wof positive confession

tbeachhead

Active member
Last part 12: the late Fred Price

I've seen Fred only a couple of times, and I've liked him...

1. "We ALLOW God." That's claimed by more than one WoF teacher. It's nonsense. We wield delegated authority. His delegated authority. Abraham was the best example...Abraham did not ALLOW God to destroy Sodom...He prevented Lot's demise by intercession, but Sodom's day was over. God and man work together...that is the nature of stewardship, and the responsibility is all ours.

Paul got instructions through the storm, not authority over the storm. Our authority can calm storms...but faith must first be perfected in us, as a seed must first grow to a sapling before it becomes an orchard. The orchard is the ultimate outcome of the seed, but never the first fruit.

On the other hand, Satan cannot do anything that we have not allowed him to do. He is no longer the god of this earth, and has only that authority that he can usurp from man...and, as we have seen recently, there are plenty who are willing to be usurped, which is the problem of the warfare the church is faced with...

2. This, too, is naïve. The landowner still owns the land. The vinedressers never have the right to claim the vineyard for their own...so they can kill the prophets, and ultimately the son. We can know that the landowner is going to come back and reap what he has not sown. God saw that the thought and the intention of the heart was only evil always...and acted without consulting Noah. He saved Noah without Noah's consent...but with his complete cooperation. God COoperates...because He does not micro-manage. But he ascribes authority, and then exacts the fruit thereof.

3. We went over this before...But there's error in Matt's claim. Fred's saying Jesus' ministry had sufficient funds to carry on the ministry...he said nothing about the disciples having "LOTS" of money. And the treasury was indeed stolen from. The treasury gave alms to the poor. The treasury took care of those who traveled with Jesus, up to 120 people...if you're counting the folks in the upper room. The treasury bought the food at Sychar, as Jesus sat at the well talking to the woman. If you've ever been a part of an itinerant team, as I have, it's not sustainable to think that you're sent out every time without money. Those two times the twelve and the seventy plus or minus were sent out were times where Jesus promised supernatural provision, and told them specifically not to take money. The team generally had money to afford the logistics of travel. Women provided from their means (Lk 8)...gifts were being given to the ministry.

Let me add...the whole dispute in Jerusalem, where the Hellenist widows were not taken care of, and so deacons were appointed...that was all a matter of distribution that came from the treasury. Deacons were put in charge of it. Judas might well be thought of as the first deacon...who ever embezzled church funds.
 
Last edited:

Mikey1967

Member
I will answer as I have time. Mostly one at a time.
Perfection of union would preclude the choice of disobedience. Just saying. I'm not sure what this has to do with satan's nature, but it has everything to do with Adam's nature.
I believe this is an issue of definition. I cannot see that perfect in union would preclude the ability of disobedience. I would suggest that love cannot exist without the ability to choose. Choose to love or choose not to, choose to obey or choose to not obey. Hence the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden. I would further suggest that as Adam and Eve obeyed, they stayed in the state of perfect union with God.

Read 1 Corinthians 13, Mikey. This contradicts what love is. Love never fails. Love was in Adam. Or...love's seed was in Adam. Adam was God's choice companion...but Love was not perfected in Adam.
I would suggest that it was perfected. But love cannot exist without the ability to choose. Otherwise, we are simply robots programmed to do a certain thing. I would agree with your choice of verses. It describes this completely before Adam chose to rebel. Once He rebelled, he lost the image of God in him.

Now you're quoting the authority...but Eve really needed Adam at one point. Adam knew his dominion over the serpent. It was Adam's role to watch over the garden...Adam had dominion over everything that creeped, including creepy serpents. Adam alone had heard what God had actually said...She needed him, and the serpent went to her...because he knew, having been formed before her, that she had not heard God speak that word.
Perhaps I did not make my point clear. I am not talking about needs such as partnering together in task. This is needing nothing in perfect union with love where neither needs to "have their needs met" by the other because that need of love wholly met by God.

The Adam Adam was died the moment he obeyed sin. Potential dies, and that Adam is dead.
I see something different here. Life came as God breathed into Adam where he became the possessor of the Image of God. That image is what created life in Adam. When he sinned and that image was lost or died that day and Adams body began to die. Albeit taking many years. I am not sure we can claim that "potential" is what died, or perhaps "potential" was a subsequent of what died.

Satan's nature is the nature of the enemy. I do not believe that those who are being saved are subject to that nature, but victims thereof. The sin nature we've inherited is the attraction that began in the garden with the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life...that which attracted Eve to the fruit in the first place as it is written, and over which we must gain the upper hand.
I don't think I can agree here. Temptation is an outward attempt to solicit. Sin is an inward response birthed from that nature. The nature of the enemy is the absence of the nature of God. What was left after Adam lost the image of God in him, what was left was evil and corrupt. This is why all must be born again, and when this happens, the image of God born into man making him a new creature and in that we are given a new nature, God's nature that was lost in the fall.

Thoughts?
 

Rachel Redux

Active member
Hey tbeachhead, I don't really follow this forum anymore but wow!....this is some impressive work you've done in this thread!!
I do watch Joyce Meyer and for the most part, I like her. I don't see her as WoF though. She may have been more WoF in the beginning but not now.
 

tbeachhead

Active member
Hey tbeachhead, I don't really follow this forum anymore but wow!....this is some impressive work you've done in this thread!!
I do watch Joyce Meyer and for the most part, I like her. I don't see her as WoF though. She may have been more WoF in the beginning but not now.
You're kind, Rachel. Thanks for checking it out. Tallen is up to his provocative best...and I mean that as a high complement. If it weren't for Ted this board would be dead boring.
 

tbeachhead

Active member
I will answer as I have time. Mostly one at a time.

I believe this is an issue of definition. I cannot see that perfect in union would preclude the ability of disobedience. I would suggest that love cannot exist without the ability to choose. Choose to love or choose not to, choose to obey or choose to not obey. Hence the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden. I would further suggest that as Adam and Eve obeyed, they stayed in the state of perfect union with God.
In the Biblical view, perfection is not "sinlessness", it's finished...no longer subject to change. If there is any chance of a shadow of change, it is not perfect. Love, according to Paul, compels. It is a breech of love to turn back.

By Biblical standards, the fear (terror/phobos) of God is the beginning of wisdom. Perfect love drives out all fear. Here we have both the beginning and the end of our walk.

I would suggest that it was perfected. But love cannot exist without the ability to choose. Otherwise, we are simply robots programmed to do a certain thing. I would agree with your choice of verses. It describes this completely before Adam chose to rebel. Once He rebelled, he lost the image of God in him.
The seed in Adam met other seeds that choked the fruit. Don't want to be querulous, but this doesn't work...Apply it to God who is perfect love. He can choose...He has chosen...and He will always choose to love. God is no robot. He is the only standard.

Perhaps I did not make my point clear. I am not talking about needs such as partnering together in task. This is needing nothing in perfect union with love where neither needs to "have their needs met" by the other because that need of love wholly met by God.
There is a specious argument that God doesn't need us and never did. Love needs an object.

I see something different here. Life came as God breathed into Adam where he became the possessor of the Image of God. That image is what created life in Adam. When he sinned and that image was lost or died that day and Adams body began to die. Albeit taking many years. I am not sure we can claim that "potential" is what died, or perhaps "potential" was a subsequent of what died.
This is too complicated for me. You might be right. Scripture says we are body, soul and spirit. The word spirit is "breath" in Greek and Hebrew. We learn from Moses that the soul (nephesh) of the animal is in the blood, that is why we do not partake of blood...until we partake of the communion with Christ. Watch how this works...The spirit/breath goes into the nostrils...into the soul/blood...and man becomes a living soul. The blood goes out to fill and cleanse the flesh. It was always first spirit then blood then body, until the fall...and the flesh took over, and began to war with the soul. It's interesting that many English translations take the word nephesh/soul, and replace it with "life", obfuscating the meaning. They say, "The life of the animal is in the blood..." which actually doesn't make sense.

I don't think I can agree here. Temptation is an outward attempt to solicit.
To solicit disobedience. OK...this is good.
Sin is an inward response birthed from that nature.
OK. The nature of the enemy is the absence of the nature of God.[/quote]The adversary's nature is to oppose God. God's nature is to love.
What was left after Adam lost the image of God in him, what was left was evil and corrupt.
This looks a little tulippy...Total depravity...

I can't argue this, but Adam is still in the image and likeness of God, yet with sin. In other words, man is redeemable. "The eyes of the Lord search to and fro throughout the earth to show himself strong on behalf of the one whose heart is perfect toward him." I cannot believe God's eyes waste their time in a futile search...and I see he found Noah. He found Abraham, He found David...He even found Nebuchadnezzar. God shows Himself strong on behalf of the one who does justly, loves mercy and walks humbly. These do exist. I even met one once...

This is why all must be born again, and when this happens, the image of God born into man making him a new creature and in that we are given a new nature, God's nature that was lost in the fall.
The born again experience reestablishes the original Adamic authority that Jesus redeemed on behalf of His Bride.

Thoughts?
So glad CARM is back...and grateful for your insights.
 
Top