Thanks.

And as far as the weather goes, well that goes with the territory (of living in Oklahoma) … I am trusting God in this … like dickkopf said “wouldn’t it simplify our lives?” Without that trust in times like these, how can one go on? If I were still in the WOF, I would probably be yelling at the devil, “commanding” him to take his hands off of my circumstances” or saying “I rebuke you!” until I was blue in the face … life is so much simpler when one trusts the Lord. If it happened, it was His will for me. He brought me to it, and He will bring me through it. And if He does not, then that is His choice too. But it’s really not so bad, considering how much worse it could have been.

(MN: Don’t be too impressed. Google is a wonderful thing. The only thing I recognized was ARBEIT. And that’s because I’m a World War II buff. )

Übrigens, ich bin vor kurzem bei der Uni … lerne Krankenpflege, weil meine frühere Arbeit ins Ausland versetzt worden war. Darum habe ich momentan nur selten die Zeit, Kommentare hier zu machen! Ich versuche aber, wenn ich die Zeit hab, mich hier auf dem Laufenden zu bringen.

(MN: And the spirit of Google reveals to me that the translation of this occurrence of tongues is:

)

… but alas, I am a victim of NAFTA, and when I am finished with my nursing courses, things will hopefully get better for me, job-wise. Not only that, but on 4-09-08, my town was struck by a tornado (I live in Oklahoma), and as I type, I have a 2000 lb. tree that was uprooted and came through the roof of my house. I have been waiting several days for the insurance adjuster to come look at it, but this situation is also in demand of my time. My plate is full, but I trust my Lord that the things with which I must contend are not more than I can bear. He knows what He is doing.

Love You All!

(MN: A tree through your roof? Wow. I think I would understand if your comments were a little scarce for a while. And when you add in getting a degree in nursing…. )

Saiko is a man. I did not want anyone to be confused.

Melvin, I hope I am not wasting your time by posting this but I expected to see a “MN” to clear up that issue. Thanks.

I hope you enjoyed the effort you spent during your study in addressing his position. And I trust other folks out there got something out of it. It’s clear Aubrey has made up his mind and has no intention of allowing the facts to get in the way.

As Worf, son of Mogh would say “Study?!? Klingons do not study! They simply beat the problem to a pulp until it submits. ” I fear young Aubrey is in the same position. All he has done so far is make a statement, over and over again. It ends here. No more benevolence.

Lange nicht gesehen. Du fehlst mir, mein Freund.
Herzliche Willkommen!

Indeed, BooBoo’s Dad, let us just trust G-d. Wouldn’t it simplify our lives?

Love,
Peter

O.K., dickkopf here sititng at his computer getting - as we say in Hawai`i (notice the grave accent correctly given) - chicken skin as you refute Aubrey’s argument.

The only reason why I would not be “ascraird” of you in a dark alley, 4RC, is because I think we are on the same side.

Nevertheless, you should be placed under armed guard; you are dangerous. I’ll throw IC, GaryV, and even Righter into the mix, here as well. Other Pimpeteers will be considered as my addled brain allows.

As always . . . in Christian love,
Peter

First of all Biblical faith is not a “metaphysical” construct.

To memory, (back in the 70’s and early 80’s) these type of teachings came out of the Hagan/Roberts camp. I believe Oral was one of the first to really teach about this…and a book was written by Kenneth H. saying “Have Faith In Your Faith” Similarly, they coined the saying “Have The Faith Of God”

Dr. Hanegraaff put together “Christianity In Crisis” and has a revised audio book with “in context” audio sound bites of these guys stating what they mean for themselves. They teach that words are a “container of faith” and they further describe faith as a metaphysical “substance” or property and something that can be used to create reality, and say that God created the universe by “faith filled” words.

In short, I believe Saiko gave one of the best summaries. She said “…you would use that as proof that God has faith, but if you know the grammatical structure in the Gk, you would notice that the word “θεοῦ” (God) is in the genitive case meaning that God is the “object” of faith. In the end, you would have to discard your unbiblical notion and submit to the scripture and other related passages which clearly teaches that God is the object and source of our faith.”

Biblical faith has an object and that object is God. It is not a metaphysical entity and cannot be transferred like money or clothes or other material. This is the failure of WOF teaching. They confuse categories and want to materialize everything in the here and now as a proof of relationship with God. Similar to current Humanist dogma and to some teachings of Second Century gnosticism, the focus is on self, material gain and what improves the natural resources of our immediate community. Spirituality, in this case Christianity, is used as a means to an end.

Aubrey ~ you use a bad analogy and although I’m not an expert, I believe you use circular reasoning which in this case is flawed.

You said this, “God has dealt to each man a measure of faith.” How can God deal to us something he doesn’t have?”

There are 2 ways I take that statement in light of what you are contending. They are as follows: 1- God has operative faith as a part of his essence and because he does he can give it to us, 2- Because God experiences and uses faith, he requires us to experience and use faith too.

WOF teaches what I said under # 2. However, either way, you state that we can’t receive from HIM what he doesn’t have.

Now the latter observation is true but you open up a WHOLE can of worms and a TOTAL theological mess for yourself trying to explain either or both #1 and/or #2 in the context of the nature of God.

Rather than dance, you know simply that WOF teaches that “God HAS FAITH” Your suggestions are in line with their teaching. Therefore it is evident what you are saying here. Since I’m a guest, I’ll just cut to the point.

2 Peter 1:3-4 “According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.”

What we have RECEIVED from HIM (including FAITH) is because WE NEED IT, not because he needs it or used it in any way for himself. HE has the abundance of what we need,

Ps. 23:1~ “The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.”

Faith is for our benefit and access to HIM and his promises. Your suggestion sets that truth on its ear. It is incredulous for a believer to twist scripture to justify the false presupposition of metaphysical reality by implying that God has what he has because he had to use it at some point.

If what WOF suggests is true, we must apply the same sort of reasoning consistently. To the point, as believers we have received salvation. DID GOD at ANY point have to be saved or get salvation from someplace to fit our needs? Healing…where did God get that from? Was he healed at any time? I could go on and on, but the point is clear. God has an abundance of what WE need not because he had to get it for himself or use it in any way to benefit himself. Faith is for those of us in the flesh. For the fleshly and Earthly reality.

Taking faith as we know it and imposing our construct upon God is like asking what color does water taste like? It is a total categorical mistake. To be specific look at this

Pistis or faith in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man’s relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it
1a) relating to God
1a1) the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ
[Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.}]

The application of faith was from Man toward God, not from God to creation, God to man or God to himself. That’s silly.

So I’ll gladly level criticism at Joel’s doctrine and belief. He consistently says he’s not a theologian. That’s yet NO EXCUSE for total misrepresentations of scripture such as he is perpetrating. Every Pastor, (theologian, scholar or not) has culpability for what he teaches the flock of God. This teaching in particular promotes an unbiblical and unhealthy relationship between God, Faith and Man and is more akin to belief and value systems that the early Second Century church put down centuries ago.

Just some food for thought. Thanks.

My Spanish Bible, translated in 1569 by Casiodoro de Reina, and revised by Cipriano de Valera in 1602 quotes Mark 11:22 as follows: “… respondiendo Jesus, les dice: Tened fe en Dios….” This means “… have faith IN God …”

My German Bible, translated by Martin Luther in 1534 quotes Mark 11:22 as follows: “… und Jesus antwortete und sprach zu ihnen: Habt Glauben an Gott!” This means “… have faith IN God.” I also use a more modern German translation, the “Good News in Today’s German,” which quotes Mark 11:24 this way: “…Jesus antwortete: Ihr mußt nur Gott vertrauen!…” which means: “… just trust God!”

Granted, the translations of these Bibles also depends upon the interpretations of those who translated them, just like my English versions do, but the general consesus of all three translations leads me to conclude that the message is pretty clear here … “have faith IN God” … The WOF interpretation is wrong! There is nothing here that tells me that I must have the “God kind of faith” … I fell for that garbage for years when I was in a WOF church!!!! Then I started reading my Bibles !!!!

It’s difficult to see the direction in which you are going. Just a couple of observations. You mentioned ablackman building and tearing down a strawman. Hmmm…First of all, you know as well as I do that in order for a strawman argument to occur a few things need to happen:

1. You have to give a misrepresentation of the opponent’s position and then refute the misrepresentation, giving off the idea that the opponent’s position has been refuted.
(Note: ablackman did not misrepresent anything you said. HE MADE A STATEMENT TO YOU ABOUT WHAT JOEL OSTEEN SAID. In his statement, Joel’s position was definitely not misrepresented, as we’ve all seen the damaging effects of his teaching on “faith”.)

2. You have to quote an opponent’s words out of context, or pick out quotes that don’t represent that person’s whole view about something. (Note: Did ablackman do this to you? Perhaps you did, by building your own strawman on the words “of” and “in” without using the scriptures you quoted in any kind of context. More in this in a minute.)

3. You have to look at the one who defends a certain position poorly, refute their argument, and then make like that person’s position is representative of all who believe that position, thus making the position appear to be defeated. (Note: Provided we don’t really know what your position is, you can’t say we meet this criteria. However, we’d sure like to know, and we’d sure like to see you expound upon it—using scripture of course. Neither did ablackman say that what you believe, is what everybody believes and then claim your position to be defeated. Go ahead and rule this one out as proof of a strawman.)

4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, such that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical. (I REALLY don’t think ablackman did this. Nuff said.)

5. Finally, you’d have to oversimplify a person’s argument, then attack the simplified version. (Note: Believe me, the refuse that Joel pumps out every Sunday is simple enough in itself. It’s simple enough for me to understand I can do without it. Unfortunately, it’s not as simple for the many MNR’s that attend his services. I don’t think anyone ever assumed you or your argument was simple.)

So, I’d be interested in knowing just what you mean by your statements. I could respond to what you said above, but I don’t think that would be fair until we know exactly where you stand. Oh, by the way, one more thing. It’s funny how you are asking how God can give something He doesn’t posess. That’s very interesting. Hmmmm…I wonder if that’s true of the many other things God gives out, like…

“Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.” (1 Kings 22:23) (Note: God gave out a LYING SPIRIT. Is that what He is? A liar?)

“Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech:” (Judges 9:23)

” But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.” (1 Samuel 16:14) (Note: God sent an EVIL SPIRIT. Is that what He is? Does he have an evil spirit? Is He evil?)

“For the LORD thy God [is] a consuming fire, [even] a jealous God.” (Deuteronomy 4:24) (Note: Right now I’m gonna pull an Oprah. “What!!! God is jealous of me? God is not jealous of me! That’s not how God is!” Here’s what Oprah missed: “For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present [you as] a chaste virgin to Christ.” (2 Corinthians 11:2) If I was to just stick with Deuteronomy 4:24, maybe I’d be attending one of Oprah and Eckhart’s seminars.)

Lastly, don’t you end your messages with “In Christ”? If Christ is “in” you, doesn’t he have to “posess” the same things that YOU posess? Don’t you sin? Is Christ a sinner? Don’t you get impatient? Is Christ impatient? If He is “in” you, don’t you both share the same substance and abilities? How come you haven’t done every miracle and shown all the power that Christ showed while He was on earth if He is “in” you? Do you share a part of the hypostatic union? How come you’re not a member of the Trinity if He is “in” you? Okay Aubrey, maybe this is a stretch and I’m sure you don’t believe any of this. But if you see how misleading this could be, why didn’t you sign your messages “of” Christ instead of “in” Christ? Wow, seems like “strawmen” come a dime a dozen…

Soli Deo Gloria,

R4C

What those people is some Spirit-filled Bible exposition to get them into the Biblical Gospel and out of the “rainless cloud” preaching of Joel “Willow Boy” Osteen

Just a small point to be pedantic, Aubrey — “understand and speak ancient Greek”… First, it’s not ancient Greek, but Koine Greek. Ancient Greek hadn’t been in use for over 300 years by the time the NT was written.

Second, almost no NT scholar “speaks” Koine Greek, but reads and translates it.

I’ve studied Greek and I can vouch for the fact that, as eucatastrophe says below, “pistis theou” can mean faith in God, faithfulness of God, etc. Pistis means faith, trust, belief. Theos means God. The genitive ending (ou) often calls for a translation like “of ____”, but certainly does NOT demand such a translation, since there are over 20 “types” of genitive constructions.

Many of the translations you cited are either very early versions or updates of those versions. Remember that NT Greek study has advanced continuously since the Reformers first began going back to the original texts and not translating from Latin! So, of course we understand better today how best to translate various passages and constructions — we have better, older manuscripts, archaeological finds that have clarified things that people didn’t understand in the early days of translation, etc.

The bottom line is this: FAITH as a concept is meaningless apart from the OBJECT of that faith. If I really, really, really have faith in the blue dry-erase marker on my desk, that doesn’t mean that it’s going to answer my prayers!! “FAITH” is not a substance! It’s a relationship with an object. I have faith that this chair is going to hold me up. I have faith that when I press these little buttons, they’re going to make letters appear on this screen. I am relating to these objects, trusting that they’ll do what their nature requires.

In the same way, I have a relationship of FAITH with God. He has caused me, by the work of his Spirit, to TRUST him (Eph 2:8-9). Apart from trusting in Christ, I cannot relate to God. But I do trust that he will act according to his nature and promises. THAT is faith.

(MN: It’s not incontrovertibly obvious that your statement is so. It is, however, incontrovertibly obvious that you intend to continue to make unsupported statements as though your statement of them makes it true. You ignore everything folks say and mindlessly repeat your statement. You’re done on this thread.

The rest was deleted. But I will tell you that Aubrey stated that faith is substance. )

In Christ,
Aubrey Thomas

First of all, you must understand that CONTEXT, SYNTAX, and other forms of interpreting the text is crucial if you are going to become acute and precise when you handle passages such as Mk. 11:22. I gave you and others who hold to this erroneous and heretical doctrine the grammatical structure and flow of that passage previously in the original language and you still have yet to understand or accept it as accurate. This is why scripture teaches us that many of us shouldn’t be teachers b/c we would be judged more severely (Jas. 3:1).

Second, you need to be very careful not to place so much stock on “man” and their interpretation of the Bible as your support to defend doctrines which are clearly against the teachings of scripture and have been championed against for centuries. Translations are just what they are-TRANSLATIONS! God has used men to transmit His word and they should always be faithful to present His word as it was intended when the original authors wrote what they wrote.

Thirdly, I’ll take a stab at your comment from Rom. 12:3 and Jude 3 and tie it into your implication of God having to have faith, but if you at least do not have some understanding of basic Greek and construction of grammar, this will be of no benefit to you.

In Rom. 12:3, the phrase “as God has alloted to each a measure of faith” is in the active voice meaning that the subject (God) is the performer of the action. In other words Aubrey, God is the one who gives faith b/c He is the source of faith. For you to assume that b/c God gives something (i.e. faith) means that He has to posses it too; implying again that God has to use or exercise faith in order for Him to accomplish His purposes is a very dangerous conclusion that you may yourself want to recant & reconsider.

Lastly, regarding Jude 3 I agree w/Mel on that one, but I will again point you to the grammatical structure of the original language to clarify my point concerning this passage. The term, “the faith” is a definite article describing what kind of faith Jude is talking about.

Jude isn’t speaking about faith that the believer needs to place his/her trust in. He is speaking about THE FAITH (not “a” faith) that every Christian needs to fight for; which is the body of biblical truth revealed and delivered to the saints in the scriptures “once for all”.

God grants repentance (2 Tim. 2:25). Does that mean that since He grants it that He needs to exercise repentance on Himself since there is so much sin and corruption going on in the world since He knew what the world would end up being like when Adam sinned? Who does God need to repent to? Who is greater than Him (Isa. 40:18; 46:5)? If God has faith, (and He doesn’t) His faith would have to be placed in someone greater than He is to accomplish His purposes (Dt. 4:35; 32:39; Isa. 44:6).

In conclusion, does God posses faith? Yes, in the sense that all things are from, to, and for Him for His glory (Rom. 11:36), but not in your understanding that he exercises it which is completely foreign to scripture.

Got it? Good

P.S. Sorry Mel for the long blog, I’ll try to do better next time.

(MN: No problem. Just a reminder though about paragraphing. )