lørdag 1. november 2014

Nr. 794: God forgives us unless we repent? Or is repentance necessary?

Nr. 794:
 God forgives us unless we repent? Or is repentance necessary?

After been a believer in the now 34 years I become more and more puzzled over Christianity, not least the Free Church. How far they are from healthy and true evangelical faith and doctrine. Whether we are forgiven, or we are not. When I bring up different preachers I take only the only public figures, never, never ordinary church members. They should also be held accountable to God, and Jesus warned them as much as shepherds and teachers. Eg. if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit. But here on our blogs and our website will be excluded only public figures mentioned, at least if it is in negative terms.
Photo of Pope Frants one here surrounded by Kenneth Copeland (who is also divorced and married for three time as Hanvold) that is like a small boy to enumerate against Pastor Jan Hanvold raining when Pope has, after all, both morality and integrity. Hanvold missing actually absolutely everything, sad but true.

This is from a debate on day of Jan Hanvold and Vision Norway.

I will not revisit the names of the debaters, just what they say. And there are those who "keep" with Hanvold, and there are those who realize that he is living in sin is a false prophet.

Debater A: That Norway need a Christian TV channel is okay. But it is sad that this man is the boss of the channel.

Debater b: What January Hanvold have done in the past, well then no sense? Your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more, says the Bible. Well there is hope for everyone. January Hanvold should be commended for the job he has done!

A: He is divorced twice and married for the third time. Is there something in the Bible also that no distinction should be leaders.

B: A website claims he is divorced, but remember that he is allowed to remarry if it were KONA THAT WOULD HAVE DIVORCE and not him, then it is she who has broken the marriage and not him.
And many of the allegations Jan Kåre Christensen comes with, he has no proof that Jan Hanvold said. It's word against word.

A: The truth can be painful and swallowing. Worse, when one is unable to see it.

 B: Did you read is not what I wrote? He is allowed to remarry if it were wife THAT WOULD HAVE DIVORCE and not him, then it is she who has broken the marriage and not him.
I think rather it is you who are out to judge people.
(end of quote).

Here, it is the free-for Hanvold and colleagues in Protestant thought. There is a lot to grasp. But let us collect some few things.

Is Hanvold the so-called "innocent" party? He has said several times on radio here in Oslo (I do not mostly on TV Vision Norway, hear anything on the radio if I can stand and have the opportunity).
The following have Hanvold said several times. Forgive me I have caused two true legal violations. But I also had bad sex with my first two wives, now I have super sex (this is what Hanvold have said and this is in my opinion completely beyond all reason and sense).

He said that he had been a bad husband for Berit on radio here in Oslo but were happy for her now that she had a new and good husband that he first was furious. But he had forgiven everyone and everything. Can Hanvold then claim to be the innocent party when he was thrown in also married to an "extra" lady from his first wife who is his right and now his last wife Inger? How strange and sick shall all be? I can not believe such is possible and he will be a Christian preacher who says he is an apostle, and I do not know what?

I do not believe the innocent party. I've done it for so-called "Pentecostal doctrine" I've been colored and marked by good and bad.

 Here on the innocent party that we have on now website:
The theory of the innocent party based on these two scriptures. Matthew 5: 32 "But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Matt.19: 9: But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another, commits adultery. And whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery. It is these two scriptures often called exception to the rule. With these scriptures at hand are many marriage was dissolved on grounds that one spouse has been unfaithful, why the other spouse is entitled to be separated and remarry. This is a rewrite of the truth and you do not have to look further than the last part of the verse to see that which excluded the possibility of being able to marry again with someone else. It can be easy to have such an approach. This solution provides the opening for it in Christian contexts is called the innocent party. Those who remain innocent in a marriage where their spouse has been unfaithful could use their newfound t freedom to remarry. This is not a proper representation of the word of God. This option will also cause them to live ride infidelity in marriage a new and thus still live ri sin. It would in any case not be possible to judge righteously for the innocent party we practice in Norwegian churches today. Who will decide who first cheated? What form of infidelity to apply and justify an innocent party? If sinful thoughts lead to a description of adultery in a marriage? Where should the line be drawn? What criteria should be applied? It would be an impossible situation to judge the tea within the concept of the innocent party. How will this be decided? God will in no way leave it up to man to judge in such impossible situations. These events would have led to an indulgence in opinions, assumptions, speculations and proprietary solutions that simply would have created chaos and did not lead to peace and reconciliation for God. 11 Stand in the engagement phase In order to get the full and complete overview of the use of these scriptures we see it in the light of the fact that he addressed to the Jewish disciples of the Jewish community.

 When we first chapter of Matthew Gospel reading about Joseph who sought to divorce his wife, even though they were not married, came to this opening to divorce his future bride. Joseph had promised Maria and her family that he would marry her. This engagement phase is called the Jewish tradition of Kiddushin. During this period, which lasted at least 12 months did not survive the man and woman together sexually, but they were still seen as man and wife. For the Jewish custom of this pledge as safe and serious as the marriage commitment. But even gave Marriage Act opening that they could stand on it turned out that his wife had been unfaithful during this period. This was also the reason that this phase lasted for over a year, because if my fiance had cheated so it should be possible for the future husband to see whether she had had sexual relations with another man and pregnant. Josef would therefore stand in silence because the law said that anyone who was caught in adultery could be stoned if someone put forward accusations of it. That this could be solved in this way during the engagement phase was that those who were married had not consummated the marriage and thus was "the innocent party" free to e poison themselves again. But these days we do not say we differ from her fiancé, we make it just ended and has no theological problems with it. But in today's marriages are customary to finish off with sexual intercourse on the wedding night. Therefore sits spouses in the position that they actually live in constant adultery if they remarried. After the two betrothed had undergone the second phase, the actual marriage ceremony, wedding party, they could have sexual intercourse with each other, and of course just another. This part was often referred to as the man "took her unto his own home." If one of the parties, such as man, was reliably informed that the woman had had sex with another man during the engagement period, he could separate the email from her before phase two, the actual wedding, and then by giving her a bill of divorce.


 The theory of the "innocent party" its right to remarry is less than 500 years old. The idea that Matthew chapter 5 and 19 passages or "clauses" that give the "innocent party" right to remarry, did not show up until this year 1519, when Erasmus, a great humanist, presented his interpretation of First Corinthians 7. Erasmus' interpretation of Scripture introduced human reason in the interpretation, rather than let the text interpret text. His interpretation of Scripture was marked by humanistic overtones, in which he emphasized the people's happiness ahead of obedience to God's word. Erasmus was neither traditionalist or reformer, but wanted the utmost to be perceived s about a godly man. He managed, however, to take payment for sin and also found simpler solutions thatched people. He served as the Gnostics rate an excessive intellectual experience. Spirit lifted according to Erasmus the moral code of laws which had been the cornerstone of Jewish thought. The last 50 years have left these heresies gained a foothold in the churches. There is one paradox that the church has increasingly focused on spiritual gifts, healings and services that take our breath away, yet increasing number of divorces in the same churches. Frenzied manifestations of the spirit is intoxication leading to more liberal Christian understanding, rather than being more true to the word. Biblical infallibility was undermined and Erasmus attacks scriptural accuracy. He tied the Christian ministry with God's holiness of life. Erasmus taught that love should precede any marriage and emphasized that it was not "loving" made ​​by the Church to insist that unhappy people would continue to live together. He believed that the church should set them free, who lived in the so-called bad marriage. Reformers adopted Erasmus' views on divorce and remarriage, but this idea was not taught in nearly 1,500 years before Erasmus, from Christ's time and the early Christians. Although this theory is less than 500 years old, many Christians looking for a "loophole" or an excuse, that makes it okay for them to remarry. Therefore Erasmus interpretation of first Corinthians gladly accepted by Christians looking one is able to follow his carnal desire to love a new person after one's marriage has been "destroyed" or they state that you live in an unhappy marriage.

 In 1532 King Henry VIII did exactly this. He wanted to divorce his wife Catherine, to marry Ann Boleyn. He did Erasmus' interpretation of 1 Kor.7 popular and eventually broke with the Catholic Church because he wanted to remarry. David was a king and trying to solve a problem in their own way, with bad luck. 2. Sa m 12: 7-15: And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man! Thus saith the LORD God of Israel: I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul. I gave you your master's house and your master's wives into thy bosom. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah, and was there fo r small, so I would have given you even more, both the one and the other. Why have you despised the word and done what is evil in his sight? Hittites hast killed Uriah with the sword. His wife, have you taken a wife for yourself, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. So, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you despised me and taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be his wife for yourself. Thus says the Lord: Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own house. I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them to another man. He shall lie with your wives, as the sun here is witness to it. For what you have done, you did in secret. But I will do this for all Israel, and in broad daylight. And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. However, because by this deed you have given the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, so shall also the son you've got surely die. Then Nathan home. And the LORD struck the child one that David had with the wife of Uriah, so it was crazy. David tried to hide a sin with another. It is often what is done by remarriage too.

David is seen as the greatest king in Israel's history. Yet he made the mistake of marrying Bathsheba, Uriah's wife. It was a curse for David. Despite this, David used his opportunity before God to pray for his son with Bathsheba so that he died. It is tragic fates of several one the two spouses in such cases. The children remains an innocent sufferer party in such situations, but sin always consequences.

 Final comment:

We are not going away from whatever biblical one has. Belief in an "innocent" party or not. So live Hanvold in adultery. This can be turned around and turned on, even the most liberal can not explain away that he has had three marriages and are thus guaranteed not innocent. Something he also openly stand up confessing. I wonder then what must be done? I realize that the flesh is weak, for all of us. But how far should we indulge our flesh? Think this is so bad, manipulative and seductive looks that we did not have a luck prophet and apostle here to do, who can be a false apostle and a false prophet if not Hanvold it? Even the Pope in Rome is a new kid in town to work here compared to Hanvold and unfortunately many of the day Charismatic Pentecostals and others.

Is Hanvold forgiven? If he repents. Forgiveness and repentance are like a hub of a wheel and spokes. They are inextricably Knuttes together for the wheels go round and the bike work. Should Christian life work and everything intact so must and shall confession and repentance go hand in hand, not be separated.

1 Cor. 7. 10 To the married I have this requirement, yet not I, but the Lord: A wife must not separate from her husband. 11 But if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

Hanvold have no special rights, it has none. We are all equal and have to relate to the word of God where God has no "favorites".

It's strange to those who support Hanvold, they do not hear what he says and holds up ?! Now I hear rarely Hanvold, but in the beginning when he began broadcasting for 5 to

10 years ago, I heard the part. And for a vocabulary, even when I thought that Hanvold was a false prophet and represented anything but that which is healthy, right and good. He said among other things, when he was separated from his wife no. two and walked alone before he hijacked armor that he was so overkåt that he hhttps://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=7043790554374234626#editor/target=post;postID=7301873603982132950ad to sit down in a potato cellar for where it went for him etc. I would certainly never have written this without I showed with 100% certainty was true. I have asked others who are critical of Vision Norway if they have heard the same, indeed several have done so.

Where is Emanuel Minos, David Ostby, Arvid Bentsen and everyone else? It was not I who should have warned against him, and those who are in league with him. And I warn not only against him, but all the others who have not repented of their sins and confess Jesus' name. Unfortunately, it looks like today's Pentecostal karismatiskere is the worst in this respect. I do not know why? Could it be that preaching is inadequate and misleading? I do not have the full and complete answer. But I believe in preaching the whole counsel of God to salvation and keep up what one looks like in the word of God!

I do this even if the resistance is high, then the blessing is always greater than the resistance. It is amazing with God, little resistance, then one blessed. Greater resistance, greater blessing, glory be to God and to the Lamb for evermore, and forever!

Related Links: http://the-heavenly-blog.janchristensen.net/2011/10/nr-105-qualifications-for-leadership.html



Ingen kommentarer:

Legg inn en kommentar