What TV1A Believes (not necessarily in order.)

[tv1a]

Multiple scriptures also encourages God's people to test Him.

When you can answer the question what sin these people are tempting God to do, than you may have a point. What one considers tempting God another could consider taking scripture at face value.

I'm not discounting your opinion. I'm saying the opposing view is just as valid scripturally.

Originally Posted by pelathais

You and I usually agree on most things, or at least it seems to me that we do. However, this is one thing that really stands out as a point of controversy. Innocent people have been badly injured, sickened or killed because they wanted to "prove God." I feel that it is important to speak out against this.

Deuteronomy 6:16

This is the passage that Jesus was quoting when He said, "It is written, thou shalt NOT tempt the Lord thy God." And it has nothing to do with the devil. It's a rule governing the conduct of the people and their God.

If no one has ever explained this to you before then I am saddened. A simple reference Bible makes the point quite clear. The behavior under discussion is dangerous to physical well being and according to the Bible, it is fatal spiritually. I find it hard to believe that "the silence is deafening" or has been deafening on this issue.

Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

See also Exodus 17:1-7; Psalm 95:8; 1 Corinthians 10:9; Hebrews 3:8-9.

[Brother Price]

I have only one problem with tv1a's doctrine...

He does not speak out against neck ties.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You and I usually agree on most things, or at least it seems to me that we do. However, this is one thing that really stands out as a point of controversy. Innocent people have been badly injured, sickened or killed because they wanted to "prove God." I feel that it is important to speak out against this.

Deuteronomy 6:16

This is the passage that Jesus was quoting when He said, "It is written, thou shalt NOT tempt the Lord thy God." And it has nothing to do with the devil. It's a rule governing the conduct of the people and their God.

If no one has ever explained this to you before then I am saddened. A simple reference Bible makes the point quite clear. The behavior under discussion is dangerous to physical well being and according to the Bible, it is fatal spiritually. I find it hard to believe that "the silence is deafening" or has been deafening on this issue.

Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

See also Exodus 17:1-7; Psalm 95:8; 1 Corinthians 10:9; Hebrews 3:8-9.

Very well said, Pel.

TV1 is arguing for a rather foolish position here. Paul himself said avoid foolish disputes.

My question to TV1 remains:

Why doesn't HE go and drink some cyanide then, to test God? (Since he seems to believe so strongly this is something God wants us to do)

Until he does so, this whole conversation is pointless.
And if TV1 had a son or daughter that told him they were about to drink some cyanide to test God, would he honestly just sit by and encourage it? Somehow I strongly doubt it.

2 Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
Titus 3:9
But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by tv1a

Multiple scriptures also encourages God's people to test Him.

When you can answer the question what sin these people are tempting God to do, than you may have a point. What one considers tempting God another could consider taking scripture at face value.

I'm not discounting your opinion. I'm saying the opposing view is just as valid scripturally.

I think I found the source of our disagreement here. It's in the way the word "tempt" is used. I suppose we could blame the King James for this, but since that's the default version for most online tools we can still move forward using it.

To "tempt" the Lord is not to "tempt" Him with sin. Jesus was quoting scripture in Matthew 4:7, and to understand the bigger picture we need to read the passage He was quoting. That passage was Deuteronomy 6:16.

In the original passage, Deuteronomy 6:16, the "you" (or "thou") is not Satan, but the people of God. The verse reads, "Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah." Thus, to fully understand this, we need to go further back and look at the events that took place at "Massah." This is found in Exodus 17.

Exodus 17:7 sums it all up nicely: "And he called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the LORD, saying, Is the LORD among us, or not?"

This, then is the sin that Jesus rebuked the devil for so many years later on that pinnacle of the temple. The devil twisted Psalm 91:11-12, and turned that passage into a "test" for a believer to see if God was really there and if God would really "bear up" the believer. Jesus said, "Do test (or tempt) God..."

In the famous documentary on Snake handling sects, Foxfire Five (the book is available here), a particular Pentecostal preacher is shown saying, "You better have faith when the snakes come out..." The whole service was one where the people were testing themselves to see if God was really present in their lives. This is exactly the sin that the children of Israel commited at Massah and that Satan tried to get Jesus to follow in Matthew 4:5-7.

They were not "tempting" God to sin. They were "testing" God to see if He was really there. To do this is sin in both the Old and the New Testaments. 1 Corinthians 10:9 and Hebrews 3:8-11 and Hebrews 10:28-30.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Thad

what made you decide to point that out ???

Tv1a believes a saint can drink alcohol in moderation and a few other things that i don't agree with .

Thad...if you do a purely biblical non-biased study on wine in the Bible you'll discover that alcohol in moderation isn't a sin. Many Apostolics have a glass of wine with dinner or in the evening before bed. It's health benefits are becoming widely known throughout medical science. Had they listened to the Bible they would have known this all along.

One can over do eating and become gluttonous. One can over do drinking and become drunken.

But if your conviction is predicated on a propensity to abuse alcohol or upon conviction from past abuse I fully support your total abstinence.

Jesus not only drank wine....his first miracle was to turn water into wine for a wedding celebration. In moderation, wine is a blessing from God.

[tv1a]

Excuse me, but you need to read my posts more carefully and more s-l-o-w-l-y...

I never said this is something God wants us to do. I said snakes handlers have a legitimate point. I said numerous times the view of snake handlers is just as valid as those who explain it away. They have more scriptural foundation for their actions than legalists have implementing subjective dress codes. It is more foolish to put conditions on snakes and poison than to discuss

Any one else notice the attempt to trivialize my point by insinuating my point is foolish. Because you failed to articulate a biblical perspective without completely thinking it through, you resort to name calling. And you hide behind a scripture to do it. The Reckert like post is a last ditch effort to save face on an inconsistent opinon.

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Very well said, Pel.

TV1 is arguing for a rather foolish position here. Paul himself said avoid foolish disputes.

My question to TV1 remains:

Why doesn't HE go and drink some cyanide then, to test God? (Since he seems to believe so strongly this is something God wants us to do)

Until he does so, this whole conversation is pointless.

And if TV1 had a son or daughter that told him they were about to drink some cyanide to test God, would he honestly just sit by and encourage it? Somehow I strongly doubt it.

2 Timothy 2:23 But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

Titus 3:9

But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

[tv1a]

Good points. Get a shovel if you are willing to dig deeper. To get the rest of the story, one must realize what happened. The tempting/testing of God in the wilderness was the result of rebellion, grumbling, and complaining. Matthew Henry's Commentary makes a compelling point which suggests the combination of rebellion, grumbling, and complaining led to the challenging Moses and ultimately God. The temptation found in Exodus was founded in rebellion. One cannot say the same thing about snake handlers. The snake handlers are not living a life of grumbling and complaining like the children of Israel did in that passage. One of the meanings of the the place Meribah means contention. Webster's Dictionary defines contention as

a point advanced or maintained in a debate or argument

a synonym listed in the same definition is discord. The same dictionary defines discord as

active quarreling or conflict resulting from discord among persons or factions.

Strife is also listed. But we won't go that deep unless we have to.

I don't see how these snake handlers sowing discord, living in rebellion, or grumbling and complaining, attributes when left unchecked will cause one to tempt God in a way that is sinful.

Thnx for providing the need to dig further.

Originally Posted by pelathais

I think I found the source of our disagreement here. It's in the way the word "tempt" is used. I suppose we could blame the King James for this, but since that's the default version for most online tools we can still move forward using it.

To "tempt" the Lord is not to "tempt" Him with sin. Jesus was quoting scripture in Matthew 4:7, and to understand the bigger picture we need to read the passage He was quoting. That passage was Deuteronomy 6:16.

In the original passage, Deuteronomy 6:16, the "you" (or "thou") is not Satan, but the people of God. The verse reads, "Ye shall not tempt the LORD your God, as ye tempted him in Massah." Thus, to fully understand this, we need to go further back and look at the events that took place at "Massah." This is found in Exodus 17.

Exodus 17:7 sums it all up nicely: "And he called the name of the place Massah, and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the LORD, saying, Is the LORD among us, or not?"

This, then is the sin that Jesus rebuked the devil for so many years later on that pinnacle of the temple. The devil twisted Psalm 91:11-12, and turned that passage into a "test" for a believer to see if God was really there and if God would really "bear up" the believer. Jesus said, "Do test (or tempt) God..."

In the famous documentary on Snake handling sects, Foxfire Five (the book is available here), a particular Pentecostal preacher is shown saying, "You better have faith when the snakes come out..." The whole service was one where the people were testing themselves to see if God was really present in their lives. This is exactly the sin that the children of Israel commited at Massah and that Satan tried to get Jesus to follow in Matthew 4:5-7.

They were not "tempting" God to sin. They were "testing" God to see if He was really there. To do this is sin in both the Old and the New Testaments. 1 Corinthians 10:9 and Hebrews 3:8-11 and Hebrews 10:28-30.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by tv1a

I never said this is something God wants us to do. I said snakes handlers have a legitimate point.

If they have a legitimate point, why have so many of them died while handling snakes,when all they were trying to do is glorify God? They're obeying God's word... and end up getting killed for it? Sorry. I'm just not getting that.

Originally Posted by tv1a

Any one else notice the attempt to trivialize my point by insinuating my point is foolish.

(I'm assuming assume you know theres a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit/intent.)
Yes, I believe that ultra-literal application of the letter of the word, rather than the spirit of the word can often be foolish, such as the position you are advocating or defending.

Originally Posted by tv1a

Because you failed to articulate a biblical perspective without completely thinking it through, you resort to name calling. And you hide behind a scripture to do it.

I'm name-calling? What name did I call you? Now you're being hyper-sensitive brother. No one called you any names. To say that someone is defending a foolish point is not to say the person is a fool. No one called you a fool. No need to put words in my mouth. If you feel foolish because some of us here are telling you we think your point is weak, then thats on you, but no one is calling you any names.

Lemme ask this.. when you claimed I was taking "a silly stance" back on --> that TDJakes thread (see post #46) ... should I consider that to be "name-calling" on your part? If it was, then maybe we both owe each other an apology.

TV1...this is not the Nickelodeon or Disney board brother, this is an Apostolic discussion forum. If you are so easily offended then maybe you should pray for tougher skin. People are going to strongly disagree with your points sometimes, so as long as no one is disrespecting you, its counterproductive to get all offended because someone strongly disagrees with your point.

Originally Posted by tv1a

The Reckert like post is a last ditch effort to save face on an inconsistent opinon.

My Reckart-like post? Now THAT's funny. I'm not sure if I was supposed to be offended or amused by that. But I did find it amusing.

Originally Posted by tv1a

It is more foolish to put conditions on snakes and poison than to discuss

OK...ding ding ding !! There we see it.

(Look at what you wrote there. Look real close. And think about what you're really saying or implying there)

That is the key difference between you and me on this issue. If we are to put no conditions (?) on it, then you're saying maybe its ok to unconditionally and indiscriminately drink some cyanide to glorify God? In that case then how about if someone decided he was going to drink some cyanide every morning to prove God? Why do you think church folks don't actually do that in the real world? Would you think that's wise? God gives us the gift of common sense, bro. Even when something is written in black and white of scripture, there is still a place for God-given common sense in applying the word situationally.

There are many verses of scripture that, that if a person were to always apply them literally, unconditionally, and indiscriminately, would and could lead a person into a physically and spiritually dangerous situation far outside the intended meaning of the particular scripture.

I could give you many such examples, but let me just give you 2 real quick. Jesus says if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. So if a man has a problem with looking lustfully at women, do you think Jesus demands that the man pluck an eye out? Or if he has problem with stealing, do you think Jesus wants him to literally chop his hands off? The answer there would be no, as I guess you also know. Now someone could literally pluck his eye out in that situation, and "back it up" with scripture. But how many of us would think the man applied that passage correctly for the situation? I would think probably none.

I have to seriously wonder how much you've thought through your positions. Its as if you say something, and you feel you have to defend your point to the death, even when others are showing you clear shortcomings in your argument. (This is not our first time butting heads, TV1 ; I'm beginning to sense a pattern here)


And then you accuse me of articulating:

Originally Posted by tv1a

...a biblical perspective without completely thinking it through

I'm not thinking it through?
Um... that's not even making sense right now, buddy.
As for me, I think I've actually spent more time on this than it really deserves.

You certainly don't have to listen to me, but feel free to listen to some of the other points others have made on this same thread. It doesn't make sense sometimes to assume that everybody else got it wrong but you.

Have a good day sir.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by tv1a

Good points. Get a shovel if you are willing to dig deeper. To get the rest of the story, one must realize what happened. The tempting/testing of God in the wilderness was the result of rebellion, grumbling, and complaining. Matthew Henry's Commentary makes a compelling point which suggests the combination of rebellion, grumbling, and complaining led to the challenging Moses and ultimately God. The temptation found in Exodus was founded in rebellion. One cannot say the same thing about snake handlers. The snake handlers are not living a life of grumbling and complaining like the children of Israel did in that passage.

Jesus was not "living a life of grumbling and complaining like the children of Israel did in that passage," and yet He refused to "tempt" God by throwing Himself off the pinnacle of the temple.

Originally Posted by tv1a

One of the meanings of the the place Meribah means contention. Webster's Dictionary defines contention as a synonym listed in the same definition is discord. The same dictionary defines discord as Strife is also listed. But we won't go that deep unless we have to.

I don't see how these snake handlers sowing discord, living in rebellion, or grumbling and complaining, attributes when left unchecked will cause one to tempt God in a way that is sinful.

Thnx for providing the need to dig further.

Though attitudes are important issues, they are not the issue here. The people at Massah were demanding a sign to prove that God was with them. This was their sin, "because they tempted the LORD, saying, Is the LORD among us, or not?" Exodus 17:7.

To go about demanding that signs be performed in order to boost your own faith is sin. When a snake handle takes the snake out of the box, he is either demanding a sign or or he's wanting to get bit. Trying to get bit is foolish. Demanding a sign is sin.

This of course does need for us to dig a little deeper, because my statement above immediately begs the question about Gideon's fleece and other similar examples. In the case of Gideon, he was more or less dragged kicking and screaming out from his hiding place and onto the battlefield. God dealt with him accordingly.

In the case of the children of Israel at Massah, they had already seen the miraculous work of God and were already daily recieving benefit from His blessings. In the midst of this, they demanded "Is God with us or not?" They demanded a sign.

In the case of Jesus on the pinnacle, He was the Son of God, God manifest in human flesh. Satan demanded, "If thou be the Son of God throw yourself..." and so forth. Jesus could have done so just to "prove" who He was. But instead, he equates such an act with sin.

When we stand on a pinnacle in our lives, wherever this may be and in whatever circumstances we find ourselves, we must follow the example of our Lord. To do otherwise is sin. I am almost embarassed by the fact that we're even having this discussion. As TRFrance points out, it is wrong to drink deadly things and it is wrong to "tempt the Lord thy God."

[tv1a]

Why are not the attitudes important? When the name of the place where this tempting took place is defined as contention/discord that tells the reader it wasn't because of the "testing" that God punished the people , but the attitude behind the testing that resulted in the wrath of God.

If we agree tempting is another word for testing, Michah says we need to prove God in our tithes and offerings. Are we not testing God in our giving? Is it not a test of our faith to prove God to open the windows of heaven?

The examples you mention of tempting God had negative attitudes. Attitudes are an integral part of testing/tempting God.

Originally Posted by pelathais

Jesus was not "living a life of grumbling and complaining like the children of Israel did in that passage," and yet He refused to "tempt" God by throwing Himself off the pinnacle of the temple.


Though attitudes are important issues, they are not the issue here. The people at Massah were demanding a sign to prove that God was with them. This was their sin, "because they tempted the LORD, saying, Is the LORD among us, or not?" Exodus 17:7.

To go about demanding that signs be performed in order to boost your own faith is sin. When a snake handle takes the snake out of the box, he is either demanding a sign or or he's wanting to get bit. Trying to get bit is foolish. Demanding a sign is sin.

This of course does need for us to dig a little deeper, because my statement above immediately begs the question about Gideon's fleece and other similar examples. In the case of Gideon, he was more or less dragged kicking and screaming out from his hiding place and onto the battlefield. God dealt with him accordingly.

In the case of the children of Israel at Massah, they had already seen the miraculous work of God and were already daily recieving benefit from His blessings. In the midst of this, they demanded "Is God with us or not?" They demanded a sign.

In the case of Jesus on the pinnacle, He was the Son of God, God manifest in human flesh. Satan demanded, "If thou be the Son of God throw yourself..." and so forth. Jesus could have done so just to "prove" who He was. But instead, he equates such an act with sin.

When we stand on a pinnacle in our lives, wherever this may be and in whatever circumstances we find ourselves, we must follow the example of our Lord. To do otherwise is sin. I am almost embarassed by the fact that we're even having this discussion. As TRFrance points out, it is wrong to drink deadly things and it is wrong to "tempt the Lord thy God."