Steve Lortz

It seems like it would be a lot of fun to sit across the kitchen table drinking beer and talking till the wee small hours of the morning... except alcohol and my meds don't play well together anymore. I'm certainly no expert in physics or math, I've just been exposed to enough of it stand in awe those who are. What's the current standing of chaos theory? I understand string theory has had a number of ups and downs. I was exposed to Mandelbrot sets in a book on chaos theory. It seems like an interesting method for God to use a few simple principles to generate seemingless endless variety that still exhibits qualities of beauty and order. Mixing physics and theology can be intriguing. What do you make of Ecclesiastes 9:11? Love, Steve

By the way, Gen-2, there's a book called The Origins of Stoic Cosmology by David E. Hahm you might like if you enjoy wrapping your mind around paradigm shifts. They had a concept called "tonic motion", and I often wonder if Stoic scientists might have been able to get to string theory without going through atomic theory. I have recently seen a feature of a verse in Paul's writing that may depend on understanding "tonic motion" to get the full significance. Love, Steve

No... I'm not saying I bear no responsibility. But why, when I was sitting in the Scientology Temple receiving a pitch, did the Lord tell me to scoot, yet on the other hand why did He orchestrate things so the very first twig teaching I heard was about something He had shown me supernaturally just a few months before? Why the Way? There were plenty of other cults around? Why did the Lord put me in Minnesota when I was there? Why did He put me in Indiana to get involved with CES? He DID open the eyes of my understanding at crucial points. Why didn't He do it sooner? Yes, the metaphor (which requires a leap of the imagination to understand) of Jesus being a good shepherd is a wonderful thing. But He is also my Lord (which is also a metaphor that raises different images). If He tells me to do something, I'm supposed to do it, even if it's not pleasant. Jonah comes to mind. Does He want everybody to do the same job? No! But I am as certain as I am of anything that the job I have described is the job Jesus preserved and equipped me to do. If a person doesn't think Jesus would do something like that, then perhaps their view of what it means to be Lord is a little narrow. Love, Steve

You know, serving aboard a submarine was not particularly pleasant, but I did it because that's what I volunteered to do. Being under the curse of Jeremiah 17:5 was not particularly pleasant, but I did it because that's what I volunteered to do when I told the Lord I would do whatever He wanted me to do. You can believe whatever you please. I was there. The Lord and I have spent years discussing this. Love, Steve

Genesis 2:7a says, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground..." It doesn't say God formed man's body of the dust of the ground... it says god formed MAN of the dust of the ground. Let's explore some other verses that talk about this dust component. "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Genesis 3:19 Till YOU return unto the ground, for out of it were YOU taken. Dust YOU are, and unto dust will YOU return. "And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes:" Genesis 18:27 I... am... dust and ashes. "For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust." Psalm 103:14 WE are dust. I believe the Bible consistently associates identity, the "me" that makes me "me", with my dust component. Next time we'll look at the "breath" component. Love, Steve

:biglaugh: Love, Steve

Thirty-seven years ago I told the Lord I would do whatever He wanted me to do, as long as I was sure that it was His will. That was six years before I ever heard of TWI and seven years before I took Foundational PFAL for the first time. Looking back over those thiry-seven years, and indeed, my whole life, I can see how the Lord has been guiding me every step of the way. He guided me INTO all of those great big holes, or "pit-traps" if I may extend your pastor's metaphor. I don't see them as a horizontal series of holes in the road, rather I see them as nested. CES/STFI was a pit-trap located in the floor of the TWI pit-trap. Momentus was a pit-trap located in the floor of the CES/STFI pit-trap. I didn't fall all the way down Dale Sides' hole. It was just sort of there to give me some binocular vision. I am convinced that my Guide led me into all of those things. He put His hand over the eyes of my understanding until I reached the time and place where He wanted me to be, and then He took his hand away. Why would my loving Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ do something like that? In post #104 (page 6) of this thread, geisha, you wrote: "It is funny you mention Momentus, I saw it mentioned on another thread... I think by you. Being somewhat unfamiliar, but often hearing it mentioned, I googled it. It took me to Factnet. I started reading this really great article, I was really moved. So I was curious, and when I looked to see who wrote it. It was YOU! "I cannot applaud you enough for your courage in coming forth and sharing in such an intimate and important a manner. I was so touched and filled with respect. Momentus sounds like hell... the absence of God." So you see, the job Jesus (as Master) gave to me (as servant) to do, was to experience falling into all those pit-traps, to observe Him as He led me out, and then to write about it. That's what I was doing when I wrote about Momentus. That's what I'm still doing as I conduct this thread. And I can't take the credit for it. The courage you applaud came from Jesus Who heartened me at crucial times along the way. The respect you are filled with belongs to Him! The last time He took His hand from before my eyes, so I could see where I really was, happened early in 1996. It was a little over a year since I had become a "grad" of Momentus, and my life SUCKED with a giant whooshing noise. When He took His hand off, He pointed out Jeremiah 17:5 to me, "Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord. For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, in a salt land and not inhabited." ME!!!! A Christian... under an "OLD TESTAMENT" curse??????????? Then He showed me how a person can release a mouse that's got its head caught in a trap by disengaging the trap's spring from its snare, and He showed me that disengaging the spring from the snare is what the Bible calls "repentence". But in order for repentence to be affective, a person has to know what he's repenting of. In some ways, this thread is my public repentence for buying into and teaching Wierwille's eisegesis. Love, Steve

I meant Matthew 13:40. That should teach me not to look my Bible without my magnifying glasses on! Just think about it for awhile, and let it soak in. Jesus is talking about the end of THIS AGE, the end of THIS PERIOD OF TIME. Love, Steve

Here's one more thing for you, Roy, before I crack the book again. It's a little poem by Edwin Markham: They drew a circle that shut me out, Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout! But love and I had the wit to win We drew a circle that took them in. My Mom had me learn that when I was a boy. with love and a holy kiss Steve

Thanks, Roy. One of these days I'll draw a diagram of I Corinthians 8:6, and there'll be plenty of circles for EVERYBODY to contemplate! We had a good time at my brother-in-law's occassional home fellowship. We all had a friendly dinner together first, considered a few verses about the effectiveness of prayer,and then everybody got to respond to a few questions. It was really bracing hearing people tell stories about how they pray and how God answers. Then we all prayed together. Back to Genesis 2:7, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." If I were to say this verse tells us that man's body was formed of the dust of the ground, and man acquired a living soul, then I would be practicing eisegesis, reading foreign meanings INTO what is written. It appears to me that Genesis 2:7 tells us that a living soul is composed of two parts, a dust component and a breath component. It also seems to associate Adam's identity with the dust component. I've got more to write about this, but I also have some homework I need to get done before 6 pm tomorrow, so I probably won't get back until Tuesday. Love, Steve

I don't intend to pursue the Trinity anymore on this thread than I already have. We have more fish to fry than that! We'll get back to Ex. vs Eise. this evening when I get back from my brother-in-law's Assemblies of God home fellowship that I'm going to. And believe it or not, Bob, we're sneaking up on the dispy-diddy in my own circuitous way. Love, Steve

I wasn't able to read more than a few lines of the donkey's site linked-to in the first post of this thread. I no longer respond seriously to people who speak or write in pseudo-prophetic voice, and the donkey's pseudo-prophetic voice is worse than my Inspector Cluseau inspired phoney-French accent! However, the responses on this thread have led to a number of interesting notions, some of which we'll eventually be getting around to on the Exegesis vs Eisegesis thread. More from an Old Testament/Gospels point of view rather than an Epistles/Revelation aspect. One of the words translated "world" in the JKV is aion or "age", which definitely does mean "a period of time". It's the word translated "world" in Matthew 8:40, Luke 20:34&35 and Luke 18:30. From the tone of your posts, Jeff, you may be interested in looking at these. Love, Steve

I don't wanna diiieeee...

Dittos! The puzzle to me (in a good sense, like working Sudoku) is to figure out which of the things I think are nonsense because they are intentional "mysteries", and which are truly nonsense invented because of paradigm shifts in the meanings of words, and by people like Darby and Wierwille. Sometimes people read foreign meanings INTO the words because that's what they were taught, but there are too many times when people (including myself) have read foreign meanings into the words because we want to MAKE the words mean what we want them to say. I don't think I would use the word "mystery" the way you do, because it's one of the words that was particularly abused by Darby and Wierwille, and I am still not sure I've got it figured out. But there is this... all language is metaphoric in nature, and every simile or metaphor will fail if it's pushed too far. The things Paul and others wanted to communicate about God and Jesus Christ were far too vast to be expressed in a single metaphor. I think there has to be a leap of imagination, inspired by the Spirit of God, to grasp the core meanings and relations between the metaphors. The words of the Word are far too small a box to pack all of God into. And I'm not motivated in all this effort by thinking I'm going to discover something that the Lord hasn't previously communicated in much more simple and direct fashion. If you want to know why I'm doing this, all I can say is go listen to "Won't Get Fooled Again" by the Who. Fooled by Wierwille! Fooled by CES/STFI! Fooled by Dale Sides! Fooled by Momentus! "Won't Get Fooled Again" Love, Steve

It's funny to see all the ads popping up around this thread! Love, Steve

I love your posts, Roy, and I admire the attitude of heart you express. There IS great simplicity in truth, but I was led into a complex maze of error. I could just jump through the walls, but I want to learn how I got into such a mess so I don't fall into the same kinds of trap somewhere else. with love and a holy kiss Steve

I think that the doctrine of the Trinity is worthy of examination in terms of exegesis and eisegesis, but it would take a lot more work to untangle than I am interested in pursuing on this thread. I think the idea of God and Jesus being of the "same substance" is supportable, but only by putting neo-Platonic spin on Stoic definitions. I almost understood the fourth century argument once, but ONLY almost. I didn't, and still don't, have enough depth of understanding the differences between the way the Stoics thought of "substance" and the way the neo-Platonists did. Do you realize that the roots of the word "substance" have the same meanings as the roots of the word "understanding"? Are God and Jesus of the same understanding? I think neither Stoics (the gentile Christians Paul was writing to) nor neo-Platonists (the folks Jerome and Augustine were writing to) would have defined the words that have come to mean "substance" or "understanding" the same way, nor in a way we might today. I think I Corinthians 8:6... "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom [ek 'proceding out from within' whom, 'from the inside to the outside of' whom] are all thing, and we in [eis the opposite of ek, 'into', 'from the outside to the inside'] him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [dia 'through' whom, 'into one side, and out through the other side of' whom] are all things, and we by [dia 'through', 'into one side, and out through the other side of'] him"... sets the relationship between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, all things and ourselves. I think the fourth century doctrine was an over simpliification, erroneous in describing God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ as being of the "same substance". Or at least too confusing for modern people to understand ("to substance"?). HOWEVER... I don't think the practical differences between I Corinthians 8:6 and the doctrine of the Trinity are large enough to prevent the Lord from working with Trinitarians exactly the same way He works with people who hold an accurate understanding of I Corinthians 8:6. If we want to receive anything from God the Father, we have to go through Jesus Christ, and anything God gives to us will have to come through Jesus Christ. Likewise, any thanksgiving and praise we want to give back to the Father has to go through Jesus Christ. If we want to see God, we have to look at Jesus Christ. It's a far different thing from the absent Jesus Christ sitting on the right hand of God smoking cigars while we do all the heavy lifting with our "believing". I've learned more about "the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation" by watching some Trinitarians than I ever learned by listening to or reading Wierwille. Soooo... Notice that Genesis 2:7 DOESN'T say "And the Lord God formed man's body of the dust of the ground..." It says "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground..." More tomorrow... Have a good night, all! Love, Steve

Reading out from it, cman, out from it. If I remember correctly, Wierwille's take on salvation was this: Adam was originally formed, made and created; body, soul and spirit; a three-part being. In the day that Adam sinned, it had to have been his spirit that died, because his body and soul obviously didn't. From that day forward everybody has been born two-parts, body and soul. Because of what Jesus did, it became available for God to give people the gift of holy spirit on the day of Pentecost, and this is what salvation is, since "to be saved" means "to be made whole". People who have received salvation are now three-part beings again. I've got two questions: 1. Does the Bible present a definition of salvation that is better than Wierwille's? 2. Does anybody else from outside of the Way teach this definition? If Wierwille plagiarized it, who did he get it from? Love, Steve

Here's another can of worms to dabble in... was Wierwille's doctrine of salvation a product of exegesis or eisegesis?... in whole or in parts?... if in parts, which are exegesis and which are otherwise? I started out by considering Genesis 2:7, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Love, Steve

I think your're right Gen-2. So here's the big picture of why I wanted to start this particular discussion. Bob started his thread about inerrancy, which piqued my interest because of conversations I've had with people in other contexts where I was not as free to express myself as I am here. I am flummoxed by people who profess to hold the Bible as their only rule for faith and practice, and who hold the Bible as inerrant, yet don't seem to care much about what the Bible actually says. It seems to me that their problem is not in what is written so much as it is in reading what they want it to say, or have been taught that it says, INTO the Bible instead of out from it. This problem is not confined to Wayfers or Ex-Wayfers in my experience, though the deepest (as in doo-doo) personal experience I've had with it was, first of all myself, and next in line, with numerous ex-Way leaders. I think that when a person confesses with his mouth the Lord Jesus, he isn't just making an ontological observation. I believe it is the act whereby a person enters into a permanent personal relationship with Jesus Christ, with Jesus being the Master and the person being the servant. I base this thinking on Exodus 21:2-6. I think a Christian can be a bad servant through personal disobedience to JESUS (not to any other man or to an organization), but I don't think the relationship is broken. I don't think Christians can lose their salvation, but I do believe that there are going to be painful consequences to Christians who trust in men, make flesh their arm, and whose hearts depart from the Lord. (Jeremiah 17:5) I think Paul refers to these consequences when he wrote I Corinthians 3:13-15... "he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." I mourn for the time I spent with my head up my @$$. It is so easy to fall into that condition. But I rejoice in the mercy and grace the Lord has shown toward me when I've repented, and continues to show me as He uncovers even more ways in which I am screwed up. Love, Steve

You write such colorful posts! I agree. The book of Hebrews is a warning to Chritians who came to Christ from a Hebrew background, and were being tempted to turn their backs on Christ because he wasn't a Levite. But as the auther wrote to them in chapter 6 verse 9, "But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we speak thus." Love, Steve

Some people, and I honestly don't have any one poster in mind, may want to go back and review Post #70 on this thread. It's not here by accident! Have fun, and Love, Steve P.S. I'll get back around to dispensationalism, but not tonight!

I'm sorry I offended you, geisha. In no way did I intend to question the validity of your conversion experience or your personal relationship with Jesus Christ. The barb about "mental assent" was not aimed at you, but at people who decide "that couldn't have been written to Christians" just because they don't like what it says, and in that sense, I do believe it is very Wierwillian. I wrote this stuff up in a paper a few years back. The intended audience was an interdenominational group which included some Roman Catholic and American Orthodox Christians as well as Evangelical Protestants. I chose to use the phrase "the Spirit of God working in" a person rather than "a personal relationship with Jesus Christ" because everybody there would have an approximately accurate understanding of the former, but the latter would be off-putting to some. I believe the Spirit of God at the present time is the life of God as evidenced by the power to move combined (?) with the human personality of Jesus Christ. I believe I Corinthians 8:6 supports this supposition when the prepositions are read with their geometrical meanings. I could have written just as easily that "the living Word" is Jesus Christ personally pointing out and explaining the things about the written Word He wants a partcular person to understand, and that is how we get the thoughts and intents of our hearts critiqued. True, on judgment day, we are going to stand naked and open before the eyes of Him with whom we have to do. But believe me, we ALL need to remember that today as well! I HAVE had to stand naked and open before Him because I was abusing people. But I volunteered to do it because I wanted to clean my heart. There are religious leaders whose names most of you would recognize who have hardened their hearts against the awful havoc they have wreaked in the lives of their followers. They would have a lot less to regret at the judgment seat if they would turn their hearts back to the Lord today. Well, I'm starting to get agitated... I spent the day traveling down to Cincinnati and back with one of my nephews, his wife and their four boys, aged eight through seventeen years old. We watched the Reds play the Cardinals and it was a good game. The teams were tied at the top of the ninth inning. The Reds won by a home run at the bottom of the ninth! Then the fireworks went off. We stopped for supper at a Pizza Hut on the way home. Only one of the younger boys got so wired that he threw up. Oh, the memories of my younger days! Love, Steve

It would appear to me that the writer of Hebrews was directing recipients of the book to continue in the personal relationship they had with God the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ, instead of abandoning it because Jesus was not of the line of Levi. The recipients were ethnic Jews, as were all the original Christians. Whoever was raising doubts among them was doing it in terms of Jewish culture... Jesus could not mediate a personal relationship with God, because that's the High Priest's job, and the High Priest has to be of the line of Levi, Jesus is not of the line of Levi, therefore the believers should abandon their faith in Jesus as the Christ. The author of Hebrews responded to these doubts in terms of Jewish culture... the New Testament promised to Israel in Jeremiah has replaced to Old Testament of Deuteronomy under which the High Priest had to be a Levite. Under the New Testament, Jesus can be the High Priest because he is of the order of Melchisidec, an High Priest who preceded the Old Testament and Levi. Jesus is qualified to mediate a personal relationship with God under the New Testament promised to Israel in Jeremiah 31. One of the main burdens of Paul's message in Romans 9 through 11 is to point out that the ethnic Jews of the Roman church were every bit as much Christians as the ethnic gentiles. Paul used HIMSELF as an example in Romans 11:1. Unbelieving Jews were the branches that were broken off. Believing gentiles were grafted in AMONG believing Jews. As Paul wrote, "Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee." (Romans 11:18) I believe that the "root" Paul refers to here are the promises God made to Israel. If Hebrews 4:12 were indeed addressed to people who had only given "mental assent" (a Wierwillian term if ever there was one) to the gospel, how would that change the meanings of the words? Love, Steve

Thank you for pointing out my error, Bob. I went back and re-read Scofield's introduction to Hebrews, and he does indeed hold that the recipients of Hebrews were wavering Christians. I've done enough reading to realize that a number of things have changed in dispensationalist circles since Scofield, but his reference Bible is my most accessible source of general dispensationalist thought. It may well be that I was thinking of the direction that has been taken by CES/STFI. They were teaching, the last I heard of, that the only books of the Bible we can trust are Paul's prison epistles: Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians. They don't teach this for the same reason Bullinger did, that the present "dispensation" began at Acts 28:28 instead of Pentecost, but thay say that Paul had to be broken of his "Jewish mindset" by the treatment he received on his last trip to Jerusalem before he could receive the full greatness of the revelation of his "mystery". Everything he wrote before that time was tainted by his Jewish bias. CES/STFI was also teaching that the New Testament of II Corinthians 3:6 is not the same as the New Testament of Jeremiah 31:31-38 and Hebrews 8:8-12, but rather a never-before-heard-of New Testament, having no relation whatsoever to anything outside of the current "administration." In this, they out-Scofield Scofield. In his general notes to Romans chapter 11, Scofield wrote, "Israel is judicially broken off from the good olive tree Christ." In his notes specifically to Romans 11:17 Scofield wrote, "The olive tree represents the blessings promised to Abraham's seed. Though Gentiles do not, by faith in Christ, inherit Israel's particular promises, they do receive the blessing promised to 'all families of the earth'." The New Testament was specifically promised to "the house of Israel and... the house of Judah" (Jeremiah 31:31, Hebrews 8:8). If gentiles do not, by faith in Christ, inherit Israel's particular promises, then how can gentiles participate in the New Testament? Hebrews 8:16&17 also indicate that Christ's death was necessary to bring the New Testament into force. Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24 and Luke 22:20 testify that the blood Jesus shed in his death on the cross was the blood that sealed the New Testament. If we follow dispensationalism's premise, that gentiles do not by faith inherit Israel's particular promises, to its logical conclusion, don't we have to acknowledge that Scofield's teaching, at least, makes the cross of Christ of none effect? Love, Steve