Part of the problem, Haybark, is that folks like you seem to believe you can quell an argument by claiming it is gnat-straining and accusing the opposition of devilish accusation (ironic, no?). It may be gnat-straining to YOU, but that does not make it so for others.

Satan does not accuse the brethren of false doctrine, but of sin. Like other similar texts, charismatics (and others) misuse this verse. It is sinful to judge or condemn a brother of sister in Christ of sin, when all of us stand equally condemned of sin. (Like the Pharisee who prays, “Lord thank you that I am not like that sinner.”) It is not sinful, but repeatedly obliged by the NT writers, to defend truth and expose falsehood.

And fruit is a tricky thing. I could show you seeming “fruit” at your local synagogue, mosque, Mormon temple, etc. That is not to say I don’t believe there is legitimate Holy Spirit-inspired fruit going on at IHOP. I just don’t believe fruit in some areas justifies wrong doctrine in others. I don’t doubt Jim Bakker’s ministry was seeing some genuine fruit before he was busted. Bakker later said he didn’t think he was a true Christian at that time. So, do we justify all the bad teaching and charlatanism that went on, because there was some fruit?

Zack,

While I think my comments, in their entirety, are more pertinent to my initial questions than you’ll probably admit, I’ll agree that this conversation has likely run its course. See you next time.

God Bless

P.S. You (and Roberts) are essentially saying Spurgeon and Augustine believed (I never said preached) in the Bridal Paradigm as IHOP teaches it when you say, “Bridal Paradigm IHOP came up with this? Pretty sure the metaphor of Jesus being the bridegroom and the church being the bride has been a teaching not only through out church history…” Spurgeon and Augustine are examples of folks in Church history who read Song of Songs in a generally allegorical way. It is pure obfuscation to imply (or directly say, as Roberts did regarding Spurgeon) that this historical view is basically the same as the Bridal Paradigm.

(Sorry, but I couldn’t resist trying to have the last word. It’s in my accusing, gnat-straining nature.)

; )

Did I ever say the bridal paradim was preached by spurgeon and agustine?

do we have material breaking down song of solomon? yes it’s called a commentary, all commentaris break down every verse.

I think I answered your questions. You just don’t beleive my answers. If i’m not ignorant like you say, the only other option is I’m lying, which I’m not.

It’s been a good dialouge though, thanks for the questions they challenged me. I think it’s safe to say this has gone away from your initial question, and the post I wrote to answer you. According to you I answered your questions, and we aren’t far off on our veiw of intercession.

So with that bless you and I’m praying for you and your family. Be praying for us that the holy spirit would give us revelation.

.::zack

Would you guys please quit straining at gnats? Your going on about semantics. In your quest to be biblical, have you considered Jesus admonition? “Ye shall know them by thier fruits?”

Zach is trying to appeal to you on this level. I am just a third party to all of this, and probably not too wise by putting in my two cents, but really. Your soo concerned about the terminology they use, you not observing that the work of the gospel is being done and the lost are being saved, and discipled. I mean, it’s not a demonic spirit delivering these people from violent aggression, drugs and gangs.

Funny thing: The Lord has made the gosple with so much grace, it works in the hands of imperfect people, with imperfect concepts. It’s far too easy to swallow the camel of suspicion & judgment than it is to strive for the unity of the faith. Zach has been more than fair and open with many of you that have had some good questions. His answers have been forth right, honest and biblical. He has not violated any of the candinal doctrines of the faith, and has tryed to preserve unity. But for some reason it is more important for you, and the others, to try and find guilt adn wrong in your brother and the ministry he serves. Why? Are we not all on the same team? Isn’t Christ our head?

It has been well said that there is two ministries going on before the thone of God everyday. The ministry of intercession, adn the ministry of accusation. The bible tells this is a true reality. It says, Jesus doth ever liveth to make intercession for the saints, and that the devil is the accusor of the bretheren. It is our nature to become an accusor, but it is supernatural to be a true intercessor. If our body be broken, pray for it to be mended. Humility reconizes it’s own weakness and has compassion on those who struggle. The heart of the intercessor cries out for these.

So please, if you see your brother is hurting, try praying for him, if he is in error, seek that the Lord show Him the light. But let us not, please, let us not be the accusor and bring disscord among the family of God. Let’s consider the office we choose to hold, and let love guide us.

Some of your above comments drive me to another issue (one which I believe is related to my initial questions). You said:

“What is the purpose, or better said what conclusion do you hope to come to in our interactions on this (these) issues?

I ask because I’m not Calvinist, neither is IHOP. On the basis of those views we aren’t going to agree.
We are Pre-millennial/ post-tribers. I’m assuming you are A-millennial since most Calvinists are.

so why belabor minute assumptions with what you and others perceive us to believe?”

You know full well (or should) that my (and others’) issue with IHOP and similar ministries is not that they are Arminian Premillennialists. I’m sure you’re aware that many of IHOP’s critics are both Arminian and Premillennialist. It seems these kinds of comments only obscure the real issues (not “minute assumptions”).

You also said:

“Bridal Paradigm IHOP came up with this? Pretty sure the metaphor of Jesus being the bridegroom and the church being the bride has been a teaching not only through out church history, but the Old and New testament.”

Again, obfuscation. If you (like Roberts) are going to try and tell everyone here that Charles Spurgeon and Augustine believed in the Bridal Paradigm in the same way IHOP teaches it, then you are exposing either a stupendous ignorance or a befuddling dishonesty. And I don’t think you’re an ignorant guy, Zack.

Do you deny a significant difference between viewing Song of Songs as a general allegory to Christ and the Church, and obsessing over the book as a key to everything else, hyper-analyzing every word – down to the link of a necklace? Do you not see the significance of elevating this Old Testament love song beyond simple allegory (which has no Biblical justification – please explain how John 3:16 has ANYTHING to do with the Bridal Paradigm) to a filter through which the rest of Scripture is drawn?

I discussed much of this in my posts on Roberts’ message here in Minneapolis. You said I treated her unfairly. I would like to know how and where. That may help in further conversations on this issue.

God Bless

P.S. I didn’t address the awesomeness of your recent prayer meeting, because of reasons I have mentioned to you in private. Did you intend for that to be a conversation-stopper?

As I sit in the prayer room right now, singing with 350 young adults who are up at 4:58am praying for the salvation of the nation of Israel, Standing with tears in their eyes singing “Our God Reigns” over and over again. Not to mention I just came from a meeting with one of the groups I lead. They are pursuing lives of holiness and sharing the gospel. 5 people this week left behind the lives the were previously living steeped in drugs, and drug pushing because of the prayer and sharing of the gospel by them. The little group I lead are going after the knowledge and understanding of God with everything they have. I also met tonight, with 3 kids who a few months ago were in gangs, committing violent acts of crime, and countless other things. They have left those lives and are in fast pursuit of God as I help take them through their Christology notes, and studies on Justification

See I hear and read the concerns, assumptions, and quibbles brought by you and others. Assumptions that we are elitist, that we are not preaching the gospel, that we are false teachers preaching false doctrine. I just don’t see it anywhere here. Could we focus on the basics of the gospel more? yes, we are working on it. Could we do things better? yes. But we aren’t perfect. But the leadership is humble and spending every waking hour searching scripture, fasting and praying. And that’s not talk it’s real. When Mike says he does the prayer room full time, he does, I’ve watched him for the last 6 years come in a 5:30am sit in the front row. and pray. When I come in at 10pm he’s just leaving. I’m not saying this to brag or boast in anyway. I’m just trying to say that we really live what we preach. Or at least try to in the grace of God.

I understand you wish to find understanding, something I hope to help with.

If it’s fruit you want, it’s seems to be abundant to me. I encounter lives changed every day by the leadership in the word mike and IHOP has given.

really that’s my peace, I love Jesus with all my heart, as do the people here, as you have stated in the past… so why belabor minute assumptions with what you and others perceive us to believe?

p.s. sorry if I was too harsh earlier… indeed you can have your shame back

I’m on my way to a meeting…Tuesday is my busiest day. But I have one question for you.

What is the purpose, or better said what conclusion do you hope to come to in our interactions on this (these) issues?

I ask because I’m not Calvinist, neither is IHOP. On the basis of those views we aren’t going to agree.
We are Pre-millennial/ post-tribers. I’m assuming you are A-millennial since most Calvinists are.

Therefore we are already going into this at an impass when it comes to eschatology, prayer, and sovereignty. So why belabor an argument that neither one of us are going to budge on.

Thus my above question.

@mbaker got it, glad we understand now.

Goodbye and God bless.

I think Zack would recognize that some get nasty on both sides of this issue. It gets difficult to moderate that kind of thing when your blog transforms into a forum. I wouldn’t want my personal blog to become that either.

mbaker, you get defensive so easily. I not speaking you, JimB, or ortho. I’m saying I don’t want the masses at soj, who are not asking questions like you and JimB , they are stateing accusations, like we are a cult, influenced by demons Or we are manipulating people’s lives. Perposterus things that are so untrue, and unfounded they aren’t worth talking about. If those types of commentors come here I’ll shut it all down. I don’t have to type to deal with those kinds of accusations. Somthing in 1 Timothy about that.

bless you