GeorgeStGeorge

And no one has to substantiate it, either. As I mentioned several days ago, people don't "go seed-boy" out of the blue. Assuming a reasonable amount of communication within his kingdom, the Devil does not need to be omniscient OR omnipresent to know when someone has been seduced into committing the unforgiveable sin, just aware. Secondly, even if we accept Eagle's premise that the Devil must give up some of himself in order to father someone, there is no way to know how much power he has or how much (or how little) must be expended to father someone. The number of his children is far less than the number of the children of God (praise God!). Incidentally, I'm not omnipotent, either, but I could have a WHOLE LOT of children if each one of my seeds resulted in a birth! George

I was tested in this manner years ago. Actually, questionnaires were given to several of my co-workers, and THEIR responses were used to determine my social style. I turned out to be an analytical-analytical, meaning I consider Spock to be impulsive! :)--> I do tend to stick with things that work, rather than trying something new. I AM, however, a lot of fun at parties! George

Valerie, Check your PTs. George

That's up to you, I suppose. LCM DID have some lucid moments, though. George

Dave, I tried to answer this early on: "To dmiller, LCM explained this. The devil was well aware of the promise of the seed of the woman crushing his seed. He was not able to copy the Christian new birth, of course, but was able to mimic natural seed. This spiritual "seed" left his "children" open to posession at any time. Having committed the unforgivable sin, his children would never turn to the true God." Does this answer your question? George

It seems to me, that if we are to take "children of God" in this verse literally, we must also take "children of the devil" literally. George

So it's not just TWI that you have issues with? George

Thirty in Way Builders, but only ONE in legal? George

Actually, the way LCM always described it was that the "seed" was a spiritual wedge that left the person open to spirit possession at any time. I never heard it refered to as any form of spiritual life whatsoever. George

To Templelady and Keith re point #3: Who said the Devil's seed is LIFE? It's DEATH, and Satan is the father of it. When one commits the unforgiveable sin, i.e., becomes a child of the Devil, he will not repent, so God can't save him. (To do so, God would have to override the person's free will.) George

Seafood? Fish bones? I thought this thread was about brownies!!! Seriously...great post, Socks. Where were you eight pages ago? George

I'm wondering if jsamuel didn't mean this as tongue-in-cheek? --> I find it hard to believe (s)he's serious. --> George

You're not a big meanie, Rascal, though I think you are making a logical fallacy in your understanding of Luke 17:3,4. "If A then B" does NOT imply "If not A then not B." "If he repent, forgive him" does not imply "If he repents not, forgive him not." The only commandment, as it were, is that if he repents, you MUST forgive him. Note that Mark 11:25,26 state that Jesus's followers were to forgive IF THEY HAD OUGHT (SOMETHING)AGAINST ANY. In fact, jesus told them that if they did not forgive, neither would God forgive them! It's a little better in the Grace Administration, where we are told to forgive BECAUSE we've been forgiven (Eph. 4:32). As has been pointed out by others, it does the forgiver good to forgive. This is NOT absolution. It's not denying that wrong was done. It doesn't mean you have to be buddies with those that have hurt you. It does mean that you're bigger than the pain. God bless, George

You guys are scaring me! :D--> George

Though that wasn't my point, Ex10, I should point out that Job's "friends" and the self-appointed prophet, Elihu, did most of the abusing. I took your previous comment to be more general in nature. Sorry if I didn't interpret it in light of the full context. George

I might point out Acts 5:14-16. It's clear that the sick who were brought to Peter in v.15 were of the multitude of believers. It's also possible (though I can't say for certain) that those "vexed with unclean spirits" in v.16 were also believers. George

My notes in bold

Thanks for the note, Raf. I looked at my Greek text, but I didn't pay attention to the article (a mistake I don't usually make). Indeed, "THE faith" would tend to substantiate the idea that "the faith" is put by metonomy for Jesus Christ, though it could also be argued that "THE faith" would mean the one, correct faith, which still would come to each of us individually. George

1. Believe it. 2. Believe it. 3. Believe it. To dmiller, LCM explained this. The devil was well aware of the promise of the seed of the woman crushing his seed. He was not able to copy the Christian new birth, of course, but was able to mimic natural seed. This spiritual "seed" left his "children" open to posession at any time. Having committed the unforgivable sin, his children would never turn to the true God. 4. Believe it, with qualifications. Can a Christian get possessed? Yes. Does this mean the devil spirit "takes over" the holy spirit? I've never heard it put that way, and I would not believe it. A possessed Christian can still operate holy spirit. George

Actually, the Book of Job is pretty much ALL ABOUT God's tolerance of evil and abuse, until such time as He could demonstrate His power and goodness. Sadly, in ExC's case (and others'), it seems that the evil and abuse came AFTER the good. At the risk of jump-starting Oldiesman again (and another round of brownies analogies), I don't think it's fair to begrudge others the learning or blessing they may have received in TWI. I really do wish it could have been all "sweetness and light." I pray for all of you who have opened your hearts, not that you would change your opinions of TWI (which would mean ignoring your own experiences), but that you can all be fully healed from the pain. George

That's an interesting alternative, although the context seems to indicate a general condition of mankind before Christ's appearance, rather than an individual state prior to acceptance of Christ. Still, v.27 does refer to baptism, which is an individual event, not a collective one. It merits further study. George

I finally had Galatians 3:23 explained to me in a way that makes sense. "But before FAITH came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the FAITH which should afterwards be revealed." The word faith is an occurence of the figure of speech metonomy whereby "faith" is put for the subject of true faith (or believing, if you will), Jesus Christ. It's not some special "faith" that hadn't come yet, it was Christ who was yet to appear. The same figure is used in v.25 (and perhaps v.24, though I think here that "faith" actuallly means the right believing that Christ made available). George

This thread could go on forever. I haven't posted anything lately because it's taken all my free time just to catch up! :)--> Speaking FOR MYSELF, what I believe from TWI (PFAL, et al.), I believe, not becuse VPW or any of the others was such a charmer, but because it makes sense to me and fits with the Bible. What I do not believe from TWI, I do not believe, not because VPW or the others were stinkers, but because it either doesn't make sense or contradicts the Bible. I, personally, have not been so injured that I look back at my TWI years with disgust. Neither do I know anyone personally who has been so injured. But that doesn't mean that there aren't those out there who WERE so injured. I grieve for you who were. But, as should be obvious by now, there are those who still hold much (or all?) that they learned from TWI in high esteem. They should not be considered "ignorant" or "blinded" for that. Neither should those who consider the balance (or all?) of their TWI experience as loss. We all have different experiences and should respect each other in that light. If we can't "call the game," at least play nice. George