Dake Bible Discussion BoardA LETTER TO THE MAN THAT BROUGHT ME TO MY FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH 41 YEARS AGO

General Discussion Forum devoted to the study of God's Word in Honor of Finis J. Dake.
Post Reply
User avatar
Spiritblade Disciple
Moderator
Posts: 5509
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 6:27 pm

Re: Kenneth E. Hagin Badmouthed a Preacher

Post by Spiritblade Disciple »

Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 4:32 pm
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 10:19 am
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Wed May 06, 2020 4:25 pm
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Wed May 06, 2020 10:24 am
branham1965 wrote:
Wed May 06, 2020 9:36 am
Kenneth E. Hagin was badmouthing a preacher who fell.The Lord spoke to him and said you would not have done as well in his shoes.
This is a great point.
branham1965 wrote:
Wed May 06, 2020 10:37 am
Dad Hagin's son Kenneth Jr. said he NEVER heard his father speak badly about anyone in his life.Not once.
If i recall it some preachers who were talking about the fallen preacher.
And, yet, by your post, above, we know that Kenneth E. Hagin did, indeed, badmouth at least one preacher. Just because Kennether Jr. doesn't recall it and/or didn't witness it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
branham1965 wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 9:30 am
Rev. Kenneth E. Hagins books the New Birth and the 6 page sheet understanding the New Birth would help anyone on this.
How so? It's been a while since I read Hagin's The New Birth.


branham1965 wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 12:47 pm
The understanding the new birth paper explains what happens in salvation.What spirit soul and body are and its great.
I'll see if I can locate that paper.

Is this it?

Understanding the New Birth PDF
branham1965 wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 7:24 pm
Thanks Roger.That is it.I believe anything he wrote or taught.My Pastor honored him openly.
Hagin still is a great Bible teacher. He being dead yet speaks.

That said, I cannot say that I agree with him on everything or believe everything as he wrote or taught. But, I still hold him in very high esteem.


Matthew 5:19-20 New King James Version
"Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

User avatar
Spiritblade Disciple
Moderator
Posts: 5509
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 6:27 pm

Re: Wesley: What is Sin?

Post by Spiritblade Disciple »

In 1725, in a letter to her son, John, Susanna Wesley wrote: Whatever weakens your reason, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, takes off your relish for spiritual things, whatever increases the authority of the body over the mind, that thing is sin to you, however innocent it may seem in itself.
branham1965 wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 7:36 pm
I first saw that quote when i was in Akron.
I it is think John and Charles Wesley listened to their mother.
Pastor Parsley said it will cost a person to have the anointing on their life.
I concur.


Matthew 5:19-20 New King James Version
"Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

User avatar
Spiritblade Disciple
Moderator
Posts: 5509
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 6:27 pm

Re: Joyce Meyer, Steven Furtick, & Richard Rohr

Post by Spiritblade Disciple »

Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 4:49 pm
branham1965 wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 12:48 pm
Joyce Meyer :angel: :angel: :angel: had a great message today on judgement,on being being critical and other related subjects.
Sounds like it was good. I'm glad you liked it.

Speaking of TV preachers/teachers... I saw a clip of Steven Furtick, recently, where he was quoting from Richard Rohr. I'm only vaguely familiar with Rohr, but the fact that Furtick is quoting him is significant, in my mind.

Furtick's quote from Rohr went something like this... The opposite of faith isn't doubt or fear... The opposite of faith is certainty.
branham1965 wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 7:31 pm
What do you think he meant by certainty Roger??

Pastor Furtick was one of Pastor Parsleys students right??
Yes, in a way. Furtick did not attend World Harvest Bible College or Valor. He has a doctorate from a Southern Baptist seminary and was mentored by someone that was very close to Billy Graham. Furtick speaks highly of Parsley and has stated that he listened to as many of Parsley's (and Jakes') sermons as possible, while he was growing up and becoming a preacher.

I think 'certainty' is being absolutely sure of something. I think that is what Furtick understood Rohr to mean.

I found a clip of Rohr on the topic which confirms that is what Rohr likely had in mind in whatever portion of Rohr's works that Furtick got that from. Faith, according to Rohr, isn't certainty. It is trust in the midst of doubt and fear.

I don't know that I agree or disagree, yet. Still digesting.


Matthew 5:19-20 New King James Version
"Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

User avatar
Spiritblade Disciple
Moderator
Posts: 5509
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 6:27 pm

Regarding Furtick

Post by Spiritblade Disciple »

Years ago, Bibleman posted an interesting article about Furtick:
► Show Spoiler
I was greatly disappointed to learn of such practices and that many ministries do similar things.


Matthew 5:19-20 New King James Version
"Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

Hill Top
Blessings are Upon the Head of the Just
Posts: 1720
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:29 pm

Re: Wesley: What is Sin?

Post by Hill Top »

Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 6:42 pm
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 3:13 pm
In 1725, in a letter to her son, John, Susanna Wesley wrote: Whatever weakens your reason, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, takes off your relish for spiritual things, whatever increases the authority of the body over the mind, that thing is sin to you, however innocent it may seem in itself.
Would you agree with Mrs. Wesley?
branham1965 wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 7:52 pm
YES!!!
BUT that cancels out most of us .

That includes sinless perfection cuckoo birds.
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 8:06 pm
And, yet, Wesley went on to develop and believe in the doctrine of Entire Sanctification or Irradication of the Old Man.

Imagine being totally free of even the most seemingly innocent sins... Any and every thing that weakens your reason, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, takes off your relish for spiritual things, and/or increases the authority of the body over the mind. That would be truly glorious.

Wesley, however, believed that it was possible to be saved and not experience this Entire Sanctification, though.
Hill Top wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 11:26 pm
More double-mindedness in the guise of a teacher.
Wesley was exactly right in the early years of his ministry/writings, but by the end of his life had waffled away the righteousness Jesus died to give us.
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Wed May 06, 2020 12:15 am
How so? Please, explain.
Hill Top wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 12:10 am
How can the UNsanctified be "in Christ"?
Isn't being "in Christ" necessary for salvation?
There is no sin "in Christ".
His early writing was 100% on freedom from sin in its entirety, but later on he started to make exceptions like this one on sanctification.
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Wed May 06, 2020 12:15 am
Also, do you agree with his mother's definition of sin?
Hill Top wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 12:10 am
In essence...yes.
But it is couched in the language of 16th (?) century England and open to considerable questioning.
She should have stuck with scripture. ie...1 John 5:17..."All unrighteousness is sin:..."
I am not surprised that you aren't able to see what John Wesley saw concerning the difference between salvation and sanctification.
Hill Top wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 5:16 pm
It worries me that you aren't wary of someone trying to separate the two.
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 4:28 pm
As to his mother's language? It's 18th century English, which is closer to our own English than the English of the King James Bible. If there is any doubt about what she wrote and how it is meant to be understood, then I question whether or not we can safely understand the King James Bible.
Thank you.
Hill Top wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 5:16 pm
I understood her just fine, but like heeding J Meyer...it is wiser to stick with what scripture teaches instead of what "others" try teaching.
[/spoil]
Why should I be wary of someone trying to discern between salvation and sanctification. I understand both (and one to be an expression of the other) to be progressive processes that will not be complete until glorification. I know that you don't see it that way.
As long as you see sanctification as "progressive" you will never experience it.
What is your definition of "sanctification"?
As to "what 'others' try teaching..."
I'm going to assume you mean women, from your response to Branham1965. I am not keen on women being bishops or deacons. Nor am I keen on a woman teaching or usurping authority over her own husband ("the man" not all men). But, I see no reason that women cannot be teachers, evangelists, prophetesses, or even apostles. Some women are smarter than some men.
The scriptural evidence, (1 Tim 2:12), doesn't dissuade you?
As for Wesley's mother... She was writing to her son. If it's not right for a man to receive instruction from his mother, things are so far of kilter that they probably have no hope of being righted.
As "family hierarchy" is often used to exemplify the relationship between God and the church, your inference is that the church can lead God.
I can't agree with the "Head" being led by the "headed".



User avatar
branham1965
Little Children, Let No Man Deceive You: He that Doeth Righteousness is Righteous, Even as He is Righteous
Posts: 6519
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 1:18 am

Re: Wesley: What is Sin?

Post by branham1965 »

Sanctification is a definite but progressive work of grace.
I agree with The Statement of Fundamental Truth of the Assemblies of God.
I always have believed in Reverend Dakes 16 things a Christian must believe -notes on Genesis DARB.
I notice they believe in the Divine Trinity of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost ,in the Deity of Jesus Christ,justification by faith and believe that by regeneration by the Holy Spirit is essential to personal salvation.
NO BAPTISMAL REGENERATION :shocked!:

What NO ONE on earth teaches is that a believer can never sin ,never miss it,never fail God never need to be restored or renewed to Christ.

Rev.Dake calls these people backsliders.


Hill Top wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 11:30 pm
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 6:42 pm
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 3:13 pm
In 1725, in a letter to her son, John, Susanna Wesley wrote: Whatever weakens your reason, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, takes off your relish for spiritual things, whatever increases the authority of the body over the mind, that thing is sin to you, however innocent it may seem in itself.
Would you agree with Mrs. Wesley?
branham1965 wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 7:52 pm
YES!!!
BUT that cancels out most of us .

That includes sinless perfection cuckoo birds.
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 8:06 pm
And, yet, Wesley went on to develop and believe in the doctrine of Entire Sanctification or Irradication of the Old Man.

Imagine being totally free of even the most seemingly innocent sins... Any and every thing that weakens your reason, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, takes off your relish for spiritual things, and/or increases the authority of the body over the mind. That would be truly glorious.

Wesley, however, believed that it was possible to be saved and not experience this Entire Sanctification, though.
Hill Top wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 11:26 pm
More double-mindedness in the guise of a teacher.
Wesley was exactly right in the early years of his ministry/writings, but by the end of his life had waffled away the righteousness Jesus died to give us.
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Wed May 06, 2020 12:15 am
How so? Please, explain.
Hill Top wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 12:10 am
How can the UNsanctified be "in Christ"?
Isn't being "in Christ" necessary for salvation?
There is no sin "in Christ".
His early writing was 100% on freedom from sin in its entirety, but later on he started to make exceptions like this one on sanctification.
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Wed May 06, 2020 12:15 am
Also, do you agree with his mother's definition of sin?
Hill Top wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 12:10 am
In essence...yes.
But it is couched in the language of 16th (?) century England and open to considerable questioning.
She should have stuck with scripture. ie...1 John 5:17..."All unrighteousness is sin:..."
I am not surprised that you aren't able to see what John Wesley saw concerning the difference between salvation and sanctification.
Hill Top wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 5:16 pm
It worries me that you aren't wary of someone trying to separate the two.
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 4:28 pm
As to his mother's language? It's 18th century English, which is closer to our own English than the English of the King James Bible. If there is any doubt about what she wrote and how it is meant to be understood, then I question whether or not we can safely understand the King James Bible.
Thank you.
Hill Top wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 5:16 pm
I understood her just fine, but like heeding J Meyer...it is wiser to stick with what scripture teaches instead of what "others" try teaching.
[/spoil]
Why should I be wary of someone trying to discern between salvation and sanctification. I understand both (and one to be an expression of the other) to be progressive processes that will not be complete until glorification. I know that you don't see it that way.
As long as you see sanctification as "progressive" you will never experience it.
What is your definition of "sanctification"?
As to "what 'others' try teaching..."
I'm going to assume you mean women, from your response to Branham1965. I am not keen on women being bishops or deacons. Nor am I keen on a woman teaching or usurping authority over her own husband ("the man" not all men). But, I see no reason that women cannot be teachers, evangelists, prophetesses, or even apostles. Some women are smarter than some men.
The scriptural evidence, (1 Tim 2:12), doesn't dissuade you?
As for Wesley's mother... She was writing to her son. If it's not right for a man to receive instruction from his mother, things are so far of kilter that they probably have no hope of being righted.
As "family hierarchy" is often used to exemplify the relationship between God and the church, your inference is that the church can lead God.
I can't agree with the "Head" being led by the "headed".
Last edited by branham1965 on Fri May 08, 2020 8:37 am, edited 3 times in total.



User avatar
Spiritblade Disciple
Moderator
Posts: 5509
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 6:27 pm

Progressive Sanctification: What is it?

Post by Spiritblade Disciple »

Hill Top wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 11:30 pm
As long as you see sanctification as "progressive" you will never experience it.
What is your definition of "sanctification"?
Regarding progressive sanctification, see Dake's notes on 2nd Thessalonians 2:13, in Dake's Annotated Reference Bible.

For a most thorough treatment of the definition of sanctification, see Lesson Thrirty-Four of Dake's God's Plan For Man.


Matthew 5:19-20 New King James Version
"Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

User avatar
Spiritblade Disciple
Moderator
Posts: 5509
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 6:27 pm

1st Timothy 2:12: The Man

Post by Spiritblade Disciple »

Hill Top wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 11:30 pm
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 6:42 pm
As to "what 'others' try teaching..."
I'm going to assume you mean women, from your response to Branham1965. I am not keen on women being bishops or deacons. Nor am I keen on a woman teaching or usurping authority over her own husband ("the man" not all men). But, I see no reason that women cannot be teachers, evangelists, prophetesses, or even apostles. Some women are smarter than some men.
The scriptural evidence, (1 Tim 2:12), doesn't dissuade you?
Notice that 1st Timothy 2:12 speaks of one man. Not men in general.

This is speaking about the relationship between a wife to her husband. Verse thirteen confirms this thought.


Matthew 5:19-20 New King James Version
"Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

User avatar
Spiritblade Disciple
Moderator
Posts: 5509
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 6:27 pm

The Son is Not the Head of His Mother

Post by Spiritblade Disciple »

Hill Top wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 11:30 pm
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 6:42 pm
As for Wesley's mother... She was writing to her son. If it's not right for a man to receive instruction from his mother, things are so far of kilter that they probably have no hope of being righted.
As "family hierarchy" is often used to exemplify the relationship between God and the church, your inference is that the church can lead God.
I can't agree with the "Head" being led by the "headed".
The son is not the head of his mother.


Matthew 5:19-20 New King James Version
"Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven."

Hill Top
Blessings are Upon the Head of the Just
Posts: 1720
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:29 pm

Re: Wesley: What is Sin?

Post by Hill Top »

branham1965 wrote:
Fri May 08, 2020 8:08 am
Sanctification is a definite but progressive work of grace.
I agree with The Statement of Fundamental Truth of the Assemblies of God.
I always have believed in Reverend Dakes 16 things a Christian must believe -notes on Genesis DARB.
I notice they believe in the Divine Trinity of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost ,in the Deity of Jesus Christ,justification by faith and believe that by regeneration by the Holy Spirit is essential to personal salvation.
NO BAPTISMAL REGENERATION :shocked!:

What NO ONE on earth teaches is that a believer can never sin ,never miss it,never fail God never need to be restored or renewed to Christ.
I teach it, so "your" opinion should be changed.
Scripture teaches it too, in 1 John 3:9-10..."Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother."

Fig trees cannot bear grapes.




Hill Top wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 11:30 pm
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 6:42 pm
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 3:13 pm
In 1725, in a letter to her son, John, Susanna Wesley wrote: Whatever weakens your reason, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, takes off your relish for spiritual things, whatever increases the authority of the body over the mind, that thing is sin to you, however innocent it may seem in itself.
Would you agree with Mrs. Wesley?
branham1965 wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 7:52 pm
YES!!!
BUT that cancels out most of us .

That includes sinless perfection cuckoo birds.
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 8:06 pm
And, yet, Wesley went on to develop and believe in the doctrine of Entire Sanctification or Irradication of the Old Man.

Imagine being totally free of even the most seemingly innocent sins... Any and every thing that weakens your reason, impairs the tenderness of your conscience, obscures your sense of God, takes off your relish for spiritual things, and/or increases the authority of the body over the mind. That would be truly glorious.

Wesley, however, believed that it was possible to be saved and not experience this Entire Sanctification, though.
Hill Top wrote:
Tue May 05, 2020 11:26 pm
More double-mindedness in the guise of a teacher.
Wesley was exactly right in the early years of his ministry/writings, but by the end of his life had waffled away the righteousness Jesus died to give us.
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Wed May 06, 2020 12:15 am
How so? Please, explain.
Hill Top wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 12:10 am
How can the UNsanctified be "in Christ"?
Isn't being "in Christ" necessary for salvation?
There is no sin "in Christ".
His early writing was 100% on freedom from sin in its entirety, but later on he started to make exceptions like this one on sanctification.
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Wed May 06, 2020 12:15 am
Also, do you agree with his mother's definition of sin?
Hill Top wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 12:10 am
In essence...yes.
But it is couched in the language of 16th (?) century England and open to considerable questioning.
She should have stuck with scripture. ie...1 John 5:17..."All unrighteousness is sin:..."
I am not surprised that you aren't able to see what John Wesley saw concerning the difference between salvation and sanctification.
Hill Top wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 5:16 pm
It worries me that you aren't wary of someone trying to separate the two.
Spiritblade Disciple wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 4:28 pm
As to his mother's language? It's 18th century English, which is closer to our own English than the English of the King James Bible. If there is any doubt about what she wrote and how it is meant to be understood, then I question whether or not we can safely understand the King James Bible.
Thank you.
Hill Top wrote:
Thu May 07, 2020 5:16 pm
I understood her just fine, but like heeding J Meyer...it is wiser to stick with what scripture teaches instead of what "others" try teaching.
[/spoil]
Why should I be wary of someone trying to discern between salvation and sanctification. I understand both (and one to be an expression of the other) to be progressive processes that will not be complete until glorification. I know that you don't see it that way.
As long as you see sanctification as "progressive" you will never experience it.
What is your definition of "sanctification"?
As to "what 'others' try teaching..."
I'm going to assume you mean women, from your response to Branham1965. I am not keen on women being bishops or deacons. Nor am I keen on a woman teaching or usurping authority over her own husband ("the man" not all men). But, I see no reason that women cannot be teachers, evangelists, prophetesses, or even apostles. Some women are smarter than some men.
The scriptural evidence, (1 Tim 2:12), doesn't dissuade you?
As for Wesley's mother... She was writing to her son. If it's not right for a man to receive instruction from his mother, things are so far of kilter that they probably have no hope of being righted.
As "family hierarchy" is often used to exemplify the relationship between God and the church, your inference is that the church can lead God.
I can't agree with the "Head" being led by the "headed".
[/quote]



Post Reply