Hi, A desire to share Years ago my pastor said some people know how to believe for things. It does not seem he meant that those folks were higher than others or better, just that they knew how to believe for things, and I believe he said that there was a benefit to that. I also wondered if the learning involved might not be standard scriptural teaching, and when I say that, I don't mean anti-scriptural or extra-biblical, though I find myself in need of more explanation, it seems, than just reading my Bible. I don't mean to give a sign of error or to be in error or to antagonize anyone. Please listen further. So, because of that I wondered if I could search for information that I could not fully authorize or that I had not much heard of before. In my searching I found some of the writings of Charles Capps, a name I had heard of before though I was unacquainted with his teaching. One thing he wrote is that once when he was preaching Jesus spoke to him and said, I have told my people that they can have what they say, but they are saying what they have. I'm not planning right here to try to explain much or go beyond these mentions. I also saw the words from a hymn at the beginning of another book. We may trust him wholly all for us to do They who trust him wholly find him wholly true We probably sang that song so often in the church I attended that I wasn't looking at the words while singing. I don't know if I knew wholly was not the word "holy" or not. I did find "all for us to do" unusual after trusting him wholly when seeing these words recently. Why would it say trust (singular) and all (plural) for us to do? Then I wondered, could it be that I never understood that phrase, that it means "We may trust him wholly" "to do" "all for us"? It seemed that was right, however, I'm not sure. The second line seems to support either reading of the first line. "They who trust him wholly (as they are supposed to do) find him wholly true" or "They who trust him wholly (to do all that he does for us) find him wholly true." Maybe it might seem not to matter. If someone says they "love you so much" does it make a tremendous difference if they mean "I endeavor to do for you as I deem best for your good" or "you are my friend who I am fond of and I am thankful to the Lord for your friendship"? The first is more like agape love and the second like phileo. Finally, I watched a movie the other day and near the last of the movie one character sang some from the Christmas carol that includes the phrase "repeat the sounding joy". The other character then said the words reflectively "repeat the sounding joy". Hmm. It prompted me to think that receiving what we say and saying it could be like repeating the sounding joy. Sometimes the teaching about faith for what we do not see, when God has not basically sovereignly given us the persuasion (faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word)--and maybe I am lacking in having heard the "all of the word"--to say "I have my healing now" when it still hurts and it still doesn't look healed, to repeat, to say that is something I am not accustomed to. Am I to just start saying all these different things that I do not have more knowledge about? Repeating the sounding joy makes it sound easier. Hey, I can do that. Jesus is my healer. He's paid for my healing. He is the leader who says, freely you have received, freely give and he is also one who gives that way. He said to pray "Our Father who are in heaven", so I'm to pray as though I'm a child of him, not an outsider asking for a favor. I am not saying that there is no challenge before me regarding believing in order to receive. (I am referring to thinking of "needing to believe" because I am not confident of how to do that.) If I have fumbled in my approach, and the solution is known, I'd like to hear what is different. The Lord loves you. Have a nice day John

Posted by John Fullerton at 2024-12-17 00:14:45 UTC