roberterasmus

Nicely said Gen, “God of this Age” means…well “God of this age” and we’re still in it. Now “greater is the one who is in you” still means what it says, but are we out there doing our own “demonstration of the spirit and power” enough…no. It is on us, and the Christ in us and our collaboration with other spiritual beings who are assigned their portion in this world. We are not without weapons. I’m sorry about your parents. Really sorry. Is there anything my wife and I might help you with? We're not living in a "fair" world or age. In him, Bob

Steve, You never did respond to me when you asked the question, “What is salvation?” (some post weeks ago). I said it was “deliverance from the lake of fire” (ultimately). Now, the semantic range of sodzo is far from only this ultimate “salvation” and indeed there are some usages of “to be made whole”, but I’ll agree with you that VP wrongly taught that this wholeness was because Adam and Eve somehow “lost” that third part of their “beingness”. But I will disagree with you (and you’ll have to show me where I’m wrong, if you please) that “the literal meaning of the word "spirit" as breath” (or were you just meaning in Numbers 19:13?) is everywhere and spirit is never the spirit of God (in some form or another…whether it is God’s (his own) spirit or His gift to people). Then there’s the issue of “age” and “ages” and I remember you said (not on this thread; or maybe it wasn’t even you…how bad is my memory…help) that God didn’t deal (or wasn’t focused on….can’t remember exactly how you stated it) with dispensations, but rather with “ages” and “times”. Let us settle this better before we loose sight of it. There is definitely “this age” and “the age to come” and aion means “age” as opposed to “world” (KJV and the earlier xlations really do this and it probably meant something close to our “age” today). Aion ton aionion means the “ages unto ages” (possibly indicating many more to come…Oh Boy!). But really, Ultimate Salvation is not getting thrown into the Lake of Fire (the last bad thing that could happen). Oh, yea and God does deal with dispensations as well as ages and times. Just don’t want to loose sight of that one. Please respond when you can. RE

OMG, Geisha, You have inserted a theologian video! And he used NOT ONE verse of Scripture in his diatribe (and contradicted, IMHO, many). Hmmm, NT Wright on death and being with Jesus; what happens to a Christian when he/she dies, “we’ll be with him (a time of “rest and refreshment and delight”, probably not an “unconscious time”, he says, “hard to describe who we will be at that time”, he says and then he glosses over tons of eschatological information and states things like “the Bible doesn’t use the word “soul” that often.” Did he even look at the 757 uses of nephesh and the 103 uses of psuche (458 alone of these which are translated “soul” in the KJV) before he made that silly statement? Then there’s the affirmation from Wright that he’s not sure how long or if it is long, but after (whatever period…) “God will do something new to the whole creation”, jumping over huge issues (but actually from there on out I agree with him). Not one verse, not one reference even. I’m supposed to trust his “scholarship”. Been there, done that, won’t do it again; and I studied with with some of the great ones (of a former generation - Robert Boling, Ted Campbell, Arthur Voobus and Dennis Pardee (OK, Dennis is still teaching at the U of C today) other guys are dead...really dead and not flyin' around "with Jesus"....yet). Meanwhile, Mr. Integrity (aka – Steve) is going through verse by verse and working things out in his mind and for our benefit (quite well IMHO). He’s pointing how a Grecian outlook on death is quite opposed to the Hebraic (BTW Steve, if you substitute the word “being” (or even “person”) for “soul” in those “dead soul” contexts I believe you’ll be getting a better picture of the Hebraic understanding. Most good Northwest Semitic Language “scholars”, trained in Hebrew or any/all the other NWS languages “get it” when it comes to BEING a soul not HAVING one. We won’t quite get to the actual meaning without adding words, but our Western understanding of a “human being” is quite close. We just don’t use a “dead being” though a “dead human being” is very close to the Hebrew “dead soul” (“can’t touch this” (person) (a little MC Hammer please)). I also hope this helps Gen. You have done me a service though, Geisha, and I’ll get back to this thread as quickly as I can about it. I did a quick (quick, mind you) concordant search on “with him” (in relation to Jesus) and it has opened my proverbial eyes yet again at how precise Paul is in this matter about death and dying as well as Rapture versus Resurrection (I’ll have to post it on that other thread as well). RE

Gen, You've said a Biblical mouthful (W/O BTW using one C/V!!). Touché. How much have you read on the "sons of god" subject and where (if you don’t mind)? I have some researchers and sites that I've begun to trust over the years on it (People with near eastern language background much the same as myself, but with deeper philological and theological pockets). And then there's my own work on the subject... This issue has the means to clear up a lot of fluff and feathers from the "beginnings" to the "end of all things" and a lot in between. I don't mean to be vague, but it is a subject that a lot of people don't really want to tackle, discuss or see showing up in forums. I'm tracking all that you say above and concur with most of it. The "life and times of Lucifer (or insert one of the many other names) the antagonist" has changed a lot for me over the last 10 years as I understood more of the time table of his fall (not yet, IMHO, and that’s another thread entirely) and the "divine council", the "gods" and the "sons of god". Should you care to discuss this I'll send you some links or papers. As for Jesus preparing a place for “us” (John 14 context); in his “Father’s house” with the many “places to stay”, I must say that he was speaking to Jews and that before Pentecost 28 CE. This means a lot (or little for those who conflate dispensations…) and has ramifications for the “heavenly Jerusalem”, that “city whose Architect and Builder is God” (gotta’ love those engineering references in the Bible) and the Christian’s part in ETERNITY (Oh, how I despise that very unbiblical word…lets say the Christian’s part in the coming “ages”). That place is not necessarily where Christians will dwell although we will be with Jesus (“so shall we ever be with the Lord”) and he might visit, eh? Point is, we will soooo be like our Dad and his “firstborn from the dead” (“firstborn of many brethren (godlets forever!)” – Romans 8 context is so chock-full of references to the subject broached by you above…it’s astounding!). Enough for now. Bob

Jeff, I don't have "issues" as much as I have perspective (PreTrib/Premilennial). As you may gather, I'm going to say that there is a difference between a resurrection (the bringing of someone dead to life again (with bones, skin and life (see Ezekiel 37, etc.) and a "rapture" (from the Latin (Vulgate rendering) "rapturo" (for "caught up" in 1 Thessalonians 4:17) and that there is evidence for the differences. VP, BTW, tried to show the difference between an "exanestasis" (out resurrection in Philippians 3:11) and a "anastasis" (plain vanilla resurrection all other verses related to the subject). A hapax (one time usage) is not something one should develope a theology from. But this is not the standard dispy view. The differences between "how" a resurrection versus a "rapture" are obviated. Outside of the Thessalonians record there is no "meeting in the air" in any resurrection record. The Greek term for "to meet" itself lends some weight to the dispy position (I'll post a good article if people care). Suffice to say there's a lot more to the position of the dispys than VP explicated; much more. Add a Unitarian position on top and you have a recipe for really understanding (for the first time five years ago for me) the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, 25; Mark 13 and Luke 21) where Jesus speaks of "this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled" and other things that did not come to pass quite the way we might have supposed. If he were God, I would be a Preterist. More later....taxes call. Bob RE

And Sunesis has pointed out some interesting things from the Gospels and Acts that speak to the Tribulation, the beginning of the "church which is his body" and the progressive revelation that IS the Bible. The eschatological time table from Daniel helps here (as well as Jesus' comments on it, his incomplete knowledge of the future (I'm gonna get a fight on this one...) and how the book of Acts portrays things). Bob

Oh, OH, OHHHH. Now I know why you wanted me here Jeffy. I'll chime into this ASAP (taxes don't ya know...). Suffice for this post; the ultradispensationalism of Bullinger in this area is nothing different than classic dispy thought for the last 200 years (it's not a cultish thing we're dealing with; nor eisegesis for that matter). The difference between the "resurrections" and the "rapture" (as known in dispyland) is real and Biblical. Add to that some interesting things with Jesus, while he was still alive (on earth that is) and talking about the "end" and you'll see some things, I think, that will help. But soon, not now. Bob

To all, I’m gonna have to deviate a bit here. I think Steve and many of the rest of us here actually “know him that is true”; we “know him and the power of his resurrection”, “the fellowship of his sufferings and have been made “conformable to his death”. It’s the next step in critical thinking as regards “it is written” that needs to be taken (and not with blinders on as you so skillfully speak to). The Dale Sides, VP’s and others (including you and me) must only be listened to when we speak ex cathedra (just kidding…)…OK when we “say what the Word says”. And if “they” say something different (or if it sounds like BS) we need to stand up and question it with all our might. We need to walk out on stupidity; on high-mindedness, on theological know-it-alls, on preachers who lift themselves up to the pulpit and proclaim their “connections” with the Almighty. Avoid those at all costs (somebody with a bonifide connection won’t be proclaiming it to the world…he/she will be doing miracles and signs and wonders as their calling cards). Another interesting remark passed my desk this morning. I’m an engineer (by profession) and we are doing some work with a Chinese Baptist congregation (really…Chinese Baptists). They were thinking of moving into a building and renovating it to serve their needs. Then a synogogue building came up for sale (hard times for everyone I guess) and they decided, quite quickly, that this building would need less work and that they could move right in. My boss stopped into my office and remarked how easy this was and I said (quite presciently, I might add…I’m not too full of myself am I?), “Well they all have altars don’t they?” He stopped and thought about it…and I thought about it. He said, “I guess so.” (He’s Eastern Orthodox); and I said, “Damn, it shouldn’t be so. Churches shouldn’t have them.” That’s not only the engineer speaking, but the theologian. The ensuing conversation evolved into the whys and wherefore’s of altars (hey, not all churches have them, but this one did and many “high” churches do and if not an altar, there is at least a raised dias and a pulpit). I talked of Jesus’ mission to “throw them down” (metaphorically, BTW) as part of his attempt (and fulfillment for believers, BTW) to bring us into greater fellowship with to God and his Son. This went on for quite some time. My boss has had five years of this type of thing. Long story short: It made me realize how we ,ourselves and I lift up (literally) personalities to lead us and they are woefully inadequate to do so. Those that are most successful have a coterie of helps and governments around them and they realize they are not “the show” (think Billy G.) and they build up lives and not tear them down. We know who “the Show” is and we worship Him only. We listen to His Son (and Him, BTW) and we strive to walk worthy of His calling wherewith we are (presently) called. It’s all in the church epistles. We do not think more highly than we ought, but we do “seek those things that are above, where Christ sits at the right hand of God”. It takes work, hard work to keep yourself and your family out of the spiritual soup that we are always swimming in; that theological bouliabase. If something smells fishy (love the pun?) leave. RE

Oh, please Steve let's not; we've still got your dispensational diddy to deal with and the Trinity is not a good thing to deal with here. Too big. RE

Geisha, A lot of us were delivered from bad things when they came out of TWI. I do rejoice that you did not cave as many other have (and still want to talk about it...incessantly). You are incredibly strong and keen-minded and your emotions are a testament to your believing (really believing) what is written. Bob (not easy-believy- man...that was...sarcasm...)

Gen, That was absolutely beautiful stuff. godlets (godda love it)

Geisha, My response was in kind…you were the one saying “I promise not to go all Johnathan Edwards on anyone.” Apparently I have offended you by giving a glimpse of the man to those who may not know of his work. I know of his work and though I’m certain to see him in the “hereafter”, I don’t appreciate the way he handled the Scriptures and most especially his work on sin. Is now the existence of a “Center” the mark of whether someone’s work in hermeneutics is good? Have you seen what comes out of the Divinity School at Yale these days (my daughter is there taking the occassional class in the Div school, BTW)? Have you spoken with the men or women who have made actual use of that Center and are out there standing for God and His son? It’s only a guess, but… You are operating under the mistaken impression that I liked VP. You are castigating me because I thought that Jesus’ intimacy in the Garden, calling his Father “daddy”, was worth something? What exactly did you not appreciate in that response? I “assumed” that you were threatening to go all Jonathan Edwards on us (“Angry” sermon and all) because….you did. Oh, and BTW, I hold my Christological views AND my Theological views from my own study of the Bible, not because I “still adhere to some of the beliefs we held in TWI”. You are… again… under a mistaken impression. I could care less about TWI; I care greatly about the Scriptures. As for my “progression (ed) to some form of open theism”, I don’t think that you have even the slightest idea what that means, though you seem to hold that view in “low” regard. Oh, and thanks for the advice about “buy(ing) a good study bible”, but I have so many bad ones that I’d probably not have room for another. But I will consider it, since I’m so deprived. You’re awful angry (pun intended) for a Christian, IMHO. I realize that I’m pretty sarcastic for one too, eh? Mr. Easy Believism

Steve, (Preface: This is Bob’s Overbearing Opinion or B00!). Over the years I’ve developed (and others concur, BTW) that the Biblical definition of “salvation” in the overall is to “deliver” (or save) a person FROM the Lake of Fire (ultimately) or save that same person TO the “heavenly Jerusalem” (ultimately). Many, many theological “schools” of thought argue for the tripartite division of a human being; VP was not unique there. Search the Internet for the offending parties. I’m pretty convinced that the Grecian concept of “a soul” (as separate from the body) is not theologically (Biblically, BTW) defensible. The Semitic (Hebraic) concept is exactly what Genesis states (and continues throughout the entirety of the Scriptures), the “man BECAME a living soul”; he did not HAVE one. It is an entirely Biblical defensible position, but it is a subject that would take a volume to explicate since “all Scripture related to the subject” is quite large and there are some verses that don’t fit this simplistic paradigm without some deep explanation. The man (or woman) IS the soul (being). Bob

Well, Geisha, As to the “critical theological eggheads” reference, I must confess an affinity (with the attendant “male pattern baldness” I might add) though I try not to pigeonhole the opposition before the discussion with references to their positions as “high” or “low” (from my own position of chief cook and bottle washer, don’t ya know). That usually starts the conversation, if one can even have it after that, on the wrong foot (on ye olde theological bannana peel). I’ll argue my points and indicate errors as I see them, yet I try not to skewer my “worthy adversary” by positioning myself as already above reproach. As for VP’s “high” view of “daddy’s cookie jar” you’ll be able, I’m sure, to bring that extremely unpleasant perspective up in conversation with Jesus (Mark 14:36) and Paul (Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:6) when we get there. The intimacy of Jesus with his “papa” in the Garden is a picture that lives well with me. I consider it the “right” view. Thank you for your promise aboutnot going all Jonathan Edwards on us, but I really need to bring him to the forefront. I realize you like him, but it wasn’t lost on me that you couldn’t bring yourself to reference his work exactly. His sermon “Sinners in the hands of an Angry God” (given, BTW, in the great state of Connecticut (“towne” of Enfield (like that olde spelling…) just a few miles from my present location) in the year of our Lord, 1741 (wow almost 270 years ago!) is not my cup of tea, shall we say. It’s so… Calvinistic, so predestinational…so pessimistic, and God is just so “good”. Below are a couple of quotes from that “Angry” sermon that sort of sum up his attitude (and mind you, I think he was one of the smartest “critical egghead theologians” on the planet… ever tried to read Freedom of the Will…impossible (to which principle (free will) he does not ascribe)?). He lived in an era that WAS the quintessential “fire and brimestone” period. And while there were probably tremendous altar calls (if that’s what they did then…I haven’t studied the history of the Church in New England THAT much) in that period (the Great Awakening), I’m not so sure if the “goodness (“gentleness” or “kindness”) of God” (Romans 2:4) might not have brought more people (really) into the family of God. "There is nothing that keeps wicked men at any one moment out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God." Or “The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment.” Lovely. I know I like to think of myself a spider held over a fire by my Father. We all have the “filthy rags” that only the blood of Jesus can cleanse (on a continual basis, BTW (1 John 1:7)), but we must “walk in the light AS HE IS”. 1 John 1:5-10 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. Yea, we are sinners (and that on a continual basis), but we’re not in the “hands of an ANGRY God”, we’re “heirs, heirs of God”; we’re “joint heirs with Christ” and God IS our “daddy” (at times…I’m not discounting His “discipline” (trying to bring it back to Hebrews 12…), but He isn’t holding me like a spider over the flames of hell. The “harsh reality” is that we all do sin, we will all have the consequences (lost rewards…I guess you can call that “sin that bears eternal consequence” if you want), but damn, aren’t you being a bit overbearing? It IS the gentleness of God that brings not only us (primary application of Romans 2:4), but the natural man to a change of heart and mind. It is that same God (who is “light and in Him is NO darkness at all”, the “God (who) is “love”, the Father, the daddy) “with whom we have to do”. Bob

Geisha, I have to say that, having come out of TWI over 20 years ago, our perspective on Christology was “low” only as Trinitarians might imagine, but our perspective on God was quite “high”! Either way (judgemental implications of “high”-minded types aside) they were correct, IMHO. Jesus was and is the Son of God, not God the Son. God, his Father was the “Highest” (Eloah) and remains so today. That, whether the critical theological eggheads consider it low or high (I will not yield that theological perspective to someone who has gradations), is a quite Biblical perspective. I’d like to know where you think that there was a discerning between a “genuine and false” that led to an impasse in the discussion? There are differences in opinions on exactly what is being said, but someone’s view being “genuine” and another being “false” doesn’t really set a good tone, does it? Granted we all may agree to disagree, but I haven’t seen an argument that has been met with intrangesence except as regards the addressees. And what was the “harsh” thing that conveyed such an “unpleasant reality”? Were we not all just discussing the issues. It isn’t an unpleasant reality to me. RE

Jeff, This is just to bump this topic so I can get to it. Bob

cman, Discussion can only occur when the smoke and mirrors are eliminated. If you don't want to discuss which definition you have problems with so be it. I'm not about a "war", how silly, but I am about particulars that are important when discussing doctrine. It is vitally important that we both don't go off on a wild goose chase and invent something that is just not true, so "definitions" are very important. They are part and parcel of problematic issues in eisegesis; the subject of this thread. RE

"Enslaved by definitions"??? Do you want words to mean anything and everything? "any person's interpretation of scripture"??? Eisegesis and exegesis is the subject of the thread. I'm engaging Steve in his own ideas. What problems do you have with this? What are you really saying cman? If you have problems with my "presentation" please reply, but I'm a person willing to dialogue, not jump through mystical hoops. Criticize away. I have very thick skin. RE

Way, VP actually did a decent job in his "translation according to usage" in 2 Timothy 2:15, IMHO. The word "study" is quite wrong in modern parlance (maybe in 1611 "study" meant more than we do). Note the following "translations" of spoudazo. "Do your best" to present yourself to God (NIV) "Make every effort" to present yourself before God (NJB) "Be diligent" to present yourself approved to God (NASB) RE

I'm open to criticism. It is a doctrinal section. Please proceed if you will. Bob

Steve, I’m pretty informed of the teachings at STFI/ CES as regards their opinions on the “Secret” (“mystery” is a bad translation (actually it’s merely a transliteration from the Greek)), but something may have slipped past my ironclad grip on what “heretics” are teaching these days, eh! Whether Paul had to be “broken” (I don’t use that word, it’s not Biblical expression the way people today use it) is a matter of opinion and yes (obviously) the things that Paul wrote early on were “tainted” (another stupid word) with his Hebraic background (hardly a “bias”…he was a Jew, Hebrew of the Hebrew, etc. etc….it was who he was…call it a bias if you want…I’d call it his culture). That doesn’t take Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians out to that realm; it merely shows that Jesus had been teaching him more things over time. It’s the same with any man at any time. Now, a discussion of the New Covenant will really take some time. I’m certain that the “death of the testator” inaugurated the Covenant, but the testator got up from the dead, OMG (i.e. – is “alive” and is no longer on the planet…now read Hebrews 9:17). Then there’s Hebrews 8: 13, “in the saying 'new,' (covenant) He hath made the first (covenant) old, and what is becoming obsolete and is old is nigh disappearing" (there are three participles in this verse and they need quite a lot of attention). At the time of the writing of the letter to the Hebrews the “old” covenant wasn’t gone yet (entirely) so how shall we look at the “new”(maybe (I might posit) that it isn't entirely "here" yet)? If we posit that Jesus inaugurated the “new” (which I said it is obvious that he did), then how shall we look at the “church, which is his body”? We cannot, by theological slight of hand or some allegorical hermeneutic, morph this entity into “the house of Israel and the house of Judah” can we? How, in God’s name, does following the dispensational line of reasoning make the “cross of Christ of none effect”? They teach nothing more (or less) than the entire Christian corpus. I think, Steve, you have somewhat a jaundiced view of this theology. Look, there are really only a couple of verses in the Christian Scriptures that even speak of the “new covenant”. I’m an unabashed dispensationalist. If you’d like to wonder how “we” handle those few I’d be glad to accommodate. I realize that some dispys want to posit another “new” covenant (one “in Christ”) and there are reasons, but I’m not really sure those reasons hold water. Note, if you will, that Ephesians points out which “promises” the Gentiles will “inherit”, “That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.” (his promise “in Christ” and that “by the gospel”). The question you have to ask yourself is this: Was there any promise “in Christ” before Jesus was declared such (Acts 2:36)? Oh, how much fun the Scriptures are to understand. Bob

Geisha, I believe you have miscalculated the letter to the Hebrews to have been written to (essentially) “unbelievers”. Chapter 4, verse 3 alone (“For we who have believed do enter into rest…”) should obviate this. It’s not like Paul uses “we” over against “you” anywhere else in Scripture for a polemic. As far as I know when he says “we” he means himself and his audience; in this case the “Hebrews”. I “get it” that the items you are pointing to show a congregation in trouble, but the language is not any worse that the stuff written to the Galatians (“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—“ or “You stupid people in Galatia! After you have had a clear picture of Jesus Christ crucified, right in front of your eyes, who has put a spell on you?”; etc.); and they were believers. Now, in the absence of the typical Pauline introduction we might think that the audience was different and I’ll agree there, but they were believers. RE Steve, Your comments about the addressees are a bit skewed as well. You say that what Geisha posited is, “what dispensationalism teaches, but I no longer hold with that interpretation.” Mainline dispy thinking doesn’t teach that the Hebrews' audience was unbelievers. And I’m startled to see that you would consider Christians spiritual Jews (or spiritual Israel if you prefer). It’s another whole matter of eisegesis, IMHO. I’d love to see your case for it. This thread is the perfect place. RE

Steve, You’ve said a mouthful here and it is wonderful to understand the eisegesis/ exegesis thing with a new believer/growing believer. Context is always the key in understanding, but context is built up in a believers life when he/she reads and then applies what he/she has read. Of course then the question becomes “what” has he/she read and then “does it really apply to me”. Here the milk/meat thing comes to bear. It’s not hard to understand that it would be helpful to have a more mature believer (those who “ought to be teachers”) helping a younger (“one that using milk is inexperienced in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe”); yet it doesn’t have to be the overbearing “ladder to the top” cirriculum or even “top down management” style in a church/parachurch group. That’s the cultish side. It needs to be “Hear thou, my son, and be wise, and direct thine heart in the way.” It’s incredible how simple it is. As the girls have said below, we need to rest in Jesus’ accomplishments, but I’ll add that we also need to “walk worthy of the calling” too (“God has no hands but our hands…” see below for actual references!) A voice from the fourteenth century, St. Teresa of Avila, reminds us that WE are God's hands. "God has no hands but our hands to do his work today; God has no feet but our feet to lead others in his way; God has no voice but our voice to tell others how he died; and, God has no help but our help to lead them to his side." Anyway, good stuff specifically related to the topic. Eisegesis can become exegesis when wisdom rules. Bob Gen, The Way International’s “system of classes” was probably better than anything I have ever experienced in the religious education that I have received…ever… Sure, people abused it and made it into the “stairway to heaven”, but lets not throw out the baby again and again. Classes such as “Dealing with the Adversary” and “The Renewed Mind” are classics, IMHO, which syllabi I used in homeschooling my children and I could only wish that I had the tapes today for them. Yeah, I did parts of it myself, but man were those systematic catalogues worthy of repitition. Meathood or babehood aside (that’s the human BS factor)… Bob Geisha, From whence do you interpret Hebrews having been written to those “not converted” or “had not come to the faith”? Furthermore, where is it documented that they had “intellectually agreed to the gospel”? I went looking for the “beware” verbiage (typically the Greek BLEPO or PROSECHO, but there are others) that you put forth as exemplary of Hebrews and found but a couple in the entire book (Hebrews 2:1 – “give the more earnest heed” in KJV, but could be “beware” and Hebrews 3:12 – “take care” in KJV, but could also be “beware”). You also mention Hebrews 4:13 as referring to Jesus and it really doesn’t say that necessarily and quite frankly I’d say, contextually, it is God “with whom we have to do” (not that they’re not up there together). BTW, that’s my favorite verse in the entire Bible…so poetic. Bob

Hmmm, Jeff, I’m of the opinion that it was here at this point in Romans that Wierwille was just flat out wrong. It happens all the time. Yes, I will not disagree with your assessment that he was an abusive sociopath and that his control issues stemmed in part from his wrong “division” of the Scriptures, but I’ve seen similar things happen when men or women get power and then get ultimately corrupted thereby (Lord Acton (John Emerich Dalberg-Acton wrote, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton (April 5, 1887), "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.") Now, as to why this was not obvious to you (or me, BTW) sooner, anyone can guess. Wierwille was not an eisegete all the time. Here he was screwed up. Steve, You made quite a leap with your expression that the “living Word” was the thing that was inferred in Hebrew 4:12. I quite disagree (though, interestingly enough I agree with your conclusions – “To strike the balance between legalism and license, that is, to walk in the Spirit, requires that a person be equally humble to the written Word and the Spirit working within him where they agree.). Since the heart is possibly deceived in many instances (not all mind you, but certainly in the Jeremiah instance, eh?…BTW, I don’t think that his statement is “doctrinal” in every situation, at any time, forever and ever amen.) one should not trust in it’s ideas or motives without some direction and descretion. Direction from the so-called “spirit” are also somewhat subjective (though a necessary thing because the written word does not give directions in every instance, in every situation, forever and ever, amen, either, eh?). I would therefore trust the general directions given by the written word first (now this takes some doing and a brain…we are not first century believers having letters written to us (we’re not Israelites either, taking directions from the Torah…and all things in between). But the “application” of prinicipal is possible. I mean how hard is “I would that ye all spake in tongues” (assuming that you and the rest of the readers of this particular thread are not all now cessationalists). That would be, ahem, another thread. Other things are harder and require a fuller disclosure such as you are trying to do with VP’s idiocy in Romans. BTW, I still think that getting “to whom something is addressed” in the Bible is pretty damn important. Just sayin’. RE

Hey, Jeff, I also agree that those who wrote in the time just after the apostles (and other Christian writers) had unique historical contexts. AND they had tremendous impacts on not only their contemporaries, but us today. The question will always be whether that affect is good or bad. I'd say both, but in terms of actual "understanding" of the Scriptures I would say mostly bad. That, of course, would be and another thread entirely. RE