From these verses, it would seem that learning to understand the scriptures is a gradual process which involves the development of habits of mind through practice. In the case of "exegesis vs. eisegesis" I think exercising our "senses" to discern both good and evil means to look at the actual words printed on the page and ask ourselves: "What does that say?" "What do I think it means?" and "How would that meaning line up with other things I think the Word says?"
In a very real sense, it's impossible for a beginner to avoid reading "into" what is written, because understanding what someone has written requires a leap of imagination on the part of the receiver, and the reciever's possible responses are limited by his experience. For instance, when I was a kid, I thought the gift of holy spirit was Jesus' ghost, because I heard the preacher read "Holy Ghost" from the King James' Version, and I read into that phrase all the things I had learned about ghosts from Casper the Friendly Ghost comic books.
Making the transition beteen "reading into" and "reading out from" is not a once-for-all, all-or-nothing proposition. It's gradual. It doesn't just require mental gymnastics, it requires that we PRACTISE at mental gymnastics!
It's not one-size-fits-all. Each of us comes to the Word with different reservoirs of experience. That's why we need the Spirit of God to translate the words of the Word into terms that we, as individuals, can understand. We are mistaken when we think everybody's understanding of the Word has to be expressed in exactly the same words we use. But we have to be careful that we don't drift too far from the meanings of the words as written. It's not usually a case of black-and-white, but usually a case of figuring out what constitutes good judgment.
I can see how The Way International bled and bred their people, setting up a system of classes that would acredit "status". My dad had a box of nametags. I've seen it said that those (IN TWI) used those name tags (or what they supposedly represented) as tokens of their meathood or obvious babehood,... ...As though someone who had only taken the Foundational Class could ONLY be a Babe.
Now in the hierarchy of Daimon and diamonion this is how this works,... is it not?
Oh and that explains my bred comment, now as to the bled comment - they bled green a charge for each class, each nametag.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Additionally,... when those who were in the old Weirwille Administration were largely purged, you had to re-prove your meathood by being bled green again --- new classes meant those olde nametags were now useless.
The "Spiritually Advanced" who whished to remain in "in play" at the Way, - had to start from the foundational class while some meathead kept track.
Hey Brother/Sister,... Have you taken the Whole WAP series yet?
Nossir, how much is it? Where/when can I please sign up? After all I need to be not only a "spiritual" thoroughbred ... but a "current" one as well.
You hit the nail on the head, Gen-2! I wrote, "I can't say every thought and intention of my heart is evil. Neither can I say that every thought and intention is good. I cannot trust my heart... by itself... to sort out my evil intentions from my good! What a fix I find myself in!"
The solution to my problem IS in Hebrews 4:12, "For the word of God is quick [ALIVE] and powerful [ABLE TO DO THINGS]... and is a discerner [kritikos CRITIC] of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
The living Word critcizes the thoughts and intents of our hearts. The living Word tells us which of the things coming out of our hearts are okay, and which are abominations, even though they all seem to be equally right and clean in our own eyes!
But... just what do I think the living Word is?
Is the living Word cramming my mind with a freight-load of retemories in King James English without having the slightest clue as to what they really mean?
Is the living Word some leader reaming my a$ with the words "renew your mind" foaming out of his mouth between sprays of spittle?
Is the living Word ME, telling everybody else what's good for them?
No, no and double no!
I think the Word lives where the words written in the Word agree with the things the Spirit of God is working in a person's mind and heart.
Three places in the Bible we are told, "in the mouth [singular] of two or three witnesses [plural] shall a matter be established" (Deuteronomy 19:15b, Matthew 18:16b and II Corinthians 13:1b). The mouths of multiple witnesses become singular where they agree.
I think the primary witness that God gives us of Himself are the things He works in us subjectively through His Spirit. I think that is the basis of the individual relations that He so enjoys with each of us. I think that is how He directs our attention to the things He would have us to change in our walks. I think that's how He lets us know the things He wants us to do. The unique things He has so carefully trained each of us and equipped each of us to do.
I think the written Word is a secondary, objective witness He has given us so that we can check the things we think He might be telling us by way of Spirit.
I think the Word lives as a person exercises judgment, as he or she compares and contrasts what's coming to him by way of Spirit with what's coming to him by way of the written Word. If we magnify the written Word and ignore the Spirit, we fall into Phariseeism and legalism, as TWI did. If we magnify the Spirit and ignore the written Word, we fall into emotionalism and spiritualism as CES did with personal prophecy. To strike the balance between legalism and license, that is, to walk in the Spirit, requires that a person be equally humble to the written Word and the Spirit working within him where they agree. That's when the living Word can criticize the thoughts and intents of our hearts.
David knew as much, "Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting." (Psalm 139:23&24)
Love,
Steve
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 not converted. They had not come to the faith. It is written or built around a set of warnings, hence, the multiple use of the word "Beware". It also shows a new and better way, a complete way.
Chapter 1 . . . .
1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
With just a quick glance of verse 12 the one thing that jumps out is the severity of it. . . . hence the words sharp, powerful, dividing, critic, piercing, and sword. Not a cuddly "love ya, how to" verse. It is a warning to the hearersthat their emphasis was distorted. Look at the next verse. . . . . it ends with to whom we must give account. It is speaking about Jesus.
Who does scripture tell us is the living word? That is the question you can't guess on, hint, it wasn't Guttenberg. Remember, the whole context of Hebrews is Christ.
These are the people who were following the path of their forefathers . . . . when it refers to the children of Israel . . . those from the exodus . . . it referring to those who never entered the promise land. In Hebrews it is called entering into God's rest. They were never going to enter or be saved unless they started looking to Christ. He is the fulfillment of all God was trying to show them. He is the High Priest.
By trusting in their lineage, and their ceremonies and their ability. . their work's based sacrifice. . . .and themselves they were DENYING God's complete sacrifice and the only one He will accept.
The rest of Hebrews goes on to contrast the better way of Jesus vs their insistence on keeping their own rules.
1. Jesus is the living word
2. Jesus is the primary way God communicated to us. John 14:6
Hebrews is about missing salvation and it keeps pointing people back to the same thing every chapter. . . . Jesus Christ the same, yesterday, today, and forever. It is telling us NOT to rely on our own ability to direct, discern, and critique our own hearts. . . . it is saying put your faith in Jesus.
13 chapters of Jesus being the ONLY way . . . . and we still think we can train our hearts and exercise such great discernment?
The only thing our attention is directed to in Hebrews is Jesus Christ. Yes, a person, but it is not ourselves.
...13 chapters of Jesus being the ONLY way . . . . and we still think we can train our hearts and exercise such great discernment?
The only thing our attention is directed to in Hebrews is Jesus Christ. Yes, a person, but it is not ourselves.....
Nice sum-up Geisha, and hello. Yeah I think Steve does get into the "mental gymnastics" a bit for a question with such an obvious answer.
Yes you can be a babe in the word or one able to receive strong meat.
But the thing is, either way, Jesus is more important than the Way made him out to be
And when you read that section of Romans, Steve, it doesn't matter (the perfect translation). It doesn't matter if you're new or old to the word.
God builds you up here. He tells you YOU ARE SOMEBODY and you can be HIS kid,.... all because of Jesus, and like geisha said, it's not about you/us, but Jesus.
Nice sum-up Geisha, and hello. Yeah I think Steve does get into the "mental gymnastics" a bit for a question with such an obvious answer.
Yes you can be a babe in the word or one able to receive strong meat.
But the thing is, either way, Jesus is more important than the Way made him out to be
And when you read that section of Romans, Steve, it doesn't matter (the perfect translation). It doesn't matter if you're new or old to the word.
God builds you up here. He tells you YOU ARE SOMEBODY and you can be HIS kid,.... all because of Jesus, and like geisha said, it's not about you/us, but Jesus.
I think it's great!
So what am I not getting?
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, but knowing that Christ is all in all.
That is enough right there.
The thing is . . . God had promised them rest.. . . He would deliver them . . . twice He said. . . I did it this way, so that you couldn't say it was through your own power and might that this was accomplished.
I think seeking ex-way also have to be wary and not miss that rest promised in Jesus.
Hebrews explains why they struggled so much in the OT and how we also can fall into that. . . . Hebrews is a perfect book for ex-way. We did the same thing in TWI, we missed faith in the completeness of Christ and let our faith rest in our knowledge. . . . just like the people in Noah's day. . . we missed the boat.
Oh and I was happy to see you in the baseball forum!! Go Cubs
I can see how The Way International bled and bred their people, setting up a system of classes that would acredit "status". My dad had a box of nametags. I've seen it said that those (IN TWI) used those name tags (or what they supposedly represented) as tokens of their meathood or obvious babehood,... ...As though someone who had only taken the Foundational Class could ONLY be a Babe.
Now in the hierarchy of Daimon and diamonion this is how this works,... is it not?
Oh and that explains my bred comment, now as to the bled comment - they bled green a charge for each class, each nametag.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Additionally,... when those who were in the old Weirwille Administration were largely purged, you had to re-prove your meathood by being bled green again --- new classes meant those olde nametags were now useless.
The "Spiritually Advanced" who whished to remain in "in play" at the Way, - had to start from the foundational class while some meathead kept track.
Hey Brother/Sister,... Have you taken the Whole WAP series yet?
Nossir, how much is it? Where/when can I please sign up? After all I need to be not only a "spiritual" thoroughbred ... but a "current" one as well.
Lest I be assumed to be a babe,....
Just out of curiosity, Gen-2, may I ask what was your own involvement with TWI? My wife and I started dating after she had gotten out. That was about the same time my step-daughter was going off to bootcamp at age 18. My step-daughter had been involved with TWI from the time she was six until she was sixteen. She has turned off to Christianity, and is exploring Buddhism. I can understand that, seeing as how her early views of Christianity were formed by TWI. I struggle to picture how things were different for her than they were for me, who came to TWI with a firm confidence in Christ already in place. If your experience is none of my business, I can appreciate that, and I'm thankful for the contributions you make here.
The system of classes and nametags developed by TWI were indeed a flashy, fleshy counterfeit of genuine maturity. True maturity doesn't come from mindlessly sitting while somebody else drones on and on. It comes from exercising the mind and senses to discern both good and evil, that is to say, it comes from comparing and contrasting things, and coming to some sort of conclusion about a standard for judging right and wrong.
I think the living Word of God provides that standard. I think the Spirit of God, at the present time, is the life of God as evidenced by the power to move, impressed with the human personality of Jesus Christ. The reason I believe this is because of the geometric meanings of the prepositions in I Corinthians 8:6. When I say the Spirit of God works in a person, I believe it IS the Lord Jesus Christ working. I think the working of the Spirit of God in a person is that person's primary witness, and it is subjective. I believe the written Word is a secondary objective witness a person can use to establish whether something he thinks is the Spirit of God working in him really is or not.
I believe the written Word has integrity. The sense of II Timothy 3:16 is, among other things: All scripture is profitable for doctrine. All scripture is profitable for reproof. All scripture is profitable for correction. All scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness.
Maturity is a matter of learning common sense. The things I wrote in the previous two paragraphs require mental gymnastics to understand only if a person's mind was conditioned, as mine was, to automatically perform the fruitless mental gymnastics of TWI.
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 not converted. They had not come to the faith. It is written or built around a set of warnings, hence, the multiple use of the word "Beware". It also shows a new and better way, a complete way...
The only thing our attention is directed to in Hebrews is Jesus Christ. Yes, a person, but it is not ourselves.
Thank you for moving the conversation along, geisha!
I respectfully disagree about "to whom" the book of Hebrews was addressed. That is what dispensationalism teaches, but I no longer hold with that interpretation.
I think the book of Hebrews was addressed to a group of Christians who had come to Christ from a Jewish background, and who were tempted to abandon Christianity because Jesus was not from the tribe of Levi. The "milk" the writer of Hebrews was teaching was that the Torah said Melchisidec was a priest, even though he was not a descendant of Levi. The "meat" the writer went on to teach was how Jesus is High Priest under the New Testament prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34. The main exhortation the writer makes is "Please don't stop believing!"
I no longer believe the Church is a "wholly new thing" completely separate and discontinuous from Israel. I believe the Church is the believing remnant of Israel (Romans 11:5) under the New Testament promised to them in Jeremiah 31 (II Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 8:8-12), with believing Gentiles grafted in (Romans 11:17-18) on the same basis as believing Israel, not by ethnicity, but by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8).
All for now...
You notice I use phrases like "I think..." and "I believe." That's because I know enough to know that I don't know it all.
And yes, I agree, it IS all about the person of Jesus Christ!
From these verses, it would seem that learning to understand the scriptures is a gradual process which involves the development of habits of mind through practice. In the case of "exegesis vs. eisegesis" I think exercising our "senses" to discern both good and evil means to look at the actual words printed on the page and ask ourselves: "What does that say?" "What do I think it means?" and "How would that meaning line up with other things I think the Word says?"
In a very real sense, it's impossible for a beginner to avoid reading "into" what is written, because understanding what someone has written requires a leap of imagination on the part of the receiver, and the reciever's possible responses are limited by his experience. For instance, when I was a kid, I thought the gift of holy spirit was Jesus' ghost, because I heard the preacher read "Holy Ghost" from the King James' Version, and I read into that phrase all the things I had learned about ghosts from Casper the Friendly Ghost comic books.
Making the transition beteen "reading into" and "reading out from" is not a once-for-all, all-or-nothing proposition. It's gradual. It doesn't just require mental gymnastics, it requires that we PRACTISE at mental gymnastics!
It's not one-size-fits-all. Each of us comes to the Word with different reservoirs of experience. That's why we need the Spirit of God to translate the words of the Word into terms that we, as individuals, can understand. We are mistaken when we think everybody's understanding of the Word has to be expressed in exactly the same words we use. But we have to be careful that we don't drift too far from the meanings of the words as written. It's not usually a case of black-and-white, but usually a case of figuring out what constitutes good judgment.
All for now,
Love,
Steve
Steve,
You’ve said a mouthful here and it is wonderful to understand the eisegesis/ exegesis thing with a new believer/growing believer. Context is always the key in understanding, but context is built up in a believers life when he/she reads and then applies what he/she has read. Of course then the question becomes “what” has he/she read and then “does it really apply to me”. Here the milk/meat thing comes to bear.
It’s not hard to understand that it would be helpful to have a more mature believer (those who “ought to be teachers”) helping a younger (“one that using milk is inexperienced in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe”); yet it doesn’t have to be the overbearing “ladder to the top” cirriculum or even “top down management” style in a church/parachurch group. That’s the cultish side.
It needs to be “Hear thou, my son, and be wise, and direct thine heart in the way.” It’s incredible how simple it is. As the girls have said below, we need to rest in Jesus’ accomplishments, but I’ll add that we also need to “walk worthy of the calling” too (“God has no hands but our hands…” see below for actual references!)
A voice from the fourteenth century, St. Teresa of Avila, reminds us that WE are God's hands.
"God has no hands but our hands to do his work today;
God has no feet but our feet to lead others in his way;
God has no voice but our voice to tell others how he died;
and, God has no help but our help to lead them to his side."
Anyway, good stuff specifically related to the topic. Eisegesis can become exegesis when wisdom rules.
Bob
I can see how The Way International bled and bred their people, setting up a system of classes that would acredit "status". My dad had a box of nametags. I've seen it said that those (IN TWI) used those name tags (or what they supposedly represented) as tokens of their meathood or obvious babehood,... ...As though someone who had only taken the Foundational Class could ONLY be a Babe.
Now in the hierarchy of Daimon and diamonion this is how this works,... is it not?
Oh and that explains my bred comment, now as to the bled comment - they bled green a charge for each class, each nametag.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Additionally,... when those who were in the old Weirwille Administration were largely purged, you had to re-prove your meathood by being bled green again --- new classes meant those olde nametags were now useless.
The "Spiritually Advanced" who whished to remain in "in play" at the Way, - had to start from the foundational class while some meathead kept track.
Hey Brother/Sister,... Have you taken the Whole WAP series yet?
Nossir, how much is it? Where/when can I please sign up? After all I need to be not only a "spiritual" thoroughbred ... but a "current" one as well.
Lest I be assumed to be a babe,....
Gen,
The Way International’s “system of classes” was probably better than anything I have ever experienced in the religious education that I have received…ever…
Sure, people abused it and made it into the “stairway to heaven”, but lets not throw out the baby again and again. Classes such as “Dealing with the Adversary” and “The Renewed Mind” are classics, IMHO, which syllabi I used in homeschooling my children and I could only wish that I had the tapes today for them. Yeah, I did parts of it myself, but man were those systematic catalogues worthy of repitition.
Meathood or babehood aside (that’s the human BS factor)…
Bob
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 not converted. They had not come to the faith. It is written or built around a set of warnings, hence, the multiple use of the word "Beware". It also shows a new and better way, a complete way.
Chapter 1 . . . .
1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
With just a quick glance of verse 12 the one thing that jumps out is the severity of it. . . . hence the words sharp, powerful, dividing, critic, piercing, and sword. Not a cuddly "love ya, how to" verse. It is a warning to the hearersthat their emphasis was distorted. Look at the next verse. . . . . it ends with to whom we must give account. It is speaking about Jesus.
Who does scripture tell us is the living word? That is the question you can't guess on, hint, it wasn't Guttenberg. Remember, the whole context of Hebrews is Christ.
These are the people who were following the path of their forefathers . . . . when it refers to the children of Israel . . . those from the exodus . . . it referring to those who never entered the promise land. In Hebrews it is called entering into God's rest. They were never going to enter or be saved unless they started looking to Christ. He is the fulfillment of all God was trying to show them. He is the High Priest.
By trusting in their lineage, and their ceremonies and their ability. . their work's based sacrifice. . . .and themselves they were DENYING God's complete sacrifice and the only one He will accept.
The rest of Hebrews goes on to contrast the better way of Jesus vs their insistence on keeping their own rules.
1. Jesus is the living word
2. Jesus is the primary way God communicated to us. John 14:6
Hebrews is about missing salvation and it keeps pointing people back to the same thing every chapter. . . . Jesus Christ the same, yesterday, today, and forever. It is telling us NOT to rely on our own ability to direct, discern, and critique our own hearts. . . . it is saying put your faith in Jesus.
13 chapters of Jesus being the ONLY way . . . . and we still think we can train our hearts and exercise such great discernment?
The only thing our attention is directed to in Hebrews is Jesus Christ. Yes, a person, but it is not ourselves.
Geisha,
From whence do you interpret Hebrews having been written to those “not converted” or “had not come to the faith”? Furthermore, where is it documented that they had “intellectually agreed to the gospel”?
I went looking for the “beware” verbiage (typically the Greek BLEPO or PROSECHO, but there are others) that you put forth as exemplary of Hebrews and found but a couple in the entire book (Hebrews 2:1 – “give the more earnest heed” in KJV, but could be “beware” and Hebrews 3:12 – “take care” in KJV, but could also be “beware”).
You also mention Hebrews 4:13 as referring to Jesus and it really doesn’t say that necessarily and quite frankly I’d say, contextually, it is God “with whom we have to do” (not that they’re not up there together). BTW, that’s my favorite verse in the entire Bible…so poetic.
From whence do you interpret Hebrews having been written to those "not converted" or "had not come to the faith"? Furthermore, where is it documented that they had "intellectually agreed to the gospel"?
I went looking for the "beware" verbiage (typically the Greek BLEPO or PROSECHO, but there are others) that you put forth as exemplary of Hebrews and found but a couple in the entire book (Hebrews 2:1 – "give the more earnest heed" in KJV, but could be "beware" and Hebrews 3:12 – "take care" in KJV, but could also be "beware").
You also mention Hebrews 4:13 as referring to Jesus and it really doesn't say that necessarily and quite frankly I'd say, contextually, it is God "with whom we have to do" (not that they're not up there together). BTW, that's my favorite verse in the entire Bible…so poetic.
Bob
I get that from the context- - - -intensified persecution exposes the genuine nature of a persons faith----I get it from them not fully identifying with Christ---- their willingness to demote Christ----their willingness to hold on to symbols and rituals-----chapters 10-12 speak about the difference between genuine and false faith----chapter 2 warnings of drifting from what they heard-----chapter 3 warns of not believing the voice of God -----chapter 5 departing from the elementary teaching of Christ-----10 despising the knowledge of the truth----12 departing from Him who is speaking----
Verse 5:11 A slow response to the preaching of the gospel. Needing to learn the elementary principles. If their faith was in Christ already they would have HAD to have known these things. How else would they put their faith in Him? Exposure and agreeing doesn't equal conversion.
Hebrews 4:2 For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith. 3Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,
11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
That doesn't mean believing there is a God, but having faith in who He is as He is IMO. The rest of 11 makes sense of that verse. Anyone can say I believe there was a Jesus. Muslims believe that
My salvation is not dependent on my ability to keep it-----no one can snatch me from Him----not even me----but, I had to first come to that faith in Christ----draw near, full assurance----urging them to bear this word of exhortation. My faith has to be in the better way Hebrews points to.
And quite frankly----I had some exposure to the gospel in TWI and out----sort of----and I did believe it-----but, I did not put my faith in Christ----I was not born-again in TWI .
I relate to this book. Hebrew 12:11
As for "beware" I did not open my bible when I wrote that post and it took me a very few minutes, but the language in Hebrews is what I was pointing to . . . .things like "better" "new" "perfect" and "example". If people are interested, they can look it up like you did. :)
As for your last point and giving an account. . . . we will stand before the judgment seat of. . . . . . I too believe it is God. Who gives us our crowns? Whose feet do we cast them to?
The scariest warning to me is for them NOT to be like their ancestors who wandered in the wilderness . . . . .kind of like, ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth . . . jumping from one thing to another. . . never grasping the simplicity of faith in Christ.
As an aside . . . . it is interesting how the writer (whoever it is) is fairly specific about referencing the OT and then in 4:4 says Oh yeah and somewhere He said God rested on the seventh day.. Kind of makes one chuckle and go huh?
Just out of curiosity, Gen-2, may I ask what was your own involvement with TWI? ...
...Steve
I was born in 1980, but did not speak at all until around Halloween of 1987. By that time my father was out of the Way Ministry, and I have no memories of my life before the spring of 1987. So in this regard I had no involvement with the way. From my earliest memories I was put to live with nuns at one place or another. First in County Clare, at the Kilrush House, where I had been sent because I was "a millstone" around my mother's neck. From the time that I was seven, until the time that I was eleven, My mother taught me over twenty languages. She took me with her everywhere she went all over the world, because I had suddenly become "useful" to her. She was a Linguist with a job as an Archaeologist.
In 1992, at Christmas, My dad decided to take an interest in me. He was quite gifted and was home from working a year in Antarctica. He insisted that I stay with him when Mom had to travel. Under his guidance I received a GED within a year. I also got into all his stuff, which included the PFAL Class Tapes. He had been "stuck with them" when the Way Ministry in area he was living in had "basically disintegrated" in the 80's, leaving no standing believers (even the branch leader had 'QUIT' the Way). Dad had stored all his Way Ministry Books, the Class Tapes and his Bible research Books - There were a ton of them!
I was a constant source of questions to my father. Over time I learned about the Way and how he was involved. I had learned from my brother Joshua (who remembers twigs in our house when he was little - Josh is a real PFAL grad), how to pace questions to Dad so he wouldn't tire of me. When My dad got fired or quit his job as a Physicist in Nevada He ended up working for the United States Foreign Service as an aide to Ambassador Roy and I moved to Beijing for a year. I gave Ambassador Roy fits, although he referred to me as an obnoxious elf, he got me Bible stuff I asked for all the time. He was a Graduate from Princeton. and his kindness made me think that's where I would go to college one day. I listened to the Class Foundational and Intermediate over 20 times anyways on the Beta machine I had to scrounge up, VHS having taken over the market.
After a year there, I was sent back to Adare Ireland where Mom made an arrangement for me to be boarded at the Catholic Secondary school in Limerick. Loaded up now with a headful of Way Ministry Doctrine, I became the bane of the Sisters existence at Laurel Hill. I would live there until 1997. We had some great discussions. The nuns had no idea where my Weirwillism's were coming from. I was quite amused. They were so happy to see me leave their gentle-loving care.
Later in 1999 I tried to contact a twig fellowship in Florida. I was told that my dad was on the BAD list (words to that effect) and that I was not welcome at the Way. The Fellowship leader had called his higher-ups and they gave him the riot act to dismiss me - sins of the father, I suppose. He even told me that he thought their decision was wrong.
I remember saying to him with a grin "I was only following Orders!"
I was born in 1980, but did not speak at all until around Halloween of 1987. By that time my father was out of the Way Ministry, and I have no memories of my life before the spring of 1987. So in this regard I had no involvement with the way. From my earliest memories I was put to live with nuns at one place or another. First in County Clare, at the Kilrush House, where I had been sent because I was "a millstone" around my mother's neck. From the time that I was seven, until the time that I was eleven, My mother taught me over twenty languages. She took me with her everywhere she went all over the world, because I had suddenly become "useful" to her. She was a Linguist with a job as an Archaeologist.
In 1992, at Christmas, My dad decided to take an interest in me. He was quite gifted and was home from working a year in Antarctica. He insisted that I stay with him when Mom had to travel. Under his guidance I received a GED within a year. I also got into all his stuff, which included the PFAL Class Tapes. He had been "stuck with them" when the Way Ministry in area he was living in had "basically disintegrated" in the 80's, leaving no standing believers (even the branch leader had 'QUIT' the Way). Dad had stored all his Way Ministry Books, the Class Tapes and his Bible research Books - There were a ton of them!
I was a constant source of questions to my father. Over time I learned about the Way and how he was involved. I had learned from my brother Joshua (who remembers twigs in our house when he was little - Josh is a real PFAL grad), how to pace questions to Dad so he wouldn't tire of me. When My dad got fired or quit his job as a Physicist in Nevada He ended up working for the United States Foreign Service as an aide to Ambassador Roy and I moved to Beijing for a year. I gave Ambassador Roy fits, although he referred to me as an obnoxious elf, he got me Bible stuff I asked for all the time. He was a Graduate from Princeton. and his kindness made me think that's where I would go to college one day. I listened to the Class Foundational and Intermediate over 20 times anyways on the Beta machine I had to scrounge up, VHS having taken over the market.
After a year there, I was sent back to Adare Ireland where Mom made an arrangement for me to be boarded at the Catholic Secondary school in Limerick. Loaded up now with a headful of Way Ministry Doctrine, I became the bane of the Sisters existence at Laurel Hill. I would live there until 1997. We had some great discussions. The nuns had no idea where my Weirwillism's were coming from. I was quite amused. They were so happy to see me leave their gentle-loving care.
Later in 1999 I tried to contact a twig fellowship in Florida. I was told that my dad was on the BAD list (words to that effect) and that I was not welcome at the Way. The Fellowship leader had called his higher-ups and they gave him the riot act to dismiss me - sins of the father, I suppose. He even told me that he thought their decision was wrong.
I remember saying to him with a grin "I was only following Orders!"
I never went back there.
You are a very remarkable person, Gen-2! You seem to be living a life that nobody would believe if they read it in a work of fiction! I'm glad that we have met, if only virtually.
Did I understand you properly that you didn't speak until you were seven? About a year ago, my wife was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, and we started seeing it all around us. (Nobody would believe my wife's life in a work of fiction either!) Is there a possibility that you may be manifesting some of the indications of Asperger's?
I hope this exchange isn't too personal for a doctrinal thread, and I apologize in advance if it is
I get that from the context- - - -intensified persecution exposes the genuine nature of a persons faith----I get it from them not fully identifying with Christ---- their willingness to demote Christ----their willingness to hold on to symbols and rituals-----chapters 10-12 speak about the difference between genuine and false faith----chapter 2 warnings of drifting from what they heard-----chapter 3 warns of not believing the voice of God -----chapter 5 departing from the elementary teaching of Christ-----10 despising the knowledge of the truth----12 departing from Him who is speaking----
Verse 5:11 A slow response to the preaching of the gospel. Needing to learn the elementary principles. If their faith was in Christ already they would have HAD to have known these things. How else would they put their faith in Him? Exposure and agreeing doesn't equal conversion.
Hebrews 4:2 For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith. 3Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,
11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
That doesn't mean believing there is a God, but having faith in who He is as He is IMO. The rest of 11 makes sense of that verse. Anyone can say I believe there was a Jesus. Muslims believe that
My salvation is not dependent on my ability to keep it-----no one can snatch me from Him----not even me----but, I had to first come to that faith in Christ----draw near, full assurance----urging them to bear this word of exhortation. My faith has to be in the better way Hebrews points to.
And quite frankly----I had some exposure to the gospel in TWI and out----sort of----and I did believe it-----but, I did not put my faith in Christ----I was not born-again in TWI .
I relate to this book. Hebrew 12:11
As for "beware" I did not open my bible when I wrote that post and it took me a very few minutes, but the language in Hebrews is what I was pointing to . . . .things like "better" "new" "perfect" and "example". If people are interested, they can look it up like you did. :)
As for your last point and giving an account. . . . we will stand before the judgment seat of. . . . . . I too believe it is God. Who gives us our crowns? Whose feet do we cast them to?
The scariest warning to me is for them NOT to be like their ancestors who wandered in the wilderness . . . . .kind of like, ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth . . . jumping from one thing to another. . . never grasping the simplicity of faith in Christ.
As an aside . . . . it is interesting how the writer (whoever it is) is fairly specific about referencing the OT and then in 4:4 says Oh yeah and somewhere He said God rested on the seventh day.. Kind of makes one chuckle and go huh?
Geisha,
I believe you have miscalculated the letter to the Hebrews to have been written to (essentially) “unbelievers”. Chapter 4, verse 3 alone (“For we who have believed do enter into rest…”) should obviate this. It’s not like Paul uses “we” over against “you” anywhere else in Scripture for a polemic. As far as I know when he says “we” he means himself and his audience; in this case the “Hebrews”.
I “get it” that the items you are pointing to show a congregation in trouble, but the language is not any worse that the stuff written to the Galatians (“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—“ or “You stupid people in Galatia! After you have had a clear picture of Jesus Christ crucified, right in front of your eyes, who has put a spell on you?”; etc.); and they were believers. Now, in the absence of the typical Pauline introduction we might think that the audience was different and I’ll agree there, but they were believers.
RE
Thank you for moving the conversation along, geisha!
I respectfully disagree about "to whom" the book of Hebrews was addressed. That is what dispensationalism teaches, but I no longer hold with that interpretation.
I think the book of Hebrews was addressed to a group of Christians who had come to Christ from a Jewish background, and who were tempted to abandon Christianity because Jesus was not from the tribe of Levi. The "milk" the writer of Hebrews was teaching was that the Torah said Melchisidec was a priest, even though he was not a descendant of Levi. The "meat" the writer went on to teach was how Jesus is High Priest under the New Testament prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34. The main exhortation the writer makes is "Please don't stop believing!"
I no longer believe the Church is a "wholly new thing" completely separate and discontinuous from Israel. I believe the Church is the believing remnant of Israel (Romans 11:5) under the New Testament promised to them in Jeremiah 31 (II Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 8:8-12), with believing Gentiles grafted in (Romans 11:17-18) on the same basis as believing Israel, not by ethnicity, but by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8).
All for now...
You notice I use phrases like "I think..." and "I believe." That's because I know enough to know that I don't know it all.
And yes, I agree, it IS all about the person of Jesus Christ!
Love,
Steve
Steve,
Your comments about the addressees are a bit skewed as well. You say that what Geisha posited is, “what dispensationalism teaches, but I no longer hold with that interpretation.” Mainline dispy thinking doesn’t teach that the Hebrews' audience was unbelievers. And I’m startled to see that you would consider Christians spiritual Jews (or spiritual Israel if you prefer). It’s another whole matter of eisegesis, IMHO. I’d love to see your case for it. This thread is the perfect place.
I believe you have miscalculated the letter to the Hebrews to have been written to (essentially) “unbelievers”. Chapter 4, verse 3 alone (“For we who have believed do enter into rest…”) should obviate this. It’s not like Paul uses “we” over against “you” anywhere else in Scripture for a polemic. As far as I know when he says “we” he means himself and his audience; in this case the “Hebrews”.
I “get it” that the items you are pointing to show a congregation in trouble, but the language is not any worse that the stuff written to the Galatians (“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—“ or “You stupid people in Galatia! After you have had a clear picture of Jesus Christ crucified, right in front of your eyes, who has put a spell on you?”; etc.); and they were believers. Now, in the absence of the typical Pauline introduction we might think that the audience was different and I’ll agree there, but they were believers.
RE
Steve,
Your comments about the addressees are a bit skewed as well. You say that what Geisha posited is, “what dispensationalism teaches, but I no longer hold with that interpretation.” Mainline dispy thinking doesn’t teach that the Hebrews' audience was unbelievers. And I’m startled to see that you would consider Christians spiritual Jews (or spiritual Israel if you prefer). It’s another whole matter of eisegesis, IMHO. I’d love to see your case for it. This thread is the perfect place.
RE
Thank you for pointing out my error, Bob. I went back and re-read Scofield's introduction to Hebrews, and he does indeed hold that the recipients of Hebrews were wavering Christians. I've done enough reading to realize that a number of things have changed in dispensationalist circles since Scofield, but his reference Bible is my most accessible source of general dispensationalist thought.
It may well be that I was thinking of the direction that has been taken by CES/STFI. They were teaching, the last I heard of, that the only books of the Bible we can trust are Paul's prison epistles: Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians. They don't teach this for the same reason Bullinger did, that the present "dispensation" began at Acts 28:28 instead of Pentecost, but thay say that Paul had to be broken of his "Jewish mindset" by the treatment he received on his last trip to Jerusalem before he could receive the full greatness of the revelation of his "mystery". Everything he wrote before that time was tainted by his Jewish bias.
CES/STFI was also teaching that the New Testament of II Corinthians 3:6 is not the same as the New Testament of Jeremiah 31:31-38 and Hebrews 8:8-12, but rather a never-before-heard-of New Testament, having no relation whatsoever to anything outside of the current "administration." In this, they out-Scofield Scofield.
In his general notes to Romans chapter 11, Scofield wrote, "Israel is judicially broken off from the good olive tree Christ."
In his notes specifically to Romans 11:17 Scofield wrote, "The olive tree represents the blessings promised to Abraham's seed. Though Gentiles do not, by faith in Christ, inherit Israel's particular promises, they do receive the blessing promised to 'all families of the earth'."
The New Testament was specifically promised to "the house of Israel and... the house of Judah" (Jeremiah 31:31, Hebrews 8:8). If gentiles do not, by faith in Christ, inherit Israel's particular promises, then how can gentiles participate in the New Testament? Hebrews 8:16&17 also indicate that Christ's death was necessary to bring the New Testament into force. Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24 and Luke 22:20 testify that the blood Jesus shed in his death on the cross was the blood that sealed the New Testament. If we follow dispensationalism's premise, that gentiles do not by faith inherit Israel's particular promises, to its logical conclusion, don't we have to acknowledge that Scofield's teaching, at least, makes the cross of Christ of none effect?
I did not say Hebrews was written to essentially unbelievers . . . . I said it was written to those who agreed to the facts, and believed it was true . . . . but, had not put their faith in Christ, they were still on the fence. They intellectually assented to the gospel. Which is basically what Hebrews is saying.
Here is what I think . . . . It would be like someone here saying "Yeah, I used to believe that, but, I don't anymore." I have no reason to doubt their sincerity. I am sure they did agree to the facts at one time. Made a confession of some kind.
However, being a Christian is not being part of a religion. . . . believing Dogma. . . . or an exercise in academics. . . it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
A commitment, and although we are not always the most faithful. . . . God is and is able to keep us.
I am not the only person to ever say this. But, thanks for the response. :)
A paradigm shift doesn’t generally happen on its own. One’s paradigm will only shift when the data forces it to. Face-to-face with an undeniable reality, we see something with new eyes.
Coming to faith in Christ is that kind of a thing for many people. Very few people actually grasp the gospel the first time. They must hear the message of it again and again. It’s common to find people who may not know or understand the difference between knowing about Jesus and trusting in him, between having an intellectual assent and having a real relationship. Sure they can recite the creeds, but they don’t understand what it means to know him and be known by him.
Suppose I teach through the Gospel of John or the book of Romans. Eventually, a light will go on, all-of-a-sudden. It might take several teachings, but suddenly a coherent way of seeing will emerge, whereby they can now see that this is what it really means to be a follower of Jesus. It’s not just believing in a proposition; it’s trusting in a person. There is a huge difference, because Christianity is not a religion; it’s a relationship. And while the Bible is filled with important propositional truth, the revelation was not given to inform us, but to transform us. And that revelation demands a response. The message of the gospel is a series of propositions that invite a personal response -- a cognitive response, a volitional response and sometimes an emotional response. That response is the paradigm shift that leads to Christian conversion.
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 not converted. They had not come to the faith. It is written or built around a set of warnings, hence, the multiple use of the word "Beware". It also shows a new and better way, a complete way.
Chapter 1 . . . .
1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
With just a quick glance of verse 12 the one thing that jumps out is the severity of it. . . . hence the words sharp, powerful, dividing, critic, piercing, and sword. Not a cuddly "love ya, how to" verse. It is a warning to the hearersthat their emphasis was distorted. Look at the next verse. . . . . it ends with to whom we must give account. It is speaking about Jesus.
Who does scripture tell us is the living word? That is the question you can't guess on, hint, it wasn't Guttenberg. Remember, the whole context of Hebrews is Christ.
These are the people who were following the path of their forefathers . . . . when it refers to the children of Israel . . . those from the exodus . . . it referring to those who never entered the promise land. In Hebrews it is called entering into God's rest. They were never going to enter or be saved unless they started looking to Christ. He is the fulfillment of all God was trying to show them. He is the High Priest.
By trusting in their lineage, and their ceremonies and their ability. . their work's based sacrifice. . . .and themselves they were DENYING God's complete sacrifice and the only one He will accept.
The rest of Hebrews goes on to contrast the better way of Jesus vs their insistence on keeping their own rules.
1. Jesus is the living word
2. Jesus is the primary way God communicated to us. John 14:6
Hebrews is about missing salvation and it keeps pointing people back to the same thing every chapter. . . . Jesus Christ the same, yesterday, today, and forever. It is telling us NOT to rely on our own ability to direct, discern, and critique our own hearts. . . . it is saying put your faith in Jesus.
13 chapters of Jesus being the ONLY way . . . . and we still think we can train our hearts and exercise such great discernment?
The only thing our attention is directed to in Hebrews is Jesus Christ. Yes, a person, but it is not ourselves.
It would appear to me that the writer of Hebrews was directing recipients of the book to continue in the personal relationship they had with God the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ, instead of abandoning it because Jesus was not of the line of Levi. The recipients were ethnic Jews, as were all the original Christians. Whoever was raising doubts among them was doing it in terms of Jewish culture... Jesus could not mediate a personal relationship with God, because that's the High Priest's job, and the High Priest has to be of the line of Levi, Jesus is not of the line of Levi, therefore the believers should abandon their faith in Jesus as the Christ.
The author of Hebrews responded to these doubts in terms of Jewish culture... the New Testament promised to Israel in Jeremiah has replaced to Old Testament of Deuteronomy under which the High Priest had to be a Levite. Under the New Testament, Jesus can be the High Priest because he is of the order of Melchisidec, an High Priest who preceded the Old Testament and Levi. Jesus is qualified to mediate a personal relationship with God under the New Testament promised to Israel in Jeremiah 31.
One of the main burdens of Paul's message in Romans 9 through 11 is to point out that the ethnic Jews of the Roman church were every bit as much Christians as the ethnic gentiles. Paul used HIMSELF as an example in Romans 11:1. Unbelieving Jews were the branches that were broken off. Believing gentiles were grafted in AMONG believing Jews. As Paul wrote, "Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee." (Romans 11:18) I believe that the "root" Paul refers to here are the promises God made to Israel.
If Hebrews 4:12 were indeed addressed to people who had only given "mental assent" (a Wierwillian term if ever there was one) to the gospel, how would that change the meanings of the words?
It would appear to me that the writer of Hebrews was directing recipients of the book to continue in the personal relationship they had with God the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ, instead of abandoning it because Jesus was not of the line of Levi. The recipients were ethnic Jews, as were all the original Christians. Whoever was raising doubts among them was doing it in terms of Jewish culture... Jesus could not mediate a personal relationship with God, because that's the High Priest's job, and the High Priest has to be of the line of Levi, Jesus is not of the line of Levi, therefore the believers should abandon their faith in Jesus as the Christ.
The author of Hebrews responded to these doubts in terms of Jewish culture... the New Testament promised to Israel in Jeremiah has replaced to Old Testament of Deuteronomy under which the High Priest had to be a Levite. Under the New Testament, Jesus can be the High Priest because he is of the order of Melchisidec, an High Priest who preceded the Old Testament and Levi. Jesus is qualified to mediate a personal relationship with God under the New Testament promised to Israel in Jeremiah 31.
One of the main burdens of Paul's message in Romans 9 through 11 is to point out that the ethnic Jews of the Roman church were every bit as much Christians as the ethnic gentiles. Paul used HIMSELF as an example in Romans 11:1. Unbelieving Jews were the branches that were broken off. Believing gentiles were grafted in AMONG believing Jews. As Paul wrote, "Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee." (Romans 11:18) I believe that the "root" Paul refers to here are the promises God made to Israel.
If Hebrews 4:12 were indeed addressed to people who had only given "mental assent" (a Wierwillian term if ever there was one) to the gospel, how would that change the meanings of the words?
Love,
Steve
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.
Even with the handle in your hand there must be honesty.
v. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
Has lots to do with,
a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart
if all things can be naked and opened to our eyes,
which i believe they can 'with whom we have to do'.
Thank you for pointing out my error, Bob. I went back and re-read Scofield's introduction to Hebrews, and he does indeed hold that the recipients of Hebrews were wavering Christians. I've done enough reading to realize that a number of things have changed in dispensationalist circles since Scofield, but his reference Bible is my most accessible source of general dispensationalist thought.
It may well be that I was thinking of the direction that has been taken by CES/STFI. They were teaching, the last I heard of, that the only books of the Bible we can trust are Paul's prison epistles: Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians. They don't teach this for the same reason Bullinger did, that the present "dispensation" began at Acts 28:28 instead of Pentecost, but thay say that Paul had to be broken of his "Jewish mindset" by the treatment he received on his last trip to Jerusalem before he could receive the full greatness of the revelation of his "mystery". Everything he wrote before that time was tainted by his Jewish bias.
CES/STFI was also teaching that the New Testament of II Corinthians 3:6 is not the same as the New Testament of Jeremiah 31:31-38 and Hebrews 8:8-12, but rather a never-before-heard-of New Testament, having no relation whatsoever to anything outside of the current "administration." In this, they out-Scofield Scofield.
In his general notes to Romans chapter 11, Scofield wrote, "Israel is judicially broken off from the good olive tree Christ."
In his notes specifically to Romans 11:17 Scofield wrote, "The olive tree represents the blessings promised to Abraham's seed. Though Gentiles do not, by faith in Christ, inherit Israel's particular promises, they do receive the blessing promised to 'all families of the earth'."
The New Testament was specifically promised to "the house of Israel and... the house of Judah" (Jeremiah 31:31, Hebrews 8:8). If gentiles do not, by faith in Christ, inherit Israel's particular promises, then how can gentiles participate in the New Testament? Hebrews 8:16&17 also indicate that Christ's death was necessary to bring the New Testament into force. Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24 and Luke 22:20 testify that the blood Jesus shed in his death on the cross was the blood that sealed the New Testament. If we follow dispensationalism's premise, that gentiles do not by faith inherit Israel's particular promises, to its logical conclusion, don't we have to acknowledge that Scofield's teaching, at least, makes the cross of Christ of none effect?
Love,
Steve
Steve,
I’m pretty informed of the teachings at STFI/ CES as regards their opinions on the “Secret” (“mystery” is a bad translation (actually it’s merely a transliteration from the Greek)), but something may have slipped past my ironclad grip on what “heretics” are teaching these days, eh!
Whether Paul had to be “broken” (I don’t use that word, it’s not Biblical expression the way people today use it) is a matter of opinion and yes (obviously) the things that Paul wrote early on were “tainted” (another stupid word) with his Hebraic background (hardly a “bias”…he was a Jew, Hebrew of the Hebrew, etc. etc….it was who he was…call it a bias if you want…I’d call it his culture). That doesn’t take Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians out to that realm; it merely shows that Jesus had been teaching him more things over time. It’s the same with any man at any time.
Now, a discussion of the New Covenant will really take some time. I’m certain that the “death of the testator” inaugurated the Covenant, but the testator got up from the dead, OMG (i.e. – is “alive” and is no longer on the planet…now read Hebrews 9:17). Then there’s Hebrews 8: 13, “in the saying 'new,' (covenant) He hath made the first (covenant) old, and what is becoming obsolete and is old is nigh disappearing" (there are three participles in this verse and they need quite a lot of attention). At the time of the writing of the letter to the Hebrews the “old” covenant wasn’t gone yet (entirely) so how shall we look at the “new”(maybe (I might posit) that it isn't entirely "here" yet)? If we posit that Jesus inaugurated the “new” (which I said it is obvious that he did), then how shall we look at the “church, which is his body”? We cannot, by theological slight of hand or some allegorical hermeneutic, morph this entity into “the house of Israel and the house of Judah” can we?
How, in God’s name, does following the dispensational line of reasoning make the “cross of Christ of none effect”? They teach nothing more (or less) than the entire Christian corpus. I think, Steve, you have somewhat a jaundiced view of this theology.
Look, there are really only a couple of verses in the Christian Scriptures that even speak of the “new covenant”. I’m an unabashed dispensationalist. If you’d like to wonder how “we” handle those few I’d be glad to accommodate. I realize that some dispys want to posit another “new” covenant (one “in Christ”) and there are reasons, but I’m not really sure those reasons hold water. Note, if you will, that Ephesians points out which “promises” the Gentiles will “inherit”, “That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.” (his promise “in Christ” and that “by the gospel”). The question you have to ask yourself is this: Was there any promise “in Christ” before Jesus was declared such (Acts 2:36)?
Oh, how much fun the Scriptures are to understand.
Read what it really says, properly translating "study", (exegesis) and then consider how Wierwille twisted it. (eisegesis)
Ironic, dontcha think?
Way,
VP actually did a decent job in his "translation according to usage" in 2 Timothy 2:15, IMHO. The word "study" is quite wrong in modern parlance (maybe in 1611 "study" meant more than we do). Note the following "translations" of spoudazo.
"Do your best" to present yourself to God (NIV)
"Make every effort" to present yourself before God (NJB)
"Be diligent" to present yourself approved to God (NASB)
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.
Steve Lortz
From these verses, it would seem that learning to understand the scriptures is a gradual process which involves the development of habits of mind through practice. In the case of "exegesis vs. eisegesis" I think exercising our "senses" to discern both good and evil means to look at the actual words printed on the page and ask ourselves: "What does that say?" "What do I think it means?" and "How would that meaning line up with other things I think the Word says?"
In a very real sense, it's impossible for a beginner to avoid reading "into" what is written, because understanding what someone has written requires a leap of imagination on the part of the receiver, and the reciever's possible responses are limited by his experience. For instance, when I was a kid, I thought the gift of holy spirit was Jesus' ghost, because I heard the preacher read "Holy Ghost" from the King James' Version, and I read into that phrase all the things I had learned about ghosts from Casper the Friendly Ghost comic books.
Making the transition beteen "reading into" and "reading out from" is not a once-for-all, all-or-nothing proposition. It's gradual. It doesn't just require mental gymnastics, it requires that we PRACTISE at mental gymnastics!
It's not one-size-fits-all. Each of us comes to the Word with different reservoirs of experience. That's why we need the Spirit of God to translate the words of the Word into terms that we, as individuals, can understand. We are mistaken when we think everybody's understanding of the Word has to be expressed in exactly the same words we use. But we have to be careful that we don't drift too far from the meanings of the words as written. It's not usually a case of black-and-white, but usually a case of figuring out what constitutes good judgment.
All for now,
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Which Requires Not being confined by a book or books.
These folks that wrote them were not, from what I see.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
I can see how The Way International bled and bred their people, setting up a system of classes that would acredit "status". My dad had a box of nametags. I've seen it said that those (IN TWI) used those name tags (or what they supposedly represented) as tokens of their meathood or obvious babehood,... ...As though someone who had only taken the Foundational Class could ONLY be a Babe.
Now in the hierarchy of Daimon and diamonion this is how this works,... is it not?
Oh and that explains my bred comment, now as to the bled comment - they bled green a charge for each class, each nametag.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Additionally,... when those who were in the old Weirwille Administration were largely purged, you had to re-prove your meathood by being bled green again --- new classes meant those olde nametags were now useless.
The "Spiritually Advanced" who whished to remain in "in play" at the Way, - had to start from the foundational class while some meathead kept track.
Hey Brother/Sister,... Have you taken the Whole WAP series yet?
Nossir, how much is it? Where/when can I please sign up? After all I need to be not only a "spiritual" thoroughbred ... but a "current" one as well.
Lest I be assumed to be a babe,....
Edited by Gen-2Link to comment
Share on other sites
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 not converted. They had not come to the faith. It is written or built around a set of warnings, hence, the multiple use of the word "Beware". It also shows a new and better way, a complete way.
Chapter 1 . . . .
1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.
With just a quick glance of verse 12 the one thing that jumps out is the severity of it. . . . hence the words sharp, powerful, dividing, critic, piercing, and sword. Not a cuddly "love ya, how to" verse. It is a warning to the hearers that their emphasis was distorted. Look at the next verse. . . . . it ends with to whom we must give account. It is speaking about Jesus.
Who does scripture tell us is the living word? That is the question you can't guess on, hint, it wasn't Guttenberg. Remember, the whole context of Hebrews is Christ.
These are the people who were following the path of their forefathers . . . . when it refers to the children of Israel . . . those from the exodus . . . it referring to those who never entered the promise land. In Hebrews it is called entering into God's rest. They were never going to enter or be saved unless they started looking to Christ. He is the fulfillment of all God was trying to show them. He is the High Priest.
By trusting in their lineage, and their ceremonies and their ability. . their work's based sacrifice. . . .and themselves they were DENYING God's complete sacrifice and the only one He will accept.
The rest of Hebrews goes on to contrast the better way of Jesus vs their insistence on keeping their own rules.
1. Jesus is the living word
2. Jesus is the primary way God communicated to us. John 14:6
Hebrews is about missing salvation and it keeps pointing people back to the same thing every chapter. . . . Jesus Christ the same, yesterday, today, and forever. It is telling us NOT to rely on our own ability to direct, discern, and critique our own hearts. . . . it is saying put your faith in Jesus.
13 chapters of Jesus being the ONLY way . . . . and we still think we can train our hearts and exercise such great discernment?
The only thing our attention is directed to in Hebrews is Jesus Christ. Yes, a person, but it is not ourselves.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
Nice sum-up Geisha, and hello. Yeah I think Steve does get into the "mental gymnastics" a bit for a question with such an obvious answer.
Yes you can be a babe in the word or one able to receive strong meat.
But the thing is, either way, Jesus is more important than the Way made him out to be
And when you read that section of Romans, Steve, it doesn't matter (the perfect translation). It doesn't matter if you're new or old to the word.
God builds you up here. He tells you YOU ARE SOMEBODY and you can be HIS kid,.... all because of Jesus, and like geisha said, it's not about you/us, but Jesus.
I think it's great!
So what am I not getting?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
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, but knowing that Christ is all in all.
That is enough right there.
The thing is . . . God had promised them rest.. . . He would deliver them . . . twice He said. . . I did it this way, so that you couldn't say it was through your own power and might that this was accomplished.
I think seeking ex-way also have to be wary and not miss that rest promised in Jesus.
Hebrews explains why they struggled so much in the OT and how we also can fall into that. . . . Hebrews is a perfect book for ex-way. We did the same thing in TWI, we missed faith in the completeness of Christ and let our faith rest in our knowledge. . . . just like the people in Noah's day. . . we missed the boat.
Oh and I was happy to see you in the baseball forum!! Go Cubs
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Just out of curiosity, Gen-2, may I ask what was your own involvement with TWI? My wife and I started dating after she had gotten out. That was about the same time my step-daughter was going off to bootcamp at age 18. My step-daughter had been involved with TWI from the time she was six until she was sixteen. She has turned off to Christianity, and is exploring Buddhism. I can understand that, seeing as how her early views of Christianity were formed by TWI. I struggle to picture how things were different for her than they were for me, who came to TWI with a firm confidence in Christ already in place. If your experience is none of my business, I can appreciate that, and I'm thankful for the contributions you make here.
The system of classes and nametags developed by TWI were indeed a flashy, fleshy counterfeit of genuine maturity. True maturity doesn't come from mindlessly sitting while somebody else drones on and on. It comes from exercising the mind and senses to discern both good and evil, that is to say, it comes from comparing and contrasting things, and coming to some sort of conclusion about a standard for judging right and wrong.
I think the living Word of God provides that standard. I think the Spirit of God, at the present time, is the life of God as evidenced by the power to move, impressed with the human personality of Jesus Christ. The reason I believe this is because of the geometric meanings of the prepositions in I Corinthians 8:6. When I say the Spirit of God works in a person, I believe it IS the Lord Jesus Christ working. I think the working of the Spirit of God in a person is that person's primary witness, and it is subjective. I believe the written Word is a secondary objective witness a person can use to establish whether something he thinks is the Spirit of God working in him really is or not.
I believe the written Word has integrity. The sense of II Timothy 3:16 is, among other things: All scripture is profitable for doctrine. All scripture is profitable for reproof. All scripture is profitable for correction. All scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness.
Maturity is a matter of learning common sense. The things I wrote in the previous two paragraphs require mental gymnastics to understand only if a person's mind was conditioned, as mine was, to automatically perform the fruitless mental gymnastics of TWI.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Thank you for moving the conversation along, geisha!
I respectfully disagree about "to whom" the book of Hebrews was addressed. That is what dispensationalism teaches, but I no longer hold with that interpretation.
I think the book of Hebrews was addressed to a group of Christians who had come to Christ from a Jewish background, and who were tempted to abandon Christianity because Jesus was not from the tribe of Levi. The "milk" the writer of Hebrews was teaching was that the Torah said Melchisidec was a priest, even though he was not a descendant of Levi. The "meat" the writer went on to teach was how Jesus is High Priest under the New Testament prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-34. The main exhortation the writer makes is "Please don't stop believing!"
I no longer believe the Church is a "wholly new thing" completely separate and discontinuous from Israel. I believe the Church is the believing remnant of Israel (Romans 11:5) under the New Testament promised to them in Jeremiah 31 (II Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 8:8-12), with believing Gentiles grafted in (Romans 11:17-18) on the same basis as believing Israel, not by ethnicity, but by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8).
All for now...
You notice I use phrases like "I think..." and "I believe." That's because I know enough to know that I don't know it all.
And yes, I agree, it IS all about the person of Jesus Christ!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Steve,
You’ve said a mouthful here and it is wonderful to understand the eisegesis/ exegesis thing with a new believer/growing believer. Context is always the key in understanding, but context is built up in a believers life when he/she reads and then applies what he/she has read. Of course then the question becomes “what” has he/she read and then “does it really apply to me”. Here the milk/meat thing comes to bear.
It’s not hard to understand that it would be helpful to have a more mature believer (those who “ought to be teachers”) helping a younger (“one that using milk is inexperienced in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe”); yet it doesn’t have to be the overbearing “ladder to the top” cirriculum or even “top down management” style in a church/parachurch group. That’s the cultish side.
It needs to be “Hear thou, my son, and be wise, and direct thine heart in the way.” It’s incredible how simple it is. As the girls have said below, we need to rest in Jesus’ accomplishments, but I’ll add that we also need to “walk worthy of the calling” too (“God has no hands but our hands…” see below for actual references!)
A voice from the fourteenth century, St. Teresa of Avila, reminds us that WE are God's hands.
"God has no hands but our hands to do his work today;
God has no feet but our feet to lead others in his way;
God has no voice but our voice to tell others how he died;
and, God has no help but our help to lead them to his side."
Anyway, good stuff specifically related to the topic. Eisegesis can become exegesis when wisdom rules.
Bob
Gen,
The Way International’s “system of classes” was probably better than anything I have ever experienced in the religious education that I have received…ever…
Sure, people abused it and made it into the “stairway to heaven”, but lets not throw out the baby again and again. Classes such as “Dealing with the Adversary” and “The Renewed Mind” are classics, IMHO, which syllabi I used in homeschooling my children and I could only wish that I had the tapes today for them. Yeah, I did parts of it myself, but man were those systematic catalogues worthy of repitition.
Meathood or babehood aside (that’s the human BS factor)…
Bob
Geisha,
From whence do you interpret Hebrews having been written to those “not converted” or “had not come to the faith”? Furthermore, where is it documented that they had “intellectually agreed to the gospel”?
I went looking for the “beware” verbiage (typically the Greek BLEPO or PROSECHO, but there are others) that you put forth as exemplary of Hebrews and found but a couple in the entire book (Hebrews 2:1 – “give the more earnest heed” in KJV, but could be “beware” and Hebrews 3:12 – “take care” in KJV, but could also be “beware”).
You also mention Hebrews 4:13 as referring to Jesus and it really doesn’t say that necessarily and quite frankly I’d say, contextually, it is God “with whom we have to do” (not that they’re not up there together). BTW, that’s my favorite verse in the entire Bible…so poetic.
Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I get that from the context- - - -intensified persecution exposes the genuine nature of a persons faith----I get it from them not fully identifying with Christ---- their willingness to demote Christ----their willingness to hold on to symbols and rituals-----chapters 10-12 speak about the difference between genuine and false faith----chapter 2 warnings of drifting from what they heard-----chapter 3 warns of not believing the voice of God -----chapter 5 departing from the elementary teaching of Christ-----10 despising the knowledge of the truth----12 departing from Him who is speaking----
Verse 5:11 A slow response to the preaching of the gospel. Needing to learn the elementary principles. If their faith was in Christ already they would have HAD to have known these things. How else would they put their faith in Him? Exposure and agreeing doesn't equal conversion.
Hebrews 4:2 For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith. 3Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,
11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
That doesn't mean believing there is a God, but having faith in who He is as He is IMO. The rest of 11 makes sense of that verse. Anyone can say I believe there was a Jesus. Muslims believe that
My salvation is not dependent on my ability to keep it-----no one can snatch me from Him----not even me----but, I had to first come to that faith in Christ----draw near, full assurance----urging them to bear this word of exhortation. My faith has to be in the better way Hebrews points to.
And quite frankly----I had some exposure to the gospel in TWI and out----sort of----and I did believe it-----but, I did not put my faith in Christ----I was not born-again in TWI .
I relate to this book. Hebrew 12:11
As for "beware" I did not open my bible when I wrote that post and it took me a very few minutes, but the language in Hebrews is what I was pointing to . . . .things like "better" "new" "perfect" and "example". If people are interested, they can look it up like you did. :)
As for your last point and giving an account. . . . we will stand before the judgment seat of. . . . . . I too believe it is God. Who gives us our crowns? Whose feet do we cast them to?
The scariest warning to me is for them NOT to be like their ancestors who wandered in the wilderness . . . . .kind of like, ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth . . . jumping from one thing to another. . . never grasping the simplicity of faith in Christ.
As an aside . . . . it is interesting how the writer (whoever it is) is fairly specific about referencing the OT and then in 4:4 says Oh yeah and somewhere He said God rested on the seventh day.. Kind of makes one chuckle and go huh?
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
I was born in 1980, but did not speak at all until around Halloween of 1987. By that time my father was out of the Way Ministry, and I have no memories of my life before the spring of 1987. So in this regard I had no involvement with the way. From my earliest memories I was put to live with nuns at one place or another. First in County Clare, at the Kilrush House, where I had been sent because I was "a millstone" around my mother's neck. From the time that I was seven, until the time that I was eleven, My mother taught me over twenty languages. She took me with her everywhere she went all over the world, because I had suddenly become "useful" to her. She was a Linguist with a job as an Archaeologist.
In 1992, at Christmas, My dad decided to take an interest in me. He was quite gifted and was home from working a year in Antarctica. He insisted that I stay with him when Mom had to travel. Under his guidance I received a GED within a year. I also got into all his stuff, which included the PFAL Class Tapes. He had been "stuck with them" when the Way Ministry in area he was living in had "basically disintegrated" in the 80's, leaving no standing believers (even the branch leader had 'QUIT' the Way). Dad had stored all his Way Ministry Books, the Class Tapes and his Bible research Books - There were a ton of them!
I was a constant source of questions to my father. Over time I learned about the Way and how he was involved. I had learned from my brother Joshua (who remembers twigs in our house when he was little - Josh is a real PFAL grad), how to pace questions to Dad so he wouldn't tire of me. When My dad got fired or quit his job as a Physicist in Nevada He ended up working for the United States Foreign Service as an aide to Ambassador Roy and I moved to Beijing for a year. I gave Ambassador Roy fits, although he referred to me as an obnoxious elf, he got me Bible stuff I asked for all the time. He was a Graduate from Princeton. and his kindness made me think that's where I would go to college one day. I listened to the Class Foundational and Intermediate over 20 times anyways on the Beta machine I had to scrounge up, VHS having taken over the market.
After a year there, I was sent back to Adare Ireland where Mom made an arrangement for me to be boarded at the Catholic Secondary school in Limerick. Loaded up now with a headful of Way Ministry Doctrine, I became the bane of the Sisters existence at Laurel Hill. I would live there until 1997. We had some great discussions. The nuns had no idea where my Weirwillism's were coming from. I was quite amused. They were so happy to see me leave their gentle-loving care.
Later in 1999 I tried to contact a twig fellowship in Florida. I was told that my dad was on the BAD list (words to that effect) and that I was not welcome at the Way. The Fellowship leader had called his higher-ups and they gave him the riot act to dismiss me - sins of the father, I suppose. He even told me that he thought their decision was wrong.
I remember saying to him with a grin "I was only following Orders!"
I never went back there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
You are a very remarkable person, Gen-2! You seem to be living a life that nobody would believe if they read it in a work of fiction! I'm glad that we have met, if only virtually.
Did I understand you properly that you didn't speak until you were seven? About a year ago, my wife was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, and we started seeing it all around us. (Nobody would believe my wife's life in a work of fiction either!) Is there a possibility that you may be manifesting some of the indications of Asperger's?
I hope this exchange isn't too personal for a doctrinal thread, and I apologize in advance if it is
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Geisha,
I believe you have miscalculated the letter to the Hebrews to have been written to (essentially) “unbelievers”. Chapter 4, verse 3 alone (“For we who have believed do enter into rest…”) should obviate this. It’s not like Paul uses “we” over against “you” anywhere else in Scripture for a polemic. As far as I know when he says “we” he means himself and his audience; in this case the “Hebrews”.
I “get it” that the items you are pointing to show a congregation in trouble, but the language is not any worse that the stuff written to the Galatians (“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—“ or “You stupid people in Galatia! After you have had a clear picture of Jesus Christ crucified, right in front of your eyes, who has put a spell on you?”; etc.); and they were believers. Now, in the absence of the typical Pauline introduction we might think that the audience was different and I’ll agree there, but they were believers.
RE
Steve,
Your comments about the addressees are a bit skewed as well. You say that what Geisha posited is, “what dispensationalism teaches, but I no longer hold with that interpretation.” Mainline dispy thinking doesn’t teach that the Hebrews' audience was unbelievers. And I’m startled to see that you would consider Christians spiritual Jews (or spiritual Israel if you prefer). It’s another whole matter of eisegesis, IMHO. I’d love to see your case for it. This thread is the perfect place.
RE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Thank you for pointing out my error, Bob. I went back and re-read Scofield's introduction to Hebrews, and he does indeed hold that the recipients of Hebrews were wavering Christians. I've done enough reading to realize that a number of things have changed in dispensationalist circles since Scofield, but his reference Bible is my most accessible source of general dispensationalist thought.
It may well be that I was thinking of the direction that has been taken by CES/STFI. They were teaching, the last I heard of, that the only books of the Bible we can trust are Paul's prison epistles: Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians. They don't teach this for the same reason Bullinger did, that the present "dispensation" began at Acts 28:28 instead of Pentecost, but thay say that Paul had to be broken of his "Jewish mindset" by the treatment he received on his last trip to Jerusalem before he could receive the full greatness of the revelation of his "mystery". Everything he wrote before that time was tainted by his Jewish bias.
CES/STFI was also teaching that the New Testament of II Corinthians 3:6 is not the same as the New Testament of Jeremiah 31:31-38 and Hebrews 8:8-12, but rather a never-before-heard-of New Testament, having no relation whatsoever to anything outside of the current "administration." In this, they out-Scofield Scofield.
In his general notes to Romans chapter 11, Scofield wrote, "Israel is judicially broken off from the good olive tree Christ."
In his notes specifically to Romans 11:17 Scofield wrote, "The olive tree represents the blessings promised to Abraham's seed. Though Gentiles do not, by faith in Christ, inherit Israel's particular promises, they do receive the blessing promised to 'all families of the earth'."
The New Testament was specifically promised to "the house of Israel and... the house of Judah" (Jeremiah 31:31, Hebrews 8:8). If gentiles do not, by faith in Christ, inherit Israel's particular promises, then how can gentiles participate in the New Testament? Hebrews 8:16&17 also indicate that Christ's death was necessary to bring the New Testament into force. Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24 and Luke 22:20 testify that the blood Jesus shed in his death on the cross was the blood that sealed the New Testament. If we follow dispensationalism's premise, that gentiles do not by faith inherit Israel's particular promises, to its logical conclusion, don't we have to acknowledge that Scofield's teaching, at least, makes the cross of Christ of none effect?
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Bob,
I did not say Hebrews was written to essentially unbelievers . . . . I said it was written to those who agreed to the facts, and believed it was true . . . . but, had not put their faith in Christ, they were still on the fence. They intellectually assented to the gospel. Which is basically what Hebrews is saying.
Here is what I think . . . . It would be like someone here saying "Yeah, I used to believe that, but, I don't anymore." I have no reason to doubt their sincerity. I am sure they did agree to the facts at one time. Made a confession of some kind.
However, being a Christian is not being part of a religion. . . . believing Dogma. . . . or an exercise in academics. . . it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
A commitment, and although we are not always the most faithful. . . . God is and is able to keep us.
In Hebrews it is clear to me that there was not yet an irreversible paradigm shift . http://bible.org/ser...rsible-paradigm
I am not the only person to ever say this. But, thanks for the response. :)
A paradigm shift doesn’t generally happen on its own. One’s paradigm will only shift when the data forces it to. Face-to-face with an undeniable reality, we see something with new eyes.
Coming to faith in Christ is that kind of a thing for many people. Very few people actually grasp the gospel the first time. They must hear the message of it again and again. It’s common to find people who may not know or understand the difference between knowing about Jesus and trusting in him, between having an intellectual assent and having a real relationship. Sure they can recite the creeds, but they don’t understand what it means to know him and be known by him.
Suppose I teach through the Gospel of John or the book of Romans. Eventually, a light will go on, all-of-a-sudden. It might take several teachings, but suddenly a coherent way of seeing will emerge, whereby they can now see that this is what it really means to be a follower of Jesus. It’s not just believing in a proposition; it’s trusting in a person. There is a huge difference, because Christianity is not a religion; it’s a relationship. And while the Bible is filled with important propositional truth, the revelation was not given to inform us, but to transform us. And that revelation demands a response. The message of the gospel is a series of propositions that invite a personal response -- a cognitive response, a volitional response and sometimes an emotional response. That response is the paradigm shift that leads to Christian conversion.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
It would appear to me that the writer of Hebrews was directing recipients of the book to continue in the personal relationship they had with God the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ, instead of abandoning it because Jesus was not of the line of Levi. The recipients were ethnic Jews, as were all the original Christians. Whoever was raising doubts among them was doing it in terms of Jewish culture... Jesus could not mediate a personal relationship with God, because that's the High Priest's job, and the High Priest has to be of the line of Levi, Jesus is not of the line of Levi, therefore the believers should abandon their faith in Jesus as the Christ.
The author of Hebrews responded to these doubts in terms of Jewish culture... the New Testament promised to Israel in Jeremiah has replaced to Old Testament of Deuteronomy under which the High Priest had to be a Levite. Under the New Testament, Jesus can be the High Priest because he is of the order of Melchisidec, an High Priest who preceded the Old Testament and Levi. Jesus is qualified to mediate a personal relationship with God under the New Testament promised to Israel in Jeremiah 31.
One of the main burdens of Paul's message in Romans 9 through 11 is to point out that the ethnic Jews of the Roman church were every bit as much Christians as the ethnic gentiles. Paul used HIMSELF as an example in Romans 11:1. Unbelieving Jews were the branches that were broken off. Believing gentiles were grafted in AMONG believing Jews. As Paul wrote, "Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee." (Romans 11:18) I believe that the "root" Paul refers to here are the promises God made to Israel.
If Hebrews 4:12 were indeed addressed to people who had only given "mental assent" (a Wierwillian term if ever there was one) to the gospel, how would that change the meanings of the words?
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
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.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
It may be a warning, but nothing to be afraid of.
Even with the handle in your hand there must be honesty.
v. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
Has lots to do with,
if all things can be naked and opened to our eyes,
which i believe they can 'with whom we have to do'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Steve,
I’m pretty informed of the teachings at STFI/ CES as regards their opinions on the “Secret” (“mystery” is a bad translation (actually it’s merely a transliteration from the Greek)), but something may have slipped past my ironclad grip on what “heretics” are teaching these days, eh!
Whether Paul had to be “broken” (I don’t use that word, it’s not Biblical expression the way people today use it) is a matter of opinion and yes (obviously) the things that Paul wrote early on were “tainted” (another stupid word) with his Hebraic background (hardly a “bias”…he was a Jew, Hebrew of the Hebrew, etc. etc….it was who he was…call it a bias if you want…I’d call it his culture). That doesn’t take Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians out to that realm; it merely shows that Jesus had been teaching him more things over time. It’s the same with any man at any time.
Now, a discussion of the New Covenant will really take some time. I’m certain that the “death of the testator” inaugurated the Covenant, but the testator got up from the dead, OMG (i.e. – is “alive” and is no longer on the planet…now read Hebrews 9:17). Then there’s Hebrews 8: 13, “in the saying 'new,' (covenant) He hath made the first (covenant) old, and what is becoming obsolete and is old is nigh disappearing" (there are three participles in this verse and they need quite a lot of attention). At the time of the writing of the letter to the Hebrews the “old” covenant wasn’t gone yet (entirely) so how shall we look at the “new”(maybe (I might posit) that it isn't entirely "here" yet)? If we posit that Jesus inaugurated the “new” (which I said it is obvious that he did), then how shall we look at the “church, which is his body”? We cannot, by theological slight of hand or some allegorical hermeneutic, morph this entity into “the house of Israel and the house of Judah” can we?
How, in God’s name, does following the dispensational line of reasoning make the “cross of Christ of none effect”? They teach nothing more (or less) than the entire Christian corpus. I think, Steve, you have somewhat a jaundiced view of this theology.
Look, there are really only a couple of verses in the Christian Scriptures that even speak of the “new covenant”. I’m an unabashed dispensationalist. If you’d like to wonder how “we” handle those few I’d be glad to accommodate. I realize that some dispys want to posit another “new” covenant (one “in Christ”) and there are reasons, but I’m not really sure those reasons hold water. Note, if you will, that Ephesians points out which “promises” the Gentiles will “inherit”, “That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.” (his promise “in Christ” and that “by the gospel”). The question you have to ask yourself is this: Was there any promise “in Christ” before Jesus was declared such (Acts 2:36)?
Oh, how much fun the Scriptures are to understand.
Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
II Timothy 2:15.
Read what it really says, properly translating "study", (exegesis) and then consider how Wierwille twisted it. (eisegesis)
Ironic, dontcha think?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks everybody
Exegesis views and Eisegesis views are narrow views
the word of God as some see it is not alive
or the Bible
when it was spoken it not alive
but when the person receive that was living
things only live in our hearts
when i write the words alive for me but what i put on paper is nothing like i hear
we are limit to words to write and God is too
to see words that are not there
to see a box and then you see what in the box and then you see on the outside of the box
but to see what not in the box is really seeing out outside of the box that seeing
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Edited by year2027Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
I'm open to criticism. It is a doctrinal section. Please proceed if you will.
Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites
roberterasmus
Way,
VP actually did a decent job in his "translation according to usage" in 2 Timothy 2:15, IMHO. The word "study" is quite wrong in modern parlance (maybe in 1611 "study" meant more than we do). Note the following "translations" of spoudazo.
"Do your best" to present yourself to God (NIV)
"Make every effort" to present yourself before God (NJB)
"Be diligent" to present yourself approved to God (NASB)
RE
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.