I would be flattering myself that I know as much as God. I would be flattering myself in my own eyes so much that I wouldn't recognize my own errors, or even care.
Not so sure about this idea, depends on what God knows I think.
Interesting perspective, Steve. I'd agree with Pat that what the two eyes see isn't contradictory by definition - they don't lead to logical opposite conclusions. Or if they did we'd have pretty strange vision. :) They're just two views of the same thing, and all things being equal (or close to it) in the physicals they're not actually that different.
But in a very real way they are, in fact different views of the same thing, in that we don't find (or seem to have yet) repetitions of the same thing at the same time in our physical world. Any instance of anything is it's own instance, and when it comes to individual consciousness, be it the brain, soul or whatever we refer to it as I find that really thrilling as a basic understanding of existence as it is. Moreso that within ourselves we have many separate, individual instances of our own consciouness going on at once, and being blended into a single state of perception. Life is a beautiful awesome thing, and thanks to this thread for that reminder.
It's a cool angle on this though, got me thinking how the result of blending the two views into a single perception is done through the nerves and into the brain where the two become one, more or less. Yet, our own processing of that will include many other things at any given moment - we may see something and do the "double take" or "rub our eyes" and take a second look at something. We may think "am I seeing what I think I'm seeing?" That's an incredible process right there and without that ability to question and process our own memories and all of our sensory perceptors at a given moment - we'd have trouble maintaining any understanding of anything
On the topic(s) - I don't know that I believe "God" can contradict , for the kinds of reasons that geisha notes. If God is God and by definition maintains and retains the kind of sovereign supremacy we read about in the O. T. then God makes the rules, to put it bluntly. If in a given scenario God were to say, change the rules, that's within His purview to do so.
From my human perspective I might see logically opposing outcomes - I think I have to accept that
1. I may not have all the information I need to blend it all into one composite view that "makes sense",
2. I may not have enough information to actually construct and understand what "makes sense" with the blended view that I do have, and
3. It may not be within my own purview to understand or judge what God would do or not do.
The example of our eyes and vision is illuminating I think in that vision is a learned thing - it comes together over time from our infancy on and our bodies learn to "see" in a single vision.
As you state Steve, we are learning as we go, and we can expect progress, one would assume. In fits and starts and smooth transitions at other times but we do learn.
The Bible? Big topic there too - I like the mention of the Book of Enoch as a way to consider what is "the Word of God". I tend towards the canon we have today but consider that God, in times past and present, is constantly revealing Himself to us and through us and that "the truth" is all around us all the time. I'm a Bible guy and won't pretend to understand the variances I see and others I no doubt don't but am trying to approach it in the manner described here.
I don't know, Steve. I don't think what our eyes see contradicts each other, I think they compliment each other. They see two different perspectives of the same "truth" and blend them into something more "solid" and with more depth. Our ears do the same. They take similar but different aural information and blend it to establish what the sound is and where it is.
We get the word "stereo" from the Greek word stereos, meaning stablish or solid. Our English word stereo can apply to our eyes (stereoscope)or our ears. Like our eyes and ears, when our minds receive two different perspectives of the same truth it establishes that truth. But if our eyes, ears, or minds receive truly different or contradictory information concerning one reality or truth then there's conflict.
If your hypothesis is sound, Pat, can it be used to explain the magic eye illusion? If so, how?
Not so sure about this idea, depends on what God knows I think.
I don't know what you mean, cman. Could you please expand your argument.
If the image that one eye is sending to the brain is too blurred different to be combined with the image the other eye is sending, the brain will make a choice. It will shut down the image it can not resolve. The condition is called amblyopia, or "lazy eye", though it's really not a "laziness" at all. If something isn't done to help the brain resolve the unclear image (such as eyeglasses, contact lenses, surgery) the brain will learn to ignore the image it doesn't like. If the situation lasts for too long, the brain will shut down the eye with the unclear image permanently. When this happens, the brain will refuse to process information from that eye, even if the image is subsequently resolved.....sound familiar?
You wrote, "I'd agree with Pat that what the two eyes see isn't contradictory by definition - they don't lead to logically opposite conclusions."
I suggest you repeat the experiment of looking at you extended thumb, first through one eye, and then through the other. How can you draw the logical conclusion from these two images alone that your thumb is not actually in two different places?
The SECOND definition of "contradiction" in The Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (Eleventh Edition) is in part "a proposition, statement or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something." The THIRD definition is in part, "a logical inconguity." The FIRST definition is "act or an instance of contradicting."
If we search farther, we find that "contradict" is a compound of "diction," meaning "to speak," and "contra," which means "1: against: contrary: contrasting" and "2: pitched below normal bass."
So... "contradiction" does not automatically mean by definition "leading to opposite logical conclusions."
Can it be true to say that our eyes send contrasting signals to our brains? If so, then our eyes can be said to send contradictory signals to our brains.
Can God, at various places, write from differing points of view, therefor offering contrasting, or contradictory information that the Holy Spirit can integrate to form an extra-dimensional understanding?
Do you see how "God cannot contradict Himself" restricts God to a single point of view?.. a restriction more stringent than we require of ourselves!
If the image that one eye is sending to the brain is too blurred different to be combined with the image the other eye is sending, the brain will make a choice. It will shut down the image it can not resolve. The condition is called amblyopia, or "lazy eye", though it's really not a "laziness" at all. If something isn't done to help the brain resolve the unclear image (such as eyeglasses, contact lenses, surgery) the brain will learn to ignore the image it doesn't like. If the situation lasts for too long, the brain will shut down the eye with the unclear image permanently. When this happens, the brain will refuse to process information from that eye, even if the image is subsequently resolved.....sound familiar?
Good stuff, waysider!
In the archery class I took forty-some-odd years ago to fulfill a phys-ed requirement, I learned that, even though I am left-handed, my right eye is dominant. So I had to shoot my bow right-handed in order to aim properly. I spent four years on a submarine. Things were so boring there, that I taught myself to make my thumb appear to move back and forth without shutting either eye. I taught my brain to change which eyeball it was looking out of! I can't do it so well, now, because I haven't practiced in decades.
Who knows, socks? You say God is teaching us all sorts of things in all sorts of ways. That was after I called on God to help me in the name of Jesus Christ, and He started teaching me how to change the things that were in my heart. Maybe God was teaching me while I killed time playing with which eye I was looking out of!
In Studies in Abundant Living, Volume III (The Word's Way), there is a section called "Viewpoint: God's--Man's/Studies in Human Suffering". I can't attest to the accuracy/inaccuracy of this piece, but I think it shows that Wierwille was concerned enough that people would be interested in this subject to include it in the PFAL class.
God's perfection seems pretty elusive. He doesn't need to contradict Himself...He works all things together for good ...He works all things according to the counsel of his will. Not ours.
If we miss God's perfection....His character, His attributes....it can be really tempting to assign Him some. I have done it.
God will do a great many things...extend mercy, condescend....reach out....he forgives over and over again....but there are things He will not violate. It is not even that He won't do them....it would never even be a question.
God doesn't need to say one thing and then speak against it and have the Holy Spirit straighten it out. That is a form of secret knowledge.
The Holy Spirit leads us into all truth....but not because God has contradicted Himself.
God is perfect. We are not. All optic biology aside...isn't how we perceive God and approach scripture really a matter of the heart? An eye can see everything but itself.
Just to add: We don't limit God to any one point of view....God is omnipotent and not limited by us....He knows all things. He has the advantage over us. What I think is important to remember is that He has the right point of view. God is also righteous. He is able to communicate it without speaking against His own word.
Edit again! Optic not ocular...it was 2 in the morning.
When I disagree with your interpretation of the Bible, you tell me to pray before I read it.
When I suggest that people pray before they read the Bible, somehow it turns into an appeal for secret knowledge.
What am I supposed to pray? "Please, Oh Holy Spirit, make me understand this exactly the same way Geisha understands it?" :unsure:
What are we to make of Ephesians 3:14,17b-18?
"14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ...
"17b ... that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
"18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth and height:"
Four dimensions, Geisha, FOUR! When I suggested that the gospels could give us five dimensions, I was only speculating based on the analogy of depth perception, but since then, I remembered these verses. Paul gives us only FOUR, but that is still extra-dimensional!
How does the Holy Spirit do that? I dunno. But it isn't secret knowledge. Paul wants us to comprehend these four dimensions along with ALL the saints!
Isn't "Jesus [a limited man, like as we are, yet without sin] is Lord [a function of unlimited divinity]" a contradictory statement, or "contrasting" if you prefer.
I Corinthians 8:6 integrates this contradiction perfectly, in my opinion, but only because I stumbled on the Stoic definition of "tension," which was common knowledge to Paul and his readers, but has not been widely recognized since the 200s AD.
The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity was developed to resolve this very contradiction. If I were to accept the conventional understanding of the Trinity, then wouldn't it imply that God automatically has three different points of view? Would God be "contradicting" Himself if The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost each presented things from His own point of view? If God speaks from only one point of view, then whose is it?.. the Father's, the Son's or the Holy Ghost's?
You write "All ocular biology aside..." Why should we set all ocular biology aside? Psalm 139:14 says "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvellous are they works, and that my soul knoweth right well."
God is as much the author of ocular biology as He is of the Bible. Perhaps MORE so. God designed the mechanisms of depth perception.
You wrote "...isn't how we perceive God and approach scripture really a matter of the heart? An eye can see everything but itself."
Jeremiah 17:9 says "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked: who can know it?"
Why is the heart deceitful above all? Because the heart can see everything but itself.
That's why Hebrews 4:12 tells us that the living Word of God, not the ink on the paper, but the extra-dimensional understanding the Holy Spirit gives, is the critic of the thoughts and intents of our hearts!
That's why Jeremiah 17:10 goes on to say, "I the LORD search the heart..."
That's why David says "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" in Psalm 139:23,24.
That's why Proverbs 4:23 tells us to be very careful about what we put into our hearts, because everything that comes out of it is going to appear to be equally good, and equally clean, no matter how vile and disgusting it is in actuality.
No thanks, I'll exercise judgment and take the leading of the Holy Spirit any day over the desperate wickedness of my own heart!
In Studies in Abundant Living, Volume III (The Word's Way), there is a section called "Viewpoint: God's--Man's/Studies in Human Suffering". I can't attest to the accuracy/inaccuracy of this piece, but I think it shows that Wierwille was concerned enough that people would be interested in this subject to include it in the PFAL class.
On page 109 of The Word's Way Wierwille wrote, "In studying the books of I and II Samuel, I and II Kings and I and II Chronicles, one occasionally finds what seem to be contradictory accounts of the same man or incident. Careful research of these comparable records soon discloses a shift in viewpoint from one account to its counterpart in another Old Testament book. The books of Samuel and Kings are written from a human viewpoint, man's point of view. The books of Chronicles, on the other hand, are written from God's point of view, from the vantage point of spiritual power. Man's point of view will simplify life to apparent, overt actions, but God, understanding the spiritual forces at work in the world, goes beneath the surface and points out the spiritual aspects which bring about man's destiny."
Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while. In this case, Wierwille ALMOST... almost but not quite... finds an acorn.
Wierwille HAS to write "what seems to be contradictory accounts" because even a cursory reading reveals that the accounts ACTUALLY DO contradict each other.
Weirwille wrote "Careful research... soon discloses..." What careful research? What specific evidence does the research use? How does the research use that evidence to present an argument for its hypothesis? Did Wierwille really do any research, or did he just write this to leave the impression "I've got the answers!"
Wierwille wrote, "...a shift in viewpoint from one account to its counterpart in another Old Testament book." But the truth is, there are contradictory accounts within the SAME book. For instance, I Samuel 16:14-23 presents one account of how David first came to Saul's attention, while I Samuel 17:1-55 gives a different, contradictory account of how David became known to Saul.
How did the contradictory accounts come to be in the same book? We have first to remember that nearly everything in the Bible was originally composed and transmitted orally, sometimes possibly for generations, before it was put into written form, and the principles that define consistency for oral material are different from the principles that define consistency for written material. And oral material is not like a book, that sharply defines what is and what is not in it. There were many different stories circulating about various things. When the redactors started putting that oral information into written form, they had to decide which stories (sometimes called "pericopes") they were going to include and which ones they were going to leave out. They found contradictory stories about the same event, like how Saul first met David.
The redactors could have resolved the "apparent" contradictions by leaving one of the stories out. But they didn't flatter themselves that they knew as much as God. They regarded each of the contradictory stories as equally inspired by God. They did not try to tell God what He could and could not do. They respected the truth that God can speak from different perspectives, perspectives which are contradictory, to communicate an extra-dimensional truth.
And by golly, the extra-dimensional truth communicated by the contradictions between the stories of how Saul met David is something that the Holy Spirit has not yet integrated for me! It might be one of those things that only Jesus needed to know.
I didn't say that when you suggest other people pray before reading the bible that it turns into an appeal for secret knowledge. That never crossed my mind. I said, believing God purposely contradicts Himself so that the Holy Spirit can unravel God speaking against His own word.... extra-dimensional truth...is not the same thing as beginning with a humble recognition of an omnipotent and perfect God and is a form of secret knowledge. It is, you are speaking of a hidden meaning.
And yes Steve, we are to share a common faith. We may differ on dunking vs sprinkling or when to stand, sit and kneel, but when it comes to who God is and how He is, we should definitely agree. So, despite your sarcasm....I am reaching out to you.
I recognize and validate that you believe God is teaching you through how you are fearfully and wonderfully made. That is great. It is when you project your understanding onto God and it stands in opposition to Him that I take issue. This is very similar to the conversation you and I had about Jesus blinding you and leading you into a pit.
There are certain things we can know about God.
Does how you articulate and describe God glorify Him? Is it remotely scriptural or is it an extra-biblical revelation you believe God has given you through the Holy Spirit by way of how you are made? Unless of course, the Holy Spirit , who is God, is contradicting Himself.
How does God describe Himself in scripture? What does He say about Himself? Not what we speculate about Him because we have questions or confusion about things that seem paradoxical, but what does He tell us about Himself?
Can you reconcile that to a God who contradicts Himself because you believe He can? Can you do that without what you are calling the work of the Holy Spirit? Without this extra-dimensional truth that you speak of....
I am sincere, I really want to know.
______________________________________
Scripture tells us that He is righteous or right. that He is holy, holy, holy. He is love....He is only good and that He is goodness, not that He conforms to it.....He has perfect knowledge of all things.....He works all things after the counsel of His own will. It is a perfect will.
God is faithful, not only to us, He is faithful period. That means He is faithful to Himself.
He foreknows, He is not only omnipotent, but also omnipresent, and I already mentioned.....omniscient. God is merciful, God is just, He is infinite, He is wise, He is longsuffering, and He is forgiving.
He is self-existing....He is self-sufficient(He needs nothing)He is satisfied in His own perfection. He sustains all things. He doesn't lie.
He is spirit. He is transcendent, He is gracious, He is worthy, He is light and in Him is no darkness, no variableness or shadow of turning. He is immutable. He is eternal, He is impartial, He is sovereign, He is truth, life, and He is outside of His creation which is an ever expanding universe that He spoke into being. He is near.
He brings peace, not confusion. He is joyful, He gives us joy. He is glorified, He has wrath against unrighteousness..... He is incomprehensible.....all powerful....and complete. He is patient, He is able. He is a jealous God, He gives life, He is personal. He condescends. His ways are not our ways. He is incomparable, He is sovereign, He is the judge, the creator, Father, and He is supreme. He is perfect.
None of those things describe a God who contradicts Himself, He is truth and He is right, and there would never be a need for Him to speak against His own word. That isn't who God is.
Hoped that made sense and let you know where I am coming from.
i liked how you used "integrate" so much in your post, Steve.
almost cant say or read enough about all this...integration, integral, integrity.
reminds me of sunesis and synthesis. hints of reconciliation and redemption.
...
and optics do seem quite amazing in all this. truly a living metaphor for useful contradictions.
and speaking of integration...imho, another related contradiction worth integrating involves noticing how we notice things that happen when our eyelids are closed. including sleep. and not only how our eyeballs process the light coming through our eyelids, but the way we see thought, memory, imagination, dream, vision, revelation...where what is happening behind the eyes...in the heart, mind and body---now appears to be happening before us again, and even all around us. as if our sense of "i" has somehow shifted, or moved, or maybe turned around...or even inside out.
i do believe this touches some rich core aspects of Christian writing and life that are perhaps among the most neglected in modern times. like how, TWI and offshoots, as well as many of TWI's "parents and cousins," have more or less demonized the inner life...except for a few authorized forms, like the stuff about "tongues" and "revelation manifestations" and all the renewed mind retemory and positive thinking stuff.
but this was more about controlling than simply noticing well. or simply witnessing.
sometimes i think we misread the capacity of relative sizes...sometimes as if "cant be that important if it is in such a small place." or as if God can only talk to us from somewhere outside of our bodies. that sort of thing.
At the risk of seeming to be iconoclastic, I would like to simply reiterate what Waysider noted. You guys have changed the topic from whether the BIBLE contradicts itself to whether GOD contradicts himself. I have my opinions as to why that is, but since judging someone else's motives seems to be the cardinal sin of this forum, I'll keep those to myself.
My studied opinion is that the Bible does indeed contradict itself. That is pretty obvious to me after having reexamined everything we were taught; with the able assistance of some of youse guys, including WW and Steve. But that doesn't automatically mean that it is of no value or that somehow God is inferior.
It simply means there are contradictions in the Bible. Why do we insist on connecting one with the other to the extent that some of you cannot acknowledge that there are contradictions in the Scripture without bending over backwards to magnify God as inviolate, almighty, loving and merciful?
Here's a simple example.
Acts 9:3 - 7
And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: [it is] hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord
And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
Note that this passage says Paul's companions heard, but didn't see Jesus.
Acts 22:7 - 9
And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.
And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
This passage--which is another recounting of the identical event, says that Paul's companions saw a light but didn't hear Jesus' voice. Did they hear it or did they not? It depends on whether you believe Luke's second hand account of the event (Acts 9:7) or Paul's firsthand recounting of it (22:7 - 9)
Acknowledging that what Luke wrote in Acts chapter 9 contradicts what he wrote in chapter 22 has nothing to do with whether or not God is good and merciful. I personally believe God is good and merciful and Almighty, but that the Bible has errors and problems in it. It's Truth, but it's not PERFECT truth. I expect to receive PERFECT truth when I am free of this mortal wrapper that filters the voice of God, and not before.
The assertion that God intentionally contradicts Himself and the bible having contradictory statements are two different things. I could not agree more.
There are some wonderful bible scholars who address apparent contradictions in scripture....RC Sproul has a great little book and if I can remember the title I will post it. Most contradictions are easily resolved, but it does take a little thinking.
By all means....back to the topic at hand. I am off on vacation.
I have to wonder though....having had conversation so regulated in TWI, why some are still so anxious about the direction a conversation takes.
Steve, what I posted was not a base or attempt for any argument at all.
More of a question, like how can one have the responses or reactions you posted.
Knowing what God knows.
Seems that to be some reason to not want to know.
Knowing is maybe something different to me then you.
I don't know. :)
At any rate, this is not meant as controversial, but attainable, imo.
If it's possible, then there is no end of knowing, more or less.
When I asked you to expand your argument, I wasn't using it in the sense of a fight. I was using it in the sense of classical discourse. It was a probative question, not an invitation to rhetorical combat. Thank you for telling me more about what you meant!
Here's Tzaia's entire original post, along with the title of this thread:
"One of the biggest Lies from Hell TWI and (some?) Offshoots Perpetrated is IMO the notion that the Bible doesn't contradict itself. Really?"
Why would anybody SAY such a thing? I think it is difficult for anybody who has not personally tried to talk sense to the former leaders of some of the offshoots (not limited to CES, there are a couple of others I could name), I say, I doubt that ANYBODY who hasn't personally tried to talk sense to those leaders can fully feature why Tzaia might hold such an extreme opinion. I don't know what specific incident or reflection spurred Tzaia to post this thread when she did, but I do have a general notion of the tenor of her relations with some of the offshoot leaders. We were in the same room at the same time for at least one GOOD one! And it was a matter for discussion both before and after.
I know Jerry Barrax tried to make his voice heard.
I don't know excathedra, except from these boards, but from her post on this thread (#71) I would assume that she knows what Tzaia is talking about.
The truth is, when the offshoot leaders in consideration were confronted with the real damage that their leadership was wreaking on their followers, they seemed to be Hell-bent on rationalizing away ALL the evidence. They minimized the suffering... "it was only 5% of my 800 closest friends who had their lives ripped out from under them by Momentus" (that would have been about 40 people). It was actually closer to 20% of the people I took Momentus with. That would have been about 160 of his closest friends. And when the leader was confronted with these truths, he responded, "Well, it was really more like 1%." That's still eight members of the body of Christ who were put through the wringer. Some of you probably remember this exchange, because THAT happened at Greasespot Cafe.
When those leaders were confronted with the truth that Jesus said the pastor should watch out for 100% of his flock in Luke 15:4, out came the old chestnut, "that's in the gospels, and doesn't apply in our wonderful administration of grace!"
They seemed to be WILLFULLY blind to the evidence of their senses and to the Word of God. Where did this blindness come from?
The first step down the slippery slope was in PFAL when Wierwille told us that the Bible doesn't contradict itself.
So there we sat in PFAL with our Biles on our laps, the contradictions in our faces, and Wierwille tells us, "Those aren't REAL contradictions; they're only APPARENT contradictions. Who are you gonna believe?.. ME or your lying eyes?" So we were trained to ignore the evidence of our senses if it disagreed with Wierwille's private interpretation.
And in a section of PFAL where Wierwille was stressing the importance of getting "to whom it is addressed" correct, he used Romans 9-11 as an example and LIED about "to whom it is addressed", all in the name of resolving the "apparent" contradiction between Romans 8:37-39 and Romans 11:20&21. (There is no contradiction between Romans 8 and Romans 11. There was a contradiction between what Romans 11 says and Wierwille's desire to be highminded.) So we were trained to ignore critical thinking if it led to a conlusion other than the one Wierwille wanted to promote.
We were trained to ignore the evidence of our senses, and to ignore critical thought, all because we bought Wierwille's lie that the Bible doesn't contradict itself. And we literally "bought" it. That training took hold in a person's life to roughly the same extent that they invested their life in promoting PFAL. Most of the people who went through TWI were not ultimately driven to abandon reality, but the people who identified their LIVES with PFAL, the people who sold out to Wierwille, have made a break with reality that is seemingly irreparable short of divine intervention.
A person who makes a habit of rationalizing away the things that God has said cannot avoid coming to believe in his heart that he knows MORE than God knows. A person who habitually defines God in terms of what He usually will not do comes to believe in his heart the he can actually tell God what He can and CANNOT do. I'm sorry if that offends anybody, but it's exactly what Psalm 36:1-4 means. It's exactly what Job 42:1-7 means. If the Bible doesn't contradict itself, then what are we to make of these verses? Do we REALLY want to try rationalizing them away?
The emperor has no clothes. The Bible DOES contradict itself. Saying it does not is a scam that can deprive us of our senses and our reason.
So, what are the options? Either God can somehow communicate truth through contradictions, or the Bible is not God-breathed.
As I shocked the freshman and sophomores by saying in the History and Literature of the Old Testament class that I took this last spring, I DO NOT believe that Jesus loves me because the Bible tells me so! I trust the Bible because the Lord who loves me led me to it.
Hebrews 1:1&2 doesn't tell us that God speaks to us in these last days through dead ink, on dead paper, in dead languages. It says He speaks to us through His Son! Wierwille taught us that the written Word takes the place of the absent Christ. Christ is ALIVE and the things He teaches have integrity. But He HAS used contradictions, like Zen kaons, to lead me into deeper truths. It's not secret knowledge. He'll do it for anybody who's willing to consider "Garsh, that's a cool way to look at it! Why didn't I think of that!?!" There's more to consider, but that's all for tonight.
A person who makes a habit of rationalizing away the things that God has said cannot avoid coming to believe in his heart that he knows MORE than God knows. A person who habitually thinks about what God CANNOT do comes to believe in his heart the he can actually tell God what He can and cannot do.
Quite right. This is why I also reject the CES notion that God doesn't have foreknowledge. It's based on the assumption that God must conform to our idea of morality, which is backwards. I know that's somewhat off topic, but just wanted to toss in an "amen". :-)
The emperor has no clothes. The Bible DOES contradict itself. Saying it does not is a scam that can deprive us of our senses and our reason.
So, what are the options? Either God can somehow communicate truth through contradictions, or the Bible is not God-breathed.
I vote for the former. There are contradictions in the Bible, but it still communicates essential truths necessary for salvation. In addition, these truths are capable of bringing us to a fellowship relationship with our heavenly Father by which He can communicate personal truth directly to us, giving us timely and specific guidance just for us, which the Bible cannot do.
I find it ironic that a ministry that claimed to know so much about "walking by the Spirit" resolutely interfered with our actual ability to do so by teaching us to ignore thoughts and revelations that contradicted Weirwille's doctrine.
How many times during that session in PFAL about how the Bible interprets itself Did Weirwille tell us to "Quit thinking!" At one point, he actually said, "Just read what's written. If it's wrong, I'll tell you." That means that, despite being children of God and having the ability to manifest holy spirit, we can't understand God's Word--and therefore God's will--without VP Weirwille's direct input. Slippery slope indeed.
...I have to wonder though....having had conversation so regulated in TWI, why some are still so anxious about the direction a conversation takes.
I can't speak for Waysider, but IMO, the problem with this is that you're not actually answering the original poster's question. If I post a question about..say for instance...whether WOW assignments were made by throwing darts or tossing coins, and a bunch of people respond by saying what a blessing it was for them to go WOW, those responses don't answer my question. They may be related, but if those are the only replies posted, the question remains unanswered and the forum community has failed the person seeking information. Even worse, such responses may be perceived as deliberate obfuscation.
The reason these kinds of responses to this particular question annoy me is because they're the kind given by Fundamentalists who don't want to address the fact that there are contradictions--actual, not apparent--in the Bible. In my opinion, stating that God is inviolate and cannot be held to human ideas of logic and reason is just as much of a dodge
as TWI's assertion that contradictions were apparent, but not actual.
Thanks to your more recent posts, I see that you and Steve don't hold this position. We all agree that the Bible has contradictions in it, but that doesn't deprive it of spiritual or doctrinal value.
I'm not so sure about some of the others...except of course for CMan and Sir Guessalot. You guys are about as far away from fundamantalism as one can get. :-)
Steve - part of the reason why I brought this up was that TWI made out like other denominations were doing Christians (at the very least) a disservice by not acknowledging and addressing these "apparent contradictions" with "the truth"- that there are no contradictions, nor can there be - as that would cause "the whole word to fall apart". It took me a long time to realize what an arrogant (and ridiculous) presumption that was.
Five crucified, how many magi, how many times Peter denied Jesus, water baptism, and tongues were relatively harmless. Dispensations were a bit more harmful. What really harmed was the flat out rationalization of leadership authority (Order My Steps in Thy Word) and sexual sin. I believe that it all started with this "the word can't contradict itself and only TWI has unlocked the keys to understanding" nonsense.
Must God must be understood "perfectly" in order for us to appreciate his glory, glorify him, and act in a way that reflects his glory? I think that "perfect understanding = a perfect walk" just maybe isn't the necessity Twi made it out to be. Furthermore, TWI's and CES's obsession with jots and tiddles in order to achieve their idea of high truth was at the expense of grace and mercy.
The other part of the reason why I brought this up is that my church recently finished the process of dismissal from PCUSA over doctrinal issues. Our interim pastor has been working through a lot of issues, such as contradictions, through his weekly messages. I find the perspective to be fascinating and I'm really happy that I can listen with appreciation instead of listening in order to knock holes into everything he says.
Must God must be understood "perfectly" in order for us to appreciate his glory, glorify him, and act in a way that reflects his glory? I think that "perfect understanding = a perfect walk" just maybe isn't the necessity Twi made it out to be. Furthermore, TWI's and CES's obsession with jots and tiddles in order to achieve their idea of high truth was at the expense of grace and mercy.
TZ, how is claiming the bible is full of unresolvable contradictions any less arrogant than claiming it has no contradictions? It is still placing our understanding above all else. No? Is it me, or doesn't it still seem like an extreme conclusion? Possibly even one that avoids another conclusion?
Maybe the bible actually reads us...and exposes a great deal about us. Maybe it exposes us in the way we approach it...how we deal with contradictions and what conclusions we draw from it. Assuming I know everything about God, life, and spirituality...I can easily declare something an impossible contradiction. No problem, and in order to resolve something I don't understand...I can always project something on to God.
Then again, I actually could examine myself, my approach, and my understanding. That might reveal something useful to me. No? Assume for a moment it is God's word....written by men and inspired by God. It is imperfect language that is going to cause issues and a million different ways to interpret what is said. Yikes! It is impossible right? What I take from it is wholly dependent on the standards I use to judge it. Basically, I am defining what is true....I become omniscient.
Is there another way could we can come at such a book that would not lead to confusion and frustration? Is there another result we can get from the bible, other than trying to prove something? Scripture tells us how to approach it. It reveals ourselves in it. It isn't an intellectual exercise, but it can require some serious self-examination to achieve the desired result...assuming a relationship built on trust and certainty with an transcendent God is the quest. There is a way we can approach the bible to get the right result. With a humble heart. Declaring it full of contradictions based on my limited knowledge doesn't seem like a humble approach to me....The result should not be how many were crucified....or how many denials either....it should be transformation.
Sure, if people are not seeking out God in scripture, but rather trying to prove something or bolster their preconceived ideas....it can be a mass of contradiction. Kind of like using the bible to prove it is full of contradictions. That might be the wrong approach and might result in a futile exercise. It can even lead to great swelling and prideful assumptions about God. Look at TWI or CES.
It can be more difficult to let it read us...but IMO far more satisfying, helpful and transforming. Unless we don't want that and just want to be proved right. The irony of STILL using the bible for this does not escape me.
As an aside, Paul and what his companions heard/understood in Acts, is one of the most easily resolved conflicts in scripture. It doesn't even show up in more than a few bible translations, but, it is in King James I am sure. It is a translation issue. In grand scheme of things does it matter? It matters, if one is using a particular and limited standard by which to judge and has decided this is thee ultimate standard. It is within these arbitrary limitations that those seeming contradictions can become unresolvable.
Steve - part of the reason why I brought this up was that TWI made out like other denominations were doing Christians (at the very least) a disservice by not acknowledging and addressing these "apparent contradictions" with "the truth"- that there are no contradictions, nor can there be - as that would cause "the whole word to fall apart". It took me a long time to realize what an arrogant (and ridiculous) presumption that was.
Five crucified, how many magi, how many times Peter denied Jesus, water baptism, and tongues were relatively harmless. Dispensations were a bit more harmful. What really harmed was the flat out rationalization of leadership authority (Order My Steps in Thy Word) and sexual sin. I believe that it all started with this "the word can't contradict itself and only TWI has unlocked the keys to understanding" nonsense.
Must God must be understood "perfectly" in order for us to appreciate his glory, glorify him, and act in a way that reflects his glory? I think that "perfect understanding = a perfect walk" just maybe isn't the necessity Twi made it out to be. Furthermore, TWI's and CES's obsession with jots and tiddles in order to achieve their idea of high truth was at the expense of grace and mercy.
The other part of the reason why I brought this up is that my church recently finished the process of dismissal from PCUSA over doctrinal issues. Our interim pastor has been working through a lot of issues, such as contradictions, through his weekly messages. I find the perspective to be fascinating and I'm really happy that I can listen with appreciation instead of listening in order to knock holes into everything he says.
I had the privilege to teach humane letters for five years at an interdenominational Christian classical academy (K-12). One of our express purposes was to teach the kids to think critically without treading on any denominational toes. We divided beliefs into primary and secondary beliefs. Primary beliefs were things about God and the Bible we could all agree on. Everything else was considered to be a secondary belief. We deferred instruction on secondary beliefs to the children's parents and religious leaders.
For instance, the doctrine of the Trinity came up in my brother's seventh grade class, and we considered that doctrine to be secondary, not primary. So he had each of the students (there were twelve at the time) go home consult with their folks, and write a brief report about what their denominational position on the Trinity was. Then in class, each person read his or her report. Discussion in the form of probative questions and answers was allowed, but arguing one position versus another was not permitted.
The kids learned some the multitudinous understandings of the Trinity without Magister Lortz or the school taking a position on any of them, and without fostering the idea that everybody has to believe exactly the same way about everything.
We considered the idea that the Scriptures are God-breathed to be primary, but the subject of contradictions in the Bible secondary. We never tried to "resolve" the real contradictions students brought up, we would just say "I don't understand that one myself, though I believe the Bible makes sense when taken all together," which was the truth. I did teach the concept of "integrity," but in the context of objective reality as a standard for truth.
So... I have some experience teaching interdenominational classes. In December of 2008, when I decided to return to college and finish a degree I started in 1967, by some strange twist of Fate, sappy plot device, quirk of synchronicity, ...what have you... I was (and am) living two blocks from the school where I started that degee, Anderson University, though it was only a college back then.
By another strange twist of Fate, Anderson University is an interdenominational school founded and supported by a "denomination," The Church of God Reformation Movement, Anderson, Indiana.
D.S. Warner, who founded the Church of God Reformation Movement in the 1880s had the epiphany that denominations and their man-made creeds are not Biblical. While it became apparent that leaders in the movement had "to see eye to eye" on certain features to be recognized as leaders, there has never been a list of creedal dogmas a person needs to subscribe to in order to be considered a Christian. The only thing a person needs to do is to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and people of the Reformation Movement are not too restrictive about what that means. They know it doesn't lead to a lifestyle of unrepentant sin.
I received my bachelor's degree in May of 2011. I was originally slated to graduate in 1971, so I literally spent forty years wandering in the wilderness. I finished the degree requirements last December, but didn't graduate till May, so I took 12 hours of courses just for funzies. Two of the classes were from the history department, but the other two were History and Literature of the Old Testament and History and Literature of the New Testament.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
27
19
15
18
Popular Days
Jul 18
20
Jul 10
20
Jul 12
18
Jul 11
14
Top Posters In This Topic
Steve Lortz 27 posts
geisha779 19 posts
waysider 15 posts
Grace Valerie Claire 18 posts
Popular Days
Jul 18 2011
20 posts
Jul 10 2011
20 posts
Jul 12 2011
18 posts
Jul 11 2011
14 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
When I was a little kid, I went to Sunday school at The Brookside Missionary Baptist Church on Forestdale Ave. Like most kids, I suppose, I was somewhat baffled at the prospect of Noah cramming all th
Steve Lortz
The boundary between that which is objective and that which is subjective is the human mind. That which is subjective depends on the mind of the subject. That which is objective exists independently o
Tzaia
is IMO the notion that the bible doesn't contradict itself. Really?
cman
Not so sure about this idea, depends on what God knows I think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Interesting perspective, Steve. I'd agree with Pat that what the two eyes see isn't contradictory by definition - they don't lead to logical opposite conclusions. Or if they did we'd have pretty strange vision. :) They're just two views of the same thing, and all things being equal (or close to it) in the physicals they're not actually that different.
But in a very real way they are, in fact different views of the same thing, in that we don't find (or seem to have yet) repetitions of the same thing at the same time in our physical world. Any instance of anything is it's own instance, and when it comes to individual consciousness, be it the brain, soul or whatever we refer to it as I find that really thrilling as a basic understanding of existence as it is. Moreso that within ourselves we have many separate, individual instances of our own consciouness going on at once, and being blended into a single state of perception. Life is a beautiful awesome thing, and thanks to this thread for that reminder.
It's a cool angle on this though, got me thinking how the result of blending the two views into a single perception is done through the nerves and into the brain where the two become one, more or less. Yet, our own processing of that will include many other things at any given moment - we may see something and do the "double take" or "rub our eyes" and take a second look at something. We may think "am I seeing what I think I'm seeing?" That's an incredible process right there and without that ability to question and process our own memories and all of our sensory perceptors at a given moment - we'd have trouble maintaining any understanding of anything
On the topic(s) - I don't know that I believe "God" can contradict , for the kinds of reasons that geisha notes. If God is God and by definition maintains and retains the kind of sovereign supremacy we read about in the O. T. then God makes the rules, to put it bluntly. If in a given scenario God were to say, change the rules, that's within His purview to do so.
From my human perspective I might see logically opposing outcomes - I think I have to accept that
1. I may not have all the information I need to blend it all into one composite view that "makes sense",
2. I may not have enough information to actually construct and understand what "makes sense" with the blended view that I do have, and
3. It may not be within my own purview to understand or judge what God would do or not do.
The example of our eyes and vision is illuminating I think in that vision is a learned thing - it comes together over time from our infancy on and our bodies learn to "see" in a single vision.
As you state Steve, we are learning as we go, and we can expect progress, one would assume. In fits and starts and smooth transitions at other times but we do learn.
The Bible? Big topic there too - I like the mention of the Book of Enoch as a way to consider what is "the Word of God". I tend towards the canon we have today but consider that God, in times past and present, is constantly revealing Himself to us and through us and that "the truth" is all around us all the time. I'm a Bible guy and won't pretend to understand the variances I see and others I no doubt don't but am trying to approach it in the manner described here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
If your hypothesis is sound, Pat, can it be used to explain the magic eye illusion? If so, how?
I don't know what you mean, cman. Could you please expand your argument.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
While we are on the eye analogy:
If the image that one eye is sending to the brain is too blurred different to be combined with the image the other eye is sending, the brain will make a choice. It will shut down the image it can not resolve. The condition is called amblyopia, or "lazy eye", though it's really not a "laziness" at all. If something isn't done to help the brain resolve the unclear image (such as eyeglasses, contact lenses, surgery) the brain will learn to ignore the image it doesn't like. If the situation lasts for too long, the brain will shut down the eye with the unclear image permanently. When this happens, the brain will refuse to process information from that eye, even if the image is subsequently resolved.....sound familiar?
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Socks - I appreciate your thoughtfulness!
You wrote, "I'd agree with Pat that what the two eyes see isn't contradictory by definition - they don't lead to logically opposite conclusions."
I suggest you repeat the experiment of looking at you extended thumb, first through one eye, and then through the other. How can you draw the logical conclusion from these two images alone that your thumb is not actually in two different places?
The SECOND definition of "contradiction" in The Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (Eleventh Edition) is in part "a proposition, statement or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something." The THIRD definition is in part, "a logical inconguity." The FIRST definition is "act or an instance of contradicting."
If we search farther, we find that "contradict" is a compound of "diction," meaning "to speak," and "contra," which means "1: against: contrary: contrasting" and "2: pitched below normal bass."
So... "contradiction" does not automatically mean by definition "leading to opposite logical conclusions."
Can it be true to say that our eyes send contrasting signals to our brains? If so, then our eyes can be said to send contradictory signals to our brains.
Can God, at various places, write from differing points of view, therefor offering contrasting, or contradictory information that the Holy Spirit can integrate to form an extra-dimensional understanding?
Do you see how "God cannot contradict Himself" restricts God to a single point of view?.. a restriction more stringent than we require of ourselves!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Good stuff, waysider!
In the archery class I took forty-some-odd years ago to fulfill a phys-ed requirement, I learned that, even though I am left-handed, my right eye is dominant. So I had to shoot my bow right-handed in order to aim properly. I spent four years on a submarine. Things were so boring there, that I taught myself to make my thumb appear to move back and forth without shutting either eye. I taught my brain to change which eyeball it was looking out of! I can't do it so well, now, because I haven't practiced in decades.
Who knows, socks? You say God is teaching us all sorts of things in all sorts of ways. That was after I called on God to help me in the name of Jesus Christ, and He started teaching me how to change the things that were in my heart. Maybe God was teaching me while I killed time playing with which eye I was looking out of!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
In Studies in Abundant Living, Volume III (The Word's Way), there is a section called "Viewpoint: God's--Man's/Studies in Human Suffering". I can't attest to the accuracy/inaccuracy of this piece, but I think it shows that Wierwille was concerned enough that people would be interested in this subject to include it in the PFAL class.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
God's perfection seems pretty elusive. He doesn't need to contradict Himself...He works all things together for good ...He works all things according to the counsel of his will. Not ours.
If we miss God's perfection....His character, His attributes....it can be really tempting to assign Him some. I have done it.
God will do a great many things...extend mercy, condescend....reach out....he forgives over and over again....but there are things He will not violate. It is not even that He won't do them....it would never even be a question.
God doesn't need to say one thing and then speak against it and have the Holy Spirit straighten it out. That is a form of secret knowledge.
The Holy Spirit leads us into all truth....but not because God has contradicted Himself.
God is perfect. We are not. All optic biology aside...isn't how we perceive God and approach scripture really a matter of the heart? An eye can see everything but itself.
Just to add: We don't limit God to any one point of view....God is omnipotent and not limited by us....He knows all things. He has the advantage over us. What I think is important to remember is that He has the right point of view. God is also righteous. He is able to communicate it without speaking against His own word.
Edit again! Optic not ocular...it was 2 in the morning.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Sometimes your intransigence baffles me, Geisha.
When I disagree with your interpretation of the Bible, you tell me to pray before I read it.
When I suggest that people pray before they read the Bible, somehow it turns into an appeal for secret knowledge.
What am I supposed to pray? "Please, Oh Holy Spirit, make me understand this exactly the same way Geisha understands it?" :unsure:
What are we to make of Ephesians 3:14,17b-18?
"14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ...
"17b ... that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
"18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth and height:"
Four dimensions, Geisha, FOUR! When I suggested that the gospels could give us five dimensions, I was only speculating based on the analogy of depth perception, but since then, I remembered these verses. Paul gives us only FOUR, but that is still extra-dimensional!
How does the Holy Spirit do that? I dunno. But it isn't secret knowledge. Paul wants us to comprehend these four dimensions along with ALL the saints!
Isn't "Jesus [a limited man, like as we are, yet without sin] is Lord [a function of unlimited divinity]" a contradictory statement, or "contrasting" if you prefer.
I Corinthians 8:6 integrates this contradiction perfectly, in my opinion, but only because I stumbled on the Stoic definition of "tension," which was common knowledge to Paul and his readers, but has not been widely recognized since the 200s AD.
The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity was developed to resolve this very contradiction. If I were to accept the conventional understanding of the Trinity, then wouldn't it imply that God automatically has three different points of view? Would God be "contradicting" Himself if The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost each presented things from His own point of view? If God speaks from only one point of view, then whose is it?.. the Father's, the Son's or the Holy Ghost's?
You write "All ocular biology aside..." Why should we set all ocular biology aside? Psalm 139:14 says "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvellous are they works, and that my soul knoweth right well."
God is as much the author of ocular biology as He is of the Bible. Perhaps MORE so. God designed the mechanisms of depth perception.
You wrote "...isn't how we perceive God and approach scripture really a matter of the heart? An eye can see everything but itself."
Jeremiah 17:9 says "The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked: who can know it?"
Why is the heart deceitful above all? Because the heart can see everything but itself.
That's why Hebrews 4:12 tells us that the living Word of God, not the ink on the paper, but the extra-dimensional understanding the Holy Spirit gives, is the critic of the thoughts and intents of our hearts!
That's why Jeremiah 17:10 goes on to say, "I the LORD search the heart..."
That's why David says "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" in Psalm 139:23,24.
That's why Proverbs 4:23 tells us to be very careful about what we put into our hearts, because everything that comes out of it is going to appear to be equally good, and equally clean, no matter how vile and disgusting it is in actuality.
No thanks, I'll exercise judgment and take the leading of the Holy Spirit any day over the desperate wickedness of my own heart!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
On page 109 of The Word's Way Wierwille wrote, "In studying the books of I and II Samuel, I and II Kings and I and II Chronicles, one occasionally finds what seem to be contradictory accounts of the same man or incident. Careful research of these comparable records soon discloses a shift in viewpoint from one account to its counterpart in another Old Testament book. The books of Samuel and Kings are written from a human viewpoint, man's point of view. The books of Chronicles, on the other hand, are written from God's point of view, from the vantage point of spiritual power. Man's point of view will simplify life to apparent, overt actions, but God, understanding the spiritual forces at work in the world, goes beneath the surface and points out the spiritual aspects which bring about man's destiny."
Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while. In this case, Wierwille ALMOST... almost but not quite... finds an acorn.
Wierwille HAS to write "what seems to be contradictory accounts" because even a cursory reading reveals that the accounts ACTUALLY DO contradict each other.
Weirwille wrote "Careful research... soon discloses..." What careful research? What specific evidence does the research use? How does the research use that evidence to present an argument for its hypothesis? Did Wierwille really do any research, or did he just write this to leave the impression "I've got the answers!"
Wierwille wrote, "...a shift in viewpoint from one account to its counterpart in another Old Testament book." But the truth is, there are contradictory accounts within the SAME book. For instance, I Samuel 16:14-23 presents one account of how David first came to Saul's attention, while I Samuel 17:1-55 gives a different, contradictory account of how David became known to Saul.
How did the contradictory accounts come to be in the same book? We have first to remember that nearly everything in the Bible was originally composed and transmitted orally, sometimes possibly for generations, before it was put into written form, and the principles that define consistency for oral material are different from the principles that define consistency for written material. And oral material is not like a book, that sharply defines what is and what is not in it. There were many different stories circulating about various things. When the redactors started putting that oral information into written form, they had to decide which stories (sometimes called "pericopes") they were going to include and which ones they were going to leave out. They found contradictory stories about the same event, like how Saul first met David.
The redactors could have resolved the "apparent" contradictions by leaving one of the stories out. But they didn't flatter themselves that they knew as much as God. They regarded each of the contradictory stories as equally inspired by God. They did not try to tell God what He could and could not do. They respected the truth that God can speak from different perspectives, perspectives which are contradictory, to communicate an extra-dimensional truth.
And by golly, the extra-dimensional truth communicated by the contradictions between the stories of how Saul met David is something that the Holy Spirit has not yet integrated for me! It might be one of those things that only Jesus needed to know.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Steve,
I didn't say that when you suggest other people pray before reading the bible that it turns into an appeal for secret knowledge. That never crossed my mind. I said, believing God purposely contradicts Himself so that the Holy Spirit can unravel God speaking against His own word.... extra-dimensional truth...is not the same thing as beginning with a humble recognition of an omnipotent and perfect God and is a form of secret knowledge. It is, you are speaking of a hidden meaning.
And yes Steve, we are to share a common faith. We may differ on dunking vs sprinkling or when to stand, sit and kneel, but when it comes to who God is and how He is, we should definitely agree. So, despite your sarcasm....I am reaching out to you.
I recognize and validate that you believe God is teaching you through how you are fearfully and wonderfully made. That is great. It is when you project your understanding onto God and it stands in opposition to Him that I take issue. This is very similar to the conversation you and I had about Jesus blinding you and leading you into a pit.
There are certain things we can know about God.
Does how you articulate and describe God glorify Him? Is it remotely scriptural or is it an extra-biblical revelation you believe God has given you through the Holy Spirit by way of how you are made? Unless of course, the Holy Spirit , who is God, is contradicting Himself.
How does God describe Himself in scripture? What does He say about Himself? Not what we speculate about Him because we have questions or confusion about things that seem paradoxical, but what does He tell us about Himself?
Can you reconcile that to a God who contradicts Himself because you believe He can? Can you do that without what you are calling the work of the Holy Spirit? Without this extra-dimensional truth that you speak of....
I am sincere, I really want to know.
______________________________________
Scripture tells us that He is righteous or right. that He is holy, holy, holy. He is love....He is only good and that He is goodness, not that He conforms to it.....He has perfect knowledge of all things.....He works all things after the counsel of His own will. It is a perfect will.
God is faithful, not only to us, He is faithful period. That means He is faithful to Himself.
He foreknows, He is not only omnipotent, but also omnipresent, and I already mentioned.....omniscient. God is merciful, God is just, He is infinite, He is wise, He is longsuffering, and He is forgiving.
He is self-existing....He is self-sufficient(He needs nothing)He is satisfied in His own perfection. He sustains all things. He doesn't lie.
He is spirit. He is transcendent, He is gracious, He is worthy, He is light and in Him is no darkness, no variableness or shadow of turning. He is immutable. He is eternal, He is impartial, He is sovereign, He is truth, life, and He is outside of His creation which is an ever expanding universe that He spoke into being. He is near.
He brings peace, not confusion. He is joyful, He gives us joy. He is glorified, He has wrath against unrighteousness..... He is incomprehensible.....all powerful....and complete. He is patient, He is able. He is a jealous God, He gives life, He is personal. He condescends. His ways are not our ways. He is incomparable, He is sovereign, He is the judge, the creator, Father, and He is supreme. He is perfect.
None of those things describe a God who contradicts Himself, He is truth and He is right, and there would never be a need for Him to speak against His own word. That isn't who God is.
Hoped that made sense and let you know where I am coming from.
Take Care.
Edited to edit.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Steve, what I posted was not a base or attempt for any argument at all.
More of a question, like how can one have the responses or reactions you posted.
Knowing what God knows.
Seems that to be some reason to not want to know.
Knowing is maybe something different to me then you.
I don't know. :)
At any rate, this is not meant as controversial, but attainable, imo.
If it's possible, then there is no end of knowing, more or less.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
i liked how you used "integrate" so much in your post, Steve.
almost cant say or read enough about all this...integration, integral, integrity.
reminds me of sunesis and synthesis. hints of reconciliation and redemption.
...
and optics do seem quite amazing in all this. truly a living metaphor for useful contradictions.
and speaking of integration...imho, another related contradiction worth integrating involves noticing how we notice things that happen when our eyelids are closed. including sleep. and not only how our eyeballs process the light coming through our eyelids, but the way we see thought, memory, imagination, dream, vision, revelation...where what is happening behind the eyes...in the heart, mind and body---now appears to be happening before us again, and even all around us. as if our sense of "i" has somehow shifted, or moved, or maybe turned around...or even inside out.
i do believe this touches some rich core aspects of Christian writing and life that are perhaps among the most neglected in modern times. like how, TWI and offshoots, as well as many of TWI's "parents and cousins," have more or less demonized the inner life...except for a few authorized forms, like the stuff about "tongues" and "revelation manifestations" and all the renewed mind retemory and positive thinking stuff.
but this was more about controlling than simply noticing well. or simply witnessing.
sometimes i think we misread the capacity of relative sizes...sometimes as if "cant be that important if it is in such a small place." or as if God can only talk to us from somewhere outside of our bodies. that sort of thing.
wonderfully made, indeed.
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
At the risk of seeming to be iconoclastic, I would like to simply reiterate what Waysider noted. You guys have changed the topic from whether the BIBLE contradicts itself to whether GOD contradicts himself. I have my opinions as to why that is, but since judging someone else's motives seems to be the cardinal sin of this forum, I'll keep those to myself.
My studied opinion is that the Bible does indeed contradict itself. That is pretty obvious to me after having reexamined everything we were taught; with the able assistance of some of youse guys, including WW and Steve. But that doesn't automatically mean that it is of no value or that somehow God is inferior.
It simply means there are contradictions in the Bible. Why do we insist on connecting one with the other to the extent that some of you cannot acknowledge that there are contradictions in the Scripture without bending over backwards to magnify God as inviolate, almighty, loving and merciful?
Here's a simple example.
Acts 9:3 - 7
And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: [it is] hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord
And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
Note that this passage says Paul's companions heard, but didn't see Jesus.
Acts 22:7 - 9
And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.
And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
This passage--which is another recounting of the identical event, says that Paul's companions saw a light but didn't hear Jesus' voice. Did they hear it or did they not? It depends on whether you believe Luke's second hand account of the event (Acts 9:7) or Paul's firsthand recounting of it (22:7 - 9)
Acknowledging that what Luke wrote in Acts chapter 9 contradicts what he wrote in chapter 22 has nothing to do with whether or not God is good and merciful. I personally believe God is good and merciful and Almighty, but that the Bible has errors and problems in it. It's Truth, but it's not PERFECT truth. I expect to receive PERFECT truth when I am free of this mortal wrapper that filters the voice of God, and not before.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
The assertion that God intentionally contradicts Himself and the bible having contradictory statements are two different things. I could not agree more.
There are some wonderful bible scholars who address apparent contradictions in scripture....RC Sproul has a great little book and if I can remember the title I will post it. Most contradictions are easily resolved, but it does take a little thinking.
By all means....back to the topic at hand. I am off on vacation.
I have to wonder though....having had conversation so regulated in TWI, why some are still so anxious about the direction a conversation takes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
in my opinion, you are reading too much into some of these posts, Geisha
what you see as anxiety, I see as how people think, that's about all
the topic?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradiction
Of course I think Aristotle is mistaken! :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
When I asked you to expand your argument, I wasn't using it in the sense of a fight. I was using it in the sense of classical discourse. It was a probative question, not an invitation to rhetorical combat. Thank you for telling me more about what you meant!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Thanks Steve, I didn't think it was all that either really.
no worries...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Here's Tzaia's entire original post, along with the title of this thread:
"One of the biggest Lies from Hell TWI and (some?) Offshoots Perpetrated is IMO the notion that the Bible doesn't contradict itself. Really?"
Why would anybody SAY such a thing? I think it is difficult for anybody who has not personally tried to talk sense to the former leaders of some of the offshoots (not limited to CES, there are a couple of others I could name), I say, I doubt that ANYBODY who hasn't personally tried to talk sense to those leaders can fully feature why Tzaia might hold such an extreme opinion. I don't know what specific incident or reflection spurred Tzaia to post this thread when she did, but I do have a general notion of the tenor of her relations with some of the offshoot leaders. We were in the same room at the same time for at least one GOOD one! And it was a matter for discussion both before and after.
I know Jerry Barrax tried to make his voice heard.
I don't know excathedra, except from these boards, but from her post on this thread (#71) I would assume that she knows what Tzaia is talking about.
The truth is, when the offshoot leaders in consideration were confronted with the real damage that their leadership was wreaking on their followers, they seemed to be Hell-bent on rationalizing away ALL the evidence. They minimized the suffering... "it was only 5% of my 800 closest friends who had their lives ripped out from under them by Momentus" (that would have been about 40 people). It was actually closer to 20% of the people I took Momentus with. That would have been about 160 of his closest friends. And when the leader was confronted with these truths, he responded, "Well, it was really more like 1%." That's still eight members of the body of Christ who were put through the wringer. Some of you probably remember this exchange, because THAT happened at Greasespot Cafe.
When those leaders were confronted with the truth that Jesus said the pastor should watch out for 100% of his flock in Luke 15:4, out came the old chestnut, "that's in the gospels, and doesn't apply in our wonderful administration of grace!"
They seemed to be WILLFULLY blind to the evidence of their senses and to the Word of God. Where did this blindness come from?
The first step down the slippery slope was in PFAL when Wierwille told us that the Bible doesn't contradict itself.
So there we sat in PFAL with our Biles on our laps, the contradictions in our faces, and Wierwille tells us, "Those aren't REAL contradictions; they're only APPARENT contradictions. Who are you gonna believe?.. ME or your lying eyes?" So we were trained to ignore the evidence of our senses if it disagreed with Wierwille's private interpretation.
And in a section of PFAL where Wierwille was stressing the importance of getting "to whom it is addressed" correct, he used Romans 9-11 as an example and LIED about "to whom it is addressed", all in the name of resolving the "apparent" contradiction between Romans 8:37-39 and Romans 11:20&21. (There is no contradiction between Romans 8 and Romans 11. There was a contradiction between what Romans 11 says and Wierwille's desire to be highminded.) So we were trained to ignore critical thinking if it led to a conlusion other than the one Wierwille wanted to promote.
We were trained to ignore the evidence of our senses, and to ignore critical thought, all because we bought Wierwille's lie that the Bible doesn't contradict itself. And we literally "bought" it. That training took hold in a person's life to roughly the same extent that they invested their life in promoting PFAL. Most of the people who went through TWI were not ultimately driven to abandon reality, but the people who identified their LIVES with PFAL, the people who sold out to Wierwille, have made a break with reality that is seemingly irreparable short of divine intervention.
A person who makes a habit of rationalizing away the things that God has said cannot avoid coming to believe in his heart that he knows MORE than God knows. A person who habitually defines God in terms of what He usually will not do comes to believe in his heart the he can actually tell God what He can and CANNOT do. I'm sorry if that offends anybody, but it's exactly what Psalm 36:1-4 means. It's exactly what Job 42:1-7 means. If the Bible doesn't contradict itself, then what are we to make of these verses? Do we REALLY want to try rationalizing them away?
The emperor has no clothes. The Bible DOES contradict itself. Saying it does not is a scam that can deprive us of our senses and our reason.
So, what are the options? Either God can somehow communicate truth through contradictions, or the Bible is not God-breathed.
As I shocked the freshman and sophomores by saying in the History and Literature of the Old Testament class that I took this last spring, I DO NOT believe that Jesus loves me because the Bible tells me so! I trust the Bible because the Lord who loves me led me to it.
Hebrews 1:1&2 doesn't tell us that God speaks to us in these last days through dead ink, on dead paper, in dead languages. It says He speaks to us through His Son! Wierwille taught us that the written Word takes the place of the absent Christ. Christ is ALIVE and the things He teaches have integrity. But He HAS used contradictions, like Zen kaons, to lead me into deeper truths. It's not secret knowledge. He'll do it for anybody who's willing to consider "Garsh, that's a cool way to look at it! Why didn't I think of that!?!" There's more to consider, but that's all for tonight.
God bless you all! I love you.
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Quite right. This is why I also reject the CES notion that God doesn't have foreknowledge. It's based on the assumption that God must conform to our idea of morality, which is backwards. I know that's somewhat off topic, but just wanted to toss in an "amen". :-)
I vote for the former. There are contradictions in the Bible, but it still communicates essential truths necessary for salvation. In addition, these truths are capable of bringing us to a fellowship relationship with our heavenly Father by which He can communicate personal truth directly to us, giving us timely and specific guidance just for us, which the Bible cannot do.
I find it ironic that a ministry that claimed to know so much about "walking by the Spirit" resolutely interfered with our actual ability to do so by teaching us to ignore thoughts and revelations that contradicted Weirwille's doctrine.
How many times during that session in PFAL about how the Bible interprets itself Did Weirwille tell us to "Quit thinking!" At one point, he actually said, "Just read what's written. If it's wrong, I'll tell you." That means that, despite being children of God and having the ability to manifest holy spirit, we can't understand God's Word--and therefore God's will--without VP Weirwille's direct input. Slippery slope indeed.
Edited by JbarraxLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
I can't speak for Waysider, but IMO, the problem with this is that you're not actually answering the original poster's question. If I post a question about..say for instance...whether WOW assignments were made by throwing darts or tossing coins, and a bunch of people respond by saying what a blessing it was for them to go WOW, those responses don't answer my question. They may be related, but if those are the only replies posted, the question remains unanswered and the forum community has failed the person seeking information. Even worse, such responses may be perceived as deliberate obfuscation.
The reason these kinds of responses to this particular question annoy me is because they're the kind given by Fundamentalists who don't want to address the fact that there are contradictions--actual, not apparent--in the Bible. In my opinion, stating that God is inviolate and cannot be held to human ideas of logic and reason is just as much of a dodge
as TWI's assertion that contradictions were apparent, but not actual.
Thanks to your more recent posts, I see that you and Steve don't hold this position. We all agree that the Bible has contradictions in it, but that doesn't deprive it of spiritual or doctrinal value.
I'm not so sure about some of the others...except of course for CMan and Sir Guessalot. You guys are about as far away from fundamantalism as one can get. :-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Steve - part of the reason why I brought this up was that TWI made out like other denominations were doing Christians (at the very least) a disservice by not acknowledging and addressing these "apparent contradictions" with "the truth"- that there are no contradictions, nor can there be - as that would cause "the whole word to fall apart". It took me a long time to realize what an arrogant (and ridiculous) presumption that was.
Five crucified, how many magi, how many times Peter denied Jesus, water baptism, and tongues were relatively harmless. Dispensations were a bit more harmful. What really harmed was the flat out rationalization of leadership authority (Order My Steps in Thy Word) and sexual sin. I believe that it all started with this "the word can't contradict itself and only TWI has unlocked the keys to understanding" nonsense.
Must God must be understood "perfectly" in order for us to appreciate his glory, glorify him, and act in a way that reflects his glory? I think that "perfect understanding = a perfect walk" just maybe isn't the necessity Twi made it out to be. Furthermore, TWI's and CES's obsession with jots and tiddles in order to achieve their idea of high truth was at the expense of grace and mercy.
The other part of the reason why I brought this up is that my church recently finished the process of dismissal from PCUSA over doctrinal issues. Our interim pastor has been working through a lot of issues, such as contradictions, through his weekly messages. I find the perspective to be fascinating and I'm really happy that I can listen with appreciation instead of listening in order to knock holes into everything he says.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
TZ, how is claiming the bible is full of unresolvable contradictions any less arrogant than claiming it has no contradictions? It is still placing our understanding above all else. No? Is it me, or doesn't it still seem like an extreme conclusion? Possibly even one that avoids another conclusion?
Maybe the bible actually reads us...and exposes a great deal about us. Maybe it exposes us in the way we approach it...how we deal with contradictions and what conclusions we draw from it. Assuming I know everything about God, life, and spirituality...I can easily declare something an impossible contradiction. No problem, and in order to resolve something I don't understand...I can always project something on to God.
Then again, I actually could examine myself, my approach, and my understanding. That might reveal something useful to me. No? Assume for a moment it is God's word....written by men and inspired by God. It is imperfect language that is going to cause issues and a million different ways to interpret what is said. Yikes! It is impossible right? What I take from it is wholly dependent on the standards I use to judge it. Basically, I am defining what is true....I become omniscient.
Is there another way could we can come at such a book that would not lead to confusion and frustration? Is there another result we can get from the bible, other than trying to prove something? Scripture tells us how to approach it. It reveals ourselves in it. It isn't an intellectual exercise, but it can require some serious self-examination to achieve the desired result...assuming a relationship built on trust and certainty with an transcendent God is the quest. There is a way we can approach the bible to get the right result. With a humble heart. Declaring it full of contradictions based on my limited knowledge doesn't seem like a humble approach to me....The result should not be how many were crucified....or how many denials either....it should be transformation.
Sure, if people are not seeking out God in scripture, but rather trying to prove something or bolster their preconceived ideas....it can be a mass of contradiction. Kind of like using the bible to prove it is full of contradictions. That might be the wrong approach and might result in a futile exercise. It can even lead to great swelling and prideful assumptions about God. Look at TWI or CES.
It can be more difficult to let it read us...but IMO far more satisfying, helpful and transforming. Unless we don't want that and just want to be proved right. The irony of STILL using the bible for this does not escape me.
As an aside, Paul and what his companions heard/understood in Acts, is one of the most easily resolved conflicts in scripture. It doesn't even show up in more than a few bible translations, but, it is in King James I am sure. It is a translation issue. In grand scheme of things does it matter? It matters, if one is using a particular and limited standard by which to judge and has decided this is thee ultimate standard. It is within these arbitrary limitations that those seeming contradictions can become unresolvable.
My opinion...no one has to agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I had the privilege to teach humane letters for five years at an interdenominational Christian classical academy (K-12). One of our express purposes was to teach the kids to think critically without treading on any denominational toes. We divided beliefs into primary and secondary beliefs. Primary beliefs were things about God and the Bible we could all agree on. Everything else was considered to be a secondary belief. We deferred instruction on secondary beliefs to the children's parents and religious leaders.
For instance, the doctrine of the Trinity came up in my brother's seventh grade class, and we considered that doctrine to be secondary, not primary. So he had each of the students (there were twelve at the time) go home consult with their folks, and write a brief report about what their denominational position on the Trinity was. Then in class, each person read his or her report. Discussion in the form of probative questions and answers was allowed, but arguing one position versus another was not permitted.
The kids learned some the multitudinous understandings of the Trinity without Magister Lortz or the school taking a position on any of them, and without fostering the idea that everybody has to believe exactly the same way about everything.
We considered the idea that the Scriptures are God-breathed to be primary, but the subject of contradictions in the Bible secondary. We never tried to "resolve" the real contradictions students brought up, we would just say "I don't understand that one myself, though I believe the Bible makes sense when taken all together," which was the truth. I did teach the concept of "integrity," but in the context of objective reality as a standard for truth.
So... I have some experience teaching interdenominational classes. In December of 2008, when I decided to return to college and finish a degree I started in 1967, by some strange twist of Fate, sappy plot device, quirk of synchronicity,
...what have you... I was (and am) living two blocks from the school where I started that degee, Anderson University, though it was only a college back then.
By another strange twist of Fate, Anderson University is an interdenominational school founded and supported by a "denomination," The Church of God Reformation Movement, Anderson, Indiana.
D.S. Warner, who founded the Church of God Reformation Movement in the 1880s had the epiphany that denominations and their man-made creeds are not Biblical. While it became apparent that leaders in the movement had "to see eye to eye" on certain features to be recognized as leaders, there has never been a list of creedal dogmas a person needs to subscribe to in order to be considered a Christian. The only thing a person needs to do is to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and people of the Reformation Movement are not too restrictive about what that means. They know it doesn't lead to a lifestyle of unrepentant sin.
I received my bachelor's degree in May of 2011. I was originally slated to graduate in 1971, so I literally spent forty years wandering in the wilderness. I finished the degree requirements last December, but didn't graduate till May, so I took 12 hours of courses just for funzies. Two of the classes were from the history department, but the other two were History and Literature of the Old Testament and History and Literature of the New Testament.
...more shortly...
Edited by Steve LortzLink 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.