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.
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”.
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
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.
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
Bob,
I really do appreciate the response....I want you to know that....but, I would ask you to remember that I too held that particular Christology and view of God in TWI, so, I am not coming at this from an outsiders perspective. I understand you still adhere to some of the beliefs we held in TWI about who Jesus is, and although I gather your theology has progressed to some form of open theism. . . . it is eons apart from where I landed.
There is no way that I can possibly equate the holy, reverent and deeply intimate relationship between Jesus and the Father to that of reaching up into Daddy's cookie jar for a parking space at Walmart, red drapes, or some perceived revelation used to torture someone into believing they were demonically possessed. For "abundance". TWI was self-promoting, self-aggrandizing, and self-serving.
I believe that it is an eternal relationship between Father and Son and that Jesus, when praying for those who tortured Him, was responding to that deep commitment, love, and intimacy. "He poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."
Paul, when he was hungry, or felt abandoned, or had rocks thrown at him....that intimacy sustained him.
God is good, but, I am going to have to borrow from my friend Roy, and ask...."What is good?" His ways are good. His ways are also not our ways. God is holy. . . holy.. . holy.
God gave us everything in Christ. . ..we earned nothing. It is the most precious gift, the most deeply intimate expression of love there is....and it is the only acceptable sacrifice.
God is holy, just, and a judge. He showed us His love in Jesus.
What is just when a person hears the truth about that gift of salvation, that awesome sacrifice and expression of love and then turns to some kind of works based sacrifice to stand before God? Demotes Jesus? Is that a rejection of the gift? Is that saying the gift was not good enough?
Hearing, agreeing, believing and then turning away to earn one's way or to continue in sin. ...is not faith. Not trust....It just isn't and all the reasoning we can come up with doesn't change that. There is true faith and there is easy believism.
I didn't say anyone here is in the hands of an angry God. I simply pointed out what Hebrews was speaking to. If your faith is in Jesus Christ. ...why would you assume that? BTW, you just showed me you don't want to hear it. ...the harsh reality....exactly what I said.
Overbearing? Read the book. In fact, buy yourself a good study bible and read the notes. ...I am not saying anything shocking.
If you are really interested in Johnathan Edwards, Yale (also in CT) has a Johnathan Edwards Center with all of his works, letters, and biography.
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?
What? Jesus had to suffer and die because we sin. ...we should abhor sin every bit as much as God does. . . His ways and all that.
And the sin, that bears eternal consequences I was speaking of.....is a rejection of Jesus Christ. Whether it be turning to works, a rejection outright, or making up a God we think is good. My thoughts anyway.
I really do appreciate the response....I want you to know that....but, I would ask you to remember that I too held that particular Christology and view of God in TWI, so, I am not coming at this from an outsiders perspective. I understand you still adhere to some of the beliefs we held in TWI about who Jesus is, and although I gather your theology has progressed to some form of open theism. . . . it is eons apart from where I landed.
There is no way that I can possibly equate the holy, reverent and deeply intimate relationship between Jesus and the Father to that of reaching up into Daddy's cookie jar for a parking space at Walmart, red drapes, or some perceived revelation used to torture someone into believing they were demonically possessed. For "abundance". TWI was self-promoting, self-aggrandizing, and self-serving.
I believe that it is an eternal relationship between Father and Son and that Jesus, when praying for those who tortured Him, was responding to that deep commitment, love, and intimacy. "He poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."
Paul, when he was hungry, or felt abandoned, or had rocks thrown at him....that intimacy sustained him.
God is good, but, I am going to have to borrow from my friend Roy, and ask...."What is good?" His ways are good. His ways are also not our ways. God is holy. . . holy.. . holy.
God gave us everything in Christ. . ..we earned nothing. It is the most precious gift, the most deeply intimate expression of love there is....and it is the only acceptable sacrifice.
God is holy, just, and a judge. He showed us His love in Jesus.
What is just when a person hears the truth about that gift of salvation, that awesome sacrifice and expression of love and then turns to some kind of works based sacrifice to stand before God? Demotes Jesus? Is that a rejection of the gift? Is that saying the gift was not good enough?
Hearing, agreeing, believing and then turning away to earn one's way or to continue in sin. ...is not faith. Not trust....It just isn't and all the reasoning we can come up with doesn't change that. There is true faith and there is easy believism.
I didn't say anyone here is in the hands of an angry God. I simply pointed out what Hebrews was speaking to. If your faith is in Jesus Christ. ...why would you assume that? BTW, you just showed me you don't want to hear it. ...the harsh reality....exactly what I said.
Overbearing? Read the book. In fact, buy yourself a good study bible and read the notes. ...I am not saying anything shocking.
If you are really interested in Johnathan Edwards, Yale (also in CT) has a Johnathan Edwards Center with all of his works, letters, and biography.
Where was VP's center again?
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?
You didn't offend me by quoting Edwards. I told you before I didn't like some of his imagery. However infamous that sermon is, it is not the only thing he wrote. I am comfortable letting Johnathan Edwards stand on his own intellectual merit. When I am part of a great awakening, and certain I completely understand God's movement in history ....well, maybe I will critique him more.
I do enjoy reading the Puritans...and Edwards preached in the area I live in now, his grandson was Aaron Burr(Yale)......DL Moody was born not too far away and I own the letters and diary of a contemporary of Edwards....a local pastor. There is some really great stuff in their writing. DL Moody used to street preach and go into bars. ...he wrote of one man who was in the bar....followed him home and was saved. He started a school for needy kids....on the property where he was born ...I go there and sit in the chapel sometimes and try to imagine what it was like.
My kitchen table is the same one DL Moody sat at when he witnessed to my great grandfather. I love that I have it.
Conviction and repentance are a part of the gospel message. When we were yet sinners.....Repent.....I think it is an important part. How do I even know I need saving? If God loves me just the way I am...why do I need a savior?
As for the rest...I simply took what you said about TWI's Christology being the correct one at face value. Since I know you are aware that what I am saying is, for the most part, found in any good study bible....and not overbearing...I figured I would mention it.
How you became Mr. Easy Believism is anyone's guess....it couldn't be from me explaining why I discern intellectual assent and genuine faith in Hebrews...that wouldn't make sense.
How this is a bad thing is beyond me....I was delivered from some pretty ugy things in TWI...I am sure you meant to rejoice for me.
As for being angry? Well, of course it makes me angry when people are lead astray. I want everyone to see the true beauty of the Lord.
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...)
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...)
Back at you brother!
Roy,
I always learn from you. I mean it. When you ask "What is?" it always makes me think.
I think that the doctrine of the Trinity is worthy of examination in terms of exegesis and eisegesis, but it would take a lot more work to untangle than I am interested in pursuing on this thread. I think the idea of God and Jesus being of the "same substance" is supportable, but only by putting neo-Platonic spin on Stoic definitions. I almost understood the fourth century argument once, but ONLY almost. I didn't, and still don't, have enough depth of understanding the differences between the way the Stoics thought of "substance" and the way the neo-Platonists did.
Do you realize that the roots of the word "substance" have the same meanings as the roots of the word "understanding"? Are God and Jesus of the same understanding? I think neither Stoics (the gentile Christians Paul was writing to) nor neo-Platonists (the folks Jerome and Augustine were writing to) would have defined the words that have come to mean "substance" or "understanding" the same way, nor in a way we might today.
I think I Corinthians 8:6... "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom [ek 'proceding out from within' whom, 'from the inside to the outside of' whom] are all thing, and we in [eis the opposite of ek, 'into', 'from the outside to the inside'] him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [dia 'through' whom, 'into one side, and out through the other side of' whom] are all things, and we by [dia 'through', 'into one side, and out through the other side of'] him"... sets the relationship between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, all things and ourselves. I think the fourth century doctrine was an over simpliification, erroneous in describing God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ as being of the "same substance". Or at least too confusing for modern people to understand ("to substance"?).
HOWEVER... I don't think the practical differences between I Corinthians 8:6 and the doctrine of the Trinity are large enough to prevent the Lord from working with Trinitarians exactly the same way He works with people who hold an accurate understanding of I Corinthians 8:6. If we want to receive anything from God the Father, we have to go through Jesus Christ, and anything God gives to us will have to come through Jesus Christ. Likewise, any thanksgiving and praise we want to give back to the Father has to go through Jesus Christ. If we want to see God, we have to look at Jesus Christ.
It's a far different thing from the absent Jesus Christ sitting on the right hand of God smoking cigars while we do all the heavy lifting with our "believing".
I've learned more about "the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation" by watching some Trinitarians than I ever learned by listening to or reading Wierwille.
Soooo...
Notice that Genesis 2:7 DOESN'T say "And the Lord God formed man's bodyof the dust of the ground..." It says "And the Lord God formed manof the dust of the ground..."
I try to get others to see something the word is not Exegesis or Eisegesis
its not black and white
it not understood from with in itself or with out itself
its more than that and less than
it seeing why the Serpent taught Adam this way
it seeing why God told Adam not to eat of tree
after we understand good and evil we have no desire for evil
some times we have try something to get a full understanding others we just have to be told
I wanted to be part of this
I wanted you to think on what i had to say
I wanted to learn from you
with love and a holy kiss Roy
I love your posts, Roy, and I admire the attitude of heart you express. There IS great simplicity in truth, but I was led into a complex maze of error. I could just jump through the walls, but I want to learn how I got into such a mess so I don't fall into the same kinds of trap somewhere else.
geisha yes I know you and Steve were blessed by my words
I just needed to hear it
thank you
Steve I blessed that you wrote "with love and a holy kiss Steve " I learn so must with written that and meaning as you do I was kick off many boards for saying it but God taught how to love the unloveable other never get upset but its not easy
Your post to Roy, is fairly profound, yet it is given in such simple and human terms of understanding.....I think it is a good example of reading out an idea or concept from scripture. A good teacher does this....IMO....couches things in simplicity for the hearer to understand. What you said is so true....let's not miss the forest for the trees.
This is from an article I was reading this morning. I love bible.org because the contributors are some of the best bible scholars we have IMO.
This is what your post brought to my mind ....
. . . God's Word tells us that we should expect His revelation, the revelation of an infinite, omniscient, all-wise Creator, to contain an infinite depth that corresponds to His infinite mind. In Isaiah, God tells us about this and says:
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9).
Kenneth Boa has an excellent word here concerning the concept of God's thoughts being higher than ours:
It follows from all this that we cannot and should not expect to understand the Bible exhaustively. If we could, the Bible would not be divine but limited to human intelligence. A very important idea comes out of this, something over which many non-Christians and even Christians stumble: Since the Bible is an infinite revelation, it often brings the reader beyond the limit of his intelligence.
As simple as the Bible is in its message of sin and of free salvation in Christ, an incredible subtlety and profundity underlies all its doctrines. Even a child can receive Christ as his Savior, thereby appropriating the free gift of eternal life. Yet no philosopher has more than scratched the surface regarding the things that happened at the Cross. The Bible forces any reader to crash into the ceiling of his own comprehension, beyond which he cannot go until he sees the Lord face-to-face.
Until a person recognizes that his own wisdom and intelligence are not enough, he is not ready to listen to God's greater wisdom. Jesus alluded to this when He said to God, "you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children" (Luke 10:21).4
God has communicated to men truly though not exhaustively. Moses expressed this to us in Deuteronomy 29:29, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law."
An understanding of the way the Greek word mystery was used in the New Testament may help us here. It is the Greek word musterion and refers to what was previously hidden, but is now revealed to us through the revelation of the Word (1 Cor. 15:51; Eph. 3:3, 4, 9). Sometimes it is used simply of that which God makes known through His revelation to man which man could not know on his own (1 Cor. 2:7). But there is a sense in which some of God's truth, though clearly revealed in the Bible, remains a mystery. Though it is a truth revealed in Scripture, like the doctrine of the incarnation of the Son of God or the divine/human nature of Jesus Christ, the Trinity is a kind of mystery in that it goes beyond the boundaries of human comprehension. God hasn't explained all the mysteries of His revelation to us undoubtedly because we simply cannot yet grasp them.
The Apostle Paul wrote: "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known" (1 Cor. 13:12).
A city like Corinth, famous for its bronze mirrors, would have particularly appreciated Paul's final illustration. The perfection and imperfection mentioned in verse 10 were deftly likened to the contrasting images obtained by the indirect reflectionof one's face viewed in a bronze mirror and the same face when viewed directly. Such, Paul said, was the contrast between the imperfect time in which he then wrote and the perfect time which awaited him and the church when the partial reflection of the present would give way to the splendor of perfect vision. Then Paul would seeGod (cf. 15:28; 1 John 3:2) as God now saw Paul. Then partial knowledge (cf. 1 Cor. 8:1-3) would be displaced by the perfect knowledge of God.5
Because of our limited capacity in this life, some of the revelations of God given to us in the Bible defy explanation and illustration. When seeking to explain those truths that fall into this category, our explanations and especially our attempts to illustrate them must of necessity fall short of our ability to clarify and comprehend them.
Does this mean a doctrine cannot be true simply because it defies our human imagination or ability to comprehend it? The answer is, of course not. It would be nothing short of human arrogance to say it was. The truth is, we must recognize our need to simply trust in God's special revelation to us, the Bible, and submit our minds to that teaching which is truly expressed in its pages. This does not mean we do not test the Scripture to make sure these things are truly taught, but once we are convinced that that is what the Bible says, we must lay hold of it by faith and wait on the eternal future for complete understanding.
It would be the height of egotism for a person to say that because an idea in the Bible does not make sense (does not conform to his or her reasoning), it cannot be true and the Bible must be in error on this point.
Does this mean a doctrine cannot be true simply because it defies our human imagination or ability to comprehend it? The answer is, of course not. It would be nothing short of human arrogance to say it was. The truth is, we must recognize our need to simply trust in God's special revelation to us, the Bible, and submit our minds to that teaching which is truly expressed in its pages. This does not mean we do not test the Scripture to make sure these things are truly taught, but once we are convinced that that is what the Bible says, we must lay hold of it by faith and wait on the eternal future for complete understanding.
It would be the height of egotism for a person to say that because an idea in the Bible does not make sense (does not conform to his or her reasoning), it cannot be true and the Bible must be in error on this point.
Dittos!
The puzzle to me (in a good sense, like working Sudoku) is to figure out which of the things I think are nonsense because they are intentional "mysteries", and which are truly nonsense invented because of paradigm shifts in the meanings of words, and by people like Darby and Wierwille.
Sometimes people read foreign meanings INTO the words because that's what they were taught, but there are too many times when people (including myself) have read foreign meanings into the words because we want to MAKE the words mean what we want them to say.
I don't think I would use the word "mystery" the way you do, because it's one of the words that was particularly abused by Darby and Wierwille, and I am still not sure I've got it figured out. But there is this... all language is metaphoric in nature, and every simile or metaphor will fail if it's pushed too far. The things Paul and others wanted to communicate about God and Jesus Christ were far too vast to be expressed in a single metaphor. I think there has to be a leap of imagination, inspired by the Spirit of God, to grasp the core meanings and relations between the metaphors. The words of the Word are far too small a box to pack all of God into.
And I'm not motivated in all this effort by thinking I'm going to discover something that the Lord hasn't previously communicated in much more simple and direct fashion. If you want to know why I'm doing this, all I can say is go listen to "Won't Get Fooled Again" by the Who. Fooled by Wierwille! Fooled by CES/STFI! Fooled by Dale Sides! Fooled by Momentus! "Won't Get Fooled Again"
I think that the doctrine of the Trinity is worthy of examination in terms of exegesis and eisegesis, but it would take a lot more work to untangle than I am interested in pursuing on this thread. I think the idea of God and Jesus being of the "same substance" is supportable, but only by putting neo-Platonic spin on Stoic definitions. I almost understood the fourth century argument once, but ONLY almost. I didn't, and still don't, have enough depth of understanding the differences between the way the Stoics thought of "substance" and the way the neo-Platonists did.
Do you realize that the roots of the word "substance" have the same meanings as the roots of the word "understanding"? Are God and Jesus of the same understanding? I think neither Stoics (the gentile Christians Paul was writing to) nor neo-Platonists (the folks Jerome and Augustine were writing to) would have defined the words that have come to mean "substance" or "understanding" the same way, nor in a way we might today.
I think I Corinthians 8:6... "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom [ek 'proceding out from within' whom, 'from the inside to the outside of' whom] are all thing, and we in [eis the opposite of ek, 'into', 'from the outside to the inside'] him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [dia 'through' whom, 'into one side, and out through the other side of' whom] are all things, and we by [dia 'through', 'into one side, and out through the other side of'] him"... sets the relationship between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, all things and ourselves. I think the fourth century doctrine was an over simpliification, erroneous in describing God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ as being of the "same substance". Or at least too confusing for modern people to understand ("to substance"?).
HOWEVER... I don't think the practical differences between I Corinthians 8:6 and the doctrine of the Trinity are large enough to prevent the Lord from working with Trinitarians exactly the same way He works with people who hold an accurate understanding of I Corinthians 8:6. If we want to receive anything from God the Father, we have to go through Jesus Christ, and anything God gives to us will have to come through Jesus Christ. Likewise, any thanksgiving and praise we want to give back to the Father has to go through Jesus Christ. If we want to see God, we have to look at Jesus Christ.
It's a far different thing from the absent Jesus Christ sitting on the right hand of God smoking cigars while we do all the heavy lifting with our "believing".
I've learned more about "the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation" by watching some Trinitarians than I ever learned by listening to or reading Wierwille.
Soooo...
Notice that Genesis 2:7 DOESN'T say "And the Lord God formed man's bodyof the dust of the ground..." It says "And the Lord God formed manof the dust of the ground..."
More tomorrow... Have a good night, all!
Love,
Steve
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.
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
I don't intend to pursue the Trinity anymore on this thread than I already have. We have more fish to fry than that! We'll get back to Ex. vs Eise. this evening when I get back from my brother-in-law's Assemblies of God home fellowship that I'm going to.
And believe it or not, Bob, we're sneaking up on the dispy-diddy in my own circuitous way.
Thanks, Roy. One of these days I'll draw a diagram of I Corinthians 8:6, and there'll be plenty of circles for EVERYBODY to contemplate!
We had a good time at my brother-in-law's occassional home fellowship. We all had a friendly dinner together first, considered a few verses about the effectiveness of prayer,and then everybody got to respond to a few questions. It was really bracing hearing people tell stories about how they pray and how God answers. Then we all prayed together.
Back to Genesis 2:7, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
If I were to say this verse tells us that man's body was formed of the dust of the ground, and man acquired a living soul, then I would be practicing eisegesis, reading foreign meanings INTO what is written.
It appears to me that Genesis 2:7 tells us that a living soul is composed of two parts, a dust component and a breath component. It also seems to associate Adam's identity with the dust component. I've got more to write about this, but I also have some homework I need to get done before 6 pm tomorrow, so I probably won't get back until Tuesday.
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.
roberterasmus
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks Bob
what is darkness?
what is walking in the dark?
is there fleshly darkness and spiritual darkness?
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Bob,
I really do appreciate the response....I want you to know that....but, I would ask you to remember that I too held that particular Christology and view of God in TWI, so, I am not coming at this from an outsiders perspective. I understand you still adhere to some of the beliefs we held in TWI about who Jesus is, and although I gather your theology has progressed to some form of open theism. . . . it is eons apart from where I landed.
There is no way that I can possibly equate the holy, reverent and deeply intimate relationship between Jesus and the Father to that of reaching up into Daddy's cookie jar for a parking space at Walmart, red drapes, or some perceived revelation used to torture someone into believing they were demonically possessed. For "abundance". TWI was self-promoting, self-aggrandizing, and self-serving.
I believe that it is an eternal relationship between Father and Son and that Jesus, when praying for those who tortured Him, was responding to that deep commitment, love, and intimacy. "He poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."
Paul, when he was hungry, or felt abandoned, or had rocks thrown at him....that intimacy sustained him.
God is good, but, I am going to have to borrow from my friend Roy, and ask...."What is good?" His ways are good. His ways are also not our ways. God is holy. . . holy.. . holy.
God gave us everything in Christ. . ..we earned nothing. It is the most precious gift, the most deeply intimate expression of love there is....and it is the only acceptable sacrifice.
God is holy, just, and a judge. He showed us His love in Jesus.
What is just when a person hears the truth about that gift of salvation, that awesome sacrifice and expression of love and then turns to some kind of works based sacrifice to stand before God? Demotes Jesus? Is that a rejection of the gift? Is that saying the gift was not good enough?
Hearing, agreeing, believing and then turning away to earn one's way or to continue in sin. ...is not faith. Not trust....It just isn't and all the reasoning we can come up with doesn't change that. There is true faith and there is easy believism.
I didn't say anyone here is in the hands of an angry God. I simply pointed out what Hebrews was speaking to. If your faith is in Jesus Christ. ...why would you assume that? BTW, you just showed me you don't want to hear it. ...the harsh reality....exactly what I said.
Overbearing? Read the book. In fact, buy yourself a good study bible and read the notes. ...I am not saying anything shocking.
If you are really interested in Johnathan Edwards, Yale (also in CT) has a Johnathan Edwards Center with all of his works, letters, and biography.
Where was VP's center again?
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
What? Jesus had to suffer and die because we sin. ...we should abhor sin every bit as much as God does. . . His ways and all that.
And the sin, that bears eternal consequences I was speaking of.....is a rejection of Jesus Christ. Whether it be turning to works, a rejection outright, or making up a God we think is good. My thoughts anyway.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks geisha
I am so bless your here my friend
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
oops...slipped and hit add while drafting a first sentence...sorry
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Bob,
You didn't offend me by quoting Edwards. I told you before I didn't like some of his imagery. However infamous that sermon is, it is not the only thing he wrote. I am comfortable letting Johnathan Edwards stand on his own intellectual merit. When I am part of a great awakening, and certain I completely understand God's movement in history ....well, maybe I will critique him more.
I do enjoy reading the Puritans...and Edwards preached in the area I live in now, his grandson was Aaron Burr(Yale)......DL Moody was born not too far away and I own the letters and diary of a contemporary of Edwards....a local pastor. There is some really great stuff in their writing. DL Moody used to street preach and go into bars. ...he wrote of one man who was in the bar....followed him home and was saved. He started a school for needy kids....on the property where he was born ...I go there and sit in the chapel sometimes and try to imagine what it was like.
My kitchen table is the same one DL Moody sat at when he witnessed to my great grandfather. I love that I have it.
Conviction and repentance are a part of the gospel message. When we were yet sinners.....Repent.....I think it is an important part. How do I even know I need saving? If God loves me just the way I am...why do I need a savior?
As for the rest...I simply took what you said about TWI's Christology being the correct one at face value. Since I know you are aware that what I am saying is, for the most part, found in any good study bible....and not overbearing...I figured I would mention it.
How you became Mr. Easy Believism is anyone's guess....it couldn't be from me explaining why I discern intellectual assent and genuine faith in Hebrews...that wouldn't make sense.
How this is a bad thing is beyond me....I was delivered from some pretty ugy things in TWI...I am sure you meant to rejoice for me.
As for being angry? Well, of course it makes me angry when people are lead astray. I want everyone to see the true beauty of the Lord.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks everybody
I try to get others to see something the word is not Exegesis or Eisegesis
its not black and white
it not understood from with in itself or with out itself
its more than that and less than
it seeing why the Serpent taught Adam this way
it seeing why God told Adam not to eat of tree
after we understand good and evil we have no desire for evil
some times we have try something to get a full understanding others we just have to be told
I wanted to be part of this
I wanted you to think on what i had to say
I wanted to learn from you
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
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...)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Back at you brother!
Roy,
I always learn from you. I mean it. When you ask "What is?" it always makes me think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I think that the doctrine of the Trinity is worthy of examination in terms of exegesis and eisegesis, but it would take a lot more work to untangle than I am interested in pursuing on this thread. I think the idea of God and Jesus being of the "same substance" is supportable, but only by putting neo-Platonic spin on Stoic definitions. I almost understood the fourth century argument once, but ONLY almost. I didn't, and still don't, have enough depth of understanding the differences between the way the Stoics thought of "substance" and the way the neo-Platonists did.
Do you realize that the roots of the word "substance" have the same meanings as the roots of the word "understanding"? Are God and Jesus of the same understanding? I think neither Stoics (the gentile Christians Paul was writing to) nor neo-Platonists (the folks Jerome and Augustine were writing to) would have defined the words that have come to mean "substance" or "understanding" the same way, nor in a way we might today.
I think I Corinthians 8:6... "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom [ek 'proceding out from within' whom, 'from the inside to the outside of' whom] are all thing, and we in [eis the opposite of ek, 'into', 'from the outside to the inside'] him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom [dia 'through' whom, 'into one side, and out through the other side of' whom] are all things, and we by [dia 'through', 'into one side, and out through the other side of'] him"... sets the relationship between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, all things and ourselves. I think the fourth century doctrine was an over simpliification, erroneous in describing God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ as being of the "same substance". Or at least too confusing for modern people to understand ("to substance"?).
HOWEVER... I don't think the practical differences between I Corinthians 8:6 and the doctrine of the Trinity are large enough to prevent the Lord from working with Trinitarians exactly the same way He works with people who hold an accurate understanding of I Corinthians 8:6. If we want to receive anything from God the Father, we have to go through Jesus Christ, and anything God gives to us will have to come through Jesus Christ. Likewise, any thanksgiving and praise we want to give back to the Father has to go through Jesus Christ. If we want to see God, we have to look at Jesus Christ.
It's a far different thing from the absent Jesus Christ sitting on the right hand of God smoking cigars while we do all the heavy lifting with our "believing".
I've learned more about "the love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation" by watching some Trinitarians than I ever learned by listening to or reading Wierwille.
Soooo...
Notice that Genesis 2:7 DOESN'T say "And the Lord God formed man's body of the dust of the ground..." It says "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground..."
More tomorrow... Have a good night, all!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I love your posts, Roy, and I admire the attitude of heart you express. There IS great simplicity in truth, but I was led into a complex maze of error. I could just jump through the walls, but I want to learn how I got into such a mess so I don't fall into the same kinds of trap somewhere else.
with love and a holy kiss Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
Roy,...
What I quite like about you is that in all your posts that I have seen ~ you are without malice.
I will freely admit I don't always understand the tangents you take, but this one I get.
We believe with our hearts, and sometimes you can't neatly slice up the thing, and study it to death, and get it right.
It reminds me of a person who sits down and has to have all the food on his/her plate arranged just perfectly so.
maybe even the peas have to all be in little rows. A little boat has to be made in the middle of the mashed potatoes.
The gravy has to be just so. Not too much,... not too little. And then he has to cut up all the meat to bite-sizes.
Salt and pepper and butter for the peas and potatoes. The salad needs dressing the fork has to be just so.
Bread and butter ~ do we need Jam?,... Jelly?
By the time he's ready to eat, his dinner is cold.
You can overdo this, and ruin something that should be enjoyable.
What if the ice creame comes with chocolate syrup on it?
The longer you spend trying to seperate the syrup the more the Ice Creame melts.
You'd be fighting a losing battle.
Roy I learn from a lot of your posts.
Never give up my friend, you're far too important here.
with love and a holy kiss,
Katie
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks geisha and Steve
geisha yes I know you and Steve were blessed by my words
I just needed to hear it
thank you
Steve I blessed that you wrote "with love and a holy kiss Steve " I learn so must with written that and meaning as you do I was kick off many boards for saying it but God taught how to love the unloveable other never get upset but its not easy
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks Katie
you bless me too with "with love and a holy kiss, Katie"
thank you my friend
it good we can learn together
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Gen-2
Your post to Roy, is fairly profound, yet it is given in such simple and human terms of understanding.....I think it is a good example of reading out an idea or concept from scripture. A good teacher does this....IMO....couches things in simplicity for the hearer to understand. What you said is so true....let's not miss the forest for the trees.
This is from an article I was reading this morning. I love bible.org because the contributors are some of the best bible scholars we have IMO.
This is what your post brought to my mind ....
. . . God's Word tells us that we should expect His revelation, the revelation of an infinite, omniscient, all-wise Creator, to contain an infinite depth that corresponds to His infinite mind. In Isaiah, God tells us about this and says:
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts" (Isaiah 55:8-9).
Kenneth Boa has an excellent word here concerning the concept of God's thoughts being higher than ours:
It follows from all this that we cannot and should not expect to understand the Bible exhaustively. If we could, the Bible would not be divine but limited to human intelligence. A very important idea comes out of this, something over which many non-Christians and even Christians stumble: Since the Bible is an infinite revelation, it often brings the reader beyond the limit of his intelligence.
As simple as the Bible is in its message of sin and of free salvation in Christ, an incredible subtlety and profundity underlies all its doctrines. Even a child can receive Christ as his Savior, thereby appropriating the free gift of eternal life. Yet no philosopher has more than scratched the surface regarding the things that happened at the Cross. The Bible forces any reader to crash into the ceiling of his own comprehension, beyond which he cannot go until he sees the Lord face-to-face.
Until a person recognizes that his own wisdom and intelligence are not enough, he is not ready to listen to God's greater wisdom. Jesus alluded to this when He said to God, "you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children" (Luke 10:21).4
God has communicated to men truly though not exhaustively. Moses expressed this to us in Deuteronomy 29:29, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law."
An understanding of the way the Greek word mystery was used in the New Testament may help us here. It is the Greek word musterion and refers to what was previously hidden, but is now revealed to us through the revelation of the Word (1 Cor. 15:51; Eph. 3:3, 4, 9). Sometimes it is used simply of that which God makes known through His revelation to man which man could not know on his own (1 Cor. 2:7). But there is a sense in which some of God's truth, though clearly revealed in the Bible, remains a mystery. Though it is a truth revealed in Scripture, like the doctrine of the incarnation of the Son of God or the divine/human nature of Jesus Christ, the Trinity is a kind of mystery in that it goes beyond the boundaries of human comprehension. God hasn't explained all the mysteries of His revelation to us undoubtedly because we simply cannot yet grasp them.
The Apostle Paul wrote: "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known" (1 Cor. 13:12).
A city like Corinth, famous for its bronze mirrors, would have particularly appreciated Paul's final illustration. The perfection and imperfection mentioned in verse 10 were deftly likened to the contrasting images obtained by the indirect reflection of one's face viewed in a bronze mirror and the same face when viewed directly. Such, Paul said, was the contrast between the imperfect time in which he then wrote and the perfect time which awaited him and the church when the partial reflection of the present would give way to the splendor of perfect vision. Then Paul would see God (cf. 15:28; 1 John 3:2) as God now saw Paul. Then partial knowledge (cf. 1 Cor. 8:1-3) would be displaced by the perfect knowledge of God.5
Because of our limited capacity in this life, some of the revelations of God given to us in the Bible defy explanation and illustration. When seeking to explain those truths that fall into this category, our explanations and especially our attempts to illustrate them must of necessity fall short of our ability to clarify and comprehend them.
Does this mean a doctrine cannot be true simply because it defies our human imagination or ability to comprehend it? The answer is, of course not. It would be nothing short of human arrogance to say it was. The truth is, we must recognize our need to simply trust in God's special revelation to us, the Bible, and submit our minds to that teaching which is truly expressed in its pages. This does not mean we do not test the Scripture to make sure these things are truly taught, but once we are convinced that that is what the Bible says, we must lay hold of it by faith and wait on the eternal future for complete understanding.
It would be the height of egotism for a person to say that because an idea in the Bible does not make sense (does not conform to his or her reasoning), it cannot be true and the Bible must be in error on this point.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Dittos!
The puzzle to me (in a good sense, like working Sudoku) is to figure out which of the things I think are nonsense because they are intentional "mysteries", and which are truly nonsense invented because of paradigm shifts in the meanings of words, and by people like Darby and Wierwille.
Sometimes people read foreign meanings INTO the words because that's what they were taught, but there are too many times when people (including myself) have read foreign meanings into the words because we want to MAKE the words mean what we want them to say.
I don't think I would use the word "mystery" the way you do, because it's one of the words that was particularly abused by Darby and Wierwille, and I am still not sure I've got it figured out. But there is this... all language is metaphoric in nature, and every simile or metaphor will fail if it's pushed too far. The things Paul and others wanted to communicate about God and Jesus Christ were far too vast to be expressed in a single metaphor. I think there has to be a leap of imagination, inspired by the Spirit of God, to grasp the core meanings and relations between the metaphors. The words of the Word are far too small a box to pack all of God into.
And I'm not motivated in all this effort by thinking I'm going to discover something that the Lord hasn't previously communicated in much more simple and direct fashion. If you want to know why I'm doing this, all I can say is go listen to "Won't Get Fooled Again" by the Who. Fooled by Wierwille! Fooled by CES/STFI! Fooled by Dale Sides! Fooled by Momentus! "Won't Get Fooled Again"
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Whoa... Awesome post Geisha.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I don't intend to pursue the Trinity anymore on this thread than I already have. We have more fish to fry than that! We'll get back to Ex. vs Eise. this evening when I get back from my brother-in-law's Assemblies of God home fellowship that I'm going to.
And believe it or not, Bob, we're sneaking up on the dispy-diddy in my own circuitous way.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks everybody
I have reading more of about the subject of Exegesis vs. Eisegesis and we only part of the picture
Been reading Spinoza a wise man
a circle shows the part we do not see
we see what on the outside of the circle which is Exegesis of the circle
and we what inside of the circle which is Eisegesis of the circle
but we never seem the circle itself
the line that makes it a circle
in study the word we must not things for what in then or what outside of them
we must see the circle
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Thanks, Roy. One of these days I'll draw a diagram of I Corinthians 8:6, and there'll be plenty of circles for EVERYBODY to contemplate!
We had a good time at my brother-in-law's occassional home fellowship. We all had a friendly dinner together first, considered a few verses about the effectiveness of prayer,and then everybody got to respond to a few questions. It was really bracing hearing people tell stories about how they pray and how God answers. Then we all prayed together.
Back to Genesis 2:7, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
If I were to say this verse tells us that man's body was formed of the dust of the ground, and man acquired a living soul, then I would be practicing eisegesis, reading foreign meanings INTO what is written.
It appears to me that Genesis 2:7 tells us that a living soul is composed of two parts, a dust component and a breath component. It also seems to associate Adam's identity with the dust component. I've got more to write about this, but I also have some homework I need to get done before 6 pm tomorrow, so I probably won't get back until Tuesday.
Love,
Steve
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.