Charismatic Chaos

Todd Bentley. Spearheading a revivial in Florida, supposedly. Same m.o. as the rest of 'em though. "Keep sowing that seed money folks ..."

quote:

---

think deep down that God is going to surprise a lot of people.

---

I don't think you have to dig all that deep."Lord, Lord, did we not cast out demons in your (JEEEEEEEEEEZUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS) name?"

Any reason for not including a satanic option?

Insert the word 'morality' or 'evil' or 'good' in the place of the word 'Christianity' and you'll recognise the question on embarking on a hiding to nothing. Does the lack of universal agreement mean there is no such thing as 'good'?-Spong a Christian? It's hard to know - given his view on the teaching of the Christan church. Whatever his exposure has been, it doesn't appear to have been to the gospel of grace.

quote:

---

11. The hope for life after death must be separated forever from the behavior control mentality of reward and punishment. The Church must abandon, therefore, its reliance on guilt as a motivator of behavior.

---

The gospel according to Spong

double post.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

The number of people who've denied some or all of the central tenets of Christianity are a dime a dozen - whatever the era they happen to operate in. And Spong seems to run into all sorts of trouble with ideas that are perfectly reconcilable with a holy, just, wrath against sin God. The God as revealed in the Bible. The God who loved us enough to die in order that we would not face his wrath. I mean..

quote:

---

"The idea that God killed Jesus to pay the price of sin is a barbarian idea because human sacrifice is a barbarian idea," he declares. "Why doesn't God just say 'I forgive the sin of the world'? Why does God insist that the murder of his son be a part of the forgiveness?"

---

Human sacrifice?Spong seems to ignore the reasonably obvious conclusion that Jesus is God. God paying the price for mans offence against God shouldn't raise the eyebrow of anyone familiar with the principle of forgiveness. And what it takes to forgive.

quote:

---

Spong is even more adamant that it (atoning sacrifice) must have no part in a church which hopes to attract people in the 21st century. "If a human father were to offer his son for the sins of the world we would arrest him for child abuse and murder. We would not worship him."

---

Then there is Spongs stumbling over the 'spirit of the age' when he insists Christianity conform to the era. This appears to ignore the problem harmonising any truth with changing fashions. What is it about the 21st in particular that requires such a 'reformation' of view? Perhaps the Bishop considers the demise of cultural Christianity indicative of a dwindling church, when in all likelyhood, those same cultural Christians never belonged to the church in the first place.I dunno Phat, discussing Spong sounds as much fun as discussing Islam.- Why not? In it's simplest format it precludes the notion that people will be judged (with the end result being salvation or no) on what they have done from the range of options open to them (the so called 'works gospel'.It seems to be the only gospel that can be reconciled with the NT without having to resort to:a) Tradition over Scripture (I'm thinking Romans Catholicism here)b) What seems reasonable to 'fair minded people'. The fact that unbelievers would plump for a works gospel ("in the case that God actually exists") is good testimony to the fact that this isn't how things work.c) Supposing one piece of the Bible more authorititive than another (eg: Matthew trumps Paul)----One comment in relation to this comment of Spongs/Yours Whilst there is little doubt the lost will be punished and there exists reasonable argument that the saved-by-grace will obtain heavenly reward because of their post-salvation behaviour, Spong seems to labour under the erroneous conclusion that the church at large teaches a works (behaviour-based) salvation

The comment was addressed at Phat who, I'm assuming, holds to some of the basic tenets of Christianity. If so, it would mean he'd appreciate the fact that lost men are "under the sway and rule of the wicked one" and so, are subject to all the twisted machinations of that individual.It's not a matter of feeling superior. I was once like you - lost. Were it a gospel of works by which I saved myself then I'd have something to lord it over you about. As it was, I was saved by a gospel of grace and so have nothing to feel superior about.When it comes to salvation and how it is wrought, nothing could be more twisted than the notion that a man work for his salvation - because nothing could be less effective in ensuring a mans salvation - than his working for it.So no insult intended: men existing under the sway of Satan will naturally labour under the lies of Satan. So whatever unbelievers think, is proof positive (I'm arguing to Phat) of this not being the way Goddidit.- If a works based gospel was the way it was, then the sway of the wicked one, the father of lies, could be expected to come up with it's opposite. So yes.If you're an unbeliever and consider it good that salvation be based on a man's behaviour ("...should it transpire that God actually does exist"), take note of point raised. You fit the M.O. of the unbeliever as described in the Bible. Indeed, as an unbeliever you'd sail in the same (sinking) boat as the earnest believer in a false god (false gods invariably demand that a person work for a favourable afterlife outcome).The point might seem like a distant irrelevancy to you - but hopefully the curious positioning of you: opposing God - but on the same side as believers in false gods - will stick with you. It might come in useful someday.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I think you're conflating two things: that which has a bearing on your damnation (working for your salvation) and that which doesn't (your liking breathin0g.I'd remind you of something you seemed to have overlooked.. again. Phat might be expected to believe as I believe on the matter of lost men being ruled by satan. If he believed that then my point might resonate with him. It can't be expected to resonate with you (unless of course you believe the Bible on the matter of Satans dominion over you - for the sake of discussion)- My thinking is, I'd hope, spot on. The problem lies, I think, more with the audience, who has stumbled in on a discussion and supposing it relevant to his case.- Globally, you are to a believer-in-a-false-god what chalk is to cheese. But if belonging to that Corps d'Atheist which reckons that entry to heaven - if it transpires that one actually exists - should be based on how the person lived their life (re: good deeds/bad deeds), then you are bosom-buddies with the aforementioned false-god-worshipper.You'd both be works-based salvationists.- Hopefully, you're having grasped the wrong nettle won't have stung too badly.

That unbelievers are under the dominion of satan doesn't mean they are absolved of responsibility for their sin. They know what is right but suppress that truth in order to do evil. And are responsible, personally, for that suppression, and the evil that results from supprssion.Satans role is to optimalise environmental conditions so that the individuals desire to sin is stimulated at every turn. God hates sexual immorality so Satan works to surround us in a world in which sex is treated as a commodity and all kinds of perversions have become the norm. God hates greed, Satan works to make personal aquisition a goal by which our success is measured. God hates our putting ourselves first, L'Oreal tells us that 'we're worth it'.The whole world is exposed to that influence. And the unbelieving world finds it can't but respond to that influence. The sinful nature is stimulated by sin and thrills at suppressing what it knows to be right in order to partake in sin.Satan might have waved the $20 baggie at the unbeliever. The unbeliever is responsible for injecting the contents of that bag into his arm.- A couple of points in response.1) We must note the issue of No True Christian. In Ireland, for example, but a small fraction of self-proclaimed Christians (typically Catholic) actually are Christians. And though the label might differ (where the term 'born again' would replace 'Catholic'), cultural Christianity can be expected to produce sufficient quantities of professing-Christian-who-aren't-actually so as to seriously muddy the waters.2) Being born again doesn't mean you don't sin. Nor is it expected that you won't sin. Being born again is the beginning of a journey in which Gods desire and aim is that you move from away from your old ways and head down the narrow path towards Gods ways. Being narrow, it is very easy to wander off it that path.How you do is up to you, at the end of the day, and provision is made for dealing with the fact that many of the saved will end their lives not having travelled very far along the path set out for them. There is such a thing as greater and lesser in heaven and ones earthly work appears to be the way in which heavenly reward is assigned.3) Who will Satan be most interested in:a) a lost man happily tipping his way along the road to damnation.b) a found man eagerly telling the world the good news.- In many ways I struggle with the same things now that I struggled with before I was saved (part of the reason for that is my unwillingness to go into unrestrained battle with those things).Whilst the intensity of the battle appears unrelentingly the same I do note that the frontline has shifted somewhat. To use Jesus' example of murder/adultery (so as to hide my darkness under a bushel ).- Whereas before I'd have struggled with murder, I now struggle with hateful anger.- And whereas before I'd have struggled with adultery, I now struggle with lustful thoughts.- A persons salvation should appear to the world (ie: not hiding your light under a bushel). And the saved are urged to let their light shine. But if I back off on the gas then that is my perogative. I will experience less of the joy that comes from walking in step with God. And I can expect less reward in heaven (making my sloth a terrible investment)It's not as if anothers salvation relies on my shining whatever light I've got. God will use another more willing than me if I decline.- What should be questioned?- The only person who's going to convince Phage that God exists is God. Either this side of the grave or on the other. Unfortunately for Phages no-god-of-any-kind position, he can never be proved right

You mean: "how can I listen to a being I don't believe in?". Surely?Well, if Satan is the one behind that which entices you into that which another being you don't believe in calls Sin then you are, in effect, listening to Satan.I wouldn't let a few layers of separation between the source behind the enticement (the hammer blow) and the enticement itself (the point of the nail) deflect you from what the source is. If Satan exists, that is.

When your opponent isn't trying to prove anything then the issue of falsifiablity doesn't arise.You're boxing with an argument of your own making - not with me.

Ultimately?Absolutely!God is the one who equipped man with the abilty to choose: to sin/ not to sin. And God is the one who provides the mechanism whereby our ability to choose can be brought to life. Choice isn't a choice without an means of enactment. And so, in order that our ability to choose can find expression, we are exposed to:- Temptation: manifest through Satan, who entices us by appealing to that within us that would delight in sin.- Conscience: that of God which exercises a restraining force tending us away from sin. God sustains in us, by conscience, an abhorrence of sin..God facilitate our sin (by letting Satan operate). He also facilitates our not sinning (by giving us a knowledge, sense, feeling for.. what is good and what is evil).Us? Well we get to choose.- From the above you'll hopefully see a tension between two influences. Yes, there is temptation (supplied by God indirectly). Yes, there is conscience ( supplied by God directly).The vital thing to remember is that it's NOT as if we sit on some weighing scales whereby our getting to heaven depends on how many times we've acted according to this influence or that influence. Such a mechanism of salvation would be a works-based salvation, a salvation based on our doing 'enough'.The reality is that God utilises our sinning in the effort to save us. Sinning brings consequences (guilt and shame) and those consequences are woven into the overall effort aimed at our salvation.So the last thing to do is go running out trying to 'be good'. Sin is good in so far that it's used to save us from sin.Call it "fighting fire with fire" if you like.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Hi there T&U Let's start counting..- For mans sinning? Yes. But not for his having created man with the potential to choose either way. God would accept his responsibility for having created man with that potential.Much like Honda would accept responsibility for creating the potential for drunk drivers.- Yes - as a choice of ours. Just marking your progression here, no need to comment.- Flaw: you shifted from "God wanting to equip us with the potential to reject him (ie: do evil)" to "God wanted us to reject him (ie: do evil)" Those people in heaven will be there because they (effectively) gave up their ability to be able to sin. You need to create people capable of choosing to give up sin (or not) in order that some will choose to give up that ability.God didn't create the beings that will be in heaven. He re-created them from the remains of being who chose for God and against sin.-Still counting: Sure. But if guilt and shame are a penalty what would be the sound basis for applying it if no crime were committed? We're assuming a rational, reasonable God btw - not one who waves magic wands. Perhaps this is why God equates lust with adultery and anger with murder. The intent isn't unimportant but it serves to have degrees of crime: from thought all the way up to action. Let's face it, all of us have thought of doing things but have pulled back before having done them.According to your system those who didn't pull back should be punished as much as those who did. God forbid! (and I can't think of one justice system that'd agree with you)

I'm afraid your rejection of God, Satan and all the rest of it doesn't make them go away. If they exist they exist, regardless of your rejection of them. And if they exist and exert influence then that they do, irrespective of your rejection of them.A radio has a knob. God does not.

The ability to chose evil isn't a defect. It's intrinsic to what God created man to be: free willed. But you seem, on the other hand, to agree that so far, God hasn't put a toe wrong.- Above we saw that free will (or better said; the free-est of wills) necessitates provision of the ability to reject God. God cannot provide such a level of free will and take away that provision - at the same time. It's be like asking God to create an object too heavy for him to lift.People will ultimately get to see God. He prefers that too. But just not yet, not before we decide in which we want to experience seeing him. He is both love and wrath. We only get to see one or other aspect.Choice. It's all about choice. Our choice.- God can't create being who has chosen to be without sin - without that being actually choosing. But he could have created being incapable of sin from the outset. There'd be a vast difference between the two creatures: the one chose God of own volition, the other is programmed to choose God.The former provides the opportunity for meaningful relationship, the latter provides the opporunity for a pet. Supposing God didn't want a pet?- First thing first. And the first thing is which kind of relationship do we want with God - that is the process we are engaged in.You'll have heard the fairytale about the king who sees and falls in love with a pauper maiden who lives in the woods? He knows that if he turns up at her door as he is, his glory will overpower her. Her acceeding to his suit would be the result, even if only partial, of his being king, not because of who he is. And so he dresses himself as a pauper and stops by one day to ask for water. And so the relationship develops. And so she falls in love with him.God is about truth and love and meekness and patience and kindness. This life is your opportunity to discover whether it is those things you love ultimately or whether wickedness is your hearts desire. There is no need for God to 'reveal his kingship' to you at this point - you've yet to decide which it's going to be.You've no need to worry that somehow you'll miss the boat, or that you have to figure it all outt. The mechanism of salvation has it's finger on your pulse and knows what quickens it. And works to have it quickened by God.- You can't have it both ways T&U. If the crime is effectively committed at 'intent and ability' then the persons morality has already been lost. Plenty of able people have pulled out of an intent so it would appear that some other element is involved. A 'point of no return decision' would be it in my view.I don't agree in any case. If my hearts desire is to see someone suffer because I hate them, and I want to take their possessions after I've cleared them out of my way then intent and ability aren't going to provide my hearts desire. Are they?- For the purposes of permitting evil, God permits one will to overrule another. He doesn't necessarily provide the will with the power to access everything it would desire - doing so would require that we all be God.Remember what this gig called Life is about: finding out our hearts desire. It's not about our being happy and contented. Or even having our fulls hearts desire met - this side of the grave. The full weight of our desires will be met after the grave - not before