One of the biggest Lies from Hell TWI and (some?) Offshoots Perpetrated

[Jbarrax]

Couldn't have said it better Steve.

[Twinky]

Thanks, Excie.

[Steve Lortz]

is IMO the notion that the bible doesn't contradict itself. Really?

The most fundamental confession of Christianity, "Jesus is Lord", is a contradiction. Jesus, a limited man, is Lord, a function of unlimited Divinity. (I've decided I'm going to capitalize "Divinity" in this context.)

This confession is the essential truth about the relation between God and Jesus. There are lots of different ways people (including God) have elaborated on this basic truth, but ALL of the analogies and descriptions are necessarily incomplete and to one degree or another, accidental.

I can demonstrate from I Corinthians 8:6 how Paul viewed the contradiction inherent in "Jesus is Lord", but first I want to make it clear that, in my opinion, the venom Wierwille spewed against the doctrine of the Trinity was wrong.

There was a spectrum of understandings about what the confession "Jesus is Lord" meant in earliest Christianity. On one end, Paul put his emphasis on the unlimited Divinity part of the contradiction. On the other end, James put his emphasis on the limited man part. Peter was in the middle. But NONE of the people who recognized each other as Christians resolved the "apparent" contradiction by eliminating either of the options. Those who said Jesus was never a limited man, and always functioned as unlimited Divinity, were called Gnostics, and were not recognized as Christians. On the other end, those who said Jesus was always a limited man, and never functioned as unlimited Divinity were called Ebionites, and they too were not recognized as Christians.

By the fourth century people had forgotten how Paul viewed the contradiction in "Jesus is Lord". In fact they had for the most part forgotten how people in the first century viewed some contradictions as being useful, profitable, productive, beneficial, explanatory and true. That's why they forgot Paul's explanation. They changed the confession from "Jesus (a limited man) is Lord (a function of unlimited Divinity)" to "Jesus (a limited man) is God (unlimited Divinity)". They did this through the doctrine of "consubstantiality" at the Council of Nicea.

Now Wierwille would have had us to believe that the Nicean understanding of the relationship between Jesus the man and unlimited Divinity is idolatry, and we would be sinning if we confessed it ourselves, and we should fight it tooth and nail. But Wierwille was wrong. The doctrine of the Trinity falls well within the bounds of explanations considered acceptible by Jesus and by unlimited Divinity.

I don't think Paul would have agreed with the doctrine of consubstantiality, that Jesus and God are one in essence, but I do think Paul conceived of Jesus and God as being one in function. If we want to see the fullness of God's communication of Himself, we have to look at Jesus Christ. Everything that comes to us from out of God comes to us through Jesus Christ. Everything we direct toward God reaches Him through Jesus Christ. For all practical intents and purposes, Jesus IS God.

While Wierwille gave lip service to "Jesus is Lord", he "resolved the apparent contradiction" by eliminating the function of unlimited Divinity. Wierwille's confession became "Jesus is the absent Christ".

Soooo....... while in my next post, I will be discussing how Paul understood the contradiction inherent in "Jesus is Lord", that discussion is not going to be a Wierwillian attack on the doctrine of the Trinity! (insert releaved happy face here!)

Love,

Steve

Edited July 21, 2011 by Steve Lortz

[Steve Lortz]

Wierwille substituted the written Word for the "absent" Christ. Then, since a person can never go any farther than they're taught, he substituted himself, as the man of God for this our day and time, for the written Word. Pretty much made a god of himself. And it all started with "the Bible doesn't contradict itself."

And a significant number of offshoot leaders swallowed those bones along with the fish.

Love,

Steve

[Grace Valerie Claire]

On 7/10/2011 at 1:08 AM, Steve Lortz said:

I hold the same view, Galen, but probably not for the same reason you do. The Old Testament was written for the specific benefit of ONE, and ONLY ONE human being. There was ONE, and ONLY ONE human being who NEEDED to fully understand the Old Testament, and that ONE person was young Jesus of Nazareth!

Jesus of Nazareth had to learn just like every other human being, but He couldn't afford to learn by trial and error. The Old Testament describes what being drunk and engaging in prostitution and adultery are like so that Jesus wouldn't have to learn those things the hard way.

Every book of the Old Testament teaches something about the Messiah, because that was the only way Jesus could learn those things before He received the Holy Spirit at His baptism. Even so, I don't think the information began to come together for young Jesus until after He was led of the Spirit into the wilderness.

And the Old Testament is NOT a happy book with a happy ending. It is a book about a God who makes all kinds of promises to the nation of Israel, and those promises fail to come to pass. This view of the OT is known to current scholarship as the Doomed History of the Deuteronomist. It is the story of a DOOMED humanity, and a DOOMED nation, and up until the Sunday morning when they found the empty tomb, a DOOMED Messiah! And apart from the resurrection of Jesus Christ, we all still face DOOM with all our senses.

It wasn't until after Peter recognized Jesus as the Messiah that Jesus began teaching about His own personal doom, and I don't think He fully came to grips with the truth that God the Father wanted Him to die until Jesus was praying in the garden of Gethsemene. I think the book of Job was very much on Jesus mind in that garden. This is the point I think Jesus learned about the Messiah from the book of Job: despite all the theologizing claptrap about God and suffering, the fear of the Lord comes down to this, "Though he slay me, yet will I trust him..." (Job 13:15).

Jesus trusted that God would raise Him from the dead, and that resurrection would be instrumental in God's fulfillment of all the other promises. So far, the only promises we've seen come to pass are the giving of the New Testament promised in Jeremiah 31, and the outpouring of Spirit promised in Joel 2:28-32. But Paul had this to say:

"8 We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair;

"9 Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed;

"10 Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.

"For we which live are always delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.

"So then death worketh in us, but life in you.

"13 We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;

"14 Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you.

"15 For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God." (II Corinthians 4:8-15)

We are STILL doomed in every respect, apart from our trust in the resurrection of the man Christ Jesus!

Love,

Steve

Steve, I wish I had known all of this back in 1978, when I first took the class!  No wonder why some of the verses didn't gel for me.  Now, I understand why!  Thanks for the information.

[Grace Valerie Claire]

On 7/10/2011 at 9:08 PM, Tzaia said:

I, for one, am grateful that we can have these discussions - complete with disagreement - which is totally the point of why I said what I said. We can disagree.

Instead of saying that God is bigger than our understanding could ever possibly be in this life, we are were told that God can't contradict himself - and that any apparent contradictions have explanations - which led allowed them to misrepresent stuff that was certainly not contradictory (like adultery and fornication), make stuff up like God not spitting your way unless you were a 15% of gross giver, and many, many other things. Ultimately it led to a real unhealthy culture of shut the f' up and let someone else think for you.

Tzaia, I love you name BTW.  Yes, we were told to STFU, and sometimes allowed others to think for us.  Great post BTW.

 

[Grace Valerie Claire]

On 7/11/2011 at 7:52 PM, WordWolf said:

I agree.

Some of those killed people (by suicide), ruined lives, and so on. Some people still can't get out of the "vpw's doctrine is correct no matter what" mindset, and remain "casualties" to this day.

Raping or molesting God's precious gems because twi doctrine made it all right, IMO, is MUCH worse than "is inerrancy an accurate doctrine"? As I see it, priorities go like Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs- first we need food, water, shelter, relative safety, and THEN we can address philosophical point or worldview points.

If I had one wish and could retroactively erase exactly ONE doctrine from twi so that it was never thought or acted on, "Is the Bible contradictory" wouldn't even make the Top 10 list. I'd put the stuff that allowed rapes, molestations, abortions, and so on all before it.

WW, yes!!!  A thousand yeses!!  Finally, someone understands something that is very important to me personally.  I have no problems following the posts, but IMO, "the stuff," that WW posted is more important than the other posts as to whether or not the Bible is full of errors.  Thanks WW, and bless you!!!

[Grace Valerie Claire]

On 7/13/2011 at 6:00 PM, WordWolf said:

Most people here will try to answer any question, as long as they have time, it's asked

in a civil manner, and the person seems to really want to know.

(The rare exceptions generally relate to details on specific members of vpw's family

who do not post here and probably want to get on with their lives.)

Geisha can answer for herself. I'll take a shot at it, any way. (Hey, it's free.)

If you posit a God who knows the immediate future as much as the present (and the distant future),

then He knows the result of every conversation, and every deal.

That means that God knew Israel would be unfaithful to Him each and every time they were going to

be unfaithful, and, knowing that, He still treated them faithfully and kept up His end of every

agreement. He also acts as if He exists in linear time-when, technically, He does not-He knows

the results of all discussions and interactions before they happen. For the benefit of us

humans, he interacts down at our level of understanding so we can deal with Him.

(This reminded me once of the scientific construct "Flatland." But that's another thread.)

So, when He speaks to Adam and Eve, He knows full well what they have done-He's using a

"VOICE" when previously the 5 senses weren't specified-He knows their spirit's dead.

He asks each what they have done. Doesn't He know? It's blatantly obvious He knew- but He

asked them for THEIR understanding, not His own. He was going to hold them to account

for what they did- and made sure they understood it was their own fault for breaking the

rules they clearly understood.

When Abraham negotiates with God concerning Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham gets God to agree

to spare them if 50 righteous can be found there-then 40, then 30, then 20, then 10.

God knew all this, but permitted all this for Abraham's sake- and stopped before Abraham

asked Him to spare them for the sake of one, because God was not going to do that.

And so on. God has delivered warnings to people- "You will die shortly"- who repented and

returned to faithful paths- then God told them they would live longer. Did God change His

mind? No, He had to give them the first message knowing that would get them to the point

the last message would apply.

Simply put, He deals with us as if He exists limited as we are, for our sake. He is not,

but, in a sense, He limits Himself for our sakes.

WW, now I understand that point!  VPW didn't know Jack, about God. A lot of what I think I know about God is wrong, but I am willing to learn.

[Grace Valerie Claire]

On 7/12/2011 at 8:17 PM, sirguessalot said:

a little off topic, but maybe not...

ive looked into this. further complicated is how there are about a dozen different ways "spiritual" is used in English. Some say it means "supernatural," some say it means "emotional," some say it means "existential", some say it means "causal," some say it means "whatever is your ultimate concern", so on and so forth. So I say it depends on how the word is being used in that moment. As long as we are at least interested in inquiring, the word can be useful. Otherwise, its as confusing as any other of those old words, like "God" "love" "heaven" "hell" etc... We may assume someone is using it the same way we do...but odds are against it.

"enlightenment" too, a diverse set of definitions in play. In addition to being the result of exploration, experimentation and such as waysider pointed out, i would have to add "enlightenment" also comes with disillusionment and loss of previous views. And is oftentimes accidental, unexpected, and comes with a certain element of confusion. Some speak of "enlightenment" as being some sort of ultimate once-in-a-lifetime event. Others consider the onset of rational thought (in people or the world) as enlightenment. Others say life is an ongoing series of big and little enlightenments, involving different depths and degrees of enlightenments. I can also appreciate the old saying that "death is enlightenment at gunpoint." Some sages of old, when referring to "the ground of awareness" that enlightenment seekers seek, ask "who is not already enlightened?"

So, perhaps not only does TWi contradict itself, scripture contradicts itself, God contradicts God, we contradict ourselves...even language contradicts itself....perfectly imperfect.

Sir, great post!  Finally, I am beginning to understand things that I didn't know.

[Grace Valerie Claire]

On 7/13/2011 at 10:26 PM, geisha779 said:

Hi Pat....

WordWolf did a great job explaining this to you as we understand it....I say we because his explanation is how I too understand it. I would only reiterate that if you look at these questions from the vantage point of God's condescension(Which is a major plot line in scripture)...it not only begins to unfold how God doesn't really change His mind...., but more importantly....it begins to reveal a truly loving and compassionate God. He condescends, because He is good. God is good.

He doesn't have to do any of this...use language so that we can understand....and He certainly doesn't have to use anthropomorphic language(taking on human attributes) but He does. He could answer us with one lightening bolt for yes, two for no. From the beginning He has always used language..... Jesus is called the word.

Speaking directly to the account in Numbers of Baalam, if you take a look at it..... the statement, "God is not a man that He should lie"....it is an overall true statement, but it is also directed specifically to Baalam....a lying prophet. It is contrasting two natures...God vs Baalam.

There is also a difference between an edict and an absolute command. Note God's conversation with Abraham about Sodom and Gomorrah. ( I know WW covered this) But, God did allow Abraham some wiggle room. It wasn't as if old Ab was more moral than God in pleading for those lives.....and Abraham kept confessing each time he bargained..."we know you are merciful." He wasn't flattering God or manipulating Him, Abraham knew God. God was gracious and very generous with Abraham in allowing him to ask. That was for Abraham....not for God to change His mind. That is how God is...gentle, loving, kind and generous. He cares, He loves, and He gives amazing gifts to people.

Look at the account of Him wrestling with Jacob. When He asked Jacob what his name was...it wasn't because He didn't know. He was giving Jacob a chance to come clean. Jacob had lied about his name to his father. When God asked Jacob his name.... that was condescension and also amazing grace. God also gave Him a new name. That always moves me. He also left Jacob with a reminder...and that too was kindness.

Jesus healed the man who was born blind for God's glory.... at first glance....this can look pretty messed up. Jesus was undoing what He basically said God had done. Yet, He was doing it for God's glory. Huh? What about the poor guy who had to suffer blindness for God's glory....seems paradoxical to a loving God.

The cheap way out is to say God is a contradiction. However, we look at things from a different vantage point than God....linear....in the moment. The 30 years or so this man was blind is nothing compared to the glory of his eternity. God knows this. Our momentary suffering is nothing compared to the far more exceeding weight of eternal glory.

For God to say something once...it is enough....but, He reaches out again and again.

In TWI we were trained to spend all our time arguing over nuances and words....all time wasted IMO when we could have been coming to know Him and reveling in Him and His goodness. It is like a beggar being given a 7 course meal and only sitting there complaining about the spot on the silverware.

Sorry this is so long....if you got through.....I applaud!!

_________________________________________

Excathedra:

How about instead of saying we are thinking we know more than God.....maybe some of us are speaking to each other to come to know Him. I don't think anyone here really thinks they know more than God....but sometimes it is good to relate with the people touched by the same aberrant influences. Hope that makes sense.

779, thanks for your wonderful post.  I didn't know that; now I am beginning to understand.  VPW didn't know Jack about God, although he pretended he did.  No wonder why I have so many questions about God; He is so much bigger, and more compassionate than I knew!!

[Grace Valerie Claire]

On 7/12/2011 at 9:39 AM, geisha779 said:

Sir G....that is almost too beautiful an analogy to apply, but apply it does. Nicely said.

_______________________________________________________________________________

“God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?”

To say that God does contradict Himself is to judge God and reduce Him to a man....To deny the multifaceted relation of being which is God is to deny ourselves. We are made in His image and most of us can at least attempt to articulate what it means to temper justice with mercy. Milton understood this. Most people do. It doesn't make them contradictory concepts. It makes them attributes in perfect relation to each other.

True fear of the Lord is to recognize who He is as He is......a being in perfect relationship.....and not simply say because He can do something....He does. God is inviolate.

Perhaps, the problems in TWI and CES do not simply come from believing the bible doesn't contradict itself, but rather......what a man purposes in his heart...so is he.

Most Christians don't believe God contradicts Himself....yet, they do not handle the scriptures deceitfully. A and B do not equal C.

779, wow!!  Now I am starting to understand why so many people have so many different opinions about God.  When I was in TWI, I had to accept what TWI taught about God.  I always felt God was so much bigger than He was examined by TWI; and I am glad to know I was right.  God probably wants us to have questions about Him; it makes us want to pursue Him to have the questions answered.  

[Grace Valerie Claire]

On 7/14/2011 at 11:23 PM, waysider said:

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.

Way, personally I can't see VPW allowing us to disagree with what we were taught.  I think he would get very upset if someone challenged his views on anything.  I find the various views very interesting; who knew I would learn more of the Bible at the GSC, than I did in all the classes I took in TWI??

[Bolshevik]

Are some of the things I've learned on GSC mere opinion and complete BS?   Probably.

Does it matter?  No.

The overall picture generated works.  The overall picture, with possible errors, explains more of what happened than the alternative.

When the Bible doesn't fit it's because something's wrong with your thinking and that's the only possibility?  If you accept that thinking, it's your own decision that allows TWI to manipulate you.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Bolshevik
The Wording, The Wording, Nothing but The Wording.

[Grace Valerie Claire]

On 7/8/2011 at 0:34 PM, Steve Lortz said:

I retook an Old Testament class last semester, that I originally took about 42 years ago. There were a lot of freshmen and sophomores in the class who were straight out of Sunday school. Some of them came from literal inerrancy backgrounds. They had a lot of trouble wrapping their minds around the fact that the book of Job is a piece of fiction. One of them asked in class, "Is there anything we can actually read in the book of Job that tells us it's fiction?" So I googled "literary forms in the book of Job."

One of the things I found is that the book of Job is very heavy on irony, a feature that doesn't show up in English as well as it does in Hebrew. Now one of the definitions of irony is to use words in such a way as to convey a meaning that is the opposite of their literal meaning.

To say that there are no contradictions in the Bible denies God the use of irony in communcating His intended meaning.

The point of the book of Job is not to tell us how to go from being victim to victor (though a certain party used it to teach how to become a victim OF Victor), but to show us that there is NO easy answer to the problem of human suffering. The idea that God made a bet with the adversary is PURELY a literary device to explain how the suffering came on Job without giving away the punchline of the book, "Though he slay me, yet will I trust him."

We live in a state of tension between receiving the earnest of our inheritance and receiving the inheritance itself. For us, the Bible is FULL of contradictions, and to deny that is to succumb to the lust for certainty.

Love,

Steve

Steve, I didn't know all that. Thanks for the information.

[Grace Valerie Claire]

On 7/8/2011 at 9:57 PM, Steve Lortz said:

I believe that the writing and the editing and the canonization of the Bible were inspired by God, but for His purposes, not for ours.

I don't believe the Bible can be fruitfully understood without the leading of the Holy Spirit, that is to say, I don't think there's anything to be gained by trying to use human logic to make it mean things that WE want it to say, if God means something different.

Among other things, the Bible is about life in this present evil age, and there are many things about life in this present evil age that are contradictory. Otherwise, what are we to make of the book of Ecclesiates? Einstein said "God does not play dice with the universe!" Yet Ecclesiates 9:11 says, ...the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all."

If God had made the Bible fool proof, He would have defeated His own purposes, because He addressed it to a bunch of fools!

Love,

Steve

Steve, I think your mother raised an intelligent, and interesting son, IMHO.

[Grace Valerie Claire]

On 7/10/2011 at 1:08 AM, Steve Lortz said:

I hold the same view, Galen, but probably not for the same reason you do. The Old Testament was written for the specific benefit of ONE, and ONLY ONE human being. There was ONE, and ONLY ONE human being who NEEDED to fully understand the Old Testament, and that ONE person was young Jesus of Nazareth!

Jesus of Nazareth had to learn just like every other human being, but He couldn't afford to learn by trial and error. The Old Testament describes what being drunk and engaging in prostitution and adultery are like so that Jesus wouldn't have to learn those things the hard way.

Every book of the Old Testament teaches something about the Messiah, because that was the only way Jesus could learn those things before He received the Holy Spirit at His baptism. Even so, I don't think the information began to come together for young Jesus until after He was led of the Spirit into the wilderness.

And the Old Testament is NOT a happy book with a happy ending. It is a book about a God who makes all kinds of promises to the nation of Israel, and those promises fail to come to pass. This view of the OT is known to current scholarship as the Doomed History of the Deuteronomist. It is the story of a DOOMED humanity, and a DOOMED nation, and up until the Sunday morning when they found the empty tomb, a DOOMED Messiah! And apart from the resurrection of Jesus Christ, we all still face DOOM with all our senses.

It wasn't until after Peter recognized Jesus as the Messiah that Jesus began teaching about His own personal doom, and I don't think He fully came to grips with the truth that God the Father wanted Him to die until Jesus was praying in the garden of Gethsemene. I think the book of Job was very much on Jesus mind in that garden. This is the point I think Jesus learned about the Messiah from the book of Job: despite all the theologizing claptrap about God and suffering, the fear of the Lord comes down to this, "Though he slay me, yet will I trust him..." (Job 13:15).

Jesus trusted that God would raise Him from the dead, and that resurrection would be instrumental in God's fulfillment of all the other promises. So far, the only promises we've seen come to pass are the giving of the New Testament promised in Jeremiah 31, and the outpouring of Spirit promised in Joel 2:28-32. But Paul had this to say:

"8 We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair;

"9 Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed;

"10 Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.

"For we which live are always delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.

"So then death worketh in us, but life in you.

"13 We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak;

"14 Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you.

"15 For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God." (II Corinthians 4:8-15)

We are STILL doomed in every respect, apart from our trust in the resurrection of the man Christ Jesus!

Love,

Steve

Steve, another great post!  I learn so much from your posts, thanks!!

[Grace Valerie Claire]

On 7/10/2011 at 10:43 AM, waysider said:

All roads eventually lead back to inerrancy, don't they?... "It all has to fit or the whole thing will fall apart."...Spend the rest of our lives trying to put square pegs in round holes...."No private interpretation"...Oh, heavens, don't you dare find any symbolism that isn't expressly stated....

Where would the fine arts be if everything always had to "fit", I wonder...."Oh, sorry, Mr. Stravinsky, we simply can not allow for this vile dissonance that defies current musical theory. It simply doesn't fit."

Who wrote this fiendish Rite of Spring,

What right had he to write the thing,

Against our helpless ears to fling

Its crash, clash, cling, clang, bing, bang, bing?

And then to call it Rite of Spring,

The season when on joyous wing

The birds melodious carols sing

And harmony's in everything!

He who could write the Rite of Spring,

If I be right, by right should swing!

(Boston Herald, 1924)

.............................................................................

Inerrancy is the scourge of spiritual enlightenment.

Way, 

[Galen]

I bet that teenage Jesus was a serious bookworm.

I wonder if some instances of angels ministering to Jesus were them being tutors to Him.

 

[Grace Valerie Claire]

On 7/13/2011 at 6:00 PM, WordWolf said:

Most people here will try to answer any question, as long as they have time, it's asked

in a civil manner, and the person seems to really want to know.

(The rare exceptions generally relate to details on specific members of vpw's family

who do not post here and probably want to get on with their lives.)

Geisha can answer for herself. I'll take a shot at it, any way. (Hey, it's free.)

If you posit a God who knows the immediate future as much as the present (and the distant future),

then He knows the result of every conversation, and every deal.

That means that God knew Israel would be unfaithful to Him each and every time they were going to

be unfaithful, and, knowing that, He still treated them faithfully and kept up His end of every

agreement. He also acts as if He exists in linear time-when, technically, He does not-He knows

the results of all discussions and interactions before they happen. For the benefit of us

humans, he interacts down at our level of understanding so we can deal with Him.

(This reminded me once of the scientific construct "Flatland." But that's another thread.)

So, when He speaks to Adam and Eve, He knows full well what they have done-He's using a

"VOICE" when previously the 5 senses weren't specified-He knows their spirit's dead.

He asks each what they have done. Doesn't He know? It's blatantly obvious He knew- but He

asked them for THEIR understanding, not His own. He was going to hold them to account

for what they did- and made sure they understood it was their own fault for breaking the

rules they clearly understood.

When Abraham negotiates with God concerning Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham gets God to agree

to spare them if 50 righteous can be found there-then 40, then 30, then 20, then 10.

God knew all this, but permitted all this for Abraham's sake- and stopped before Abraham

asked Him to spare them for the sake of one, because God was not going to do that.

And so on. God has delivered warnings to people- "You will die shortly"- who repented and

returned to faithful paths- then God told them they would live longer. Did God change His

mind? No, He had to give them the first message knowing that would get them to the point

the last message would apply.

Simply put, He deals with us as if He exists limited as we are, for our sake. He is not,

but, in a sense, He limits Himself for our sakes.

WW, wow!! I always wondered why God limits himself.  I never thought in terms of limiting Himself " for our sakes."  Thanks WW!!  

[Grace Valerie Claire]

On 7/15/2011 at 2:09 AM, geisha779 said:

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.

779, great post!!  I need to think it through; thanks for posting.

[Grace Valerie Claire]

On 7/10/2011 at 6:40 PM, sirguessalot said:

and...if one includes the possibility that the different books of the Bible were not only written by people at different "stages of faith," but written about people and cultures and histories at different "stages of faith"...and all that has been, will be, and currently is being interpreted from different stages of faith...all the contradictions and paradoxes are still perfect. Life in God is both gardenlike and musical...and wild and noisy.

Sir, 

[Grace Valerie Claire]

On 7/16/2011 at 10:00 AM, Jbarrax said:

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.

J, I think it was also a form of control over members of TWI.

[Grace Valerie Claire]

On 7/18/2011 at 3:09 PM, Steve Lortz said:

So there I was, sitting in one of the early sessions of History and Literature of the Old Testament, being taught by a REAL doctor, with a REAL doctorate in REAL Old Testament studies.

The class was composed mostly of freshmen and sophomores straight out of Sunday school from a broad range of denominational backgrounds, including some students who had been raised to believe in verbal inerrancy. The professor was running the class in a sort of Socratic dialogue, not a full dialogue, because that would be impossible to do with thirty students in fifty minutes. The professor was choosing which questions he would address, partially on the basis of whether the question might be addressed in future class material, and I realized partially because there were topics he could not address without abandoning his position as an interdenominational instructor (and we DID have at least one neo-pagan in the class).

Then I also realized, that I, as a student, and not as the professor, COULD address some of those questions. One thing of value that I told the students was that it wasn't wrong to have the questions they had. I had taken the same class nearly forty years ago, and had some of the same questions. I am still wrestling with with some of those questions, but that has not destroyed my faith in God and the Bible. I testified to them, "I do not believe Jesus loves me because the Bible tells me so, I trust the Bible because the Lord who loves me led me to it."

During the course of the semester, I introduced other things, like the communication theory I was taught in Organizational Communications, and how that might apply to how we received the Bible. Even if the Bible was perfectly encoded by its sender (verbal inerrancy), that would not eliminate errors arising from noise in the channel (the subject of textual criticism) or errors in decoding by the receiver, something NONE of us can avoid completely due to the limited nature of our humanity.

One time, I pointed out that there are words printed on pages, but the real intent is communicated by the meanings behind the the Words. The prof slapped his forehead. He had been working on a knotty problem in canonization (studying doesn't end with the degree), and when I said that, he realized that the Christian canon doesn't really depend on the words on the page, but on the meanings behind the words. The idea that we canonize ideas, and not just words, gave him fresh insight to the problem he was working on.

And I did not take the credit for my insights. The only reason I know these things is because the Lord Jesus Christ taught them to me by way of the Holy Spirit, so I would be able to do the job He has called me to do. ALWAYS give credit where credit is due. That is the true meaning of "thanksgiving" and "worship."

...yet more to come...

Steve, please keep posting.  I keep learning things at the GSC, every time I come.  It simply amazes me how much, I don't know about God.  What a fool I was thinking, that I knew so much about God.  Please keep posting, so that I, and others can keep learning more about God.  

[Grace Valerie Claire]

On 7/18/2011 at 3:35 PM, Tzaia said:

Ideas can take on a life of their own and not necessarily the life that was intended by the author.

Wow, is that true, especially here at the GSC.