed you.
>BTW, my english teacher is a confirmed atheist. Great guy and all that,
>but unfortunately it's hellfire for him when he dies.
His beliefs have nothing to do with the proper use of
English, so what do I care if he's an atheist, when
reviewing the text?
>> >> >If, as you contend, that James is
>> >> >telling us that only "real faith" can save us, then he would have
>> >> >written: "You see that a person is JUSTIFIED BY REAL FAITH and not
>> >> >BY A FALSE FAITH WITHOUT WORKS."
>> >>
>> >> No, he wouldn't have said that. Different issue.
>> >
>> >Is this a way of avoiding a rebuttal or masking an absence of one? My
>> >sentence above ("You see that ... ") perfectly sums up your
>> >interpretation of James. So, if he was saying what you are telling me
>> >he is saying, then why didn't he say that?
>>
>> No, it's a way of telling you that you can't mix
>> issues. "Salvation" and "justification" aren't
>> identical. The original Greek will tell you that and
>> both the Old English and modern English bear this out.
>> The words, "salvation" and "justification" are NOT
>> "synonyms" for each other in any of these. A
>> dictionary will tell you that. :)
>
>Seeing as you can't have justification without salvation and vice
>versa, the statement is perfectly fine. In any case, why didn't James
>say this: "You see that a person is SAVED BY REAL FAITH and not
>BY A FALSE FAITH WITHOUT WORKS."
No, it isn't, "perfectly fine", nor does it say that
you can't have salvation without justification. That
is YOUR take on it and nowhere does it say that.
>> >> Also, you're trying to put a 20th century twist on his
>> >> writings. In order to understand what he is saying,
>> >> you must understand the writing styles of THAT time.
>> >
>> >As my english teacher used to say, "Definitions, definitions and
>> >definitions."
>>
>> Your English teacher would have also told you that the
>> language that something is translated from is entirely
>> relevant, because our language may not have the
>> appropriate words to truly express the thoughts being
>> brought forth. i.e., the Greek has words that in our
>> language, would translate into more than one word and
>> also may translate into a short sentence in our
>> language, to ATTEMPT to express the entire thought.
>
>Yes, that is quite obvious and I did not disagree with that.
Yet you state that it is irrelevant, when you disregard
it.
>> Not only this, but he/she would have also told you that
>> the Old English would have to be understood, in order
>> to get the meaning of the wording used in the Old
>> English. If you read Shakespeare, you can easily see
>> that we may now, using our modern English, take some
>> phrases differently than the Old English meant. Hence,
>> many of us would need teachers, to explain to us what
>> was actually being said in the Old English.
>
>First of all Shakespeare wrote in a form of writing called dramatic
>poetry or dramatic art which was specifically for stage. Secondly,
>Shakespeare's works have not been translated into modern day English.
Thank you for making my point. You would have needed
help understanding what he was saying.
>The bible on the other hand, has been translated to modern day english
>from Greek. So what we are reading is the the NIV or RSV or NLT
>contemporary English translated from Old English. Now if you want to
>say that the translators (Greek scholars) did not properly translate
>them, that is your perogative but as I said, whether you are qualified
>enough to say that is another matter.
We have been quoting the KJV, so the other translations
are irrelevant. My statement about the Old English
stands.
>Hence your "writing styles" argument is just not valid because, as we
>know, the NT wasn't translated exactly word for word.
That's where you're wrong. The KJV was exactly that,
with the rule of translating any language applied.
>> To say that we can simply sit here, in our modern world
>> today and read these texts, without any understanding
>> of both the Greek and the Old English and get the full
>> meaning of the texts, is simply ridiculous and quite
>> prideful on our parts. We certainly wouldn't approach
>> other works that way in school and since the Bible has
>> so much in it, that has so much meaning, why should we
>> approach it any differently? Surely you can see that?
>
>See above - the bible that you read today is contemporary English.
Interesting how you discuss the KJV with me, until it
is shown that my point about understanding the Old
English is correct and then you immediately switch to a
modern English version and act as if we had never been
discussing the KJV. You are quite transparent.
You know what? I'm not even going to go through the
rest of thise message. It is obvious to me that you
are on a mission here that has nothing to do with
honest, intelligent discussion and I simply won't
continue in these word twisting games.
[snip]
Mark Bassett
<roman...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>Http://members.tripod.com/bibletruths/copeland.htm
>
>Kenneth Copeland has taught the following
>
> That we do not have a god in us but that we are a God.
> "You don't have a God in you. You are one!"- The Force of Love
>audiotape
Thanks for the great articles, Seminary Student.
-mwb
Pamela
Sounds like you have contemplated, meditated, cognitated and
rumminated a whole lot more on Kenneth Copeland than you have on God
and His Word. Get your mind off of him and on God and maybe one of
these days you will actually understand the Love of God that Kenneth
Copeland's ministry teaches.
Pamela
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
sims...@my-deja.com
"Seminary Student" <roman...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> John 17:17, "Sanctify them through thy truth: THY WORD is truth."
> The BIBLE is the ONLY SOURCE OF TRUTH,
> not man, GOD!
Do I descern from this something magical; or are you implying that I
conjured this up from my head? If so, then you miss the scriptures I
present; and if I didn't present any for a given statement, then
specifiy; and I'll be glad to provide an overabundance of them. Those
are of God, not me. So, don't wave scripture around like voodoo
chants, as you do above. Explain what you mean by them.
Well, first, this means that we are sanctified. That, as wonderful as
it is, isn't salvation. And yes, he made one sacrifice to so sanctifiy
us. That is why in the following verses he clearly shows that:
1. We can lose our forgiveness that this sanctification won for us
(Heb. 10:26).
2. We can so trod on the blood that so sanctified us, that we do
despite to the Spirit of Grace, earning a fate most horrible. (Heb.
10:29)
3. We should fear God (your doctrine teaches we don't have to fear
him.) enough to not so sin wilfully. (Heb. 10:31)
4. The writer of Hebrews advises us to not throw our confidence away.
(i.e. that of salvation in Christ--meaning it can be thrown away.)
Notice that I say we are saved by grace, freely given; and that
received by faith. But, grace doesn't exclude works, which were the
very reason we received it. I say it is the combination of the two,
working under grace; and done by faith that saves us. (i.e. It is the
very life of Christ in us that saves us Rom. 5:10)
Therefore, consider the following Hebrews 10:26-39
26. For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge
of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27. But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery
indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three
witnesses:
29. Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought
worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted
the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy
thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30. For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I
will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his
people.
31. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
32. But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were
illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions;
33. Partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and
afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were
so used.
34. For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the
spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a
better and an enduring substance.
35. Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great
recompence of reward.
36. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will
of God, ye might receive the promise.
37. For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and
will not tarry.
38. Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my
soul shall have no pleasure in him.
39. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them
that believe to the saving of the soul.
> >Don't we need accept him?
> > Don't we need be baptized? Many say no; but Peter said your baptism
> > saves you.
>
> Acts 2:38 is where Peter is talking to JEWS who REJECTED Jesus
> as God/Messiah, that is the ONLY reason he said to be baptized
> in JESUS NAME! No unbelieving Jew would EVER be baptized
> in the name of JESUS....Understand now?
Of course not. That is silly. What is the difference to an
unbelieving Jew; and an unbelieving Gentile? If this were true, then
why did Paul say in Romans 6:3-12
3. Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ
were baptized into his death?
4. Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like
as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even
so we also should walk in newness of life.
This shows the need for even gentiles to be baptized, disputing that
silly statement you made above.
5. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death,
we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the
body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7. For he that is dead is freed from sin.
As a Christian, this is how baptism releases you from the sinful nature.
8. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live
with him:
If you have not this death with Christ, then neither do you have life
with him.
9. Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more;
death hath no more dominion over him.
10. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he
liveth, he liveth unto God.
11. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin,
but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
12. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should
obey it in the lusts thereof.
This is what you must do. It isn't an option. It isn't a hypothetical
goal that we'll never acheive; but can mentally strive for, while
continuing in our sins. It is the fruits of the Spirit. And we will
do them, unless we have not the Spirit; or if we have him, then are we
not led by him, meaning we die. (Rom. 8:1-14)
Consider also KJV 1 Peter 3:21
21. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not
the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good
conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
> God in the FLESH said to be baptised
> in the TRINITY...
>
> Matthew 28:18-19, "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying,
> All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore,
> and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and
> of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"
You assume only to promote your own doctrine. But, look what it says.
Go; and baptize. Under what authority? Do it in the name of the
Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
It does not mean 'baptize them in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.'
(i.e. using their names instead of ''water'')
> I believe what GOD says....
I don't think so. You believe in your ability to interpret what he
says. Therefore, your faith is in yourself, not in what God says.
But, anyone who understands 8th grade English can see the difference in
what is said. So, you not only aren't believing in what God says, you
twist it around to mean what you want it to, therefore, perverting the
scripture.
> Peter was NOT God, and was not talking to Gentiles (US!)
> he was addressing JEWS!
> Therefore Acts 2:38 DOES NOT APPLY TO US!
> Also, Peter NEVER MENTIONS BAPTISM as
> NECESSARY FOR SALVATION in LATER VERSUS!
> See Acts 10:43, 13:38, and 26:18
> NO MENTION OF BAPTISM ANYWHERE!
First, your capital key seems stuck. Maybe if you'd quit leaning on
it, you'd feel better?
Second, you forget KJV 1 Peter 3:21
21. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not
the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good
conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
> ***
> >
> > Notice why man is completely helpless to
> > attain
> > salvation by his own merits:
> >
> > · No "righteousness" of our own -- Rom. 3:10-12; Isa.
64:6.
> >
> >
> > ***Comment***
> > Yet, Jesus said in Matt. 5:20
> > 20. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall
exceed
> > the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case
> > enter into the kingdom of heaven.
>
> This was a INSULT directed at them, he was speaking
> sarcastically. He was in effect saying "IF you wish to
> inhert the kingdom, you had better not try to attain it
> the same way these are! You must be BETTER than
> they (they = who REJECTED HIM as the Messiah!)
The insult is that you pervert the scripture so readily. For only by
doing so, can you concoct such a foolish idea. Look at the entire tone
of the Sermon on the Mount. It is meant to lead; and enlighten. You
don't lead people by kicking them in the teeth. You don't enlighten
people by alienating them. Now, he did use scarcasm; but not in the
Sermon on the Mount.
Look at the sentence structure. Even if it were a jab at the
Pharisees, would he have used a lie to do so? It is a very definitive
statement. As little as their righteousness was (non-existant) your's
had to excede it. Therefore, you had to have something.
> They (Jews) did NOT recognize him as the Messiah....
This is news?
> > ***End Comment***
> >
> > · No "strength" of our own -- Rom. 5:6; Eph. 2:1.
> >
> > ***Comment***
> > Didn't Paul say in KJV Philippians 4:13
> > 13. I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.
>
> Yes, he was talking to SAVED PEOPLE! God does NOT
> strengthen LOST PEOPLE...think about it!
Think about it yourself. Your condecending 'holier than thou' bunk
doesn't do you any service; but makes you look even more egotistical
than you are.
Now, as I say think about what you just said about that verse. The idea
isn't who he speaks to; but what he says. He (a Christian) can do all
things. He can be righteous. He can obey the commands of Christ. He
can be perfect. Things your doctrine say are impossible, because you
lack faith.
> Phil comes AFTER romans!
And red follows yellow. So what?
> > ***End Comment***
> >
> > · No "good" of our own -- Rom. 3:12; Psa. 14:1-3; Jer.
13:23.
> >
> > ***Comment***
> > Are we not to love our neighbour as ourselves?
>
> You missed the whole point, it was that we are not GOOD
> enough to EARN SALVATION...
You abuse the verses. First, it speaks of those not saved, who have
not the righteousness of Christ. For, in the following verses of Rom.
3 is the contrast of those with the righteousness of Christ. (Verses 21-
31)
Besides, who said we earn salvation? I didn't. I said it took faith;
and works together, to be reconciled to God. Yet, what did the Christ
say was the criteria? Was it a signed affadavit, saying you believe?
No. Was it a warm fuzzy he gets by communing with your thoughts, of
faith? No. Was it him 'just knowing' that you believed? No. But,
look at what the criteria is. Matthew 25:31-46
31. When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy
angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32. And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall
separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from
the goats:
33. And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on
the left.
34. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye
blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the
foundation of the world:
35. For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye
gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36. Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in
prison, and ye came unto me.
37. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we
thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38. When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and
clothed thee?
39. Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40. And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto
you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my
brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from
me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his
angels:
42. For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and
ye gave me no drink:
43. I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me
not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee
an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison,
and did not minister unto thee?
45. Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you,
Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not
to me.
46. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the
righteous into life eternal.
It is the fruits of the Spirit that he places in us. It is the
fulfilling of the law, as Paul described in Romans 13:8-10 (i.e. to
love your neighbour is the fulfilling of the law.) He said that in
more than one place, too. That is the fruits of our lives. Those are
the good works he gave us grace to do. (Eph. 2:8-10) Where does the
Christ speak of your faith as the criteria, in Matt. 25? He looks at
the results of our faith, not whether we have it or not. The fruits
will tell him, who is and isn't his. This is why it takes faith and
works. Neither, being alone, save you.
> > ***End Comment***
> >
> > · No "boasting" from us in salvation -- Eph. 2:9; Rom.
3:27a.
> > · No "works" from us in salvation -- Eph. 2:9; Titus 3:5;
> > Rom. 4:5.
> >
> > ***Comment***
> > Your friend ignores the 10th verse of Eph, which shows that the
reason
> > we receive the free gift of grace, which saves us, is to do good
works.
>
> The good works come as a RESULT of being saved, not a way TO
> BE SAVED.....
I haven't said otherwise. And again, you are the one raving about
works being a way to be saved, not me. I am simply saying you
can't 'think' your way into heaven. It requires fruits to prove your
faith.
> > ***End Comment***
> >
> > · Salvation is a "gift" -- Eph. 2:8-9.
> >
> > ***Comment***
> > Unto good works (vs 10), which your friend says isn't necessary.
> > Notice too, that afterward (verses 11-18)he shows the necessity of
> > works and faith together to allow us to be reconciled to God.
>
> Nope! He says that GOOD WORKS are a demonstration that
> we are infact SAVED. You need to study basic bible doctrines
> more. Seems like some knuckle head has taught you a
> WORKS SALVATION....
That knucklehead was the Holy Spirit. I'd be careful how you speak
disgracefully about him.
I was once like you; and firmly believed this OSAS bunk. But, he has
shown me his words; and the lies commonly spread about his words. I
have met many such as I am, who independently, came to exactly the same
conclusion.
I started a thread some time back, asking where the defenders of Once
Saved Always Saved were. There were few takers. And those that were
there, couldn't do anymore than you. They misquoted scripture; and
even just quoted it, alone, without explaination, as if any fool could
interpret it, as they did. But, the scripture didn't convey what they
saw in it. Invariably they posted the same rhetoric as you do here;
and then would not respond to my answers based on scripture, like I do
here.
So don't spout this bunk about learning basic doctrines. It is
the 'basic doctrines' that have led so many to their eternal dooms. I
anticipate your response to that; and will properly give response to
that, when time.
>
> Jesus did ALL THE WORK! If you would MERIT heaven
> by WORKS, why did God send JESUS to die on the croos
> for OUR sins? He wouldn't have needed to do so!
>
I don't merit heaven by works. I never said that. It is the common
blindness you folks have. You are so full of this bunk you can't even
see that. You presume if it isn't by faith alone, that it must be by
works alone. Get off it. I don't say that; and you make a fool of
yourself by so repeating the same broken record. Surely, you're smart
enough to see that?
> Also the Apostle Paul says that if WORKS saved,
> he would NOT need JESUS!
>
> Philippians 3:4-8, "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: 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; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching
> the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things
> were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. 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,"
>
I agree with him. I've said nothing to dispute what he said. But,
understand the difference between the works of the law; and good works
we were ordained to do. Neither save you; but the good works ordained
show evidence of our faith, proving it alive. If they aren't there,
the absence proves it dead, being alone.
> > John 5:24, but "hath everlasting life. " John 6:47.
> >
> > ***Comment***
> > Notice in the two verses preceding this, he speaks of those who
honor
> > the Son and the Father. Look at Matthew 25:41-46
> > 41. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from
> > me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his
> > angels:
>
> LOST PEOPLE is who he is ADDRESSING!
So what? Everybody he spoke to was lost, since he had not yet
ascended. Even if there were some around, not lost at the time, what
difference does that make? That's as silly as some of the stuff you
said above.
But, he is describing the judgment. That is after now, when plenty
of "Christians" will be standing there saying 'but, we believed on
you! Doesn't that count?' What will the answer be? The same. It is
who did you help? It is who did you love? It is who did you tell
about him?
Friend, you sling verses around with even showing what they relate to.
Did John say anywhere in 1 John that we are saved by faith alone? Is
that the "These things" he wrote of? Of course not. Look at a few of
the very verses he referred to.
1 John 2:3-5
3. And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his
commandments.
4. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a
liar, and the truth is not in him.
5. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God
perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
1 John 2:17
17. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that
doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
KJV 1 John 3:10
10. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the
devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that
loveth not his brother.
KJV 1 John 3:11
11. For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we
should love one another.
You see, John says the same thing I say; and the same thing Paul said;
and the same thing James said. No where do any of them say the things
you say. You sling verses; but you don't look at what they refer to.
> John 3:15, "That whosoever believeth in him should not perish,
> but have eternal life."
It is interesting how you pick a seemingly favorable verse; but don't
look at the very verses around it. John 3:18-21
18. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth
not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of
the only begotten Son of God.
19. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world,
and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to
the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may
be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Those who say by faith alone, hide their deeds, because they aren't
worthy of the light of Christ. They claim they don't need works,
meaning they know their works are evil. Therefore, they hide from the
light in the darkness of this dreadful doctrine of salvation by faith
alone. In it, they think they can hide their evil deeds.
Look at John 3:5
5. Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be
born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of
God.
It shows clearly that baptism is necessary. For how can we ignore
Paul's statement of dying to our carnality through baptism; and being
raised again in newness of life, compared to this by Jesus? It is both
baptism by water and by Spirit that saves us. Thus, Peter said your
baptism saves you.
> John 10:28, "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never
perish,
> neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."
How come you left off John 10:27
27. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
How can you claim to be his sheep; and claim you need not follow him?
But, I see you did not claim to by his sheep, for you left it off. You
merely included yourself into the ones that are given eternal life.
Yet, you can't have the one, without the other. Thus, again, you see
the working of faith and works together to eternal life. Neither, by
itself, will gain you heaven.
> Acts 13:48, "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and
> glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to
eternal
> life believed."
Well, this says that something other than faith ordained them to
eternal life. The believing was a result. But, then, we both know
that we need believe to be saved. Therefore, you take advantage of the
lack of words to write your own doctrine here. For, in many verses
I 've shown you that faith leads to works of righteousness. But, for
your edification consider this. John 8:31-44
31. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye
continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
Below, he tells these same people (in verse 44 ) that they are children
of the Devil. They believed on him, the same as you do; but, they were
not willing to receive him as master of their lives, just as you.
32. And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
33. They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in
bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
34. Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever
committeth sin is the servant of sin.
35. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son
abideth ever.
36. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
37. I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me,
because my word hath no place in you.
38. I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that
which ye have seen with your father.
39. They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus
saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works
of Abraham.
40. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth,
which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
41. Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not
born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
42. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me:
for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but
he sent me.
43. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear
my word.
44. Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye
will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the
truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he
speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
> Romans 6:23, "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is
> eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
This on is funny. You try to say this means salvation by faith alone;
but look at the very preceding verse.
22. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye
have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.
The end of your fruit of holiness, i.e. to love your neighbour, results
in everlasting life. We do this through Jesus Christ our Lord. Not
his death; but his life in us.
KJV Romans 5:9
9. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved
from wrath through him.
KJV Romans 5:10
10. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the
death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his
life.
His blood reconciled us; but it is his life, in us, that saves us.
> 1 John 5:11-13, "And this is the record, that God hath given to us
> eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath
life;
> and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have
> I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that
> ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the
> name of the Son of God."
Again, look just before these verses. KJV 1 John 4:20-21
20. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar:
for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love
God whom he hath not seen?
21. And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God
love his brother also.
Where is this thing that says you are saved by faith alone? We must
love our God and our brother, to be of God; and therefore saved. This
is what the scripture you referenced (5:11-13) refer to.
KJV 1 John 5:2-7
2. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love
God, and keep his commandments.
Your doctrine fully denies this verse. But, it is what the 11-13th
verses refer to, when he says you can know you have eternal life.
3. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and
his commandments are not grievous.
4. For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is
the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
By faith, we do the commandments of God.
5. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that
Jesus is the Son of God?
6. This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by
water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth
witness, because the Spirit is truth.
This proves the baptism again, is required of salvation.
7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the
Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
> 1 John 5:20, "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given
> us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in
> him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God,
and
> eternal life."
Good verse; and in step with the ones I supplied above.
> >That is just the begining of salvation.
> > For, we are not saved until our bodies are redeemed. We merely have
> > the promise of it.
>
> Saved (WILL BE SAVED FUTURE) but ARE SAVED NOW
> (IN THE PRESENT!)
and were saved in the past. So what?
> > Believe in Him this very moment as your
> > own
> > personal Savior,
> > and the work is done!
> >
> > ***Comment***
> > Again, this isn't bibical. It is a lie.
>
> You are ingorant....see ETERNAL LIFE versus ABOVE!
Yes, you have it right. Eternal life versus above. (i.e. your verses;
and rationalizations.)
> John 10:28-30, "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall
> never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
> My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man
> is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. I and my Father are
one."
I explained above how you've left out the 27th verse which is saying
those saved are the sheep that follow him. You're doctrine denies that
you must follow him.
> Funny the above verse says it is done...you calling God a liar?
No, but you do.
But, read on verse ten says 10. For we are his workmanship, created
in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we
should walk in them.
That is not an option, as you claim. It is the very reason we were
given the grace.
> I suggest you read Hebrews Chapter 11 AND THEN tell
> me salvation is NOT by FAITH AND FAITH alone-
> both in the New Testement and the OLD!
You knucklehead. You think I've never read the great chapter of
faith? Don't be any sillier than you've already been. But, look at
what it says. Every person so commended for faith, what is the honor
of it? What is the expression of it? What is the way that we can see
their faith? Only by what they did. Only by the suffering; or the
effort they expressed. Where is Once Saved Always Saved in that?
Where is this 'salvation by faith alone'? It isn't there, either.
What is there, is the example of faith and works together. For, truly,
the one is dead without the other.
You've been rude; and self-righteous. You have been Haughty;
and 'holier than thou' in your condesending tone. I have plowed it
back to you, not to hurt you; but to show you how this comes across. I
recommend that we both honor the Christ better than this, by
corresponding with grace and honor toward each other; and toward God.
You deal so with me; and I surely will do the same.
Peace to you, in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. May mercy
be with you.
sims...@my-deja.com
"Seminary Student" <roman...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
> Http://members.tripod.com/bibletruths/copeland.htm
<<snipped about 500 lines>>
Any point to what you posted here? You have a habit of throwing
buckets full of gibberish at everyone; or just those you dislike?
Peace to you
allan Sims
Mark Bassett
<timth...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> With regard to your NECROMANCY theory, you're all dried up. Read on:
>Mt:17:3: And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with
>him.
>Mt:17:4: Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us
>to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee,
>and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
You compare Benny's visit with the spirit of Katharine K. to Jesus and Moses
on the Mt of Transfiguration?
That is pretty close to the most depressing comment on scriptural ignorance
that I have read, almost ever.
-mwb
Mark Bassett
<timth...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> My youngest son helped a group of intercessors pray for a woman who was
>possesses with many demons of witchcraft before the service. This same
>woman was later brought to Pastor Hinn and he prayed for her on the
>platform. After that several people took her to his room in back to witness
>to her about Jesus. That part was aired on tv.
How much do you know about television production, Tim?
-mwb
Seminary Student
There have been many people throughout history who claim to talk or hear
from the dead.The bible
is specific on this practice as being forbidden (Deut.18) what If someone
you knew came to you and
said they are in touch with someone famous who died years ago. That they
talk to the dead and they
talk backe. That they have shown up in their room and given them Gods spirit
and revelation.What if
they told you they had saints appear in their room as well as angels
visiting them And give them
revelation of God not found in the bible. Would you fell comfortable about
this? What if they told
you that they received instruction or power from some saint who is long dead
at their grave site?
Maybe your not aware that Benny Hinn has crossed over the line into this
dangerous
practice of darkness which we call spiritism. This is forbidden by God
calling this activity
an abomination.
Well this is the world your about to enter as you read...
Excerpts from Benny Hinn's
HONOLULU MIRACLE CRUSADE
Friday Night, February 28, 1997
And how many know that God meant everything He said. [Crowd responds, one
man yes,
"Hallelujah!"] Ladies and gentlemen, the presence of the Holy Spirit is a
healing presence. The
reason people are heated just sitting there, right where you are, is because
the presence of the Spirit
is a healing presence. Remember this: God the Father is the source of
healing; God the Son is the
One who heals; but the Spirit, God is the substance of healing. He is the
power of healing. And the
presence of the Spirit comes [Woman starts squealing and Benny rebukes her:]
"Now, now please
lady, uh uh, none of that!" And the presence of the Spirit comes when Jesus
is worshipped. The
Lord said, "He will glorify me." The Spirit Glorifies Jesus! And when Jesus
is lifted and glorified and
worshipped, the Holy Spirit comes and seats that glory. Seals that act of
glorifying Christ with His
presence. You see the Word of God declares, listen very carefully to what
Jesus said about Him.
Jesus declared, "If I by the finger of God cast out devils, then the Spirit,
then the kingdom has come
upon you. If I by the Spirit of God." And one book says "Spirit," one book
says "finger." But you
see the finger of God is the Holy Ghost. So Jesus in one Gospel said, "If I
by the finger of God cast
out devils," then another Gospel, the translators translated the word finger
"Spirit." It's the same
thing. If I by the Spirit of God cast out devils and the Lord was clearly
stating that He could do
nothing without the power of the Spirit, without the agency of the Holy
Ghost. And the moment the
Spirit is present, demons are cast out. Sickness flees, goes. Bondage breaks
and people are free.
And His presence can so saturate a life, can so fill a human heart, that
literally heaven comes down
and glory fills that heart. I have known moments of ecstasy, impossible to
describe with human
words. I've known moments when every part of me so vibrates with glory, and
moments like this
you wish you could just die and be with Him. I've known moments, tears
streaming down, when I've
actually said, "Lord, don't let me come down this mountain." You see, you
give and you give and you
give, but He also gives and gives and gives to the [the next few words are
unintelligible]. The more
you pour out the more He pours in. I've known moments of such anointings,
it's really hard even to
describe those moments.
I've known moments when I've not only felt the presence of God, I've smelled
the presence of
God. I did this morning right here. And others around me smelled the
fragrance of frankincense, right
on this platform. In Detroit, Michigan, so great was the presence of God,
the entire building filled up
with a mist and we began to breathe in and smell it, frankincense, presence
of the Lord, Steve Brock
you smelled it with me! And Ron [Haus] and others. I've seen the presence of
God. People, I've
not only have felt it, I've not only have smelled it, I've seen it with my
own eyes.
Every believer needs to exercise Biblical Discernment when they go to any
meeting advertising
miracles and manifestations of "the Spirit". Many are led by being deceived
by men and women who
back their teaching up with some form of supernatural manifestation. We are
warned of false
apostles those who claim authority that is not from God and can do miracles
.When Experience
becomes the standard modus operandi at a meeting watch out. Even with a new
life implanted
in us, does not give one a blind confidence from God that the enemy can't
deceive us.
Whether or not these are delusions of his own or actually taking place. As
Robert Burrows wrote
"...real entities don't have to be chanelled for real lies to be
communicated or real damage done .
Poison is effective regardless of who administers it .
The question that should be asked is whether the Spirit and beings appearing
can be trusted. When
measured with the bibles accout it is clear whatever is speaking to Hinn and
is actually
showing up in his room is not from God but demonic.
From the beginning the Church needed to give answers to those outside its
walls, the unsaved, those
who didn't believe they were sinners. So they were in need of the Gospel.
Enter the Gnostics.......
The name gnosticism comes from the Greek word gnosis, meaning "knowledge,"
and stresses the
character of this heresy.
Enns, Paul, The Moody Handbook of Theology, (Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press)
1996.
One of the fundamental tenets ' of gnosticism declares that God is
unknowable by man and
can only communicate to him indirectly, through ' intermediaries. Today we
can find examples
of this in the evangelical Church through men who claim greater revelations
as they are specially
'anointed' having a deeper ,a greater measure of the Spirit and
understanding of the Bible. The
Gnostics also placed a high value on Personal experiences as they were
mystically
inclined.
Todays gnosticism is expressed by being 'connected' by 'feelings' or sensing
the Presence
of God. If the feeling of God is not sensed or felt than God was absent. I'
m not saying that
we don't have feelings from time to time but when this is the judgement call
for knowing
whether he is present, then it is false.
Over and over Paul writes about adhering to doctrine and faith in Christ
with no mention of signs and
wonders. Even in his epistle to Timothy he tells him to stir up the gift
within but he does not say
anything about miracles but do the work of an evangelist. Today experience
is equal to
knowledge . This is how one gets their input, by a feeling a sign and a
miracle they have experienced.
True faith is trusting what you cannot see, waiting patiently for God to
bring the results in
his time. If one is going to gatherings thinking this person will bring the
answer to their
faith they have a wrong concept of what faith is.
Benny Hinn who has become the leading promoter of todays Charismatism seems
to have had more
supernartural experiences than the apostle Paul.
These are only a few of the instances mentioned there are many more...
B.Hinn "I'm telling you the truth you could literally sit there in total
shock .... angels would appear
in my bedroom at night and just stand and look at me i would wake up to see
angels in my
bedroom , all sizes, call me crazy but I would even see little boys in my
bedroom with beautiful white
robes they almost looked like girls but they were males ." (Benny Hinn
Orlando christian center,
personal testimony ).
Notice he said the angel just stood there and looked at him, well this
defies the very reason
angels are sent, they are messengers not starers. At other times they have
brought him
numerous messages one which is telling him "poverty is a demon" and other
such nonsense. (benny
Hinn, TBN, Praise a thon 1990 )
"I've walked in the supernatural world. I've seen things you would never be
able to understand...I've
had individuals appear to me in my room. Not only angels."(HONOLULU CRUSADE
Feb. 28,
1997)
Where does the bible ever say anyone saw the Lord when they pray except for
special
events such as Stevens stoning? Hinn describes God as if he has a changing
wardrobe.
"I was in prayer one day and a man appeared in front of me. It happened for
two days in a row.
..He was about six feet two. Old man. Had a ..Glistening white
beard. .Eyes - crystal blue. He
had on a white garment,.. On his head was a like a shawl - like a - like a
like a covering. every
part of him glistened like crystal. .Now, I know you may think I've lost my
mind, but the Lord said,
"Elijah, the prophet." . You know, when that happened? That happened days
before the
anointing on my life doubled." (HONOLULU CRUSADE Feb. 28, 1997)
Obviously this is in reference to Elisha's double portion. Hinn connects
someone the bible classifies
as dead with a fresh double dose. Does Elijah dispense an anointing by
appearing in
someone's room from heaven today after thousands of years of being in
heaven? When
Elisha asked Elijah for his mantle he told his protégé it is not mine to
give. He was told to
wait and see if the Lord would place it on him ( 2 Kings 2: 10) If he saw
him taken to
heaven he would receive the blessing. Yet he had to leave first for it to be
placed on him he
could not give it. 2 Kings 13:21
At the age of eleven for instance Hinn claims to of had a visitation from
Jesus himself before he was
saved (good morning holy spirit pg.221 ) Hinn claims to have had two visions
of Jesus as well.
(Mike Thomas, The Power and the Glory. Florida Magazine, Nov. 24, 91 quoted
in the Confusing
world of Benny Hinn)
When I was a little boy, I saw the Lord in this dream. It was really so
real, it was really a vision
because when - when He appeared to me my body became electric just like
electricity went through
me and when I awoke that electricity was still on my body." (Benny Hinn,
This Is Your Day, June
11, 1997)
Here Hinn shows the origin of his electric anointing from his visitations of
this certain
Jesus that he has seen before he was a Christian. I'm sorry but something is
not kosher
here!
Biblically visions had a purpose to give revelation that would be written in
scripture, not to transfer
power.
The word "vision" appears mostly in OT passages and few in comparison in
the N.T.. The majority
of these have to do with God giving direct revelation of Himself, of His
plans and prophecy. These
visions were rare . These were written down for us in the Bible. A genuine
vision from God is
never associated with the occult or the dead. A vision is not a message
from the realm of
the dead. Our God who is the Living God sends messages from heaven. Hinn is
again using a
biblical activity to prove the genuiness of its content. He is trying to
influence his followers that his
extrabiblical revelation is from God and they can experience this as well.
This is too similar to Joseph
Smith (who started the mormons) and his Angel of light experiences and
should make anyone who
has the Holy Spirit and knows the word very uncomfortable.
Hinn relates another vision he had "I saw myself walk into a room and there
stood Kathryn
Kuhlman. And I've not seen Kathryn in a dream or a vision [in] years. I knew
she had died and it
was on the news that same morning. . And there she was standing in this
room. And she said,
'Follow me.' . And I followed her to a second room. In that second room
stood the Lord. When
the lord, uh-when-when I saw the lord, Kathryn disappeared. She was just
gone ... And now the
Lord looked at me and said, 'Follow me.' And I followed him to a third
room."(Ibid.)
Hinn is so infatuated with this woman of who he models his preaching and
mannerisms after that he is
seeing her along with Jesus. He conducts his meetings almost exactly like
hers. Why change such an
effective model if it works.
Hinn is practicing and promoting spiritism at best and at worst necromancy,
secret knowledge
communicated by someone who has died. Direction is sought from the other
side. However, the
Bible reveals that the real source of the information can be demonic
entities or evil spirits who
impersonate the dead, not the dead themselves.
Jeremiah had the very same issues going on in his time 14:14 and 23:16: "And
the lord
said to me, the prophets prophesy lies in my name. 1 have not sent them,
commanded
them, nor spoken to them; they prophesy to you a false vision, divination, a
worthless
thing, and the deceit of their own heart."
"Thus says the Lord of hosts: Do not listen to the words of the prophets who
prophesy to you. They
make you worthless; They speak a vision of their own heart, not from the
mouth of the lord."
He said, "One of the strangest experiences I had a few years ago [was]
visiting Aimee's tomb in
California... Friday I am gonna go and visit Kathryn Kuhlman's tomb. It's
close by Aimee's ... I've
been there once already and every so often 1 like to go and pay my respects
'cause this great
woman of God has touched my life. And that grave, uh, where she's buried is
closed, they built walls
around it. You can't get in without a key and I'm one of the very few people
who can get in. But I'll
never forget when I saw Aimee's tomb. It's incredibly dramatic. She was
such a lady that her tomb
has seven-foot angels bowing on each side of her tomb . I felt a terrific
anointing when I was
there. I actually, hear this,' I trembled when I visited Aimee's tomb. I was
shaking all over. God's
power came all over me. ... I believe the anointing has lingered over
Aimee's body."
Someone asked me how is it you can feel the anointing around a tomb? I have
no idea man,
but I sure felt it. Your gonna feel the anointing...I've heard of people
healed when they
visited their tomb... ( Double Portion Anointing, Part #3, Orlando
Christian Center, April 7,
1991. From the series, Holy Ghost Invasion. TV# 309,)
Do we get the anointing and healing from dead people? Let me ask you, who
goes to
cemeteries? If what he is saying is true, maybe we should all move to their
cemetery and
have church! The problem is, this is not an anointing from Jesus. Friend,
you can't even get
the anointing from another person when they are alive, so how in the world
would you
receive it from them when they are dead? This is necromancy plain and
simple.
The prophet Isaiah talked about the abomination of seeking an "anointing,"
and contact with the
'other world at a grave and called it "rebellious" and ', a way that is not
good" (65:2), He incriminates
those: "Who sit among the graves, and spend the night in the tombs" (vs. 4).
The worst of judgments
are pronounced on these false practices (vs. 13-15). God hates his people to
be mislead into false
spiritual practices this is why he judged Israel so harshly, they knew
better, they knew him and
abandoned God at times for the practices of pagans.
Only those who are opposed to God and his word can promote their followers
to spiritism and
spiritualistic practices. Hinn has entered into a dangerous practice called
necromancy which is
divination one divines by consulting the dead. Lev. 19:31 'Give no regard
to mediums and familiar
spirits; do not seek after them, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your
God.
Deut 18:11 " one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one
who calls up the dead."He
calls all of these an abomination. Mediums, spiritists, necromancers are
those who receive messages
from the dead from visiting their graves touching dead bodies by either
visions, signs or by any
communication.
When one reads lsaiah 8 He speaks of a mediums contaced a by a demon spirit.
Isaiah's question
addressed to the people of God vs.19 "And when they say to you seek those
who are mediums and
wizards, who whisper and mutter, should not a people seek their God? Should
they seek the dead
on behalf of the living?" The answer is obvious God's people should never
seek the dead for any
information, much less a spiritual one. We have a living God. So why is Hinn
doing this ? Heres the
answer.
Vs.20 to the law (scripture, moses) and to the testimony(the prophets) If
they do not speak
according to this word, it is because they have no light in them." (the
word). When someone is not
satisfied with what God has already said , when they are baltantly
disobedient to him they will always
seek another recourse.
When King Sauls anointing was taken away he became desperate to hear from
God , he received
the death penalty from God for the practice of seeking information from a
witch who called up the
dead. Those who do not hear from God will always seek the occult as a ways
to do so. Those who
are not word based will always seek the supernatural and most often mix it
with occult techniques
believing it is from God. Those who follow after others who mislead them
into spiritism will
share in their punishment.
Stories like theses were not only uncommon among the early Christians but
they clearly knew the
pagan society the lived in. How to perform miracles or obtain stronger,
fresh anointings are
not taught in Scripture, nor throughout Church history. Only recently is
this being taught by
those who promote power crusades. Do you want an anointing that he got from
a dead
persons grave. This should give one the creeps!
The "miracles" we can expect to see in greater numbers today from those
whose ministries are
devoted this are found as a warning in: 2 Thess. 2:9-10 "Even him who is
coming after the working
of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all
deceivableness of unrighteousness
in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth that
they might be saved." The
word is the truth, but unless you read it and understand it correctly, your
not in the truth
and you will be deceived by such deceivers as Hinn.
While Hinn was here in January of 99 the ad said in the paper the main focus
was salvation, thats
totally false. I went thursday night the 2nd night and there was absolutely
no gospel message
given in the 31/2 hours of my labouring to stay there, It was all farout
prophecy. There was
no preaching on sin, holiness contending for the faith it was all sugared
oatmeal.
As long as Hinn has a willing and captive audience to play to these
spiritual fabrications will go on.
The question comes down to loyalty, WHO DO YOU LOVE? God, his word of truth,
or are you
trusting in A MAN for your healing and anointing. If not then why are you
looking forward to going?
The same faith you have at the meeting can be accomplished at home. Its not
what you see or feel
but what God has said.
Seminary Student
Proverbs 17:4, "A wicked doer giveth heed to false lips; and a
liar giveth ear to a naughty tongue."
John 8:44, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your
father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode
not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh
a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."
Romans 3:4, "God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;
as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and
mightest overcome when thou art judged."
A HISTORY LESSON FOR BENNY HINN
PFO [Personal Freedom Outreach] continues to investigate preacher Benny
Hinn's claim that his
father once was mayor of Jaffa, Israel (The Quarterly Journal,
July-September 1992, pp. 1, 10-14).
That investigation has revealed that for a number of political and
historical reasons, Costandi Hinn, a
Jaffa-born Arab, could not have been mayor of an almost totally Jewish city.
Jaffa technically did not
exist after 1948 because it was merged with all-Jewish Tel Aviv forming one
municipality called Tel
Aviv-Jaffa. There was no city of Jaffa when Benny Hinn was born.
This fact appears to be foreign to Hinn. In Chapter 2 of Good Morning, Holy
Spirit, Hinn refers to
Tel Aviv and Jaffa as separate cities. To the reader unfamiliar with the
history of the two
municipalities, Hinn adds to the confusion by writing: "During my childhood,
the hundred thousand
people of Jaffa had become engulfed by the exploding Jewish population of
Tel Aviv to the north.
Today the metropolis has the official name of Tel Aviv-Jaffa" (pg. 19).
Indeed, Hinn needs a history
lesson.
The facts demonstrate that there was no Jaffa when Hinn was born. The facts
of the merger, which
became formal and final in 1950 under Mayor israel Rokach, are readily
available in numerous
accounts of that period.
Zionism is about a Jewish state, not a binational one. Reading through The
Journal of Palestinian
Studies and Arabic newspapers readily shows that the Arab citizens of Israel
are regarded as
second-class and are tolerated as a despised minority, a fifth column and
outsiders. They cannot,
even in the wildest scenario, be part of the mainstream. They are viewed as
a serious internal threat
never to be trusted.
For example, David K. Shipler, in his work, Arab and Jew, writes: "Today,
one out of every six
Israelis is an Arab, but the Arab is not Israeli in the full sense. His
citizenship is shallow. It
taints his self-identity with complication. He exists at the edge of a
society that can never, by
its nature, accept him as a complete member in disregard of the religious
and ethnic identities
that set him apart. He is an alien in his own land, an object of suspicion
in his own home, torn
between his country and his people" (pg. 428). Shipler further writes that
the Arabs "were seen
as inherently hostile to the state, deserving of subjugation and dangerous
to educate" and that
they became "automatic targets of scrutiny, distrust, and restriction in the
understandable
obsession with public safety" (pg. 429).
The mayor's office in Tel Aviv-Jaffa provided PFO with official
documentation of the mayors since
1936 and there is no Costandi Hinn listed. All the mayors were known
Israelis and Jews with proven
political track records. One worker at the Tel Aviv Foundation was insulted
that the suggestion was
even made.
Costandi Hinn was born in Jaffa. He was Arabic an married Benny's mother, an
Arab from
Ramallah. Therefore, Hinn is a Palestinian. He was Greek Orthodox by
religion and apparently
emphasizes only that. A staff member at Hinn's Orlando Christian Center who
identified himself as
Steve told PFO that Hinn was neither Arab nor Jew. However, in a taped
testimony, Hinn claims an
Arabic heritage.
Former Jerusalemite and Princeton sociologist Raphael Patai in his book The
Arab Mind identifies
an Arab as "those who speak Arabic, are brought up in an Arab culture" (pg.
13). He writes
that the linguistic test holds for all Arabs, whatever religious and other
differences they may have.
Hinn readily acknowledges that Arabic was the language spoken in his home
(Good Morning, Holy
Spirit, pg. 19).
The official list of all the mayors from the mayor's office in Tel
Aviv-Jaffa is enough evidence to
reject Hinn's claim about his father. However, PFO confirmed the list with
the list with the Museum
of the History of Tel Aviv-Jaffa and the Jerusalem Post.
PFO also checked numerous Palestine Post articles from 1932 and on and
numerous biographies of
government officials and notables in Israel to reconstruct the Jaffa-Tel
Aviv merger and the people
involved. Some of the helpful reference works surveyed include Politics in
Palestine 1939-1948, by
Issa Khalif; My Life, by Golda Meir; The Siege, by Conner Cruise O'Brien;
and Biographical
Dictionary of the Middle East.
There are other arguments that refute Hinn's assertion that his father was
mayor of (Tel Aviv-) Jaffa.
Consider the following:
1.By the time Israel's army took Jaffa in April 1948, 95% of the Arab
population had fled.
There were 3,600 Arabs left who were leaderless, docile, and all
virtually illiterate. (The
Siege, pp. 424-434; Genesis 1948, by Dan Kurzman, pp. 6, 31-37.) The
fact that the Arabs
were overtly pro-Nazi during World War II stuck in the minds of the
Israelis.
Tel Aviv itself was founded (in 1909) and grew as a reaction to the
antagonism and mounting
hostility of the Jaffa Arabs against the Jews (Israel, by Neil Tilbury,
pg. 228). The 1936 Year
Book and Almanac of the Holy Land says that the Jaffa Arabs were
"fanatical" (pg. 123). So,
in 1948, when the all-Jewish council of Tel Aviv became the council of
Tel Aviv-Jaffa, it kept
Israel Rokach as mayor until 1952. The council then elected Haim
Levanon as his successor.
This practice continued until the 1970s. Under this system an Arab
never could have been
elected mayor. The idea of Golda Meir being mayor of Tel Aviv-Jaffa
once was floated by
Israeli leader David Ben-Gurion. The opposition from the orthodox
community was so great
that the idea was dropped. If a Jewish woman was unacceptable as mayor
at the time,
certainly any Arab would have been, too.
Ben-Gurion was noted for his distrust of the Arabs. In 1936, he wrote
in his diary words that
have been called "the curse on Jaffa": "have never felt hatred for
Arabs, and their pranks have
never stirred the desire for revenge in me. But I would welcome the
destruction of Jaffa, port
and city. Let it come; it would be for the better. This city, which
grew fat from Jewish
immigration and settlement, deserves to be destroyed for having waved
an ax at those who
built her and made her prosper. If Jaffa went to hell, I would not
count myself among the
mourners." And just following the capture of Jaffa, Ben-Gurion stated
his official policy: Jaffa
will be a Jewish city. War is war." (Ben Gurion and the Palestinian
Arabs by Shabtai Teveth,
pp. 174-175 and 1949 The First Israelis by Tom Segev, pg. 75).
2.The threat of assassination.
Arab hostility against Arabs would have been the strongest deterrent to
an Arab being mayor
of an Israeli city. After the war, Arabs hated anyone of their kind
they considered a
collaborator. On JuIy 20, 1951, King Abdullah of Jordan was murdered in
Jerusalem
because he was negotiating with Israel. Arabs considered the
execution - carried out by
Arabs - justifiable. An Arab mayor of an all Jewish city would have
been dispatched quickly
either by Israeli extremists or the Arabs themselves. There was an
"Arab Blood Society"
operating in the slums of Jaffa set up to retaliate against any Arab
who had any dealings with
Jews (Politics in Palestine, pp. 67, 99).
Yet Hinn would have readers believe "Even though my father was not
Jewish, the
Israeli leaders trusted him. And they were happy to have someone in
Jaffa who could
relate to such an international community. We were proud of his circle
of friends, which
included many national leaders. He was asked to be an ambassador for
Israel in foreign
nations but chose to stay in Jaffa" (Good Morning, Holy Spirit, pg.
20). It happens that
Israel Rokach the mayor of Tel Aviv-Jaffa during Hinn's childhood, was
the
international ambassador.
The evidence presented shows all of Hinn's claims to be false. If his
father had been
mayor of Tel Aviv-Jaffa during the 1950s, there would be pictures,
newspaper
accounts, government documents confirming the fact. There is nothing.
3.3. The explosive nature of Jaffa itself.
For many years the Jews of Yemen were persecuted, abused, mistreated and
afflicted under Arab
rule. (From Time Immemorial, by Joan Peters). Throughout 1949 and 1950
Ben-Gurion ordered
airlifts of Yemenite Jews. Almost all the Jews were in Yemen were settled in
Israel. Realize that they
now could tell the Arab minority in Israel what to do. They could, "get them
back" and "teach them a
lesson." The Yemenites were known to be Arab "haters" and hostile because of
the years of
persecution.
The Yemenites also tried to throw off their oriental stereotype and prove to
the European Jews that
years in an Arab land did not make them favorable to the enemy. Many of
those Yemenite Jews
settled in Jaffa, a city that is only about one mile square. Add to this the
other oriental Jews from Iraq
and other Arab states who settled in Jaffa and it becomes very obvious that
the minority of Arabs
still there would have kept a low profile.
To suggest that these Jews would have tolerated an Arab mayor is too much to
imagine.
Hinn's book shows him too ignorant of all these matters. It is easy to
understand why. Arabs
in Israel are taught little of Israeli history.
Still, PFO maintains that Hinn wanted to be so much like preacher Kathryn
Kuhlman, whose
father had been a mayor, that he borrowed this and other aspects of her life
for his own
story. (See The Quarterly Journal, July - September 1992, pp. 1, 10-14). In
Arab culture there is
a propensity to copy, to imitate and to take on desired superficial traits
in others. Saying what they
think others want to hear and blending in is an obsession in Arab culture.
Stating a wish as an
accomplished fact is quite common (see Sanya Hamadi, The Character and
Temperament of the
Arabs).
PFO even considered the possibility that "mayor" could mean something else
in Israel. We knew that
"sheikh" means a respected man, an elder in a notable family, but has no
political meaning
whatsoever. But Hinn does not call his father "sheikh." He calls him "mayor"
and says he was
politically powerful (pg. 20). "My father had been mayor" (pp. 18, 37). PFO
contacted Vivian
Ajlouny of the Al Fajr Jerusalem Palestinian Weekly. Ajlouny is a Jerusalem
Arab, Greek Orthodox
by faith and knowledgeable about Arab culture. She said "mayor is mayor." It
is a political term and
nothing else. It can be understood in no other way. It is "Al-Baladiyeh" in
Arabic - literally, the "head
of a municipality." Israel or America, wherever, a mayor is a mayor.
Hinn's early biography is not factual. He has created a fanciful and
distorted story that does not
square with logic or history. The Kuhlman connection is plausible for his
fabrications. The Arab bent
toward rhetoric and overstatement and the drive for honor and pedigree might
have added to it.
Only Hinn knows for sure all the reasons. His claims are refuted by the
facts and an understanding of
the culture he grew up in.
It is interesting to note that during Hinn's upcoming "Miracle Crusade [of
the] Holy Land 1993,"
scheduled for March, the one important Israeli city the tour will no visit
is Tel Aviv-Jaffa, his home
town. His tour will skip the town from where Jonah set sail, where Solomon
received the timbers
from Lebanon, where Peter saw the vision of the sheet and animals and
launched out to preach the
Gospel to the Gentiles and where he raised Tabitha from the dead.
In "Good Morning, Holy Spirit," Hinn lauds Tel Aviv-Java announcing, "As a
boy I loved hearing the
stories of history that surrounded me. Jaffa was founded back before
recorded time" (pg. 18) He
also mentions "the prophetic State of Israel," yet ignores its first
capital. Hinn's first vision supposedly
took place in Jaffa and as he leaves the city he asks himself, "Will I ever
see this place again? ..
There was a lump in my throat. I was fourteen and it was the only home I had
ever known" (pg. 26).
And yet he's missing his chance to go back.
Once again, PFO calls on Thomas Nelson Publishers the distributor of Hinn's
books, to examine
these claims and end the confusion and fabrication in the books it
publishes. What the Christian
world needs is increasing integrity, honesty and truth, not fables and
fiction. PFO got the facts.
Thomas Nelson should do the same.
Seminary Student
Your theology is so far off, it is a waste of time to even
try to untagle you. Maybe someone else has the
patience for this, but I do not. Sorry
Seminary Student
You have not made the kill file, but Winter has...
Mark Bassett <mba...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:388909d0...@news.optonline.net...
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 07:45:33 GMT, "Seminary Student"
> <roman...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Http://members.tripod.com/bibletruths/copeland.htm
> >
> >Kenneth Copeland has taught the following
> >
> > That we do not have a god in us but that we are a God.
> > "You don't have a God in you. You are one!"- The Force of Love
> >audiotape
>
Seminary Student
And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."
I dont know what YOUR version of Christanity is, but I take
OFFENSE when some IDIOT FALSE TEACHER calls
ALMIGHTLY GOD the "Biggest falure in the WORLD!"
Hear Copeland say this at
Http://members.triopod.com/bibletruths/copeland.htm
2 Peter 2:1-2, "But there were false prophets also among the people,
even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall
bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them,
and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow
their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be
evil spoken of."
Copleand Says:
God is the greatest failure in the Universe
"I was shocked when I found out who the biggest failure in the Bible
actually is....The
biggest one is God....I mean, He lost His top-ranking, most anointed angel;
the first man He
ever created; the first woman He ever created; the whole earth and all the
Fullness therein; a
third of the angels, at least--that's a big loss, man. . .
Praise-a-Thon program on TBN [April 1988]
Can you say BLASPHEMY?!
Copeland Says:
The death of Jesus on the Cross did not pay the for sins
"It wasn't the physical death on the cross that paid the price for
sin..anybody could do that"
What Satan saw on the day of Pentecost
Can you say BLASPHEMY?!
Copeland Says:
God has no right to the earth at all, he needs an invitation
"God had no avenue of lasting faith or moving in the earth. He had to have
covenant with
somebody. . . . He had to be invited in, in other words, or He couldn't
come. God is on the
outside looking in. In order to have any say so in the earth, He's gonna
have to be in
agreement with a man here."
God's Covenants With Man II 1985, audiotape #01-4404, side
Can you say BLASPHEMY?!
Copeland Says:
Jesus was a WORM?
"He [Jesus] is suffering all that there is to suffer. There is no suffering
left apart from Him. His
emaciated, poured out, little, wormy spirit is down in the bottom of that
thing [hell]. And the
Devil thinks he's got Him destroyed."
Believer's Voice of Victory" program [21 April 1991]. This message was
originally delivered at the Full Gospel
Motorcycle Rally Association 1990 Rally at Eagle Mountain Lake, Texas
WE COMMAND GOD TO ACT?
Copleand Says:
"As a believer, you have a right to make commands in the name of Jesus. Each
time you stand on the
Word, you are commanding God to a certain extent because it is His Word."
Our Covenant with God [Fort Worth, TX: KCP Publications, 1987], 32
Isaiah 56:10, "His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all
dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber."
The Apostle Paul put it best Pamela,
1 Corinthians 14:38, "But if any man (or woman) be ignorant, let him be
ignorant."
Pamela <pamelareub...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:02efc50a...@usw-ex0106-045.remarq.com...
> Dear Seminary Student...
> Sounds like you have contemplated, meditated, cognitated and
> rumminated a whole lot more on Kenneth Copeland than you have on God
> and His Word.
Proverbs 9:8, "Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man,
and he will love thee."
> Get your mind off of him and on God and maybe one of
> these days you will actually understand the Love of God that Kenneth
> Copeland's ministry teaches.
This is what I think of "Copeland's Mini-story"
2 Peter 2:1-2, "But there were false prophets also among the people,
even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall
bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them,
and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow
their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be
evil spoken of."
sam_p...@my-deja.com
> >I'm going to snip out things which I feel are irrelevant. If you feel
> >otherwise, then mention them in your replying post. You complained in
> >the other post that I snipped some of your posts out. Which ones were
> >these and for what reason (did I fail to respond to a question?) did
> >you want them included?
> >
> >> >> >> Again, he is simply saying that his works are a result
> >> >> >> of his TRUE faith in God.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Tell me exactly where he says this.
> >> >>
> >> >> This is simply a matter of understanding the writing
> >> >> styles of that time and not trying to put a 20th
> >> >> century twist on the wording and simply using some
> >> >> common sense. For example.....
> >> >
> >> >So you don't have an exact passage then? You rely on
extrapolating an
> >> >interpretation? And you also assume that God is a little bit
behind
> >> >the
> >> >times?
> >>
> >> I gave you more than one. You simply refuse to see it,
> >> for the reason that you give later in your response.
> >
> >None was given. All of them were indirect verses.
>
> This is your claim. I do not see that, yet I do see
> you doing exactly what you accuse me of.
If you really had any verses, you would have produced them instead of
simply writing the above.
> >> Simple belief in His existence isn't the same thing as
> >> having, "real faith".
> >
> >This is a matter of definition. The dictionary (Chambers 20th
Century)
> >defines faith and belief as as:
> >
> >Faith: belief in the statement of another: belief in the truth of
> >revealed religion
> >
> >Belief: Persuasion of the truth of anything: faith: the opinion or
> >doctrine believed
> >
> >There you go - belief in God is the same as having faith in God.
>
> And again, there YOU go. :) Modern English
> definitions. Why not go back to the original Greek?
The NIV and RSV are in contemporary English (or modern English). Thus I
am using a modern English dictionary. The KJV is old English, yes, but
the words mean the EXACT same thing in old English and in contemporary
English. Faith and belief mean in the same thing in old English and
modern English - if you refuse to believe me, ask any English teacher.
> >> >Good english is precise english, and if James' letter does not
> >> >support
> >> >your argument explicity. But he does explicity say (James 2:24)
that
> >> >faith and works are required. If there is anyone putting
any "twist"
> >> >in
> >> >things, it is you.
> >>
> >> No, it doesn't say, "Faith and works are required to be
> >> saved". For someone who is insisting on exact wording,
> >> you sure don't mind making your own word plays.
> >>
> >> It says that a man is "justified" by works. That is a
> >> different subject and that's why there are two
> >> different words ("saved" and "justified").
> >
> >Duh ... when did I ever ask for exact wording in every respect? I
> >asked
> >for an EXACT PASSAGE, not an EXACT WORDING. That's putting words in
> >my
> >mouth.
>
> In rereading your statement, you are right. However,
> that does not mean, as you later asserted, that they
> are "synonyms".
Yes, I agree with you now that faith is different from justification.
But there ARE definitely related.
However, I did not anytime require you to produce exact wordings.
> >I asked this because you are introducing a whole new topic in
> >the book of James (the difference between real and false faith) and
it
> >is a topic that James does not cover.
>
> But he does. That's why the word "SUCH" is used, as in
> "Can SUCH faith save him?". He IS defining the TYPE of
> faith.
This is what I call (in fact, all English students call) an indirect
reference, and an ambigious one at that. He is NOT definining the type
of faith; he is making an indirect reference to faith. If he is
defining the types of faith, he would have listed them - ie, true faith
is ... and false faith is ..., but he does not do that. Hence, he is
NOT defining the type of faith.
First of all, you yourself do not have any understanding of Greek. If
you did, you would have commented on why the writing style is so. Yet
you use this argument without so much as a hint of explanation and
expect me to accept it.
> >Even Greek scholars have a hard time interpretating original Greek
> >scripture, and of course, there are many differences in opinion.
> >Furthermore you don't even mention WHICH passages I have read with a
> >20th century mind.
>
> If they have a hard time, knowing the Greek, then what
> makes you think that your interpretation, not knowing
> the Greek, is valid? That's quite an arrogant stance,
> if you think about it. :)
I'm reading the interpretation as it reads from the NIV and RSV. And,
in case you didn't know, the writing style of old English is not much
different to contemporary English. So I'm not asserting that I have the
correct interpretation; I'm assuming that the bible translators have
translated the bible correctly into modern English, and as a result I'm
using that as a reference. I do not try to introduce arguments
about "writing styles" when I do not have any knowledge about it.
> >Now, what you are in effect saying is that the bible translators did
> >not properly translate the bible - they forgot to update some of
> >the "1st century writings" into "20th century" ones.
>
> No, that's not what I'm saying. You have a weird twist
> on wording. No offense, but what you're really doing
> here, is interjecting your own thoughts and then
> claiming that they are my words.
Then why can't the NIV or RSV bibles be read as it stands? Why do I
have to take into account the Greek language that they were written in?
Remember, you introduced this argument, not me.
>
> What I said, was that the KJV was translated into Old
> English, which doesn't necessarily word things the same
> way as modern English does, in each instance. That's a
> far cry from what you're claiming I said.
Any English teacher will tell you that old English is very similar to
modern English.
> >But you supposedly know which ones are which.
>
> I never said that I know everything there is to know
> about the languages and times of the Bible and the Old
> English. What I'm saying is that with years of study
> of these things, I have come to a fuller and deeper
> understanding of Scripture and am able to get a clearer
> picture because of it.
>
> You, on the other had, are saying that none of it
> matters. Yet you would not take that approach with
> your teacher in school, who told you exactly what I am
> saying, which is that a study of things is necessary,
> to get a good picture of what's going on and what's
> being said.
I'm saying that we don't need to consider the Greek language in which
the bible was written in. Why? Because it has been translated for us
into modern English!
> You know that what I'm saying is common sense. You are
> simply on a mission.
Aren't we all?
> >For all we know, heaven and hell
> >could be metaphors and not literal places - we were just reading it
> >with a 20th century mindset! I hardly think that you are qualified
> >enough to say this.
>
> No, we don't "all know this". That is your opinion.
Errr, ever heard of irony?
Because it has already been translated from Greek to contemporary
English! That is why I can use a contemporary dictionary!
> >> >> 18) Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith and I have
> >> >> works: show me thy faith without thy works and I will
> >> >> show thee my faith by my works.
> >> >>
> >> >> Again, James gives us the "acid test" for whether or
> >> >> not someone's faith is real. He shows that his faith
> >> >> is a "real faith" and that the other mans faith is not.
> >> >
> >> >This, I'm afraid, it not supported by the verse you quoted above.
> >> >Where does James say that his faith is real and the other's is
false?
> >>
> >> Ok, you like to think in modern English, so let me give
> >> you an example of what he's saying, in modern English,
> >> knowing that not only must we take the writing styles
> >> of that time into consideration, but also the Old
> >> English.
> >>
> >> "show me thy faith without thy works".
> >
> >Huh? "Thy" is simply Old English for "you". So there is no difference
> >in meaning of the above in Old or Contemporary English.
>
> There is in writing STYLE. We simply wouldn't say the
> phrase this way today (even beyond the "thy").
Yes we would - "show me your faith without your works". How would we
say it then? Hmm?
Did you read the above? Showing that there ARE contradictions, is
equivalent to showing that the doctrine of salvation is not clearly
addressed!
> If you are claiming that salvation is not clearly
> addressed in *_THE BIBLE_* and that there are
> contradictions in *_THE BIBLE_*, then you must look at
> *_ALL OF THE BIBLE_*.
>
> James does NOT = "The Bible". There is much more to
> "The Bible" than just James, so you cannot say that
> "The Bible" contradicts itself and then refuse to look
> at anything other than James.
Of course! But before we look at ALL of the bible, we have to properly
interpret James don't we? It's simply ridiculous to look at other
passages and comparing them to James when we don't even know what James
is saying!
> >So, you accept then: it's not a proper rebuttal or argument.
>
> I accept no such thing. Rather, I have shown that
> while you claim to be showing the Bible to be
> contradictory., you are simply contradicting yourself.
And here is what I call a blanket statement. When did I contradict
myself?
> >> But here's a thought. If Scripture does contradict
> >> each other, then why take James as being the accurate
> >> one, since according to you, this one work contradicts
> >> many others works in the Bible? Why not take all the
> >> rest, which agree on this issue? Of course, I am not
> >> granting that there is a contradiction.
> >
> >Did I say that James was the correct one? In fact, there is NO NEED
to
> >state which one is correct - it should be quite obvious that to
prove a
> >contradiction, one does not need to say which one is right or wrong
> >except that they both say different things.
>
> It is not obvious that a contradiction is proven, when
> you refuse to look at other Scriptures.
Once again, BEFORE we look at other parts of scripture, we have to
correctly interpret James. Right now we are debating the correct
interpretation of James. I'm sure you have very little experience
dealing with issues ...
> >> >The second part of your argument - "that my interpretation is
> >> >supported
> >> >in other books whilst yours is not" - is really not relevant here,
> >> >as I
> >> >am trying to prove a contradiction in the doctrine of salvation.
> >>
> >> If it is a contradiction that you are trying to show,
> >> then the other Scriptures are THE relevant thing, since
> >> what you're trying to show, is that this passage
> >> contradicts those other Scriptures. :)
> >>
> >> Since the other Scriptures support what I'm saying and
> >> line up perfectly with James, if one takes him at what
> >> he's saying, then there is no contradiction. Hence my
> >> statement is completely relevant.
> >
> >OK, led me take you step by step. I don't think you understand the
> >issue here - which is whether or not James is saying that salvation
> >requires works.
>
> You claim that James says that salvation requires
> works, contradicting other Scriptures, yet now you say
> that the issue is not whether or not James says that
> salvation requires works. Are you reading what you
> write?
Huh? Huh? Double HUH? When did I say the issue is NOT whether or not
James is saying that salvation requires works? Here, I'll copy and
paste my above words:
I don't think you understand the issue here - which is whether or not
James is saying that salvation requires works.
I said exactly that the issue here IS whether or not James says that
salvation requires works.
You don't read too good. Before you rag my grammar, I was being ironic.
> >I am trying to prove a contradiction. To prove this contradiction I
> >need to interpret the teachings of Paul and James. We seem to agree
> >that Paul is saying that that only faith is needed for salvation.
> >However, we do not agree on the what James is saying. So the issue
here
> >is the correct interpretation of James. Follow so far?
> >
> >Now, to correctly interpret James, you can't simply argue that since
> >Paul is saying this, James is saying this also. Your argument is
summed
> >as follows: If there is a contradiction, then your interpretation
> >cannot be correct. This is what you are saying, and I replied that
> >since I am trying to prove a contradiction, is not valid to argue as
> >above. OK?
>
> See above.
You obviously did not read my above post, or else you would fault my
reasoning if it were wrong. Yet you never do this. You simply re-state
a million times your stance on the issue, as if by attrition you could
win the argument.
> >Thus, your scripture references are irrelevant to corretly
interpreting
> >James.
>
> Not at all. That is YOUR twist on it, but you will
> refuse to see anything that doesn't allow you to reject
> God, because otherwise, you have to face your sin and
> you have to give up being the "god" in your life.
Please, be my guest and say why my reasoning is wrong.
> >> >> Salvation is NOT "conditional".
> >> >
> >> >Yes it IS. Can I be saved without faith? No. Ergo, salvation is
> >> >CONDITIONAL on faith.
> >> >
> >> >> It is common sense,
> >> >> that in order to accept a gift from anyone, you first
> >> >> have to believe that they exist. Those who come to Him
> >> >> must believe that he is.
> >> >
> >> >The Red Cross probably doesn't know or believe or even cares that
I
> >> >exist, but I'm sure if I sent them a donation they would be able
to
> >> >receive it.
> >>
> >> By receiving it, they are taking you at your word that
> >> you exist. Otherwise, they would not have cashed the
> >> check, believing it to be a fake identity.
> >
> >No they don't. Once the money arrives, the have already received it.
> >There was no belief in my existence ANYTIME prior to that. Obviously
> >AFTER they received it, they will KNOW that I exist. In fact, if you
> >think about it carefully, there was no instance in which they even
had
> >faith in my existence was there?
>
> If they thought that it was not actually you who sent
> it, they wouldn't cash it. Why do you play these word
> games?
I sent them money; there is no need to cash it in. And likewise God,
being omnipotent, can send me salvation even though I do not believe in
his existence.
> >> >In exactly the same way, there is no stopping Jesus from giving me
> >> >eternal life although I do not believe in him. Although once
having
> >> >RECEIVED the gift I would believe in him.
> >>
> >> You don't have the ability to accept the gift, if you
> >> don't believe it exists and even if He did give it to
> >> you anyway, your heart would not be right and you would
> >> reject it.
> >
> >Why won't I have the ability to receive the gift? Rather than just
> >stating your contention, try to fault my reasoning above. I think
I've
> >made it quite clear that it is possible to receive anything from
> >somebody even if you don't know who they are. Do you ever receive
mail-
> >order catalogues from companies you didn't know exist? Of course.
>
> Jesus doesn't send salvation through the mail. :) It
> is a spiritual thing and you must accept it
> spiritually. That means it's up to YOU, if you accept
> the gift, or reject it.
It's what I call an ANALOGY - not to be taken LITERALLY. Like the six
days, the man of clay, etc.
Your next sentence: "It is a spiritual thing and you must accept it
spiritually" is simply a vague and ambigious statement which tries to
mask your lack of logical response.
> >> But let's clarify this. What you're saying is correct
> >> in that it is conditional, but incorrect in that it you
> >> are saying that it is conditional upon God. It is not
> >> conditional upon God. It is conditional upon US.
> >
> >It is conditions upon God and us. First on God to give it, THEN on us
> >to receive it.
>
> I'm not going to play these silly word games with you.
> God is holding the gift out already. Do you want it?
Duh ... of course I want it. But whether God is really handing it out -
now that's another issue. You see, before you accuse me of refusing
God's "gift", keep in mind that I do not believe in his existence.
No one is playing word games. I'm definining words and using them to
attempt to correctly interpret games. If that is what you call word
games, then high school must have been one big game to you.
> >> >> It is also common sense, that if you walk over to
> >> >> someone to receive their gift to you, that does not
> >> >> mean that the person didn't give it freely.
> >> >
> >> >Huh? The words "gift" and "didn't give it freely (to you)" are
> >> >mutually
> >> >exclusive. A gift, is by definition, FREE.
> >>
> >> See above. The thing is, is that while the person is
> >> holding the gift out, as God is holding out the gift of
> >> His Son to us, it is conditional upon us, to believe
> >> that this is happening and accept it.
> >>
> >> In other words, someone can hold a soda out to us. We
> >> can either accept it or reject it. That doesn't mean
> >> that the person holding the soda put conditions on it.
> >> It is simply up to us to accept it or reject it. It
> >> only make sense that in order to accept the soda, we
> >> must believe that it exists and we must want to take it
> >> from them.
> >
> >Haha, yes! But you are skipping a step here: God does not hold out
> >sodas to all souls does he? That part of the gift (holding out sodas)
> >to unrepentant souls is conditional upon God.
>
> God holds the gift out to everyone. It is up to each
> person to accept or reject it.
He does not hold it out to dead atheists, although being omnipotent, he
could of course do that.
> >> So yes, there is a "condition", but it is a condition
> >> that we have on ourselves, not one imposed by God. He
> >> is holding out the gift for anyone who wants it to
> >> receive, free of charge.
> >>
> >> He is offering the gift and you somehow want to blame
> >> Him, is people don't accept it, saying that He put
> >> conditions on it, when in reality, it was our own
> >> refusal to accept it. i.e., He held it out and we
> >> said, "NO".
> >
> >"Blame him"? When have I ever blamed God for anything? Geez, try to
> >stick to the issue instead of trying to sneak in cheap shots at your
> >opponent, OK?
>
> Haven't done that. By stating that it is conditional,
> you are making God a liar. Therefore, you are "blaming
> Him".
Geez, you have to start thinking laterally a little more.
1. I do not believe in God.
2. Hence I do not believe the bible was written by God.
3. So if I say the bible contradicts itself, I do not say that God is a
liar (because he did not write the bible).
4. I am not blaming God. Is it logical to blame someone you don't know?
AND furthermore, calling someone a liar is not the same as blaming him.
That's why we have two different words for it. :)
Let's try not to get personal, OK? A civilized and mature debate is
much more useful than a personal and vindictive one.
> >If God is holding out eternal life, who would say no?
>
> <Pastor Dave holds up a mirror in front of Sam>
<Sam directs Pastor Dave to his above post, where he states that he
does not believe in God.>
Did I put "anything" in quotation marks in the above post? Did I accuse
you of saying the word "anything"? Do you know anything about writing
conventions?
> >> It is your definition that they can both be "true
> >> faith", but the Scriptures which you are trying to
> >> prove contradict each other, do not support that line
> >> of thinking.
> >>
> >> You're going right by the word "SUCH", in the phrase,
> >> "Can SUCH faith save him?".
> >
> >Again the issue here is the correct interpretation of James. Hence,
you
> >simply cannot say my interpretation is wrong because is contradicts
> >with the rest of scripture. You misunderstand the whole issue.
>
> I didn't say it was wrong for that reason. I said that
> the word "SUCH" is there and you are simply ignoring
> it, as if it didn't exist. Nut since the whole thing
> hinges upon that word and proves my point, I can see
> why you're ignoring it.
Remember, this is an indirect reference, and open to all sorts of
interpretation. I mean, to analyze the word "such" like you are trying
to is quite ridiculous because it is only an indirect reference and as
such is not absolutely vital to the issue.
> >> >Can a person be saved without being justified? No.
> >>
> >> The question should be reversed.
> >
> >Do you agree with the above statement (That a person cannot be saved
> >without being justified) or not? Yes or no? If yes, then proceed to
> >part 2 of my reasoning, otherwise tell me why you don't agree with
it.
>
> No, I disagree with you. A person CAN be saved, wihout
> justification already being present.
>
So we can go to heaven without being justified then? I don't think
Pastors would agree with you here.
The interpretation of a chapter requires the context of the chapter.
Correctly interpretating James does not require any forays into the
other parts of the bible. Why don't you ask a teacher and find out for
yourself?
> >As for proving a contradiction, I assume that we are agreed that Paul
> >teaches that only faith is required for salvation?
>
> The faith that God calls for.
So yes, we are agreed.
> >> >So, if a person must be justified BY WHAT HE DOES,
> >>
> >> I do not grant that, as it is not true as a blanket
> >> statement.
> >
> >James said the very thing above. Here it is (yet) again:
> >
> >(James 2:24) "You see that a person is JUSTIFIED BY WHAT HE DOES ...
> >
> >So are you disagreeing with James?
>
> Not at all. In the case that James is discussing, he
> is absolutely correct. However, as a blanket
> statement, that would not be true in the exact sense
> that James uses it.
1. Why would it not be true in the exact sense that James is saying it?
2. What IS the exact sense in which James is saying it?
If you can't answer these, your argument is dead.
> >> >then it follows quite logically that he
> >> >must be saved BY WHAT HE DOES.
> >>
> >> That is not true, nor does James say that. Remember
> >> those "exact words" that you were looking for? You
> >> didn't want to hear logic from me, but wanted "exact
> >> words" from James. Therefore, your logic is no good to
> >> me. Where are the "exact words" from James? You
> >> cannot deny others the use of common sense and then
> >> expect to throw your own thoughts on what something
> >> means in there and have others listen to them.
> >
> >No, James did not say that nor did I assert that he did. And I never
> >asked for "exact words" either, I think you are getting a little
> >carried away with that. If you disagree with the above, fault the
> >logic. Don't simply say "logic is no good to me". Why is it no good?
>
> Because James didn't use the word, "saved", but rather,
> "justified". You keep trying to sneak that word
> "saved" in there, in the place of "justified", hoping I
> won't catch it. They are NOT the same.
You try to fault my logic here because YOU have said that we do not
have to be justified to be saved. Wanna open up another thread and
discuss this?
> >> Again, you bypass where James says, "Can SUCH faith
> >> save him?".
> >>
> >> When when asks if "SUCH faith" can save him, one is
> >> automatically stating that there faith DOES save him.
> >> It is the TYPE OF (SUCH) FAITH that is being
> >> questioned. Your English teacher would have backed me
> >> up on that. :)
> >
> >Did you read my last post? I said that I have no problem with James
> >saying that there are different types of faith - BUT I have a problem
> >with your view that the types of faith James is referring to is real
> >and false faith.
>
> No, you asked me where he said that. That's why I
> showed you.
>
> >BTW, my english teacher is a confirmed atheist. Great guy and all
that,
> >but unfortunately it's hellfire for him when he dies.
>
> His beliefs have nothing to do with the proper use of
> English, so what do I care if he's an atheist, when
> reviewing the text?
It's just a little banter, that's all. No need to get up tight.
And of the second part of my post? You obviously have not answer ...
Haha, this from a guy who hasn't read Shakespeare. Shakespeare is hard
to understand not because it is old English, but because he wrote in a
form called "dramatic poetry". You obviously did not know this, and
neither have you studied any of Shakespeare - or perhaps you did, but
it was much to hard for you.
Yet I doth hear the death knoll sound
For Pastor Dave and his English
(Apologies to Shakespeare, and his play Caesar)
> >The bible on the other hand, has been translated to modern day
english
> >from Greek. So what we are reading is the the NIV or RSV or NLT
> >contemporary English translated from Old English. Now if you want to
> >say that the translators (Greek scholars) did not properly translate
> >them, that is your perogative but as I said, whether you are
qualified
> >enough to say that is another matter.
>
> We have been quoting the KJV, so the other translations
> are irrelevant. My statement about the Old English
> stands.
You quote from the KJV. The majority of my quotes are from the NIV.
> >Hence your "writing styles" argument is just not valid because, as we
> >know, the NT wasn't translated exactly word for word.
>
> That's where you're wrong. The KJV was exactly that,
> with the rule of translating any language applied.
Pay attention in English classes! Old English is very similar to
contemporary English.
> >> To say that we can simply sit here, in our modern world
> >> today and read these texts, without any understanding
> >> of both the Greek and the Old English and get the full
> >> meaning of the texts, is simply ridiculous and quite
> >> prideful on our parts. We certainly wouldn't approach
> >> other works that way in school and since the Bible has
> >> so much in it, that has so much meaning, why should we
> >> approach it any differently? Surely you can see that?
> >
> >See above - the bible that you read today is contemporary English.
>
> Interesting how you discuss the KJV with me, until it
> is shown that my point about understanding the Old
> English is correct and then you immediately switch to a
> modern English version and act as if we had never been
> discussing the KJV. You are quite transparent.
Let's quote from the NIV then? Hmm? We'll see if it makes a difference
I am quite transparent? Gee, I love it when you get personal and start
making these personal attacks. It simply masks your lack of response
for a logical and carefully reasoned argument. Adjudicator, take some
marks off!
> You know what? I'm not even going to go through the
> rest of thise message. It is obvious to me that you
> are on a mission here that has nothing to do with
> honest, intelligent discussion and I simply won't
> continue in these word twisting games.
Translation from Pastor Dave to contemporary English: You know what? I
just can't answer those issues and I don't have good responses so I'll
just stop the debate right now.
Hmm, if I remember correctly, a few messages ago you were praising the
Lord for using me to bring you to a better understanding of your faith.
Now you want to just throw in the towel? I sincerely thought you would
have lasted longer than this ...
Lucky for you cowardice is not one of the seven deadly sins huh?
Pamela
You know in the early church a bunch of the saints were getting
into this business of defending and arguing against other teachers. The
Apostle Paul didn't condone it. In fact he said:
Now dear brothers and sisters, I appeal to you by the authority of
the Lord Jesus Christ to stop arguing among yurselves. Let there be
real harmony so there won't be divisions in the church. I plead with
you to be of one mind, united in thought and purpose. For some members
of Chloe's household have told me about your arguments, dear brothers
and sisters. Some of you are saying, "I am a follower of Paul." Others
are saying, "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Peter," or "I follow only
Christ." Can Christ be divided into pieces?
(1 Corinthians: 10-13, The Book)
Now look at Paul could have done but didn't. He could have gone into
what Apollos said that was incorrect. He could have defended what he
was writing, or what Peter said. He could of said that he was doing all
this because it was important that the saints not be ignorant. But what
he did was go the heart of what robs The Word from someone's
heart---offense. You are not a seminary student; you are a student of
your own perceived wrongs of Kenneth Copeland and studying this is
getting you into a state of offense, a mistake. You are making a second
mistake by using scripture to uphold your state of offense. I would
suggest that you spend some time thinking about this scripture.
Pastor Dave
<roman...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>Http://members.tripod.com/bibletruths/benny.htm
>
>Visit my webpage to hear Benny Hinn:
>
>Benny Says: Jesus was born with a SINFUL NATURE!
>Bible Says: 2 Corinthians 5:21, "For he hath made him to be sin
>for us, who knew NO SIN; that we might be made the righteousness
>of God in him."
It's amazing how people will twist Scriptures, to try
to bring God down to their level, so they don't have to
face their sin.
"See, look, even Jesus was sinful, so it's not so bad
if I sin."
Read the verse CAREFULLY and let's try it backwards.
"who knew no sin"
Jesus was NOT, "sinful". He knew "no sin". i.e., He
was "without sin".
"For He hath made Him to be sinful".
If we took this statement literally, in modern English
(which is a mistake, because it would have a different
meaning, but that is what this guy is TRYING to do and
still doesn't have the grammer right), it would be
stating, "He made Him to go around sinning." and
obviously, that isn't the case.
Jesus was "made sinful", in that He was crucified as a
sinner, a blasphemer, which was for our sins, even
though He had not sinned at all, because what He was
saying was truth. And when the Jews were told that the
they should handle it themselves, because it was a
matter of THEIR law, they lied and said that He was
trying to take over for Caeser.
This mans teachings denies Scripture altogether. If
Jesus actually had been born of a sinful nature, then
He could not have been a blameless sacrifice for our
sins.....
Hebrews 7:25-26
25) Wherefore He is able also to save them to the
uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He ever
liveth to make intercession for them,
26) For such an High Priest, became us, who is holy,
harmless, UNDEFILED, SEPARATE FROM SINNERS and made
higher than the heavens.
It is clear here, that Jesus did NOT have sin. If He
did, then He would be no different than anyone else who
could be crucified and say that they were doing it for
the sins of mankind. What would be the need for the
Son of God to be here, if a sinful man could have been
the sacrifice for our sins?
Pastor Dave
<timth...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I was at the Benny Hinn Crusade in Miami on Good Friday, April 10, 1998.
>I had a good time and saw many more people healed than he ever could show on
>tv.
Which means nothing. The Bible gives examples of those
who were healing in the name of Jesus, but weren't
saved.
Pastor Dave
<vgga...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Seminary Student wrote:
>>
>> Http://members.tripod.com/bibletruths/benny.htm
>>
>> Visit my webpage to hear Benny Hinn:
>>
>> Benny Says: Jesus was born with a SINFUL NATURE!
>> Bible Says: 2 Corinthians 5:21, "For he hath made him to be sin
>> for us, who knew NO SIN; that we might be made the righteousness
>> of God in him."
>>
>>
>
>I don't know what Hinn's exact words were, but if you're one of those
>who think it was impossible for Jesus to commit sin, and that He didn't
>have to make a conscious choice to resist sin and choose righteousness
>"because He is fully God", then you misunderstand His nature. If Jesus
>was incapable of being tempted, then He has not overcome.
Of course Jesus had the ability to sin, but He didn't.
Benny Hinn wants us to think that He was born with a
sinful nature, which is quite different.
Mark Bassett
>Of course Jesus had the ability to sin, but He didn't.
>Benny Hinn wants us to think that He was born with a
>sinful nature, which is quite different.
And, despite the 'oooo's and "aaaahh's, he doesn't really get it over very
well. If you listen to the sound bite, which must be from some TV show, it
is profusely drenched with the sounds of amazed, awed onlookers. How sad for
them. I have heard far more effective teachers in the local library, and if
these folks were utterly amazed at such concepts, they have spent precious
little time around Bibles.
He is all show and mass psychology. He is demonstrating for world powers,
which are watching with interest, exactly how to use religion for social and
spiritual engineering.
-mwb
helpu
Pastor Dave <pcd...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:387f3f48...@news.optonline.net...
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 06:45:21 -0800, vince garcia
> <vgga...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Seminary Student wrote:
> >>
> >> Http://members.tripod.com/bibletruths/benny.htm
> >> Visit my webpage to hear Benny Hinn:
> >> Benny Says: Jesus was born with a SINFUL NATURE!
> >> Bible Says: 2 Corinthians 5:21, "For he hath made him to be sin
for us, who knew NO SIN; that we might be made the righteousness
> >> of God in him."
> >I don't know what Hinn's exact words were, but if you're one of those
who think it was impossible for Jesus to commit sin, and that He didn't
> >have to make a conscious choice to resist sin and choose righteousness
> >"because He is fully God", then you misunderstand His nature. If Jesus
was incapable of being tempted, then He has not overcome.
> Of course Jesus had the ability to sin, but He didn't.
> Benny Hinn wants us to think that He was born with a
> sinful nature, which is quite different.
Helpu
Where do you find that Jesus even could sin? I dont see it in scripture
OddClock
such an obvious fraud as Hinn. Perhaps if more Christians exposed
about his false teachings and false prophesies, he would not be
regarded as a holy man
There was news a while back about a member of Hinn's threatening to
expose him. Here is a article about it:
http://www.idca.com/~cephasmi/hinn1.99.html
Does anyone know what happened to this person?
On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 07:43:37 GMT, "Seminary Student"
<roman...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
Pastor Dave
<pamelareub...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Dear Seminary Student...
> Sounds like you have contemplated, meditated, cognitated and
>rumminated a whole lot more on Kenneth Copeland than you have on God
>and His Word. Get your mind off of him and on God and maybe one of
>these days you will actually understand the Love of God that Kenneth
>Copeland's ministry teaches.
> Pamela
While I agree that God should be our focus and I'm
making no judgement calls on Kenneth Copeland, it is
very important that we examine those who would teach
us. Paul showed this, when he approved of the Bereans
response, when he preached to them. They "searched the
Scriptures daily, whether those things were so".
Mark Bassett
<roman...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>Always a pleasure to correspond with you Mr. Bassett....
>
>You have not made the kill file, but Winter has...
Without decisions like that, mankind would never have invented walls, and
thus, their roofs would lack real support :-)
-mwb
Pastor Dave
sam_p...@my-deja.com wrote:
As I said, I'm not going to continue in this word
twisting game any longer. But just to prove my point,
that that IS your intention and that you keep trying to
slip one word in for another and twist the thought
flow, I've pointed out a couple of paragraphs that you
typed.....
>> >> It says that a man is "justified" by works. That is a
>> >> different subject and that's why there are two
>> >> different words ("saved" and "justified").
>> In rereading your statement, you are right. However,
>> that does not mean, as you later asserted, that they
>> are "synonyms".
>
>Yes, I agree with you now that faith is different from justification.
>But there ARE definitely related.
The two words were not, "faith" and "justified". They
were "saved" and "justified". More word twisting on
your part.
>> >> I'm sorry, but I cannot put years of study of the
>> >> writing styles and lifestyles of those times into one
>> >> message. I would suggest that you begin on your own
>> >> adventure of study.
>> >>
>> >> The fact that you do not have an understanding of these
>> >> things, does not make my statement, "totally baseless",
>> >> any more than if your teacher told you that you must
>> >> have an understanding of atoms, in order to become a
>> >> nuclear physicist.
>> >>
>> >> What you're saying is, "I don't know that, so it
>> >> doesn't count.". :)
>> >
>> >What you're saying is my argument stands but I just can't explain it.
>>
>> No, I'm saying that your argument doesn't stand.
>> You're saying that it does, even though you admit that
>> you have no understanding of the languages, which means
>> that you can't possibly get a full picture of what's
>> being said.
>
>First of all, you yourself do not have any understanding of Greek. If
>you did, you would have commented on why the writing style is so. Yet
>you use this argument without so much as a hint of explanation and
>expect me to accept it.
You now claim that I have no understanding of the
Greek, without any facts to back that statement up.
You also claim that I should have instructed you on it,
as if I could put years of study into a message.
Your real mission here is to try to bring me down to
your level of education on this matter, so that you can
spew out whatever odd theory you wish and claim that I
can't refute it, because I don't know any more about it
than you do.
Do scholars leave translations as they stand and accept
whatever they say, as accurate? The RSV is nothing
more than a paraphrase, which simply means that someone
is telling you what they think it is saying to you.
And it is taken from the Minor Texts, but they are
something you'll probably say don't exist, because you
don't know about them.
If scholars don't accept modern English texts, when
looking to find original meanings, what makes you think
that everyone should? Just because YOU don't
understand what's going on, doesn't mean that the rest
of the world should remain ignorant. I don't know much
about rocket science, but I wouldn't want to stop the
scientists from their work and ask them to forget what
they learned.
>> What I said, was that the KJV was translated into Old
>> English, which doesn't necessarily word things the same
>> way as modern English does, in each instance. That's a
>> far cry from what you're claiming I said.
>
>Any English teacher will tell you that old English is very similar to
>modern English.
Incorrect. You're making that up, to suit your
purpose. In writing style, it is quite different, as
well as in a considerable amount of wording. Stop
pretending that you actually have factual information.
You're trying to tell someone educated in the subject,
what an educated person would know and you are NOT
educated in that area, so why can't you see that your
statements are transparent?
>> >But you supposedly know which ones are which.
>>
>> I never said that I know everything there is to know
>> about the languages and times of the Bible and the Old
>> English. What I'm saying is that with years of study
>> of these things, I have come to a fuller and deeper
>> understanding of Scripture and am able to get a clearer
>> picture because of it.
>>
>> You, on the other had, are saying that none of it
>> matters. Yet you would not take that approach with
>> your teacher in school, who told you exactly what I am
>> saying, which is that a study of things is necessary,
>> to get a good picture of what's going on and what's
>> being said.
>
>I'm saying that we don't need to consider the Greek language in which
>the bible was written in. Why? Because it has been translated for us
>into modern English!
Keep singing that naive view.
>> You know that what I'm saying is common sense. You are
>> simply on a mission.
>
>Aren't we all?
And here you admit it.
>> It is not obvious that a contradiction is proven, when
>> you refuse to look at other Scriptures.
>
>Once again, BEFORE we look at other parts of scripture, we have to
>correctly interpret James.
Then don't say that there are contradictions in the
Bible, until AFTER you look at the other parts of the
Bible. How can you say there are contradictions, when
you claim you shouldn't look at the other parts yet?
This is simply ridiculous and an ignorant place to
shout from.
>> >I am trying to prove a contradiction. To prove this contradiction I
>> >need to interpret the teachings of Paul and James. We seem to agree
>> >that Paul is saying that that only faith is needed for salvation.
>> >However, we do not agree on the what James is saying. So the issue
>here
>> >is the correct interpretation of James. Follow so far?
>> >
>> >Now, to correctly interpret James, you can't simply argue that since
>> >Paul is saying this, James is saying this also. Your argument is
>summed
>> >as follows: If there is a contradiction, then your interpretation
>> >cannot be correct. This is what you are saying, and I replied that
>> >since I am trying to prove a contradiction, is not valid to argue as
>> >above. OK?
>>
>> See above.
>
>You obviously did not read my above post, or else you would fault my
>reasoning if it were wrong. Yet you never do this. You simply re-state
>a million times your stance on the issue, as if by attrition you could
>win the argument.
No, YOU obviously didn't read it! You keep claiming
that we shouldn't look at the other Scriptures yet, but
only James for now, yet right in the paragraphs above,
you state....
"I am trying to prove a contradiction. To prove this
contradiction I need to interpret the teachings of Paul
and James."
>> I'm not going to play these silly word games with you.
>> God is holding the gift out already. Do you want it?
>
>Duh ... of course I want it.
Then why don't you try stepping forward in faith and
accepting it. Sitting here on your high horse,
debating it isn't going to accomplish that.
>But whether God is really handing it out -
>now that's another issue. You see, before you accuse me of refusing
>God's "gift", keep in mind that I do not believe in his existence.
And there we have it......
First, you act like a believer who needs clarification.
Second, you then act like you're not sure if He exists.
Third, you then state that you don't believe in Him.
You are simply an atheist who is on a mission. You are
"a wolf in sheeps clothing" and a liar and a word
twister at that.
>> >Haha, yes! But you are skipping a step here: God does not hold out
>> >sodas to all souls does he? That part of the gift (holding out sodas)
>> >to unrepentant souls is conditional upon God.
>>
>> God holds the gift out to everyone. It is up to each
>> person to accept or reject it.
>
>He does not hold it out to dead atheists, although being omnipotent, he
>could of course do that.
God is holding it out to YOU right now. Do you want
it? Yes or No? Your choice.
>> >If God is holding out eternal life, who would say no?
>>
>> <Pastor Dave holds up a mirror in front of Sam>
>
><Sam directs Pastor Dave to his above post, where he states that he
>does not believe in God.>
<Sam confirms Dave's point>
>> >> No, I didn't. I referenced that man will not be able
>> >> to boast that he "earned" his way into Heaven. That is
>> >> a specific statement.
>Did I put "anything" in quotation marks in the above post? Did I accuse
>you of saying the word "anything"? Do you know anything about writing
>conventions?
You are twisting words again. My point was simply that
man will not be able to boast that he earned his way
into heaven, as I said previously. You tried to turn
it into meaning something more than that, as if I had
said that there is nothing that man can boast about.
>> >> >Can a person be saved without being justified? No.
>> >>
>> >> The question should be reversed.
>> >
>> >Do you agree with the above statement (That a person cannot be saved
>> >without being justified) or not? Yes or no? If yes, then proceed to
>> >part 2 of my reasoning, otherwise tell me why you don't agree with
>it.
>>
>> No, I disagree with you. A person CAN be saved, wihout
>> justification already being present.
>>
>
>So we can go to heaven without being justified then? I don't think
>Pastors would agree with you here.
You're LYING and word twisting AGAIN. That's NOT what
I said. I said that a person can be "saved" without
FIRST being "justified". If they were "justified"
already, they wouldn't need salvation.
>> >(James 2:24) "You see that a person is JUSTIFIED BY WHAT HE DOES ...
>> >
>> >So are you disagreeing with James?
>>
>> Not at all. In the case that James is discussing, he
>> is absolutely correct. However, as a blanket
>> statement, that would not be true in the exact sense
>> that James uses it.
>
>1. Why would it not be true in the exact sense that James is saying it?
A man on his death bed, who comes to a TRUE conviction
of his sin and a TRUE faith in Christ (which also
proves that salvation doesn't require works).
>2. What IS the exact sense in which James is saying it?
For those who are able. See above.
>> Because James didn't use the word, "saved", but rather,
>> "justified". You keep trying to sneak that word
>> "saved" in there, in the place of "justified", hoping I
>> won't catch it. They are NOT the same.
>
>You try to fault my logic here because YOU have said that we do not
>have to be justified to be saved. Wanna open up another thread and
>discuss this?
You are a liar. You intentionally tried to replace the
word, "justified", with the word "saved", to try to
change the whole thought flow of the message. It
didn't work.
>> >Seeing as you can't have justification without salvation and vice
>> >versa, the statement is perfectly fine. In any case, why didn't James
>> >say this: "You see that a person is SAVED BY REAL FAITH and not
>> >BY A FALSE FAITH WITHOUT WORKS."
>>
>> No, it isn't, "perfectly fine", nor does it say that
>> you can't have salvation without justification. That
>> is YOUR take on it and nowhere does it say that.
>
>And of the second part of my post? You obviously have not answer ...
Face it, you have been caught in your attempt to twist
words.
>> >> Not only this, but he/she would have also told you that
>> >> the Old English would have to be understood, in order
>> >> to get the meaning of the wording used in the Old
>> >> English. If you read Shakespeare, you can easily see
>> >> that we may now, using our modern English, take some
>> >> phrases differently than the Old English meant. Hence,
>> >> many of us would need teachers, to explain to us what
>> >> was actually being said in the Old English.
>> >
>> >First of all Shakespeare wrote in a form of writing called dramatic
>> >poetry or dramatic art which was specifically for stage. Secondly,
>> >Shakespeare's works have not been translated into modern day English.
>>
>> Thank you for making my point. You would have needed
>> help understanding what he was saying.
>
>Haha, this from a guy who hasn't read Shakespeare.
Another assumption on your part. You're good at doing
that and then pretending that it's fact.
>Hmm, if I remember correctly, a few messages ago you were praising the
>Lord for using me to bring you to a better understanding of your faith.
That is true and I did.
>Now you want to just throw in the towel? I sincerely thought you would
>have lasted longer than this ...
It is a war for YOU. To me, it is just "vain babbling"
at this point and not worth any further discussion.
1 Tim 6:20
"Oh Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust,
avoiding profane and vain babblings...."
2 Tim 2:16
"But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will
increase unto more ungodliness."
The Greek:
vain babbling = kenephonia - empty sounding, i.e.
fruitless discussion.
Mark Bassett
<pamelareub...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Dear Seminary Student...
> You know in the early church a bunch of the saints were getting
>into this business of defending and arguing against other teachers. The
>Apostle Paul didn't condone it. In fact he said:
> Now dear brothers and sisters, I appeal to you by the authority of
> the Lord Jesus Christ to stop arguing among yurselves. Let there be
>real harmony so there won't be divisions in the church. I plead with
>you to be of one mind, united in thought and purpose. For some members
>of Chloe's household have told me about your arguments, dear brothers
>and sisters. Some of you are saying, "I am a follower of Paul." Others
>are saying, "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Peter," or "I follow only
>Christ." Can Christ be divided into pieces?
> (1 Corinthians: 10-13, The Book)
You know that reminds me of another time in the early church were getting
into this loosey goosey business of everyone is ok, as long as they call
themselves Christian.
Paul got somewhat irate, and decided it was time that the church heard from
God. He didn't stand still and allow every self-appointed teacher get the
ears of the people "in the name of the Lord" without a challenge.
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the
grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be
some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But
though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than
that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. - Gal 1:6-8
Of course, he was familiar with the pattern:
First, Jesus warned them:
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but
inwardly they are ravening wolves." - Matt 7:15
Second, he knew spiritual things, and discerned the activity of such powers:
7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: - 2 Thes 2:7
"For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in
among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men
arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31
Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not
to warn every one night and day with tears."- Acts 20:29
But Paul as not a hireling, and so he stayed and fought when times got
tough, and mig crowds attended the conferences of the liars and wolves.
These were folks who walked right into the midst of their Christian circles
and deceived MANY, but they were know to the leaders of the church, and are
known to us today.
11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily
after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of
Core. 12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with
you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds [they are] without water,
carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice
dead, plucked up by the roots; 13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out
their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of
darkness for ever.
You should seek to know the truth by applying yourself to the Word of God
and prayer. Do not be deceived. These people detest the Christian ministry
or anything that challenges their desire to pull in bucks.
Is this message one that is necessary, and one that is SOBER and having
basis in the spirit of God?
3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common
salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort [you] that ye
should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the
saints. 4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of
old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God
into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus
Christ.
Don't hide your eyes. Pay attention to the quotations being provided from
these "creeps". God will not let you down, but you must savor TRUTH more
than the affection for a movement, or a tradition (as untraditional as it
may seem to you, when you see yourself as being in the forefront of
spiritual activity)> There IS revival going on in the world today, and there
is also a substitute, sent to deceive. Things will not get better as time
goes on, so accept this soberly as a warning for your own soul.
-mwb
Pastor Dave
<roman...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>Matthew 15:14, "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind.
>And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."
>
>
>I dont know what YOUR version of Christanity is, but I take
>OFFENSE when some IDIOT FALSE TEACHER calls
>ALMIGHTLY GOD the "Biggest falure in the WORLD!"
>
>Hear Copeland say this at
>Http://members.triopod.com/bibletruths/copeland.htm
No response from the site.
Pamela
When we examine those who teach us, as with all of our decisions, we
have our choice as to who will guide us in these endeavors. One has but
to listen to the tone of Seminary Student's messages to immediately
know who he chose for his guide. Anger, offense, name-calling---don't
remember any of these being listed as the fruits of the Spirit but
there is another one whose presence seems to invoke these things,
especially division among the brethern. Plus, to anybody who watches KC
with any regularity, his quotes are sooo out of context.
Tim Thomas
"OddClock" <bil...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:shqu7scglflos4mkn...@4ax.com...
Mark Bassett
>>Hear Copeland say this at
>>Http://members.triopod.com/bibletruths/copeland.htm
>
>No response from the site.
I have the pages and the audio locally.
-mwb
The DataRat
Ken Copeland is a flaming heretic. Paul
NEVER tolerated false teachers !
The DataRat
OddClock
the story:
http://www.newschief.com/stories/121098/sta_bennyhinn.shtml
http://pfo.org/scandals.htm
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 20:35:06 -0500, "Tim Thomas"
<timth...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I could not access the web site....
>
>
>
>"OddClock" <bil...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
>news:shqu7scglflos4mkn...@4ax.com...
Seminary Student
Mark Bassett <mba...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:388640a8...@news.optonline.net...
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 15:22:39 GMT, pcd...@optonline.net (Pastor Dave)
wrote:
>
> >Of course Jesus had the ability to sin, but He didn't.
Seminary Student
2 Corinthians 5:21, "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who
knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."
helpu <il...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:85nh4r$3h3c$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Pastor Dave <pcd...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:387f3f48...@news.optonline.net...
> > On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 06:45:21 -0800, vince garcia
> > <vgga...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Seminary Student wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Http://members.tripod.com/bibletruths/benny.htm
>
> > >> Visit my webpage to hear Benny Hinn:
>
> > >> Benny Says: Jesus was born with a SINFUL NATURE!
> > >> Bible Says: 2 Corinthians 5:21, "For he hath made him to be sin
> for us, who knew NO SIN; that we might be made the righteousness
> > >> of God in him."
>
> > >I don't know what Hinn's exact words were, but if you're one of those
> who think it was impossible for Jesus to commit sin, and that He didn't
> > >have to make a conscious choice to resist sin and choose righteousness
> > >"because He is fully God", then you misunderstand His nature. If Jesus
> was incapable of being tempted, then He has not overcome.
>
> > Of course Jesus had the ability to sin, but He didn't.
> > Benny Hinn wants us to think that He was born with a
> > sinful nature, which is quite different.
>
Seminary Student
> such an obvious fraud as Hinn. Perhaps if more Christians exposed
> about his false teachings and false prophesies, he would not be
> regarded as a holy man
>
> There was news a while back about a member of Hinn's threatening to
> expose him. Here is a article about it:
> http://www.idca.com/~cephasmi/hinn1.99.html
> Does anyone know what happened to this person?
>
>
CONTINUE AFTER RESIGNATION
As we told you briefly in the last issue of The Inkhorn, Benny Hinn resigned
his credential with the
Assemblies of God. His resignation was accepted in late October. Hinn has
indicated to district
officials in Florida that he was pressured to resign by officials at the
denominational headquarters in
Springfield. The Springfield officials have denied this, but then again they
denied that Benny Hinn
would be anything but a blessing to the movement.
About a month before word of Hinn's resignation came to our attention, we
learned of expose being
done by CNN about Hinn. An independent researcher for CNN confirmed the
investigation and said
that Hinn's pressured resignation delayed the airing of the program because
CNN officials felt like
there might be more to the story than they already had. They are continuing
their investigation. The
network is being very tight衍ipped about the program's contents, but one
insider said "It will shock even
Benny's critics." The program is tentatively rescheduled to air later this
month.
Since his resignation, Hinn has been busy on many fronts. He has hired an
attorney to try to stop
publication of the book The Confusing World of Benny Hinn by Personal
Freedom Outreach. The
attorney, who has represented Robert Tilton and other televangelists in
similar suits, indicated to PFO
officials that Hinn possessed evidence that proved many of PFO's claims to
be false.
PFO Executive Director Kurt Goedelman told us that the apologetics ministry
has tried, unsuccessfully,
for more than six years to meet with Hinn and to secure his "proof." Hinn
has repeatedly refused to
meet with them.
The facts in dispute involve details of Benny's testimony. PFO is satisfied
that its fact苯inding trip to
Israel debunked Hinn's claims that he was an Israeli, that his father was
once the mayor of Jade and
that he suffered from a stuttering problem as a child.
Just the threat of the lawsuit is good public relations for Hinn. You know,
the down負rodden hero
fighting back. No doubt Hinn thinks such tactics will intimidate PFO and
similar organizations. He is
mistaken. Those who possess the truth will not be bullied.
On another front, Hinn's recent crusade in the shadow of the Vatican created
quite an embarrassment
for the faith healer. Terry Peretti, who works with AG missionaries in
Europe, filed this report on
Hinn's Rome Crusade:
"The Benny Hinn crusade held in Rome November 9 and 10, saw the largest
gathering of evangelicals
ever at one place and one time in Italy. Several reliable sources estimated
that around 5,000 people
attended the crusade.
"The crusade proved to be disastrous in that the Italian Assemblies of God
boycotted the meetings
which left the meeting to be supported by the independent Pentecostal
groups. Of the independent
groups, several pulled out of the crusade effort because of what they felt
was being 'forced' upon
them. They did not want to be party to what appeared as a TBN American TV
show designed to be
that, a 'big show.'
"Several other independent pastors along with their people were 'shocked'
the first night because Hinn
never once opened his Bible or preached. The second night the rest were
shocked by Hinn's attempt to
'ecumenicalize' the crusade by courting the Catholic church and talking
about meeting with the Pope.
The interpreter refused to continue interpreting and another interpreter had
to be called to the platform.
The Italian music group refused to come to the platform to sing when they
were called.
"The Italian independent Pentecostal pastors have agreed to meet and sign a
declaration of
disassociazione [disassociation] from Benny Hinn and his crusades. The
Italian believers do not want
to close the door on the Holy Spirit, but they don't want to close the door
on the preaching of the Word
of God either. It appears that Benny Hinn will never be invited back to
Italy again, at least not by the
evangelicals."
Seminary Student
I think it is safe to assume that you are a Copelandite and
follow his teachings...
Romans 16:17-18, "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which
cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have
learned; and avoid them. For they that are such SERVE NOT our Lord
Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches
deceive the hearts of the simple."
Copeland Says:
That we do not have a god in us but that we are a God.
"You don't have a God in you. You are one!"- The Force of Love
audiotape
2 Timothy 4:3-4, "For the time will come when they will not endure
sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves
teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from
the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."
Copleand Says:
God is the greatest failure in the Universe
"I was shocked when I found out who the biggest failure in the Bible
actually is....The
biggest one is God....I mean, He lost His top-ranking, most anointed
angel; the first man He
ever created; the first woman He ever created; the whole earth and all
the Fullness therein; a
third of the angels, at least--that's a big loss, man. . .
Praise-a-Thon program on TBN [April 1988]
Do you "receieve Copeland's Teachings?"
2 Corinthians 11:4, "For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus,
whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye
have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye
might well bear with him."
Copeland Says:
God has no right to the earth at all, he needs an
invitation
"God had no avenue of lasting faith or moving in the earth. He had to
have covenant with
somebody. . . . He had to be invited in, in other words, or He couldn't
come. God is on the
outside looking in. In order to have any say so in the earth, He's
gonna have to be in
agreement with a man here."
God's Covenants With Man II 1985, audiotape #01-4404, side 1
Galatians 1:6-9, "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that
called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not
another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel
of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel
unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel
unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."
Copeland Says:
"As a believer, you have a right to make commands in the name of Jesus. Each
time you stand on the
Word, you are commanding God to a certain extent because it is His Word."
Our Covenant with God [Fort Worth, TX: KCP Publications, 1987], 32
Kenneth Copeland has stated that Jehovah means Half Male/ Half Female and
that God is as
much female as he is male. He amplifies this strange teaching by also
saying that Adam was originally half male and half
female. According to the book "The Secret Teachings Of Freemasonry" by
Gordon Mohr this is exactly
what the Masonic Lodge teaches:- (on pages 107-108)
"Heaven has a north and a south and an east and a west. Consequently, it
must be a planet."
Spirit, Soul and Body I 1985 audiotape #01-0601, side 1
Copeland also says: "It would have been impossible for Jesus to have been
poor!" (9/90,
Charisma ). (Reported in the 2/15/93, Calvary Contender .)
Matthew 8:20, "And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds
of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head."
- As the name "Word-Faith" implies, this movement teaches that faith is a
matter of
what we say more that whom we trust or what truths we embrace and affirm in
our
hearts. A favorite term in the Word-Faith movement is "positive confession."
It refers
to the Word-Faith teaching that words have creative power. What you say ,
Word-Faith
teachers claim, determines everything that happens to you. Your
"confessions," that
is, the things you say-- especially the favors you demand of God--must all
be stated
positively and without wavering. Then God is required to answer (Charismatic
Chaos
, p. 281). Word-Faith believers view their positive confessions as an
incantation by
which they can conjure up anything they desire: "Believe it in your heart;
say it with
your mouth. That is the principle of faith. You can have what you say "
(Charismatic
Chaos , p. 285).
- Word-Faith is the fastest-growing movement within the professing church.
It has involved
two distinct but closely related factions: the Peale/Schuller
Positive/Possibility thinkers, with
their roots in New Thought, and the Hagin/Copeland Positive Confession and
Word-Faith
groups, which have their roots in E.W. Kenyon, William Branham, and the
Manifest Sons of
God/Latter Rain Movement. In Kenneth Hagin's book, Having Faith in Your
Faith (Copeland
confesses that Hagin's tapes and books revolutionized his ministry), Hagin
teaches that
anyone can develop universal "laws of faith" to get what he wants. Hagin
teaches that for a
pastor or anyone to drive a Chevrolet instead of a luxury car isn't "being
humble, that's being
ignorant" of God's "law of prosperity" that works for "whoever you are,"
saint or sinner. The
battle-cry of the Positive Confession (PC) movement is:
"Have faith in your faith." This is a far cry from what Jesus taught: "Have
faith in God"
(Charismatic Chaos , p. 281). (Copeland's book, The Laws of Prosperity ,
teaches these
same concepts.)
This is at the heart of the PC movement today, also known as the
"name-it-and-claim-it"
gospel. The PC movement is a charismatic form of Christian Science. This can
be
substantiated by simply comparing the similarities in their common beliefs.
PC is basically
warmed-over New Thought dressed in evangelical/charismatic language. (Other
well-known
PC'ers besides the "father" of the movement, Kenneth Hagin, and Copeland,
his most
successful protegè, are Charles Capps, Frederick K.C. Price, Robert Tilton,
and David (Paul)
Yonggi Cho. Many of them are graduates of Hagin's Rhema Bible Training
Center in Tulsa,
Oklahoma.)
- Copeland's teaching on healing is a particularly destructive lie--in the
2/93 issue of Believer's
Voice of Victory , Copeland says that every Christian is guaranteed physical
healing and
financial prosperity. Multitudes of those who have believed the charismatic
lies about healing
in the Atonement have become confused and disappointed. Many have become
bitter against
God because God did not do what they were convinced He had promised to do.
The
problem with Copeland's teachings is that God has not promised health and
prosperity to His people in this present world. Nevertheless, Copeland
speaks
disparagingly of Christians who "are still living in sickness, bondage, and
lack." Yet
this "sickness, bondage, and lack" is the epitaph of a great many of God's
choicest
saints.
- Copeland is perhaps the best known proponent of the charismatic's "little
gods" teaching
(see below). He says Jesus told him:
"Don't be disturbed when people accuse you of thinking you are God ... They
crucified
Me for claiming I was God. I didn't claim that I was God; I just claimed
that I walked with Him
and that He was in Me. Hallelujah! That's what you're doing ..." ("Take Time
to Pray,"
Believer's Voice of Victory , 2/87, p. 9).
Copeland thus denies the uniqueness of Christ, saying that Christ was not
God, only that He
walked closely with God. And as Copeland says, so does he! Copeland,
thereby, places
himself on the same level as Jesus Christ, willing to blur the distinction
between the will of
God and the will of Copeland. Copeland seems to think that he and Jesus have
about the
same authority for the believer, and sounds like New Ager Shirley MacClaine
when he says:
"You're all God. You don't have a God living in you; you are one! ... When I
read in the Bible
where God tells Moses, 'I AM,' I say, 'Yah, I am too!'" ("The Force of
Love," Tape BBC-56).
- Copeland teaches that Adam was "created in the god class"; i.e., he was a
reproduction of
God:
"He was not subordinate to God ... [but] was walking as a god with the
authority of a god. ...
What he said went. What he did, counted. [And when he] bowed his knee to
Satan and
put Satan up above him, then there wasn't anything God could do about it,
because a
god had placed [Satan] there" ("The Force of Love," tape #02-0028).
When Adam committed high treason, according to Copeland, even though
"created in the god
class," he fell below the god class, but on the cross, Jesus won the right
for believers to be
born again back into the "god class" (see below). Jesus' deity, according to
Copeland,
encompasses "healing, deliverance, financial prosperity, mental prosperity,
physical
prosperity, and family prosperity." And because believers are now back in
the "god class,"
they are guaranteed those blessings here and now (Charismatic Chaos , p.
272).
- Copeland teaches, as do all the Word-Faith teachers, that "Jesus Died
Spiritually"
(JDS). What makes the Word-Faith teachers' version of JDS, heresy (if not
blasphemy), is
their teaching that our redemption comes not from Christ's death upon the
cross, but from
His being tortured by Satan in hell for three days and nights! Copeland has,
thus, embraced a
heresy known as the "Ransom theory of the atonement." It is the view that
Christ's death was
a ransom paid to Satan to settle the legal claim the devil had on the human
race because of
Adam's sin. But that view contradicts the clear Biblical teaching that
Christ's death was a
sacrifice
offered to God, not to Satan (Eph. 5:2) (Charismatic Chaos , p. 278).
Copeland, for example,
says:
"He allowed the devil to drag Him into the depths of hell as if He were the
most wicked sinner
who ever lived ... Every demon in hell came down on Him to annihilate Him
... [They] tortured
Him beyond anything that anybody has ever conceived ... In a thunder of spir
itual force, the
voice of God spoke to the death-whipped, broken, punished spirit of Jesus
... [in] the pit of
destruction, and charged the spirit of Jesus with resurrection power!
Suddenly His twisted,
death-wracked spirit began to fill out and come back to life ... He was
literally being reborn
before the devil's very eyes. He began to flex His spiritual muscles ...
Jesus Christ dragged
Satan up and down the halls of hell ... Jesus ... was raised up a born-again
man ... The day I
realized that a born-again man had defeated Satan, hell, and death, I got so
excited ... !"
(Believer's Voice of Victory , September, 1991).
It is both fanciful nonsense and heretical to teach that our redemption
comes through
Satan torturing Jesus in hell. That would make Satan our co-redeemer. If he
didn't
torture Jesus enough, we wouldn't be saved--and if he did, do we thank
Satan?
Incredible! Moreover, Satan isn't even the proprietor of hell. He hasn't
even been
there yet. Nor will Satan torture the damned but will himself be tortured
with
"everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt. 25:41) when
death and
hell have been "cast into the lake of fire" (Rev. 20:14).
Before He died, Jesus cried in triumph, "It is finished" (Jn. 19:30),
indicating that our
redemption has been accomplished on the Cross . Christ told the thief on the
cross who
believed in Him, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise " (Lk. 23:43), not
in hell ! He said,
"Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" (Lk. 23:46). Yet Hagin,
Copeland, et al, say He
ended up, instead, in the hands of Satan in the depths of hell! What
blasphemy! (5/93,
Berean Call ).
- Word-Faith teachers owe their ancestry to groups like Christian Science,
Swedenborgianism, Theosophy, Science of Mind, and New Thought--not to
classical
Pentecostalism. It reveals that at their very core, Word-Faith teachings are
corrupt.
Their undeniable derivation is cultish, not Christian. The sad truth is that
the gospel
proclaimed by the Word-Faith movement is not the gospel of the New
Testament. Word-Faith
doctrine is a mongrel system, a blend of mysticism, dualism, and gnosticism
that borrows
generously from the teachings of the metaphysical cults. The Word-Faith
movement may be
the most dangerous false system that has grown out of the charismatic
movement so far,
because so many charismatics are unsure of the finality of Scripture
(Charismatic Chaos , p.
290).
"What's Wrong with the Faith Movement? Part Two: The Teachings of
Kenneth Copeland" (an article from the Christian Research Journal,
Spring 1993, page 16) by Hendrik H. Hanegraaff and Erwin M. de
Castro.
The Editor-in-Chief of the Christian Research Journal is
Elliot Miller.
*SUMMARY*
Kenneth Copeland stands today as one of the Faith movement's
leading spokesmen. His voluminous material (in print and broadcast
media), combined with his crusades and international outreach
centers, attest to his vast influence.
Copeland is responsible for spreading many of the Faith
movement's unbiblical teachings. He distorts the biblical concepts
of faith and covenant. He reduces God to the image of man while
elevating man to the status of God. He lowers Jesus to being a
product of positive confession who took on a satanic nature at the
cross. And he promotes the occult practice of creative
visualization.
On the night of November 2, 1962, a young man twenty-five years
of age, struggling against "sin, sickness, and strife," asked Jesus
to "come into [his] heart."[1] His decision came two weeks after
his wife had done likewise.[2] Today, these two individuals head a
ministry that literally stretches around the globe, while remaining
in the forefront of what has come to be known as the "Faith"
movement. They are Kenneth and Gloria Copeland.
Part One of this series explored the roots of the Faith
movement and surveyed some of its leading proponents today. In this
installment, our primary attention will be devoted to cataloging
and critiquing the core theology of one of the most widely
recognized and respected Faith teachers to date -- Kenneth
Copeland.[3]
*FROM OBSCURITY TO CENTER STAGE*
Though best known for his "prosperity" message, Copeland began
his ascent to Faith stardom from a state of financial disarray.
Beset by monetary problems, in 1967 he decided to resume his
education at Oral Roberts University (ORU), where he subsequently
"landed a job as copilot on Oral Robert's [sic] cross-country
crusade flights."[4]
It was not until August of 1967, however, that Copeland
experienced a revolution in his outlook through the preaching of
yet another evangelist -- Kenneth E. Hagin, regarded by many to be
the "father of the Faith movement." With reference to his "distant
mentor," Copeland has been quoted "as saying that he 'learned
nothing' during six months at Oral Roberts University but was so
excited by Hagin's teachings that...[he] spent the next month in
his garage listening to them."[5]
The Copelands returned to Fort Worth, Texas in 1968 where they
established an evangelistic association. Within a few short years
their home-based Bible studies reportedly grew into large revivals,
sometimes with crowds large enough to fill entire "civic centers
and international arenas."[6]
In 1973 the ministry began publishing its own newsletter,
_Believer's Voice of Victory._ Two years later, Copeland claimed
the Lord "commanded him to 'preach the uncompromised Word on every
available voice.'"[7] This prompted him to launch the _Believer's
Voice of Victory_ radio broadcast in 1976. By 1979 Copeland's
ministry was established firmly enough to enter the arena of
television, paving the way for its 1981 venture into satellite
communications. And in August of the following year "the ministry
made history by initiating the first _global_ religious broadcast"
(emphasis in original).[8]
Copeland continues to experience popular acceptance within
various charismatic and Pentecostal circles. His books, booklets,
and taped messages can be found in a number of Christian
bookstores, and his crusades and revivals consistently produce
large turnouts. Furthermore, the ministry's international scope and
influence is well attested by its offices in England, the
Philippines, South Africa, Australia, Canada, and Hong Kong.
While not every Faith teacher holds to all of Copeland's
doctrines, they, along with his followers, consider him a leading
-- if not _the_ leading -- authority on Faith theology. "Many have
already coronated Copeland as the new king of the Faith movement,"
writes one observer. "In a recent article, even _Time_ magazine
refers to Copeland as the 'chief exponent' of the Faith
movement."[9]
*THE FORCE OF FAITH*
Of the multiple views of faith held by Faith teachers,[10]
Copeland focuses primarily on an understanding of faith as a force.
"Faith is a power force," he claims. "It is a tangible force. It is
a conductive force."[11] Moreover, "faith is a spiritual
force....It is substance. Faith has the ability to effect natural
substance."[12] As "the force of gravity...makes the law of gravity
work...this force of faith...makes the laws of the spirit world
function."[13]
Copeland affirms that "God cannot do anything for you apart or
separate from faith,"[14] for _"faith is God's source of power"_
(emphasis in original).[15] Moreover, "everything that you're able
to see or touch, anything that you can feel, anything that's
perceptive to the five physical senses, was originally the faith of
God, and was born in the substance of God's faith."[16] In other
words, "faith was the raw material substance that the Spirit of God
used to form the universe."[17]
Copeland adds that "God used words when He created the heaven
and the earth....Each time God spoke, He released His faith -- the
creative power to bring His words to pass."[18] For "words are
spiritual containers,"[19] and the "force of faith is released by
words."[20]
Copeland derives his definition of faith from Hebrews 11:1:
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of
things not seen" (KJV). He interprets the word "substance" as some
transcendent, primary element that makes up the universe; it was
and is activated by spoken words at the onset of creation (both
God's original creation of the world and all subsequent creations,
whether by God or man).
Contrary to Copeland's view, the word translated "substance" in
the King James Version is the Greek word _hypostasis_ which, in the
context of Hebrews 11:1, means "an assured impression, a mental
realizing."[21] Far from being some tangible material or energetic
force, faith is _a channel of living trust_ stretching from man to
God. It is an _assurance_ that God's promises never fail, even if
sometimes we do not experience their fulfillment during our mortal
existence. Other translations render _hypostasis_ more precisely as
"being sure" (NIV), "to be sure" (TEV), and "assurance" (NASB).
Neither the original Greek text nor any of the modern
translations support Copeland's understanding of faith. The same
holds true for his understanding of spoken words. Besides, the idea
of words functioning as faith-filled containers makes no sense if
there is no such thing as a "force of faith" (requiring packaging
and transportation) in the first place.
*A GOD OF HUMAN PROPORTIONS*
Copeland's view of God fares no better biblically than his
understanding of faith. He describes God as someone "very much like
you and me....A being that stands somewhere around 6'2," 6'3," that
weighs somewhere in the neighborhood of a couple of hundred pounds,
little better, [and] has a [hand]span nine inches across."[22]
Copeland's statement is based on his _hyperliteral_ reading of
Isaiah 40:12 ("Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his
hand, marked off the heavens with a [nine inch] span,..." [AV]).
Yet following the same line of interpretation, one would also have
to conclude that God literally held a basket full of dust and
weighed mountains on a gigantic set of scales (v. 12b) -- an absurd
proposition ruled out by the context of the passage. The fact is
that Isaiah 40 makes extensive use of figurative language to
underscore the vast difference between the Creator and His
creation.
Giving a literal spin on verses that figuratively describe God
in humanlike (anthropomorphic) terms, Copeland makes God out to be
a "spirit-being with a body, complete with eyes, and eyelids, ears,
nostrils, a mouth, hands and fingers, and feet."[23] However, the
Bible never intended to convey the notion that God has physical
features like His human creation. Anthropomorphic descriptions were
simply meant to help us understand and relate to our Maker. Jesus
declared, "God is spirit" (John 4:24), not a spirit-being with a
body (cf. Deut. 4:12). The Creator is, after all, "God, and not
man" (Hos. 11:9).
The idea of God possessing a body (physical or spirit) implies
the unbiblical view that the Trinity is actually composed of three
separate beings. Moreover, a God who has a body with definite,
measurable dimensions cannot truly be omnipresent, unlike the God
of Scripture who is present everywhere in all His fullness (Jer.
23:23-24). (It is true that in His human nature Christ has a body
and is localized in space and time. But in His divine nature He
remains nonphysical and omnipresent, sharing this immutable nature
with the Father and Holy Spirit.) Copeland's deflation of God is
best exemplified by his comment that "the biggest failure in the
Bible...is God."[24] In stark contrast, the biblical God is an
all-powerful being (Dan. 4:35) whose plans cannot be thwarted (Job
42:2) and who considers nothing too difficult (Jer. 32:17; Luke
1:37).
Copeland's diminished view of God is further amplified by a
correspondingly inflated view of the universe in general and man in
particular. He claims that the earth is "a copy of the mother
planet [i.e., heaven] where God lives."[25] Exactly how Copeland
could "squeeze" God on any planet is difficult to fathom,
especially since Solomon pointed out that heaven itself cannot
contain God (1 Kings 8:27).
*MEMBERS OF GOD'S CLASS*
Copeland overemphasizes similarities between God and man to the
point where any distinction becomes virtually nil: "God's reason
for creating Adam was His desire to _reproduce_ Himself....Adam is
as much like God as you could get, _just the same as
Jesus_....Adam, in the Garden of Eden, was _God manifested in the
flesh"_ (emphasis added).[26]
Referring to his so-called _law of genesis,_ Copeland asserts,
"Adam was created in God's own image and likeness, a
spirit-being...[and] takes on the nature of his spiritual father or
lord."[27] In explaining the terms "image" and "likeness" in
Genesis 1:26, he adds: "If you stood Adam upside God, they look
just exactly alike....If you stood Jesus and Adam side-by-side,
they would look and act and sound exactly alike....The image is
that they look just alike, but the likeness is that they act alike
and they are alike....All of God's attributes, all of God's
authority, all of God's faith, all of God's ability was invested in
that man."[28]
Actually, the terms "image" and "likeness" refute Copeland's
point. The Hebrew word for "likeness" (_demuth_) simply means
similarity or resemblance, not identity.[29] Furthermore, the term
itself actually "defines and limits" the word "image" (Hebrew:
_tselem_) in order _"to avoid the implication that man is a precise
copy of God, albeit miniature"_ (emphasis added).[30]
Humans are created in God's image in the sense that they share,
in a finite and imperfect way, God's _communicable attributes_
(e.g, rationality and morality). These attributes, in turn, give
individuals the capacity to enjoy fellowship with God, develop
personal relationships with one another, and take care of God's
creation as He has commanded.[31] God's _incommunicable attributes_
(e.g., omnipotence, omniscience, self-sufficiency), however, remain
solely His.
Along with the "image of God," Copeland also refers to "the
life of God," which he interchanges with the terms "the absolute
life of God," "absolute life," "life force," "life in the absolute
sense," "eternal life," and "everlasting life."[32] He applies
these terms to a quality of life, the source of which is God.[33]
But he also speaks of it as "the substance -- the source, the power
-- the unseen force that makes God, God...[and] places Him above
everything else that exists."[34]
Copeland states that "man was created to know that great _life
force_ and he longs for it in his dreams. Adam had that _life
force_ in him before he committed high treason" (emphases
added).[35] This is yet another sense in which Copeland believes
Adam to be created in God's class. He was made to partake of "the
unseen force that makes God, God" -- once again diminishing
severely if not altogether destroying any final distinction between
creator and creature.
Furthermore, this "force" is at times spoken of as a reality
more ultimate than God Himself, conferring deity not only on the
Creator but on His creation, man. This again puts God and redeemed
man in the same class.
In Copeland's theology, Adam (and, consequently, the rest of
humanity) does not appear to have a uniquely human nature.
Initially possessing the nature of God, "when Adam committed high
treason [sinned] against God and bowed his knee to Satan, spiritual
death -- the nature of Satan -- was lodged in his heart."[36] Adam
had, in effect, allegedly traded in his divine nature for a satanic
nature, otherwise called "spiritual death." However, Scripture
reveals that mankind is wholly distinct from both God (2 Sam. 7:22;
cf. Mark 12:32) and angelic/demonic beings (Ps. 8:5; cf. Heb. 2:7).
And even after the Fall, man is still said to bear the image of God
(1 Cor. 11:7).
Copeland also claims that Adam's transgression empowered Satan
to evict God from the earth. "God's on the outside looking in,"
says Copeland. "He doesn't have any legal entree into the earth.
The thing don't belong to Him."[37] (Psalm 24:1 says otherwise.)
And supposedly, since "the sin of Adam went all the way up to, but
not including, the throne of God...[even] the Heavenly Holy of
Holies had to be purified."[38]
*COVENANT OF CONVENIENCE*
According to Copeland, "God had no avenue of lasting faith or
moving in the earth. He had to have covenant with somebody....He
had to be invited in, in other words, or He couldn't come."[39] In
fact, "the reason that He's making covenant is to get into the
earth."[40] "God is on the outside looking in," says Copeland. "In
order to have any say-so in the earth, He's gonna have to be in
agreement with a man here."[41]
"Since man was the key figure in the Fall," Copeland argues,
"man had to be the key figure in the redemption, so God approached
a man named Abram."[42] An agreement was struck between God and
Abram that "gave God access to the earth."[43] God, in turn,
"promised to care for Abraham and his descendants in every way --
spiritually, physically, financially, socially."[44] Commenting on
the deal, Copeland writes that God "re-enacted with Abram what
Satan had done with Adam, except that God did not sneak in and use
deception...and Abram bought it."[45]
As his comments indicate, Copeland views _divine covenants_ no
differently from _business contracts._[46] They are
benefit-oriented, not relationship-oriented. They are formed by
mutual agreement (for mutual benefit) through negotiation, as
opposed to being initiated by the stronger party offering
non-negotiable help (not of necessity but of grace) -- which is the
traditional Christian understanding of God's covenants. They focus
on the fulfillment of certain terms (performance) rather than
personal loyalty. Copeland himself states that "the Word of the
living God is a contract."[47]
Copeland's view deflates the biblical concept of God in
numerous other ways. He parallels God's actions with those of
Satan. In effect he makes man to be the dominant party over God --
even claiming that Abraham could have told God to "bug off" when
God offered him a "proposition."[48] And he seemingly attributes
the ultimate sacredness of divine covenants not to the figure who
stands behind them (viz. God), but to the fact that they are
composed of words: "Words are the most sacred things....This is a
word planet...governed by words...created by words....Words cause
it to function...cause life...cause death....Words go on
forever....Words are holy."[49]
Copeland maintains that God "used His right that Abraham had
given Him"[50] to provide a way for Jesus to enter the earth.
Abraham gave God what He needed: "the chance to use his [Abraham's]
mouth, because what God was after was a vehicle in the earth that
was a man to get His Word in there."[51]
*THE SPOKEN WORD MADE FLESH
"God is injecting His Word into the earth to produce this
Jesus," Copeland explains. "This [_sic_] faith-filled words that
framed the image that's in Him....He had to sneak it in here around
the god of this world [Satan]."[52] Using a combination of faith
and confession, "God spoke His Word and then spoke His Word
again....He kept saying, 'He is coming. He is coming.'"[53]
However, "the only avenue God had to get His words into the earth
was through men... [t]hrough the mouths of His prophets....Finally,
the great moment came when that Word was brought forth in human
form."[54]
During this final phase, "the angels spoke the words of the
covenant to her [Mary], and the Spirit of God hovered over her and
generated that seed, which was the Word that the angel spoke to
her. And there was conceived in her, the Bible says, a holy thing.
The Word literally became flesh."[55]
The notion of Jesus being the end product of generations of
positive confession is categorically unbiblical. It suggests that
the Word of John chapter one was a creation (the personalization of
the previously impersonal words of God) rather than the eternally
existent Creator (see vv.1-3), thus subverting the deity of Christ
and the doctrine of the Trinity.
Copeland also gave a "prophecy" in which Jesus allegedly said,
"They crucified Me for claiming that I was God. But I didn't claim
I was God; I just claimed I walked with Him and that He was in
Me."[56] Copeland asserts Jesus did not openly claim to be God
because "He hadn't come to earth as God, He'd come as man. He'd set
aside His divine power."[57] Citing Philippians 2:5-7, he states
that the incarnate Christ "had no innate supernatural powers. He
had no ability to perform miracles until after He was anointed by
the Holy Spirit."[58]
The passage Copeland cites (v. 6), however, describes Christ as
"_being_ in very nature God." The participle "being" is rendered in
the present active tense (Greek: _huparchon_), denoting Christ's
_ongoing condition_ as having the nature of God. Christ did not
give up His divine attributes during His incarnation (cf. Col. 2:9;
Heb. 13:8), but instead added to them (_see_ Phil. 2:7, "taking")
a full human nature in the form of a servant. Moreover, Jesus
referred to Himself as the Son of Man (Mark 2:5-10; cf. Dan.
7:13-14) and the unique Son of God the Father (John 5:18;
10:30-33), demonstrating His claim to be God.[59]
In Copeland's view, three basic factors enabled Jesus to
perform miracles. First, "the force of faith was controlling His
ministry."[60] Second, "He exercised that authority by the use of
words."[61] Third, "He used the Covenant to control the laws of
nature."[62] Copeland's view, however, rests upon a false
understanding of faith, the spoken word, and the Abrahamic
covenant, and is therefore erroneous.
*SPIRITUAL DEATH AND REBIRTH IN HELL*
When it comes to defining the Atonement, Copeland says, "It
wasn't a physical death on the cross that paid the price for
sin...anybody can do that."[63] Jesus supposedly "put Himself into
the hands of Satan when He went to that cross, and took that same
nature that Adam did [when he sinned]."[64] Copeland is here
referring to the nature of Satan, as God pronounced that "Adam
would die spiritually -- that he would take on the nature of Satan
which is spiritual death."[65] He adds that "the day that Jesus was
crucified, God's life, that eternal energy that was His from birth,
moved out of Him and He accepted the very nature of death
itself."[66]
During an alleged conversation with Copeland, Jesus is said to
have remarked, "It was a sign of Satan that was hanging on the
cross....I accepted, in my own spirit, spiritual death; and the
light was turned off."[67] We are told that Jesus "had to give up
His righteousness"[68] and "accepted the sin nature of Satan."[69]
Contrary to the teaching that Christ underwent a change of
nature (into a satanic being), the Bible depicts Jesus as having an
immutable divine nature (Heb. 13:8; cf. Mal. 3:6). Moreover, in
saying that "spiritual death means separation from the life of
God,"[70] Copeland tacitly admits that Jesus completely lost His
deity. For, as we noted earlier, Copeland defines the "life of God"
as "the unseen force that makes God, God." However, Scripture
declares that God is eternal and unchanging and thus never ceases
to be God. The Father says of Christ, "But you remain the same, and
your years will never end" (Heb. 1:12).
Finally, the notion of Jesus being overtaken by "the very
nature of death" is contradicted by Jesus' claim that He has
"_life_ in Himself" (John 5:26; cf. 1:4), is "the resurrection and
the _life_" (11:25), and is "the way, the truth, and the _life_"
(14:6). The "spiritual death of Christ" teaching entails an
implicit denial of Christ's deity and, in turn, of the Trinity.
Still, Copeland insists "Satan _conquered_ Jesus on the Cross
and took His spirit to the dark regions of hell" (emphasis in
original).[71] Copeland's description of Christ's ordeal in hell is
nothing short of chilling: "He [Jesus] allowed the devil to drag
Him into the depths of hell....He allowed Himself to come under
Satan's control...every demon in hell came down on Him to
annihilate Him....They tortured Him beyond anything anybody had
ever conceived. For three days He suffered everything there is to
suffer."[72]
The situation seemed hopeless, as Jesus' "emaciated, poured
out, little, wormy spirit is down in the bottom of that thing; and
the devil thinks he's got Him destroyed."[73] However, Copeland
explains that "Satan fell into the trap. He took Him [Jesus] into
hell illegally. He carried Him in there [when] He did not sin."[74]
God found the opening He needed: "That Word of the living God went
down into that pit of destruction and charged the spirit of Jesus
with resurrection power! Suddenly His twisted, death-wracked spirit
began to fill out and come back to life....Jesus was born again --
the firstborn from the dead the Word calls Him -- and He whipped
the devil in his own backyard."[75]
Copeland's account, vivid though it may be, is not in the
Bible. It misuses the phrase "firstborn from the dead" (Col. 1:18)
to bolster the "born again Jesus" doctrine. Actually, the term
"firstborn" (Greek: _prototokos_) primarily denotes primacy,
headship, and preeminence. And the phrase itself points to Christ's
supremacy "over all creation" (v. 15) in general and those who will
be raised from the dead in particular (alluding to Christ's bodily
resurrection -- not some spiritual resuscitation in hell).
Moreover, Jesus was not dragged into hell by Satan, but instead
committed His spirit to the Father (Luke 23:46) and went directly
to paradise (v. 43). Nor was He tortured by a host of demons; He
triumphed "over them by the _cross_" (Col. 2:15). Jesus paid for
humanity's sin in full (Greek: _tetelestai_) at the cross (John
19:30) -- not by becoming a satanic being, but through His
_physical_ sacrifice (Heb. 10:10; Col. 1:22).
*THE BELIEVER'S AUTHORITY*
Copeland's basis for the believer's authority can be viewed in
three distinct stages. First, upon conversion the believer
undergoes a total and immediate change of nature. At the moment of
spiritual birth "the spirit of God hovered over you, and there was
conceived in your body a holy thing _identical to Jesus_....And
there was imparted into you _zoe, the life of God_" (emphases
added).[76] Hence, "you are to think the way Jesus thought. He
didn't think it robbery to be equal with God."[77] Copeland's
remarks, "You are not a spiritual schizophrenic -- half-God and
half-Satan -- you are all-God"[78] and "You don't have a God in
you; you are one,"[79] demonstrate that being born again means
nothing less to him than becoming a god.
Yet Scripture states there is only one God who indwells all
believers (John 14:17, 23). Additionally, the Bible views spiritual
birth _not_ in terms of a change of nature (from satanic to
divine), but as the regeneration of a uniquely human spirit by God
(2 Cor. 5:17; Tit. 3:5).
In the second stage of his discourse, Copeland teaches that the
believer's change of nature (into a god) brings with it a
proportional change in ability. "Every man that has been born again
has had this faith [viz. God's] put inside him," he writes. "This
faith is good enough to make all things possible to the
believer."[80]
Copeland comments, "As a born-again believer, you are equipped
with the Word. You have the power of God at your disposal. By
getting the Word deep into your spirit and speaking it boldly out
your mouth, you release spiritual power to change things in the
natural circumstances."[81]
The believer is thus allegedly able to speak things into
existence by way of faith-filled words, or _positive confession._
But as we have already shown, Copeland's views of faith and words
are without legitimate scriptural warrant, and are therefore
invalid when applied to the believer.
In the third stage of Copeland's teaching on the believer's
authority, we are told that knowing and exercising the rights set
forth under the covenant guarantee success in confession. He
remarks that the Bible "is the wisdom of God placed in covenant
contract....Everything in it is mine....You just keep looking at
it, and keep reading it, and that covenant will turn you into that
kind of person -- whatever it is you decide to be."[82]
Copeland translates his concept of covenant rights into what
has been termed the "health and wealth" or "prosperity" message.
"The basic principle of the Christian life is to know that God put
our sin, sickness, disease, sorrow, grief, and poverty on Jesus at
Calvary," he asserts. "For Him to put any of this on us now would
be a miscarriage of justice."[83]
*PRESCRIBING VISUALIZATION*
Copeland combines his "legal" precedent for prosperity with his
"mechanics" of confession to form a formula for speaking things
into existence. He insists, "You have the same creative faith and
ability on the inside of you that God used when he created the
heavens and the earth."[84] However, he adds that most believers
are not able to make full use of their inner power because "our
imagination...has been so fouled up and fathered up with wasted
useless words [and] wasted useless images."[85]
As a corrective, Copeland instructs believers to "go to the New
Testament, get the words of the covenant that cover the situation
that you hope to bring to pass. Build the image of that hope inside
of you....Keep the word before your eyes."[86] As examples, he uses
an inner picture of an 82-foot yacht that will transform into
reality in the Holy of Holies in heaven, along with a "picture [of
a Bible] that came right out of me and went into the Holy of
Holies,"[87] where it developed into an actual, physical object.
Copeland also claims that "when you get to the place where you
take the Word of God and build an image on the inside of you of not
having crippled legs and not having blind eyes, but when you close
your eyes you just see yourself just leap out of that wheelchair,
it will picture that in the Holy of Holies and you will come out of
there."[88]
Recognizing that his technique "sounds like that visualization
they do in meditation and metaphysical practices,"[89] Copeland
counters by reversing the tables. "What they're doing sounds like
this," he retorts. "The devil is a counterfeiter. He never came up
with anything real. That is the perverted form of the real thing.
Where do you think he got it? That sucker doesn't know anything on
his own. Amen."[90]
During another occasion, however, Copeland revealingly affirms
that both positive confession and creative visualization are based
on the same principle: "Words create pictures, and pictures in your
mind create words. And then the words come back out your
mouth....And when that spiritual force comes out it is going to
give substance to the image that's on the inside of you. Aw, that's
that visualization stuff! Aw, that's that New Age! No, New Age is
trying to do this; and they'd get somewhat results out of it
because this is spiritual law, brother."[91]
Copeland says, "Any image that you get down on the inside of
you that is so vivid when you close your eyes you see it, it'll
come to pass. When God came at the Tower of Babel, He said,
'Anything they can imagine, they can do.'"[92] He fails to note,
however, that those individuals built the tower out of brick and
tar (Gen. 11:3), not simply out of their imagination. Moreover,
their venture incurred God's judgment (vv. 6-9). Copeland can argue
and fuss all he wants, but the fact of the matter is that through
such teachings he has entered the world of the occult.
*FATALLY FLAWED*
Virtually every error we have noted in Copeland's theology can
be attributed to the following four reasons.
First, Copeland seems vehemently opposed to sound reasoning.
"Believers are not to be led by logic," he writes. "We are not even
to be led by _good sense_" (emphasis in original).[93] Copeland's
statement is apparently based on his mistaken belief that the
"ministry of Jesus was never governed by logic or reason....He was
not led by logic. He was not led by the mind."[94] Isaiah 1:18, on
the other hand, quotes God as saying, "Come now, let us _reason_
together."
Second, Copeland fails to observe some basic principles of
biblical interpretation (including fundamental rules of grammar and
usage), at times relying instead on so-called revelation knowledge
(information allegedly derived from direct, one-on-one
communication with God). His neglect in this area is made
embarrassingly apparent by his gross misunderstanding of key words
(e.g., faith) and utter disregard of the context in which they
appear. The Bible, however, stresses the importance of correctly
handling the Word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15).
Third, Copeland does not seem to acknowledge the importance of
systematic theology, as indicated by his statement, "I don't preach
doctrine, I preach faith."[95] Although he may not realize it, _his
preaching on faith and other topics do in fact constitute
doctrines,_ which combined form his theology (however
inconsistent). He would do well to heed the apostle Paul's advice
to "watch your life and your doctrine closely" (1 Tim. 4:16).
Fourth, Copeland displays an open attitude of disdain and
disrespect for the historically established views of the church.
Admittedly, tradition must ultimately be tested by the Word of God.
However, it should be recognized that certain historically accepted
views, especially as they apply to essential Christian doctrine
(e.g., the nature of faith, the nature of God, the nature of man,
and the person and work of Jesus Christ), are significant,
time-tested summations of fundamental Bible-based truths. To
deviate from them is to reject the heart of Christian faith.
It is regrettable that someone so influential within
contemporary Christianity continues to preach a message that
overturns virtually every major biblical teaching. To date,
Copeland refuses to discuss with his critics the issues raised in
this article. We only hope that he will soon realize the dangerous
road he is traveling. As Scripture warns, "Not many of you should
presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who
teach will be judged more strictly" (James 3:1). For now, Copeland,
being a false teacher, has made himself an enemy of the gospel
(Gal. 1:6-9).
*NOTES*
1 Kenneth Copeland, "The Word in My life...," _Kenneth Copeland
Ministries Catalog_ (Fort Worth: Kenneth Copeland Ministries,
n.d.), 3.
2 Kenneth Copeland, _The Music of Ministry_ (Fort Worth: Kenneth
Copeland Ministries, 1991, audiotape #53-0018), side 1.
3 Due to space limitations, this article will confine its focus on
areas of Copeland's teachings that form the framework for
positive confession, which in turn provide the mechanism for the
"health and wealth" gospel. Attempts to contact Copeland to
resolve any possible misunderstanding of his teachings have been
unsuccessful. Still, every effort has been made to present and
evaluate Copeland's views as accurately and fairly as possible.
4 _Living to Give_ (pamphlet) (Fort Worth: Kenneth Copeland
Ministries, n.d.), 4.
5 Charles Farah, "A Critical Analysis: The 'Roots and Fruits' of
Faith-Formula Theology," _PNEUMA: The Journal of the Society for
Pentecostal Studies,_ Spring 1981, 15; cited in Bruce Barron,
_The Health and Wealth Gospel_ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 1987), 183.
6 _Living to Give,_ 4.
7 _Ibid.,_ 5.
8_Ibid.,_ 8.
9 D. R. McConnell, _A Different Gospel_ (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1988), 95. Benny Hinn, Jerry Savelle, and Charles
Capps number among those Faith teachers who have been profoundly
impacted by Copeland.
10 _Ibid.,_ 135-42.
11 Kenneth Copeland, _The Force of Faith_ (Fort Worth: KCP
Publications, 1989), 10.
12 _Forces of the Recreated Human Spirit_ (Fort Worth: Kenneth
Copeland Ministries, 1982), 8.
13 Kenneth Copeland, _The Laws of Prosperity_ (Fort Worth: Kenneth
Copeland Publications, 1974), 18-19.
14 Kenneth Copeland, _Freedom from Fear_ (Fort Worth: KCP
Publications, 1983), 11.
15 _Ibid.,_ 12.
16 Kenneth Copeland, _Spirit, Soul and Body I_ (Fort Worth: Kenneth
Copeland Ministries, 1985, audiotape #01-0601), side 1.
17 Kenneth Copeland, _Authority of the Believer II_ (Fort Worth:
Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1987, audiotape #01-0302), side 1.
18 Kenneth Copeland, _The Power of the Tongue_ (Fort Worth: KCP
Publications, 1980), 4.
19 _Forces of the Recreated Human Spirit,_ 15; cf. 14.
20 _Ibid.,_ 17.
21 _The Analytical Greek Lexicon_ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1970), 419.
22 Copeland, _Spirit, Soul and Body I,_ side 1.
23 Kenneth Copeland ministry letter, 21 July 1977.
24 Kenneth Copeland, _Praise-a-Thon,_ TBN, 1988. Copeland has, in
another instance, stated that God "is not a failure" (Kenneth
Copeland, _The Troublemaker_ [Fort Worth, TX: Kenneth Copeland
Publications, n.d.], 23).
25 Kenneth Copeland, _Following the Faith of Abraham I_ (Fort
Worth: Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1989, audiotape #01-3001),
side 1.
26 Copeland, _Following the Faith of Abraham I,_ side 1.
27 Kenneth Copeland, _Our Covenant with God_ (Fort Worth: KCP
Publications, 1987), 7-8.
28 Kenneth Copeland, _Authority of the Believer IV_ (Fort Worth:
Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1987, audiotape #01-0304), side 1.
29 Cf. James M. Kinnebrew, _The Charismatic Doctrine of Positive
Confession: A Historical, Exegetical, and Theological Critique_
(doctoral dissertation, Mid-America Baptist Seminary, 1988),
157.
30 R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke,
eds., _Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament,_ 2 vols.
(Chicago: Moody Press, 1981), 1:192.
31 Millard J. Erickson, _Christian Theology_ (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1988), 510; cf. 514.
32 Copeland, _Walking in the Realm of the Miraculous,_ 74-76.
Copeland's understanding of these terms, derived from the Greek
word _zoe_ (life), is similar to that of ancient Gnostics. _See_
Rudolf Bultmann, "_Zoe_ in Greek Usage," _Theological Dictionary
of the New Testament_ (abridged in one volume), ed. by Geoffrey
W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co./Paternoster Press, 1985), 291.
33 _Ibid.,_ 74.
34 _Ibid.,_ 76.
35 _Ibid.,_ 74.
36 Copeland, _Our Covenant with God,_ 9.
37 Kenneth Copeland, _The Image of God in You III_ (Fort Worth:
Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1989, audiotape #01-1403), side 1.
38 Kenneth Copeland, _Inner Image of the Covenant_ (Fort Worth:
Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1985, audiotape #01-4406), side 1.
39 Kenneth Copeland, _God's Covenant with Man II_ (Fort Worth:
Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1985, audiotape #01-4404), side 1.
40 _Ibid._
41 _Ibid._
42 Copeland, _Our Covenant with God,_ 10.
43 _Ibid.,_ 10-11.
44 _Ibid.,_ 15.
45 _Ibid.,_ 10.
46 _See_ Elmer A. Martens, _God's Design: A Focus on Old Testament
Theology_ (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 72-73. Cf.
William Dyrness, _Themes in Old Testament Theology_ (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1979); and George Mendenhall,
"Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition," _The Biblical
Archaeologist,_ September 1954, 50-76.
47 Kenneth Copeland, "The Abrahamic Covenant" (Fort Worth: Kenneth
Copeland Ministries, 1985, audiotape #01-4405), side 1.
48 Copeland, _God's Covenants with Man II,_ side 2.
49 Copeland, _The Abrahamic Covenant,_ side 1.
50 Kenneth Copeland, _What Happened from the Cross to the Throne_
(Fort Worth: Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1990, audiotape
#02-0017), side 1.
51 Copeland, _The Image of God in You III,_ side 1.
52 _Ibid.,_ side 2.
53 Copeland, _The Power of the Tongue,_ 9-10.
54 _Ibid._
55 Copeland, _The Abrahamic Covenant,_ side 2.
56 Kenneth Copeland, "Take Time to Pray," _Believer's Voice of
Victory,_ February 1987, 9.
57 Kenneth Copeland, "Question & Answer," _Believer's Voice of
Victory,_ August 1988, 8.
58 _Ibid._
59 On Jesus' self-witness, _see_ Robert L. Reymond, _Jesus, Divine
Messiah_ (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing, 1990), 44-126.
60 Copeland, _The Force of Faith,_ 9.
61 Copeland, _The Power of the Tongue,_ 15.
62 Copeland, _Our Covenant with God,_ 21.
63 Kenneth Copeland, _What Satan Saw on the Day of Pentecost_ (Fort
Worth: Messages by Kenneth Copeland, n.d., audiotape #BCC-19),
side 1.
64 Kenneth Copeland, _The Incarnation_ (Fort Worth: Kenneth
Copeland Ministries, 1985, audiotape #01-0402), side 1.
65 Copeland, _Our Covenant with God,_ 9.
66 Kenneth Copeland, "The Price of It All," _Believer's Voice of
Victory,_ September 1991, 3.
67 Copeland, _What Happened from the Cross to the Throne,_ side 2.
68 Copeland, _The Incarnation,_ side 2.
69 Copeland, _What Happened from the Cross to the Throne,_ side 2.
70 Copeland, _Inner Image of the Covenant,_ side 1.
71 Kenneth Copeland, _Holy Bible: Kenneth Copeland Reference
Edition_ (Fort Worth: Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1991), 129.
72 Copeland, "The Price of It All," 3.
73 Kenneth Copeland, _Believer's Voice of Victory_ (television
program), TBN, 21 April 1991.
74 Copeland, _What Happened from the Cross to the Throne,_ side
2.
75 Copeland, "The Price of It All," 4-6.
76 Copeland, _The Abrahamic Covenant,_ side 2.
77 Kenneth Copeland, _Now We Are in Christ Jesus_ (Fort Worth: KCP
Publications, 1980), 23-24.
78 _Ibid.,_ 16-17.
79 Kenneth Copeland, _The Force of Love_ (Fort Worth: Kenneth
Copeland Ministries, 1987, audiotape #02-0028), side 1.
80 Copeland, _The Force of Faith,_ 13.
81 Copeland, _The Power of the Tongue,_ 15.
82 Copeland, _The Abrahamic Covenant,_ side 1.
83 Copeland, _The Troublemaker,_ 6.
84 Copeland, _Inner Image of the Covenant,_ side 2.
85 _Ibid._
86 _Ibid._
87 _Ibid._
88 _Ibid._
89 _Ibid._
90 _Ibid._
91 Kenneth Copeland, _Believer's Voice of Victory_ (television
program), TBN, 28 March 1991.
92 Copeland, _Inner Image of the Covenant,_ side 2.
93 Copeland, _The Force of Faith,_ 7.
94 _Ibid.,_ 7-8.
95 Copeland, _Following the Faith of Abraham I,_ side 2.
Why do I expose his FALSE TEACHINGS?
Ephesians 4:14-15, "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and
fro,
and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and
cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the
truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even
Christ:"
Colossians 2:8, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain
deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and
not after Christ."
2 Timothy 3:13, "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse,
deceiving,
and being deceived."
Anyone who follows false teachers is NOT of Christ. The bible CLEARLY
states that if you are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, he will SHOW YOU that
their teachings are FALSE.
John 14:17, "Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive,
because
it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth
with you, and shall be in you."
John 16:13, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide
you
into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall
hear,
that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."
Those who make the comments like "Anyone could have paid the
price for mans SINS on the Cross, and say that JESUS was the biggest
failure in the WORLD" do NOT BELONG TO JESUS!
Romans 8:9, "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that
the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of
Christ, he is none of his."
Read that AGAIN...
Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Need I say more?
I have no desire to argue with you, I know what the BIBLE says
and I know it tells me they are FALSE TEACHERS. What more
reason is there to discuss it?
1 Corinthians 14:38, "But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."
> You are not a seminary student; you are a student of
> your own perceived wrongs of Kenneth Copeland and studying this is
> getting you into a state of offense, a mistake.
I am COMMANDED to judge him in light of the scriptures...
1 John 4:1, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether
they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world."
1 Timothy 4:1-2, "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter
times
some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and
doctrines
OF DEVILS; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with
a hot iron;"
> You are making a second
> mistake by using scripture to uphold your state of offense. I would
> suggest that you spend some time thinking about this scripture.
I would suggest to you that you understand the REASON for having
the scriptures....to TRY THE SPIRITS....
Romans 3:4, "God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; "
> Pamela
Seminary Student
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 22:17:35 -0800, Pamela
> <pamelareub...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Dear Seminary Student...
> >rumminated a whole lot more on Kenneth Copeland than you have on God
> >and His Word. Get your mind off of him and on God and maybe one of
> >these days you will actually understand the Love of God that Kenneth
> >Copeland's ministry teaches.
> > Pamela
>
> While I agree that God should be our focus and I'm
> making no judgement calls on Kenneth Copeland, it is
> very important that we examine those who would teach
> us. Paul showed this, when he approved of the Bereans
> response, when he preached to them. They "searched the
> Scriptures daily, whether those things were so".
>
>
What's Wrong With the Faith Movement
Part Two: The Teachings of Kenneth Copeland
by Hendrik H. Hanegraaff and Erwin M. de Castro
from the Christian Research Journal, Spring 1993, page 16. The
Editor-in-Chief of the Christian
Research Journal is Elliot
Miller.
SUMMARY
Kenneth Copeland stands today as one of the Faith movement's leading
spokesmen. His voluminous
material (in print and
broadcast media), combined with his crusades and international outreach
centers, attest to his vast
influence.
Copeland is responsible for spreading many of the Faith movement's
unbiblical teachings. He distorts
the biblical concepts of
faith and covenant. He reduces God to the image of man while elevating man
to the status of God. He
lowers Jesus to being a
product of positive confession who took on a satanic nature at the cross.
And he promotes the occult
practice of creative
visualization.
Copeland's errors are largely due to his negative stance on reasoning, his
poor handling of the Bible, his
aversion toward
theology, and his bias against tradition.
On the night of November 2, 1962, a young man twenty-five years of age,
struggling against "sin,
sickness, and strife," asked
Jesus to "come into [his] heart."[1] His decision came two weeks after his
wife had done likewise.[2]
Today, these two
individuals head a ministry that literally stretches around the globe, while
remaining in the forefront of
what has come to be
known as the "Faith" movement. They are Kenneth and Gloria Copeland.
Part One of this series explored the roots of the Faith movement and
surveyed some of its leading
proponents today. In this
installment, our primary attention will be devoted to cataloging and
critiquing the core theology of one
of the most widely
recognized and respected Faith teachers to date -- Kenneth Copeland.[3]
FROM OBSCURITY TO CENTER STAGE
In 1973 the ministry began publishing its own newsletter, Believer's Voice
of Victory. Two years later,
Copeland claimed the
Lord "commanded him to 'preach the uncompromised Word on every available
voice.'"[7] This
prompted him to launch the
Believer's Voice of Victory radio broadcast in 1976. By 1979 Copeland's
ministry was established
firmly enough to enter the
arena of television, paving the way for its 1981 venture into satellite
communications. And in August of
the following year "the
ministry made history by initiating the first global religious broadcast"
(emphasis in original).[8]
Copeland continues to experience popular acceptance within various
charismatic and Pentecostal
circles. His books, booklets,
and taped messages can be found in a number of Christian bookstores, and his
crusades and revivals
consistently produce large
turnouts. Furthermore, the ministry's international scope and influence is
well attested by its offices in
England, the Philippines,
South Africa, Australia, Canada, and Hong Kong.
While not every Faith teacher holds to all of Copeland's doctrines, they,
along with his followers,
consider him a leading -- if not
the leading -- authority on Faith theology. "Many have already coronated
Copeland as the new king of
the Faith movement,"
writes one observer. "In a recent article, even Time magazine refers to
Copeland as the 'chief
exponent' of the Faith
movement."[9]
THE FORCE OF FAITH
Of the multiple views of faith held by Faith teachers,[10] Copeland focuses
primarily on an
understanding of faith as a force.
"Faith is a power force," he claims. "It is a tangible force. It is a
conductive force."[11] Moreover,
"faith is a spiritual force....It is
substance. Faith has the ability to effect natural substance."[12] As "the
force of gravity...makes the
law of gravity work...this
force of faith...makes the laws of the spirit world function."[13]
Copeland affirms that "God cannot do anything for you apart or separate from
faith,"[14] for "faith is
God's source of
power" (emphasis in original).[15] Moreover, "everything that you're able to
word hypostasis which,
in the context of Hebrews 11:1, means "an assured impression, a mental
realizing."[21] Far from being
some tangible material or
energetic force, faith is a channel of living trust stretching from man to
God. It is an assurance that
God's promises never
fail, even if sometimes we do not experience their fulfillment during our
mortal existence. Other
translations render hypostasis
more precisely as "being sure" (NIV), "to be sure" (TEV), and "assurance"
(NASB).
Neither the original Greek text nor any of the modern translations support
Copeland's understanding of
faith. The same holds
true for his understanding of spoken words. Besides, the idea of words
functioning as faith-filled
containers makes no sense if
there is no such thing as a "force of faith" (requiring packaging and
transportation) in the first place.
A GOD OF HUMAN PROPORTIONS
Copeland's view of God fares no better biblically than his understanding of
faith. He describes God as
someone "very much like
you and me....A being that stands somewhere around 6'2," 6'3," that weighs
somewhere in the
neighborhood of a couple of
hundred pounds, little better, [and] has a [hand]span nine inches
across."[22]
Copeland's statement is based on his hyperliteral reading of Isaiah 40:12
MEMBERS OF GOD'S CLASS
Copeland overemphasizes similarities between God and man to the point where
any distinction
becomes virtually nil: "God's
reason for creating Adam was His desire to reproduce Himself....Adam is as
much like God as you
could get, just the same
as Jesus....Adam, in the Garden of Eden, was God manifested in the flesh"
(emphasis added).[26]
Referring to his so-called law of genesis, Copeland asserts, "Adam was
created in God's own image
and likeness, a
spirit-being...[and] takes on the nature of his spiritual father or
lord."[27] In explaining the terms
"image" and "likeness" in
Genesis 1:26, he adds: "If you stood Adam upside God, they look just exactly
alike....If you stood Jesus
and Adam
side-by-side, they would look and act and sound exactly alike....The image
is that they look just alike,
but the likeness is that
they act alike and they are alike....All of God's attributes, all of God's
authority, all of God's faith, all of
God's ability was
invested in that man."[28]
Actually, the terms "image" and "likeness" refute Copeland's point. The
Hebrew word for "likeness"
(demuth) simply means
similarity or resemblance, not identity.[29] Furthermore, the term itself
actually "defines and limits" the
word "image" (Hebrew:
tselem) in order "to avoid the implication that man is a precise copy of
God, albeit miniature" (emphasis
added).[30]
Humans are created in God's image in the sense that they share, in a finite
and imperfect way, God's
communicable attributes
(e.g, rationality and morality). These attributes, in turn, give individuals
the capacity to enjoy fellowship
with God, develop
personal relationships with one another, and take care of God's creation as
He has commanded.[31]
God's incommunicable
attributes (e.g., omnipotence, omniscience, self-sufficiency), however,
remain solely His.
Along with the "image of God," Copeland also refers to "the life of God,"
which he interchanges with
the terms "the absolute life
of God," "absolute life," "life force," "life in the absolute sense,"
"eternal life," and "everlasting life."[32]
He applies these terms to
a quality of life, the source of which is God.[33] But he also speaks of it
as "the substance -- the
source, the power -- the
unseen force that makes God, God...[and] places Him above everything else
that exists."[34]
Copeland states that "man was created to know that great life force and he
longs for it in his dreams.
Adam had that life force
COVENANT OF CONVENIENCE
According to Copeland, "God had no avenue of lasting faith or moving in the
earth. He had to have
covenant with
somebody....He had to be invited in, in other words, or He couldn't
come."[39] In fact, "the reason that
He's making covenant
is to get into the earth."[40] "God is on the outside looking in," says
Copeland. "In order to have any
say-so in the earth, He's
gonna have to be in agreement with a man here."[41]
"Since man was the key figure in the Fall," Copeland argues, "man had to be
the key figure in the
redemption, so God
approached a man named Abram."[42] An agreement was struck between God and
Abram that "gave
God access to the
earth."[43] God, in turn, "promised to care for Abraham and his descendants
in every way -- spiritually,
physically, financially,
socially."[44] Commenting on the deal, Copeland writes that God "re-enacted
with Abram what Satan
had done with Adam,
except that God did not sneak in and use deception...and Abram bought
it."[45]
As his comments indicate, Copeland views divine covenants no differently
from business contracts.[46]
THE SPOKEN WORD MADE FLESH
"God is injecting His Word into the earth to produce this Jesus," Copeland
explains. "This [sic]
The passage Copeland cites (v. 6), however, describes Christ as "being in
very nature God." The
participle "being" is rendered
in the present active tense (Greek: huparchon), denoting Christ's ongoing
condition as having the nature
of God. Christ did
not give up His divine attributes during His incarnation (cf. Col. 2:9; Heb.
13:8), but instead added to
them (see Phil. 2:7,
"taking") a full human nature in the form of a servant. Moreover, Jesus
referred to Himself as the Son
of Man (Mark 2:5-10; cf.
Dan. 7:13-14) and the unique Son of God the Father (John 5:18; 10:30-33),
demonstrating His claim to
be God.[59]
In Copeland's view, three basic factors enabled Jesus to perform miracles.
First, "the force of faith
was controlling His
ministry."[60] Second, "He exercised that authority by the use of
words."[61] Third, "He used the
Covenant to control the laws
of nature."[62] Copeland's view, however, rests upon a false understanding
of faith, the spoken word,
and the Abrahamic
covenant, and is therefore erroneous.
SPIRITUAL DEATH AND REBIRTH IN HELL
claim that He has "life in
Himself" (John 5:26; cf. 1:4), is "the resurrection and the life" (11:25),
and is "the way, the truth, and the
life" (14:6). The
"spiritual death of Christ" teaching entails an implicit denial of Christ's
deity and, in turn, of the Trinity.
Still, Copeland insists "Satan conquered Jesus on the Cross and took His
(Greek: prototokos) primarily
denotes primacy, headship,
and preeminence. And the phrase itself points to Christ's supremacy "over
all creation" (v. 15) in
general and those who will be
raised from the dead in particular (alluding to Christ's bodily
resurrection -- not some spiritual
resuscitation in hell).
Moreover, Jesus was not dragged into hell by Satan, but instead committed
His spirit to the Father
(Luke 23:46) and went
directly to paradise (v. 43). Nor was He tortured by a host of demons; He
triumphed "over them by the
cross" (Col. 2:15).
Jesus paid for humanity's sin in full (Greek: tetelestai) at the cross (John
19:30) -- not by becoming a
satanic being, but through
His physical sacrifice (Heb. 10:10; Col. 1:22).
THE BELIEVER'S AUTHORITY
Copeland's basis for the believer's authority can be viewed in three
distinct stages. First, upon
conversion the believer
undergoes a total and immediate change of nature. At the moment of spiritual
birth "the spirit of God
hovered over you, and
there was conceived in your body a holy thing identical to Jesus....And
there was imparted into you
zoe, the life of God"
(emphases added).[76] Hence, "you are to think the way Jesus thought. He
didn't think it robbery to be
equal with God."[77]
Copeland's remarks, "You are not a spiritual schizophrenic -- half-God and
half-Satan -- you are
all-God"[78] and "You don't
have a God in you; you are one,"[79] demonstrate that being born again means
nothing less to him than
becoming a god.
Yet Scripture states there is only one God who indwells all believers (John
14:17, 23). Additionally, the
Bible views spiritual
birth not in terms of a change of nature (from satanic to divine), but as
the regeneration of a uniquely
human spirit by God (2
Cor. 5:17; Tit. 3:5).
In the second stage of his discourse, Copeland teaches that the believer's
change of nature (into a god)
brings with it a
proportional change in ability. "Every man that has been born again has had
this faith [viz. God's] put
inside him," he writes.
"This faith is good enough to make all things possible to the believer."[80]
Copeland comments, "As a born-again believer, you are equipped with the
Word. You have the power
of God at your
disposal. By getting the Word deep into your spirit and speaking it boldly
out your mouth, you release
spiritual power to change
things in the natural circumstances."[81]
The believer is thus allegedly able to speak things into existence by way of
faith-filled words, or
positive confession. But as we
have already shown, Copeland's views of faith and words are without
legitimate scriptural warrant, and
are therefore invalid
when applied to the believer.
In the third stage of Copeland's teaching on the believer's authority, we
are told that knowing and
exercising the rights set forth
under the covenant guarantee success in confession. He remarks that the
Bible "is the wisdom of God
placed in covenant
contract....Everything in it is mine....You just keep looking at it, and
keep reading it, and that covenant
will turn you into that
kind of person -- whatever it is you decide to be."[82]
Copeland translates his concept of covenant rights into what has been termed
the "health and wealth"
or "prosperity" message.
"The basic principle of the Christian life is to know that God put our sin,
sickness, disease, sorrow,
grief, and poverty on Jesus
at Calvary," he asserts. "For Him to put any of this on us now would be a
miscarriage of justice."[83]
PRESCRIBING VISUALIZATION
FATALLY FLAWED
Virtually every error we have noted in Copeland's theology can be attributed
to the following four
reasons.
First, Copeland seems vehemently opposed to sound reasoning. "Believers are
not to be led by logic,"
he writes. "We are not
even to be led by good sense" (emphasis in original).[93] Copeland's
statement is apparently based on
his mistaken belief that
the "ministry of Jesus was never governed by logic or reason....He was not
led by logic. He was not
led by the mind."[94] Isaiah
1:18, on the other hand, quotes God as saying, "Come now, let us reason
together."
Second, Copeland fails to observe some basic principles of biblical
interpretation (including fundamental
rules of grammar and
usage), at times relying instead on so-called revelation knowledge
(information allegedly derived from
direct, one-on-one
communication with God). His neglect in this area is made embarrassingly
apparent by his gross
misunderstanding of key words
(e.g., faith) and utter disregard of the context in which they appear. The
Bible, however, stresses the
importance of correctly
handling the Word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15).
Third, Copeland does not seem to acknowledge the importance of systematic
theology, as indicated by
his statement, "I don't
preach doctrine, I preach faith."[95] Although he may not realize it, his
preaching on faith and other
topics do in fact
constitute doctrines, which combined form his theology (however
NOTES
1 Kenneth Copeland, "The Word in My life...," Kenneth Copeland Ministries
Catalog (Fort Worth:
Kenneth Copeland
Ministries, n.d.), 3.
2 Kenneth Copeland, The Music of Ministry (Fort Worth: Kenneth Copeland
Ministries, 1991,
audiotape #53-0018), side
1.
3 Due to space limitations, this article will confine its focus on areas of
Copeland's teachings that form
the framework for
positive confession, which in turn provide the mechanism for the "health and
wealth" gospel. Attempts
to contact Copeland to
resolve any possible misunderstanding of his teachings have been
unsuccessful. Still, every effort has
been made to present and
evaluate Copeland's views as accurately and fairly as possible.
4 Living to Give (pamphlet) (Fort Worth: Kenneth Copeland Ministries, n.d.),
4.
5 Charles Farah, "A Critical Analysis: The 'Roots and Fruits' of
Faith-Formula Theology," PNEUMA:
The Journal of the
Society for Pentecostal Studies, Spring 1981, 15; cited in Bruce Barron, The
Health and Wealth Gospel
(Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 183.
6 Living to Give, 4.
7 Ibid., 5.
8Ibid., 8.
9 D. R. McConnell, A Different Gospel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers,
1988), 95. Benny
Hinn, Jerry Savelle, and
Charles Capps number among those Faith teachers who have been profoundly
impacted by Copeland.
10 Ibid., 135-42.
11 Kenneth Copeland, The Force of Faith (Fort Worth: KCP Publications,
1989), 10.
12 Forces of the Recreated Human Spirit (Fort Worth: Kenneth Copeland
Ministries, 1982), 8.
13 Kenneth Copeland, The Laws of Prosperity (Fort Worth: Kenneth Copeland
Publications, 1974),
18-19.
14 Kenneth Copeland, Freedom from Fear (Fort Worth: KCP Publications, 1983),
11.
15 Ibid., 12.
16 Kenneth Copeland, Spirit, Soul and Body I (Fort Worth: Kenneth Copeland
Ministries, 1985,
audiotape #01-0601), side
1.
17 Kenneth Copeland, Authority of the Believer II (Fort Worth: Kenneth
Copeland Ministries, 1987,
audiotape #01-0302),
side 1.
18 Kenneth Copeland, The Power of the Tongue (Fort Worth: KCP Publications,
1980), 4.
19 Forces of the Recreated Human Spirit, 15; cf. 14.
20 Ibid., 17.
21 The Analytical Greek Lexicon (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House,
1970), 419.
22 Copeland, Spirit, Soul and Body I, side 1.
23 Kenneth Copeland ministry letter, 21 July 1977.
24 Kenneth Copeland, Praise-a-Thon, TBN, 1988. Copeland has, in another
instance, stated that God
"is not a failure"
(Kenneth Copeland, The Troublemaker [Fort Worth, TX: Kenneth Copeland
Publications, n.d.], 23).
25 Kenneth Copeland, Following the Faith of Abraham I (Fort Worth: Kenneth
Copeland Ministries,
1989, audiotape
#01-3001), side 1.
26 Copeland, Following the Faith of Abraham I, side 1.
27 Kenneth Copeland, Our Covenant with God (Fort Worth: KCP Publications,
1987), 7-8.
28 Kenneth Copeland, Authority of the Believer IV (Fort Worth: Kenneth
Copeland Ministries, 1987,
audiotape
#01-0304), side 1.
29 Cf. James M. Kinnebrew, The Charismatic Doctrine of Positive Confession:
A Historical,
Exegetical, and
Theological Critique (doctoral dissertation, Mid-America Baptist Seminary,
1988), 157.
30 R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce K. Waltke, eds.,
Theological Wordbook of the
Old Testament, 2
vols. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1981), 1:192.
31 Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1988), 510; cf. 514.
32 Copeland, Walking in the Realm of the Miraculous, 74-76. Copeland's
understanding of these terms,
derived from the
Greek word zoe (life), is similar to that of ancient Gnostics. See Rudolf
Bultmann, "Zoe in Greek
Usage," Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament (abridged in one volume), ed. by Geoffrey W.
Bromiley (Grand
Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co./Paternoster Press, 1985), 291.
33 Ibid., 74.
34 Ibid., 76.
35 Ibid., 74.
36 Copeland, Our Covenant with God, 9.
37 Kenneth Copeland, The Image of God in You III (Fort Worth: Kenneth
Copeland Ministries, 1989,
audiotape
#01-1403), side 1.
38 Kenneth Copeland, Inner Image of the Covenant (Fort Worth: Kenneth
Copeland Ministries, 1985,
audiotape
#01-4406), side 1.
39 Kenneth Copeland, God's Covenant with Man II (Fort Worth: Kenneth
Copeland Ministries, 1985,
audiotape
#01-4404), side 1.
40 Ibid.
41 Ibid.
42 Copeland, Our Covenant with God, 10.
43 Ibid., 10-11.
44 Ibid., 15.
45 Ibid., 10.
46 See Elmer A. Martens, God's Design: A Focus on Old Testament Theology
(Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House,
1981), 72-73. Cf. William Dyrness, Themes in Old Testament Theology (Downers
Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press, 1979);
and George Mendenhall, "Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition," The Biblical
Archaeologist,
September 1954, 50-76.
47 Kenneth Copeland, "The Abrahamic Covenant" (Fort Worth: Kenneth Copeland
Ministries, 1985,
audiotape #01-4405),
side 1.
48 Copeland, God's Covenants with Man II, side 2.
49 Copeland, The Abrahamic Covenant, side 1.
50 Kenneth Copeland, What Happened from the Cross to the Throne (Fort Worth:
Kenneth Copeland
Ministries, 1990,
audiotape #02-0017), side 1.
51 Copeland, The Image of God in You III, side 1.
52 Ibid., side 2.
53 Copeland, The Power of the Tongue, 9-10.
54 Ibid.
55 Copeland, The Abrahamic Covenant, side 2.
56 Kenneth Copeland, "Take Time to Pray," Believer's Voice of Victory,
February 1987, 9.
57 Kenneth Copeland, "Question & Answer," Believer's Voice of Victory,
August 1988, 8.
58 Ibid.
59 On Jesus' self-witness, see Robert L. Reymond, Jesus, Divine Messiah
(Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing, 1990), 44-126.
60 Copeland, The Force of Faith, 9.
61 Copeland, The Power of the Tongue, 15.
62 Copeland, Our Covenant with God, 21.
63 Kenneth Copeland, What Satan Saw on the Day of Pentecost (Fort Worth:
Messages by Kenneth
Copeland, n.d.,
audiotape #BCC-19), side 1.
64 Kenneth Copeland, The Incarnation (Fort Worth: Kenneth Copeland
Ministries, 1985, audiotape
#01-0402), side 1.
65 Copeland, Our Covenant with God, 9.
66 Kenneth Copeland, "The Price of It All," Believer's Voice of Victory,
September 1991, 3.
67 Copeland, What Happened from the Cross to the Throne, side 2.
68 Copeland, The Incarnation, side 2.
69 Copeland, What Happened from the Cross to the Throne, side 2.
70 Copeland, Inner Image of the Covenant, side 1.
71 Kenneth Copeland, Holy Bible: Kenneth Copeland Reference Edition (Fort
Worth: Kenneth
Copeland Ministries,
1991), 129.
72 Copeland, "The Price of It All," 3.
73 Kenneth Copeland, Believer's Voice of Victory (television program), TBN,
21 April 1991.
74 Copeland, What Happened from the Cross to the Throne, side 2.
75 Copeland, "The Price of It All," 4-6.
76 Copeland, The Abrahamic Covenant, side 2.
77 Kenneth Copeland, Now We Are in Christ Jesus (Fort Worth: KCP
Publications, 1980), 23-24.
78 Ibid., 16-17.
79 Kenneth Copeland, The Force of Love (Fort Worth: Kenneth Copeland
Ministries, 1987, audiotape
#02-0028), side 1.
80 Copeland, The Force of Faith, 13.
81 Copeland, The Power of the Tongue, 15.
82 Copeland, The Abrahamic Covenant, side 1.
83 Copeland, The Troublemaker, 6.
84 Copeland, Inner Image of the Covenant, side 2.
85 Ibid.
86 Ibid.
87 Ibid.
88 Ibid.
89 Ibid.
90 Ibid.
91 Kenneth Copeland, Believer's Voice of Victory (television program), TBN,
28 March 1991.
92 Copeland, Inner Image of the Covenant, side 2.
93 Copeland, The Force of Faith, 7.
94 Ibid., 7-8.
95 Copeland, Following the Faith of Abraham I, side 2.
Seminary Student
Its Http://members.tripod.com/bibletruths/copeland.htm
Pastor Dave <pcd...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:387fb569...@news.optonline.net...
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 08:43:19 GMT, "Seminary Student"
> <roman...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Matthew 15:14, "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind.
> >And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."
> >
> >
> >I dont know what YOUR version of Christanity is, but I take
> >OFFENSE when some IDIOT FALSE TEACHER calls
> >ALMIGHTLY GOD the "Biggest falure in the WORLD!"
> >
Seminary Student
Mark Bassett <mba...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3884b379....@news.optonline.net...
> On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 06:09:14 -0800, Pamela
> <pamelareub...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Dear Seminary Student...
> > You know in the early church a bunch of the saints were getting
> >into this business of defending and arguing against other teachers. The
> >Apostle Paul didn't condone it. In fact he said:
> > Now dear brothers and sisters, I appeal to you by the authority of
> > the Lord Jesus Christ to stop arguing among yurselves. Let there be
> >real harmony so there won't be divisions in the church. I plead with
> >you to be of one mind, united in thought and purpose. For some members
> >of Chloe's household have told me about your arguments, dear brothers
> >and sisters. Some of you are saying, "I am a follower of Paul." Others
> >are saying, "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Peter," or "I follow only
> >Christ." Can Christ be divided into pieces?
> > (1 Corinthians: 10-13, The Book)
>
> You know that reminds me of another time in the early church were getting
> into this loosey goosey business of everyone is ok, as long as they call
> themselves Christian.
>
> Paul got somewhat irate, and decided it was time that the church heard
from
> God. He didn't stand still and allow every self-appointed teacher get the
> ears of the people "in the name of the Lord" without a challenge.
>
> 6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into
the
> grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there
be
> some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But
> though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than
vince garcia
Look who's talking--the guy who has declared only Calvinists go to
heaven because everyone else is worshipping a "different Jesus"
Paul wouldn't tolerate YOU, i think
v
helpu
Seminary Student <roman...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:2lWf4.3117$%85.1...@hnlnewsr1.hawaii.rr.com...
> You wont. it isnt in there!
> 2 Corinthians 5:21, "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who
> knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."
> > > Of course Jesus had the ability to sin, but He didn't.
> > > Benny Hinn wants us to think that He was born with a
> > > sinful nature, which is quite different.
> > Helpu
> > Where do you find that Jesus even could sin? I dont see it in scripture
Helpu
Jesus never had the potential to sin. The test(temptation) proved that. A
test just verifiies the quality of the thing/one being tested.