Moses was unfaithful when called

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

In Exodus 4:24-26, God is preparing Moses for ministry, and the incident with his son's circumcision serves as a lesson in obedience. Moses' failure to circumcise his son was an oversight or lack of understanding, rather than deliberate disobedience.

When confronted by God, Moses corrects his error, demonstrating his willingness to follow God's commands. Zipporah's intervention also highlights the importance of circumcision as a covenant requirement. This incident doesn't define Moses' character but rather shows his humanity and capacity for growth.

There is a difference between disobedience and oversight. Moses' prompt correction suggests a willingness to follow God's commands, and his obedience after correction is what matters. God's preparation of Moses for ministry involves teaching and this incident is part of that process.

Is this your answer to my question posed in post 16?

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Is this your answer to my question posed in post 16?

What is this? A TV game show?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

What is this? A TV game show?

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Amanah;1617545]

Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1 View Post 16
Is what you are saying that I'm trying to justify faithless obedience? Your writing it makes most think that this is what you would be implying, for it certainly would not be the Lord doing this nor would you think it is he doing this justification. You must be implying that I'm trying to show justification for faithless disobedience. Am I right or wrong, Amanah?
Well, it does seem you are always looking for exceptions that would justify disobedience.

My response to your reply:Thx for replying to my question in post 16, which I think this post does though without you're explicitly saying it is so.

If it would help with the perception that I am justifying disobedience I would like to say the following: I will strongly deny that I am one who justifies disobedience. It is not my intention though some may perceive it as such.Nor have I purposely/intentionly provided statements that indicate this though you've made conclusions from the totality of what I have said indicating you think this to be so. What I have done is only highlight in post 1, what actually happened between Moses and God. I didn't make it happen nor have I exaggerated not diminished what happened. I just stated what happened and provided my opinions as to why the Lord had done so. I neither condone nor encourage anyone to be disobedient to the Lord's will. I find it extremely, extremely unsettling that Holy Ghost filled preachers are able to reject jesus name baptism when the supreme abundance of clear scripture indicates the truth of God they so lightly reject to their and their hearers eternal detriment. Its somewhat laughable and also somewhat disappointing that as someone taking the time to comment on the Bible, previously stating many times in other posts my favour of the full gospel/Bible, that I would be perceived to be condoning disobedience by another Bible commenter! I now suggest that the possibility exists that readers such as yourself don't take sufficient time to read or reread posts in a medium, text, which has some obvious deficiencies in complete communications of thought. Along with that, plz develope some gracious thoughts of others instead of negative thoughts, thinking of them as more or less the same way you would think of yourself. You don't think of yourself as a disobedient person do you? Think of me as you would think of yourself, until I give clear indications you should think otherwise. I have shown in other posts that the Bible is the center of my faith, and not disobedience and am insulted by your insinuations in post 9 that I would condone disobedience.

Moses was disobient to the covenant, agreed? If we can't agree to this then there is no point to converse, because that is plainly shown in Ex4.

Plz note that Ex 4 shows the circumcision of only 1 son. Logic would tell us if only one is circumcized that it might be the younger who is now being circumcized and that the older has already been circumcized. Thus, this doesn't show us fautless oversite on Moses' account, as you've implied in your writings but purposeful noncompliance. Some writers have suggested that Moses's wife, who was a Midianite not a Jew, may have conceded to the first son's circumcision but not the second, making a big fuss producing problems for a Jewish man living as a stranger in a society whose values weren't shared by those he dwelt among, in all of their reactions to the circumcision of their first son. He was a minority with no supports to back him if his wife rallied relatives/friends to support her opinion. The Lord's attempt at killing Moses was more to show his Midianite wife the importance of the rite but as the head of the house Moses bore the brunt of the lack of obedience God wished them to have had complied with. God showed her that obedience to the jewish law was absolutely necessary, and that she was very reluctant to do so is shown in her reactions to the whole deal, throwing the foreskin at Moses's feet. Moses, for fear of those who he dwealt with, hadn't imposed that which he knew he should do and it may have been shoved to the back of his mind until 'reminded' by the Lord on their journey. Whether or not this happened exactly as the writers say will be determined in heaven. Until then, we are left to try to reconcile the given facts with logic and faith. What the writers wrote makes sense in my mind and because it makes sense when we lack details to confirm i will believe this until something better comes along.

But I'm dismayed that a person such as yourself (who writes much in AFF) would quote scripture of something from Moses future faithfulness as a response to justify his present unfaithfulness - post 32. It boggles my mind that efforts such as this are done because it shows lack of understanding unless it is done in haste when not having the time to think it through. Moses learned obedience and faithfulness as he grew but future works should not be used or referred to justify present situations. Better not to say anything at all than to say something like you did when you don't have the time.

Uzza died in disobedience when he, as an Israelite, should and could have known better because the Jews had the Law of God. My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge a verse says. I am somewhat consoled, in the death of a good man who was trying to do a good thing in steadying the Ark, thinking that he wasn't damned to hell for such a disobedience, though it resulted in his death.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

What is this? A TV game show?

No comment.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

No comment.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Hi, Amanah.

Reading Ex3,4 would answer that question with a yes. Its against my theology but I can't argue with the Word.

You said "yes" to the question "Can disobedient people be appointed to ministry."

So there is your point in this thread, and it plainly confirms what everyone has said about your position. We come to these conclusions because you plainly state them.

Nobody here disagrees that a person can be CALLED BY GOD while in a condition of disobedience. In fact that is the essence of conversion. But the Bible instructs the church on who can be ordained, so we go with that as the rule to follow for appointing leadership.

[votivesoul]

1 Timothy 1:12 (ESV),

12 I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service...

Apparently, for Paul, being appointed by Christ Jesus our Lord to service, i.e. ministry occurs when the Lord accounts a man as faithful, i.e. obedient and dependable.

Hebrews 3:2 (ESV),

...just as Moses also was faithful in all God's house.

Moses, likewise, was obedient and dependable in ALL God's house.

Hard to see how anyone could call Moses unfaithful, or say unfaithful people are accounted as faithful, and be appointed to God's service.

[votivesoul]

Don, this is what Esaias means. It would be better to use the html of the forum, and make your posts like this:

(An example from Post #70)

Originally Posted by Esaias

When you place your responses inside a quote box, it makes it nearly impossible for people to quote your statements and respond to them. Please adjust how you format your responses, so that YOUR statements are outside the quote box that contains someone else's post.

COPY and PASTE and DELETE work quite well to do what I do.

Meanwhile, you mentioned something about "way later", it sounds as if you are saying that God gave the law and then "way later" Moses forgot to circumcise his sons? If that's what you are saying or implying, then you are simply wrong. The incident with the circumcision was before Sinai. So not sure what you are trying to say there.

Plz quote the post number so i can properly reply. I don't think i said it as you say I did. Plz reply.

Also, reading in the commentaries on the subject lead to their conclusion that the oldest boy had been circumsized previously but not the younger, resulting in family tension when his wife reneged on the circumscision of the second. Whether or not the commentaries are truth is another question.

Was Moses completely right, having all his i's dotted and t's crossed?

Saying what you've said here and in another post, 11, in such a manner shows you minimize Moses disobedience (no big deal - just following a social trend) while God maximizes to the point of attempting to kill his called/'anointed for His huge, hugely important to Him undertaking'. This is out of character of you.

No, obviously. And God made sure it got corrected BEFORE Moses led anybody anywhere.

True.

As Amanah mentioned, you seem in these threads to be spending an awful lot of time trying to suggest that people who are not right with God are... what? Ok? That is the impression you are giving.

2 threads should not indicate to anyone a making of a trend nor show a propensity of anyone's thought patterns. Many things related were discussed in these threads and if someone chooses to only see one trend from these many then how could anyone else convince them to see otherwise when they wish to do so? The needful thing to do with any thread or post is discerning whether or not the poster speaks truth. Prove all things. Hold fast to the good. Do not despise prophesings. Meaningfull points from scripture or reason should be presented to show how they are in error if so, rather than deeply theological comments like 'you're wrong' which prove nothing but to be a waste of time and digital memory.

If that is not your intent,

Anyone closely reading my initial posts should be able to discern the intent and content of what I write. I wish to share truth from the Word. But I'm not able to manipulate from a distance anyone's powers of observation though I certainly would if I could, bringing the truth i see to light for them.

then perhaps you need to change your approach to these subjects. If that IS your intent, then you simply aren't going to get anywhere except maybe down at the local United Methodist church.

As a long time Apostolic I'm quite comfortable in the presence of the Holy Ghost, saturated by the Word of God, not wishing to leave cool, clear waters for depths of murky stinky filfth of traditional 'churchianity'. But thx for the recommendation anyway.

Just checking: I had sent a Private Message to you. Had you read it?

Also, I had asked a question in another reply to a post of yours. Did you get a chance to compose an answer? Plz reply soon, if you would,plz.

Don, you can use the "quote" function in the Go Advanced Panel, or simply make sure to type the word "quote" in [brackets] at the beginning of the quote, then type /quote at the end, except in [brackets], and you will be able to differentiate your text from someone else's, without having to resort to colors or etc. It's much easier for everyone, including yourself.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You said "yes" to the question "Can disobedient people be appointed to ministry."

So there is your point in this thread, and it plainly confirms what everyone has said about your position. We come to these conclusions because you plainly state them.

Nobody here disagrees that a person can be CALLED BY GOD while in a condition of disobedience. In fact that is the essence of conversion. But the Bible instructs the church on who can be ordained, so we go with that as the rule to follow for appointing leadership.