Benny Hinn
The DataRat
"Who says Benny Hinn can't do miracles?
Have you ever seen his haircut?"
To see Benny Hinn's haircut, go to:
http://www.xworld.org/DR/DR-Enemies.html
The DataRat
Milk Man
wrote:
Welcome back!
I like your sight!
Although I am not currently in a position to defend him, I think your
estimation of Mr. Barth is in error.
He wasn't the heretic most make him out to be.
The DataRat
"Although I am not currently in a position to
defend him, I think your estimation of Mr. Barth
is in error."
Why aren't you in a position to defend Barth ?
"He wasn't the heretic most make him out to be"
Barth was a master of ambiguity. When asked
-for example- whether he taught Universalism,
Barth replied: "I do not teach it, but I also do
not not teach it" (20th.-Century Theology, Stanley
Grenz, et. al., Chapter 3).
Fact is, Barth was a Universalist. Both Universal
Atonement and it's logical corollary, Universal
Salvation. Christ on the cross being the only
person God rejected, according to the heretic !
Karl Barth had many other heresies, but this is
his most prominent one.
The DataRat
Cindy
really something else--however, I don't think it even begins to compare to
Oral Roberts' spectacular earlobes!! :)
Cindy
"The DataRat" <data...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3997ABD0...@home.com...
The DataRat
"Love the site Data! Gave me my chuckle for
the day! That hairdo is really something else
--however, I don't think it even begins to
compare to Oral Roberts' spectacular earlobes!!"
Well, Cindy, your favorite rodent had to check his
own web site to see what you were referring to.
Everybody: Cindy is right ! Oral Roberts got
earlobes that would make an elephant envious !
Now, does anyone agree with the Genevan Rodent
that Joe smith looked like young Elvis (prior to
morbid obesity and all the narcotics) ?
To see what we're talking about, visit The DataRat's
Ad Hominem City at:
http://www.xworld.org/DR/MainPicPg.html
and scroll down to "DataRat Enemies", then click
on the pic.
El Raton de los Datos
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 18:35:56 GMT, The DataRat <data...@home.com>
wrote:
>
>
Royce Buehler
In article <39982DD7...@home.com>,
The DataRat <data...@home.com> writes:
>
> Barth was a master of ambiguity. When asked
> -for example- whether he taught Universalism,
> Barth replied: "I do not teach it, but I also do
> not not teach it" (20th.-Century Theology, Stanley
> Grenz, et. al., Chapter 3).
Sounds like Barth knew his bible well.
> Fact is, Barth was a Universalist. Both Universal
> Atonement and it's logical corollary, Universal
> Salvation.
Ah, I see. Barth was a four-point Calvinist (you think).
And therefore (you think) he *must* have been a crypto-
universalist.
Nope. Makes him a normal Christian, is all. A respecter
of the Bible, something no five point Calvinist can be.
--
Royce Buehler bue...@space.mit.edu
"Comme un fou se croit Dieu, nous nous croyons mortels"
-- Pierre Delalande
Cindy
are--you aren't all bad, I just graduated from a school that's full of 'em!
However, I'm in the Arminian camp--hope you don't find a picture of me on a
bad hair day! :)
Nicholas Mackison
Scripture only became the word of God to you if it was met with some kind of
subjective affirmation within oneself, i.e. obey the bits you like and
reject the stuff you don't, which in Barth's case would be the parts of the
Bible that tell you that you shouldn't have an affair with your secretary.
"Milk Man" <not...@newsgoup.posts> wrote in message
news:3998043c...@news.iserv.net...
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000 09:21:04 GMT, The DataRat <data...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> Welcome back!
>
> I like your sight!
>
> Although I am not currently in a position to defend him, I think your
> estimation of Mr. Barth is in error.
>
> He wasn't the heretic most make him out to be.
>
>
>
>
Galina
Karl Barth is a goat boy. Goat boy discussions do not belong in the
OPrthodox newsgroup.
Thanking you in advance for deleting
alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox from your headers in the future, I
remain,
Your pal,
Galina
Milk Man
wrote:
> Why aren't you in a position to defend Barth ?
>
>
Because I only have a beginning knowledge of his works. Some people I
respect greatly have talked a bit about him.
> Barth was a master of ambiguity. When asked
> -for example- whether he taught Universalism,
> Barth replied: "I do not teach it, but I also do
> not not teach it" (20th.-Century Theology, Stanley
> Grenz, et. al., Chapter 3).
>
> Fact is, Barth was a Universalist. Both Universal
> Atonement and it's logical corollary, Universal
> Salvation. Christ on the cross being the only
> person God rejected, according to the heretic !
>
> Karl Barth had many other heresies, but this is
> his most prominent one.
>
>
> The DataRat
>
>
To my understanding, Barth elswhere denied the universalist charge.
My point is that Barth is in the reformed camp. No less than P.Y.
DeYoung, the former CRC conservative now with the URC, puts him
solidly in the reformed camp. Yes, he does differ in some substantial
ways from the reformers of the past, however he most certainly had the
biblical Christ as his foundation.
Barth, himself, claimed to be a defender of the reformed faith and
typically defended the reformers where he sought fit.
To disparage him because of a few of his ideas which may be suspect
(typically what other people say about him) would lead to our
disparaging of most reformed theologians.
Barth was sometimes accused of being a biblicist and was a strong
defender of the conservative view of the Bible over against the
predominant historical critical method of his day. Someone I know saw
Barth in the early 60's at the University of Chicago. The one thing
that sticks out in his mind is Barths statement that Theology is not
to correct the notebook of scripture, but Scripture is to correct the
notebook of theology.
To suggest he was a master of ambiguity is to miss his focus -that
being the Christ. Barth was onced asked if he believed in Hell. He
responded by saying, "No, I believe in Jesus Christ". This was not a
dodge of the question but a legitimate refocus of our attention to
Christ. Paul, after all, doesn't tell us to "preach Hell", but to
preach Christ!
To put Barth in the same class as Oral Roberts, Kenneth Copeland, and
T.D. Jakes does a disservice to us all!
MM
The DataRat
"To my understanding, Barth elswhere denied the
universalist charge"
Unequivocally ? Without qualification ? Or,
that "I don't teach it, and don't not teach it" crap ?
"My point is that Barth is in the reformed camp"
No he ISN'T ! Barth taught garbage like Holy
Mutability. You know what that is, MM ?
"Barth, himself, claimed to be a defender of the
reformed faith"
Mormons and JW's claim to be "Christians".
Satan loves to hide behind facades !
"To disparage him because of a few of his ideas
which may be suspect (typically what other people
say about him) would lead to our disparaging of
most reformed theologians"
Your favorite rodent has READ Barth. And,
by the way, that Universalism quote was a ~quote~
...NOT what somebody 'said about him' !
"To suggest he was a master of ambiguity is to
miss his focus -that being the Christ"
Wrong "Christ". Barth's "Christ" wasn't the Christ
described in the Bible.
The DataRat
The DataRat
"You wouldn't happen to be a Calvinist would you rat?"
They don't call him "The Calvinist Rodent" for nothing !
"I just graduated from a school that's full of 'em!"
Where, Cindy ?
"I'm in the Arminian camp"
Just as the Genevan Rodent suspected ! Arminians
live in camps rather than permanent homes !
Cindy, become a Calvinist today. Then you won't have
to camp-out.
Here's all the stuff you get if you become a Calvinist:
http://www.xworld.org/DR/Calvin7.html
Don't delay... become a Calvinist right away !
The DataRat
The DataRat
"obey the bits you like and reject the stuff you don't"
Which fit's in nicely with Barth's view that God is
mutable and periodically has to correct His decrees.
Afterall, why obey a Bible that is flawed and which
the Lord will need to later update ?
The DataRat
Cindy
You crack me up! I graduated from Whitworth College here in Spokane, WA.
Those Presbyterians just adore Mr. Calvin!!! :)
"The DataRat" <dat...@home.com> wrote in message
news:399AC07B...@home.com...
>
>
> "You wouldn't happen to be a Calvinist would you rat?"
>
>
> They don't call him "The Calvinist Rodent" for nothing !
>
>
>
>
> "I just graduated from a school that's full of 'em!"
>
>
The DataRat
"Oh Data! You crack me up!"
Your servant, madam !
"Those Presbyterians just adore Mr. Calvin!!!"
With good reason. See:
http://www.xworld.org/DR/DR7.html
The DataRat
Cindy
Your home page has shown me the light--and just in time. I will now turn
from my wicked ways of Armineanism and Penticostalism!! :) I sent your link
along to one of my profs at the college (a fine upstanding Presbyterian) who
I'm sure bask in the profound wisdom of your pages!!
Cindy
"The DataRat" <dat...@home.com> wrote in message
news:399ADBBA...@home.com...
Michael Dean
the artwork is very good. What talent!! I really do admire someone with talent,
and I really do feel sorry when they use it to misinform others with text that
is very one-sided and very wrong. It hurts a little bit to see this great
talent wasted on garbage like that. The world will never be at peace as long as
people continue this kind of action. And the airwaves continue to be polluted in
the process. Not to mention the confusion and sometimes out-and-out lies that
get told to those who have nothing else to measure the statements by. And
therein lies the real answer to who is the Anti-Christ person(s)....those that
put this kind of stuff out. And it's a real shame, because the talent is superb
that does this. But then, Satan has a lot of talent and doesn't mind using it
combined with human minds/hearts/hands to hurt others. Mrs. Michael
=================================================
The DataRat
"The world will never be at peace as long
as people continue this kind of action"
Matthew 10:34 !
The DataRat
Cindy
the case, I believe that our sense of humor is God-given as well. Rat's
tongue-in-cheek pages may be a bit irreverant, but I think that calling him
(a fellow believer) an instrument of Satan is going a bit too far. We
should busy ourselves with building one another up, not tearing each other
down. I think that sends a much more damaging message to the non-believers
out there that a bit of irreverant humor. Who knows, God may even use Rat's
pages to pique the curiosity of someone who is searching--stranger things
have happened.
Cindy
"Michael Dean" <md...@ctaz.com> wrote in message
news:399B8197...@ctaz.com...
The DataRat
"DataRat, Did you read the page at the
link?"
No.
Guess he's a a FORMER "Ruling Elder".
The premise is:
"If Calvinism is the true Apostolic
Christian teaching, then it must be
evident in the teachings of those who
were closest to Christ and His
Apostles"
Which is code for: 'We believe in the so-
called Church Fathers over Scripture' !
"I was not simply a nominal Calvinist; I
was Truly Reformed. I was a Ruling Elder,
a Licensed Minister..."
Yeah, yeah, and the guy had a ID card
stating he was a "Calvinist". The DataRat
has ten of those ID's in his wallet. Don't
mean a damn thing !
"They went out from us, but they
were not really of us; for if they had
been of us, they would have remained"
(1 John 2:29 NASB)
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
wrote:
> "You wouldn't happen to be a Calvinist would you rat?"
>
> They don't call him "The Calvinist Rodent" for nothing !
> "I just graduated from a school that's full of 'em!"
>
> Where, Cindy ?
> "I'm in the Arminian camp"
>
> Just as the Genevan Rodent suspected ! Arminians
> live in camps rather than permanent homes !
This world is not our home we are just passing through...
> Cindy, become a Calvinist today. Then you won't have
> to camp-out.
Sorry, we have no wish to love the world.
(you stepped into that one)
> Here's all the stuff you get if you become a Calvinist:
> http://www.xworld.org/DR/Calvin7.html
> Don't delay... become a Calvinist right away !
We are Christians not Calvinians.
> The DataRat
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
John
I am not sure that you can call him a heretic since a heretic has false
beliefs about G-d; Benny Hinn just uses other people's belief in G-d to make
millions of dollars for himself.
His freak show is a few miles from me and I have seen the abuses of people who
believe in G-d but get fooled into going to see (and worship) Benny Hinn.
What Hinn does to these people is criminal, and violates everything that the
Messiah taught.
The DataRat
"Sorry, that's not what Orthodox believe"
Not ostensibly. But, like with the Romanists,
we watch what you do ...rather than what you
say you do.
"That is exactly what the roman church and
the 'reformers' did; they left the Church"
An apostate, false church.
As believers, we are NOT called to assemble
with just anyone. Rather: With other Christians.
Nor are we called to worship saints, icons, or
whom/whatever. Rather: The living God.
The Eastern churches ~haven't~ been Christian
for many, many centuries.
Orthodoxism ISN'T
Christian, It's Dead
Externalism !
The DataRat
Pied Piper
romanists, we are Catholics and the true Christians along with our Es-astern
brothers.
Pax
<Rat droppings removed>
Milk Man
wrote:
>
> Unequivocally ? Without qualification ? Or,
> that "I don't teach it, and don't not teach it" crap ?
I don't recall the source or exact quote.
Let's just assume for argument sake that he was a universalist. Does
that automatically make him a heretic? Or perhaps he was a Christian
with some heretical views. After all, isn't any doctrine which isn't
fully true heretical??? Perhaps we should put Zwingli in the same
camp with Barth, since he wanted to populate heaven with many 'noble'
pagans.
If Barth was a universalist, he got their only, I repeat, ONLY through
Christ's work on the cross. He did not get their by suggesting that
Buddah, or Muhammed or the Maharishi Yogesh Yogi was just as good of a
way of faith. He did not suggest that all faiths were really the
same. He so believed in election that this universalism as you call
it, was the logical conclusion. According to Barth, there was
absolutely no way one could come to God. It was always God coming to
us through Christ!
>
>
>
>
> "My point is that Barth is in the reformed camp"
>
>
> No he ISN'T !
I'll stick with the reformed stalwort P.Y. DeYoung on that one. The
thing you fail to realize is that all reformed Christians disagree to
one degree or another. Yes, Barth held some seemingly heretical (non
reformed) views, but that does not diminish the fact that he
identified with the reformed faith because for the most part he agreed
with it. Do we now accept Barth hook line and sinker? No, and
neither should we accept Calvin without first testing his theology
with the scriptures. As Barth said, theology is not the notebook to
correct scripture, scripture is the notebook to correct theology.
Barth did not ever view his job to give exegesis of Calvin. His job
was to interpret scripture. That he for the most part agreed with the
reformers should tell us something.
> Barth taught garbage like Holy
> Mutability. You know what that is, MM ?
>
A process theologian? No, I don't think so. He believed that God was
free to be God. He was free to chose the Jews at one moment and then
reject the Jews the next moment. He was free to call the Gentiles
"not my people" at one minute and then call the Gentiles "my people"
the next minute. God certainly was unchangeable, according to Barth,
but His unchangeableness was God's unchangeableness.
>
>
> "Barth, himself, claimed to be a defender of the
> reformed faith"
>
>
> Mormons and JW's claim to be "Christians".
> Satan loves to hide behind facades !
>
>
Really bad analogy. Lot's of people ~claim~ to be christians.
Something like 90% of this country. That Barth claims the reformed
faith as his own assumes his Christianity. By Barth identifying with
the reformed faith he was saying, in effect, that he agreed more than
less with the tennants of reformed theology than with any other
theology. Mormons as well as JW's can claim their Christianity, but
they, nonetheless, still claim to be Mormons and JW's.
>
> Your favorite rodent has READ Barth. And,
> by the way, that Universalism quote was a ~quote~
> ...NOT what somebody 'said about him' !
>
Ooooooooooo! That certifies you as an expert. Hey, I've read Barth,
too. That means I'm an expert as well! Cool!.
I've been well aware of Barth and the problems of his beliefs far
longer than the 3 1/2 years of your time in the faith. That I have
only a begining understanding of him reflects the depth and intellect
of his work. For you to claim expertise on Barth when men I know with
Phd's in Reformed theology also have trouble with his genius is
innappropriate.
Your 'quote' amounts to hearsay. It was someone else reporting second
hand what had been reported elsewhere. Accurate or inaccurate, your
quote also fails to provide the context. Better yet, you show me from
Barth where Barth claims to be a universalist.
>
>
>
> "To suggest he was a master of ambiguity is to
> miss his focus -that being the Christ"
>
>
> Wrong "Christ". Barth's "Christ" wasn't the Christ
> described in the Bible.
>
>
> The DataRat
>
There you go again, flirting with your hyper-Calvinism. Taking your
argument to the logical conclusion would have Calvin's christ a
different christ than the Christ of the Bible for he believed that
Mary was a perpetual virgin. We know Jesus of the Bible had brothers.
Calvin had the wrong Jesus, too, I guess. What you fail to recognize
is that even good reformed theologians are all over the place when it
comes to theology. Sure, Barth did differ in many ways from the
reformed camp, but in far more ways he didn't. To put Barth as an
enemy and fail to recognize the damage cause by the likes of Madeline
Le'Engle and Elaine Pagels and such and then lump Barth and his
genious in with the likes of Kenneth Copeland and Benny Hinn is
laughable at best. If it wasn't for Barth's steadfast and firm
rejection of the liberal theology he was educated in and at one time
embraced, we might all be far more influenced by such liberal theology
ourselves.
MM
The DataRat
"I can't speak for the roman church, as I know
little of it firsthand, but their theology and that
of the Orthodox Church differs greatly in many
respects..."
The Romanist's only ally here in the Christian
newsgroups have been you Orthodoxists.
"Please tell us of your experiences and observations
while you attended an Orthodox Church"
Bro. Rat didn't have to become part of the Jehovah's
Witnesses to know that the WatchTower Society is
a cult. Nor, become a Scientoloist to realize that
L. Ron Hubbard was full of feces.
Neither did he have to attend Orthodoxist church
services to know about Orthodoxism !
"Really? How so?"
Re-sacrificial mass, worship of saints, Mary-idolatry,
contra-Biblical doctrines of men and demons, and
much, much more.
"that's why I will not assemble with a "protestant'
church"
Some protestant churches are as far from God as
the Orthodoxist church.
"Worship in the Orthodox Church is reserved for
God alone. You know this, but you like to bear false
witness otherwise....why is that?"
Bowing before icons is false worship. Why do YOU
lie about Orthodoxism ?
The DataRat
The DataRat
"Let's just assume for argument sake that he
was a universalist. Does that automatically
make him a heretic?"
Huh ?
Does Universalism make someone a heretic ?
Damn right !
"Or perhaps he was a Christian with some
heretical views"
You got to be kidding, MM. Barth was ok
because he was a 'Christian heretic' !
"Perhaps we should put Zwingli in the same
camp with Barth, since he wanted to populate
heaven with many 'noble' pagans"
If that was Zwingli's view, then the Reformed
Rodent stands foursquare against the guy !
( Got a source ? This is major revelation for
Bro. Rat. If Zwingli believed that pagans will be
saved, El Raton wants to be the first in line to
stand against him ! )
"If Barth was a universalist, he got their only,
I repeat, ONLY through Christ's work on the
cross"
Christ convinced Barth of Universalism ?
Is THAT what you're saying, MM ?
"The thing you fail to realize is that all reformed
Christians disagree to one degree or another"
NOT about Universalism ! No Reformation Christian
is a Universalist. Period.
Nor does any REFORMED Christian suppose that
the Lord is mutable.
"Barth did not ever view his job to give exegesis of
Calvin"
When did the Calvinist Rodent say that was Barth's
job ?
"I've been well aware of Barth and the problems of
his beliefs far longer than the 3 1/2 years of your time
in the faith"
To your shame. Newbies to the faith, like Bro. Rat
ought NOT have to defend it to you Old Timers.
Don't try to pull rank. This ain't the army, and ...in
Christianity... there is no time-in-grade !
"For you to claim expertise on Barth when men I
know with Phd's in Reformed theology also have
trouble with his genius is innappropriate"
The Reformation was NEVER based on educational
credentials. Peter was a simple fisherman.
You comprehend ~nothing~ of Reformation
Christianity if you think it's a hierarchy of men with
degrees !
"Your 'quote' amounts to hearsay"
It was quoted by Stanley Grenz, a widely published
theologian and a Barth admirer. If you can't refute
the quote, then attack Grenz. But, it WASN'T
"hearsay" !
"Accurate or inaccurate, your quote also fails to
provide the context"
Ok, MM. The ball is in ~your~ court. Defend
Barth from context. The Tulip rodent will give
you a fair hearing.
"There you go again, flirting with your hyper-
Calvinism"
Not subscribing to Universalism is "hyper-Calvinism".
Some here shall be very glad to hear THAT !
"Taking your argument to the logical conclusion would
have Calvin's christ a different christ than the Christ of
the Bible for he believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin"
Calvin was in error about Mary's virginity. But, it was
neither a Christological, nor a Soteriological, heresy.
Barth's Universalism ~is~ !
"Sure, Barth did differ in many ways from the reformed
camp, but in far more ways he didn't"
Give a rodent a break ! Denying God's immutability
strikes at the heart of Reformation Theology. As
DOES Universalism !
No way comparable to Calvin mistakenly supposing
that Jesus had no siblings. You're grasping at straws,
MM.
The DataRat
The DataRat
"He did not get their by suggesting that Buddah,
or Muhammed or the Maharishi Yogesh Yogi
was just as good of a way of faith. He did not
suggest that all faiths were really the same"
Bottom line, Universalism is embraced by the Yogi,
and by Buddhism, and by Barth !
Universalism DOES indeed suggest that ~all~ paths
lead to God. Don't matter a damn bit whether Barth
arrived at that conclusion from the Dhamma Pada or
from a mis-exegesis of the Holy Bible.
Throwing the label "Christian" on Vedanta does NOT
make Universalism any more true. Certainly, Barth
pretending to be "Reformed" doesn't make him a
Reformation Christian !
The DataRat
Ben Hopkins
>
> "Or perhaps he was a Christian with some
> heretical views"
>
> You got to be kidding, MM. Barth was ok
> because he was a 'Christian heretic' !
This brings up a question which I have been
agonizing over: Where do you draw the line
between 'error' and 'heresy'? When does
theological innovation or even variation
turn into apostasy?
The immediate case in point is the Arminian
doctrines: does Jesus save? or does Jesus
save with our help? Is that 'another gospel'?
Is it brought to us by Satan presented as an
angel of light? or is it an innocent human
error?
Nick
>
>
> <snip>
MM wrote:
>
> "The thing you fail to realize is that all reformed
> Christians disagree to one degree or another"
>
>
DR wrote:
> NOT about Universalism ! No Reformation Christian
> is a Universalist. Period.
>
> Nor does any REFORMED Christian suppose that
> the Lord is mutable.
>
> <snip>
> The DataRat
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Universalism and its illegitimate child, universal atonement, is contrary to
scripture. Moreover, these false views have given us the
*conversions* of many people who believe it was their decision that saved
them, their decision that gained them entrance into God's Kingdom, and their
decision that caused God to change His mind about something, yet their life
indicates no change whatsoever.
It's sad that some people have the idea that God is susceptible to man's
dictates and demands. Imagine a depraved man, as Paul wrote in Romans
9:19,20, demanding God do this or do that. Believing God is mutable, as I
see it, can lead one to demand, to dictate, and to question God's plans and
actions, espceially the Plan taught in the Bible that God decided all
matters regarding the Salvation of His People and executed the Plan without
any help from a spitirually dead man. Unquestionably, one of the most
important teachings in this passage is Paul's argument that man is in NO
position "to talk back to God" (NIV) and to argue with God, questioning God
unjustly on "Why have you made me like this?" (TLB). To argue with God
about and to attempt to change God's plans and actions to satisfy a depraved
individual's lusts are grave sins against a Sovereign God and will not be
ignored.
Nick
Pied Piper
ACT OF LOVE
O my God, I love you above all things, with my whole heart and soul, because
you are all good and worthy of all my love. I love my neighbor as myself for
the love of you. I forgive all who have injured me and I ask pardon of all
whom I have injured. Amen.
Pax
"The DataRat" <dat...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39A1FEBC...@home.com...
Rafael Zabar
I hope that does not make anyone who come to a reformed church nonelect.
When the man said to Jesus, "Lord, I believe", was that not sufficient?
How will you classify Calvin's cathedral that stand empty in Geneva, except
for a few senior churchgoers?
But then, look at the passage again. Were not the children of Esau also
believers? Were they excluded from salvation because they were not elected?
Who gave Jacob the blessin that belonged to Esau? Was not the blessing
received through human chinacanery?
Aren't many Jews believers in Christ today?
Was not Paul a Jew?
Nick <b...@mounet.com> wrote in message
news:sq5396l...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> The DataRat <dat...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:39A20B3C...@home.com...
> >
> >
> > <snip>
>
> MM wrote:
>
> >
> > "The thing you fail to realize is that all reformed
> > Christians disagree to one degree or another"
> >
> >
>
> DR wrote:
>
> > NOT about Universalism ! No Reformation Christian
> > is a Universalist. Period.
> >
> > Nor does any REFORMED Christian suppose that
> > the Lord is mutable.
> >
Royce Buehler
In article <39A20B3C...@home.com>,
The DataRat <dat...@home.com> writes:
>
>
> "Let's just assume for argument sake that he
> was a universalist. Does that automatically
> make him a heretic?"
>
>
> Huh ?
>
> Does Universalism make someone a heretic ?
> Damn right !
Bear in mind that for DataRat, the very worst of all heresies
is the doctrine that God loves anyone at all but the elect.
If in your theology God loves more than 5% of mankind (DR
has several times cited this as an absolute upper limit),
then your theology is a doctrine of devils. The words
"God" and "love" must not be spoken in the same breath.
Bear in mind also that DataRat believes that if the world
were run properly, heretics would be executed by the state.
You may think you are more "reformed" than Barth. But in
DR's world, you are most likely already cast in the role
of marshmallow; and he will be happy to provide the stick.
You're not dealing with a "Reformed" individual in DataRat.
You are dealing with a hyperCalvinist apologist for hatred,
in all its forms, founded on DR's core pseudoCalvinist
doctrine that God is fundamentally a hater, the Elect
being the beneficiaries of His occasional weekend hobby
of love.
Royce Buehler
In article <sq5396l...@corp.supernews.com>,
"Nick" <b...@mounet.com> writes:
>
> DR wrote:
>
> > NOT about Universalism ! No Reformation Christian
> > is a Universalist. Period.
In point of fact, it is a *very* short step from Calvinism to
universalism. A much shorter step than the one from ordinary
Christianity to universalism.
In point of fact, the only denomination which is officially
universalist in its theology - the capital-U Universalists -
arose as a splinter group from the Calvinism of New England.
It is an unassailable, rock solid biblical fact that God desires
all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,
that it is His purpose to have mercy on all.
If you put that together with the Calvinist view that every single thing
God desires, every single thing God purposes will take place, universalism
is the logical result. And large is the company of Calvinists who
have put it together just that way. The greatest and most admirable of all
universalist preachers, C. S. Lewis's mentor George MacDonald, became
and remained ordained as a Reformed minister of the gospel in
ever-so-Calvinist Scotland.
> Universalism and its illegitimate child, universal atonement, is contrary to
> scripture.
I agree that it is contrary to scripture to teach universalism.
Universal atonement is directly taught by scripture. The doctrine
there are men for whom Christ did *not* die is never stated in
scripture, directly or by implication. Scripture says on several
occasions that Christ died for the church, or the elect, or "the
many" (which in Greek implies the vast majority). It also says
on several occasions that Christ died for all, and that God intends
to save all. These are not contradictory; one is just more inclusive
and complete than the other.
To make the late Calvinist assertion that Christ did *not* die for
all, or (worse) the hyper-Calvinist assertion that Christ did *not*
love all, does contradict the second set of biblical statements.
It flat out rejects the Bible for the sake of man-made doctrine.
> Moreover, these false views have given us the
> *conversions* of many people who believe it was their decision that saved
> them, their decision that gained them entrance into God's Kingdom, and their
> decision that caused God to change His mind about something, yet their life
> indicates no change whatsoever.
Nick, are you so sure that there has never been a person in a
Calvinist church who was living an unchanged life? I think you
are diagnosing a real problem, but assigning the wrong etiology
for it.
[Snip comments on mutability; I didn't see enough of the start of
the thread to understand fully what was at issue.]
The non-Calvinist view is not that a true conversion - much less the
formulaic repetition of some set words or other - "causes God
to change His mind." Rather, most of us maintain that God foreknew
the decision that would be made, from the foundation of the world,
as He foreknows all events.
The DataRat
"Where do you draw the line between 'error'
and 'heresy'? When does theological innovation
or even variation turn into apostasy?"
Well, first of all, the purpose of theology ISN'T
"innovation".
Innovation is a good thing in many realms of
endeavor such as metallurgical technology,
medical science, and fashion design. Theology
-in contrast- is about God ...NOT about us or
the novelties we invent !
Now, regarding the other:
Bro. Rat distinguishes between 'error' and
'heresy'. ( Albeit, if you will, the latter is just
the former big time. )
A heresy touches upon an essential of the faith.
Mere error doesn't.
Therefore, Calvin supposing the Mary was a
perpetual virgin was certainly in error, yet NOT
heretical.
In contrast, when the error relates to Soteriology,
Christology, or Divine Ontology, it almost
invariably is a heresy.
Barth's Universalism denies the Bible's soteriology.
And, his theory of "Holy Mutability" attacks the
Biblical portrayal of God's ontology.
"The immediate case in point is the Arminian
doctrines: does Jesus save? or does Jesus
save with our help? Is that 'another gospel'?"
The only question we need answer in regard to
Arminianism is: Does it teach Scripture's
Soteriology, or a foreign soteriology ?
If it teaches Biblical Soteriology, Arminianism
is Christian. If it teaches a soteriology foreign
to the Bible, the Arminianism is "another Gospel".
Same as Barth, the JW's, Mormons, Orthodoxists,
Papists: They ALL claim "Christ". But, do they
teach the Christ of the Bible or "a different Jesus" ?
Are we not hypocrites if we deny that, say, the
Jehovah's Witnesses or Roman Catholics are
Christian because they deny essential Biblical
truths, but accept Arminians although they do
the same ?
The DataRat
Alan Ferris
>If Ratboy ever pulls his head out of his ass it will be a miracle.
>
>ACT OF LOVE
>
>
>O my God, I love you above all things, with my whole heart and soul, because
>you are all good and worthy of all my love. I love my neighbor as myself for
>the love of you. I forgive all who have injured me and I ask pardon of all
>whom I have injured. Amen.
Rather than asking the pardon of your god, try asking the pardon of
the people you have harmed. That would be much better!
--
Alan Ferris
eligo, ergo sum Atheist #1211
EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the only colour is black -
the only sound
the broken bell
THEN talk to me about why. Spike Milligan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
arc's Gallery: http://www3.mistral.co.uk/xalan/rougue.htm
ICQ UIN: 12811297
The DataRat
"Believing God is mutable, as I see it, can lead
one to demand, to dictate, and to question God's
plans and actions, espceially the Plan taught in
the Bible that God decided all matters regarding
the Salvation of His People and executed the Plan
without any help from a spitirually dead man"
Quite so !
Karl Barth's doctrine of God's Mutability makes
the Bible and all Christian faith irrelevant.
Afterall, the Lord could change His mind -could
have to change His mind- later !
The DataRat
The DataRat
"Closing the books on those who say they
believe in Christ?"
The Lord 'closes the book' (as you phrase it)
on everyone who believes in "another Jesus"
and "a different gospel" (2 Corinthians 11:4
NASB).
Matthew 7:20-23 is very instructive on this
matter.
"When the man said to Jesus, 'Lord, I believe',
was that not sufficient?"
Only when it is belief in the true Lord.
Scripture condemns "self-made religion"
(Colossians 2:23 NASB) whether in the
of "Christ" or not.
Again, Matthew 7:20-23 is very instructive.
"How will you classify Calvin's cathedral that
stand empty in Geneva, except for a few senior
churchgoers?"
Two thoughts on that:
First, it is only empty because there is no Calvin
there. When the pure Gospel is not taught, either:
a.) heretics replace them and fill the church with
dupes, or b.) the churches stand empty.
Second, Christianity is NOT up for a vote.
Few are chosen (Matthew 22:14), and the gate
narrow (Matthew 7:13-14).
The validity of God's Word was ~never~ dependent
upon it's popularity with humans !
"Were not the children of Esau also believers?"
Cite your proof text, and we'll discuss it.
"Aren't many Jews believers in Christ today?
Was not Paul a Jew?"
We reject the false dichotomy that the Christian
church began in the First Century A.D. All
true Jews were Christians. Only false Jews
in the OT didn't look forward to Jesus. And,
only false Jews today deny Jesus.
Christians are the true Jews.
The DataRat
Nick
Rafael Zabar <lem...@access.inet.co.th> wrote in message
news:8nube3$rjv$1...@news.inet.co.th...
> Closing the books on those who say they believe in Christ?
Of course not. If one says she/he believes in Christ, it is because God has
chosen to show His mercy on the individual, has opened their spiritually
blinded eyes, and has given them the faith to believe.
"Closing the books" is not within any human's power just as "deciding to
believe in Christ" is not within any human's ability unless God draws the
individual to Christ, gives that person the faith to believe in Christ who
will not cast the person out (John 6:37,44; and Eph. 2:8.9).
Nick
Micah Burke
> eligo, ergo sum Atheist #1211
> EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div.
Hmm, their days are numbered as are their lives.
Alan Ferris
Who's?
Or should I say, who's days are not numbered!
--
Alan Ferris
eligo, ergo sum Atheist #1211
EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the only colour is black -
the only sound
the broken bell
THEN talk to me about why. Spike Milligan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
arc's Gallery: http://www3.mistral.co.uk/xalan/rogue.htm
ICQ UIN: 12811297
Nick
Royce Buehler <bue...@space.mitnos.pamedu> wrote in message
news:39a2bebf$0$94...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
> > > is a Universalist. Period.
>
> universalism. A much shorter step than the one from ordinary
> Christianity to universalism.
>
> In point of fact, the only denomination which is officially
> universalist in its theology - the capital-U Universalists -
> arose as a splinter group from the Calvinism of New England.
Hello Royce,
Yes, Murray and Ballou, as I recall are the two big names in Universalist
history in the 18th century New England. I've got a book somewhere written
by David Robinson on the history of the Unitarians and Universalists. An
aspect of my Master's thesis concerned the Unitarians and Universalists, so
I contacted the hdqtrs. in Boston and received several books and pamphlets
free. The U-Us were extremely helpful. Anyway, Is John Murray and Josiah
(?) Ballou the reason you write above,
> it is a *very* short step from Calvinism to
> universalism. [?]
If not, why do you see this?
>
> It is an unassailable, rock solid biblical fact that God desires
> all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,
> that it is His purpose to have mercy on all.
>
Agreed that 2 Peter 3:9 says God "is not willing that any should perish, but
that all should come to repentance" (KJV). However, other scriptures
clearly state that Christ died for His People, the sheep, the Church, so
there appears to be a limited number (not necessarily a small number,
however, in view of Rev. 7:9) in this group of the redeemed. After all, not
everyone will be in the group of those we call saved or redeemed.
Accordingly, there must be a reason why all are not saved because God
desires it. If He desires it and He is all powerful, then everyone will be
saved. This is unlikely, however. I see only two conclusions: people
have the ability to reject Christ, or God has chosen to save individuals
making rejection impossible.
> that every single thing
God desires, every single thing God purposes will take place, universalism
> is the logical result.
Not likely, if God is in control, and it is His Plan that He has executed.
He can restrain or allow anything. Universalism is opposite to Calvinism,
as I see it. Still, it's not my understanding how you see Universalism as
the logical end product of or the short step from Calvinism.
And large is the company of Calvinists who
> have put it together just that way. The greatest and most admirable of all
> universalist preachers, C. S. Lewis's mentor George MacDonald, became
> and remained ordained as a Reformed minister of the gospel in
> ever-so-Calvinist Scotland.
I am not fully acquainted with Mr. MacDonald's background, so what can I
say? If he is an isolated example, then . . . what has it to do with every
Calvinist? Is your opinion that every Calvinists will ultimately end up as
a Universalist, that is, that everyone is either chosen or rejected?
> > Universalism and its illegitimate child, universal atonement, is
contrary to
> > scripture.
>
> I agree that it is contrary to scripture to teach universalism.
>
> Universal atonement is directly taught by scripture. The doctrine
> there are men for whom Christ did *not* die is never stated in
> scripture, directly or by implication.
With my respect for you evident, I must disagree because of Matthew 1:21
that Jesus will save His People; not all are His people by any means.
Another scripture that you are familiar with is Isa. 53:12b, the Servant
"bare the sin of many".
Scripture says on several
> occasions that Christ died for the church, or the elect, or "the
> many" (which in Greek implies the vast majority).
I see it this way too, and it is in a limited sense, especially in light of
the words "vast majority".
It also says
> on several occasions that Christ died for all, and that God intends
> to save all. These are not contradictory; one is just more inclusive
> and complete than the other.
And the word *inclusive* seems to be the key in my understanding. Your
interpretation is that Christ died for all, none left out, as I hope I have
understood your position. If so, I respectfully disagree because of the
other verses indicating there is a limitation. If all have been included,
the power of Christ's blood would automatically cleanse everyone. That's
the conclusion I reach when considering Universal Atonement, because
Christ's Blood can cleanse thoroughly each person to whom it is applied,
then if applied to all people, all must be cleansed.
>
> To make the late Calvinist assertion that Christ did *not* die for
> all, or (worse) the hyper-Calvinist assertion that Christ did *not*
> love all, does contradict the second set of biblical statements.
> It flat out rejects the Bible for the sake of man-made doctrine.
>
> > Moreover, these false views have given us the
> > *conversions* of many people who believe it was their decision that
saved
> > them, their decision that gained them entrance into God's Kingdom, and
their
> > decision that caused God to change His mind about something, yet their
life
> > indicates no change whatsoever.
>
> Nick, are you so sure that there has never been a person in a
> Calvinist church who was living an unchanged life?
Of course not, Royce. Merely attending any church or holding a membership
in any church does not cause conversion. I believe membership and faithful
support are certainly important indications that one's life has been changed
by God. And all people in every church, be it a Reformed church or another
denomination, are not authomatically Christians thanks to their church
membership or attendance.
I think you
> are diagnosing a real problem, but assigning the wrong etiology
> for it.
>
Royce, let me ask you a question. Few weeks back you wrote me and mentioned
the time that you became a Christian, though you had been reared in a good,
Christian home. When you were saved, or gave your life to Christ, or
believed, whatever wording you prefer, do you remember vividly that night
about entertaining a thought to reject Christ? I mean, do you remmeber
thinking, "I'm going to say 'no' because I don't need Christ"? Or, "I'll
put it off till tomorrow." Did you feel the urge or the importance that you
had to accept Him that night or it would be over? I did! I don't remember
the thoughts of rejection entering my mind one second! Here's why:
When I was confronted with my condition of alienation, apart from God,
deserving His wrath, in need of a Savior, and then realizing through His
Word I had been reading (that's all I had at the time, no preacher, or soul
winner was present), that He loved me and sent His Son to die for me and
that was the remedy for my state, I pleaded God to forgive me, to help me,
to show me the way. I searched the Bible, God led me to read John 3:16, and
I asked God to give me eternal life. These events I remember so clearly,
but I DO NOT remember any thoughts of rejecting Christ. I do not recall
thinking, well that's okay, but I'll do something about it tomorrow. A few
days later, I visited a minister and shared this with him. Since then, I
have talked with many people and asked them to tell me about the time God
saved them. In many of these cases, not all, I asked them if they thought
about rejecting Christ and most said no. There were some who said yes.
Royce, I cannot comprehend fully what God has done for me, but I can
understand how this is the most important message God has delivered to the
human race. If rejection is the important aspect of the message that MUST
be included in the delivery, then I see the message devalued, I see a
problem with God's power, and I see man as his own savior deciding the time
and the place he'll be saved. It must be accepted, because John 6:37 is
clear that all people the Father gives to Christ will come to Him (no
rejection possible), and Jesus will accept all who come to Him.
Accordingly, I am convinced that I could never have rejected that message.
I saw myself doomed if something was not done that very night, that very
second. I asked Betty for help; she didn't know what to do except read and
pray. How can one reject such powerful dealings by God in her/his life? It
makes no sense to me that rejection must be the key ingredient in the
Message of God's Salvation. I never thought much of rejection until I heard
people promoting it on this ng and in my conversations with them.
> [Snip comments on mutability; I didn't see enough of the start of
> the thread to understand fully what was at issue.]
>
> The non-Calvinist view is not that a true conversion - much less the
> formulaic repetition of some set words or other - "causes God
> to change His mind." Rather, most of us maintain that God foreknew
> the decision that would be made, from the foundation of the world,
> as He foreknows all events.
>
> --
I agree God foreknows all events. But this word foreknew can mean a
relationship, does it not? The meaning is not always that God knew
something in advance, correct?
Nick
The DataRat
In context of the ENTIRETY of Scripture,
2 Peter 3:9 is expressing the Lord's ~preference~
rather than His decretive will.
The full verse quotation references God's patience.
Correct exegesis of this verse has the Most High
putting-up with men's evil for a season ...NOT
saving all men (Universalism) !
The DataRat
GoldRush
> The question I have asked the Calvinists in this NG hasn't been answered.
>
> Does atonement=salvation?
Yes.
>
>
> What would you make of 2 Peter 3: 9? Does this refer to the elect?
Yes.
--
GoldRush
For Scriptures & Christian Studies
visit http://www.mlode.com/~jrrush
Ben Hopkins
>
> "Where do you draw the line between 'error'
> and 'heresy'? When does theological innovation
> or even variation turn into apostasy?"
>
> Well, first of all, the purpose of theology ISN'T
> "innovation".
>
> Innovation is a good thing in many realms of
> endeavor such as metallurgical technology,
> medical science, and fashion design. Theology
> -in contrast- is about God ...NOT about us or
> the novelties we invent !
Innovation in the sense of finding new nuances of truth,
like what was done with expanding the idea of covenant, or
God's friendship with his people. Not inventing new
ideas, which is bad innovation, but finding fresh facets
in truth.
> Now, regarding the other:
>
> Bro. Rat distinguishes between 'error' and
> 'heresy'. ( Albeit, if you will, the latter is just
> the former big time. )
>
> A heresy touches upon an essential of the faith.
> Mere error doesn't.
The way it comes out in the epistles, apostasy or heresy
is not different from mere error in degree, but it is a
qualatative diffrence: a different gospel.
> Therefore, Calvin supposing the Mary was a
> perpetual virgin was certainly in error, yet NOT
> heretical.
OK, because it had nothing to do with God, or His nature,
and it did not deify Mary, and did not make Mary a demi
goddess. If a reformed Christian held that view today,
we ought to consider him a little eccentric, but not a
heretic.
> In contrast, when the error relates to Soteriology,
> Christology, or Divine Ontology, it almost
> invariably is a heresy.
>
> Barth's Universalism denies the Bible's soteriology.
> And, his theory of "Holy Mutability" attacks the
> Biblical portrayal of God's ontology.
>
> "The immediate case in point is the Arminian
> doctrines: does Jesus save? or does Jesus
> save with our help? Is that 'another gospel'?"
>
> The only question we need answer in regard to
> Arminianism is: Does it teach Scripture's
> Soteriology, or a foreign soteriology ?
>
> If it teaches Biblical Soteriology, Arminianism
> is Christian. If it teaches a soteriology foreign
> to the Bible, the Arminianism is "another Gospel".
>
> Same as Barth, the JW's, Mormons, Orthodoxists,
> Papists: They ALL claim "Christ". But, do they
> teach the Christ of the Bible or "a different Jesus" ?
>
> Are we not hypocrites if we deny that, say, the
> Jehovah's Witnesses or Roman Catholics are
> Christian because they deny essential Biblical
> truths, but accept Arminians although they do
> the same ?
I guess (for me) it comes down to the question of "he that
loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me."
(Matt. 10:37)
I knew all that stuff, just needed to hear it from someone
else.
Rafael Zabar
The DataRat <data...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39A2D143...@home.com...
>
>
> "Closing the books on those who say they
> believe in Christ?"
>
>
> on everyone who believes in "another Jesus"
> and "a different gospel" (2 Corinthians 11:4
> NASB).
>
> Matthew 7:20-23 is very instructive on this
> matter.
>
But taking the context of your pet verses, who does the will of the Father?
>
>
>
> "When the man said to Jesus, 'Lord, I believe',
> was that not sufficient?"
>
>
> Only when it is belief in the true Lord.
> Scripture condemns "self-made religion"
> (Colossians 2:23 NASB) whether in the
> of "Christ" or not.
>
> Again, Matthew 7:20-23 is very instructive.
>
Perhaps the difference is on, "I believe"?
>
>
>
> "How will you classify Calvin's cathedral that
> stand empty in Geneva, except for a few senior
> churchgoers?"
>
>
> Two thoughts on that:
>
> First, it is only empty because there is no Calvin
> there. When the pure Gospel is not taught, either:
> a.) heretics replace them and fill the church with
> dupes, or b.) the churches stand empty.
>
Could you say this to those who came right after he left? I mean right
after someone took his place?
> Second, Christianity is NOT up for a vote.
> Few are chosen (Matthew 22:14), and the gate
> narrow (Matthew 7:13-14).
>
Who are the called? Does it occur to us that Matthew's vocabulary might
mean other than that of Paul?
> The validity of God's Word was ~never~ dependent
> upon it's popularity with humans !
>
That makes stones popular then.
>
>
>
> "Were not the children of Esau also believers?"
>
>
> Cite your proof text, and we'll discuss it.
>
Are you saying then that not one descendant of Esau was saved? Was the Quee
n of Sheba a believer?
What is your understanding of election? Since you are a Calvinist, I would
understand that you equate election with salvation. Were the ones who were
called in Romans those who love God? Did they love God by themselves, or
did God make them love Him?
>
>
>
> "Aren't many Jews believers in Christ today?
> Was not Paul a Jew?"
>
>
> We reject the false dichotomy that the Christian
> church began in the First Century A.D. All
> true Jews were Christians. Only false Jews
> in the OT didn't look forward to Jesus. And,
> only false Jews today deny Jesus.
>
Did God forsake the Jews that He foreknew?
> Christians are the true Jews.
>
Are you a Jew then?
>
> The DataRat
>
>
>
>
Rafael Zabar
Does atonement=salvation?
What would you make of 2 Peter 3: 9? Does this refer to the elect?
The DataRat <dat...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39A2F45B...@home.com...
Rafael Zabar
The DataRat <data...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39A2D143...@home.com...
>
>
> "Closing the books on those who say they
> believe in Christ?"
>
>
> The Lord 'closes the book' (as you phrase it)
> on everyone who believes in "another Jesus"
> and "a different gospel" (2 Corinthians 11:4
> NASB).
>
read it in full.
> Matthew 7:20-23 is very instructive on this
> matter.
>
From the qualifications mentioned, is any Christian today in this category?
>
>
>
> "When the man said to Jesus, 'Lord, I believe',
> was that not sufficient?"
>
>
> Only when it is belief in the true Lord.
> Scripture condemns "self-made religion"
> (Colossians 2:23 NASB) whether in the
> of "Christ" or not.
>
What is belief in the true Lord? Don't you think that everyone are just
making up including your Calvin?
Are the Colossians guilty of self-made religion? Read the passage.
> Again, Matthew 7:20-23 is very instructive.
>
Does any Christian including Barth under this category?
>
>
>
> "How will you classify Calvin's cathedral that
> stand empty in Geneva, except for a few senior
> churchgoers?"
>
>
> Two thoughts on that:
>
> First, it is only empty because there is no Calvin
> there. When the pure Gospel is not taught, either:
> a.) heretics replace them and fill the church with
> dupes, or b.) the churches stand empty.
>
Once again, when the pure Gospel is not taught. When they did not teach a
pure Gospel? Are you saying that these people in the past who claim to be
Calvinists and closer to the context of Calvin earlier than you are
otherwise? Or, are you just the only Calvinist when you were born?
Who are we to accept, them or you?
> Second, Christianity is NOT up for a vote.
> Few are chosen (Matthew 22:14), and the gate
> narrow (Matthew 7:13-14).
>
Couldn't they enter one at a time?
But then chosen in what? Read verse 9.
If this is your presentation of the offer, then it is obvious that the king
placed the matter in the hands of those who went out to make an invitation.
Is the few limited to ONLY ONE in this case? There is nothing in that verse
that shows that many didn't have wedding dresses.
> The validity of God's Word was ~never~ dependent
> upon it's popularity with humans !
>
What made you decide to make such an afterthought? Did we?
>
>
>
> "Were not the children of Esau also believers?"
>
>
> Cite your proof text, and we'll discuss it.
>
Read Obadiah 17.
>
>
>
> "Aren't many Jews believers in Christ today?
> Was not Paul a Jew?"
>
What do you make of Paul's assertion of his descent? Could you make that
same assertion or qualification and for that matter any one who claims he is
a Christian? (Romans 11: 1)
>
> We reject the false dichotomy that the Christian
> church began in the First Century A.D. All
> true Jews were Christians. Only false Jews
> in the OT didn't look forward to Jesus. And,
> only false Jews today deny Jesus.
>
Perhaps they could not make this claim against you because at that time, you
were not yet born.
When did the true Jews become Christians? Does it occur to you that all
Jews were expecting the Messiah?
> Christians are the true Jews.
>
If they were, why will Paul make a genetic classification? (Romans 11:1)
>
> The DataRat
>
Rafael Zabar
statements are an interpretation of what he claimed, which of course, is
another story.
> >
> >
> > <snip>
>
> MM wrote:
>
> >
> > "The thing you fail to realize is that all reformed
> > Christians disagree to one degree or another"
> >
> >
>
> DR wrote:
>
> > NOT about Universalism ! No Reformation Christian
> > is a Universalist. Period.
> >
> > Nor does any REFORMED Christian suppose that
> > the Lord is mutable.
> >
>
> > The DataRat
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Universalism and its illegitimate child, universal atonement, is contrary
to
> *conversions* of many people who believe it was their decision that saved
> them, their decision that gained them entrance into God's Kingdom, and
their
> decision that caused God to change His mind about something, yet their
life
> indicates no change whatsoever.
>
> dictates and demands. Imagine a depraved man, as Paul wrote in Romans
> see it, can lead one to demand, to dictate, and to question God's plans
and
> actions, espceially the Plan taught in the Bible that God decided all
> matters regarding the Salvation of His People and executed the Plan
without
Rafael Zabar
wishing that you should perish, but that you should come to repentance?
Repentance of what?
Does that mean that God is patient with all the elect from the time they
were regenerated to the time they repented in the context of God's judgment
of the world?
The DataRat <dat...@home.com> wrote in message
Tom Albrecht
thereby opting for some kind of universalism? Karl Barth is often regarded
as having taken this route. Barth ties the universal love of God (with its
genuine offer of salvation) to the election of God in a relationship of
equality and states: "This, then, is the message with which the elect
community . . . has to approach every man-the promise, that he, too, is an
elect man." The only truly rejected man is Jesus Christ and by "permitting
the life of a rejected man to be the life of his own Son God has made such a
life objectively impossible for all others."(40) The rejected are taken up
into the rejected Christ who is "not reprobate but eternally loved and
justified and sanctified by God." Thus the rejected man can only have been
rejected. He cannot be rejected.(41)
There is tension throughout Barth's treatment of election. Grace is
sovereign but faith is necessary. God's "determination is that, as the
rejected man which he is, he should hear the proclamation of truth and come
to faith."(42)
It is Barth's state of suspense on the question of universalism which is
such a threat to the preaching of the gospel. The urgency of the gospel is
now not so urgent. "Necessary faith" is perhaps not quite "necessary." In
the end grace will conquer all-even unbelief. "Grace alone through faith
alone" is overturned. Grace is alone."
Footnotes:
40 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 1112 The Doctrine of God (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1957), 318, 346.
41 Barth, 451, 453.
42 Barth, 458.
More at http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/XLV/45-2.htm
"Rafael Zabar" <lem...@access.inet.co.th> wrote in message
news:8nvb74$26e$1...@news.inet.co.th...
The DataRat
"The question I have asked the Calvinists in
this NG hasn't been answered.
Does atonement=salvation?"
All those atoned for shall be saved.
But, atonement ISN'T the whole of salvation.
"What would you make of 2 Peter 3: 9? Does
this refer to the elect?'
2 Peter 3:9 references the Lord's preference
that none perish. It does NOT denote to His
decretive will, as indicated by referring to
patience.
Thus the NASB correctly render the verse as
"not ~wishing~ for any to perish" (the ASV and
Phillips also employ 'wish').
The NEB is also accurate:
"It is not His will for any to be lost"
Which is to say that the Most High doesn't decree
reprobation. ( Rather, He decrees the circumstances
and penalty of reprobation. )
2 Peter 3:9 -like all of 2 Peter- is addressed to
the regenerate Elect (2 Peter 1:1b). But, the third
clause of the verse (3:9c) describes the Lord's
stance vis-a-vis all of mankind.
It's corollary is Ezekiel 33:11 where God states:
"I take no pleasure in the death of the
wicked, but rather that the wicked turn"
(NASB)
Again, an expression of pure preference, and NOT
the decretive will of the Most High. ( Otherwise
they ~would~ turn, now wouldn't they. And,
we'd have no wicked in the world ...which obviously
ISN'T the case ! )
The DataRat
The DataRat
"Don't speak for him..."
The Reformed Rodent cited his source.
It was a quote of something Barth said,
and published by a Barth admirer. If that
citation isn't good enough for you, tough.
El Raton de los Datos
The DataRat
"Innovation in the sense of finding new nuances
of truth"
Ok, if THAT is how you want to use the term.
Bro. Rat's dictionary defines "innovation" as:
"The act of introducing something new"
Finding something already there wouldn't seem to
be best-described as "innovation".
"like what was done with expanding the idea of
covenant, or God's friendship with his people"
Nothing "new" there ...except our current realization
of it.
"The way it comes out in the epistles, apostasy or
heresy is not different from mere error in degree,
but it is a qualatative diffrence: a different gospel"
The DataRat WASN'T suggesting degree, but a
difference in ~category~. Re-read what he wrote.
Heresy is a Soteriological, Christological, or
Divine Ontological error. More general errors are
simply error ...but not heresy.
Ben Hopkins
>
> "Innovation in the sense of finding new nuances
> of truth"
>
> Ok, if THAT is how you want to use the term.
> Bro. Rat's dictionary defines "innovation" as:
>
> "The act of introducing something new"
>
> Finding something already there wouldn't seem to
> be best-described as "innovation".
>
> "like what was done with expanding the idea of
> covenant, or God's friendship with his people"
>
> Nothing "new" there ...except our current realization
> of it.
That's what I meant. 1 Peter 1:10 talks about "the prophets"
who "have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of
grace that should come unto you; searching what, or what manner
of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify,
when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and
the glory that should follow."
Those prophets searched what they wrote under the guidance of
the Spirit of Christ to dig out new meanings. To see what
it signified regarding things they did not know about.
Legitimate innovation is development of doctrine -- the nature
of Christ, the Trinity, TULIP, all these things took time
for us un-inspired Christians to mine out of the inspired
scriptures.
BTW, this is not an argument, just a discussion.
The DataRat
"1 Peter 1:10 talks about... Those prophets
searched what they wrote under the guidance
of the Spirit of Christ..."
1 Peter 1:10 references the writers of the
OT. We'd be in grave error supposing anyone
since the completion of Scripture has ~that~
level of inspiration (or, God's Word HASN'T
been completed afterall !).
"Legitimate innovation is development of doctrine"
The Genevan Rodent objects to the term "innovation".
In the sense you mean it, it's ok. But, it'd lead a lot of
folks astray. And, your usage is outside the reasonable
use of the term.
Finding what's already there ISN'T "innovation", it's
discovery. "Development of doctrine" for Christians
ain't inventing new and novel interpretations. Bro. Rat
knows you don't mean ~that~. But, why muddy the
waters with terminology like "innovation" ?
"BTW, this is not an argument, just a discussion"
You'll know clearly enough when El Raton starts to
consider it argument rather than discussion !
And, incidentally, he agrees with your premise that
doctrine develops. Romanists and Orthodoxists
rely upon the Early Church "Fathers" because they
feel proximity to the First Century A.D. lends
authority to their false beliefs.
But, your favorite rodent is convinced -conversely-
we today understand God's Word far better than most
of those (at least the prominent ones) from the
Second Century A.D. through the Sixth Century.
Knowledge of Biblical theology ...and, in particular,
soteriology... God has been gracious to progressively
reveal.
Just don't like the term "innovation", which suggests
novelty and invention. We DON'T introduce anything
new. It's all been there all along.
The DataRat
of Unrighteousness@ntlworld.com Opposer of Unrighteousness
GoldRush <jrr...@mlode.com> wrote in message
news:39A34E6C...@mlode.com...
> Rafael Zabar wrote:
>
> > The question I have asked the Calvinists in this NG hasn't been
answered.
> >
> > Does atonement=salvation?
>
No! Only forgivness of past sins, and those repented of in the present time.
Salvation embodies obedience to Christ commands and Apostolic doctrines and
teachings and remaining faithful to such until death.
Failing such, Christ's atonement will have been of no value to you.
"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted
of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they
crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."
Heb 6:4-6 (KJV)
Opposer of Unrighteousness.
The DataRat
"Salvation embodies obedience to Christ
commands and Apostolic doctrines and
teachings and remaining faithful to such
until death. Failing such, Christ's atonement
will have been of no value to you"
Works righteousness.
The DataRat
S.T. Stevenson
The DataRat <data...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39A38789...@home.com...
Yet Another Reformer
>
> teachings and remaining faithful to such until death.
>
Huh? So Christ did not die for all of one's sins. Just the previous
ones...hmmm.
> "For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted
> of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
> 5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
> 6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they
> crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."
> Heb 6:4-6 (KJV)
I imagine Hell will be quite ready for you, if you are suggesting that Christ
did not pay for all of our future sins. Since, given the perspective you offer,
and the passage should then be understood to be a "falling away" by one's own
choice, then after ONE sin, you will have "fallen away" and therefore be
ineligible for salvation again.
Matt 5:48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Mark 12:30 'And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all
your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first
commandment.
It is hard to imagine that you are presently perfect, and loving God with ALL
your heart, soul, mind and strength.
Hell awaits You!! Die now so that you don't add to your punishment!!
AWG <O><
Rafael Zabar
The point of contention I have with the Calvinists in this NG is that they
think that universal atonement is universal salvation.
On the contrary, they are the ones who assumed that from their logic, which
I never prescribe.
The logic of the Calvinists here is logic, no more and no less. But then we
have the rule of the word of God to evaluate any for that matter.
To some extent, Barth teaches universal atonement but his view on
universalism as meaning salvation is not that clear from what you mention
here.
Barth is simply saying that the death of Christ was substitutionary. Now if
that was universal atonement then what he said is consistent throughout.
Note again, he sees the believer as elect only because Christ is elect, as
predestined only because Christ was predestined, but not all together in a
perfect comparison. But as far as the future is concerned, it makes sense.
There are some rationale in Barth, and those are conclusions from the basic
doctrine he understand from the Scriptures. There are elements of
existentialism in his teachings but basically, his view on faith is
Biblical.
Calvin was negative throughout on the reprobate issue. I find it more as a
psychological disposition on his part from his background as a clergyman,
before he made thorugh analysis of Scriptures. But his appeal was to Rome
and he tailored his teachings to what he saw during his day. He keeps
repeating this on almost all his exegesis and that I find unacceptable. His
doctrine of reprobation controlled all his views, not the sovereignty of God
which the Calvinists peddle in our day. I find it doubtful that Pink will
devote an entire book on the sovereignty of God to the exclusion of all
other Scriptural principles regarding God's Essence.
But looking at the issue, the Calvinists only reason is God's sovereignty as
the driver of His character. All others are explained from that attribute.
But when one considers the Biblical statements, what stands out is the
Holiness of God, not His sovereignty. There are more pages to the sin
question and God's program of reconciliation and redemption more than His
will to save.
When all is said and done, man is told simply, "to believe in Christ".
Tom Albrecht <top...@chesco.com> wrote in message
news:mIGo5.2553$kM2.3...@newshog.newsread.com...
Rafael Zabar
Perhaps you should read the book on exegetical fallacies.
GoldRush <jrr...@mlode.com> wrote in message
news:39A34E6C...@mlode.com...
> Rafael Zabar wrote:
>
> > The question I have asked the Calvinists in this NG hasn't been
answered.
> >
> > Does atonement=salvation?
>
> Yes.
>
> >
> >
> > What would you make of 2 Peter 3: 9? Does this refer to the elect?
>
Micah Burke
>
> Who's?
>
> Or should I say, who's days are not numbered!
All are! By the great numerator himself.
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
wrote:
<snip>
> Your favorite rodent has READ Barth. And,
> by the way, that Universalism quote was a ~quote~
> ...NOT what somebody 'said about him' !
>
> "To suggest he was a master of ambiguity is to
> miss his focus -that being the Christ"
>
> Wrong "Christ". Barth's "Christ" wasn't the Christ
> described in the Bible.
Never heard of this "Barth" person, but it is the Calvin "Christ" that
isn't in the Bible.
> The DataRat
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
Royce Buehler
In article <39A3783E...@mindspring.com>,
Ben Hopkins <benho...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> Legitimate innovation is development of doctrine -- the nature
> of Christ, the Trinity, TULIP, all these things took time
> for us un-inspired Christians to mine out of the inspired
> scriptures.
But you appear to have accepted DR's conclusion that anyone
who does not affirm the nature of Christ, the Trinity, and
TULIP, is a non-Christian. (Or as DR would put it, "A
PoMo God-hater.")
In which case you have accepted the conclusion that until
"un-inspired Christians" worked those things out, there weren't
any Christians, just PoMo God-haters. Which means that
there wasn't anybody around to work those things out,
and the ones who did work them out couldn't have been
Christians. Since being a PoMo God-hater pretty much takes
up all of a person's time. ;-)
Something is awry with a line of reasoning that leads to
a conclusion like that.
> BTW, this is not an argument, just a discussion.
Fair enough. None of the hyperCalvinists hereabouts want to
be caught committing the sin of *arguing* with Pope Rat.
But maybe it would do your soul good to try doing just
that now and then.
--
Royce Buehler
In article <sq5ujoq...@corp.supernews.com>,
"Nick" <b...@mounet.com> writes:
>
> Royce Buehler <bue...@space.mitnos.pamedu> wrote in message
> news:39a2bebf$0$94...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
> >
> > universalism. A much shorter step than the one from ordinary
> > Christianity to universalism.
> >
> > In point of fact, the only denomination which is officially
> > universalist in its theology - the capital-U Universalists -
> > arose as a splinter group from the Calvinism of New England.
Nick:
> Yes, Murray and Ballou, as I recall are the two big names in Universalist
> history in the 18th century New England. I've got a book somewhere written
> by David Robinson on the history of the Unitarians and Universalists. An
> aspect of my Master's thesis concerned the Unitarians and Universalists, so
> I contacted the hdqtrs. in Boston and received several books and pamphlets
> free. The U-Us were extremely helpful. Anyway, Is John Murray and Josiah
> (?) Ballou the reason you write above,
You know more about it than I do! Yes, I was thinking of Murray, though
now that you mention him, I note that Ballou also began as a Calvinist,
and that the Britannica states that he initially preached universalism
on the basis of Calvinist doctrine.
> > It is an unassailable, rock solid biblical fact that God desires
> > all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,
> > that it is His purpose to have mercy on all.
> Agreed that 2 Peter 3:9 says God "is not willing that any should perish, but
> that all should come to repentance" (KJV). However, other scriptures
> clearly state that Christ died for His People, the sheep, the Church, so
> there appears to be a limited number (not necessarily a small number,
> however, in view of Rev. 7:9) in this group of the redeemed. After all, not
> everyone will be in the group of those we call saved or redeemed.
"Saved" is a very broad word, including all aspects of salvation.
I don't think it's accurate to equate it with one aspect, such as
redemption. The atonement - which appears to cover the same people
as redemption - is in my view universal. The full breadth of
salvation does not appear to be universal. That, in my view, is
why Scripture says that Jesus is "the savior of all men, especially
those who believe." He is the savior of all, because He redeemed
all. He is especially the savior of those who believe, because
those who believe (and persevere) will receive all the benefits of
salvation.
There appears to be a limited, not necessarily small, number who
will make up the church; and there appears to be a limited, not
necessarily small, number who will be resurrected to eternal life
and share in the marriage supper of the Lamb. With those two
(somewhat distinct) statements, I agree. But from the fact that
Jesus died for some limited group, it does *not* follow that He
died for no one outside that group. Especially when Scripture
plainly says that He gave Himself a ransom for all.
> Accordingly, there must be a reason why all are not saved because God
> desires it. If He desires it and He is all powerful, then everyone will be
> saved. This is unlikely, however.
Agreed, that's the theological dilemma.
Hyper-Calvinism takes the viewpoint that God doesn't *really* desire
all to be saved. It's an anti-biblical viewpoint, but it solves the
problem simply and neatly, and saves the budding theologian from
heavy aspirin expenses. ;-)
Most Calvinists share with most non-Calvinists the view that God
*does* desire for all to be saved, but that in His own counsel there
is some other goal which He desires even more. Typically, from
here there have been three main approaches to the problem.
(1) [Classical Calvinist approach]. The other goal, for
the sake of which God lays aside His desire to save all,
and elects only some, is entirely mysterious, and entirely
within His own sovereign counsel. There is no point in
even speculating on it; we should stick with what is
revealed.
(2) [Typical conservative 20th century Calvinist approach].
The other goal, for the sake of which God lays aside His
desire to save all, is the desire to demonstrate His
justice as well as His mercy. If He were to allow more
than a small minority to be saved, He would be violating
the demand of Justice that all evildoers be punished; and
He would be failing to glorify Himself by displaying His
severity.
(3) [Classical Christian approach outside Calvinism]. The
other goal, for the sake of which God lays aside His
desire to save all, is the desire to preserve the free
wills of human beings; to have them trust Him and serve
Him freely, rather than by compulsion.
One valuable insight I've gained from the debates on these boards
is that (2) and (3) are both, in a way, forms of (1). Each of
them adds speculation to the biblical evidence. Neither is incompatible
with the "classical" Calvinist doctrine, unless it begins to boast
of itself as "the" answer, and claims to have plumbed the depths of
the divine Plan. (I'd argue firmly against the validity of speculation
(2), but it is not as plainly anti-biblical as the hyper-Calvinist
approach.)
> I see only two conclusions: people
> have the ability to reject Christ, or God has chosen to save individuals
> making rejection impossible.
Doesn't the second one imply the first one? That is, if God chooses
to make rejection impossible for some, doesn't that necessarily mean
that the rest *do* have "the ability to reject Christ"? Since they
do it, they must be able to do it!
> > that every single thing
> > God desires, every single thing God purposes will take place, universalism
> > is the logical result.
>
> Not likely, if God is in control, and it is His Plan that He has executed.
> He can restrain or allow anything. Universalism is opposite to Calvinism,
> as I see it. Still, it's not my understanding how you see Universalism as
> the logical end product of or the short step from Calvinism.
This is going to be long anyway. Maybe I can come back and spell out
this point in another way later.
> I am not fully acquainted with Mr. MacDonald's background, so what can I
> say? If he is an isolated example, then . . . what has it to do with every
> Calvinist?
I think he's a typical, not an isolated, example. There are two
sorts of (small u) universalists. The ones who are pretty vague about
their Bibles, and just sort of fuzzily hope everyone will be all
right in the end. There are a lot of them, but no one of Berean
inclination will take them seriously.
Then there are the smaller, but still sizable, band of universalists
who derive their theology from a careful reading of the Bible.
So far, I haven't encountered one of these who didn't begin as
a Calvinist. And in my view that's not an accident.
> Is your opinion that every Calvinists will ultimately end up as
> a Universalist, that is, that everyone is either chosen or rejected?
If universalism happens to be true, we'll all end up universalists.
:-) Otherwise, no. Calvinism doesn't automatically produce universalism,
any more than trips to the World Trade Center automatically produce
trips to the Statue of Liberty. They just happen to be in particularly
handy proximity.
I'm not sure what you meant by "that is, that everyone is either
chosen or rejected." If any are ultimately rejected, universalism
is false.
[The rest of what you write calls for a more personal response;
I'll put it in a separate post.]
> > Nick, are you so sure that there has never been a person in a
> > Calvinist church who was living an unchanged life?
>
> Of course not, Royce. Merely attending any church or holding a membership
> in any church does not cause conversion.
Good, I thought that would be your answer. By the same token,
merely attending any non-Calvinist church, or holding a belief
that free will is involved in regeneration, doesn't imply that
a person's life has not been changed by Christ.
> I agree God foreknows all events. But this word foreknew can mean a
> relationship, does it not? The meaning is not always that God knew
> something in advance, correct?
As far as I know, the word translated "foreknew" simply means knowing
something in advance. I have seen the "relationship" gloss quite
a few times; never with supporting evidence. It is, I suspect,
a bit of Calvinist excuse-making. But I'm willing to listen to
any evidence that it can signify causing something in advance rather
than just knowing it - citations of its clearly being used that way
in extra-biblical literature, for example.
I'll check it out in the original Strong's this evening. (Many posters
here use something called "Strong's" which was not compiled by Strong,
and which may carry an undisclosed freight of doctrinal axe-grinding.)
--
Tom Albrecht
refused to answer directly what he really meant by universalism.
Tom
"Rafael Zabar" <lem...@access.inet.co.th> wrote in message
news:8o0lk3$bcv$1...@news.inet.co.th...
Royce Buehler
In article <sq5ujoq...@corp.supernews.com>,
"Nick" <b...@mounet.com> writes:
>
> Royce Buehler <bue...@space.mitnos.pamedu> wrote in message
> news:39a2bebf$0$94...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
> > It also says
> > on several occasions that Christ died for all, and that God intends
> > to save all. These are not contradictory; one is just more inclusive
> > and complete than the other.
>
> And the word *inclusive* seems to be the key in my understanding. Your
> interpretation is that Christ died for all, none left out, as I hope I have
> understood your position.
Yes, you've understood it.
> If so, I respectfully disagree because of the
> other verses indicating there is a limitation. If all have been included,
> the power of Christ's blood would automatically cleanse everyone. That's
> the conclusion I reach when considering Universal Atonement, because
> Christ's Blood can cleanse thoroughly each person to whom it is applied,
> then if applied to all people, all must be cleansed.
I'd say that it isn't necessarily "applied" to all for whom it was
shed. "Applied" isn't biblical terminology, but I figure "Christ's
blood is applied to P" means the same as "P is cleansed by Christ's
blood." "Cleansing" is something that happens only for believers.
Maybe I should put it this way: Jesus warned the Pharisees to
wash the inside of the cup, not the outside. Christ's blood was
shed for all; the atonement was intended for all. But His blood
cannot cleanse from the outside, it can only cleanse from the
inside. And for that, He must also be invited in. "Behold, I
stand at the door, and knock. If any man hear my voice, and open
the door, I will come in to sup with him, and he with me."
Nick:
> Royce, let me ask you a question. Few weeks back you wrote me and mentioned
> the time that you became a Christian, though you had been reared in a good,
> Christian home. When you were saved, or gave your life to Christ, or
> believed, whatever wording you prefer, do you remember vividly that night
> about entertaining a thought to reject Christ? I mean, do you remmeber
> thinking, "I'm going to say 'no' because I don't need Christ"? Or, "I'll
> put it off till tomorrow."
Funny you should ask. Those sound like the same question, but for me
that night they were two different questions. Did I "entertain"
a thought of rejecting Christ in the sense that I seriously wanted
to reject Him? No. Did I "put it off till tomorrow"? Yes.
And then, was I aware that I was free to reject Him, or
(the more likely possibility) free to walk away from the point of
decision and regard the emotional and mental fireworks that brought
me to it as just "an interesting religious experience"? Yes.
People had been evangelizing me to beat the band for a month or two
before that night. It had no effect. I thought Christianity was
all very attractive, but I just didn't believe it was true. And
I had a short list of three or four questions that would have to
be resolved before I could think of embracing Christianity with
any degree of intellectual integrity. None of the evangelizers had
a clue how to answer any of those questions. (Basically, they just
urged me to ignore my questions, stop worrying about truth and
integrity, and to just declare I *did* believe things that I
knew quite well I did not believe.)
That night, I received - for lack of a better word - a vision.
A vision of Christ, and him crucified; of the harrowing of Hell;
of His body broken for us, and His blood shed for us. In the
course of the vision, each of my questions was given a clear
answer. The intellectual barriers to faith were cleared away, and
the love of Christ for us (not just for me, for us) was laid out
for me in a heartbreakingly plain manner. I knew I wanted to
follow this man for the rest of my life, to Hell and back if need
be, no questions asked.
My intellectual and philosophical world was turned topsy-turvey.
I was in a wildly exalted state, both mentally and emotionally.
I didn't know how much of the vision, of the answers, of the newfound
clarity, would be there even a few hours later. I considered myself
basically incompetent to make decisions for my ordinary workaday
self. So before going to sleep, I wrote myself a note - I still
have it - saying, "For me, for this life, I know the answer. I
choose Jesus. I'm asking you, please, to choose." I knew the
decision was of earth-shattering, lifemaking importance. So I
deliberately slept on it.
The next morning, I calmly agreed with the overexcited fellow
who'd written me that note. And I asked Jesus to take command
of my life. And He did.
> Did you feel the urge or the importance that you
> had to accept Him that night or it would be over? I did! I don't remember
> the thoughts of rejection entering my mind one second!
I understood the importance - and it made me pause and count the
cost. The importance made me (as it were) test the metal of the
heavenly coin between my teeth. I wonder if in the end I'm
describing how different our experiences were - or how much alike!
> When I was confronted with my condition of alienation, apart from God,
> deserving His wrath, in need of a Savior, and then realizing through His
> Word I had been reading (that's all I had at the time, no preacher, or soul
> winner was present), that He loved me and sent His Son to die for me and
> that was the remedy for my state, I pleaded God to forgive me, to help me,
> to show me the way. I searched the Bible, God led me to read John 3:16, and
> I asked God to give me eternal life.
So you understood the Word to be saying that He loved you and sent His
son to die for you? All our Calvinist friends here would tell you
that you misunderstood. They would tell you that the Word only told
you that He loved *somebody* - who might or might not include you -
and sent His son to die for *somebody* - who might or might not include
you. So at that point, you understood God's love and God's promises
the same way that this non-Calvinist does. :-)
> Since then, I
> have talked with many people and asked them to tell me about the time God
> saved them. In many of these cases, not all, I asked them if they thought
> about rejecting Christ and most said no. There were some who said yes.
I wonder if my answer qualifies as either a no or a yes. :-)
> Royce, I cannot comprehend fully what God has done for me, but I can
> understand how this is the most important message God has delivered to the
> human race.
Amen!
> If rejection is the important aspect of the message that MUST
> be included in the delivery,
I don't see how it can possibly be left out of the delivery. Whenever
someone preaches, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," he
is necessarily preaching that his hearer should choose to repent.
And the inescapable reverse of that coin is that his hearer could
also choose not to repent. But the *important* aspect is the
good news - the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
> then I see the message devalued, I see a
> problem with God's power, and I see man as his own savior deciding the time
> and the place he'll be saved.
How many times might God call before we answer? If I get a note in the
mail that I've inherited a million dollars, and if I decide to go
down and pick it up at 10 am instead of 9 am, did I "decide the time
and place" I'd get the inheritance? Within limits, yes - though I
couldn't have decided to get it before the note arrived. Was I
my own "savior", my own testator? Did *I* give the inheritance to
myself, simply because I showed up at this time rather than that?
Not at all.
God's power is capable of dealing with our sin, which He did not decree.
His power is surely capable of dealing with our tardiness, whether or
not He decrees that. (And when it comes to receiving Christ, *all*
of us are tardy; but God works all things, even our tardiness, together
for good.)
> It must be accepted, because John 6:37 is
> clear that all people the Father gives to Christ will come to Him (no
> rejection possible), and Jesus will accept all who come to Him.
> Accordingly, I am convinced that I could never have rejected that message.
> I saw myself doomed if something was not done that very night, that very
> second.
God be praised that He convinced you of it! Whatever instrument of
persuasion He used, who am I to argue with His success?
Paul Duca
Alan Ferris wrote:
> "Micah Burke" <klock...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote ...
> >> Alan Ferris
> >> eligo, ergo sum Atheist #1211
> >> EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div.
> >
> >Hmm, their days are numbered as are their lives.
>
> Who's?
>
> Or should I say, who's days are not numbered!
>
> --
At least you don't have to spend eternity having to find food and shelter in
garbage dumpsters, for which DataRat and Michey may in fact be preordinated (they
just ASSUME mansions and money and horny women).
Paul
Rafael Zabar
be typos here.
Perhaps we have only represented one aspect of his teaching. I find his
treatment of faith better than Calvin's or Luther's, that from his
existentialist background.
But considering what he said, no one is accepted before God apart from
Christ and this is where I basically question the approach of the so-called
Reformed theologians on their treatment of the elective process. Election
always speak of being conformed to the image of His Son, and election is in
Christ.
Etymological studies show that election is not synonymous with salvation.
The word reprobate should even be examined since what is posited in the
Bible concerning the status of all men is unbelief, not about Calvin's
emphasis on reprobation. The issue of the hardening of the heart is not
even as serious today than many years ago because of studies in the
etymology of words in Hebrew.
The action of God towards an unbeliever (read: reprobate, by Calvin) is
really to evangelize the world at the time of the Exodus generation (Romans
9: 17). When God chose Jacob over Esau (Romans 9: 12), He made an
assessment of them after, roughly a period of more than a thousand years
(Romans 9: 13). The context it was said was eminently from a national
perspective, not with regards to the salvation of these individuals. More
than anything else, this was the period close to the time when there will be
no more Scriptures to be written as part of the Old Testament, and the
nation failed in their status as the elect. The statement is one of approval
of Jacob in the elective process to carry the program of God in the world.
Calvin's insistence on the particularism of the Jews is his opinion. The
purpose of the election of the Jews was to showcase God's mercy to the world
and to bring the truth to men.
The rejection of the Jews of their Messiah did not stop God in His intention
for showing mercy to the world (Romans 9: 27, 28; 11: 28-32).
Perhaps he should stop attributing to the Jews a particularism that is
rightly his and not theirs.
Now, that makes Barth a theologian that has reconsidered the universal tone
of the gospel, and the offshoot of it, the atonement.
On the other hand, the atonement did not save anyone but reconciled God to
man (2 Corinthians 5: 17-21). But salvation is not applied until man
believes. Note the future tense of the verb (Romans 10: 9-10).
Lemuel
The DataRat <dat...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39A32B03...@home.com...
Nick
Below are my replies. Sorry I'm late, but yesterdasy I lost
everything--e-mails, ng, but today everything is working.
Nick
Royce Buehler <bue...@space.mitnos.pamedu> wrote in message
news:39a4593c$0$94...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
I agree to one asking Jesus to "come in", but I see this as a work of God
causing the sinner to ask or to invite Jesus in. The simple act of inviting
Christ in by one's decision seems unlikely if God is not working in the life
of that person.. There must be a drawing to God by God's Spirit, not by
someone merely deciding to do something. I conclude this from, John
16:8-11.
From your testimony, Royce, I believe God intervened in your life first
because of your vision. That's something you did not do to yourself. It
cam from God. In like manner, I see God doing that to those people He
saves, that is, stepping into their life and saving the individual. In your
case, it was a vision sent from God that answered all you rquestions. In
reality, it was God who did this to you and for you, not you doing it to and
for yourself.
If you did this to yourself, then you placed yourself in the vision and
supplied your own answers, meaning God had nothing to do with it. BUT, this
is not how I interpret your terstimony. God sent you the message!
> > Did you feel the urge or the importance that you
> > had to accept Him that night or it would be over? I did! I don't
remember
> > the thoughts of rejection entering my mind one second!
>
> I understood the importance - and it made me pause and count the
> cost. The importance made me (as it were) test the metal of the
> heavenly coin between my teeth. I wonder if in the end I'm
> describing how different our experiences were - or how much alike!
>
Similar in my respects, I believe.
> > When I was confronted with my condition of alienation, apart from God,
> > deserving His wrath, in need of a Savior, and then realizing through His
> > Word I had been reading (that's all I had at the time, no preacher, or
soul
> > winner was present), that He loved me and sent His Son to die for me and
> > that was the remedy for my state, I pleaded God to forgive me, to help
me,
> > to show me the way. I searched the Bible, God led me to read John 3:16,
and
> > I asked God to give me eternal life.
>
> So you understood the Word to be saying that He loved you and sent His
> son to die for you? All our Calvinist friends here would tell you
> that you misunderstood. They would tell you that the Word only told
> you that He loved *somebody* - who might or might not include you -
> and sent His son to die for *somebody* - who might or might not include
> you. So at that point, you understood God's love and God's promises
> the same way that this non-Calvinist does. :-)
I realized my condition and my need, but did not know the remedy. Yes, I
saw God's wrath, but too I saw His love in that He was lovingly dealing with
me that night in love, although I did not deserve it. My condition was
evident, but I had no clue what to do. Next, came prayer and Bible reading
that, as I mentioned previously, God revealed to me the remedy. It was all
His work that night, not mine.
In God's revelation to me of my hopeless state, I saw His love displayed and
knew immediately I needed the remedy or the answer to my hopeless condition.
>
> > Since then, I
> > have talked with many people and asked them to tell me about the time
God
> > saved them. In many of these cases, not all, I asked them if they
thought
> > about rejecting Christ and most said no. There were some who said yes.
>
> I wonder if my answer qualifies as either a no or a yes. :-)
I see your answer as a *yes* because of your description of the vision and
how God intervened in your life and gave you the answers to your questions.
You did not have the answers; God gave them to you. This parallels in
thought to my situation that God gave me the answers too. I did not know
what to do, so God provided the remedy. In both cases, I understand fully
that was at work in our lives.
>
> > Royce, I cannot comprehend fully what God has done for me, but I can
> > understand how this is the most important message God has delivered to
the
> > human race.
>
> Amen!
>
> > If rejection is the important aspect of the message that MUST
> > be included in the delivery,
>
> I don't see how it can possibly be left out of the delivery. Whenever
> someone preaches, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," he
> is necessarily preaching that his hearer should choose to repent.
> And the inescapable reverse of that coin is that his hearer could
> also choose not to repent. But the *important* aspect is the
> good news - the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
>
On the other hand, a command to repent to the person God is opening their
blinded eyes will not be rejected because He said His Word will not return
void or empty; His word will accomplish its purpose in calling the person to
repentance (Isa. 55:11). Also, if God is awakening the spiritually dead
person to an understanding of her/his condition and need of Christ, I fail
to see how rejection (ultimate, I mean, not necesarialy the "putting it off
until tomorrow") can overpower God's work. I mean an individual who
realizes fully what God is offering her/him, and deciding to choose
damnation does not make sense. It's like being told not to stand on a
railroad track in front of an oncoming train and choosing to stand there,
knowing the result. That's one big reason why I fail to see an untilmate
rejection of the message.
> > then I see the message devalued, I see a
> > problem with God's power, and I see man as his own savior deciding the
time
> > and the place he'll be saved.
>
> How many times might God call before we answer? If I get a note in the
> mail that I've inherited a million dollars, and if I decide to go
> down and pick it up at 10 am instead of 9 am, did I "decide the time
> and place" I'd get the inheritance? Within limits, yes - though I
> couldn't have decided to get it before the note arrived. Was I
> my own "savior", my own testator? Did *I* give the inheritance to
> myself, simply because I showed up at this time rather than that?
> Not at all.
>
Yes, to a certain point I agree You did not give yourself the money, and
you were not your own testator. You did receive the money, but you had to
be told of your condition (one of inheritance). Now, when told, you have
the option to accept or reject the inheritance. Because of the value of the
inheritance you cannot afford to reject it. That's out of the question.
Same with Salvation, because of its value, it cannot be rejected by those
who are being dealt with by God. I'm afraid some people who emphasize
rejection are pointing to an incident that may never had happened, that is,
telling about a person who apparently rejected the message whom God was not
working with in the first place. In other words, God was not at work in the
individual's life, so any rejection is impossible. But when God turns on
the light in that individual's mind He is dealing with, the only course of
action is to act on the faith God has given the person!
> God's power is capable of dealing with our sin, which He did not decree.
> His power is surely capable of dealing with our tardiness, whether or
> not He decrees that. (And when it comes to receiving Christ, *all*
> of us are tardy; but God works all things, even our tardiness, together
> for good.)
Tardiness, maybe, but ultimate rejection, I don't believe. Again, I look at
John 6:37 in which Jesus made it cleaer that ALL whom were given to Him by
the Father shall come to Him. When? I don't know, but I believe they ALL
will come to Him because He said it in John 6:37.
>
> > It must be accepted, because John 6:37 is
> > clear that all people the Father gives to Christ will come to Him (no
> > rejection possible), and Jesus will accept all who come to Him.
> > Accordingly, I am convinced that I could never have rejected that
message.
> > I saw myself doomed if something was not done that very night, that very
> > second.
>
> God be praised that He convinced you of it! Whatever instrument of
> persuasion He used, who am I to argue with His success?
And you too, Royce. I believe God works in different ways to different
people but in the end it is all God's work in convincing one of their
condition, and revealing to the person the remedy.
Nick
hardwired
"John" <somm...@Home.Com> wrote in message
news:Dk3o5.39185$2k1.1...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
> Benny Hinn is a liar.
>
> I am not sure that you can call him a heretic since a heretic has false
> beliefs about G-d; Benny Hinn just uses other people's belief in G-d to
make
> millions of dollars for himself.
>
> His freak show is a few miles from me and I have seen the abuses of people
who
> believe in G-d but get fooled into going to see (and worship) Benny Hinn.
> What Hinn does to these people is criminal, and violates everything that
the
> Messiah taught.
>
>
John
>Good point
Thank you.
When potential believers see people like Hinn on TV, they get a very negetive
opinion of all believers, and of faith in general.
Rafael Zabar
analysis.
Is God's mutability an anthropomorphism?
The Bible speaks of God as changing His mind.
I know that the Calvinian position explains fully well that God does not
change His mind, i. e., He is immutable.
But how do you reconcile this with Berkhof's statement regarding free
agency? The cause is free and so is the effect.
Is God's immutability according to Calvin a mere governmental theory on his
part?
Regards.
Lemuel
The DataRat <data...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39A2C835...@home.com...
>
>
> "Believing God is mutable, as I see it, can lead
> one to demand, to dictate, and to question God's
> plans and actions, espceially the Plan taught in
> the Bible that God decided all matters regarding
> the Salvation of His People and executed the Plan
> without any help from a spitirually dead man"
>
>
>
> Quite so !
>
> Karl Barth's doctrine of God's Mutability makes
> the Bible and all Christian faith irrelevant.
> Afterall, the Lord could change His mind -could
> have to change His mind- later !
>
>
> The DataRat
>
>
>
>
Royce Buehler
In article <sqe1eq...@corp.supernews.com>,
"Nick" <b...@mounet.com> writes:
Royce:
> > Maybe I should put it this way: Jesus warned the Pharisees to
> > wash the inside of the cup, not the outside. Christ's blood was
> > shed for all; the atonement was intended for all. But His blood
> > cannot cleanse from the outside, it can only cleanse from the
> > inside. And for that, He must also be invited in. "Behold, I
> > stand at the door, and knock. If any man hear my voice, and open
> > the door, I will come in to sup with him, and he with me."
Nick:
> I agree to one asking Jesus to "come in", but I see this as a work of God
> causing the sinner to ask or to invite Jesus in. The simple act of inviting
> Christ in by one's decision seems unlikely if God is not working in the life
> of that person.. There must be a drawing to God by God's Spirit, not by
> someone merely deciding to do something. I conclude this from, John
> 16:8-11.
I agree fully that it must begin with God's grace and God's drawing.
No one can manufacture faith. It begins with Jesus "knocking."
Where I take issue with the Calvinist viewpoint is on what happens
next. :-) If everything takes place solely at God's decree, if
there is no place for decision or for the free will of the individual,
then I don't understand where there's a place for inviting Jesus
in. The Calvinist doctrine seems to be that He will stomp in
uninvited, and the believer has nothing to say in the matter. If
God is forcing everything to happen, why would He wait for the
person to invite Him in?
> > Nick:
>
> From your testimony, Royce, I believe God intervened in your life first
> because of your vision. That's something you did not do to yourself. It
> cam from God.
One hundred percent agreed. (Well, I think God had intervened in my
life in a number of ways before that. But that turned out to be the
climactic intervention.)
> In like manner, I see God doing that to those people He
> saves, that is, stepping into their life and saving the individual. In your
> case, it was a vision sent from God that answered all you rquestions. In
> reality, it was God who did this to you and for you, not you doing it to and
> for yourself.
> If you did this to yourself, then you placed yourself in the vision and
> supplied your own answers, meaning God had nothing to do with it. BUT, this
> is not how I interpret your terstimony. God sent you the message!
Right. And then I received the message. It's trivial compared to
what God did. But without that response, there would have been no
new birth.
> > So you understood the Word to be saying that He loved you and sent His
> > son to die for you? All our Calvinist friends here would tell you
> > that you misunderstood. They would tell you that the Word only told
> > you that He loved *somebody* - who might or might not include you -
> > and sent His son to die for *somebody* - who might or might not include
> > you. So at that point, you understood God's love and God's promises
> > the same way that this non-Calvinist does. :-)
>
> I realized my condition and my need, but did not know the remedy. Yes, I
> saw God's wrath, but too I saw His love in that He was lovingly dealing with
> me that night in love, although I did not deserve it. My condition was
> evident, but I had no clue what to do. Next, came prayer and Bible reading
> that, as I mentioned previously, God revealed to me the remedy. It was all
> His work that night, not mine.
> In God's revelation to me of my hopeless state, I saw His love displayed and
> knew immediately I needed the remedy or the answer to my hopeless condition.
If I understand you, you're saying you understood God's love for you,
in that He was disclosing your real situation to you, before you
understood how He had made provision in Christ for saving you from
that situation. Is that right?
> > > If rejection is the important aspect of the message that MUST
> > > be included in the delivery,
> >
> > I don't see how it can possibly be left out of the delivery. Whenever
> > someone preaches, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," he
> > is necessarily preaching that his hearer should choose to repent.
> > And the inescapable reverse of that coin is that his hearer could
> > also choose not to repent. But the *important* aspect is the
> > good news - the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
> >
>
> On the other hand, a command to repent to the person God is opening their
> blinded eyes will not be rejected because He said His Word will not return
> void or empty; His word will accomplish its purpose in calling the person to
> repentance (Isa. 55:11).
May it be so! Because God has declared that the gospel "has been preached
to every creature which is under heaven." If it never returns void,
then every creature will be reconciled to God.
God is not shy in declaring His purposes: "Therefore he has shut them
all up in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all," Romans tells us.
The way you cite Isaiah 55:11 is in keeping with the way the Bible
speaks: Isaiah talks about God's purposes being accomplished, in
connection with His purposes for good for Israel. To me, there's a
sharp contrast between the way the Bible speaks, and the way that
hyper-Calvinists speak. They speak of God's purposes being accomplished
in terms of (most) people being damned the way God planned for them
to. In human thinking, that seems like the automatic reverse side of
the coin from God's predestining some for salvation. But the Bible
speaks again and again about God's plan to save, and never about
God's plan to damn. It speaks again and again about his purposing
to save - and often about His purposing to save everyone - but never
about His purposing to damn.
> Also, if God is awakening the spiritually dead
> person to an understanding of her/his condition and need of Christ, I fail
> to see how rejection (ultimate, I mean, not necesarialy the "putting it off
> until tomorrow") can overpower God's work. I mean an individual who
> realizes fully what God is offering her/him, and deciding to choose
> damnation does not make sense. It's like being told not to stand on a
> railroad track in front of an oncoming train and choosing to stand there,
> knowing the result. That's one big reason why I fail to see an untilmate
> rejection of the message.
I think we understand one another here, Nick. Yes, it would be very
much like choosing to stand on that track. It would be perverse,
ungrateful, and foolish in the extreme. But people *can* choose
to stand in front of an oncoming train. A fair number of people have
done so. Would it have made sense for me to choose against Christ
that day? Not at all. But am I always sensible? No. Did I have it
in me to be perverse, ungrateful, and foolish in the extreme? Of
course I did. If I step out of the way of the train, it is no great
"work", no tribute to my great virtue and good sense. But choosing
to stand there is still one possible response. And that is why, when
I reflect on the whole transition, I perceive that the outcome that
day could have been different.
> Yes, to a certain point I agree You did not give yourself the money, and
> you were not your own testator. You did receive the money, but you had to
> be told of your condition (one of inheritance). Now, when told, you have
> the option to accept or reject the inheritance. Because of the value of the
> inheritance you cannot afford to reject it. That's out of the question.
I agree that I couldn't afford to reject it. But that doesn't mean
that I wouldn't. We couldn't afford to enslave ourselves to sin in
the first place; but it didn't stop us.
> Same with Salvation, because of its value, it cannot be rejected by those
> who are being dealt with by God. I'm afraid some people who emphasize
> rejection are pointing to an incident that may never had happened, that is,
> telling about a person who apparently rejected the message whom God was not
> working with in the first place. In other words, God was not at work in the
> individual's life, so any rejection is impossible. But when God turns on
> the light in that individual's mind He is dealing with, the only course of
> action is to act on the faith God has given the person!
The only sensible course? Yes. The only honorable course? Yes.
The only appealing course? I'd say I found that to be true, too, but
I suspect you'd find that varying from one believer to another.
But the only course? For me, that doesn't compute. God made it
gloriously easy for me to believe, easier than falling off a log.
But how easy is falling off a log, when there is nothing material
or visible below to catch your fall?! It seems to me that I still
had to *choose* to fall.
> > God's power is capable of dealing with our sin, which He did not decree.
> > His power is surely capable of dealing with our tardiness, whether or
> > not He decrees that. (And when it comes to receiving Christ, *all*
> > of us are tardy; but God works all things, even our tardiness, together
> > for good.)
>
> Tardiness, maybe, but ultimate rejection, I don't believe. Again, I look at
> John 6:37 in which Jesus made it cleaer that ALL whom were given to Him by
> the Father shall come to Him. When? I don't know, but I believe they ALL
> will come to Him because He said it in John 6:37.
What I perceive is a God who loves, and pursues, and has infinite
reserves of patience, and never gives up. It is the image Jesus
gives us in the parables of the coins and the 100 sheep. Why would
Jesus have spoken about the housewife or the shepherd searching
diligently, if all God has to do is snap His fingers to win us?
There are things the Father knows, but the Son (in His earthly ministry)
did not. One way of understanding John 6:37 is that the Father in His
foreknowledge recognizes who will finally come to Jesus, and when;
that Jesus in His earthly ministry did not foresee those specifics.
So from the point of view of Jesus, there are some whom the Father
"gives" to Him. From the Father's point of view, perhaps, these are
simply the ones whom He knows will, in response to His grace,
not reject the gift of faith in the Son.
> > > Accordingly, I am convinced that I could never have rejected that
> message.
> > > I saw myself doomed if something was not done that very night, that very
> > > second.
> >
> > God be praised that He convinced you of it! Whatever instrument of
> > persuasion He used, who am I to argue with His success?
>
> And you too, Royce. I believe God works in different ways to different
> people but in the end it is all God's work in convincing one of their
> condition, and revealing to the person the remedy.
--
Matthew B. Miller
God! First off anyone going to see Benny Hinn to worship him is already off
track. You go to one of his meetings to be in the presence of an almighty
God! Allow me to remind you of the days of Aaron, Miriam, and Moses. They
spoke against Moses and she was struck leporous, you don't speak against
God's people. Can I share more with you, Miriam was right in what she said
too. That means Moses was wrong but God still don't let you talk wrong about
his anointed! I don't know why you do G-d instead of God, he's my heavenly
father and he don't mind his name spelled out. But whatever you like!
"hardwired" <rter...@privacyx.com> wrote in message
news:mbLp5.677$eZ8a.2...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Good point
John
>Shut your mouth! Don't speak another foolish word against a man or woman of
>God!
Benny Hinn is NOT a man of G-d. He is a con-man and a thief. G-d will punish
him for his crimes.
>First off anyone going to see Benny Hinn to worship him is already off
>track. You go to one of his meetings to be in the presence of an almighty
>God!
Not true!
They go to worship Benny Hinn.
They do idolize him in a sinful way.
Since he promotes this even by the use of lies, he is guilty for their
idolarty.
>Allow me to remind you of the days of Aaron, Miriam, and Moses. They
>spoke against Moses and she was struck leporous, you don't speak against
>God's people.
Hinn is NOT "G-d's people."
Hinn is an anti-Christ, pulling his followers away from Messiah.
>Can I share more with you, Miriam was right in what she said
>too.
No she was not.
Number 12 says that her accusation was false.
>That means Moses was wrong but God still don't let you talk wrong about
>his anointed! I don't know why you do G-d instead of God, he's my heavenly
>father and he don't mind his name spelled out.
That is not His name.
The vowel is dropped out of respect even for a euphamism used for His Name.
Matthew B. Miller
Hinn and his steps are ordered by God and the word lights his path. If I
were you I would just pray and first ask Jesus to come in your heart and
save you, then ask the Holy Spirit to open your eyes of understanding.
Please don't make anymore comments about him it is hazardous to your life.
Satan will wipe you out because you open yourself up to his attacks by going
against God.
But if you choose to go on, please tell us what city and state your in and
real name, I want to see how long before you prematurely die. I'll watch the
obituary column.
"John" <somm...@Home.Com> wrote in message
The DataRat
"The Holy Ghost leads Brother Hinn
and his steps are ordered by God"
Benny is a false prophet.
The DataRat
Christopher
says...
>
> Sir may I tell you that your playing with fire! The Holy Ghost leads Brother
> Hinn and his steps are ordered by God and the word lights his path. If I
> were you I would just pray and first ask Jesus to come in your heart and
> save you, then ask the Holy Spirit to open your eyes of understanding.
> Please don't make anymore comments about him it is hazardous to your life.
> Satan will wipe you out because you open yourself up to his attacks by going
> against God.
> But if you choose to go on, please tell us what city and state your in and
> real name, I want to see how long before you prematurely die. I'll watch the
> obituary column.
Lets see, did the Word of God lead Mr. Hinn when he was teaching that the
Trinity was composed of *9* ... let me repeat *nine* persons?
Pat
one by R.C.Sproul !!!!!!
--
Please send your reply to vend...@yahoo.com .Thank you .
Pat ,
~People don't care how much you know, until they know how much you care!~
"The DataRat" <data...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39AC3E04...@home.com...
>
>
> "The Holy Ghost leads Brother Hinn
> and his steps are ordered by God"
>
>
>
Nick
I'm sorry for failing to reply sooner. I've been very busy this week, and
today is the first day I have had to check e-mail.
Nick
Royce Buehler <bue...@space.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:39aae22c$0$94...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
Royce, WHY should someone who has been revealed their condition--a hopeless
situation without remedy save only the intervention of a Savior--want to
reject the message? In other words, IF someone truly understands their
fate, their eternity of separation ffrom God, why then should they even want
to reject?
If a starving person (the lost person) is offered food to satisfy her/his
hunger (salvation), why would they even think of saying, "no thank you"? I
can not see how a person who is revealed the Gospel Message and fully
understands the consequences can reject it.
>
> > > Nick:
> >
> > From your testimony, Royce, I believe God intervened in your life first
> > because of your vision. That's something you did not do to yourself.
It
> > cam from God.
>
> One hundred percent agreed. (Well, I think God had intervened in my
> life in a number of ways before that. But that turned out to be the
> climactic intervention.)
>
> > In like manner, I see God doing that to those people He
> > saves, that is, stepping into their life and saving the individual. In
your
> > case, it was a vision sent from God that answered all you rquestions.
In
> > reality, it was God who did this to you and for you, not you doing it to
and
> > for yourself.
> > If you did this to yourself, then you placed yourself in the vision and
> > supplied your own answers, meaning God had nothing to do with it. BUT,
this
> > is not how I interpret your terstimony. God sent you the message!
>
> Right. And then I received the message. It's trivial compared to
> what God did. But without that response, there would have been no
> new birth.
I see no difference in what you and I are saying here. Godd did the
intervention, be it a dream or Bible reading, or preaching, whatever. The
Lord opened the blinded eyes, unstopped the deaf ears, opened the closed
heart, gave the message and the faith for the individual to believe, to
accept, to invite Christ in, etc.
Still, I can not see *rejection* as a part of the message. Throwing a life
preserver to a person about to drown, and they say, "no thank you, I'll
drown." I think this *rejection* idea is promoted because someone whom God
was NOT dealing with simply said "no" to a Salvation message or invitation.
When God deals with a person, I do not see how rejection is possible on the
part of the individual and on the part of God (John 6:37). If humans can
reject God's Call, then only to be fair, we must conclude that God can turn
away a human who comes to Him after being conmvicted by the Lord. I see no
*rejection* in God's Plan either way--by Him or by humans.
Royce,
Interesting points you raise. But, I still believe it is God all the way in
Salvation. There are certaint aspects of this, well, many aspects, that I
can not understand. There's never a day pass by that I fail to think
strongly on these things regarding His mercy and His love.
Nick
The DataRat
"Wouldn't it be great if the powers that be
would replace Hinn's TV show with one by
R.C.Sproul"
Hinn is self-financed. Chumps give him
money. If THAT stopped, so would his TV
program.
Dr. Sproul has a daily half-hour radio
broadcast. ( You can hear it over the Internet
via RealAudio if your local radio doesn't
carry it. )
Dr. Sproul has video tapes, but your favorite
rodent isn't sure television is the best medium
for his teachings. Radio more than suffices
when you're preaching God's Word rather than
doing a circus act (like Hinn !).
Rather see Sproul's radio program expanded
to a hour from a half-hour than see him on TV.
Television costs something like ten times as
much as radio. And, expository teaching really
doesn't require visual depiction.
Now, who you'd really like to get on TV is
The DataRat ! He's a lot more visual than
RC Sproul. Got the same sound doctrinal
teachings, but the Geneva Rodent does stuff
that exploits visual mediums: Burning heretics
at the stake, emphasizing points in his lectures
by drawing a pistol and firing it in the air,
dropping Bibles from high atop the Rodent
Building skyscraper and seeing how many
pedestrians on the sidewalk below get knocked-
out, and so forth !
Unlike RC, the Tulip Rodent knows how to
exploit visual media !
The DataRat
Royce Buehler
In article <sqq5tra...@corp.supernews.com>,
"Nick" <b...@mounet.com> writes:
> Royce,
>
> I'm sorry for failing to reply sooner. I've been very busy this week, and
> today is the first day I have had to check e-mail.
There's nothing the least bit wrong or rude about taking one's time
replying to net posts. A slow pace can sometimes be easier for
all parties to deal with.
> Royce, WHY should someone who has been revealed their condition--a hopeless
> situation without remedy save only the intervention of a Savior--want to
> reject the message? In other words, IF someone truly understands their
> fate, their eternity of separation ffrom God, why then should they even want
> to reject?
I think the answer to that may vary a lot from one person to another.
One reason that's always available is perversity: sheer orneriness,
contrariness. Another may be a particular, consuming sin that is
very hard to tear away from. (In the hospital years ago I met a diabetic
man who was recovering from the amputation of a leg. He had been told -
and was completely convinced - that if he kept on smoking, he'd lose
the other leg in a year or two. The "hopelessness of his condition"
was clear to him. But all the time I knew him, he went on smoking
two packs a day.)
Another reason may be self-hatred. Again, for some people or for some
points in time, it may be that their condition is "revealed", enough
that they can see there is only one rational course - but may not
be revealed vividly enough to scare them out of putting a change of
course off for a few weeks, or months, or years. It's possible that
some people have hardened themselves in advance, have understood the
truth, but blocked it out of their minds, at first deliberately, and
then by a kind of settled habit, so that when their condition is
more fully revealed to them, they just will not *look* at the
revelation.
> If a starving person (the lost person) is offered food to satisfy her/his
> hunger (salvation), why would they even think of saying, "no thank you"? I
> can not see how a person who is revealed the Gospel Message and fully
> understands the consequences can reject it.
I think it's unlikely that either you or I "fully" understood the
consequences. God brought us to the point where we understood them
well enough. I am pretty sure there are many who come to Him without
prodding as clear and unanswerable as we enjoyed. And others who have
understood the consequences, but not so fully yet, and are still
on the fence. I do not pretend to understand how God in His providence
juggles all these degrees of self-revelation.
> > > If you did this to yourself, then you placed yourself in the vision and
> > > supplied your own answers, meaning God had nothing to do with it. BUT,
> this
> > > is not how I interpret your terstimony. God sent you the message!
> >
> > Right. And then I received the message. It's trivial compared to
> > what God did. But without that response, there would have been no
> > new birth.
>
> I see no difference in what you and I are saying here. Godd did the
> intervention, be it a dream or Bible reading, or preaching, whatever. The
> Lord opened the blinded eyes, unstopped the deaf ears, opened the closed
> heart, gave the message and the faith for the individual to believe, to
> accept, to invite Christ in, etc.
I agree that if there's a difference, it's a small one. Partly for
theological reasons, I place an emphasis on the point of response
which follows the opening, the unstopping. But we are agreed that
the opening and unstopping must first come from God; and we seem to
be agreed as well that the response is also essential.
> > > > And the inescapable reverse of that coin is that his hearer could
> > > > also choose not to repent. But the *important* aspect is the
> > > > good news - the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
> Still, I can not see *rejection* as a part of the message.
There's no need to make it an explicit part, but as I already said,
it seems to me it is automatically implied. God said in Deuteronomy,
"I set before you today life and death; choose life." He didn't
emphasize rejection. But the presence of a choice means the possibility
of also making the alternative choice.
> Throwing a life
> preserver to a person about to drown, and they say, "no thank you, I'll
> drown." I think this *rejection* idea is promoted because someone whom God
> was NOT dealing with simply said "no" to a Salvation message or invitation.
Perhaps that's part of why the notion is out there. For me, though,
it's just the product of reflection on my own experience: once I
really saw Jesus, I chose Him. It was natural, it was obvious, it was
desirable. But as easy as He made it, it was still a choice - and
that means that I *might* have chosen otherwise.
> When God deals with a person, I do not see how rejection is possible on the
> part of the individual and on the part of God (John 6:37). If humans can
> reject God's Call, then only to be fair, we must conclude that God can turn
> away a human who comes to Him after being conmvicted by the Lord. I see no
> *rejection* in God's Plan either way--by Him or by humans.
I explained my (tentative) understanding of John 5:37 in the previous
post, and won't repeat myself. It looks like we're just going to
see this differently.
Rejection is no more part of God's Plan than sin was part of God's
Plan. He has *never* rejected us, before or after conversion. All
the rejection comes from the human side; and all of it is sin.
> Interesting points you raise. But, I still believe it is God all the way in
> Salvation. There are certaint aspects of this, well, many aspects, that I
> can not understand. There's never a day pass by that I fail to think
> strongly on these things regarding His mercy and His love.
Understanding grows, but can always be postponed. Rejoicing, giving
thanks, loving, trusting, obeying - they don't have to be postponed,
and more than understanding, they are at the center of our new
lives in Christ.
Pat
R.C.used to be on TV about 5-6 years ago .Here in Western Pa.near were RC
and the late James Boice were born .We had a christian station then . He
stood in front of a class with a blackboard and taught it was 30mins .They
replaced that station with The Inspirational Network and they canceled him
.They went with sideshow acts like Copeland , Hinn , Capps ,Copeland
etc.......Horton said their having Hank Hennagraff on "The Whitehorse Inn
" next Sunday night .
Pat,
Brian Boggs
The following excerpts from a message by Benny Hinn are quite revealing as
to the direction of the Charismatic insanity. Benny Hinn is clearly
their leading star and much of the church world seems oblivious of his
Biblical departure. Necromancy is communication with the dead and is
absolutely forbidden by Holy Scripture. Moses stated, "There shall not be
found among you [any one] that maketh his son or his daughter to
pass through the fire, [or] that useth divination, [or] an observer of
times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with
familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer." (Deuteronomy 18:10-11).
Isaiah added a clear warning that we are to seek our God by seeking His law
and His testimony and if we seek any other source or spirit it is
because there is no light in us. Listen to Isaiah, "And when they shall say
unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards
that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the
living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony: if they speak
not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them."
(Isaiah 8:19-20).
Look at these statements made by Mr. Hinn at the Blaisdale Arena, Honolulu,
HI, on February 28, 1997.
I've know moments of such anointings, it's really hard for me 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. 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 . . . I've seen
the presence of God. I've not only felt it. I've not only smelled it. I
've seen it with my own eyes."
"He's more real to me than my own children. Do you know something? that
is difficult for me to explain I'm just gonna tell you.
Whenever I talk to Him, I see Him. I can tell you what He wears, I can
tell you what color He has on. I've seen that so many
times. I'm, I'm talking about regular. When I talk to the Lord at times
I see Him wearing a, a, a, often most times I'd see Him blue,
beautiful, almost like a silkish-looking garment. And under it would be
white garment. A white and a scarlet garment. I've seen
Him at times when just pure white altogether. You say, 'When do you see
Him?' I don't know, I just see Him. And often when I
see Him, I know whether He is pleased with me or displeased with me.
There's been times when I see Him with a smile. Other
times I've seen Him with a very serious look. Other times I couldn't
really tell it's almost like a mist around His face I couldn't tell.
I don't understand why He allows me to see that. But I do. And He
speaks to me so clearly. He tells me to say things and do
things and pray even for things. You know, I ask Him questions that
most people probably don't ask Him. Example, I said, 'Lord,
show my my future. Actually, I had a vision. I saw myself as an old man
with white hair and I had a dark suit on with stripes, and
my girls . . . thirties, old thirties, and they had beautiful curly
hair. They looked like Dino's wife. What's her name? Dino's wife?
Gary's sister? Sharon. I said, 'Lord, how long will I live?' He told
me. He said, 'Sixty-nine. If you take care of yourself,
seventy-three.' So I want to buy a treadmill. I've asked Him these kind
of things. I've asked him things about people."
"This is recently. I'm not talking about a long time ago. He was about
six feet two. Old man. Had a beard. White-like Norvelles
jacket. 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!' I never heard the Lord say
that to me you know when that happened? That happened
days before the anointing on my life doubled. Literally, the ministries
' anointing doubled after that. I've never shared this, I've
been scared people are going to think he's gone crazy! And, it happened
twice! Two nights; one and the next day. And right
after that, the anointing on this ministry doubled. Now, I don't
understand why the Lord allowed me to see that. I've not just seen
angels; I've seen saints. Can I tell you? This might even shock you a
little more. The Lord gave me a vision of Kathryn
Kuhlman sitting with what seemed to be a group of people . . . 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 crazy because
I liked what I saw . . . I was in prayer at uh, least hours . . .
At least fifty to seventy of them sitting in 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 and
suddenly there she was its crystal clear. And she in her
beautiful smile, 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? 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
is way more than what you know about God! And the
reason I'm telling you all of this? The Lord said to me only a few days
ago. He said, 'You're about to come to 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. I'm so excited, I feel
butterflies in my tummy. I feel something. I've had three prophets
lately, absolutely, 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 it upon my heart to pray for you that
you should walk into a new inheritance in the Holy Ghost." (Excerpted
from message presented at the Blaisdale Arena,
Honolulu, HI, 2/28/97).
Notice that he stated clearly that he had seen saints ("dead saints") and
that they talked to him, gave him instructions, and told him they were
praying for him. This is clearly necromancy or communication with the dead.
He went further to state that his necromancy was Biblically
supported by Jesus Christ's experience on the Mount of Transfiguration when
Moses and Elijah talked to the Lord.
Watch carefully men such as Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin, and
Paul Crouch, etc. Men in error always continue to descend
into deeper and deeper error. It's the natural evolution of evil and Satan's
kingdom. The whole theory of evolution is a satanic contrast of
God's truth and revelation. Truth is progressive and uplifting, while
evolution is regressive and destructive. In the next edition I will give you
a
list of quotes from Kenneth Hagin.
by Joseph R. Chambers
BENNY HINN'S
MOVE INTO NECROMANCY
Faith Healer Claims Contact with the Dead
Foretells New Direction for His Ministry
by G. Richard Fisher with M. Kurt Goedelman
The superstars of televangelism over-promise to an audience they know is
fickle and has a short attention and commitment
span. What is popular this month may not be next month. What's hot and what'
s not depends on the creativity of the man and
his organization. Rising fortunes and empires can begin to dwindle if new
"power" centers or new spiritual "power brokers"
offer a new and more exciting ride, attraction or innovation. Charisma
magazine and the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN)
are the main marketplaces for the wild, weird and bizarre world of
Charismania.
So what does Benny Hinn have to offer? As repeatedly documented in PFO's The
Confusing World of Benny Hinn, the
Orlando-based faith healer has spawned many a new vision, a new testimony, a
new claim, a new gimmick, a new cure-all, and
a new twist on an old "deliverance" scheme over the past several years.
In all, the world of televangelism really has become as unrestrained as
professional wrestling with Hinn being crowned as the
current "reigning champ." False prophecies, heretical doctrines, spurious
healings, an exorbitant lifestyle and fabricated personal
historical accounts have not been able to dethrone Hinn as the leading guru
of Charismatics.
In the mid-1990s, Hinn sought donations from those attending his crusades
and from the viewers of his daily telecasts to go
head-to-head on cable and television networks featuring psychic hot lines.
The donations he received would permit his
evangelistic efforts to reduce the spread and success of occultism being
broadcast into homes. Yet today, these psychic hot
lines are bigger and more intense than ever and Hinn has become a fellow
traveler in the world of the occult.
KATHRYN KUHLMAN RETURNS
Hinn has long been infatuated with the late faith healer, Kathryn Kuhlman.
His books and sermons are replete with the impact
she supposedly made on his life and ministry. Now, Hinn has her as a female
spirit guide. And with this claim, he is introducing
a deadly spiritist virus to his followers.
Hinn recently claimed that he was shown the future of his ministry from
Kuhlman and Jesus in what he described as a "vision of
the night." This revelation undoubtedly will electrify the bulk of his
following. But perhaps, for some, they may now view Hinn
as having crossed the line into dark and dangerous territory. This may be a
ride that sounds the alarm and wakes them up to
Hinn's pragmatic unorthodoxy and false teaching.
His account of this alleged vision was delivered to those attending a recent
"Partner Conference" in Atlanta and to those
viewing the June 11, 1997 installment of his daily This Is Your Day program.
On the broadcast, he stated:
"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-I-I-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 Kuhlman. 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."1
Hinn goes on recounting his "vision":
"Well, anyway, in this one, in this vision that-that I saw-saw Miss
Kuhlman. 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 was healed, the Lord looked at me with
piercing eyes-I'll not forget that one I'll
tell you. 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."2
Hinn next interprets the "vision" for his faithful:
"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 Kuhlman 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. Well, 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?"3
Hinn's description is somewhat confusing and at one point he says the
apparition "was a dream." And, if left at that, would be
less of a concern. However, he qualifies the nature of the "dream" by
claiming it was "really more of a vision." In fact he uses
the word "vision" ten times to describe the experience. Moreover, he is
using this event as a mystical prescription from the
other side. This apparition, Hinn says, declares and describes what is to
become the new by-product of his ministry. It moves
him to a claimed oracle from Jesus of new "creative miracles"-a higher level
of signs and wonders. He is using it to solicit
support from his followers. And as such, must be considered and examined in
a serious and biblical manner.
HINN'S "MOUNT OF TRANSFIGURATION"
A few months earlier, Hinn lured the audience at his Honolulu Crusade with
his revelations of not only Kuhlman but the Old
Testament prophet Elijah.4 "I have not just seen angels, I've seen saints,"
he announced. His narrative there being even more
brazenly spiritistic:
"You may have a problem with this, I honestly don't really care. I've
walked in that [supernatural] world. I've
seen things you will never be able to understand, unless you've been in
it. I've had individuals appear to me in
my room. Not only angels. I've seen sights in prayer, incredible
sights!"5
What were the "incredible sights" Hinn had "seen"? He detailed for his
faithful one powerful encounter:
"Can I tell you something? I have never shared this. Never! I was in
prayer one day and a man appeared in front
of me. It happened two-for two days in a row. Ev-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-like a shawl-like a-like
a-like a covering. He looked like a priest. But every part of him
glistened like crystal. And I spoke out and I
said, 'Lord, who is this man I see?' Now, I know you may think I've
lost my mind, but the Lord said, 'Elijah, the
prophet.'"6
Hinn next brought Kuhlman into the performance:
"Seven and half years ago, just before the ministry started, before
these crusades began, I was in prayer when
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 Kuhlman. 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."7
The purpose of Kuhlman's and the saintly host's visitation is then explained
by Hinn:
"At least fifty to seventy of them were sitting in 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."8
Interestingly, video tapes of Hinn's 1997 Honolulu Crusade are not being
made available by Hinn's ministry.9 Perhaps,
someone more theologically astute in the faith healer's organization
realizes the occultic implications of his revelations.
ON DEADLY GROUND
From the very inception of his ministry, Hinn has had a penchant and an
obsession with the late Kuhlman. Hinn has publicly
stated that Kuhlman's grave carries a supernatural "anointing." He alleges
the same effect from the body and grave of Aimee
Semple McPherson. The theatrical, twice divorced McPherson, who probably
died by suicide, is hardly a model of Christian
anointing.10
During a sermon on the Holy Spirit, Hinn offered the following, eerie,
testimonial:
"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 Kuhlman'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
lingered over Aimee's body. I know this may be shocking to you. ... And
I'm going to take David [Palmquist] and
Kent [Mattox] and Sheryl [Palmquist] 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?"11
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), "iniquity" and
blasphemy (v. 7). He further indites those: "Who sit
among the graves, and spend the night in the tombs" (v. 4). The worst of
judgments are pronounced on these vile practices (vs.
13-15).
Jewish teaching was that dead bodies were unclean (for instance Numbers
19:11), but Hinn thinks otherwise. Hinn apparently
has never shaken his Arab roots. Arabic people superstitiously believe in
the efficacy of praying at tombs of famous or "saintly"
people. Arabs regularly make pilgrimages to "venerated, holy" graves.12 It
seems Hinn has never gotten rid of the superstitions
of his childhood.
A GRAVE DECEPTION
Hinn tries to buttress his morbid preoccupation with graves and the dead (in
the above) by referring to the Old Testament
miracle of Elisha's bones bringing a man to life. In a similar vein one
could refer to manna to insist on getting free food from
heaven, but it just won't work. A close examination of the Elisha event
shows no comparison or parallel to what Hinn is
claiming.
The miraculous event after the death of Elisha is found in 2 Kings 13:20-21.
A dead man was thrown into the tomb of Elisha
and upon coming into contact with Elisha's bones "he revived and stood up on
his feet." A careful study of the passage will
note clearly four things:
1. This is a miracle of resurrection from the dead-not some nebulous feeling
or quivering. There is nothing in the verses in 2
Kings 13 about some subjective or lingering "anointing." Hinn is not raising
the dead and neither are the corpses of Kuhlman or
McPherson. The Elisha event is clearly about life from death-resurrection of
a body.
2. It is obviously a seal of divine attestation to Elisha's dying prophecy
regarding Joash's victory over Syria (2 Kings
13:14-19).
3. Even though Elisha died of sickness (2 Kings 13:14) God's approval was
still on his life and death. Certainly this is contrary
to the faith teachers like Hinn and others. You can be sick and die of that
sickness and still have God's favor and approval.
This event contradicts and proves just the opposite of the health gospel
preached by Hinn.
4. Hinn's loose use of the passage opens the way for all kinds of weird
excesses. Adam Clarke cites one of the misuses: "This
is the first, and I believe the last, account of a true miracle performed by
the bones of a dead man; and yet on it and such like
the whole system of miraculous working relics has been founded by the popish
Church."13 As creation was unique, as manna
was unique, as clothes that would not wear out were unique, this was a
unique resurrection event. Hinn cannot claim it for
validation of his trips to the graveyard.
VISION OR REVISION?
Hinn's Atlanta claim of a "vision of the night" with Kuhlman and Jesus also
demonstrates his blatant misuse of the vocabulary of
the Bible. It is a failed attempt to make what he is practicing, somehow,
appear to have justification from the Word of God. He
is deceptive in this. Even a cursory look at this expression, its context,
and biblical meaning demonstrates Hinn's erroneous
interpretation.
The word "vision" appears approximately 100 times in the Bible, most of
which are Old Testament passages. And, except
when referring to false prophets and false visions, the majority of these
have to do with God giving direct revelation of
Himself, about Himself and His plan, or prophetic information. It is
revelatory, special, life-giving information. This
information was written and inscripturated for us in the Bible. Hinn is
trying to impress his followers that his extrabiblical
revelation is on a par with the inspired Scriptures.
Never, ever, when used in a positive way (of legitimate information and
revelation from God) is the word "vision" ever linked
with the occult or the dead. The exact phrase "visions of the night" is
found in Genesis 46:2 and has to do with God revealing
Himself directly to Jacob. It is not a message from the realm of the dead.
Our God is the Living God. It is a message from
heaven. Messages from demons and the dark underworld should not be referred
to as "visions of the night." This is clear and
obvious chicanery on Hinn's part.
The word "vision" in Hebrew is marah and literally means to "see." Jacob saw
God in some form and fashion (a theophany or
Christophany) and heard Him give promises and comfort. To connect this with
efforts to raise funds to support one's ministry is
Scripture twisting of the most horrible and pernicious kind. Shame on Hinn
for this deception and distortion of God's truth.
Once again Hinn has proven that he does not have even an elementary
understanding of biblical interpretation.
Hinn's so-called "vision of the night" fits better into the category of
Jeremiah 14:14 and 23:16:
"And the Lord said to me, the prophets prophesy lies in my name. I 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."
DARK SEDUCTION: A GRAVE DELUSION
Perhaps Hinn's "visions" detailed in Atlanta and Hawaii are merely contrived
fiction as foretold by the Apostle Peter (2 Peter
2:3). Or the tales may be the result of actual dreams or delusions and
embellished for effect. Yet, a worse case scenario does
exist-if he is receiving "visions" of the dead, he is in contact with
demons! If the latter is true, then Paul's warning surely is
being fulfilled:
"The Spirit speaks expressly that in the latter times some shall depart
from the faith giving heed to seducing spirits
and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their
consciences seared with a hot iron" (1 Timothy
4:1).
For all the moral failings of Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggart, they did not
try to introduce their followers to the world of
spiritism and spiritualistic practices. Hinn has entered into a dangerous
practice called necromancy which literally means
divination by consulting the dead.14 In practicing necromancy, hidden,
secret or clandestine knowledge is brought forth by
someone who has died. Direction is sought from the other side. However, the
Bible reveals that the real source of the
information when obtained can be demonic entities or evil spirits who
imitate the dead. This practice is at odds in every way
with the Bible and the true worship of God.
A careful reading of Isaiah 8 and research into the language shows a medium
being manipulated by a demon spirit. Isaiah's
blunt question (v. 19) cries out for an answer: "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 obvious
answer is that God's people should never seek the dead on behalf of the
living.
Bible commentator, Dr. H.A. Ironside's observation on Isaiah's words is both
"prophetic" and chilling:
"It is a grievous offense in the eyes of God for anyone to turn from
His revealed Word to those who profess to
have power to summon the spirits of the departed in order to give light
and help. Such are either charlatans
deceiving those who go to them or else possessed by impersonating
demons misleading all who follow them."15
DEAD END
So there are numerous strong prohibitions against contacting the dead in any
fashion. Our guidance is to come from Scripture,
not the departed. The ancient pagan cultures that clashed with Israel,
practiced this and other occultic abominations. To consult
mediums or familiar spirits was viewed as apostasy from God. The death
penalty was required for the practice of
necromancy.16
J.R. Dummelow's A Commentary on the Holy Bible spells out who the objects of
this severe judgment are in Leviticus 19:31
with these words: "That have familiar spirits; necromancers who profess to
hold communication with the dead."17
King Saul earned the death penalty as a severe judgment from God for the
practice of seeking enlightenment and information
from the dead. "So Saul died for his unfaithfulness which he committed
against the Lord, because he did not keep the word of
the Lord, and also because he consulted a medium for guidance," First
Chronicles 10:13 declares.
Merrill Unger captures the demonic underpinnings of necromancy:
"But mediumship and spiritism are closely connected with the
ventriloquil whispers and mutterings, which the
seducing demons employ in their human agents in subtle imitation of the
utterances of the dead, in order thoroughly
to deceive and win over their ready dupes."18
Unger also forcefully reminds us:
"If it is forbidden in the Scriptures for a child of God to resort to a
'familiar spirit,' then it is equally wrong for the
departed dead, either godly or wicked, to communicate with the living.
By so doing, both infringe upon the law of
God."19
Indeed, a familiar spirit can be translated as the spirit of a departed
family member or friend as demons convey information as if
from someone close or familiar to us.
GLEANINGS FROM THE GREAT VINE
The vigilant research of W.E. Vine on "Spirit (of the Dead), Necromancer" is
worth reading in its entirety:
"The word usually represents the troubled spirit (or spirits) of the
dead. This meaning appears unquestionably in
Isa. 29:4 '...Thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar
spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper
out of the dust.' Its second meaning, 'necromancer,' refers to a
professional who claims to summon forth such
spirits when requested (or hired) to do so: 'Regard not them that have
familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards'
(Lev. 19:31 - first occurrence). These mediums summoned their 'guides'
from a hole in the ground. Saul asked
the medium (witch) of Endor, 'Divine for me from the hole.'"20
Vine then points out God's prohibitions:
"God forbade Israel to seek information by this means, which was so
common among the pagans (Lev. 19:31;
Deut. 18:11). Perhaps the pagan belief in manipulating one's basic
relationship to a god (or gods) explains the
relative silence of the Old Testament regarding life after death. Yet
God's people believed in life after death, from
early times (e.g., Gen. 37:35; Isa. 14:15ff).... Necromancers' unusual
experiences do not prove that theytruly had
power to summon the dead. For example, the medium of Endor could not
snatch Samuel out of God's hands
against His wishes. But in this particular incident, it seems that God
rebuked Saul's apostasy, either through a
revived Samuel or through a vision of Samuel. Mediums do not have power
to summon the spirits of the dead,
since this is reprehensible to God and contrary to His will."21
The message delivered to Saul for the above practice was a message of
judgment and death.
In Jesus' account of the afterlife in Luke 16 a man seeks to go back from
the dead to warn others of torment. He is not
permitted and told, "they have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them"
(v. 29). The Word of God is to be our information
source for our life and ministry, not occultic pursuits.
SPIRITISM BY ANY OTHER NAME
According to Robert Burrows of the Spiritual Counterfeits Project, full
blown spiritism hit our country in the mid-1880s,
beginning in New York and generated by the teenage sisters, Margaret and
Katie Fox. At its height, it had ten million followers
including Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes. Its
"central belief is implicit in the spirit contact foundational
to it: the dead continue to exist and communication with them is possible."
22
Spiritism went through ebbs and flows of popularity and then mutated into
its modern form-channeling. Actress Shirley
MacLaine is probably the most well-known endorser of channeling.
British apologist Alan Morrison traces the modern revival of necromancy
through Jane Roberts:
"In the present New Age scenario, Channelling began with a vengeance
with the contribution of a woman called
Jane Roberts (1929-1984). In 1963, she and her husband had begun to
experiment with an ouija-board and they
were soon contacted by an alleged spirit-entity calling itself Seth.
Within a short time, she found she could go into
a trance during which this spirit-being would speak through her. This
led to a series of best-selling books in which
a great deal of occult information about every aspect of life-past,
present and future-is presented in a readable
style. Interestingly, it is common for these spirit-entities which
channel through humans to adopt a biblical name.
Whether this is the case with Jane Robert's 'Seth' is not immediately
apparent. ... Other well-known chanelling
[sic] works are Virginia Essene's 'New Teachings for an Awakening
Humanity', and Amy Brown Loomis'
channelled messages which were alleged to be from Jesus Christ and
several of the Apostles. By far the best
known and most popular of all the New Age channelled works is the
1200-page book, 'A Course in
Miracles'."23
Spiritists have "churches" in which they practice seances and other occultic
specialties. They even claim healings and
prophesies and have joined together under the umbrella of the National
Spiritualist Association. The N.S.A. lists as one of its
nine principles:
"5. We affirm that communication with the so-called dead is a fact
scientifically proven by the phenomena of
Spiritualism."24
Hinn would fit better with the N.S.A. than anywhere else. J. Stafford Wright
reminds us:
"If for a moment we consider what the Bible says about attempting to
communicate with the departed, we may be
astonished to find that, whenever this is mentioned, it is condemned as
something evil. ... The Christian similarly is
not to aim at gathering information from the departed, but at hearing
the message of Christ. ... It is clear that the
Biblical verdict on Spiritualism is completely hostile. One may assume
that the reason is because the deception
(conscious or unconscious) that is inherent in it. There may, in fact,
be two sources of deception. 1. The
unconscious mind of the medium. ... The sitter cannot be certain of
being in touch with the one who has passed
on, for the medium may in fact be interpreting a projected image from
the sitter's own mind. 2. A more dangerous
deception would arise if we suppose the intervention of evil spirits.
Spiritualists themselves recognize this
possibility."25
Hinn's move in the direction of the occult should not be a surprise. The
modern-day Pentecostal movement, which began in
1906, has muddled beginnings and a prior history of involvement in
spiritism. Azusa Street drew in spiritualists and mediums
and contemporaries of that day were reporting seances, trances and other
outlandish and occultic behavior.26 Once the door
of unrestrained subjective mysticism is opened, Satan and the flesh can have
a field day. God's Word is our only protection
against the demonic as well as ourselves.
In all of this, Hinn moves toward the worst groups in history. He even,
knowingly or unknowingly, mirrors in himself and his
following the bizarre Convulsionaries of the 18th century whose focus was
tombs and miracles:
"Groups of visitors to the tomb were gripped by uncontrollable urges to
dance or fall into seizures. In these states
the 'convulsionaires', as they came to be called, seemed to lose
contact with the external world, even to the point
of becoming insensitive to pain. They had religious visions and
reported miraculous healings. On one occasion, a
skeptic who came to the tomb to mock the proceedings found herself
struck with paralysis."27
BACK TO BASICS
How many more dead people will Hinn report "visions" of? Hinn has yet spun
another yarn as he has so often or is being duped
by demons. God's Word leaves him no other options. Either choice ushers his
followers into deep deception and may well give
them leave to seek such encounters from the other side. In either case, Hinn
needs to repent before God and seek the
forgiveness of the body of Christ. Following that, he needs to step down and
enroll in some basic doctrine courses and stop his
overt approval of the occult.
Hinn, in the recent past resigned from the Assemblies of God denomination.
Following his resignation he returned to being
accountable and answerable to no one but himself. His new attraction and
"ride" is a ride that can lead his faithful to darkness
and destruction. These followers need to get off quickly and stay off. The
truth is out. But will even the truth be able to convince
the emotion intoxicated followers?
Endnotes:
1. Benny Hinn, This Is Your Day, June 11, 1997, video tape on file.
2. Ibid..
3. Ibid.
4. Benny Hinn, Honolulu Crusade, February 28, 1997. Transcript of Hinn's
comments made by Mike Oppenheimer, Let Us Reason Ministries.
Audio tape and transcript on file.
5. Ibid., emphasis added
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Phone call from M. Kurt Goedelman to Benny Hinn Media Ministries, July
25, 1997, confirmed that Hinn's organization is not making
available, nor will be making available, tapes from the 1997 Honolulu
Crusade.
10. See Hank Hanegraaff, Counterfeit Revival. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1997,
pp. 168-169.
11. Benny Hinn sermon, Double Portion Anointing, Part #3, Orlando Christian
Center, Orlando, Fla., April 7, 1991. From the series, Holy Ghost
Invasion. TV#309, tape on file.
12. Israel Pocket Library, Religious Life and Communities. Jerusalem,
Israel: Keter Books, 1974, pg. 154.
13. Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible with a Commentary and Critical Notes. New
York: Abingdon Press, no date, The Old Testament, Vol. 2, pg.
525, commentary note on 2 Kings 13:21.
14. See further The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 4,
pg. 401 and Biblical Demonology by Merrill Unger, pp. 143-164.
15. Henry A. Ironside, Expository Notes on the Prophet Isaiah. New York:
Loizeaux Brothers, 1952, pp. 55-56.
16. See for example, Leviticus 19:31; 20:6, 27; Deuteronomy 18:10-11.
17. J.R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible. New York: Macmillan
Company, 1958,pg. 97.
18. Merrill Unger, Biblical Demonology. Wheaton, Ill.: Scripture Press,
1952, pg. 148.
19. Ibid., pg. 152.
20. W.E. Vine, Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary Of Old And New
Testament Words. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985, pp.
241-242, 1 Samuel 28:8, author's translation.
21. Ibid., pg. 242.
22. J.D. Douglas, Editor, New 20th-Century Encyclopedia of Religious
Knowledge. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1991, pg. 782.
23. Alan Morrison, The Serpent and the Cross. Birmingham, England: K&M
Books, 1994, pg. 142.
24. Frank S. Mead, Handbook of Denominations in the United States. New York:
Abingdon Press, 1965, pg. 206.
25. J. Stafford Wright, Man in the Process of Time. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1956, pp. 107, 109-110, italics in
original.
26. Counterfeit Revival, op. cit., pp. 127-128.
27. Leonard George, Ph.D., Alternative Realities. New York: Facts on File,
1995, pg. 55.
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)
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:
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).
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. 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.
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
--
rapture...@my-deja.com spake thusly and wrote:
I praise God for Steve Winters,
If it wasn't for him being so repulsive, people might fall into his
little trap called oneness. Calling people spiritual sluts and whores
is a sure way of guarding them against the "Jesus only doctrine."
Who in the world would want to be a member of a hate group?
Hear A Sermon About "Steven Winter"...False Prophet!
http://rofgrace.simplenet.com/071500b.ram
http://rofgrace.simplenet.com/09REQ.ram
See Mrs. Benny Hinn tell people they need a
"Holy Ghost Eneima"
http://comedycentral.com/cgi-bin/playra.cgi?realmedia/daily/gd062199_28.rm
Hank Hanegraaff....A Liar!!
http://www.cris.com/~Ranger57/hankstuf/ccstuff.htm
Bob Larson? Fraud!
http://www.freespeech.org/boblarson/
The Bible/Jesus VS Pope/Rome
http://home.hawaii.rr.com/bibletruths/catholic.htm
False Teachers Benny Hinn And
Kenneth Copeland?
http://home.hawaii.rr.com/bibletruths/benny.htm
http://home.hawaii.rr.com/bibletruths/copeland.htm
"The DataRat" <data...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39AD3240...@home.com...
The DataRat
"Here in Western Pa"
DR grew-up in SouthWestern Pennsylvania
between Pittsburgh and Ligoneer ! ( Proof:
He not only knows "Pittsburgh" has an "h"
on the end, but also ~why~ it has an "h" on the
end ! )
"He stood in front of a class with a blackboard
and taught it was 30mins"
Even listening on the radio, you can hear that
chalk on the blackboard !
"Horton said their having Hank Hennagraff on
'The Whitehorse Inn' next Sunday night"
Far out !
The White Horse Inn got canceled here in
Phoenix. Can still listen to it on RealAudio,
though.
Did you ever hear the White Horse Inn show
that had Robert Schuller on ? He walked-out
after the first ten minutes !
( Your favorite rodent's pastor went to seminary
with Mike Horton when they were both students. )
Your Pal,
The DataRat
Pat
walking out .Maybe he was on more then once .They have the Inn on Sunday's
at 8:30 pm then reply it on Monday mornings at 12am on WORD 101.5 Pitts
Pa..But I mostly listen to it on his site .
I was in the Hospital for a operation couple of weeks ago .Well recovering
in my room my doctor noticed my book by Boice " Foundations of the Christian
Faith " .He asked if I liked him . I said yes .Then he said while going to
school in Philadelphia he attended 10th Presbyterian Church every Sunday .Me
and my wife were planning on going to here Boice this fall before his death
.
Pat,
Did you ever hear the White Horse Inn show
that had Robert Schuller on ? He walked-out
after the first ten minutes !
>
"The DataRat" <data...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39AD8A63...@home.com...
Brian Boggs
"The DataRat" <data...@home.com> wrote in message
John
>Sir may I tell you that your playing with fire! The Holy Ghost leads Brother
>Hinn and his steps are ordered by God and the word lights his path. If I
>were you I would just pray and first ask Jesus to come in your heart and
>save you, then ask the Holy Spirit to open your eyes of understanding.
The Holy Spirit would NEVER lead someone to denounce the Word of G-d.
Benny Hinn has taught against the Bible on many occasions.
Thus: Benny Hinn is NOT lead by the Holy Spirit.
>Please don't make anymore comments about him it is hazardous to your life.
>Satan will wipe you out because you open yourself up to his attacks by going
>against God.
You are wrong.
Benny Hinn plays IN hellfire.
He will be punished by G-d for his sins. His worshipers will also be
punished.
>But if you choose to go on, please tell us what city and state your in and
>real name, I want to see how long before you prematurely die. I'll watch the
>obituary column.
You seem like some kind of sicko.
I would not divuldge my identity to somone who support an anti-christ like
Hinn.
>"John" <somm...@Home.Com> wrote in message
>news:CLHq5.2868$IM3....@news-east.usenetserver.com...
John
>
>
> "The Holy Ghost leads Brother Hinn
> and his steps are ordered by God"
>
>
>
>
>
> The DataRat
Short, sweet and absolutely correct!!!
John
>In article <PVXq5.501$hH4.3...@news.uswest.net>, mmill...@hotmail.com
>says...
>>
>> Hinn and his steps are ordered by God and the word lights his path. If I
>> were you I would just pray and first ask Jesus to come in your heart and
>> save you, then ask the Holy Spirit to open your eyes of understanding.
>> Satan will wipe you out because you open yourself up to his attacks by going
>> against God.
>> real name, I want to see how long before you prematurely die. I'll watch the
>> obituary column.
>
>
>Trinity was composed of *9* ... let me repeat *nine* persons?
LOL
lets see: Tri means....
...3!!!!!
Rafael Zabar
Not when they come in white suits!
Regards.
Lemuel
The DataRat <data...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39AC3E04...@home.com...
>
>
> "The Holy Ghost leads Brother Hinn
> and his steps are ordered by God"
>
>
>
GoldRush
Nick,
Royce does not believe the sacrifice of Jesus Christ
was vicarious towards our sins.
It was a gesture and a sort of martyrdom, that only sets
an example to the world of how to love everybody, and make
salvation a *possibility* for all.
In fact, Royce is getting very close to denying mankind
is sinful towards God at all. Rather, our "sin" is just ignorance of the
force of God indwelling all of us, where true salvation
is found through self-revelation.
False gospel.
J&R
--
GoldRush
For Scriptures & Christian Studies
visit http://www.mlode.com/~jrrush
Royce Buehler
In article <39AE9A1D...@mlode.com>,
GoldRush <jrr...@mlode.com> writes:
> > <snipped>
>
> Nick,
>
> Royce does not believe the sacrifice of Jesus Christ
> was vicarious towards our sins.
>
> It was a gesture and a sort of martyrdom, that only sets
> an example to the world of how to love everybody, and make
> salvation a *possibility* for all.
Clearly, I haven't succeeded in explaining my thoughts about
the Atonement yet in a way that GoldRush can understand. I
think that's more a problem with me being clear than with
them trying to understand.
I don't believe that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was "vicarious"
- which is not a biblical term anyway - in the sense that I
do not believe that Jesus died as a substitute for us. I do
not find a statement anywhere in the Bible that He died as
a substitute for us. Rather, I find statements that He died
*for* us, that He died *because* of us, and that as believers
we have died *with* Him.
It is far more than "an example", though it is that, too, of
course. We must actually die with Him. The crucifixion must
be real in us, for the resurrection to be real in us. We
don't do this by *imitating* what Christ did on the Cross
(it cannot be imitated), but by sharing in what He did there.
> In fact, Royce is getting very close to denying mankind
> is sinful towards God at all. Rather, our "sin" is just ignorance of the
> force of God indwelling all of us, where true salvation
> is found through self-revelation.
I've never said anything at all like this, GoldRush, and
I don't believe it. Our fallen nature, and the sin which
results from it, have cut every one of us off from God.
Only through repentance and rebirth and faith can our
relationship to God be restored, and God take up His proper
residence within us.
GoldRush
>
> > > <snipped>
>
>
> I don't believe that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was "vicarious"
> - which is not a biblical term anyway -
Of course not . . .neither is "The Trinity".
But the principle of vicarious substitution is the heart of the gospel,
just as much as the Three Persons is the heart of the Godhead.
> in the sense that I
> do not believe that Jesus died as a substitute for us.
May God have mercy upon your soul!
> I do
> not find a statement anywhere in the Bible that He died as
> a substitute for us. Rather, I find statements that He died
> *for* us, that He died *because* of us, and that as believers
> we have died *with* Him.
You have a severe "soul problem"!
>
>
> It is far more than "an example", though it is that, too, of
> course. We must actually die with Him.
Without believing in the vicarious sacrifice and death of
Jesus Christ on behalf of His people, the only explanation
of our "actually dying with Him" can only be mystical.
> The crucifixion must
> be real in us,
The crucifixion was real in the body of Jesus Christ,
and only real *in* us through faith.
> for the resurrection to be real in us.
The resurrection in us is real through the grace of
the Holy Spirit, imbuing us with His Spirit.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ was real in Him
in Body and Spirit . . .which we have not experienced yet.
> We
> don't do this by *imitating* what Christ did on the Cross
> (it cannot be imitated), but by sharing in what He did there.
We cannot "share" it, but trust in it as being in our stead;
vicarious. Christ died . . .we live. Christ suffered . . .we are blessed.
>
>
> > In fact, Royce is getting very close to denying mankind
> > is sinful towards God at all. Rather, our "sin" is just ignorance of the
> > force of God indwelling all of us, where true salvation
> > is found through self-revelation.
>
> I've never said anything at all like this, GoldRush, and
> I don't believe it.
You deny that homosexual acts of sexual immorality are sin.
What are we left to think?
> Our fallen nature, and the sin which
> results from it, have cut every one of us off from God.
Agreed. But your definition of "sin" has become convoluted.
>
> Only through repentance and rebirth and faith can our
> relationship to God be restored,
Wrong. Only through the vicarious life and death of
Jesus Christ, is reconciliation restored between God and men.
> and God take up His proper
> residence within us.
God's "proper residence" is in heaven at His throne. The presence
of God that indwells the converted sinner, is the seed of Christ
represented through His Holy Spirit of Truth, that is our down-payment
(guarantee) of everlasting life and promise of bodily resurrection on
the last day to life everlasting.
But the God we believe in has His residence in heaven, at
the right hand of God, living in a glorified body, and acting as
our High Priest and Mediator before the Father.
Royce Buehler
I'm off for a family reunion, far away from the web.
All of you here have a pleasant and fruitful holiday weekend.
Yes, even DataRat! :-)
In article <39AF032A...@mlode.com>,
GoldRush <jrr...@mlode.com> writes:
> Royce Buehler wrote:
> > I don't believe that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was "vicarious"
> > - which is not a biblical term anyway -
>
> Of course not . . .neither is "The Trinity".
Sure. A term can be nonbiblical and still useful. But when we
use nonbiblical terms, we are under an obligation to ground them
in the Bible. I was just pointing out that "vicarious" stands
in need of such grounding, just as "Trinity" does. The biblical
case for "Trinity" is not hard to make. I don't think there is
a good biblical case to be made for "vicarious."
> > in the sense that I
> > do not believe that Jesus died as a substitute for us.
>
> May God have mercy upon your soul!
Thank you; He has. :-)
> > I do
> > not find a statement anywhere in the Bible that He died as
> > a substitute for us. Rather, I find statements that He died
> > *for* us, that He died *because* of us, and that as believers
> > we have died *with* Him.
>
> You have a severe "soul problem"!
If so, perhaps you could help solve the problem by providing
a statement anywhere in the Bible that Jesus died as a substitute
for us. It's a seven hundred year old theory by now, and a
lot of good Christians have believed it during that time, but
I don't find it in the Bible.
> > It is far more than "an example", though it is that, too, of
> > course. We must actually die with Him.
>
> Without believing in the vicarious sacrifice and death of
> Jesus Christ on behalf of His people, the only explanation
> of our "actually dying with Him" can only be mystical.
I don't know what you mean by "mystical."
> > The crucifixion must be real in us,
>
> The crucifixion was real in the body of Jesus Christ,
> and only real *in* us through faith.
Entirely agreed.
> > for the resurrection to be real in us.
>
> The resurrection in us is real through the grace of
> the Holy Spirit, imbuing us with His Spirit.
>
> The resurrection of Jesus Christ was real in Him
> in Body and Spirit . . .which we have not experienced yet.
Also entirely agreed.
> > We
> > don't do this by *imitating* what Christ did on the Cross
> > (it cannot be imitated), but by sharing in what He did there.
>
> We cannot "share" it, but trust in it as being in our stead;
> vicarious. Christ died . . .we live. Christ suffered . . .we are blessed.
No, GoldRush. Yes, we live; yes, we are blessed. But the Bible
also declares that Christ died, *and* we died. And we are called to take up
our cross, and suffer with him, "filling up that which is behind"
of His sufferings, as Paul wrote. Do you really not know the scriptures?
"Verily I say unto you, except a seed fall into the ground and
die, it can bear no fruit."
The seed must die to bear fruit. Not have some other seed die
instead of it.
"Buried with him in baptism, wherein ye are also raised with
him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath
raised him from the dead." Colossians 2:12.
Not "Him buried instead of you." "Buried with him."
"Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus
Christ were baptized into His death?
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."
Romans 6:3-4
"Knowing this, that your old man is crucified *with* him;
that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we
might not serve sin.
For *he that is dead* is freed from sin." Romans 6:6-7
If Christ died *instead* of us, if we did not die ourselves
*with* him - then He is freed from sin, but we are still in
bondage to it. Because only he that is dead is freed from sin.
Praise God that by His grace we have died with Christ!
There are plenty of other passages that teach this essential
truth, but those should be enough to make the point.
Do you consider these passages "mystical"? (I do, but I don't
think mysticism is a bad thing, and I expect you and I don't
mean the same thing by "mystical".)
> > > In fact, Royce is getting very close to denying mankind
> > > is sinful towards God at all. Rather, our "sin" is just ignorance of the
> > > force of God indwelling all of us, where true salvation
> > > is found through self-revelation.
> >
> > I've never said anything at all like this, GoldRush, and
> > I don't believe it.
>
> You deny that homosexual acts of sexual immorality are sin.
>
> What are we left to think?
That I despise sin as much as you do, but that we are in disagreement,
with respect to one set of acts, to which neither of us is tempted,
as to whether or not they are actually sinful.
> > Only through repentance and rebirth and faith can our
> > relationship to God be restored,
>
> Wrong. Only through the vicarious life and death of
> Jesus Christ, is reconciliation restored between God and men.
You are not saying, are you, that reconciliation can be
accomplished without repentance and rebirth and faith?
Of course not. You don't really believe what I said was
wrong, though you appear to believe it was incomplete. I agree
with you that the death and life of Jesus Christ are also
necessary, that without them there can be neithere repentance
nor rebirth nor faith. It's only this word "vicarious" I
object to, and only when used in a certain sense.
> > and God take up His proper residence within us.
>
> God's "proper residence" is in heaven at His throne.
Nor did I say otherwise. "Reside" and "dwell" are synonyms,
GoldRush. You agree that God "indwells" the converted sinner.
That is the same thing as saying that He takes up residence
there. He is not prevented from residing in Heaven by His
residence in us.
> The presence
> of God that indwells the converted sinner, is the seed of Christ
> represented through His Holy Spirit of Truth, that is our down-payment
> (guarantee) of everlasting life and promise of bodily resurrection on
> the last day to life everlasting.
>
> But the God we believe in has His residence in heaven, at
> the right hand of God, living in a glorified body, and acting as
> our High Priest and Mediator before the Father.
To most of this I can say a resounding "amen." The "But" starting
the last paragraph should be an "And." I am not all that sure,
as I've noted elsewhere, about Jesus presently being in "a glorified
body." Could be, but I regard it as speculation, and it's a
speculation with some difficulties attached to it. And I'm not
quite sure what you mean by "the seed of Christ" indwelling the
sinner. Were you thinking of some biblical passage in particular
that talks about Christ's seed?
GoldRush
> I'm off for a family reunion, far away from the web.
> All of you here have a pleasant and fruitful holiday weekend.
> Yes, even DataRat! :-)
We hope you had an enjoyable time, if you will be reading
this upon your return.
<snipped>
>
> >
> > You have a severe "soul problem"!
>
> If so, perhaps you could help solve the problem by providing
> a statement anywhere in the Bible that Jesus died as a substitute
> for us. It's a seven hundred year old theory by now, and a
> lot of good Christians have believed it during that time, but
> I don't find it in the Bible.
"When You make His soul an offering for sin . . .For He shall
bear their iniquities . . .Because He poured out His soul unto
death and He was numbered with the transgressors, and He
bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors."
Isa. 53:10,11b, 12b
We have gone over these before and apply Isaiah 53 to Jesus Christ.
We all believe Jesus Christ to have been sinless (we hope!), so for Him to
bear our sins, and take sin upon His body and soul, and pour out
His soul unto death because of those sins, is substitutionary death.
Jesus Christ did not deserve to die. We deserved the death that
He suffered. He died and lived again as representative
for all of His children (just as Adam brought death upon all men
represented in his body). [Romans 5:17]
(If Christ was just another sinful human, offering His life for another,
you would be correct in what you say. But Jesus Christ was God/Man,
without sin. Thus the sins destroyed were no part of the Creator who
hung on the cross, but were the sins of the creatures for whom He vicariously
lived, suffered, died, resurrected and ascended to heaven to represent
in reconciliation with God.) [II Cor. 5:21]
>
> > Without believing in the vicarious sacrifice and death of
> > Jesus Christ on behalf of His people, the only explanation
> > of our "actually dying with Him" can only be mystical.
>
> I don't know what you mean by "mystical."
Gnostic.
<snipped>
>
> > > We
> > > don't do this by *imitating* what Christ did on the Cross
> > > (it cannot be imitated), but by sharing in what He did there.
> >
> > We cannot "share" it, but trust in it as being in our stead;
> > vicarious. Christ died . . .we live. Christ suffered . . .we are blessed.
>
> No, GoldRush. Yes, we live; yes, we are blessed. But the Bible
> also declares that Christ died, *and* we died.
Jesus Christ died for us as our representative.
> And we are called to take up
> our cross, and suffer with him, "filling up that which is behind"
> of His sufferings, as Paul wrote. Do you really not know the scriptures?
This is not teaching what occurred on the cross, but is
teaching the sanctified life of the body of Christ and how we
are to live while we remain in our earthly bodies. [Romans 12:1]
>
>
> "Verily I say unto you, except a seed fall into the ground and
> die, it can bear no fruit."
>
> The seed must die to bear fruit. Not have some other seed die
> instead of it.
Christ spoke of His vicarious death in John 12:24. (Please see
our explanations of His "seed" at the end of this reply.)
>
>
> "Buried with him in baptism, wherein ye are also raised with
> him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath
> raised him from the dead." Colossians 2:12.
>
> Not "Him buried instead of you." "Buried with him."
"Buried with Him *in baptism*". . .
A symbolic rite that demonstrates a believer's witness to Christ's
death and resurrection and our identifying with Him and accepting
His representation of us upon the cross, by
crucifying our "old man" of sin (repentance) and living (by faith) as a
"new man" resurrected in Christ's power and righteousness.
>
>
> "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus
> Christ were baptized into His death?
We identify with His death, because it was our death that He died.
>
> 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."
> Romans 6:3-4
Right. By faith, we believe in His power to resurrect us in
spirit now, and in body on the last day, because He resurrected
His own body from His own grave. [John 6:39&40]
>
>
> "Knowing this, that your old man is crucified *with* him;
> that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we
> might not serve sin.
> For *he that is dead* is freed from sin." Romans 6:6-7
>
> If Christ died *instead* of us, if we did not die ourselves
> *with* him - then He is freed from sin, but we are still in
> bondage to it. Because only he that is dead is freed from sin.
> Praise God that by His grace we have died with Christ!
You say . . ."If Christ died instead of us, then He is freed from sin."
We ask . . ."What sin? He was sinless."
You say . . ."If we did not ourselves with Him, we are still in bondage
to it (sin)."
We ask . . .How could we die *with* Christ, when we were not present?
Only by representation. As Adam was head and representative
of the whole human race when he sinned, and brought corruption upon us all,
so Christ did His cross work as head and representative of those
chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. That is substitutionary
and vicarious.
We are considered to have died and paid the penalty we owed God
for our sins (our life) because Jesus did it for us and buried our sins
in His own body in His own grave.
Praise God that "we have been delivered from the law, having
died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in
newness of the Spirit . . ." Romans 7:6
"Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection.
Over such the second death has no power . . ." Rev. 20:6a
>
>
> There are plenty of other passages that teach this essential
> truth, but those should be enough to make the point.
>
> Do you consider these passages "mystical"? (I do, but I don't
> think mysticism is a bad thing, and I expect you and I don't
> mean the same thing by "mystical".)
No, these passages are not mystical. You are not garnering
the correct and clear teaching from them, but are reading them
through your erroneous presuppositions.
> <snipped>
>
> > > Only through repentance and rebirth and faith can our
> > > relationship to God be restored,
> >
> > Wrong. Only through the vicarious life and death of
> > Jesus Christ, is reconciliation restored between God and men.
>
> You are not saying, are you, that reconciliation can be
> accomplished without repentance and rebirth and faith?
Yes. Jesus Christ appeased God's wrath against the children
of promise by suffering and dying on the cross in their stead.
He was made propitiation for their sins. He also qualified
Himself as perfectly obedient to all of the Law, so that He
could impute His righteousness to us in exchange for our sins.
He also qualified Himself as victor over death, by resurrecting
from His grave, in order to be able to promise to raise us on
the last day. He also qualified Himself as High Priest once and
for all with His perfect offering to God, and rightfully sits at
the right hand of God on the throne of heaven to intercede for
us as Advocate and Mediator. Jesus Christ did all the reconciling,
not us.
All of this was achieved during His incarnation and death, way before
we were shown grace, faith and granted the ability to repent
of our sins. We are able to be reconciled with God, because of all
that Jesus Christ has done in our stead. He fulfilled the whole Law
for us. He suffered for us. He died for us. He buried our sins for us.
He rose from the grave for us. He ascended as High Priest and
Mediator, to intercede with God for us.
<snipped>
> I am not all that sure,
> as I've noted elsewhere, about Jesus presently being in "a glorified
> body." Could be, but I regard it as speculation, and it's a
> speculation with some difficulties attached to it.
This is most definitely Gnostic.
> And I'm not
> quite sure what you mean by "the seed of Christ" indwelling the
> sinner. Were you thinking of some biblical passage in particular
> that talks about Christ's seed?
"Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains
in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God." I John 3:9
"Having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible,
through the word of God which lives and abides forever." I Peter 1:23
"Now we brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But as he
who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was
born according to the Spirit, even so it is now." Galatians 4:28&29
" . . For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, nor are they all
children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, 'In Isaac your
seed shall be called.' That is, those who are the children of the flesh,
these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise
are counted as the seed." Romans 4:6-8
"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as
of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." Galatians 3:16
"But I will put enmity between you (Satan) and the woman, and
between your seed and her Seed (Christ); He shall bruise your
head, and you shall bruise His heel." Genesis 3:15
J&R
Nick
GoldRush <jrr...@mlode.com> wrote in message
news:39AE9A1D...@mlode.com...
> > <snipped>
>
> Nick,
>
> Royce does not believe the sacrifice of Jesus Christ
> was vicarious towards our sins.
>
> It was a gesture and a sort of martyrdom, that only sets
> an example to the world of how to love everybody, and make
> salvation a *possibility* for all.
I did not know this. Of course, I do not see Christ's death simply as the
death of a martyr, and I do not salvation as a *possibility* for all. I see
Salvation as a reality for the elect of God. In no way do I agree with
Royce on these views.
>
> In fact, Royce is getting very close to denying mankind
> is sinful towards God at all. Rather, our "sin" is just ignorance of the
> force of God indwelling all of us, where true salvation
> is found through self-revelation.
>
> False gospel.
>
> J&R
>
>
Is this a form of Universalism? By self-realization, I understand that this
view on salvation is a self-accomplishment, correct?
Thanks for the message. I just noticed it this evening. That's why my
reply is late.
Nick