But I get it, you apparently believe a servant of satan can be anointed with the Holy Spirit in in right standing with God.
I'm not that slow to believe that sort of thing but I understand that others obviously are.
I see so you believe God is evil too and sometimes He does evil?
I quoted two scriptures... that idea came into your mind, and you attributed it to me. Is that what you think those scriptures are saying? My point was that the evil spirit troubled Saul after the Spirit of the LORD left him, but at a later time the Holy Spirit came upon him that he might prophesy.
In Saul's case he was anointed... but with oil. Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit. I did not say that Saul was anointed with the Holy Spirit, but the scriptures say that the Spirit of God came on Him.
As far as 'evil' goes, I do not believe that God does 'moral evil' but God brought calamity on people at various times in scriptures. For example, God told the Israelites:
"15 And the Lord will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee; but will lay them upon all them that hate thee."
According to the LORD's words, who put the sicknesses upon the Egyptians?
I know there is some overly simplistic, 'spiritual kindergarten' thinking among some in the WOF movement, some NAR folks, even some Pentecostals and probably faith cure folks in the Holiness and other movements before that, that God is never responsible for any illness. If one doesn't read the Bible carefully (or pay attention, let it stick or comprehend) one might be able to believe that.
That's the false belief that God and satan are the same guy which calvinism falsely claims.
I'm not a Calvinist, but don't spread lies about them. I've never known any Calvinists to teach this.. Why don't you read the Bible?
I do wonder if you are a Kenneth Hagin fan. I notice that Kenneth Hagin would say to believe what the Bible teaches, but then there are all these Hagin fans who just unthinkingly robotically parrot Hagin's interpretations and other WOF teacher's teachings, even when they are illogicial, ridiculous, or obviously contradict scripture. Pentecostals have a bit more variety and aren't the unthinking fan-boy type, so the WOFers always seemed strange to me.
(they claim God wants evil to be done and He causes evil to be done because they are nutjobs!)
There is ra' which can be translated evil or calamity or something like that, which can be 'bad' from the perspective of the person suffering, without it being moral evil. There is rasha' which is wickedness. God does not do moral evil or wickedness. But He may bring righteous judgments.
I would give some advice, when you have a way of seeing things and then you come across scripture that doesn't line up with how you see things, don't stick to your guns. Take a step back and be willing to learn. If you try to make the word of God conform to your tradition, it is hard to learn.
No, God permitting something is not the Spirit of Truth coming on someone to do evil.
I think you are trying to process the verse about the 'evil spirit from the Lord' that came upon Saul. I don't have a problem with God sending 'bad' stuff on sinful people, including plagues on Ancient Egyptians. A lot of your comments are probably aren't issues that were the point I was making.
As already mentioned, many times in the old testament what is worded as God doing something is actually the Lord allowing something to happen due to the people not being in obedience to the Lord who deserve to be deceived because they are sowing to the flesh (in opposition to the Lord) and so corruption comes their way.
This is what made me think you might be a Hagin fan. There was this little booklet from Kenneth Hagin I read through once. Those booklets were his sermons someone transcribed. He said that sometimes some feature of the Hebrew could mean allowed rather than caused. It seemed like his approach to scripture was.
-- Don't look up the Hebrew passage to see if that grammatical category he was arguing for was present.
-- Don't search through other scriptures to see if it holds true.
-- Just assume the Hebrew means 'allow.'
It also breaks down if one actually examines passages of scripture, this isn't a defense for God never doing harmful stuff to people or taking responsibility for doing stuff that hurts people. Putting sicknesses on Egyptians hurt them (in line with God's justice.) If the Hebrew didn't mean God caused sicknesses to come upon the Egyptians, did God 'allow Himself' to put sicknesses on the Egyptians?
And drowning Egyptians in the Red Sea killed people.
Exodus 15:8
And with the blast of thy nostrils the waters were gathered together, the floods stood upright as an heap,
and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea.
So would you say that God just allowed the blast of His nostrils to harm the people? The 'allow' thing breaks down logically in some passages if the intent is to make God never do anything harmful to humans. I don't know if you have a problem with God actually causing people to drown in the Red Sea. I would not want to want to take away from God something He takes credit for.
In my experience, having been close to it briefly and knowing a lot of people in the WOF movement, and hearing a bit of sermons, MOST of the time when a claim is made about what the original Hebrew or Greek means in a WOF church, just from my perspective, it's flat out wrong or at least somewhat inaccurate. For example, I heard a sermon from a WOF preacher who said that when Peter walked on water, Jesus when Jesus said O ye of little faith, it meant faith that didn't last long enough.
But that's not true. If you see di' oligou at the beginning of a sentence or phrase, that's an expression that means that, but oligos in O ye of little faith means the faith is little.
And some of the stuff taught about the Rhema/Logos distinction breaks down with a simple search of the verses that use each word in a Strong's concordance. I knew a Classics (Latin and Greek) professor who was Charismatic who could really break down some of the issues with that. His theory was that the teaching started with Demos Shakarian at the Full Gospel Businessmen in the 1950s. That was a precursor to the Charismatics movement, or maybe the start of it really in the US. The WOF movement really ran with that idea, though there are other Charismatics and Pentecostals who have taught that also. There is something to the idea of being able to spiritual grasp God's word and not be dull of hearing, of course, but it doesn't align with how those words are used in scripture.
We are supposed to seek after wisdom and knowledge. Part of that will require opening up to in depth study of scripture and not just holding on to whatever ideas we already hold to (or have been taught) when it doesn't agree. If we do that, it keeps us from learning and can hinder growth.
