i'd say most here will not be enslaved by definitions
or any persons interpretation of scripture
i'm not open to criticizing anyone's person
the manner in which the scriptures are presented is in question
"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.
Okay, Obviously this is to the Hebrews <snigger>, I make this assumption due to the fact that it says that in big letters at the beginning. Now Paul is so specific in those church epistles in the openings. I think the first word is always "Paul".
This is the only one he wrote that starts with "God" and that should really gather your attention right off the bat.
In Chapter 2, we start with a phrase that could translate into our phrase,m "Use it or lose it"
geisha's right, this is a warning! The whole opening of the book is one big warning. If God were Foghorn Leghorn,... it would read
"Ah say, Ah,ah,ah, say, Pay attention SON!"
It's like when the train is about to leave the station in Japan, hey baby, either you're on it or you're not, but it WILL LEAVE WITHOUT YOU! if you don't get on.
Like a good Drill Sergeant he keeps exhorting them all the way through
The book reads like a Christian FAQ for Hebrews to believe Christ, lol....
First of all, I gave a personal testimony of my conversion post TWI, so I don't really appreciate the sarcasm about a "wierwillian" term. It may not be something you agree with, or understand, but I promise you it is true enough, at least in my own life. I did not come to Jesus until after TWI. I did not put my faith Him, nor was I born-again. Transformed. Although, I believed the gospel . . .or a form thereof. . . .
You need look no further than these forums to see people who have walked away from some confession of faith and some form of assent to understand what I am saying if you really wish to.
If your heart is committed to Christ, and you believe He is the only complete way, and you know Him and are known by Him.. . .you are a new creature, God has created in you a new heart. . . . you are in a monogamous relationship and He is able to keep you....are you going to turn to something else? Turn back to works based sacrifice? Is Jesus so incapable He cannot save? Why put your faith in Him? I need a complete savior who can keep me. I have to trust in Him and all He did. . ...because anything I have is filthy rags. I bring nothing to the table.
If you have seen that glory, that holiness, been in that presence that drops you to your knees. If you have come to Him. .. . to a knowledge of the truth. . ..do you turn away and say it isn't enough? No. You worship. You trust. You are in subjection. You belong to Him and you rest from all your works to attain but, in Him.
It is just possible that someone can agree to the facts. ..even confess....and not put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ. Not know Him.
We came from such a group. Intellectual assent. By the way. . . that is a term James D G Dunn uses, along with just about every bible scholar I have read.
That said . . . how many ways can I say that this verse is a warning. Hebrews vs Israel's disobedience in the OT, not entering into the promised rest....that was a result of their unbelief. . . . Yes? Disobedience is a result of not truly believing or trusting. Not having real faith in someone. Fair enough?
4:12 is not a "how to" verse in my opinion. . ..look at the severe language? 12For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
It is not about teaching us how to discern what comes out of our heart, in this context, but it is about discerning and judging us. Big difference.
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!
"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?
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!
Okay, Obviously this is to the Hebrews <snigger>, I make this assumption due to the fact that it says that in big letters at the beginning. Now Paul is so specific in those church epistles in the openings. I think the first word is always "Paul".
This is the only one he wrote that starts with "God" and that should really gather your attention right off the bat.
In Chapter 2, we start with a phrase that could translate into our phrase,m "Use it or lose it"
geisha's right, this is a warning! The whole opening of the book is one big warning. If God were Foghorn Leghorn,... it would read
"Ah say, Ah,ah,ah, say, Pay attention SON!"
It's like when the train is about to leave the station in Japan, hey baby, either you're on it or you're not, but it WILL LEAVE WITHOUT YOU! if you don't get on.
Like a good Drill Sergeant he keeps exhorting them all the way through
The book reads like a Christian FAQ for Hebrews to believe Christ, lol....
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."
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
(Note: I began writing this before reading the above post.)
Steve,
Although I agree with most of what Geisha has posted, I think Hebrews 6:9 indicates the faith of most of the primary recipients of the epistle was regarded by the epistle’s author as genuine, rather than as suspect as what the content of the author’s discourse might seem to suggest. I think the author might have been speaking to a community of genuine believers that was a subset of a community whose members' “faith” was generally quite suspect (i.e. to folks the author thought were genuine converts among some largely unconverted Jewish Jesus movement).
This is speculative, of course, but plausible. There had been thousands of Jews that followed Jesus in and about Galilee that did not appear on the whole to become disciples of Jesus. The 6th chapter of John’s gospel in particular is illustrative of this. The parable of the sower indicates there are temporary believers. Another parable of the kingdom speaks of bad fish being drawn in along with good fish.
The issue here between you and Geisha -- and between you and me -- is whether temporary believers and other respondents that will be rejected were at any time genuinely converted believers. Do temporary believers at some point have true faith -– something that historically has been characterized (though I think not sufficiently) as a combination of knowledge, assent, and trust?
I am no postmodernist, yet I recognize all of us have influences and assumptions that will inform our attempt to answer such a question. We all have hermeneutical (interpretive) processors.
Can a genuine Christian apostatize? You seem to think so. I suspect your view is influenced by the New Perspective on Paul, and by an NPP notion of covenant (i.e. that one gets in covenant by grace, but must stay in covenant by practicing covenant fidelity). Please correct me if I am mistaken.
Can a genuine Christian apostatize? I think not, but think the impossibility of apostasy involves divinely superintended perseverance of the Christian (Philippians 2:12-13), and is based on the gracious election of the Father, the obedience, sacrifice, and infallible intercession of the Son, and the effectual calling and work of the Holy Spirit. The level of certainty one should have about the genuineness of one's faith is another question.
Additionally, I think there is a distinction between those who are partakers of the New Covenant in an external sense and those who are partakers of the New Covenant in both an external and an internal sense. My view is largely informed, of course, by Reformed (Presbyterian) covenant theology –- modified by influences of Meredith Kline and others, as well as by some of my own idiosyncrasies.
Although I agree with most of what Geisha has posted, I think Hebrews 6:9 indicates the faith of most of the primary recipients of the epistle was regarded by the epistle's author as genuine, rather than as suspect as what the content of the author's discourse might seem to suggest. I think the author might have been speaking to a community of genuine believers that was a subset of a community whose members' "faith" was generally quite suspect (i.e. to folks the author thought were genuine converts among some largely unconverted Jewish Jesus movement).
I agree Cynic, it was written to both. . . .I never got there. . . .or past 4:12 which is what I was addressing. . . . we got caught up in the usual affront that comes when one dares discern between the genuine and false. It never fails here when discussing this issue. I always consider where I am posting. This is an ex-way site and we all have come from such a low Christology and view of God, I expect some opposition to what may seem harsh ....there are serious and severe warnings in Hebrews. They convey an unpleasant reality IMO.
James D G Dunn, whom Steve has mentioned reading in other posts, is in fact a part of the new perspective on Paul along with NT Wright and others.. ...pretty astute on your part. . . . I caught this on another thread about Paul and have kept it in mind.
This is the crux. . .."Can a genuine Christian apostatize? I think not, but think the impossibility of apostasy involves divinely superintended perseverance of the Christian (Philippians 2:12-13), and is based on the gracious election of the Father, the obedience, sacrifice, and infallible intercession of the Son, and the effectual calling and work of the Holy Spirit. The level of certainty one should have about the genuineness of one's faith is another question."
When one has gone from a form of apostasy, in the midst of staunch determination that they were heaven bound and all hell could not stop them. .. ..to frightening conviction, painful repentance, and faith. ...the realization of filthy rags is staggering. My inability, without intercession, without direct (unaided by me)deliverance is almost impossible to convey without sounding trite.
These realities have been borne out in my own life, so, I almost always end up appealing to personal witness and testimony. ....
Words grow in meaning, quite drastically at times.
So I don't stop at one or three definitions,
but take them into account and keep going.
Don't make a war where there is not one.
If you do, i will not participate.
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.
Sometimes the simplest things are the most complex, and vice versa. Sometimes it's easier to grab a large principle when you back off a ways. While there are those things that have to be ferreted out, and worked, and done exactly with loads of patience and meticulous study. There are other things that are never clearer until they are seen from a distance, and I'm not sure they can be ascertained when your nose is too close to the grindstone.
One of the verses I hold quite dear is in Hebrews. It has helped me through many times where people called me retarded (because of my speech problems), or when friends or family have passes away suddenly. "For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds." For someone like me that's lost most of the really important people in her life before hitting 30. Hey, I had a mom that thought my existence was a major inconvenience. She told me many times she wished I had died and I believed her. So it's nice to know there's someone still alive that loves me and fought for me, It's made it easier for me to fight for myself and for others when things were rough.
Geisha really struck a chord with me concerning Jesus. He's my Lord. A lot of ex-Way people I have spoken to do tend to minimize Jesus, being very self conscious about not wanting to call him God,... they have built for themselves a bit of a Jesus-Box, making it difficult for them at times to consider him as highly as they should. Doing so handicaps their believing, in my observation. To many of them Jesus is just a conduit to God. I actually think they sometimes forget he's alive now, viewing him as a historical figure that died and rose from the dead.
Intellectually they know he's Lord, and it is in their hearts when it needs to be, as well, But they would fear saying that they adored him... They have that worship line they worry about.
In Hebrews, Paul had to broach a line in the minds of others quite like that, but his major challenge (God's major challenge) wasn't about the High priest thing, It was, to put it in terms I understand,... A battle for the hearts and minds of those people, regarding the proper place of His son.
There are many things Jesus does for us today - you guys could all make lists, I'm sure - But there's one thing that amounts to what he's really been up to all these years, clearly spelled out. I'll make that a thread one day. It's something most of you really probably don't consider much, though you all know it.
Also to cman - yeah - about Christ. I hear you. It's an interesting concept - we are all members of his body and his ambassadors. He is us in that way and maybe other ways when we have our heads out of our A$$es
Sometimes the simplest things are the most complex, and vice versa. Sometimes it's easier to grab a large principle when you back off a ways. While there are those things that have to be ferreted out, and worked, and done exactly with loads of patience and meticulous study. There are other things that are never clearer until they are seen from a distance, and I'm not sure they can be ascertained when your nose is too close to the grindstone.
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.
I agree Cynic, it was written to both. . . .I never got there. . . .or past 4:12 which is what I was addressing. . . . we got caught up in the usual affront that comes when one dares discern between the genuine and false. It never fails here when discussing this issue. I always consider where I am posting. This is an ex-way site and we all have come from such a low Christology and view of God, I expect some opposition to what may seem harsh ....there are serious and severe warnings in Hebrews. They convey an unpleasant reality IMO.
James D G Dunn, whom Steve has mentioned reading in other posts, is in fact a part of the new perspective on Paul along with NT Wright and others.. ...pretty astute on your part. . . . I caught this on another thread about Paul and have kept it in mind.
This is the crux. . .."Can a genuine Christian apostatize? I think not, but think the impossibility of apostasy involves divinely superintended perseverance of the Christian (Philippians 2:12-13), and is based on the gracious election of the Father, the obedience, sacrifice, and infallible intercession of the Son, and the effectual calling and work of the Holy Spirit. The level of certainty one should have about the genuineness of one's faith is another question."
When one has gone from a form of apostasy, in the midst of staunch determination that they were heaven bound and all hell could not stop them. .. ..to frightening conviction, painful repentance, and faith. ...the realization of filthy rags is staggering. My inability, without intercession, without direct (unaided by me)deliverance is almost impossible to convey without sounding trite.
These realities have been borne out in my own life, so, I almost always end up appealing to personal witness and testimony. ....
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.
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
Critical theological eggheads? Charming.
I am a trinitarian, so I imagine I fall into that category of trinitarians who might "imagine" we in TWI held a low Christology and of course that high view of Daddy and his cookie jar. ... the importance of red drapes and the miraculous snow on gas pumps. Surely I, and the rest of Christendom(at least those crazy trinitarians) must be just plain nuts.
I do plead innocence to being an egghead. I have a rather nicely shaped head. . . . or so I am told. Blond, so no chance of intelligence here.
The discerning I was referring to is pretty well extrapolated in Cynic's post. . . . it was not aimed at the participants of the discussion, but thank-you for attempting to correct my tone. I promise not to go all Johnathan Edwards on anyone.
I got nothing for you Bob, on the harsh reality.. . . must have been my imagination. It couldn't possibly be a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. . . or that there is sin that bears eternal consequence.
Sometimes the simplest things are the most complex, and vice versa. Sometimes it's easier to grab a large principle when you back off a ways. While there are those things that have to be ferreted out, and worked, and done exactly with loads of patience and meticulous study. There are other things that are never clearer until they are seen from a distance, and I'm not sure they can be ascertained when your nose is too close to the grindstone.
One of the verses I hold quite dear is in Hebrews. It has helped me through many times where people called me retarded (because of my speech problems), or when friends or family have passes away suddenly. "For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds." For someone like me that's lost most of the really important people in her life before hitting 30. Hey, I had a mom that thought my existence was a major inconvenience. She told me many times she wished I had died and I believed her. So it's nice to know there's someone still alive that loves me and fought for me, It's made it easier for me to fight for myself and for others when things were rough.
Geisha really struck a chord with me concerning Jesus. He's my Lord. A lot of ex-Way people I have spoken to do tend to minimize Jesus, being very self conscious about not wanting to call him God,... they have built for themselves a bit of a Jesus-Box, making it difficult for them at times to consider him as highly as they should. Doing so handicaps their believing, in my observation. To many of them Jesus is just a conduit to God. I actually think they sometimes forget he's alive now, viewing him as a historical figure that died and rose from the dead.
Intellectually they know he's Lord, and it is in their hearts when it needs to be, as well, But they would fear saying that they adored him... They have that worship line they worry about.
In Hebrews, Paul had to broach a line in the minds of others quite like that, but his major challenge (God's major challenge) wasn't about the High priest thing, It was, to put it in terms I understand,... A battle for the hearts and minds of those people, regarding the proper place of His son.
There are many things Jesus does for us today - you guys could all make lists, I'm sure - But there's one thing that amounts to what he's really been up to all these years, clearly spelled out. I'll make that a thread one day. It's something most of you really probably don't consider much, though you all know it.
Also to cman - yeah - about Christ. I hear you. It's an interesting concept - we are all members of his body and his ambassadors. He is us in that way and maybe other ways when we have our heads out of our A$es
I love that you find your comfort in Him. We rest in Him. ...Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."
As far as worshiping the Lord. . . . is He worthy of worship? Is He worthy of praise?
In Isaiah 6.....we read.... I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called out to another and said,
"Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts,
The whole earth is full of His glory."
And the foundations of the thresholds trembled at the voice of him who called out, while the temple was filling with smoke.
Then I said,
"Woe is me, for I am ruined!
Because I am a man of unclean lips,
And I live among a people of unclean lips;
For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts."
Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a burning coal in his hand, which he had taken from the altar with tongs. He touched my mouth with it and said, "Behold, this has touched your lips; and your iniquity is taken away and your sin is forgiven." Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!"
He said, "Go, and tell this people:
'Keep on listening, but do not perceive;
Keep on looking, but do not understand.'
"Render the hearts of this peopleinsensitive,
Their ears dull,
And their eyes dim,
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
Hear with their ears,
Understand with their hearts,
And return and be healed."
John 12 references this....
This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT? AND TO WHOM HAS THE ARM OF THE LORD BEEN REVEALED?"For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again,"HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM." These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him.
Who is Isaiah speaking of here? Who did they not believe on? Who is subject matter? If you have questions about Jesus and worship, study His quotations from the OT. :) I know I had questions, it helped me. And, I do worship the Lord.
It is still the illumination of the Holy Spirit, which gives light to the understanding of Jesus. It was a huge deal for Him to die for our sins.
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."
Thanks my friend but is exegesis or eisegesis I look up the words and found to mean out of something or with in something but what about thin line between the two something. So I came to think it only black and white thinking but where true color of the rainbow of shades.
Exegesis or eisegesis is only black and white thinking but we can move past that kind of limit thinking what the line between and the line after and before what comes before color. Werwille's doctrine was nothing but black and white when truly see truth you do not see with your eyes but your heart.
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 , "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
Interesting verse to choose. A good one too.
So just reading it, God breaths, and that breath was the breath of life.
It doesn't say what man was before he became a living soul.
Nor does it say what a living soul is.
Reading into it opens some possible conversation and thinking.
So just reading it, God breaths, and that breath was the breath of life.
It doesn't say what man was before he became a living soul.
Nor does it say what a living soul is.
Reading into it opens some possible conversation and thinking.
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?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
39
90
45
29
Popular Days
Mar 24
34
Mar 25
28
Apr 10
24
Mar 23
21
Top Posters In This Topic
year2027 39 posts
Steve Lortz 90 posts
geisha779 45 posts
roberterasmus 29 posts
Popular Days
Mar 24 2010
34 posts
Mar 25 2010
28 posts
Apr 10 2010
24 posts
Mar 23 2010
21 posts
Popular Posts
geisha779
Hebrews 4:12 .. . . to whom is it written? It was written to the Jews who had intellectually agreed to the gospel, the facts about Jesus, the authority and power of the 1st century church, but were no
geisha779
Hey Gen-2 I am curious what people think strong meat really is? :) Perhaps it is. . . to the measure of the stature of the fullness in Christ. . . . and not some super-duper special x-ray ability,
cman
Excuse me there Bob, but your post has a narrow view. I will not use the word you used to describe a perspective. Other words come to mind. But, you are, as all, entitled to your own works.
cman
i'd say most here will not be enslaved by definitions
or any persons interpretation of scripture
i'm not open to criticizing anyone's person
the manner in which the scriptures are presented is in question
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
"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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
Okay, Obviously this is to the Hebrews <snigger>, I make this assumption due to the fact that it says that in big letters at the beginning. Now Paul is so specific in those church epistles in the openings. I think the first word is always "Paul".
This is the only one he wrote that starts with "God" and that should really gather your attention right off the bat.
In Chapter 2, we start with a phrase that could translate into our phrase,m "Use it or lose it"
geisha's right, this is a warning! The whole opening of the book is one big warning. If God were Foghorn Leghorn,... it would read
"Ah say, Ah,ah,ah, say, Pay attention SON!"
It's like when the train is about to leave the station in Japan, hey baby, either you're on it or you're not, but it WILL LEAVE WITHOUT YOU! if you don't get on.
Like a good Drill Sergeant he keeps exhorting them all the way through
The book reads like a Christian FAQ for Hebrews to believe Christ, lol....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
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
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
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!
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Bob,
No, that's not what I said at all.
I will not be limited by any definition.
Words grow in meaning, quite drastically at times.
So I don't stop at one or three definitions,
but take them into account and keep going.
Don't make a war where there is not one.
If you do, i will not participate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks everybody
what book of DEAD SEA SCROLLS: TEXTS
is this because you study it
a hint
4Q300 F3
or
http://www.gnosis.org/library/bks.htm
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
(Note: I began writing this before reading the above post.)
Steve,
Although I agree with most of what Geisha has posted, I think Hebrews 6:9 indicates the faith of most of the primary recipients of the epistle was regarded by the epistle’s author as genuine, rather than as suspect as what the content of the author’s discourse might seem to suggest. I think the author might have been speaking to a community of genuine believers that was a subset of a community whose members' “faith” was generally quite suspect (i.e. to folks the author thought were genuine converts among some largely unconverted Jewish Jesus movement).
This is speculative, of course, but plausible. There had been thousands of Jews that followed Jesus in and about Galilee that did not appear on the whole to become disciples of Jesus. The 6th chapter of John’s gospel in particular is illustrative of this. The parable of the sower indicates there are temporary believers. Another parable of the kingdom speaks of bad fish being drawn in along with good fish.
The issue here between you and Geisha -- and between you and me -- is whether temporary believers and other respondents that will be rejected were at any time genuinely converted believers. Do temporary believers at some point have true faith -– something that historically has been characterized (though I think not sufficiently) as a combination of knowledge, assent, and trust?
I am no postmodernist, yet I recognize all of us have influences and assumptions that will inform our attempt to answer such a question. We all have hermeneutical (interpretive) processors.
Can a genuine Christian apostatize? You seem to think so. I suspect your view is influenced by the New Perspective on Paul, and by an NPP notion of covenant (i.e. that one gets in covenant by grace, but must stay in covenant by practicing covenant fidelity). Please correct me if I am mistaken.
Can a genuine Christian apostatize? I think not, but think the impossibility of apostasy involves divinely superintended perseverance of the Christian (Philippians 2:12-13), and is based on the gracious election of the Father, the obedience, sacrifice, and infallible intercession of the Son, and the effectual calling and work of the Holy Spirit. The level of certainty one should have about the genuineness of one's faith is another question.
Additionally, I think there is a distinction between those who are partakers of the New Covenant in an external sense and those who are partakers of the New Covenant in both an external and an internal sense. My view is largely informed, of course, by Reformed (Presbyterian) covenant theology –- modified by influences of Meredith Kline and others, as well as by some of my own idiosyncrasies.
Edited by CynicLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I agree Cynic, it was written to both. . . .I never got there. . . .or past 4:12 which is what I was addressing. . . . we got caught up in the usual affront that comes when one dares discern between the genuine and false. It never fails here when discussing this issue. I always consider where I am posting. This is an ex-way site and we all have come from such a low Christology and view of God, I expect some opposition to what may seem harsh ....there are serious and severe warnings in Hebrews. They convey an unpleasant reality IMO.
James D G Dunn, whom Steve has mentioned reading in other posts, is in fact a part of the new perspective on Paul along with NT Wright and others.. ...pretty astute on your part. . . . I caught this on another thread about Paul and have kept it in mind.
This is the crux. . .."Can a genuine Christian apostatize? I think not, but think the impossibility of apostasy involves divinely superintended perseverance of the Christian (Philippians 2:12-13), and is based on the gracious election of the Father, the obedience, sacrifice, and infallible intercession of the Son, and the effectual calling and work of the Holy Spirit. The level of certainty one should have about the genuineness of one's faith is another question."
When one has gone from a form of apostasy, in the midst of staunch determination that they were heaven bound and all hell could not stop them. .. ..to frightening conviction, painful repentance, and faith. ...the realization of filthy rags is staggering. My inability, without intercession, without direct (unaided by me)deliverance is almost impossible to convey without sounding trite.
These realities have been borne out in my own life, so, I almost always end up appealing to personal witness and testimony. ....
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
geisha779, i think when we realize or see that, we begin to understand,
and are enlightened, not by our own doing, but something else at work
although Christ works in, Christ is us as well
and not that what we set our minds to do means nothing,
it is a help and serves to reach beyond ourselves
working so hard to see something like born again
it can be missed cause it has always been with us anyway
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
Sometimes the simplest things are the most complex, and vice versa. Sometimes it's easier to grab a large principle when you back off a ways. While there are those things that have to be ferreted out, and worked, and done exactly with loads of patience and meticulous study. There are other things that are never clearer until they are seen from a distance, and I'm not sure they can be ascertained when your nose is too close to the grindstone.
One of the verses I hold quite dear is in Hebrews. It has helped me through many times where people called me retarded (because of my speech problems), or when friends or family have passes away suddenly. "For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds." For someone like me that's lost most of the really important people in her life before hitting 30. Hey, I had a mom that thought my existence was a major inconvenience. She told me many times she wished I had died and I believed her. So it's nice to know there's someone still alive that loves me and fought for me, It's made it easier for me to fight for myself and for others when things were rough.
Geisha really struck a chord with me concerning Jesus. He's my Lord. A lot of ex-Way people I have spoken to do tend to minimize Jesus, being very self conscious about not wanting to call him God,... they have built for themselves a bit of a Jesus-Box, making it difficult for them at times to consider him as highly as they should. Doing so handicaps their believing, in my observation. To many of them Jesus is just a conduit to God. I actually think they sometimes forget he's alive now, viewing him as a historical figure that died and rose from the dead.
Intellectually they know he's Lord, and it is in their hearts when it needs to be, as well, But they would fear saying that they adored him... They have that worship line they worry about.
In Hebrews, Paul had to broach a line in the minds of others quite like that, but his major challenge (God's major challenge) wasn't about the High priest thing, It was, to put it in terms I understand,... A battle for the hearts and minds of those people, regarding the proper place of His son.
There are many things Jesus does for us today - you guys could all make lists, I'm sure - But there's one thing that amounts to what he's really been up to all these years, clearly spelled out. I'll make that a thread one day. It's something most of you really probably don't consider much, though you all know it.
Also to cman - yeah - about Christ. I hear you. It's an interesting concept - we are all members of his body and his ambassadors. He is us in that way and maybe other ways when we have our heads out of our A$$es
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I think your're right Gen-2. So here's the big picture of why I wanted to start this particular discussion. Bob started his thread about inerrancy, which piqued my interest because of conversations I've had with people in other contexts where I was not as free to express myself as I am here. I am flummoxed by people who profess to hold the Bible as their only rule for faith and practice, and who hold the Bible as inerrant, yet don't seem to care much about what the Bible actually says. It seems to me that their problem is not in what is written so much as it is in reading what they want it to say, or have been taught that it says, INTO the Bible instead of out from it. This problem is not confined to Wayfers or Ex-Wayfers in my experience, though the deepest (as in doo-doo) personal experience I've had with it was, first of all myself, and next in line, with numerous ex-Way leaders.
I think that when a person confesses with his mouth the Lord Jesus, he isn't just making an ontological observation. I believe it is the act whereby a person enters into a permanent personal relationship with Jesus Christ, with Jesus being the Master and the person being the servant. I base this thinking on Exodus 21:2-6. I think a Christian can be a bad servant through personal disobedience to JESUS (not to any other man or to an organization), but I don't think the relationship is broken. I don't think Christians can lose their salvation, but I do believe that there are going to be painful consequences to Christians who trust in men, make flesh their arm, and whose hearts depart from the Lord. (Jeremiah 17:5) I think Paul refers to these consequences when he wrote I Corinthians 3:13-15... "he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."
I mourn for the time I spent with my head up my @$$. 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
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Critical theological eggheads? Charming.
I am a trinitarian, so I imagine I fall into that category of trinitarians who might "imagine" we in TWI held a low Christology and of course that high view of Daddy and his cookie jar. ... the importance of red drapes and the miraculous snow on gas pumps. Surely I, and the rest of Christendom(at least those crazy trinitarians) must be just plain nuts.
I do plead innocence to being an egghead. I have a rather nicely shaped head. . . . or so I am told. Blond, so no chance of intelligence here.
The discerning I was referring to is pretty well extrapolated in Cynic's post. . . . it was not aimed at the participants of the discussion, but thank-you for attempting to correct my tone. I promise not to go all Johnathan Edwards on anyone.
I got nothing for you Bob, on the harsh reality.. . . must have been my imagination. It couldn't possibly be a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. . . or that there is sin that bears eternal consequence.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I love that you find your comfort in Him. We rest in Him. ...Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."
As far as worshiping the Lord. . . . is He worthy of worship? Is He worthy of praise?
In Isaiah 6.....we read.... I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, lofty and exalted, with the train of His robe filling the temple. Seraphim stood above Him, each having six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called out to another and said,
"Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts,
The whole earth is full of His glory."
And the foundations of the thresholds trembled at the voice of him who called out, while the temple was filling with smoke.
Then I said,
"Woe is me, for I am ruined!
Because I am a man of unclean lips,
And I live among a people of unclean lips;
For my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts."
Then one of the seraphim flew to me with a burning coal in his hand, which he had taken from the altar with tongs. He touched my mouth with it and said, "Behold, this has touched your lips; and your iniquity is taken away and your sin is forgiven." Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!"
He said, "Go, and tell this people:
'Keep on listening, but do not perceive;
Keep on looking, but do not understand.'
"Render the hearts of this people insensitive,
Their ears dull,
And their eyes dim,
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
Hear with their ears,
Understand with their hearts,
And return and be healed."
John 12 references this....
This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet which he spoke: "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT? AND TO WHOM HAS THE ARM OF THE LORD BEEN REVEALED?"For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again,"HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL THEM." These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him.
Who is Isaiah speaking of here? Who did they not believe on? Who is subject matter? If you have questions about Jesus and worship, study His quotations from the OT. :) I know I had questions, it helped me. And, I do worship the Lord.
It is still the illumination of the Holy Spirit, which gives light to the understanding of Jesus. It was a huge deal for Him to die for our sins.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Thanks my friend but is exegesis or eisegesis I look up the words and found to mean out of something or with in something but what about thin line between the two something. So I came to think it only black and white thinking but where true color of the rainbow of shades.
Exegesis or eisegesis is only black and white thinking but we can move past that kind of limit thinking what the line between and the line after and before what comes before color. Werwille's doctrine was nothing but black and white when truly see truth you do not see with your eyes but your heart.
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
LOL
I've known a few intelligent blonds -- seriously. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
...does a WWW search for Blonde Jokes..... scoots off to the shadows
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Interesting verse to choose. A good one too.
So just reading it, God breaths, and that breath was the breath of life.
It doesn't say what man was before he became a living soul.
Nor does it say what a living soul is.
Reading into it opens some possible conversation and thinking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
out from it is what i thought i did first
if you mean something different i could try....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.