 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > Spiritual warfare -- how does it work? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/6/2004 7:32 AM (GMT -6) |   | PS Was I supposed to say something about “influence”? Well, it seems to me that the influence one person exercises over another can be greater or lesser, depending on the circumstances and the purpose for which influence is exercised. Isn’t it the case that to exercise influence over another is to exercise a certain kind of ‘power’? It could include a determining power that guarantees some effect or a less than determining power which seeks to bring about some effect but which does not in fact guarantee it. I might say that Selah’s comments ‘influenced’ me to contribute to this thread without meaning she determined me to do so. This sort of influence is consistent with an open future. And this is the sort of influence open theists believe God exercises where the purpose of exercising influence is to win the heart and affections of some person. But there can be stronger, more determining, sorts of influence too, as the sort of influence alcohol has over an alcoholic on Fridays just after pay-time. That sort of influence might be determining or very nearly so. So influence, it appears, can be exercised along a continuum from minimal levels that are consistent with leaving the future open and maximal levels that actually determine outcomes.
The point is that relationships between persons, if they’re inter-personal, reciprocal, and loving, always have different levels of influence firing back and forth. It’s impossible to have a relationship with another person and not both influence and be influenced by the other person. No problem there. What doesn’t make sense is calling a relationship where one person unconditionally determines everything (choices, responses, emotions, thoughts) about another person ‘personal’, ‘loving’, or ‘reciprocal’. That sort of 'influence' cannot produce loving and personal relationships.
So where God is interested in developing and maintaining loving personal relationships, he refrains from exercising the sort of influence that "determines" what he's looking for, because such influence cannot but fail to produce what God's interested in. But where God is not interested in developing personal and loving relationships (like with demons?), such determining influence can be exercised, but there are no doubt OTHER factors that contribute to whether or not God ends up exercising this kind of influence. We don't know. But we can be confident about what matters, namely, that with respect to any evil it's the case that God did all he could (given all the factors involved--his purposes, our free wills, the activity of demons and angels, and on and on) to prevent and minimize it.
So what was the question? 
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
 |
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 10/6/2004 9:15 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
But where God is not interested in developing personal and loving relationships (like with demons?), such determining influence can be exercised, but there are no doubt OTHER factors that contribute to whether or not God ends up exercising this kind of influence.
Are you simply refering to TWT5 (freedom is irrevocable)? Or do you have other possible factors in mind? Or are you content to say this is part of the mystery of evil (complexity of creation) without the need to explain or systematize it through abductive reasoning (like Doc)?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/6/2004 9:41 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Tom: But where God is not interested in developing personal and loving relationships (like with demons?), such determining influence can be exercised, but there are no doubt OTHER factors that contribute to whether or not God ends up exercising this kind of influence.
JET: Are you simply refering to TWT5 (freedom is irrevocable)? Or do you have other possible factors in mind? Or are you content to say this is part of the mystery of evil (complexity of creation) without the need to explain or systematize it through abductive reasoning (like Doc)?
I was thinking TWT1 (Love requires freedom) for the most part. Where God wants loving and responsive relationship, the kind of influence he exercises on the relationship has to allow for the sort of freedom such love requires. Right. Irrevocability too in situations where that applies. I keep remembering way back from the “Carlie” thread (page 7) where I suggested that in a fallen and sinful world the good of the one and the good of the whole sometimes conflict, that is, are sometimes not conjointly maximizable, in which cases I think (without pretending to be able to unravel the conflict in every imaginable case) God goes with the good of the whole. This reflects TWT5 I suppose, but the idea that the good of one and the good of the whole might sometimes “conflict” and so not be conjointly achievable isn’t something TWT1-6 even mentions. So in addition to TWT1 (love requires freedom) and TWT5 (freedom is irrevocable) you have perhaps TWT7 (the “good” doesn’t always boil down to the good of the ONE; sometimes the good of the one and the good of the whole are not conjointly maximizable). That's another factor that might explain some particular evil.
Tom
Page 7 I think: http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3043 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/6/2004 11:02 AM (GMT -6) | | That's a good question Lock. Can we NOT discuss it here on this thread since this one isn't about universalism?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 10/6/2004 11:16 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
quote:
Tom: But where God is not interested in developing personal and loving relationships (like with demons?), such determining influence can be exercised, but there are no doubt OTHER factors that contribute to whether or not God ends up exercising this kind of influence.
JET: Are you simply refering to TWT5 (freedom is irrevocable)? Or do you have other possible factors in mind? Or are you content to say this is part of the mystery of evil (complexity of creation) without the need to explain or systematize it through abductive reasoning (like Doc)?
I was thinking TWT1 (Love requires freedom) for the most part. Where God wants loving and responsive relationship, the kind of influence he exercises on the relationship has to allow for the sort of freedom such love requires. Right. Irrevocability too in situations where that applies. I keep remembering way back from the “Carlie” thread (page 7) where I suggested that in a fallen and sinful world the good of the one and the good of the whole sometimes conflict, that is, are sometimes not conjointly maximizable, in which cases I think (without pretending to be able to unravel the conflict in every imaginable case) God goes with the good of the whole. This reflects TWT5 I suppose, but the idea that the good of one and the good of the whole might sometimes “conflict” and so not be conjointly achievable isn’t something TWT1-6 even mentions. So in addition to TWT1 (love requires freedom) and TWT5 (freedom is irrevocable) you have perhaps TWT7 (the “good” doesn’t always boil down to the good of the ONE; sometimes the good of the one and the good of the whole are not conjointly maximizable). That's another factor that might explain some particular evil.
My question has to do with situations "where God is not interested in developing personal and loving relationships"; that is, why doesn't God just wipe out solidified evil agents? TWT1 and your TWT7 don't answer this. TWT5 is the only answer I've seen proposed so far (at least in the context of the open view). So back to my original question, in your view does the answer (as to why God doesn't exterminate solified evil agents) lie primarily in TWT5, or are other factors at play, or is it a mystery? | | Back to Top | | |
|
barryatk
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 101
| Posted 10/6/2004 11:44 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
quote:
Originally posted by JEE
I'm pretty sure I recall Derek Prince publicly disavowing his former "shepherding/discipleship" teachings, which he, Mumford, Baxter, et al had promoted (with much controversy) in the 1970s.
Spen,
I'm interested in precisely what flaws you perceive in Prince's teachings on deliverance. I have his _Spirit-Filled Believer's Handbook_ (a compilation of much of his earlier teaching), and I used to hear him regularly on the radio, but I don't recall anything that controversial in that book with regard to deliverance per se. (My background is classical Pentecostal (A/G and CoG), and my exposure to the more extreme teachings of the charismatic movement has been mainly by way of reading their writings).
Thanks,
John
John,
I am traveling and probably can't answer you in as much detail as would be nice. What I believe was most harmful in Derek's teachings were the concepts themselves on the nature of spiritual warfare. Beyond the promoting the deliverance ministry of exorcism as a means for Christians to grow in sanctification, the groundwork was laid for a "Christian Gladiator" type concept where we get on our armor and recite special prayers of power that have the ability to bind the devil or some sub-set of his servants in a certain geographical area or activity. The number of times I've been involved in passionate prayer warfare casting down the devil's power over our city is saddening - at least by what the results have been. Instead of actively "engaging" the devil in our city by simply going out and preaching the gospel as we are commanded to do, we had vans of people praying and setting up "hedges of protection" against the forces of evil in a targeted neighborhood. Based upon Derek's ideas an entire theology of "how to bash the territorial spirits" and what technologies to use against which demons has grown up. C. Peter Wagner and Global Harvest Ministeries have invested millions (I think around $4 million) in IT systems to help them in spiritual mapping in preparation for their apostolic movement http://www.globalharvestministries.org/index.asp?action=about Ted Haggard is the pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs which is affiliated with C. Peter. FYI, this group is also now very involved with the mega-church North Heights Lutheran that is a significant church in the Minneapolis area.
The whole concept of "binding and loosing" the demons is flawed in that the terms "binding and loosing" were rabinical terms for permitting or forbidding in the context of the law. Any serious biblical scholar will support this. The parallel concept of "generational curses" and other latent curses that must be "revealed" by prophets and others gifted in the revelatory also grows out of Derek's teachings. Instead of encouraging Christians that Christ became a curse for us and that curses cannot "get us" because of the gospel, these teachings do the opposite - they belittle the gospel's power. The same goes for the teachings on territorial spirit, et al. I believe that there actually are territorial spirits in some complex hierarchy and that they are malicious and have my best dis-interest in mind. I am grateful for the truths Paul gives us in Colossians and Ephesians that tell us that Christ is over all seated in heaven far above all these beings and that, while they are greater than me, I can have confidence in the blood of Jesus and His promise to keep me.
In summary, I believe that these teachings, while perhaps taught by sincere men, are an attack on the gospel and its sufficiency. Christ has already won the spiritual war. We experience the war of faith to believe His promises in the face of the evil we expereince - this is the battle. We combat the forces of evil not as some spiritual Rambo, but by humbly, boldly and lovingly preaching the gospel to all who will listen.
I may not be very clear but I hope you can deceipher what I mean.
Hey Spen and everyone,
This is a very important subject. I have as some of my favorites the crowd around Haggard and CP Wagner. I also only recently began learning or unlearning about binding powers over cities. When I read about ones doing this it seems soooo right. It seems to have godly effect. Yet it seems we wouldbe better just meeting people...in person and talking of God, Yes? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/6/2004 12:03 PM (GMT -6) | | John: My question has to do with situations "where God is not interested in developing personal and loving relationships"; that is, why doesn't God just wipe out solidified evil agents?
Tom: OooooKaaay. Now I gotcha.
John: TWT1 and your TWT7 don't answer this. TWT5 is the only answer I've seen proposed so far (at least in the context of the open view). So back to my original question, in your view does the answer (as to why God doesn't exterminate solified evil agents) lie primarily in TWT5, or are other factors at play, or is it a mystery?
Tom: OK, then I think the irrevocability of freedom is the best answer. Of course, the end will come in the eschaton, and what factors determine THAT we cannot exactly tell. But God knows.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/7/2004 1:55 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Jeff: If God is already doing ALL He can do at any given time to prevent evil and/or minimize it, would that mean that the only supplications to God that could be effectual are those that don't address eliminating/minimizing evil?
Oh my no. Remember, often what God is “able” to do is defined by our prayers. Take Ezek. 22 for example. God wanted to refrain from bringing destruction upon Israel. But in that case "what God wanted" was tied to the participation of others "standing in the gap." God looked for someone to stand in the gap but found no one. So he brought destruction. What God was able to do in that situation was partly determined by the participation of others. I dont' doubt that it's often the same today.
quote:
Tom: Simply knowing THAT the answer is found in the complexities of creation is enough.
Jeff: Isn't that statement virtually logically equivalent to my claim in the Huguenot thread that God's morality/goodness is not compromised in the least by any lack of intervention to prevent/minimize evil on His part?
They’re not equivalent at all. I think God’s goodness would be compromised if he did not do what he could to prevent/minimize evil. That certainly wouldn’t qualify as ‘omnibenevolent’ in my mind. This is precisely why it is we are able to attribute the mystery of evil to the complexity of creation and not to God. But if as you suppose God simply chooses not to do, all things being equal, what he IS able to do in order to prevent/minimize evil, then the mystery of evil becomes a mystery of God’s will and character and not of the complexity of creation.
quote:
Jeff: Moreover, wouldn't that statement imply that we would need unequivocal scripture to prove that God is as omni-providential as the warfare view claims?
You’ve got this ‘thing’ for demanding explicit and unequivocal scriptural ‘proof’ for beliefs you disagree with. I doubt there is very much at all that is provable in this sense. But it’s not omni-providence that I’m arguing anyhow. It’s omni-benevolence, or love. I don’t know what meaning to give to the word ‘love’ if it’s consistent with being desirous and able to prevent evil but just choosing (all things being equal) not to.
What’s your understanding of love, Jeff?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 10/8/2004 1:12 AM (GMT -6) | | The following verses present both the actions of Satan "filling the heart of Ananias to lie," and the actions of Ananias "conceiving this deed in his heart." It would also be consistent with God sending a "deluding influence" in the goal of judging those whose desires were not for the truth. There seems to be no inconsistency in representing the actions of both, or in this case, all three parties (Satan, God, and man). Peter asks a rhetorical question of "Why" regarding both Satan's and Ananias' actions. I would propose that the answer has to do with the love of the truth. In any case, regarding the spiritual warfare theme of this thresd, ecurity and comfort for Ananias from the "attacks of Satan" are to be found in growing in his love and knowledge of the truth instead of "battling and attacking" Satan directly though some kind of aggressive spiritual warefare technique.
quote:
For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness - because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.
quote:
But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 10/8/2004 1:59 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by spenlake
The following verses present both the actions of Satan "filling the heart of Ananias to lie," and the actions of Ananias "conceiving this deed in his heart." It would also be consistent with God sending a "deluding influence" in the goal of judging those whose desires were not for the truth. There seems to be no inconsistency in presenting both sides. Security and comfort fro Ananias from the "attacks of Satan" are to be found in growing in his love and knowledge of the truth instead of "battling and attacking" Satan directly though some kind of aggressive spiritual warefare technique.
quote:
For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness - because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.
2Thes.2:3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. 5 Do you not remember that while I was still with you, I was telling you these things? 6 And you know what restrains him now, so that in his time he will be revealed. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. 8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; 9 that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, 10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. 11 For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, 12 in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.
weeee ooooo weeee oooooo context police stopping by weeeee ooooo weeee ooooo
| | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 10/8/2004 2:13 AM (GMT -6) | | spen said: quote:
Peter asks a rhetorical question of "Why" regarding both Satan's and Ananias' actions. I would propose that the answer has to do with the love of the truth. In any case, regarding the spiritual warfare theme of this thresd, ecurity and comfort for Ananias from the "attacks of Satan" are to be found in growing in his love and knowledge of the truth instead of "battling and attacking" Satan directly though some kind of aggressive spiritual warefare technique.
Hi spen,
Sorry, but I disagree. I believe that in both of your examples individuals had a choice to take their thoughts captive (thoughts about telling lies/aligning with lawlessness). It was only AFTER (a result of) losing the battle from the "attacks of Satan" that anyone decided to lie or become lawless. Had they FOUGHT and aligned with the TRUTH, everything would have been a. o.k. Right?
So, I think spiritual warfare in both cases had to do with the battle in the mind. I don't think it is so much LOVING the truth (or knowing the truth -- do you think Ananias didn't KNOW the truth?) as it is CHOOSING the Truth either... but maybe that's another thread.
Peace, joy, and love
selah
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 10/8/2004 2:36 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Hi spen,
Sorry, but I disagree. I believe that in both of your examples individuals had a choice to take their thoughts captive (thoughts about telling lies/aligning with lawlessness). It was only AFTER (a result of) losing the battle from the "attacks of Satan" that anyone decided to lie or become lawless. Had they FOUGHT and aligned with the TRUTH, everything would have been a. o.k. Right?
So, I think spiritual warfare in both cases had to do with the battle in the mind. I don't think it is so much LOVING the truth (or knowing the truth -- do you think Ananias didn't KNOW the truth?) as it is CHOOSING the Truth either... but maybe that's another thread.
Peace, joy, and love
selah
Selah,
I don't think that your concept is "contrary" to what I believe. I think that I hold both aspects as true and at work in parallel, which perhaps is logically weird. You state, "I believe that in both of your examples individuals had a choice to take their thoughts captive (thoughts about telling lies/aligning with lawlessness). It was only AFTER (a result of) losing the battle from the "attacks of Satan" that anyone decided to lie or become lawless. Had they FOUGHT and aligned with the TRUTH, everything would have been a. o.k." I agree with this in concept.
We would both be aligned for combatting the attacks of Satan by focusing on what God had promised and declared as true. I believe that this is done through continually feeding on the gospel so that my love of the truth grows and my desires themselves change to value the truth. In my understanding the "choice" that you speak of would be the result of this. However you "choose" the truth and believe and refute the lie, we seem to come together in believing that we do not fight and resist the attacks of Satan directly by taking up some metaphysical weapons, entering the spirit realm and doing battle directly. Instead we fight Satan and his attacks by believing the truth and loving it - and therefore choosing it.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 10/8/2004 3:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Originally posted by spenlake
quote:
Selah,
I don't think that your concept is "contrary" to what I believe. I think that I hold both aspects as true and at work in parallel, which perhaps is logically weird. You state, "I believe that in both of your examples individuals had a choice to take their thoughts captive (thoughts about telling lies/aligning with lawlessness). It was only AFTER (a result of) losing the battle from the "attacks of Satan" that anyone decided to lie or become lawless. Had they FOUGHT and aligned with the TRUTH, everything would have been a. o.k." I agree with this in concept.
cool :)
quote:
We would both be aligned for combatting the attacks of Satan by focusing on what God had promised and declared as true. I believe that this is done through continually feeding on the gospel so that my love of the truth grows
Ok, I think this is where we part - just a bit.
I believe that this is done through continually feeding on Christ (the Bread/living Water) so that my love of Christ (and unity with Him) grows.
The natural outflow of that would be the changing of my desiresto value and live in truth because that is more what I am. As I unite(or become more aware of my union) with Christ through aligning my thoughts with His thoughts, I live in Truth. Does that make sense?
You say you believe feeding on the gospel grows "your love of truth". I say feeding on Christ (and diving into His heart - in relationship) grows my love for Him and results in truth and love.
quote:
In my understanding the "choice" that you speak of would be the result of this.
Yes, moment by moment as we choose to walk in the Light/Spirit we avoid darkness/flesh...and all the consequences that follow.
quote:
However you "choose" the truth and believe and refute the lie, we seem to come together in believing that we do not fight and resist the attacks of Satan directly by taking up some metaphysical weapons, entering the spirit realm and doing battle directly.
oops, I think we disagree here too. I think prayer is our metaphysical weapon... without it (communication with God)we are dead.
While I DO believe we re-form our selves by choosing moment by moment to live in the Light, I ALSO believe we do battle in the spiritual realm. Jesus (who IS the LIGHT) resisted satan and had means to do so. He told us to pray (deliver us from evil) and modeled for us resisting temptation when He was tempted by Satan.
so where you say:
quote:
Instead we fight Satan and his attacks by believing the truth and loving it - and therefore choosing it.
I say: "Instead we fight Satan and his attacks by living in Love/Light/Christ, keeping our minds focused on whatsoever is good/pure/lovely/Christ, and choosing to do that moment by moment for the rest of our lives."
In other words, we know the Truth/Christ, by choosing to live in the Truth/Love/Light/Christ each minute.
I think spiritual warfare is work. One way it is done is by de-powering darkness by pulling it into the Light and exposing it. (Taking thoughts captive and leading them to Christ etc.) Other metaphysical means are mentioned in scripture (this kind comes out only by prayer AND fasting, persistence of prayer etc).
amen?
I love this symbol "/" ha.
Blessings,
selah
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 10/8/2004 5:29 AM (GMT -6) | | | Seems to me that we do a pretty good job of deluding ourselves. I don't know why Paul thinks we need God to send us a "deluding influence". Makes no sense to me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 10/8/2004 5:33 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
quote:
Originally posted by Selah
I think spiritual warfare is work. One way it is done is by de-powering darkness by pulling it into the Light and exposing it.
AMEN!
That’s why is always good practice to make love with the lights on.
ummm... let's just say... ummm ... <---hands the baton to Tom again and gets back to writing her holy paper...
How about those Twins?! | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 10/8/2004 6:16 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Selah
ummm... let's just say... ummm ... <---hands the baton to Tom again and gets back to writing her holy paper...
How about those Twins?!
Sorry Selah, I was only joking. People can get so serious that it starts to wear on ya. “Deluding influence” it sounds like politics, the Sword and the Cross.
In all seriousness, I thought you had an excellent post in responding to spen. I’m a huge advocate of bringing evil out into the light. And I don’t mean to make light of it (no pun intended). I think most people are in denial that they are powerless with out God. Through confession of our weakness the eyes of God can shine transforming light into our lives.
Go Twins!
Mark
P.S. God is not done with the renewing of my mind, I’m a work in process.  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/8/2004 7:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Selah: ummm... let's just say... ummm ... ---hands the baton to Tom again and gets back to writing her holy paper...How about those Twins?
Tom: No need to pass the baton after you've crossed the finish line in first place!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 10/8/2004 7:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey mark, I know. I was just playin'. Also, you can be sure I'm a work in progress too.
agape, agape, agape,
selah
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 10/9/2004 3:50 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 10/9/2004 12:46 PM (GMT -6) | | John,
I also was blessed by your post.
Selah,
you state, quote:
oops, I think we disagree here too. I think prayer is our metaphysical weapon... without it (communication with God)we are dead.
While I DO believe we re-form our selves by choosing moment by moment to live in the Light, I ALSO believe we do battle in the spiritual realm. Jesus (who IS the LIGHT) resisted satan and had means to do so. He told us to pray (deliver us from evil) and modeled for us resisting temptation when He was tempted by Satan.
I disagree with you that prayer is a metaphysical weapon in the sense that I meant it. Extreme examples of what I am referring to can be found in Rick Joyner's book The Final Questin which Christians enter into the realm of the spirit and do actual battle with the evil spirits using weapons like swords, shields, etc. in a metaphysical combat. They imagine themselves in the place of Michael fighting Satan over the body of Moses. Faith is likened to a shield but it isn't a shield. The expression was a metaphor, not something that happens to someone entering the spiritual realm like something out of the "Matrix" and finding a shield to use in the battle.
In as much as we pray according to how scriptures tell us how to pray, this is good. If we beging to bring railing judgments against Satan and his horde in prayer, it is not fine but is sin.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
| 126 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:09 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|