Demons

[heb13-13]

Rick: God made man a "choosing creature" and was giving man the opportunity to function as the choosing creature that He had created him to be

God made man to be a choosing creature , certainly, but it takes 3 stages of redemption before he is able to choose properly. Adam and Eve were in phase 1 and certainly weren't making a choice from maturity...no more than a child could choose to drive a car when they couldn't reach the gas and brake.

This is where you need to get into a foundational study of the Law Rick. Until you do, you'll never see how God set them up to fall, and in doing so, obligated Himself in His Law, to redeem them. (ALL of mankind). Someone mentioned this would make God a sinner...well....the New Jerusalem mother marries her sons which would be incest if you read it the wrong way too. We were imputed with Adam's sin. How do you explain that one away in the court of Law?

Genesis 3:15 is God's first promise (His committment) of redemption.

[Charisma]

Hi Rick,

Thanks for the kind word about my post.

I would just like to comment on one thing you said - about man receiving fruit. I would more call it sap. What d'you think?

So then, when we abide in Jesus Christ, the true Vine, we become producers of good fruit - the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, goodness, faith, gentleness, meekness, temperance.

If we are not abiding in Jesus Christ, the true Vine, we produce (as you implied) the fruit of the evil father of our spirits (John 8:44) unto death (both in us, and in others).

[heb13-13]

Hi Rick,

Thanks for the kind word about my post.

I would just like to comment on one thing you said - about man receiving fruit. I would more call it sap. What d'you think?

So then, when we abide in Jesus Christ, the true Vine, we become producers of good fruit - the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, goodness, faith, gentleness, meekness, temperance.

If we are not abiding in Jesus Christ, the true Vine, we produce (as you implied) the fruit of the evil father of our spirits (John 8:44) unto death (both in us, and in others).

Yeah, I think that works well. SAP is ok as long as we don't produce it but rather receive it. We cannot produce anything. And the SAP produces FRUIT so to me the SAP is the Holy Spirit.

We become producers of good fruit only by virtue of abiding in the Vine (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Spirit being in us. We are the branch that the fruit is hung off of. We are the receptacles or "holders" or containers for the fruit. It is the dynamic Life of Christ in us that produces fruit that "remains."

But always our CHOICE who we derive our spiritual life from. It has always been that way since the Garden.

John 14:17
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Blessings,
Rick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

I too, had never thought of Lot as Righteous, but upon further reflection and more miles under my feet, I think I may understand a bit more than I previously did.

When Abraham answered the Lord's call and left Haran, Lot also left with him. This act by Abraham to leave his home (Haran) by faith for "the promised land", is referred to by Paul in Hebrews 11:8 as one of the great acts of faith. Lot was the nephew of Abraham and left Haran, also.

Heb 11:8
By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.

If Abraham is credited with faith for leaving Haran, then why not Lot, too? It doesn't work to say he was younger and had no choice because his sister Milcah was left behind. So, Lot did have a choice and chose to leave with Abraham. This is no less faith than what Abraham exhibited. I think the only reason that Lot's faith was not talked about is because he did not continue to grow/mature spiritually. You could even say that his faith was deteriorating with his ongoing association with the Sodomites. Peter judges him "just" and "righteous" but as you continue to read about Lot you realize that "righteous" does not necessarily equate to being right. We see that in David's life, also. David's and Lot's righteousness is related to their heart's intent. The word vexed is used twice in 2 Peter 2:7-8. The first time it means that Lot was oppressed and the second time it means that he was tormented by the wickedness that surrounded him. However, his decisions were not right/correct decisions. So, Paul gives Abraham praise concerning his faith, but does not mention Lot. Abraham's faith continued to grow and mature.

Also, unlike Lot's son-in-laws, Lot did leave Sodom. His son-in-laws chose to stay but they thought Lot was mocking when he said they should leave. So, they probably thought Lot was a hypocrite. Yeah, why leave now, Lot? Also, Lot sat in the gate (Gen 19:1) and one that sat in the gate of a city was someone that usually had a place of prominence or is an elder or leader in the city. So, it seems that Lot had much invested in Sodom and must have had the acceptance of many in order to be raised up to "sit in the gate." Unlike his wife who looked back at Sodom, longingly, Lot did not look back. He also lied about his two daughters saying they never knew any men, Gen 19:8 (because he had son-in-laws), but he told the men outside "not to do this wicked thing". Lot seems very inconsistent and made a lot of bad decisions and was not right in many things. I think he was a man of weak faith whose heart was mainly captured by prosperity and position. He had moments of faith, but they were few and far between. Lot did not mature in the Lord.

Great question, Richard. My family and I had a very lively discussion about this tonight. My oldest daughter and wife don't know why Peter calls him righteous except maybe because Peter says Lot was vexed from the wickedness around him. I see that Lot had moments of faith in his life but he was not consistent. He made many wrong decisions, but God knows the heart and will always and only be the Judge of men's hearts.

We don't know about Lot's judgment in the Lord's eyes but we do know that God does not hide the story of Lot from us and we can learn from his mistakes (not to repeat them). But regarding Lot's judgement or ours, Paul's words in 2 Cor 8:12 are comforting. "For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not."

I did see your other rather lengthy question to me, today and it touches on many subjects so hang tight.

All the best my friend,
Rick

Hey Rick,

That's great that you and your family had a "lively discussion" about this. It is an old problem. It looks like you got your material from this article http://www.heraldmag.org/literature/bio_6.htm, is that correct? It lays out a very similar argument.

It's funny that you bring up David, because I have the same problem with the Biblical statements concerning the idea that he "did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD" -

1 Kings 15:5 Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.

This verse seems very strange. If we spell out the sins involved in the "matter of Uriah" we see coveting, adultery, deceit, and murder. Right there we have gross violations of four of the ten commandments! And sense he ignored God in all this, we have five violations. And what about the 70,000 Israelites that lost their lives as a direct result of the census he ordered? And what about his many wives? Was that "right in the eyes of the Lord" too? If so, then the Christian doctrine of monogamy is contrary to God's heart, or God changed his morality.

I still don't understand why the Bible would say that Lot was righteous, let alone emphasize it three times in a single verse. And to add to the confusion, the Jewish tradition is that Lot was very wicked! Here's what the Jewish Encyclopedia says:

Lot is generally represented by the Rabbis in an unfavorable light. When the quarrel arose between his shepherds and those of Abraham (Gen. xiii. 7), there was a quarrel between Abraham and Lot also. The latter sent his flocks to graze in fields that did not belong to him; and when Abraham, induced by the complaints of the wronged owners, remonstrated, Lot showed himself rebellious (Targ. of pseudo-Jonathan and Yer. to Gen. xiii. 7; Pesiḳ. R. 3 [ed. Friedmann, pp. 9b-10a]; Gen. R. xli. 6-7). Lot, while separating himself from Abraham, separated himself from God also, saying, "I have no desire either in Abraham or in his God" (Gen. R. xli. 9-10). It was only after the wicked ("rasha'") Lot had left Abraham that God spoke again to the latter (Pesiḳ. R. l.c.; comp. Gen. xiii. 14). Lot was given over to lust; therefore he chose Sodom as his residence (Pesiḳ. R. l.c.; Gen. R. xli. 9), and his daughters' act of incest was due to his neglect. The account of it was therefore read every Saturday in the synagogues as a warning to the public (Nazir 23b; Gen. R. li. 12).

It looks like 2 Peter could be propagating a competing Jewish tradition concerning Lot.

And all this leads to the one question of greatest importance. Why did God fail to report anything that would make Lot look righteous if he intended us to know, as in 2 Peter, that Lot was so very righteous? And what does this tell us about the meaning of "righteousness?" I would never deliberately write anything so confusing. Is there any reason for us to believe that God would really choose to be the author of such confusion? Why then does anyone choose to believe the Bible is divinely inspired and without error?

As for "learning from Lot's mistakes" - sure, that's great! I can learn from Hitler's and Judas' mistakes too without claiming that they were "righteous."

As for God "judging men's hearts" - again, that's fine, but why would God tell us that Lot was so very righteous if it did not show in his life? What does that teach me about "biblical" righteousness other than it is totally disconnected from the normal meaning of that word? And this goes back to the most fundamental problem I have with the Biblical teaching on righteousness and the Gospel itself. The meaning of "righteous" has no meaning when sinners are declared "righteous" when in fact they are not. If the word "righteous" does not mean, as John says, "to do righteousness" then what does it mean? Christians have invented the logically incoherent idea of being "positionally righteous" while in fact being a sinner. That seems to me to be the primary source of the moral corruption we see in professing Christians. They have no insight to the meaning of righteousness at all. It has been disconnected from its true meaning.

Great chatting my friend! Maybe this will lead to another good conversation with your family.

All the best,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard...I should have further categorized that as a "proceeding" word. (as in Matt. 4:4) It is the word that divides soul and marrow. You know when it happens.

How does that make any difference? The logos "proceeds" from the mouth of God just like the rhema. What makes you think there is a difference between the two words? I showed how they are used synonymously. Where did you get this doctrine?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard...I should have further categorized that as a "proceeding" word. (as in Matt. 4:4) It is the word that divides soul and marrow. You know when it happens.

Again, we have a contradiction with your doctrine. The word that is "proceeding" is rhema whereas the word that divides soul and marrow is logos.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The words rhema and logos are used synonymously in these passages:

• Luke 9:44 Let these sayings (logos) sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men. 45 But they understood not this saying (rhema), and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying (rhema).
• John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words (rhema), hath one that judgeth him: the word (logos) that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
• Acts 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words (rhema), the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word (logos).
• Acts 10:36 The word (logos) which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all) 37 That word (rhema), I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

Note in the last example "the word" (logos) is referred to as "that word" (rhema).

Note also in the second example, the logos is said to be the word that Christ spoke. And we see the same thing in the third example where the logos is the word that was heard.

[kathryn]

How does that make any difference? The logos "proceeds" from the mouth of God just like the rhema. What makes you think there is a difference between the two words? I showed how they are used synonymously. Where did you get this doctrine?

Hi Richard...I didn't get it anywhere. It's something I've taken for granted (gulp). I've used rhema to describe the experience of revelation...the "a ha" moment when something suddenly clicks into place that you've read over and over with no understanding. Thanks for the tutorial.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard...I didn't get it anywhere. It's something I've taken for granted (gulp). I've used rhema to describe the experience of revelation...the "a ha" moment when something suddenly clicks into place that you've read over and over with no understanding. Thanks for the tutorial.

OK - I hope it helped!

I thought it important to clear this up because there is a big "rhema vs. logos" doctrine invented by the Word of Faith folks. Like most of their doctrines, it has no foundation in Scripture.

One final example. Both logos and rhema are used to describe God's act of creation:

• John 1:3 All things were made by him [the logos]; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
• Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word [rhema] of God...

All the best!

Richard

[kathryn]

Thanks! So..is there a hebrew or greek word for the "a ha" moment? How did the whole rhema concept start?