yes Mark please let us know what you find, as I recently have been "witnessing" to an old friend & this seems to be his very hang up..he sees all the mass murdering in the ot & has no desire to worship a tyrant & mass murderer..lol..I shared with him the analogy of a God who is protecting his kids like a mother bear her cubs.but he doesn't buy it....he's quite bright, but had no father growing up, thus my words are of little use to his preconceived mindsets over his 60 years on the rock...so yeh I too am interested..as its not something one can just lightly toss aside & claim it has no validity.
yes Mark please let us know what you find, as I recently have been "witnessing" to an old friend & this seems to be his very hang up..he sees all the mass murdering in the ot & has no desire to worship a tyrant & mass murderer..lol..I shared with him the analogy of a God who is protecting his kids like a mother bear her cubs.but he doesn't buy it....he's quite bright, but had no father growing up, thus my words are of little use to his preconceived mindsets over his 60 years on the rock...so yeh I too am interested..as its not something one can just lightly toss aside & claim it has no validity.
Hi Jim Jack: This would take a lot of research work to provide a remedy for this when only looking at Old Testament scriptures and not our loving savior Jesus Christ as seen in the New Testament. However, I have a number of reference books and even biblical study software with multiple reference books. Simply post the scriptures that this person does not like and I can help with the study of these scriptures. I also have a NIV study bible which has comments on the verses. If you want you could even start your own thread.
sadly I cannot get this man to really accept the notion that the Bible really is the word of God..I think he would like it to be, but is overly obstinent & has an awful attitude towards God & his plan for man's redemption..all based on God being a "bad guy" etc etc.. I sure wish I could speak more into his life.but he's very easily able to just "forget the whole thing" & hope it'll all be ok after he dies....I'm at my wits end..honestly...BUT I believe God knows whats in his heart & I'd love to see a miracle for him, as he's always been upright IMHO....can't imagine him taking the time to research something he's only has an opinion of.. Thanx
No, what he wrote in his blog is straight out of BULLINGER, almost verbatim. vpw isn't the only one who can read Bullinger and spit back what he wrote. At least one page shows a healthy respect for Bullinger, and their explanation about who they are sounds NOTHING like ex-twi. So, Bullinger is verbatim, but twi is not.
Like I said...almost. If it was “verbatim” I would have said “verbatim”. I said “almost verbatim”. Are you telling me that what was “almost verbatim” in Mr. Sebastian’s blog was not in pfal?
And for the record I find your “sighs” comment condescending.
He asked, Raf, so I wouldn't say not to answer him. I will ask for a bit of tact in how you phrase it, however. We can all play nice even when disagreeing, I think.
sadly I cannot get this man to really accept the notion that the Bible really is the word of God..I think he would like it to be, but is overly obstinent & has an awful attitude towards God & his plan for man's redemption..all based on God being a "bad guy" etc etc.. I sure wish I could speak more into his life.but he's very easily able to just "forget the whole thing" & hope it'll all be ok after he dies....I'm at my wits end..honestly...BUT I believe God knows whats in his heart & I'd love to see a miracle for him, as he's always been upright IMHO....can't imagine him taking the time to research something he's only has an opinion of.. Thanx
1. "Sadly, I cannot get this man to accept the notion that the Bible really is the word of God."
Ok, let's start there. The Bible never calls itself the Word of God. That's part of the problem right there. The Bible speaks of the Word of God quite often, but it never has the self-awareness to declare itself to be that Word. Maybe, just maybe, you can be wrong about the Bible being the Word of God and still be a good Christian.
2. "I think he would like it to be..."
Well, no one asked you what you think, did they? Maybe he has no preference one way or another and is just waiting for you to make a plausible case for your thesis.
3. "... but is overly obstinate and has an awful attitude towards God and his plan for man's redemption."
A lot to unpack there. Has it occurred to you that maybe YOU're the one being "obstinate" with an "attitude" that won't budge no matter how many facts he presents to counter your preconceived notion that the Bible is the Word of God? Like, maybe YOU're the stubborn one, not him? Because he shows you the Bible, and you start making excuses. Oh, that's the Old Testament. God's different now. He's really kind and gentle. He did what he did before because he HAD to to fulfill the plan of redemption.
Problem: The plan of redemption is only the plan of redemption because God wanted it that way. It didn't have to be. He could just accept an apology without shrugging his shoulders and saying oh well because someone found a particular fruit of a particular tree to yummy to pass up (He also could have put that tree ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET but instead put it right in front of two people who did not know good and evil; then said don't eat from that tree. Not exactly a strong case for omniscience. It's like I put a cookie on the table in front of my 7-year-old and said "Don't eat that," then walked out of the room. He's gonna eat the cookie. I'm not all knowing, and I know that).
So your friend, I submit, is not stubborn. Rather, he's amused at the contortions you'll twist yourself into to deny what's obviously written.
There IS not idiom of permission in the Bible. Bullinger, for what he's worth, appears to be the only one who makes an issue of it. It's hardly a scholarly consensus.
The existence of other figures of speech does not verify the "idiom of permission" as something the Bible employs on a regular basis.
It is, however, an extraordinarily convenient tool for believers to employ whenever their holy book shows God doing what no good God would ever do, even though the book is unambiguous about it being God who did it.
But that's just the old testament. Unless, of course, you're holding back tithes from the apostles in Acts, which is New Testament. (Oh, but it doesn't say God did that. It was Satan -- even though the Bible doesn't say THAT either).
The Bible is filled with examples of God saying he'll do something and then saying He did it. It doesn't say he allowed it to happen or he allowed Satan to do it. It says HE did it. Now, it COULD have said he allowed Satan to do it, very easily. Look at Job. Satan did those things. It says so. Yeah, he got God's permission, but it says that, clearly. There's no ambiguity, and there's no "this is how it works normally."
A figure of speech is supposed to be a statement that is true in essence though not literally true. "It's raining cats and dogs" is a figure of speech. "This car can stop on a dime" is a figure of speech.
A figure of speech is not supposed to be a way for you to get the Bible to say the opposite of what it clearly says just because what it clearly says is inconvenient for your theology. God ordered the execution of a man for picking up sticks on the sabbath. He didn't give man permission to kill the offending sabbath breaker. He gave man an order -- cast those stones!
God didn't allow divorce. He prescribed it. He didn't allow Satan to kill all the firstborn of Egypt. He had it done.
And he DID have a choice. When my kid offends me, I have a choice how to discipline him. You have no idea how many times my discipline has stopped short of killing him because he did his chores between sunset on Friday night and Saturday night!
So here's a thought. Bear with me: Maybe your friend isn't the stubborn one in this equation. Maybe he's not the one being inflexible. Maybe, just maybe, he's given this far more thought than you have.
I've read a lot of chapters in a lot of books. Some have more than 1,000 pages. Some have fewer. The fact that someone wrote a chapter in a book that documents a phenomenon he has identified is no guarantee that the phenomenon he describes is an accurate reflection of the truth. I'm not saying Bullinger is flat out wrong about the idiom of permission. He could be absolutely right. But peculiar how few others have made the same observation, independently coming to the same conclusion.
And is it or is it not time we started asking some serious questions about the reliability of Bullinger as a scholar? Because the man was BATS. Too soon? He was nuts. I mean, flat-earth, Adam was created in 4004 B.C. cuckoo. I humbly submit that his opinions on tons of subjects are... what's the word... suspect.
Good point on the man picking up sticks, Raf. The other that always bothers me is God striking Uzzah dead for touching the ark after the oxen stumbled.
1. "Sadly, I cannot get this man to accept the notion that the Bible really is the word of God."
Ok, let's start there. The Bible never calls itself the Word of God. That's part of the problem right there. The Bible speaks of the Word of God quite often, but it never has the self-awareness to declare itself to be that Word. Maybe, just maybe, you can be wrong about the Bible being the Word of God and still be a good Christian.
2. "I think he would like it to be..."
Well, no one asked you what you think, did they? Maybe he has no preference one way or another and is just waiting for you to make a plausible case for your thesis.
3. "... but is overly obstinate and has an awful attitude towards God and his plan for man's redemption."
A lot to unpack there. Has it occurred to you that maybe YOU're the one being "obstinate" with an "attitude" that won't budge no matter how many facts he presents to counter your preconceived notion that the Bible is the Word of God? Like, maybe YOU're the stubborn one, not him? Because he shows you the Bible, and you start making excuses. Oh, that's the Old Testament. God's different now. He's really kind and gentle. He did what he did before because he HAD to to fulfill the plan of redemption.
Problem: The plan of redemption is only the plan of redemption because God wanted it that way. It didn't have to be. He could just accept an apology without shrugging his shoulders and saying oh well because someone found a particular fruit of a particular tree to yummy to pass up (He also could have put that tree ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET but instead put it right in front of two people who did not know good and evil; then said don't eat from that tree. Not exactly a strong case for omniscience. It's like I put a cookie on the table in front of my 7-year-old and said "Don't eat that," then walked out of the room. He's gonna eat the cookie. I'm not all knowing, and I know that).
So your friend, I submit, is not stubborn. Rather, he's amused at the contortions you'll twist yourself into to deny what's obviously written.
There IS not idiom of permission in the Bible. Bullinger, for what he's worth, appears to be the only one who makes an issue of it. It's hardly a scholarly consensus.
The existence of other figures of speech does not verify the "idiom of permission" as something the Bible employs on a regular basis.
It is, however, an extraordinarily convenient tool for believers to employ whenever their holy book shows God doing what no good God would ever do, even though the book is unambiguous about it being God who did it.
But that's just the old testament. Unless, of course, you're holding back tithes from the apostles in Acts, which is New Testament. (Oh, but it doesn't say God did that. It was Satan -- even though the Bible doesn't say THAT either).
The Bible is filled with examples of God saying he'll do something and then saying He did it. It doesn't say he allowed it to happen or he allowed Satan to do it. It says HE did it. Now, it COULD have said he allowed Satan to do it, very easily. Look at Job. Satan did those things. It says so. Yeah, he got God's permission, but it says that, clearly. There's no ambiguity, and there's no "this is how it works normally."
A figure of speech is supposed to be a statement that is true in essence though not literally true. "It's raining cats and dogs" is a figure of speech. "This car can stop on a dime" is a figure of speech.
A figure of speech is not supposed to be a way for you to get the Bible to say the opposite of what it clearly says just because what it clearly says is inconvenient for your theology. God ordered the execution of a man for picking up sticks on the sabbath. He didn't give man permission to kill the offending sabbath breaker. He gave man an order -- cast those stones!
God didn't allow divorce. He prescribed it. He didn't allow Satan to kill all the firstborn of Egypt. He had it done.
And he DID have a choice. When my kid offends me, I have a choice how to discipline him. You have no idea how many times my discipline has stopped short of killing him because he did his chores between sunset on Friday night and Saturday night!
So here's a thought. Bear with me: Maybe your friend isn't the stubborn one in this equation. Maybe he's not the one being inflexible. Maybe, just maybe, he's given this far more thought than you have.
Here's a little fable illustrating of how (H-O-W) this so-called idiom works in modern society, say, mid-20th century.
A certain man, an old man born only once of a woman, a man of this world, a man who walked in the five senses realm, called himself a man of God. This self-described man of God wanted profit and p*ssy and power. This man, seeing his brother's profitable success in buying and selling, decided to get in the game. What would this man sell? A class! How (H-O-W) would he get it? He'd steal it.
The class became available and the man stole it. That's how (H-O-W) he got it. Now that he had it, what would he do with it? This man decided to film himself holding forth on the stolen class along with lots of other things he didn't fully understand.
Now, this man knew nothing about professional film production. But God sent messengers in the form of professional film producers and technicians. These messengers of God gave this man practical advice and prescriptions for how (H-O-W) and why to do what and when concerning the photography lights and everything else. This man, this so-called man of God, spat in the face of God's messengers! This so-called man of God rejected the practical advice sent from God! He disobeyed instructions from the messengers of God.
Now, God did not get angry with this man. But since the man disobeyed the first time, God wouldn't tell him again a second time.
The result of this man's disobedience was cancer of the eyeball. God didn't cause the cancer. The man's arrogance and spite caused his own cancer. The man's free will caused the cancer. God allows free will. God allowed the man to disobey Him and let the man cause his own cancer.
God permitted this man to make a free will choice of ignorance and disobedience. That's what killed this man. God only wanted him to listen and obey.
Yeah that is Bullinger but the dude had nobody really before or after to break down analytically poetic language from the Bible in that fashion.
He presents like he was on the autism spectrum. And extreme OCD - buckets and lists for everything. While that presents a very interesting and innovative perspective, who really wants to live that way lol?
The gist of it I remember was kind of a combination of royal language along with counting up the mentions to see who gets more press.
Like a rule against saying Satan too many times in a given period of time (not applicable to SNL sketches with Dana Carvey)
So God did everything good and bad.
I personally think that one is a little more on Bullingers spectrum side so I don't buy it.
I don't have a solution for the moral dilemma with OT verses. My simpleton philosophy is shizzle happens God helps his pizzle.
First off, I appreciate Twinky for starting this thread.
Second – sorry I’m late to the party. I stumbled upon this indirectly while on another thread – where a certain Grease Spotter kept harping on the idiom of permission for some silly reason though it had nothing to do with the main topic (here)…sometimes I am flabbergasted by certain posters who complain of posts, threads, and files related to their inane concern being lost or deleted by moderators or maybe the lack of bandwidth…or when the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter is aligned with Mars…so on that thread I simply Googled figures of Speech – didn’t even use GSC’s search tool – and the first hit was this thread! Will wonders never cease…makes you wonder if we’re talking learned-helplessness or purpose-driven-derailment.
Third – after reading the thoughtful posts on this thread – with great trepidationI then reached for my Bullinger’s Companion Bible and his Figures of Speech. I had an uneasy feeling I was about to peel another layer of the Bullinger / wierwille mystique. Which brings me to my fourth point…
Fourth – I want to look into this more – but for now I want to share what I came across so far and then I’ll throw in my "valuable" two cents.
What’s more difficult than trying to find a needle in a haystack? Looking for a nonexistent needle in a haystack. Googling idiom of permission usually got hits making some reference to Bullinger’s work. So – what the hell – I got my Bullinger books off the shelf.
The first frustrating thing is I could not find idiom of permissionin the index or an appendix on figures of speech. I did find just idiom though. That got me thinking – I wonder if wierwille added the extra of permissionto the term (recalling wierwille’s tendency to twist definitions out of shape to fit his theology – like Greek word pros – together with yet distinctly independent of in his John 1:1 interpretation – saying the only way Jesus Christ was together with yet distinctly independent of God was in God’s foreknowledge - )…anyway here’s a quick def from Companion Bible:
Idioma or Idiom. The peculiar usage of words and phrases, as illustrated in the language peculiar to one nation or tribe, as opposed to other languages or dialects. Appendix 6 Figures of Speech in The Companion Bible
There’s a lot of wiggle room in that brief description. You can look at the end of my post and check out the various hyperlinks to figures of speech. Read through some descriptions and examples ... the figures I looked at seemed definitive in their description and did not need to be further interpreted – in fact, figures are usually employed to enhance the communication of ideas.
Another thing that got me thinking was Nathan_Jr’scomment after my post – he said he understood what the idiom of permission means – but was unclear as to when it applies, and to which verbs (here). From my 12 years of being in a harmful and controlling cult I came to know we all depended on wierwille to make that call. It was his signature intuition (whatever he felt it meant rather than using reason…like a sixth sense…”the Father showed me”) which functioned like a manual transmission – he would shift gears on what applied where, adultery becomes spiritual adultery, and so on.
So, at this point I’m thinking this idiom of permission is somewhat ambivalent – it may have simultaneous conflicting ideas, beliefs, or feelings about something. Earlier on this thread another poster talked about the difference in cultures – how the western mind may view God as doing only good, whereas the eastern mind might tend to attribute everything to God. Maybe wierwille tried to relate an eastern book to the western mind…I don’t know.
Since I left TWI I find myself leaning more and more toward the natural sense of a passage – without having to juggle preconceived notions of what God can or can’t do. On that same thread, I used I Chronicles 21to show that God or an agent of God acting on His behalf gave David a choice of consequences and/or executed those consequences ( see my posthere). God is attributed with doing a lot of bad stuff. And tonight I checked Bullinger’s Companion Bible on I Chronicles 21 and there is NOT one reference to idiom or idiom of permission in his notes on that chapter. But Bullinger does mention another figure inI Chronicles 21:15
And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.
Bullinger notes on “he repented” it’s the figure Anthropopatheia.
Anthropopatheia or condescension – this figure is used of the ascription of human passions, actions or attributes to God.frompage 871 of Bullinger’s Figures of Speech Used in the Bible
Okay – I knowanthropomorphism is ascribing human characteristics to something that is not human, such as an animal or a god; the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities. It is considered to be an innate tendency of human psychologyfromWikipedia: anthropomorphism
Like the idiom of permission, anthropopatheia is a matter of how one views God. Would God send a plague on Israel ( I Chron. 21:14)? Can God change His mind ( I Chron. 21:15)? I don’t think fundamentalists like wierwille played fair when they danced around chapters like this to the tune of God is good and God does not change.
I don’t know enough to argue all the technicalities of Bullinger’s work – but I’m highly suspect of some of the phraseology of Bullinger and wierwille being rigidly formulaic and attempt to put God in a box. Reflecting on what I remember of wierwille’s theology – God was so small…predictable…limited by our believing…extremely tolerant of the bad behavior of morally depraved cult-leaders.
Anyway…that’s all for now… ...may come back with more later if I find something interesting.
~ ~ ~ ~
Below are a few hyperlinks concerning figures of speech:
First off, I appreciate Twinky for starting this thread.
Second – sorry I’m late to the party. I stumbled upon this indirectly while on another thread – where a certain Grease Spotter kept harping on the idiom of permission for some silly reason though it had nothing to do with the main topic (here)…sometimes I am flabbergasted by certain posters who complain of posts, threads, and files related to their inane concern being lost or deleted by moderators or maybe the lack of bandwidth…or when the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter is aligned with Mars…so on that thread I simply Googled figures of Speech – didn’t even use GSC’s search tool – and the first hit was this thread! Will wonders never cease…makes you wonder if we’re talking learned-helplessness or purpose-driven-derailment.
Third – after reading the thoughtful posts on this thread – with great trepidationI then reached for my Bullinger’s Companion Bible and his Figures of Speech. I had an uneasy feeling I was about to peel another layer of the Bullinger / wierwille mystique. Which brings me to my fourth point…
Fourth – I want to look into this more – but for now I want to share what I came across so far and then I’ll throw in my "valuable" two cents.
What’s more difficult than trying to find a needle in a haystack? Looking for a nonexistent needle in a haystack. Googling idiom of permission usually got hits making some reference to Bullinger’s work. So – what the hell – I got my Bullinger books off the shelf.
The first frustrating thing is I could not find idiom of permissionin the index or an appendix on figures of speech. I did find just idiom though. That got me thinking – I wonder if wierwille added the extra of permissionto the term (recalling wierwille’s tendency to twist definitions out of shape to fit his theology – like Greek word pros – together with yet distinctly independent of in his John 1:1 interpretation – saying the only way Jesus Christ was together with yet distinctly independent of God was in God’s foreknowledge - )…anyway here’s a quick def from Companion Bible:
Idioma or Idiom. The peculiar usage of words and phrases, as illustrated in the language peculiar to one nation or tribe, as opposed to other languages or dialects. Appendix 6 Figures of Speech in The Companion Bible
There’s a lot of wiggle room in that brief description. You can look at the end of my post and check out the various hyperlinks to figures of speech. Read through some descriptions and examples ... the figures I looked at seemed definitive in their description and did not need to be further interpreted – in fact, figures are usually employed to enhance the communication of ideas.
Another thing that got me thinking was Nathan_Jr’scomment after my post – he said he understood what the idiom of permission means – but was unclear as to when it applies, and to which verbs (here). From my 12 years of being in a harmful and controlling cult I came to know we all depended on wierwille to make that call. It was his signature intuition (whatever he felt it meant rather than using reason…like a sixth sense…”the Father showed me”) which functioned like a manual transmission – he would shift gears on what applied where, adultery becomes spiritual adultery, and so on.
So, at this point I’m thinking this idiom of permission is somewhat ambivalent – it may have simultaneous conflicting ideas, beliefs, or feelings about something. Earlier on this thread another poster talked about the difference in cultures – how the western mind may view God as doing only good, whereas the eastern mind might tend to attribute everything to God. Maybe wierwille tried to relate an eastern book to the western mind…I don’t know.
Since I left TWI I find myself leaning more and more toward the natural sense of a passage – without having to juggle preconceived notions of what God can or can’t do. On that same thread, I used I Chronicles 21to show that God or an agent of God acting on His behalf gave David a choice of consequences and/or executed those consequences ( see my posthere). God is attributed with doing a lot of bad stuff. And tonight I checked Bullinger’s Companion Bible on I Chronicles 21 and there is NOT one reference to idiom or idiom of permission in his notes on that chapter. But Bullinger does mention another figure inI Chronicles 21:15
And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.
Bullinger notes on “he repented” it’s the figure Anthropopatheia.
Anthropopatheia or condescension – this figure is used of the ascription of human passions, actions or attributes to God.frompage 871 of Bullinger’s Figures of Speech Used in the Bible
Okay – I knowanthropomorphism is ascribing human characteristics to something that is not human, such as an animal or a god; the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities. It is considered to be an innate tendency of human psychologyfromWikipedia: anthropomorphism
Like the idiom of permission, anthropopatheia is a matter of how one views God. Would God send a plague on Israel ( I Chron. 21:14)? Can God change His mind ( I Chron. 21:15)? I don’t think fundamentalists like wierwille played fair when they danced around chapters like this to the tune of God is good and God does not change.
I don’t know enough to argue all the technicalities of Bullinger’s work – but I’m highly suspect of some of the phraseology of Bullinger and wierwille being rigidly formulaic and attempt to put God in a box. Reflecting on what I remember of wierwille’s theology – God was so small…predictable…limited by our believing…extremely tolerant of the bad behavior of morally depraved cult-leaders.
Anyway…that’s all for now… ...may come back with more later if I find something interesting.
~ ~ ~ ~
Below are a few hyperlinks concerning figures of speech:
Yeah, I'm not sure Idiom of Permission is an idiom. The usage of idiom is awkward at best, probably inaccurate, dishonest at worst. I'm still investigating this. (Which means I'm searching again what I missed the first time - RE-searching.)
As someone else pointed out, it's about converting active verbs into passive verbs for God. Why? Who knows! Maybe the hands won't fit the gloves, so you've got to MAKE them fit.
A recent article in The Way Magazine handles the verb "to be", "being", "is" as it applies to God. The article insists that in the original, where they wish you could read it bless your heart, "being" SHOULD BE read "is becoming."
The article goes through great pains and fantastic feats of illogic to arrive at this opinion asserted as a claim of fact.
But I ask: If one is becoming, does that not imply one is incomplete? It seems to me becoming is like evolving, unfinished, not yet mature. So God is becoming something He is yet to be? In the future He will have completed his becoming so he can finally just be? God is not perfect, He is becoming perfect?
Apparently, there's more detail in another of Bullinger's books. From James K. Sebastian's blog:
In the Old Testament, God uses the “Idiom of Permission,” to conceal the enemy. In his book, “FiguresofSpeechusedintheBible”, E W Bullinger explains the Idiom of permission in this manner: “Active verbs were used by the Hebrews to express not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do.”
Apparently, there's more detail in another of Bullinger's books. From James K. Sebastian's blog:
In the Old Testament, God uses the “Idiom of Permission,” to conceal the enemy. In his book, “FiguresofSpeechusedintheBible”, E W Bullinger explains the Idiom of permission in this manner: “Active verbs were used by the Hebrews to express not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do.”
That makes sense when you look at it from a cultural point of view, especially their culture being based on the Torah where remembering God was intertwined in most everything they did. It's a cool landmark to help understand scripture as well.
One of the problems as far as I can tell is it gets over played by people from TWI to support wrong doctrine. For example: God will take vengance on those who have killed innocents. The way likes to play word salad with that concept and say that God will just let the devil do the dirty work for him because God cannot commit evil - though if this concept were true God would be in tacit agreement with satan's schemes in the name of God's vengance. They completely miss the fact that God's vengance against evil doers is justified because of the offences. Plus the way international likes to gloss over the fact that Jesus Christ was innocent and was treated horribly by those he was sent to. So along the same lines Jesus Christ will take vengance on those who so horribly wronged him as well. But make no mistake - vengance is justified and God will make sure every account is settled to the fullest and he will repay people according to their works. No agency of satan needed.
Apparently, there's more detail in another of Bullinger's books. From James K. Sebastian's blog:
In the Old Testament, God uses the “Idiom of Permission,” to conceal the enemy. In his book, “FiguresofSpeechusedintheBible”, E W Bullinger explains the Idiom of permission in this manner: “Active verbs were used by the Hebrews to express not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do.”
Yeah I came across that too in my search – the link is James K Sebastian's Blog: idiom of permission in the Bible- - but what was frustrating to me was that Sebastian did not cite a page of Bullinger’s Figures of Speech – but merely makes reference to the topic.
Sometimes I grow suspicious of that for several reasons. Did the person accurately summarize the idea of the author they cited? Does the person understand the idea they referenced? Has the person mischaracterized or squeezed the other author’s idea out of shape? Is the person able to walk me through their thinking of how they come up with their opinion?
That last thing (walk me through your thought process) can be very revealing. Further down in Sebastian’s blog he says this:
I have a collection of books on various subjects. When I read a book, I keep my bible handy. I try to put everything I read through a litmus test of the Bible. In some cases, I do not read a book until I have first studied the subject on my own.
However, sometimes, a book sitting on my book rack catches my attention.A word in the title of the book keeps flashing before my eyes. In such cases I pull it out of the rack and begin to read. As I read along (I do not always begin from chapter one), I am prompted to pause at a certain place, and Holy Spirit downloads a new insight or a complete teaching on the same subject.
How the Holy Spirit helps to illuminate or deepen our understanding of the Bible is a whole other topic – so I’ll leave that alone - but needless to say, with my 12-year experience of believing everything a cult-leader said because he claimed God taught him, it NOW takes some hard evidence and plain logic to convince me. Waysider made a good point earlier on this thread – if you claim something makes sense then it should be explainable to another person.
I will accept intuition, Holy Spirit, when the moon is in the seventh house, getting up on the wrong side of the bed as an experience that makes sense to you. I’ve had those “I’ve got a bad feeling about this” moments myself – and sometimes that’s the only way you can explain it. But wierwille did have a tendency to be utterly definitive and dogmatic about explaining many things in the Bible that are enigmatic, while at the same time displaying an amateurish flair for the biblical languages and culturalisms along with a flagrant disregard for logic because it probably made sense to him.
And at this point I am not disputing Bullinger’s the idiom of permission – but for me the jury is still out on how to best express the idea. I’ve got a bad feeling about thisis where I’m at on the way some employ the idiom of permission – it seems like an easy way to avoid acknowledging who is ultimately responsible and/or who shares some of the responsibility. Now that's opening the door to allow another factor - I address that further below looking into wierwille's dubious law of believing can fit it.
Sebastian referenced Bullinger’s work without giving a page. I found a quick reference to permission on page 823 of Bullinger’s Figures of Speech – but as I said earlier permission , or idiom of permission is not in the index. I found it by looking up Active verbs for permission of action. Bullinger states it as follows:
Active verbs were used by the Hebrews to express, not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do.
Then Bullinger lists some examples Ex. 4:21 “I will harden his heart”Jer. 4:10 “Lord God, surely thou hast greatly deceived this people” and Matt. 6:13 “Lead us not into temptation” – these are just a few of what he listed.
On page 821 Bullinger says this about idioms:
Idiom, however, is not generally classed among Figures in the technical sense of the word. But as the words do not mean literally what they say, and are not used or combined according to their literal signification, they are really Figures.
I have a problem with that. If idioms are not technically a figure of speech – then how did Bullinger determine the words do not literally mean what they say? Mentally there seems to be another step involved. What are the determining factors? Is it based on one’s view of what God can or cannot do? How do you know God can or cannot do something?
For example, take the figure of speech Simile - involving the comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind, used to make a description more emphatic or vivid (e.g., as brave as a lion, crazy like a fox). I say so-and-so is brave as a lion for standing up to the bully. Will there be a debate over whether or not so-and-so is literally a lion? I don’t think so. The person who stood up to the bully is a human being. But I have a real issue with treating the idiom of permission like a figure of speech – because it’s debatable on how much authorization is involved, are there other factors in play even though this may be the most critical one...I get into that further below considering how God orchestrates situations.
God’s sovereignty gets into a whole other deep topic – I won’t get into much detail here but it relates to this idiom of permission thing. open theismtheory is something I never really considered when trying to understand God’s knowledge and sovereignty. It’s the idea that God could have voluntarily placed limits on Himself – to allow freedom for His created beings... Classical theism has made a strong claim that God is timeless, in the sense of existing outside of time and sequence. Yet we praise God not because He is beyond time and change but because He works redemptively in time for our salvation. We may tend to think omnipotence as the power to determine everything - being coercive like a puppeteer. A monopoly on power is easy to manage.
What’s much more difficult to govern is a universe with created beings that have the option – the freedom – to disobey. Omnipotence does not mean that nothing can go contrary to God’s will (like our sins do) but that God is able to deal with any circumstances that may arise. Though by nature God is omnipotent – in a sense, God can be vulnerable because of His decision to make a world filled with beings who have free will. The Creator of the universe has chosen to limit his power by delegating some to the created beings. American theologian, pastor and authorGreg Boydsaid “It takes far more self-confidence, far more wisdom, far more love and sensitivity to govern that which is personal and free than it does to govern that over which one has absolute control.”
Where am I going on this? Don’t know yet.But at this point I lean toward God is sovereign – I believe He set up a moral universe. A moral universe implies that we live in a basically spiritual universe that is somehow ordered by a higher power, by invisible feelings of good and bad, a 'cosmic order' reminiscent of the early Greeks that underpins and motivates our actions. Or a 'moral force' that means our actions must have definite effects which we carry with us. In this respect its meaning comes close to the Hindu concept of Karma.From Wikipedia – moral universe
For a higher power to order the way things work – then ultimately, the higher power is in charge.
Who set up the law of gravity? I believe I can fly like Superman and jump off a skyscraper. Splat! In my attempt to break the law of gravity, the law of gravity broke me. Blame the law of gravity for my death or blame me for subscribing to the law of believing. . We were given freedom of will - which means we should bear the responsibility for our choices . I think there is something to the idiom of permission in that we recognize the sovereignty of God. Even if He uses agents to carry out the action. When we say so-and-so really calls the shots - we mean so-and-so takes the initiative in how something is done.
To me an aspect of God’s sovereignty is that He can orchestrate how a situation works out.
I think of Joseph speaking to his brothers that sold him into slavery:
You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.Genesis 50:20
.... I think ofRomans 8:28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.
In Genesis and Romans we should notice God can work things out - even though along the way there’s a lot of ups and downs. God never promised an easy ride and smooth sailing.
I think wierwille had a tendency to play the role of God’s representative on Earth - telling us what God can and cannot do. I even think he may have fused a couple of ideas together - turning idiom of permission on its head to be YOUR believing or lack thereof limits God - YOU are not permitting God to act. From page 19 of Lifelines: Quotations of Victor Paul wierwille, The believer’s fear binds the omnipotence of God. what the hell ?!?! He went from the idiom of permission to the idiocy of magical thinking...that is hilarious - God does not have unlimited power - because YOUR believing is more powerful than His capabilities !!!!!! Holy $hit !!!! Didn't wierwille write a chapter Are You Limiting God? ? He answered his own question - wierwille taught we can limit God by our believing.
You know, wierwille should have come out with a Malleable Study Bible – the most practical and pliable study Bible available for pseudo-Christian ministries with tons of cross references – but not references to the cross of Christ - and plenty of dirty double crosses for swindling friends, allies, colleagues, foes and the IRS…oh wait he already produced the Malleable Study Bible it’s called PFAL.
Here’s another dandy from page 15 of LifelinesGod is no respecter of theology, but a respecter of believing…. Let me get this straight – theology – which is religious beliefs and theory when systematically developed from the Bible doesn’t matter to God? It’s what YOU BELIEVE that counts. Huh?
More to come on this…I'm looking into some reputable sources (books by legitimate and straight forward authors ) on how God's sovereignty relates to all of this.
that's all for now
Edited by T-Bone who really calls the shots in the editing room?
First off, I appreciate Twinky for starting this thread.
Second – sorry I’m late to the party. I stumbled upon this indirectly while on another thread – where a certain Grease Spotter kept harping on the idiom of permission for some silly reason though it had nothing to do with the main topic (here)…sometimes I am flabbergasted by certain posters who complain of posts, threads, and files related to their inane concern being lost or deleted by moderators or maybe the lack of bandwidth…or when the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter is aligned with Mars…so on that thread I simply Googled figures of Speech – didn’t even use GSC’s search tool – and the first hit was this thread! Will wonders never cease…makes you wonder if we’re talking learned-helplessness or purpose-driven-derailment.
Third – after reading the thoughtful posts on this thread – with great trepidationI then reached for my Bullinger’s Companion Bible and his Figures of Speech. I had an uneasy feeling I was about to peel another layer of the Bullinger / wierwille mystique. Which brings me to my fourth point…
Fourth – I want to look into this more – but for now I want to share what I came across so far and then I’ll throw in my "valuable" two cents.
What’s more difficult than trying to find a needle in a haystack? Looking for a nonexistent needle in a haystack. Googling idiom of permission usually got hits making some reference to Bullinger’s work. So – what the hell – I got my Bullinger books off the shelf.
The first frustrating thing is I could not find idiom of permissionin the index or an appendix on figures of speech. I did find just idiom though. That got me thinking – I wonder if wierwille added the extra of permissionto the term (recalling wierwille’s tendency to twist definitions out of shape to fit his theology – like Greek word pros – together with yet distinctly independent of in his John 1:1 interpretation – saying the only way Jesus Christ was together with yet distinctly independent of God was in God’s foreknowledge - )…anyway here’s a quick def from Companion Bible:
Idioma or Idiom. The peculiar usage of words and phrases, as illustrated in the language peculiar to one nation or tribe, as opposed to other languages or dialects. Appendix 6 Figures of Speech in The Companion Bible
There’s a lot of wiggle room in that brief description. You can look at the end of my post and check out the various hyperlinks to figures of speech. Read through some descriptions and examples ... the figures I looked at seemed definitive in their description and did not need to be further interpreted – in fact, figures are usually employed to enhance the communication of ideas.
Another thing that got me thinking was Nathan_Jr’scomment after my post – he said he understood what the idiom of permission means – but was unclear as to when it applies, and to which verbs (here). From my 12 years of being in a harmful and controlling cult I came to know we all depended on wierwille to make that call. It was his signature intuition (whatever he felt it meant rather than using reason…like a sixth sense…”the Father showed me”) which functioned like a manual transmission – he would shift gears on what applied where, adultery becomes spiritual adultery, and so on.
So, at this point I’m thinking this idiom of permission is somewhat ambivalent – it may have simultaneous conflicting ideas, beliefs, or feelings about something. Earlier on this thread another poster talked about the difference in cultures – how the western mind may view God as doing only good, whereas the eastern mind might tend to attribute everything to God. Maybe wierwille tried to relate an eastern book to the western mind…I don’t know.
Since I left TWI I find myself leaning more and more toward the natural sense of a passage – without having to juggle preconceived notions of what God can or can’t do. On that same thread, I used I Chronicles 21to show that God or an agent of God acting on His behalf gave David a choice of consequences and/or executed those consequences ( see my posthere). God is attributed with doing a lot of bad stuff. And tonight I checked Bullinger’s Companion Bible on I Chronicles 21 and there is NOT one reference to idiom or idiom of permission in his notes on that chapter. But Bullinger does mention another figure inI Chronicles 21:15
And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.
Bullinger notes on “he repented” it’s the figure Anthropopatheia.
Anthropopatheia or condescension – this figure is used of the ascription of human passions, actions or attributes to God.frompage 871 of Bullinger’s Figures of Speech Used in the Bible
Okay – I knowanthropomorphism is ascribing human characteristics to something that is not human, such as an animal or a god; the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities. It is considered to be an innate tendency of human psychologyfromWikipedia: anthropomorphism
Like the idiom of permission, anthropopatheia is a matter of how one views God. Would God send a plague on Israel ( I Chron. 21:14)? Can God change His mind ( I Chron. 21:15)? I don’t think fundamentalists like wierwille played fair when they danced around chapters like this to the tune of God is good and God does not change.
I don’t know enough to argue all the technicalities of Bullinger’s work – but I’m highly suspect of some of the phraseology of Bullinger and wierwille being rigidly formulaic and attempt to put God in a box. Reflecting on what I remember of wierwille’s theology – God was so small…predictable…limited by our believing…extremely tolerant of the bad behavior of morally depraved cult-leaders.
Anyway…that’s all for now… ...may come back with more later if I find something interesting.
~ ~ ~ ~
Below are a few hyperlinks concerning figures of speech:
Yeah I came across that too in my search – the link is James K Sebastian's Blog: idiom of permission in the Bible- - but what was frustrating to me was that Sebastian did not cite a page of Bullinger’s Figures of Speech – but merely makes reference to the topic.
Sometimes I grow suspicious of that for several reasons. Did the person accurately summarize the idea of the author they cited? Does the person understand the idea they referenced? Has the person mischaracterized or squeezed the other author’s idea out of shape? Is the person able to walk me through their thinking of how they come up with their opinion?
That last thing (walk me through your thought process) can be very revealing. Further down in Sebastian’s blog he says this:
I have a collection of books on various subjects. When I read a book, I keep my bible handy. I try to put everything I read through a litmus test of the Bible. In some cases, I do not read a book until I have first studied the subject on my own.
However, sometimes, a book sitting on my book rack catches my attention.A word in the title of the book keeps flashing before my eyes. In such cases I pull it out of the rack and begin to read. As I read along (I do not always begin from chapter one), I am prompted to pause at a certain place, and Holy Spirit downloads a new insight or a complete teaching on the same subject.
How the Holy Spirit helps to illuminate or deepen our understanding of the Bible is a whole other topic – so I’ll leave that alone - but needless to say, with my 12-year experience of believing everything a cult-leader said because he claimed God taught him, it NOW takes some hard evidence and plain logic to convince me. Waysider made a good point earlier on this thread – if you claim something makes sense then it should be explainable to another person.
I will accept intuition, Holy Spirit, when the moon is in the seventh house, getting up on the wrong side of the bed as an experience that makes sense to you. I’ve had those “I’ve got a bad feeling about this” moments myself – and sometimes that’s the only way you can explain it. But wierwille did have a tendency to be utterly definitive and dogmatic about explaining many things in the Bible that are enigmatic, while at the same time displaying an amateurish flair for the biblical languages and culturalisms along with a flagrant disregard for logic because it probably made sense to him.
And at this point I am not disputing Bullinger’s the idiom of permission – but for me the jury is still out on how to best express the idea. I’ve got a bad feeling about thisis where I’m at on the way some employ the idiom of permission – it seems like an easy way to avoid acknowledging who is ultimately responsible and/or who shares some of the responsibility. Now that's opening the door to allow another factor - I address that further below looking into wierwille's dubious law of believing can fit it.
Sebastian referenced Bullinger’s work without giving a page. I found a quick reference to permission on page 823 of Bullinger’s Figures of Speech – but as I said earlier permission , or idiom of permission is not in the index. I found it by looking up Active verbs for permission of action. Bullinger states it as follows:
Active verbs were used by the Hebrews to express, not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do.
Then Bullinger lists some examples Ex. 4:21 “I will harden his heart”Jer. 4:10 “Lord God, surely thou hast greatly deceived this people” and Matt. 6:13 “Lead us not into temptation” – these are just a few of what he listed.
On page 821 Bullinger says this about idioms:
Idiom, however, is not generally classed among Figures in the technical sense of the word. But as the words do not mean literally what they say, and are not used or combined according to their literal signification, they are really Figures.
I have a problem with that. If idioms are not technically a figure of speech – then how did Bullinger determine the words do not literally mean what they say? Mentally there seems to be another step involved. What are the determining factors? Is it based on one’s view of what God can or cannot do? How do you know God can or cannot do something?
For example, take the figure of speech Simile - involving the comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind, used to make a description more emphatic or vivid (e.g., as brave as a lion, crazy like a fox). I say so-and-so is brave as a lion for standing up to the bully. Will there be a debate over whether or not so-and-so is literally a lion? I don’t think so. The person who stood up to the bully is a human being. But I have a real issue with treating the idiom of permission like a figure of speech – because it’s debatable on how much authorization is involved, are there other factors in play even though this may be the most critical one...I get into that further below considering how God orchestrates situations.
God’s sovereignty gets into a whole other deep topic – I won’t get into much detail here but it relates to this idiom of permission thing. open theismtheory is something I never really considered when trying to understand God’s knowledge and sovereignty. It’s the idea that God could have voluntarily placed limits on Himself – to allow freedom for His created beings... Classical theism has made a strong claim that God is timeless, in the sense of existing outside of time and sequence. Yet we praise God not because He is beyond time and change but because He works redemptively in time for our salvation. We may tend to think omnipotence as the power to determine everything - being coercive like a puppeteer. A monopoly on power is easy to manage.
What’s much more difficult to govern is a universe with created beings that have the option – the freedom – to disobey. Omnipotence does not mean that nothing can go contrary to God’s will (like our sins do) but that God is able to deal with any circumstances that may arise. Though by nature God is omnipotent – in a sense, God can be vulnerable because of His decision to make a world filled with beings who have free will. The Creator of the universe has chosen to limit his power by delegating some to the created beings. American theologian, pastor and authorGreg Boydsaid “It takes far more self-confidence, far more wisdom, far more love and sensitivity to govern that which is personal and free than it does to govern that over which one has absolute control.”
Where am I going on this? Don’t know yet.But at this point I lean toward God is sovereign – I believe He set up a moral universe. A moral universe implies that we live in a basically spiritual universe that is somehow ordered by a higher power, by invisible feelings of good and bad, a 'cosmic order' reminiscent of the early Greeks that underpins and motivates our actions. Or a 'moral force' that means our actions must have definite effects which we carry with us. In this respect its meaning comes close to the Hindu concept of Karma.From Wikipedia – moral universe
For a higher power to order the way things work – then ultimately, the higher power is in charge.
Who set up the law of gravity? I believe I can fly like Superman and jump off a skyscraper. Splat! In my attempt to break the law of gravity, the law of gravity broke me. Blame the law of gravity for my death or blame me for subscribing to the law of believing. . We were given freedom of will - which means we should bear the responsibility for our choices . I think there is something to the idiom of permission in that we recognize the sovereignty of God. Even if He uses agents to carry out the action. When we say so-and-so really calls the shots - we mean so-and-so takes the initiative in how something is done.
To me an aspect of God’s sovereignty is that He can orchestrate how a situation works out.
I think of Joseph speaking to his brothers that sold him into slavery:
You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives.Genesis 50:20
.... I think ofRomans 8:28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.
In Genesis and Romans we should notice God can work things out - even though along the way there’s a lot of ups and downs. God never promised an easy ride and smooth sailing.
I think wierwille had a tendency to play the role of God’s representative on Earth - telling us what God can and cannot do. I even think he may have fused a couple of ideas together - turning idiom of permission on its head to be YOUR believing or lack thereof limits God - YOU are not permitting God to act. From page 19 of Lifelines: Quotations of Victor Paul wierwille, The believer’s fear binds the omnipotence of God. what the hell ?!?! He went from the idiom of permission to the idiocy of magical thinking...that is hilarious - God does not have unlimited power - because YOUR believing is more powerful than His capabilities !!!!!! Holy $hit !!!! Didn't wierwille write a chapter Are You Limiting God? ? He answered his own question - wierwille taught we can limit God by our believing.
You know, wierwille should have come out with a Malleable Study Bible – the most practical and pliable study Bible available for pseudo-Christian ministries with tons of cross references – but not references to the cross of Christ - and plenty of dirty double crosses for swindling friends, allies, colleagues, foes and the IRS…oh wait he already produced the Malleable Study Bible it’s called PFAL.
Here’s another dandy from page 15 of LifelinesGod is no respecter of theology, but a respecter of believing…. Let me get this straight – theology – which is religious beliefs and theory when systematically developed from the Bible doesn’t matter to God? It’s what YOU BELIEVE that counts. Huh?
More to come on this…I'm looking into some reputable sources (books by legitimate and straight forward authors ) on how God's sovereignty relates to all of this.
that's all for now
Well done, T-Bone!
Lots to comment on here, but I can barely see through these tears of laughter to type anything.
The Lifelines didn't directly cause me to laugh, they merely allowed me to laugh. A profoundly deep ignorance and contempt for Truth is required to buy into these Lifelines. A hatred of Truth.
James Sebastian sounded like a wierwille acolyte to me. I thought someone here might recognize his name. Could be Mike's pseudonym.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
19
16
19
Popular Days
Mar 15
14
Mar 19
11
Nov 8
10
Mar 14
9
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 22 posts
WordWolf 19 posts
Ham 16 posts
Twinky 19 posts
Popular Days
Mar 15 2012
14 posts
Mar 19 2012
11 posts
Nov 8 2023
10 posts
Mar 14 2012
9 posts
Popular Posts
Raf
1. "Sadly, I cannot get this man to accept the notion that the Bible really is the word of God." Ok, let's start there. The Bible never calls itself the Word of God. That's part of the problem ri
Raf
I've read a lot of chapters in a lot of books. Some have more than 1,000 pages. Some have fewer. The fact that someone wrote a chapter in a book that documents a phenomenon he has identified is no gua
WordWolf
That's pretty much the same principle we see in effect when Gideon's discussed. He overthrew Baal's altar, and when people protested, he complained that BAAL should protest, since BAAL is the one who
Posted Images
jim jack
yes Mark please let us know what you find, as I recently have been "witnessing" to an old friend & this seems to be his very hang up..he sees all the mass murdering in the ot & has no desire to worship a tyrant & mass murderer..lol..I shared with him the analogy of a God who is protecting his kids like a mother bear her cubs.but he doesn't buy it....he's quite bright, but had no father growing up, thus my words are of little use to his preconceived mindsets over his 60 years on the rock...so yeh I too am interested..as its not something one can just lightly toss aside & claim it has no validity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Hi Jim Jack: This would take a lot of research work to provide a remedy for this when only looking at Old Testament scriptures and not our loving savior Jesus Christ as seen in the New Testament. However, I have a number of reference books and even biblical study software with multiple reference books. Simply post the scriptures that this person does not like and I can help with the study of these scriptures. I also have a NIV study bible which has comments on the verses. If you want you could even start your own thread.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
jim jack
sadly I cannot get this man to really accept the notion that the Bible really is the word of God..I think he would like it to be, but is overly obstinent & has an awful attitude towards God & his plan for man's redemption..all based on God being a "bad guy" etc etc.. I sure wish I could speak more into his life.but he's very easily able to just "forget the whole thing" & hope it'll all be ok after he dies....I'm at my wits end..honestly...BUT I believe God knows whats in his heart & I'd love to see a miracle for him, as he's always been upright IMHO....can't imagine him taking the time to research something he's only has an opinion of.. Thanx
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
i don't suppose you guys are remotely interested in another perspective.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JayDee
Yes...please...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JayDee
Like I said...almost. If it was “verbatim” I would have said “verbatim”. I said “almost verbatim”. Are you telling me that what was “almost verbatim” in Mr. Sebastian’s blog was not in pfal?
And for the record I find your “sighs” comment condescending.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jim jack
sure Raf...whatcha got??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
He asked, Raf, so I wouldn't say not to answer him. I will ask for a bit of tact in how you phrase it, however. We can all play nice even when disagreeing, I think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
1. "Sadly, I cannot get this man to accept the notion that the Bible really is the word of God."
Ok, let's start there. The Bible never calls itself the Word of God. That's part of the problem right there. The Bible speaks of the Word of God quite often, but it never has the self-awareness to declare itself to be that Word. Maybe, just maybe, you can be wrong about the Bible being the Word of God and still be a good Christian.
2. "I think he would like it to be..."
Well, no one asked you what you think, did they? Maybe he has no preference one way or another and is just waiting for you to make a plausible case for your thesis.
3. "... but is overly obstinate and has an awful attitude towards God and his plan for man's redemption."
A lot to unpack there. Has it occurred to you that maybe YOU're the one being "obstinate" with an "attitude" that won't budge no matter how many facts he presents to counter your preconceived notion that the Bible is the Word of God? Like, maybe YOU're the stubborn one, not him? Because he shows you the Bible, and you start making excuses. Oh, that's the Old Testament. God's different now. He's really kind and gentle. He did what he did before because he HAD to to fulfill the plan of redemption.
Problem: The plan of redemption is only the plan of redemption because God wanted it that way. It didn't have to be. He could just accept an apology without shrugging his shoulders and saying oh well because someone found a particular fruit of a particular tree to yummy to pass up (He also could have put that tree ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET but instead put it right in front of two people who did not know good and evil; then said don't eat from that tree. Not exactly a strong case for omniscience. It's like I put a cookie on the table in front of my 7-year-old and said "Don't eat that," then walked out of the room. He's gonna eat the cookie. I'm not all knowing, and I know that).
So your friend, I submit, is not stubborn. Rather, he's amused at the contortions you'll twist yourself into to deny what's obviously written.
There IS not idiom of permission in the Bible. Bullinger, for what he's worth, appears to be the only one who makes an issue of it. It's hardly a scholarly consensus.
The existence of other figures of speech does not verify the "idiom of permission" as something the Bible employs on a regular basis.
It is, however, an extraordinarily convenient tool for believers to employ whenever their holy book shows God doing what no good God would ever do, even though the book is unambiguous about it being God who did it.
But that's just the old testament. Unless, of course, you're holding back tithes from the apostles in Acts, which is New Testament. (Oh, but it doesn't say God did that. It was Satan -- even though the Bible doesn't say THAT either).
The Bible is filled with examples of God saying he'll do something and then saying He did it. It doesn't say he allowed it to happen or he allowed Satan to do it. It says HE did it. Now, it COULD have said he allowed Satan to do it, very easily. Look at Job. Satan did those things. It says so. Yeah, he got God's permission, but it says that, clearly. There's no ambiguity, and there's no "this is how it works normally."
A figure of speech is supposed to be a statement that is true in essence though not literally true. "It's raining cats and dogs" is a figure of speech. "This car can stop on a dime" is a figure of speech.
A figure of speech is not supposed to be a way for you to get the Bible to say the opposite of what it clearly says just because what it clearly says is inconvenient for your theology. God ordered the execution of a man for picking up sticks on the sabbath. He didn't give man permission to kill the offending sabbath breaker. He gave man an order -- cast those stones!
God didn't allow divorce. He prescribed it. He didn't allow Satan to kill all the firstborn of Egypt. He had it done.
And he DID have a choice. When my kid offends me, I have a choice how to discipline him. You have no idea how many times my discipline has stopped short of killing him because he did his chores between sunset on Friday night and Saturday night!
So here's a thought. Bear with me: Maybe your friend isn't the stubborn one in this equation. Maybe he's not the one being inflexible. Maybe, just maybe, he's given this far more thought than you have.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I've read a lot of chapters in a lot of books. Some have more than 1,000 pages. Some have fewer. The fact that someone wrote a chapter in a book that documents a phenomenon he has identified is no guarantee that the phenomenon he describes is an accurate reflection of the truth. I'm not saying Bullinger is flat out wrong about the idiom of permission. He could be absolutely right. But peculiar how few others have made the same observation, independently coming to the same conclusion.
And is it or is it not time we started asking some serious questions about the reliability of Bullinger as a scholar? Because the man was BATS. Too soon? He was nuts. I mean, flat-earth, Adam was created in 4004 B.C. cuckoo. I humbly submit that his opinions on tons of subjects are... what's the word... suspect.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Good point on the man picking up sticks, Raf. The other that always bothers me is God striking Uzzah dead for touching the ark after the oxen stumbled.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
But he HAD to do that to protect the Christline! [WTF????]
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I would put K.C. Pillai in the same category.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
But his books had a lot of pages with chapters and everything.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Raf, I am!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Raf, bingo!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Here's a little fable illustrating of how (H-O-W) this so-called idiom works in modern society, say, mid-20th century.
A certain man, an old man born only once of a woman, a man of this world, a man who walked in the five senses realm, called himself a man of God. This self-described man of God wanted profit and p*ssy and power. This man, seeing his brother's profitable success in buying and selling, decided to get in the game. What would this man sell? A class! How (H-O-W) would he get it? He'd steal it.
The class became available and the man stole it. That's how (H-O-W) he got it. Now that he had it, what would he do with it? This man decided to film himself holding forth on the stolen class along with lots of other things he didn't fully understand.
Now, this man knew nothing about professional film production. But God sent messengers in the form of professional film producers and technicians. These messengers of God gave this man practical advice and prescriptions for how (H-O-W) and why to do what and when concerning the photography lights and everything else. This man, this so-called man of God, spat in the face of God's messengers! This so-called man of God rejected the practical advice sent from God! He disobeyed instructions from the messengers of God.
Now, God did not get angry with this man. But since the man disobeyed the first time, God wouldn't tell him again a second time.
The result of this man's disobedience was cancer of the eyeball. God didn't cause the cancer. The man's arrogance and spite caused his own cancer. The man's free will caused the cancer. God allows free will. God allowed the man to disobey Him and let the man cause his own cancer.
God permitted this man to make a free will choice of ignorance and disobedience. That's what killed this man. God only wanted him to listen and obey.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Idiom of permission
Yeah that is Bullinger but the dude had nobody really before or after to break down analytically poetic language from the Bible in that fashion.
He presents like he was on the autism spectrum. And extreme OCD - buckets and lists for everything. While that presents a very interesting and innovative perspective, who really wants to live that way lol?
The gist of it I remember was kind of a combination of royal language along with counting up the mentions to see who gets more press.
Like a rule against saying Satan too many times in a given period of time (not applicable to SNL sketches with Dana Carvey)
So God did everything good and bad.
I personally think that one is a little more on Bullingers spectrum side so I don't buy it.
I don't have a solution for the moral dilemma with OT verses. My simpleton philosophy is shizzle happens God helps his pizzle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
First off, I appreciate Twinky for starting this thread.
Second – sorry I’m late to the party. I stumbled upon this indirectly while on another thread – where a certain Grease Spotter kept harping on the idiom of permission for some silly reason though it had nothing to do with the main topic ( here )…sometimes I am flabbergasted by certain posters who complain of posts, threads, and files related to their inane concern being lost or deleted by moderators or maybe the lack of bandwidth…or when the moon is in the seventh house and Jupiter is aligned with Mars…so on that thread I simply Googled figures of Speech – didn’t even use GSC’s search tool – and the first hit was this thread! Will wonders never cease…makes you wonder if we’re talking learned-helplessness or purpose-driven-derailment.
Third – after reading the thoughtful posts on this thread – with great trepidation I then reached for my Bullinger’s Companion Bible and his Figures of Speech. I had an uneasy feeling I was about to peel another layer of the Bullinger / wierwille mystique. Which brings me to my fourth point…
Fourth – I want to look into this more – but for now I want to share what I came across so far and then I’ll throw in my "valuable" two cents.
What’s more difficult than trying to find a needle in a haystack? Looking for a nonexistent needle in a haystack. Googling idiom of permission usually got hits making some reference to Bullinger’s work. So – what the hell – I got my Bullinger books off the shelf.
The first frustrating thing is I could not find idiom of permission in the index or an appendix on figures of speech. I did find just idiom though. That got me thinking – I wonder if wierwille added the extra of permission to the term (recalling wierwille’s tendency to twist definitions out of shape to fit his theology – like Greek word pros – together with yet distinctly independent of in his John 1:1 interpretation – saying the only way Jesus Christ was together with yet distinctly independent of God was in God’s foreknowledge -
)…anyway here’s a quick def from Companion Bible:
Idioma or Idiom. The peculiar usage of words and phrases, as illustrated in the language peculiar to one nation or tribe, as opposed to other languages or dialects. Appendix 6 Figures of Speech in The Companion Bible
There’s a lot of wiggle room in that brief description. You can look at the end of my post and check out the various hyperlinks to figures of speech. Read through some descriptions and examples ... the figures I looked at seemed definitive in their description and did not need to be further interpreted – in fact, figures are usually employed to enhance the communication of ideas.
Another thing that got me thinking was Nathan_Jr’s comment after my post – he said he understood what the idiom of permission means – but was unclear as to when it applies, and to which verbs ( here ). From my 12 years of being in a harmful and controlling cult I came to know we all depended on wierwille to make that call. It was his signature intuition (whatever he felt it meant rather than using reason…like a sixth sense…”the Father showed me” ) which functioned like a manual transmission – he would shift gears on what applied where, adultery becomes spiritual adultery, and so on.
So, at this point I’m thinking this idiom of permission is somewhat ambivalent – it may have simultaneous conflicting ideas, beliefs, or feelings about something. Earlier on this thread another poster talked about the difference in cultures – how the western mind may view God as doing only good, whereas the eastern mind might tend to attribute everything to God. Maybe wierwille tried to relate an eastern book to the western mind…I don’t know.
Since I left TWI I find myself leaning more and more toward the natural sense of a passage – without having to juggle preconceived notions of what God can or can’t do. On that same thread, I used I Chronicles 21 to show that God or an agent of God acting on His behalf gave David a choice of consequences and/or executed those consequences ( see my post here ). God is attributed with doing a lot of bad stuff. And tonight I checked Bullinger’s Companion Bible on I Chronicles 21 and there is NOT one reference to idiom or idiom of permission in his notes on that chapter. But Bullinger does mention another figure in I Chronicles 21:15
And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.
Bullinger notes on “he repented” it’s the figure Anthropopatheia.
Anthropopatheia or condescension – this figure is used of the ascription of human passions, actions or attributes to God. from page 871 of Bullinger’s Figures of Speech Used in the Bible
Okay – I know anthropomorphism is ascribing human characteristics to something that is not human, such as an animal or a god; the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities. It is considered to be an innate tendency of human psychology from Wikipedia: anthropomorphism
Like the idiom of permission, anthropopatheia is a matter of how one views God. Would God send a plague on Israel ( I Chron. 21:14 )? Can God change His mind ( I Chron. 21:15 )? I don’t think fundamentalists like wierwille played fair when they danced around chapters like this to the tune of God is good and God does not change.
I don’t know enough to argue all the technicalities of Bullinger’s work – but I’m highly suspect of some of the phraseology of Bullinger and wierwille being rigidly formulaic and attempt to put God in a box. Reflecting on what I remember of wierwille’s theology – God was so small…predictable…limited by our believing…extremely tolerant of the bad behavior of morally depraved cult-leaders.
Anyway…that’s all for now…
...may come back with more later if I find something interesting.
~ ~ ~ ~
Below are a few hyperlinks concerning figures of speech:
Exam Planning com: 23 common figures of speech
The Visual Communication Guy: Figures of Speech (official list)
Wikipedia: figure of speech
English Grammar Here: 100 figures of speech with examples
Edited by T-BoneAn editor who does whatever he wants is an idiot without permission
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Yeah, I'm not sure Idiom of Permission is an idiom. The usage of idiom is awkward at best, probably inaccurate, dishonest at worst. I'm still investigating this. (Which means I'm searching again what I missed the first time - RE-searching.)
As someone else pointed out, it's about converting active verbs into passive verbs for God. Why? Who knows! Maybe the hands won't fit the gloves, so you've got to MAKE them fit.
A recent article in The Way Magazine handles the verb "to be", "being", "is" as it applies to God. The article insists that in the original, where they wish you could read it bless your heart, "being" SHOULD BE read "is becoming."
The article goes through great pains and fantastic feats of illogic to arrive at this opinion asserted as a claim of fact.
But I ask: If one is becoming, does that not imply one is incomplete? It seems to me becoming is like evolving, unfinished, not yet mature. So God is becoming something He is yet to be? In the future He will have completed his becoming so he can finally just be? God is not perfect, He is becoming perfect?
Edited by Nathan_JrMay I also ask? What in the actual f__k!?!?!?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Apparently, there's more detail in another of Bullinger's books. From James K. Sebastian's blog:
In the Old Testament, God uses the “Idiom of Permission,” to conceal the enemy. In his book, “Figures of Speech used in the Bible”, E W Bullinger explains the Idiom of permission in this manner: “Active verbs were used by the Hebrews to express not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
That makes sense when you look at it from a cultural point of view, especially their culture being based on the Torah where remembering God was intertwined in most everything they did. It's a cool landmark to help understand scripture as well.
One of the problems as far as I can tell is it gets over played by people from TWI to support wrong doctrine. For example: God will take vengance on those who have killed innocents. The way likes to play word salad with that concept and say that God will just let the devil do the dirty work for him because God cannot commit evil - though if this concept were true God would be in tacit agreement with satan's schemes in the name of God's vengance. They completely miss the fact that God's vengance against evil doers is justified because of the offences. Plus the way international likes to gloss over the fact that Jesus Christ was innocent and was treated horribly by those he was sent to. So along the same lines Jesus Christ will take vengance on those who so horribly wronged him as well. But make no mistake - vengance is justified and God will make sure every account is settled to the fullest and he will repay people according to their works. No agency of satan needed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Yeah I came across that too in my search – the link is James K Sebastian's Blog: idiom of permission in the Bible - - but what was frustrating to me was that Sebastian did not cite a page of Bullinger’s Figures of Speech – but merely makes reference to the topic.
Sometimes I grow suspicious of that for several reasons. Did the person accurately summarize the idea of the author they cited? Does the person understand the idea they referenced? Has the person mischaracterized or squeezed the other author’s idea out of shape? Is the person able to walk me through their thinking of how they come up with their opinion?
That last thing (walk me through your thought process) can be very revealing. Further down in Sebastian’s blog he says this:
I have a collection of books on various subjects. When I read a book, I keep my bible handy. I try to put everything I read through a litmus test of the Bible. In some cases, I do not read a book until I have first studied the subject on my own.
However, sometimes, a book sitting on my book rack catches my attention. A word in the title of the book keeps flashing before my eyes. In such cases I pull it out of the rack and begin to read. As I read along (I do not always begin from chapter one), I am prompted to pause at a certain place, and Holy Spirit downloads a new insight or a complete teaching on the same subject.
How the Holy Spirit helps to illuminate or deepen our understanding of the Bible is a whole other topic – so I’ll leave that alone - but needless to say, with my 12-year experience of believing everything a cult-leader said because he claimed God taught him, it NOW takes some hard evidence and plain logic to convince me. Waysider made a good point earlier on this thread – if you claim something makes sense then it should be explainable to another person.
I will accept intuition, Holy Spirit, when the moon is in the seventh house, getting up on the wrong side of the bed as an experience that makes sense to you. I’ve had those “I’ve got a bad feeling about this” moments myself – and sometimes that’s the only way you can explain it. But wierwille did have a tendency to be utterly definitive and dogmatic about explaining many things in the Bible that are enigmatic, while at the same time displaying an amateurish flair for the biblical languages and culturalisms along with a flagrant disregard for logic because it probably made sense to him.
And at this point I am not disputing Bullinger’s the idiom of permission – but for me the jury is still out on how to best express the idea. I’ve got a bad feeling about this is where I’m at on the way some employ the idiom of permission – it seems like an easy way to avoid acknowledging who is ultimately responsible and/or who shares some of the responsibility. Now that's opening the door to allow another factor - I address that further below looking into wierwille's dubious law of believing can fit it.
Sebastian referenced Bullinger’s work without giving a page. I found a quick reference to permission on page 823 of Bullinger’s Figures of Speech – but as I said earlier permission , or idiom of permission is not in the index. I found it by looking up Active verbs for permission of action. Bullinger states it as follows:
Active verbs were used by the Hebrews to express, not the doing of the thing, but the permission of the thing which the agent is said to do.
Then Bullinger lists some examples Ex. 4:21 “I will harden his heart” Jer. 4:10 “Lord God, surely thou hast greatly deceived this people” and Matt. 6:13 “Lead us not into temptation” – these are just a few of what he listed.
On page 821 Bullinger says this about idioms:
Idiom, however, is not generally classed among Figures in the technical sense of the word. But as the words do not mean literally what they say, and are not used or combined according to their literal signification, they are really Figures.
I have a problem with that. If idioms are not technically a figure of speech – then how did Bullinger determine the words do not literally mean what they say? Mentally there seems to be another step involved. What are the determining factors? Is it based on one’s view of what God can or cannot do? How do you know God can or cannot do something?
For example, take the figure of speech Simile - involving the comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind, used to make a description more emphatic or vivid (e.g., as brave as a lion, crazy like a fox). I say so-and-so is brave as a lion for standing up to the bully. Will there be a debate over whether or not so-and-so is literally a lion? I don’t think so. The person who stood up to the bully is a human being. But I have a real issue with treating the idiom of permission like a figure of speech – because it’s debatable on how much authorization is involved, are there other factors in play even though this may be the most critical one...I get into that further below considering how God orchestrates situations.
God’s sovereignty gets into a whole other deep topic – I won’t get into much detail here but it relates to this idiom of permission thing. open theism theory is something I never really considered when trying to understand God’s knowledge and sovereignty. It’s the idea that God could have voluntarily placed limits on Himself – to allow freedom for His created beings... Classical theism has made a strong claim that God is timeless, in the sense of existing outside of time and sequence. Yet we praise God not because He is beyond time and change but because He works redemptively in time for our salvation. We may tend to think omnipotence as the power to determine everything - being coercive like a puppeteer. A monopoly on power is easy to manage.
What’s much more difficult to govern is a universe with created beings that have the option – the freedom – to disobey. Omnipotence does not mean that nothing can go contrary to God’s will (like our sins do) but that God is able to deal with any circumstances that may arise. Though by nature God is omnipotent – in a sense, God can be vulnerable because of His decision to make a world filled with beings who have free will. The Creator of the universe has chosen to limit his power by delegating some to the created beings. American theologian, pastor and author Greg Boyd said “It takes far more self-confidence, far more wisdom, far more love and sensitivity to govern that which is personal and free than it does to govern that over which one has absolute control.”
Where am I going on this? Don’t know yet. But at this point I lean toward God is sovereign – I believe He set up a moral universe. A moral universe implies that we live in a basically spiritual universe that is somehow ordered by a higher power, by invisible feelings of good and bad, a 'cosmic order' reminiscent of the early Greeks that underpins and motivates our actions. Or a 'moral force' that means our actions must have definite effects which we carry with us. In this respect its meaning comes close to the Hindu concept of Karma. From Wikipedia – moral universe
For a higher power to order the way things work – then ultimately, the higher power is in charge.
Who set up the law of gravity? I believe I can fly like Superman and jump off a skyscraper. Splat! In my attempt to break the law of gravity, the law of gravity broke me. Blame the law of gravity for my death or blame me for subscribing to the law of believing.
. We were given freedom of will - which means we should bear the responsibility for our choices . I think there is something to the idiom of permission in that we recognize the sovereignty of God. Even if He uses agents to carry out the action. When we say so-and-so really calls the shots - we mean so-and-so takes the initiative in how something is done.
To me an aspect of God’s sovereignty is that He can orchestrate how a situation works out.
I think of Joseph speaking to his brothers that sold him into slavery:
You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. Genesis 50:20
.... I think of Romans 8:28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.
In Genesis and Romans we should notice God can work things out - even though along the way there’s a lot of ups and downs. God never promised an easy ride and smooth sailing.
I think wierwille had a tendency to play the role of God’s representative on Earth - telling us what God can and cannot do. I even think he may have fused a couple of ideas together - turning idiom of permission on its head to be YOUR believing or lack thereof limits God - YOU are not permitting God to act. From page 19 of Lifelines: Quotations of Victor Paul wierwille, The believer’s fear binds the omnipotence of God.
what the hell ?!?! He went from the idiom of permission to the idiocy of magical thinking...that is hilarious - God does not have unlimited power - because YOUR believing is more powerful than His capabilities !!!!!! Holy $hit !!!! Didn't wierwille write a chapter Are You Limiting God? ? He answered his own question - wierwille taught we can limit God by our believing.
You know, wierwille should have come out with a Malleable Study Bible – the most practical and pliable study Bible available for pseudo-Christian ministries with tons of cross references – but not references to the cross of Christ - and plenty of dirty double crosses for swindling friends, allies, colleagues, foes and the IRS…oh wait he already produced the Malleable Study Bible it’s called PFAL.
Here’s another dandy from page 15 of Lifelines God is no respecter of theology, but a respecter of believing…. Let me get this straight – theology – which is religious beliefs and theory when systematically developed from the Bible doesn’t matter to God? It’s what YOU BELIEVE that counts. Huh?
More to come on this…I'm looking into some reputable sources (books by legitimate and straight forward authors
) on how God's sovereignty relates to all of this.
that's all for now
Edited by T-Bonewho really calls the shots in the editing room?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Well done, T-Bone!
Lots to comment on here, but I can barely see through these tears of laughter to type anything.
The Lifelines didn't directly cause me to laugh, they merely allowed me to laugh. A profoundly deep ignorance and contempt for Truth is required to buy into these Lifelines. A hatred of Truth.
James Sebastian sounded like a wierwille acolyte to me. I thought someone here might recognize his name. Could be Mike's pseudonym.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.