T-Bone

Having a preference for stuff that goes nowhere - he keeps trading one treadmill for another.

Funny! I love his accent, facial expressions and of course his hair. I got a big kick out of him referring to shopping carts as trolleys. That sounds funny to us yanks

Picking back up on this – I just wanted to share 3 different sources commenting about I Chronicles 21 to offer you some more thoughtful insight on this interesting chapter in light of the idiom of permission. In The Bible Knowledge Commentary – Old Testament on page 610, notes a similar thing about God’s supremacy in I Chronicles 21:1-7: The chronicler did not state David’s motivation for taking a census of Israel except to say Satan…incited him to do so and David wanted to know how many…fighting men there were. In 2 Samuel 24:1, however, the historian revealed that the Lord was angry with His people and used David’s census as an occasion to punish him and them…In His sovereignty God’s ultimate authority extends even to the workings of Satan. ~ ~ ~ ~ From The MacArthur Study Bible NASB , comments on I Chronicles 21:1 Then Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel. Satan …moved. Second Samuel 24:1 reports that “the anger of the Lord burned against Israel.” And this “incited” David to take the census. This apparent discrepancy is resolved by understanding that God sovereignly and permissively uses Satan to achieve His purposes. God uses Satan to judge sinners (cf. Mk 4:15; 2Co 4:4), to refine saints (cf. Job 1:8-2:10; Lk 22:31,32), to discipline those in the church (cf. 1Co 5:1-5; 1Ti 1:20), and to further purify obedient believers (cf. 2Co 12:7-10). Neither God nor Satan forced David to sin (cf. Jas 1:13-15), but God allowed Satan to tempt David and he chose sin. The sin surfaced his proud heart and God dealt with him for it. number Israel. David’s census brought tragedy because, unlike the census in Moses’ time (Nu 1, 2) which God had commanded, this census by David was to gratify his pride in the great strength of his army and consequent power. He was also putting more trust in his forces than in his God. This angered God, who moved Satan to bring the sin to a head. ~ ~ ~ ~ In the book Demons and Spirits in Biblical Theology: Reading the Biblical Text in Its Cultural and Literary Context authors John H Walton and J Harvey Walton explain on pages 212 - 214 about Satan in the Old Testament: The English proper name Satan is a transliteration of the Greek Santanas, which in turn is a transliteration of a Hebrew word that means “accuser” or “adversary”. In the Old Testament the word is possibly used once as a proper name (1 Chr 21:1) and elsewhere as a title; despite the common English translations in Zechariah 3:1-2 and Job 1-2 as proper names, the Hebrew of these passages includes a definite article (haś-śā-ṭān lit. “the satan”) and Hebrew does not use definite articles for personal names. Further, the title is not always applied to the same individual. The title is given to humans (Hadad the Edomite in 1 Kgs 11:14 and Rezon son of Eliada in 1 Kgs 11:23; NIV “adversary”), to unspecified divine beings (Zech 3:1-2; Job 1-2), and once to the Angel of the Lord (Num 22:22; NIV “to oppose”; lit. “as [a] śā-ṭān”). Further, in no instance is the bearer of the title portrayed as a fallen being in opposition to God. Hadad and Rezon are raised up against Solomon by Yahweh; Yahweh dispatches the śā-ṭān to strike to strike Job (Job 1:12) and also takes credit for the devastation (Job2:3). The Angel of the Lord of course is an agent of Yahweh. “Satan” in the Old Testament, but not an adversary of God; the various individuals who fill this role are appointed by Yahweh as adversaries of those that Yahweh wished to oppose… …The point of both 2 Samuel 24 and I Chronicles 21 is that David earned a punishment and God relented from carrying it through because of his love for Israel (2 Sam 24:16; 1 Chr 21:15), thus confirming David’s affirmation that “[the Lord’s] mercy is [very] great” (2 Sam 24:14; 1 Chr 21:13). The exact nature of the offense and the agencies involved are not meaningless but are nonetheless ultimately incidental to this point. ~ ~ ~ ~

Judging by the statement of beliefs on his blog see here – doctrine-wise (looks mainstream) and practice-wise (they help underprivileged Children with their schooling, work among illiterate adults, help the poor and needy, conduct educational seminars, workshops etc., conduct special classes for character building and spiritual development) I don’t think Sebastian is a fan of wierwille…he might have just come across Bullinger’s stuff on his own. Bullinger's work is popular in some markets. I bought my second Companion Bible at a local Barnes & Noble bookstore…My only complaint with Bullinger’s work on idioms is that it lacks more depth from the philosophy of the cultural. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with using Bullinger – like anything else I think a student of the Bible should exercise good cognitive skills. I do that with any study Bible, commentaries, systematic theologies, and studies. I do like Bullinger for his detailed literary analysis of correspondence in Scripture and some of his appendices. The focus and detail of most of his work is astounding. For me, about the only thing wierwille’s body of plagiarized material is good for is documenting the manipulative and indoctrinating tactics of a harmful and controlling cult-leader. Comes in handy when certain Grease Spotters come here and regurgitate or mutate wierwille's theology - I can wade through the bull$hit. sort of like - let's get back to the "original" wierwille barfed word - PFAL and look at it for what it is - in all of its illogical and signature winging it, Gnostical Spiritualistic Fundamental glory.

Yeah I came across that too in my search – the link is James K Sebastian's Blog: idiom of permission in the Bible - - but what was frustrating to me was that Sebastian did not cite a page of Bullinger’s Figures of Speech – but merely makes reference to the topic. Sometimes I grow suspicious of that for several reasons. Did the person accurately summarize the idea of the author they cited? Does the person understand the idea they referenced? Has the person mischaracterized or squeezed the other author’s idea out of shape? Is the person able to walk me through their thinking of how they come up with their opinion? That last thing (walk me through your thought process) can be very revealing. Further down in Sebastian’s blog he says this: I have a collection of books on various subjects. When I read a book, I keep my bible handy. I try to put everything I read through a litmus test of the Bible. In some cases, I do not read a book until I have first studied the subject on my own. However, sometimes, a book sitting on my book rack catches my attention. A word in the title of the book keeps flashing before my eyes. In such cases I pull it out of the rack and begin to read. As I read along (I do not always begin from chapter one), I am prompted to pause at a certain place, and Holy Spirit downloads a new insight or a complete teaching on the same subject. How the Holy Spirit helps to illuminate or deepen our understanding of the Bible is a whole other topic – so I’ll leave that alone - but needless to say, with my 12-year experience of believing everything a cult-leader said because he claimed God taught him, it NOW takes some hard evidence and plain logic to convince me. Waysider made a good point earlier on this thread – if you claim something makes sense then it should be explainable to another person. I will accept intuition, Holy Spirit, when the moon is in the seventh house, getting up on the wrong side of the bed as an experience that makes sense to you. I’ve had those “I’ve got a bad feeling about this” moments myself – and sometimes that’s the only way you can explain it. But wierwille did have a tendency to be utterly definitive and dogmatic about explaining many things in the Bible that are enigmatic, while at the same time displaying an amateurish flair for the biblical languages and culturalisms along with a flagrant disregard for logic because it probably made sense to him. And at this point I am not disputing Bullinger’s the idiom of permission – but for me the jury is still out on how to best express the idea. I’ve got a bad feeling about this is where I’m at on the way some employ the idiom of permission – it seems like an easy way to avoid acknowledging who is ultimately responsible and/or who shares some of the responsibility. Now that's opening the door to allow another factor - I address that further below looking into wierwille's dubious law of believing can fit it. Sebastian referenced Bullinger’s work without giving a page. I found a quick reference to permission on page 823 of Bullinger’s Figures of Speech – but as I said earlier permission , or idiom of permission is not in the index. I found it by looking up Active verbs for permission of action. Bullinger states it as follows: Active verbs were used by the Hebrews to express, not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do. Then Bullinger lists some examples Ex. 4:21 “I will harden his heart” Jer. 4:10 “Lord God, surely thou hast greatly deceived this people” and Matt. 6:13 “Lead us not into temptation” – these are just a few of what he listed. On page 821 Bullinger says this about idioms: Idiom, however, is not generally classed among Figures in the technical sense of the word. But as the words do not mean literally what they say, and are not used or combined according to their literal signification, they are really Figures. I have a problem with that. If idioms are not technically a figure of speech – then how did Bullinger determine the words do not literally mean what they say? Mentally there seems to be another step involved. What are the determining factors? Is it based on one’s view of what God can or cannot do? How do you know God can or cannot do something? For example, take the figure of speech Simile - involving the comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind, used to make a description more emphatic or vivid (e.g., as brave as a lion, crazy like a fox). I say so-and-so is brave as a lion for standing up to the bully. Will there be a debate over whether or not so-and-so is literally a lion? I don’t think so. The person who stood up to the bully is a human being. But I have a real issue with treating the idiom of permission like a figure of speech – because it’s debatable on how much authorization is involved, are there other factors in play even though this may be the most critical one...I get into that further below considering how God orchestrates situations. God’s sovereignty gets into a whole other deep topic – I won’t get into much detail here but it relates to this idiom of permission thing. open theism theory is something I never really considered when trying to understand God’s knowledge and sovereignty. It’s the idea that God could have voluntarily placed limits on Himself – to allow freedom for His created beings... Classical theism has made a strong claim that God is timeless, in the sense of existing outside of time and sequence. Yet we praise God not because He is beyond time and change but because He works redemptively in time for our salvation. We may tend to think omnipotence as the power to determine everything - being coercive like a puppeteer. A monopoly on power is easy to manage. What’s much more difficult to govern is a universe with created beings that have the option – the freedom – to disobey. Omnipotence does not mean that nothing can go contrary to God’s will (like our sins do) but that God is able to deal with any circumstances that may arise. Though by nature God is omnipotent – in a sense, God can be vulnerable because of His decision to make a world filled with beings who have free will. The Creator of the universe has chosen to limit his power by delegating some to the created beings. American theologian, pastor and author Greg Boyd said “It takes far more self-confidence, far more wisdom, far more love and sensitivity to govern that which is personal and free than it does to govern that over which one has absolute control.” Where am I going on this? Don’t know yet. But at this point I lean toward God is sovereign – I believe He set up a moral universe. A moral universe implies that we live in a basically spiritual universe that is somehow ordered by a higher power, by invisible feelings of good and bad, a 'cosmic order' reminiscent of the early Greeks that underpins and motivates our actions. Or a 'moral force' that means our actions must have definite effects which we carry with us. In this respect its meaning comes close to the Hindu concept of Karma. From Wikipedia – moral universe For a higher power to order the way things work – then ultimately, the higher power is in charge. Who set up the law of gravity? I believe I can fly like Superman and jump off a skyscraper. Splat! In my attempt to break the law of gravity, the law of gravity broke me. Blame the law of gravity for my death or blame me for subscribing to the law of believing. . We were given freedom of will - which means we should bear the responsibility for our choices . I think there is something to the idiom of permission in that we recognize the sovereignty of God. Even if He uses agents to carry out the action. When we say so-and-so really calls the shots - we mean so-and-so takes the initiative in how something is done. To me an aspect of God’s sovereignty is that He can orchestrate how a situation works out. I think of Joseph speaking to his brothers that sold him into slavery: You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. Genesis 50:20 .... I think of Romans 8:28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. In Genesis and Romans we should notice God can work things out - even though along the way there’s a lot of ups and downs. God never promised an easy ride and smooth sailing. I think wierwille had a tendency to play the role of God’s representative on Earth - telling us what God can and cannot do. I even think he may have fused a couple of ideas together - turning idiom of permission on its head to be YOUR believing or lack thereof limits God - YOU are not permitting God to act. From page 19 of Lifelines: Quotations of Victor Paul wierwille, The believer’s fear binds the omnipotence of God. what the hell ?!?! He went from the idiom of permission to the idiocy of magical thinking...that is hilarious - God does not have unlimited power - because YOUR believing is more powerful than His capabilities !!!!!! Holy $hit !!!! Didn't wierwille write a chapter Are You Limiting God? ? He answered his own question - wierwille taught we can limit God by our believing. You know, wierwille should have come out with a Malleable Study Bible – the most practical and pliable study Bible available for pseudo-Christian ministries with tons of cross references – but not references to the cross of Christ - and plenty of dirty double crosses for swindling friends, allies, colleagues, foes and the IRS…oh wait he already produced the Malleable Study Bible it’s called PFAL. Here’s another dandy from page 15 of Lifelines God is no respecter of theology, but a respecter of believing…. Let me get this straight – theology – which is religious beliefs and theory when systematically developed from the Bible doesn’t matter to God? It’s what YOU BELIEVE that counts. Huh? More to come on this…I'm looking into some reputable sources (books by legitimate and straight forward authors ) on how God's sovereignty relates to all of this. that's all for now

First off, I appreciate Twinky for starting this thread. Second – sorry I’m late to the party. I stumbled upon this indirectly while on another thread – where a certain Grease Spotter kept harping on the idiom of permission for some silly reason though it had nothing to do with the main topic ( here )…sometimes I am flabbergasted by certain posters who complain of posts, threads, and files related to their inane concern being lost or deleted by moderators or maybe the lack of bandwidth…or when the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter is aligned with Mars…so on that thread I simply Googled figures of Speech – didn’t even use GSC’s search tool – and the first hit was this thread! Will wonders never cease…makes you wonder if we’re talking learned-helplessness or purpose-driven-derailment. Third – after reading the thoughtful posts on this thread – with great trepidation I then reached for my Bullinger’s Companion Bible and his Figures of Speech. I had an uneasy feeling I was about to peel another layer of the Bullinger / wierwille mystique. Which brings me to my fourth point… Fourth – I want to look into this more – but for now I want to share what I came across so far and then I’ll throw in my "valuable" two cents. What’s more difficult than trying to find a needle in a haystack? Looking for a nonexistent needle in a haystack. Googling idiom of permission usually got hits making some reference to Bullinger’s work. So – what the hell – I got my Bullinger books off the shelf. The first frustrating thing is I could not find idiom of permission in the index or an appendix on figures of speech. I did find just idiom though. That got me thinking – I wonder if wierwille added the extra of permission to the term (recalling wierwille’s tendency to twist definitions out of shape to fit his theology – like Greek word pros – together with yet distinctly independent of in his John 1:1 interpretation – saying the only way Jesus Christ was together with yet distinctly independent of God was in God’s foreknowledge - )…anyway here’s a quick def from Companion Bible: Idioma or Idiom. The peculiar usage of words and phrases, as illustrated in the language peculiar to one nation or tribe, as opposed to other languages or dialects. Appendix 6 Figures of Speech in The Companion Bible There’s a lot of wiggle room in that brief description. You can look at the end of my post and check out the various hyperlinks to figures of speech. Read through some descriptions and examples ... the figures I looked at seemed definitive in their description and did not need to be further interpreted – in fact, figures are usually employed to enhance the communication of ideas. Another thing that got me thinking was Nathan_Jr’s comment after my post – he said he understood what the idiom of permission means – but was unclear as to when it applies, and to which verbs ( here ). From my 12 years of being in a harmful and controlling cult I came to know we all depended on wierwille to make that call. It was his signature intuition (whatever he felt it meant rather than using reason…like a sixth sense…”the Father showed me” ) which functioned like a manual transmission – he would shift gears on what applied where, adultery becomes spiritual adultery, and so on. So, at this point I’m thinking this idiom of permission is somewhat ambivalent – it may have simultaneous conflicting ideas, beliefs, or feelings about something. Earlier on this thread another poster talked about the difference in cultures – how the western mind may view God as doing only good, whereas the eastern mind might tend to attribute everything to God. Maybe wierwille tried to relate an eastern book to the western mind…I don’t know. Since I left TWI I find myself leaning more and more toward the natural sense of a passage – without having to juggle preconceived notions of what God can or can’t do. On that same thread, I used I Chronicles 21 to show that God or an agent of God acting on His behalf gave David a choice of consequences and/or executed those consequences ( see my post here ). God is attributed with doing a lot of bad stuff. And tonight I checked Bullinger’s Companion Bible on I Chronicles 21 and there is NOT one reference to idiom or idiom of permission in his notes on that chapter. But Bullinger does mention another figure in I Chronicles 21:15 And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite. Bullinger notes on “he repented” it’s the figure Anthropopatheia. Anthropopatheia or condescension – this figure is used of the ascription of human passions, actions or attributes to God. from page 871 of Bullinger’s Figures of Speech Used in the Bible Okay – I know anthropomorphism is ascribing human characteristics to something that is not human, such as an animal or a god; the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities. It is considered to be an innate tendency of human psychology from Wikipedia: anthropomorphism Like the idiom of permission, anthropopatheia is a matter of how one views God. Would God send a plague on Israel ( I Chron. 21:14 )? Can God change His mind ( I Chron. 21:15 )? I don’t think fundamentalists like wierwille played fair when they danced around chapters like this to the tune of God is good and God does not change. I don’t know enough to argue all the technicalities of Bullinger’s work – but I’m highly suspect of some of the phraseology of Bullinger and wierwille being rigidly formulaic and attempt to put God in a box. Reflecting on what I remember of wierwille’s theology – God was so small…predictable…limited by our believing…extremely tolerant of the bad behavior of morally depraved cult-leaders. Anyway…that’s all for now… ...may come back with more later if I find something interesting. ~ ~ ~ ~ Below are a few hyperlinks concerning figures of speech: Exam Planning com: 23 common figures of speech The Visual Communication Guy: Figures of Speech (official list) Wikipedia: figure of speech English Grammar Here: 100 figures of speech with examples

you're welcome Mike ...that would be the appropriate place to share your ideas on the subject

I didn’t find a reference to “the idiom of permission”…that’s not to say it’s not used in this Jewish Study Bible – there’s no dictionary or cross reference of idioms in the back - I didn’t find it in the side notes of any passages of Job – doesn’t mean it’s not in there – might mean I didn’t look hard enough . Not sure if Bullinger coined the term. However, for what it’s worth – my own thoughts on the matter (only worth 2 cents ) there is a big difference in the thoughtful, culturally immersed theology of the ancient Hebrews and the dogmatic tendencies of Bullinger. In my opinion ancient Hebrew religious thought has a lot more humility and honesty – in that it acknowledges there’s a lot we as human beings don’t know. Bullinger came up with or subscribed to some screwy stuff: 4 crucified with Jesus, ultra-dispensationalism, flat-Earth, the inerrancy of the Bible, astrology astronomy in Scripture , dubious definitions in his Greek lexicon, and best I can tell he seemed to think God dictated a perfect book that can be dissected…analyzed…diagrammed…and correctly understood with a mathematical exactness and scientific precision…voila the essence of fundamentalism! “I understand what the idiom of permission means? But I'm unclear as to when it applies, and to which verbs. It's either always (without exception or distinction) or sometimes. Which?” - yeah…well… that’s the problem with dogmatism and folks like Bullinger and wierwille who come up with some dubious rules. Could it be the rule, theory or whatever is flawed? ERMAHGERD ! One of the opening remarks in the Jewish Bible on the book of Job mentions what gives the book of Job such a sense of profundity and makes it the most theologically difficult is its inconclusive conclusion: There is no way of understanding the meaning of suffering. That is, in the Lord’s argument, the reasons for suffering – if there are any – are simple beyond human comprehension. (from page 1500)

Said by the Grease Spotter who appears to do that for a living here

Spiritualism is one of the aberrant smoke-and-mirrors doctrines in wierwille’s screwy ideology. Followers flocked to wierwille’s Advanced Class to hear the latest political and spiritual sounding conspiracies. If wierwille said it – it must be true. There’s an explanation for why that corps woman accused him of sexual molestation – she’s possessed! The devil is really trying to attack his ministry and cause division in the body. ya know, referencing Bullinger maybe isn't the best strategy...wierwille the copy-boy couldn't think for himself and just repeated Bullinger's errors and in some cases made them even worse. Think about it, Mike - that’s all for now

No - I didn't miss mentioning the idiom of permission - I'm ignoring your attempts to sidestep the debate. merely using Google and not GSC's search feature I found the doctrinal thread on Grease Spot: Grease Spot doctrinal idiom of permission two significant posts on that thread: WordWolf's post on substituting the passive tense with an active tense is what it is, and in this SPECIFIC case, it means turning PERMISSION into INITIATION. The average person who understands the figure would never recognize it as "idiom of permission." ( here ) and Steve Lortz's post on the didactic poetry of Job and Steve said he would give wierwille an F for explaining in collateral on human suffering why bad things happen to good people ( here ) Also I have The Jewish Study Bible: Featuring The Jewish Publication Society TANAKH Translation Translation and on page 1499 and following of the introductory notes on Job make the same point as WordWolf – but in a much more detailed way of course since this study Bible reflects the familiarity of the Hebrew Culture - The Jewish Publication Society check it out Mike that's all for now

I was not aware that GSC has an official policy on forgiveness also I think you’re putting the cart before the horse - in your mischaracterization - saying repenting is not the way God forgives. God forgives ! Repentance has to do with us changing our behavior after being forgiven. on a side note I think religions, societies, cultures, governments have some sense of what’s right and wrong. It’s called social norms. That will be spelled out in penal codes, rules, laws, policies etc.

If it’s devoid of authority then there is no need to be responsible

That’s odd - because in Deuteronomy and Hebrews say God is a consuming fire and to fear His wrath …well I guess a consuming fire would give off a lot of light.

In Luke 3 John said to bear fruit worthy of repentance - meaning if one has SINCERELY repented - their reformed behavior is proof of that

Wonder if this is a sign of cognitive dissonance - one imagines they are in a place that makes them feel calm and happy because they don’t know how - or don’t want to deal with a bad situation.

I’m curious . How did you know the translators were so freaked out? Were you there?

Not according to the Bible! In the very incident I quoted in my previous post about consequences in I Chronicles. This reads almost like a police incident report in which the narrative gives details surrounding the incident, the victims, the witnesses and main actors and their roles – I highlighted in bold red the narrative phrases that indicate God or an agent of God acting on God’s behalf gave David a choice of consequences and/or executed those consequences: The Lord said to Gad, David’s seer, “Go and tell David, ‘This is what the Lord says: I am giving you three options. Choose one of them for me to carry out against you.’” So Gad went to David and said to him, “This is what the Lord says: ‘Take your choice: three years of famine, three months of being swept away before your enemies, with their swords overtaking you, or three days of the sword of the Lord—days of plague in the land, with the angel of the Lord ravaging every part of Israel.’ Now then, decide how I should answer the one who sent me.” David said to Gad, “I am in deep distress. Let me fall into the hands of the Lord, for his mercy is very great; but do not let me fall into human hands.” So the Lord sent a plague on Israel, and seventy thousand men of Israel fell dead. And God sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem. But as the angel was doing so, the Lord saw it and relented concerning the disaster and said to the angel who was destroying the people, “Enough! Withdraw your hand.” The angel of the Lord was then standing at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. David looked up and saw the angel of the Lord standing between heaven and earth, with a drawn sword in his hand extended over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders, clothed in sackcloth, fell facedown. David said to God, “Was it not I who ordered the fighting men to be counted? I, the shepherd, have sinned and done wrong. These are but sheep. What have they done? Lord my God, let your hand fall on me and my family, but do not let this plague remain on your people.” I Chronicles 21: 9 -17 Conclusion: God is sovereign – it is His prerogative as Lord of the cosmos to set up laws and rules for enforcement as He sees fit…fyi that’s the real backstory behind Romans 13 which wierwille twisted around to mean the gift ministries are the higher powers! How convenient for a plagiarizing, lying, thieving, Drambuie-drinking sexual predator who happened to be an ordained minister… whereas because we were created as social beings, God ordained the institution of government. Not that God endorses any particular form of government – but perhaps it’s out of His original mandate that gave us freedom of will and some responsibility - God is a BIG risktaker I'll give Him that. That’s all for now - more on truth or consequences to follow

Mike said: I don’t think “free pass” appears in the Bible. Maybe it does, but it’s a big book, and it takes a long time to get it all studied up and deeply. It’s a work in progress for me. T-Bone’s response: You’re right - “free pass” doesn’t appear in the Bible. But the concept does! That’s why I gave the definition in my post Free pass = toleration of bad behavior or poor performance. Perhaps this will become clearer to you when I address your next statements. ~ ~ ~ ~ Mike said: MAYBE it is the case that I did not do a good job in defining it, or didn’t explain it well enough. I will give it a try again. First of all, what I meant by “tolerate” is embedded in “The Idiom of Permission.” Now THAT is pretty deep, and so deep I am not yet good at describing it. I am searching for a good, short description. T-Bone’s response: So in other words God permits bad behavior or poor performance – is that what you mean? Sounds like you’re describing some hypocritical Pharisee talking to himself in the mirror. ~ ~ ~ ~ Mike said: God tolerates bad behavior from you and me and anyone with holy spirit in this following way. When we sin and are out of fellowship, but when we ADMIT, or confess, or “say the same thing,” that what we did or think was contrary to God’s will, He FAITHFULLY forgives and cleanses us from all unrighteousness, and “forgets” or makes the past to be null and void. He then is poised to bless work with us again as we again resume working for Him. T-Bone’s response: Hold on – you lost me at the beginning when you said God tolerates bad behavior from you and me and anyone with holy spirit in this following way …it seems to me you like to rewrite the moral demands of the Bible - to minimize them – and expect God to accept your rewrite…that’s not how I understand Ephesians 4: Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to your neighbor, for we are all members of one body. “In your anger do not sin”: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold. Anyone who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with their own hands, that they may have something to share with those in need. Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Ephesians 4:25-31 I don’t understand how someone can get "God tolerates bad behavior from you and me and anyone with holy spirit" out of Ephesians 4 – when it’s plain as day that it’s saying God does NOT tolerate bad behavior so QUIT DOING IT – because it grieves…hurts…saddens…offends the Holy Spirit of God! I don’t see the need to address the rest of these morally degenerative musings. Have a nice day Mike

Due to recent overt and covert maneuverings on certain threads I feel the need to make this announcement to all Grease Spotters: My preferred style of communication in cyberspace is being upfront and direct. I’m not a big fan of cold war tactics that pussyfoot around big ideological differences. I’m not mentioning any names here, but if the hand fits in the glove, then wear it…if it doesn’t fit - you must…uhhh…quit trying it on for size some Grease Spotters have used the covert route of unsolicited private messages to me to continue a conversation from a thread about points they disagreed with me on. I will just redirect them back to the thread – nice try – but no thanks. I already get enough spam in my email accounts. As it is, I often wonder about other backchannels some folks use whether it’s conspiring with other wierwille/PFAL fans through private messaging or being in direct communication with the Mothership (I know who you are! Fox and Scully told me) That’s all for now

Why? Mike, what are the MANY things we agree on? And What are the very few things we disagree on? So… Before I sign on to amplify what YOU think we agree upon – I want to know specifics! This request of yours just doesn't seem genuine to me. Mike, why don’t YOU start a new thread “What are the MANY things that Grease Spotters agree on?” I also am very suspicious of your reasons for wanting Grease Spotters to put aside the very few things we disagree on. It hits me as a gimmick so you can avoid being challenged in a discussion. So… Mike, why don’t YOU start a new thread “What are the very few things Grease Spotters disagree on that should put aside?”

again - just for some comedic relief...it was said of wierwille "he teaches like Bullinger writes" ...after rereading this book about Paul - I realized I post like Paul wrote - "sentences would be so long, with so many parenthetical thoughts thrown in, that a reader would forget what the subject of the sentence was before reaching the verb..." well, I thought it was funny...anyway... oh Paul, I know what it's like...

hey, OldSkool I know this is off-topic but since Nathan_Jr has some good recommendations. And picking up on Nathan_Jr mentioning Erhman as agnostic-atheist, I wanted to add one of the things that has helped me get out of the fundamentalist mindset was listening to smart analytical people – regardless of their belief system – over Bible stuff because it gets me to look at the nuts and bolts of the Bible and even matters of faith - it's all getting down to the essentials. That’s when I say, “it is what it is” … whether it’s a contradiction in the text of the Bible, a scientific or historical error, or just something that remains a mystery - it cannot be changed and therefore I accept it…My motto after leaving TWI is “there’s a lot of $hit I don’t know and probably never will”. ...anyway...I wanted to chime in with some specific works by a few he mentioned, as well as a few others I’ve found helpful: https://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512 Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why by Bart Ehrman https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Christianities-Battles-Scripture-Faiths/dp/0195141830 The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew by Bart Ehrman https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Interrupted-Revealing-Hidden-Contradictions-ebook/dp/B001TKD4XA/ Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them) by Bart Ehrman ~ ~ ~ ~ https://www.thegreatcourses.com/search/Bart Erhman The Great Courses website has a big selection of lectures by in-field experts – you can purchase and download a lecture or buy it on DVD. I bought several of Ehrman’s lectures ( also bought a lecture Psychology of Human Behavior by Prof. David Martin – something my wife and I are both interested in when we’re not binge watching The West Wing ) ~ ~ ~ ~ https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Bible-Introduction-Skeptics-Religious/dp/0807010537 Understanding the Bible: An Introduction for Skeptics, Seekers, and Religious Liberals by John Buehrens https://www.amazon.com/Making-Sense-Bible-Rediscovering-Scripture/dp/0062234986 Making Sense of the Bible: Rediscovering the Power of Scripture Today by Adam Hamilton ...Engine turned me on to this one mentioning it on this thread here - it's a great read! https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Tells-Me-Defending-Scripture/dp/0062272039 The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It by Peter Enns https://www.amazon.com/How-Bible-Actually-Works-Answers_and/dp/0062686755 How the Bible Actually Works: In Which I Explain How An Ancient, Ambiguous, and Diverse Book Leads Us to Wisdom Rather Than Answers―and Why That's Great News by Peter Enns https://www.amazon.com/Misreading-Scripture-Western-Eyes-Understand/dp/0830837825 Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible by E. Randolph Richards and Brandon J. O’Brien https://www.amazon.com/Bible-Biography-Karen-Armstrong/dp/1843543966 The Bible: The Biography by Karen Armstrong https://www.amazon.com/Beginning-Karen-Armstrong-ebook/dp/B004OEIDCK In the Beginning: A New Interpretation of Genesis by Karen Armstrong https://www.amazon.com/Adam-Eve-Serpent-Politics-Christianity-ebook/dp/B005MHHRUC/ Adam, Eve, and the Serpent: Sex and Politics in Early Christianity by Elaine Pagels https://www.amazon.com/Origin-Satan-Christians-Demonized-Heretics-ebook/dp/B005O1BLU8/ The Origin of Satan: How Christians Demonized Jews, Pagans, and Heretics by Elaine Pagels https://www.amazon.com/Gnostic-Gospels-Modern-Library-Nonfiction-ebook/dp/B000RH0DSU/ The Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels

Thank you Nathan_Jr – I am in agreement with what you said ! and on a sidenote - 12 years in TWI is a ridiculously long bad acid trip "what do you think my mind looked like?" I bet it couldn't win an IQ contest

This morning I was reading about Paul’s conversion in Acts 9 in NLT Chronological Life Application Study Bible and one of the study notes got me to reflect on a few watershed moments in my life. About Paul’s conversion the study note said sometimes God breaks into a life in a spectacular manner, and sometimes conversion is a quiet experience – the right way to come to faith in Jesus is whatever way God brings you. If I could take philosophical license (is there really such a thing? ) with that study note – there is something about Paul’s conversion that has always resonated with me. In Catholic grammar school I was asked to read something from the Holy Bible that I thought was important to know. I chose Acts 9 because, I said, it showed that Jesus will make sure you know what’s important…Well…so much for a fifth grader’s “keys to walking by the spirit”. But as naive as that sounds, I have always been fascinated by Acts 9 – not for the come-to-Jesus-moment of conversion – but more like a Jesus-comes-to-me-when I’m-in-a-dark-place experience – since I was already a Christian…ever since I can remember. Paul had the Old Testament…knew it like the back of his hand…he was a fervent believer…but what was absent from his belief system was Christ (which is a dark place indeed). There were two very dark times in my life. And I believe in both instances Jesus Christ came to my rescue. The first was when I was 19 years old having a really bad acid trip. In the middle of the night – alone - in the middle of a maelstrom of frightening hallucinations, paranoia and extreme anxiety I said out loud “Jesus Christ help me” . And immediately that mental turbulence subsided. I know - you'll probably say "that's just in your head" - and you're absolutely right .To this day I believe that was a miracle. It wasn't a spectacular tangible event - it was a quiet inner experience. Know this - It’s important to ask Jesus Christ for help. The second dark time was at the ’86 Rock of Ages (which would be the last big TWI-event I would attend) . I think LCM was talking on stage and in the whirlpool of WWwT bedlam ( or the what-would-wierwille-think confusing way to make a decision ) roaring in my head I said to myself - or maybe it was a prayer?...was it inspired by intuition?…the Holy Spirit?…Jesus Christ? I don't know...anyway …I thought to myself something along the lines of “how can we be in such a mess if this ministry has more of the rightly divided Word than any other group?” It wasn’t so much the exact question. It wasn't a spectacular experience - it was something quiet happening on the inside that others around me weren't even aware of. It was more like flipping on a switch…engaging cognitive skills that had laid dormant for 12 years…daring to question…challenge…analyze…evaluate everything I had learned from wierwille / PFAL. Rather than having PFAL as the go-to playbook for a crisis – remember this - it’s important to ask Jesus Christ for help. If you reread my post - the excerpts from the Rescuing the Bible book about Paul ( here ) I think you might find there are many ex-Twi followers who can relate to Paul’s life-changing experience – being thrown off our high horses of PFAL-arrogancy by the almost sunlight-blinding realization that Christ was largely absent from wierwille’s ideology…his pseudo-Christian dogma should be a thing of the past...If you ask me, I think you'll get a lot farther on foot - following in the steps of Jesus Christ - than riding wierwille's high horse named PFAL. That’s all for now folks