Wayworld's view of the Trinity is clearly a strawman. Vpw had to create new red herrings around each aspect of it . . . Finding some way, in each person of the Trinity, to draw attention back to vpw (lowercase)
You got me thinking of another aspect of wierwille’s anti-Trinity tirades. his diatribes were more about control than a concern for “doctrinal purity”…I think it was to tighten up the ranks of TWI-followers…this got me thinking about other mutations of shunning in TWI – the homo-purge and mark-and-avoid. creating red herrings makes me wonder WHY. In logical fallacies and mysteries red herrings are intended as a distraction to what’s really going on or what’s at stake…wierwille’s strawman of deliberately misrepresenting the doctrine of the Trinity made it easier for him to shoot it down…paint it up as idolatry…after all, who wants to be known as an idolator or even be associated with known idolators...playing on fears of ostracism is a great tool of groupthink.
“Ostracism causes real pain…because our basic need for belonging, self-esteem, control, and recognition is thwarted.” From: Web MD: Why Ostracism Hurts
Decades ago, cult-leaders like wierwille were ahead of their time – but not in a good sense – rather foreshadowing more recent (since the late 2010s) anti-social methods like cancel culture …I recently saw Woodward and Bernstein commenting on 50 years after Watergate and also on reactions to the January 6th hearings. Remarking on America becoming more divided than ever, one of them said we’re in a cold Civil War.
I made the point in an earlier post - here - that sometime in the future, Satan along with the antichrist and false prophet copy the Godhead and the resurrection. Revelation 13 speaks of the ultimate threat of ostracism – imagine if you were excluded from the world of trade…you can’t buy or sell anything…how will you eat? How will you pay your bills? How will you get fuel/energy for your vehicle? How will you obtain medicine and medical services? Well…no need to worry…the Satanic trinity has that all figured out:
1 The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. 2 The beast I saw resembled a leopard but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority.
3 One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast. 4 People worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast? Who can wage war against it?”
5 The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise its authority for forty-two months. 6 It opened its mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. 7 It was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them. And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.
8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world…
…11 Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon. 12 It exercised all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed.
13 And it performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to the earth in full view of the people. 14 Because of the signs it was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived the inhabitants of the earth. It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived.
15 The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.
16 It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, 17 so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name. Revelation 13: 1-8, 11-17
~ ~ ~ ~
For extra credit here’s a few other links on social ostracism:
You got me thinking of another aspect of wierwille’s anti-Trinity tirades. his diatribes were more about control than a concern for “doctrinal purity”…I think it was to tighten up the ranks of TWI-followers…this got me thinking about other mutations of shunning in TWI – the homo-purge and mark-and-avoid. creating red herrings makes me wonder WHY. In logical fallacies and mysteries red herrings are intended as a distraction to what’s really going on or what’s at stake…wierwille’s strawman of deliberately misrepresenting the doctrine of the Trinity made it easier for him to shoot it down…paint it up as idolatry…after all, who wants to be known as an idolator or even be associated with known idolators...playing on fears of ostracism is a great tool of groupthink.
“Ostracism causes real pain…because our basic need for belonging, self-esteem, control, and recognition is thwarted.” From: Web MD: Why Ostracism Hurts
Decades ago, cult-leaders like wierwille were ahead of their time – but not in a good sense – rather foreshadowing more recent (since the late 2010s) anti-social methods like cancel culture …I recently saw Woodward and Bernstein commenting on 50 years after Watergate and also on reactions to the January 6th hearings. Remarking on America becoming more divided than ever, one of them said we’re in a cold Civil War.
I made the point in an earlier post - here - that sometime in the future, Satan along with the antichrist and false prophet copy the Godhead and the resurrection. Revelation 13 speaks of the ultimate threat of ostracism – imagine if you were excluded from the world of trade…you can’t buy or sell anything…how will you eat? How will you pay your bills? How will you get fuel/energy for your vehicle? How will you obtain medicine and medical services? Well…no need to worry…the Satanic trinity has that all figured out:
1 The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. 2 The beast I saw resembled a leopard but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority.
3 One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast. 4 People worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast? Who can wage war against it?”
5 The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise its authority for forty-two months. 6 It opened its mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. 7 It was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them. And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.
8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world…
…11 Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon. 12 It exercised all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed.
13 And it performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to the earth in full view of the people. 14 Because of the signs it was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived the inhabitants of the earth. It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived.
15 The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.
16 It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, 17 so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name. Revelation 13: 1-8, 11-17
~ ~ ~ ~
For extra credit here’s a few other links on social ostracism:
Long ago ostracism meant death. You couldn't survive outside the group. You'd starve or be eaten or give in to the elements. So in simple terms ostracism = death. (I probably said that before)
Your post reminds me of the word Fellowship. Seems a term in stark contrast to ostracism.
Wayworld has no Hell, which I have heard described as a separation from God. Not simply torture. But a life as a result of no fellowship.
Your point about a false godhead, the old spiritual switcheroo. Yes people fear being kicked out. Being kicked out of a Twig Fellowship is a blessing in disguise. That's like a double switcheroo, I guess
Call out culture is where you "call out" an individual publicaly for some trait. They pay a price such as ostracism, whether they deserve it or not. You pay nothing or gain some perceived social points in this virtue signaling.
That's a low risk tactic. And shallow, why not talk to the individual in private?
It's like sacrificing someone else for your cause. Not giving of yourself, taking from someone. Like stealing.
Like a thief would do.
Like in a verse, John 10:10. .. which was handled in The Class.
All the bull$hit is exhausting. Like a sharp edge being rubbed down repeatedly to dullness. Like the mind of a poor child taught up in TWI - dulled, blunted, full of BS.
To WHOM is the asset or liability attached? And which is it? Asset or liability?
So much BS, who can keep up? I'm not an astute music coordinator. I need someone to rightly divide it for me. It's for my learning.
All the bull$hit is exhausting. Like a sharp edge being rubbed down repeatedly to dullness. Like the mind of a poor child taught up in TWI - dulled, blunted, full of BS.
To WHOM is the asset or liability attached? And which is it? Asset or liability?
So much BS, who can keep up? I'm not an astute music coordinator. I need someone to rightly divide it for me. It's for my learning.
. Can you be more specific on what the “much deliverance” was?
2. Who are the “much people”?
3. How doYOU KNOWtheNUMBER“church people” who – to this day lie in fear of losing their salvation? How didYOU quantifyall that? Please elaboratewhat metrics you used,what surveys you conducted,andwhat churches these “church people” go to.
It explains itself! Your "infallible doctrine" is that VP was a con artist and nothing else. I do not share that with you. So you call me an idol worshipper. That is your self righteous opinion. You have a lot of those.
quote: The Bible is Not God. So a definitive answer wouldn't likely be there.
This post is not Bolshevik, but it originates from Bolshevik. What's the difference?
The Bible is treated as a closed book. A dead document. As I have said, new information is not being added. I find that a problem.
There's some history, it appears to me, where folks like Martin Luther were trying to shift authority away from a person, like The Pope, to a book, like at least parts of The Bible, and with good reason. Sort of the internet of its day with advances in the printing press. Get more people involved, be more transparent. I think it could be argued this process in response to real problems took on a life of its own.
There's an absurdity when The Bible becomes more Holy than God. It's like if everything found on the internet were assumed to be true or even real by the reader.
Another poster pointed out the contradictions don't become an issue anymore when we stop making it perfect, and I'd think why not focus more on where they agree? You're less likely to make $#!+ up.
quote: The Bible is treated as a closed book. A dead document. As I have said, new information is not being added. I find that a problem.
In the grace administration, God's people have the same ability to walk by the spirit of God. No need to add anything. Churches don't teach people to walk by the spirit of God. They teach people to judge after the flesh and CALL it spiritual. I know we put up with a lot of that in twi. Not everything Martin Luther taught was rightly divided, but I think of him as one of the good guys. God will certainly sort out who was the real deal and who wasn't.
quote: The Bible is treated as a closed book. A dead document. As I have said, new information is not being added. I find that a problem.
In the grace administration, God's people have the same ability to walk by the spirit of God. No need to add anything. Churches don't teach people to walk by the spirit of God. They teach people to judge after the flesh and CALL it spiritual. I know we put up with a lot of that in twi. Not everything Martin Luther taught was rightly divided, but I think of him as one of the good guys. God will certainly sort out who was the real deal and who wasn't.
I'm not following where administrations come from. Is that written somewhere? And what do you mean spirit of God? Is that something you experience?
I think Martin Luther was just trying to get a dialogue going. He was trying to point out issues any sane person could understand as a problem, and he wanted the right people to fix them.
It explains itself! Your "infallible doctrine" is that VP was a con artist and nothing else. I do not share that with you. So you call me an idol worshipper. That is your self righteous opinion. You have a lot of those.
Johniam’s words in bold red
1. Johniam:It explains itself!
T-Bone: Huh?!?! Would you please clarify what is self-explanatory
~ ~ ~~
2. Johniam: Your "infallible doctrine"
T-Bone: “Your” = a determiner to indicate belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing…I’m flattered, but I’m not the one who came up with the idea of challenging someone who makes outlandish or peculiar claims by simply asking them to be more specific and qualify or quantify to show how they can HONESTLY make an assertion of a truth or fact...folks have being doing that for a looooooong time...by philosophers of old, by attorneys in court rooms, by governments, by statisticians, by psychologists, sociologists, fact-checkers, etc.
”infallible” = incapable of making mistakes or being wrong…”doctrine” = belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group…I don’t assume my perceptions regarding wierwille are infallible.
Actually, I realize my observations, comments, criticisms and arguments from Scripture, logic, academics, and moral norms ARE debatable…but what is NOT debatable is anything wierwille wrote, said or did – because it’s documented in books, magazines, newsletters, recorded on tape in teachings or witnessed by those present. What IS up for argument is trying to guess at his motivation, analyzing his use of Scripture to justify an action or to surmise any unintended consequences from what he wrote, said or did.
Speaking of infallible doctrine - how about Grease Spotters look at YOUR post - here – that I was commenting on.
~ ~ ~ ~
3. Johniam: …is that VP was a con artist and nothing else.
T-Bone: I’ve NEVER said wierwille was just a con artist AND NOTHING ELSE. There’s MANY POSTS on Grease Spot where I’ve listed how MULTI-TALENTED he was. He was not JUST a con artist but also an unabashed plagiarist, sexual predator, malignant narcissist, megalomaniac, pathological liar, a poser, a harmful and controlling cult-leader, a voracious wolf in sheep’s clothing, a mean-drunk-Drambuie-guzzler with delusions of grandeur - obviously the man had a lot of issues - I'm just mentioning the ones I know about.
~ ~ ~ ~
4. Johniam:I do not share that with you.
T-Bone: “share” = have a portion of something with another or others; a part or portion of a larger amount which is divided among a number of people, or to which a number of people contribute. If you’re meaning you don’t share in my opinion – that’s okay…If you’re meaning you can’t relate to my experiences and observations – I can understand that if you were never in the way corps. The honest accounts in any of my posts are NOT propaganda but a personal journal…an honest narrative of my experiences and observations…incidents and things wierwille actually wrote, saidand did !!!!!!!!
if you are way corps then YOU WERE THERE TOO and so you KNOW the things that I've said ARE true ! Perhaps you’re still holding on to the persona of wierwille being the man of god because you’ve never caught a glimpse of the real man…off stage…being himself…in case you missed it see point # 3 on wierwille being himself.
~ ~ ~ ~
5. Johniam: So you call me an idol worshipper.
T-Bone: Huh? Where and when did I call you that? You know, a guilty conscience needs no accuser…are you familiar with the term projecting ? it’s a psych term for an unconscious self-defense mechanism characterized by a person unconsciously attributing their own issues onto someone else as a form of delusion and denial.
~ ~ ~ ~
6. Johniam: That is your self righteous opinion.
T-Bone: “self-righteous” = having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior. This seems to be aTu quoque fallacy – which another diehard-wierwille-fan likes to use when a Grease Spotter criticizes wierwille. Rather than coming up with a valid counter-argument to a legitimate issue that was pointed out in something wierwille said or did – the diehard-wierwille-fan attempts to use the tu quoque fallacy to invalidate their opponent's criticisms by addressing them with another criticism. With this kind of argument, you find a way to attack your opponent instead of coming up with a logical reason to argue against the issue they brought up...for instance, in my post I called into question wierwille's doctrine on incorruptible seed - I pointed out that Scripture-wise and concept-wise it is erroneous. But instead of you offering a counterargument using Scripture and mental constructs - you just attack me. that right there shows me you have nothing of substance for a real counterargument...it's not perfect but as an example of arguing with real substance I modestly refer you to the link to my post using Scripture and concepts in point # 8 below...
...in case you forgot - this is the doctrinal forum.
doctrinal - means it's involving, belonging to or concerning a doctrine. see Britannica: doctrine ....I realize this might be difficult for some diehard-wierwille-fans to wrap their minds around - but on Grease Spot sometimes we point out his erroneous doctrines as a separate issue from his hypocrisy and licentious lifestyle...so there's dubious doctrinesAND practical error....If any diehard-wierwille-fan wants to lump it altogether as a convoluted-doctrinal-practical-mucky-muck-mess-of-wierwillisms that's okay too...just be honest and specific - we debate one specific issue and you guys don't play dodge-deflect-distract-games of "oh like you're so perfect you should talk" ...this is the doctrinal forum - so are we here to intelligently discuss the concepts and tenets of the Christian faith...or are we here to defend wierwille and give testimonials of his greatness ?
~ ~ ~ ~
7. Johniam: You have a lot of those
T-Bone: I could say the same thing about diehard-wierwille-fans having a lot of self-righteous opinions…for example – note the sanctimonious wierwille-hype and twisted doctrine presented in this post - here – in case you didn’t click on the link in point # 2.
~ ~ ~ ~
8.
Also, as a side note about the discussion on this thread - I find it chicken-hearted that this is like the 2nd or 3rd time you’ve quoted from my posts WITHOUT using the various quote features of Grease Spot Café’s website...one, if you use the quote feature - it provides a link back to the post that was quoted, so other Grease Spotters can verify you quoted it correctly and to get the full context of original post. As I did in quoting you - it's at the top of this post.
Another feature is that the person you quoted gets notified they were quoted by you – to give them a chance to reply in a timely manner. I could be wrong, but it seems to me it’s a scaredy cat tactic – like you’re not wanting to challenge me in an upfront and straightforward manner. Maybe that goes along with the tu quoque fallacy I mentioned in point # 6 - you attack me instead of the issue...For those interested in the source of your hissy fit they can see my post you quoted from - here ...have a nice day
Edited by T-Bone Unmistakably fallible editing since 2006
quote: For those interested in the source of your hissy fit they can see my post you quoted from - here ...have a nice day
I find it intriguing that when I come here so many people obsessively make a point of attacking my credibility. Makes me think I must have something right. If ANYBODY here is having a "hissy fit"......??????
I believe he had a one of a kind ministry. Back in 1980 or so, the coordinator of the music group I was in said that VP was the 7th "THE man of God" and that this was very significant. I never heard that same message from anybody else and I'm not sure what it even means, but I do believe that VPs combination of gift ministries was unique, not cookie cutter. Nobody has duplicated the respect and impact he got from his people.
2 hours ago, johniam said:
attacking my credibility.
It seems your credibility is attacking itself.
Edited by Nathan_Jr Invoking the music coordinator is a liability that can only be enjoyed while you can.
I've never liked having only two choices on anything. There is more to God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus the Christ than a bunch of doctrinal debates, more than anything anyone could actually put into words.
"I and my father are one", it doesn't say in purpose at all. Becoming one, as stated in Genesis, was not in purpose either.
Who has the courage to face themselves with no one else to argue with?
I've never liked having only two choices on anything. There is more to God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus the Christ than a bunch of doctrinal debates, more than anything anyone could actually put into words.
"I and my father are one", it doesn't say in purpose at all. Becoming one, as stated in Genesis, was not in purpose either.
Who has the courage to face themselves with no one else to argue with?
quote: For those interested in the source of your hissy fit they can see my post you quoted from - here ...have a nice day
I find it intriguing that when I come here so many people obsessively make a point of attacking my credibility. Makes me think I must have something right. If ANYBODY here is having a "hissy fit"......??????
Johniam, don’t flatter yourself. You make it sound like it’s a personal attack…Here you go again with the tu quoque fallacy (the ever accusing "you also" fallacy) for the sake of repetition it’s a type of ad hominem argument in which an accused person turns an allegation back on his or her accuser, thus creating a logical fallacy. If I were you I wouldn’t make an announcement like “Makes me think I must have something right” in a doctrinal discussion – some folks might think you’re smoking crack.
What is credibility? Here’s a few online definitions and synonyms: credibility - the quality of being trusted and believed in; the quality of being convincing or believable; SIMILAR WORDS: trustworthiness, reliability, dependability, integrity.
Now let me ask you some simple questions, Johniam. How or WHY do you think someone is considered credible or trustworthy? Do you think being trustworthy is an entitlement? How does one gain the trust of another? Is trust freely given – or is trust earned? How is trust built between two or more people? Do you think trust is reactive and measurable?
In my humble opinion – and I could be wrong - building trust happens slowly over time, like building up a savings account…here’s an unsettling concept…some folks may assume they’ve amassed quite a savings account of trust – but it could be mostly unreliable counterfeit currency – and there’s a lot of folks out there who are sharp enough not to accept counterfeit stuff…like the pseudo-knowledge that wierwille promoted as truth...many Grease Spotters have survived the disappointment over wierwille’s duplicity and cockamamie teachings. So, it should not be surprising to any diehard-wierwille-fans that there will be pushback in doctrinal discussions anytime a diehard-wierwille-fan will extoll the greatness of wierwille or reference one of his dubious and untenable doctrines.
You referenced my post - this one on June 28th - in your quote - and for the sake of clarity and accuracy I will repost it – with attributions and time-stamps added for clarity and context – so it’s as follows – including your post that I was commenting about; please reread it and I invite you and other Grease Spotters to review it as well – and afterwards please point out to me where I attacked YOU PERSONALLY…When folks protest over Grease Spotters speaking derogatively of wierwille I am tempted to think they take it as a personal slight – as if it was being done deliberately to upset them...
What I fail to understand is the values scale of some folks – I’m not saying they’re wrong...maybe just out of whack – contradictory…
"Values scales are psychological inventories used to determine the values that people endorse in their lives. They facilitate the understanding of both work and general values that individuals uphold. In addition, they assess the importance of each value in people's lives and how the individual strives toward fulfillment through work and other life roles, such as parenting. Most scales have been normalized and can therefore be used cross-culturally for vocational, marketing, and counseling purposes, yielding unbiased results. Psychologists, political scientists, economists, and others interested in defining values, use values scales to determine what people value, and to evaluate the ultimate function or purpose of values." From values scale
what seems contradictory to me is that it appears some folks place a higher value on what wierwille said about the Bible, rather than a passage from the Bible that is antithetical to what wierwille said. The reason I think they place a higher value on what wierwille said is because they dodge, deflect or ignore any incompatible Bible passages or for that matter any opposing ideas that have merit from other Grease Spotters in the discussion.
...I’m not perfect and I may have been a little rough in my wording but my intent was NOT to attack you personally but to challenge your CLAIMS – and in doing so I was giving YOU a CHANCE to EARN my TRUST - if only you would have provided specifics, metrics, surveys, Scriptures and logic to counter my argument and support your claims.
…another thing –actually a really huge thing that seems to have escaped your notice is that the bulk of my post was challenging wierwille’s crazy mish mash of fundamentalism, spiritualism and Gnosticism tied up in his teaching on “incorruptible seed”.
And to overstate the obvious – I used an ADULT approach to challenge you – I disputed wierwille’s literal interpretation of I Peter 1:23 “incorruptible seed” by referencing the immediate context and a remoter context of Matthew 13 on the Sower and the seed to show that “incorruptible seed” is more likely referring to the word of God, I further argued support to my position from concepts, logic and a reference to a reputable commentary on I Peter 1:23……anyway here it is in between the green asterisks:
quote: If any still believe VPW is a man of God, enjoy it while you can.
VPW is DEAD! 37 yrs and counting.
I believe he had a one of a kind ministry. Back in 1980 or so, the coordinator of the music group I was in said that VP was the 7th "THE man of God" and that this was very significant. I never heard that same message from anybody else and I'm not sure what it even means, but I do believe that VPs combination of gift ministries was unique, not cookie cutter. Nobody has duplicated the respect and impact he got from his people. LCM acted like he had automatically earned that respect, but he did not.
Chris Geer doesn't try to be the MOGFODAT; he just brokers classes and lets local leadership work without interference. He openly disagrees with more than 15 points of VPs doctrine. The fellowship I attend is very non invasive compared to twi even back in the "good old days".
As for VP, I think his teaching of incorruptible seed brought much deliverance to much people. Many church people to this day live in fear that their salvation could be 'foreclosed upon' at any time. Nice to know that isn't true. King David is the only person in the bible who is actually called a man after God's own heart, yet when he did what he did to Uriah the Hittite, the bible says the thing David did had displeased the Lord.
So it's possible to be a man after God's own heart and still have the capacity to displease the Lord. Same for us. (I assume most of you believe some of the things VP did displeased God) We can be sons of God and still displease the Lord. We're still born of incorruptible seed, we'll still be rewarded at the gathering together, same for VP.
VPs ministry changed my life. From my first twig to the present day. I will definitely enjoy that while I can.
= = = == =
T-Bone Tuesday June 28th, 2022 12:35 AM:
Your statements in bold red
I believe he had a one of a kind ministry. Back in 1980 or so, the coordinator of the music group I was in said that VP was the 7th "THE man of God" and that this was very significant.
As for VP, I think his teaching of incorruptible seed brought much deliverance to much people. Many church people to this day live in fear that their salvation could be 'foreclosed upon' at any time. Nice to know that isn't true…
I have lots of questions on your statements:
1. Can you be more specific on what the “much deliverance” was?
2. Who are the “much people”?
3. How do YOU KNOW the NUMBER “church people” who – to this day lie in fear of losing their salvation? How did YOU quantify all that? Please elaborate what metrics you used, what surveys you conducted, and what churches these “church people” go to.
4. The internet definition of foreclosed is to take possession of a mortgaged property as a result of the mortgagor's failure to keep up their mortgage payments; to take away someone's power of redeeming (a mortgage) and take possession of the mortgaged property. How does that relate to salvation? I understand you’re speaking metaphorically – talking about salvation in a way that is not physically or financially applicable. But can you explain how fear of one’s salvation being foreclosed resembles repossession of something when a buyer defaults on payments? I’m not trying to be facetious – but didn’t Jesus Christ pay the price for our salvation?
Or do you consider all what Jesus Christ did as only a down payment made for a salvation we’re buying on credit? Sounds confusing and trivializes all that Christ accomplished. Is that something you heard wierwille say or did you come up with that inappropriate metaphor all on your o wn?
5. Nice to know that isn't true. What isn’t true? YOUR mischaracterization of salvation?
6. incorruptible seed… Do you interpret that as a LITERAL seed? If so, you’re following the wooden interpretation of wierwille. He made it out like it was actually a spiritual seed.
But that is erroneous – for in the immediate context – the SAME verse even – it is a reference to the word of God. “For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God” (NIV)
I’m tempted to think wierwille would get his hodge podge of ideologies mixed up - and his “ signature intuition” would shift gears from fundamentalism to spiritualism to Gnosticism in no particular order.
Gnosticism has the idea spirit is spirit and flesh is flesh and never the twain shall meet. Gnosticism invites you to transcend to a higher plane through special knowledge.
A key concept of Spiritualism is that there is more to life than what meets the senses - wierwille’s demonology is based on his speculations of the unseen world. Spiritualism is viewed as the bridge between the spiritual realm and our physical world.
competing ideologies of fundamental ism, Gnosticism and spiritualism probably confused the hell out of wierwille in trying to formulate a coherent thought - so maybe his signature intuition i.e., whatever felt right - just cobbled it all together. Incorruptible seed from the spirt realm crosses over into a human body.
The few commentaries I’ve read on I Peter 1:23 don’t even try to explain it as a literal second birth but as a beginning of a life destined for eternity.
the Greek text of I Peter 1:23 indicates that the preposition “by” in I Peter 1:23 “by the word of God” is “dia” in the Greek Strong’s # 1223 and means through, on account of, because of…The new birth comes about through the direct action of the Holy Spirit (see Titus 3:5 ) but as indicated in I Peter 1:23 the word of God also plays an important role…
Peter’s reference to the seed probably harkens back to the parable of the Sower and the seed in Matthew 13: 1- 23 …which seems to be more about the ground than the Sower in that Jesus is explaining the different reactions to hearing the word. It’s obvious in the parable that the differences lie in HOW people respond to the word – the distinctions are made by the differences in quantity of crop yield or even crop loss.
The seed sown in all the soil types is the same – it’s the word of God…so WHY do YOU interpret the incorruptible seed of I Peter 1:23 as a literal seed? The context is obviously the word of God – as is the seed of Matthew 13. Did the Sower in Matthew 13 literally tear up little pieces of Old Testament scrolls and plant them in the ground?
As Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers says of “incorruptible seed” …”That is, not of the seed of Abraham, but of the seed of God. This is the argument: “You must learn not to be selfish, or arrogant, as being of the chosen race, but to have a true brotherly feeling and earnest love for the Gentile converts, and for those who, like St. Paul, are specially working for the Gentiles, because your inheritance of the promised ‘salvation’ is grounded, not on your Abrahamic descent, but on your spiritual regeneration, in which matter the Gentile converts are your equals.” That this was the doctrine of St. Peter is certain from his speech at the Council of Jerusalem, “God put no difference between us and them, having purified their hearts by faith;” and again, “It is only through the favour of the Lord Jesus that we hope to be saved, in precisely the same manner as they” (Acts 15:9; Acts 15:11). (Comp., for the argument, 1John 5:1.)
By the word of God.—“Seed,” in the beginning of the clause, is more literally the act of sowing, or engendering, which sowing is carried on “through the living and abiding word of God,” this “word of God” being the actual seed sown.
The “seed” of all existence is the spoken Word of God, the expressed will and meaning of creative thought (Psalm 33:6); and so here, even when spoken mediately, through the lips of men (as explained in 1Peter 1:25), it is that which begets men afresh. God creates afresh, though men speak the creative word for Him, just as “it is He that hath made us,” although He does so through natural laws and human powers.
The “Word of God” here is, no doubt, the preaching of the gospel, but especially, as it would seem, the preaching of the Resurrection (1Peter 1:3), or of the sufferings and glories of Messiah (1Peter 1:12), the “truth” of the last verse. The part taken by “the Word” in the sacrament of regeneration may be seen again in Ephesians 5:26 and James 1:18; in connection with the other sacrament we may also refer to John 6:63.
“Incorruptible” (i.e., imperishable; see 1Peter 1:4; 1Peter 1:18) finds a more energetic paraphrase here in “living and abiding” (the words “for ever” not being part of the true text). The former epithet is a favourite with St. Peter (1Peter 1:3, 1Peter 2:4-5), and is perhaps borrowed from this place by the author to the Hebrews, in connection with the “word of God” (Hebrews 4:12). The epithets serve to prepare the way for the quotation.”
end of excerpt from Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
Edited June 28 by T-Bone
Undoubtedly the horrendous typos were born again of incorrigible word-seeds
* * * * * *
End of quoting my post from June 28th
= = = = =
I’m sorry if I’ve offended you personally – and perhaps “hissy fit” was a little harsh – but I’ll leave you with some online info on the term “hissy fit” – in my defense I will say that your response to my June 28th post seemed to be from anger and filled with unjustified criticism and juvenile off-the-wall remarks – and I thought my use of the term was fitting…and you know what they say, “if the hissy fit fits…” well anyway below are some online definitions of “hissy fit”:
throw a hissy fit
meaning
To throw a tantrum.
An outburst.
A temperamental explosion.
To show that one is disturbed and angry.
Example Sentences:
A hissy fit is not justified just to get someone to listen to you. You have to be more mature than that.
She needs to discipline her children, they can’t just throw a hissy fit every time they cross the ice cream parlour.
I threw a hissy fit when I learned that he is not going to come for the event even after promising to do so.
No one should be allowed to throw hissy fits for such trivial things.
The reason does not matter when you embarrass me in pubic by throwing hissy fits.
The media these days have no real news to report so paparazzi follow celebrities around until they throw a hissy fit at them.
Origin
The origination of the phrase is speculated to be either from the term hysterical or the spluttering and hissing sound that an outburst causes. The literary origin comes from the 1934 US based publication titled ‘American Speech’ which explained the concept. The best and most popular usage is to describe the tantrums that celebrities throw which is speculated to have been first used by the Daily Mirror in 2004 towards the celebrity Sir Elton John.
noun. A sudden outburst of temper, often used to describe female anger at something trivial. Originally regional from American South. Thought to originate from contraction of "hysterical fit."
She threw a hissy fit when she found out the last pair of shoes had been sold.
If it's any consolation to you, Johniam or even strictly in the spirit of fairness, you can charge me with having a hissy fit in this and any other post of mine. I'm an adult - I can take it...I'll probably agree with you whether or not I think I deserve it...I am a recovering a$$-hole with smart-a$$ tendencies so keep that in mind.
So have at it all you want with attacking me over some imagined slights – but can you PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE occasionally inject a substantial portion of intelligent rebuttals to any of the SPECIFIC wierwille-ideology criticisms I have expressed on this thread…otherwise your cutting remarks will only continue to “make me think I must have something right” in my criticism of wierwille’s erroneous doctrine for you to dodge, deflect, avoid, and ignore the legitimate and detailed examination and assessment I have offered on this thread…
One of my superpowers is that I am invulnerable to name-calling – and so I should warn you if you continue to pursue the path of a knock-down-drag-out-fight-by-name-calling-or-any-other-logical fallacy-brouhaha-in-order-to-dodge-deflect-avoid-and ignore-legitimate-detailed-examination-and-assessment-of-wierwille’s erroneous doctrines I have offered, you will more often than not shoot yourself in the foot...but I guess some folks enjoy the law of reversed efforts.
The French psychologist, Émile Coué, defined the law of reversed effort and said the law of reversed effort exists because our conscious mind and our unconscious mind are often in conflict, and the unconscious mind wins. It’s what Alan Watts referred to as the Backwards Law. According to the law of reversed effort, when desire and imagination are in conflict, the imagination always wins. This law exists because our conscious mind and our unconscious mind are often in conflict, and the unconscious mind wins. Why? Because it is our protector and it is rarely rational. When the imagination and will power are in conflict, are antagonistic, it is always the imagination which wins, without any exception from: Life Hack.org: law of reversed effort
As Captain America would say "I can do this all day". So don't think you wallowing in the throes of reversed efforts will discourage me from continuing to sort out the nonsense and fluff from the actual substance of this thread...it's a marathon, Dude. I consider it a personal challenge so see if my repetitive verbosity will outlast your dodge-and-deflect nonsense.
...I am serious about wanting to have an intelligent conversation! I’ll make it real simple for you: quote one point from my June 28th post where I argued that “incorruptible seed” was not to be taken literally as wierwille taught - and then state WHY you disagree with my position? What are the reason/reasons why you think “incorruptible seed “ in I Pet. 1:23 is definitely NOT a reference to the word of God?
Oh and let me reveal some other superpowers…I ain’t super-smart – just super-curious…I ain’t super-narrowminded – just a super-fan of the Socratic method and love to unpack an idea or a belief of mine and that of others…I’m not a super-grammarian – just a super-verbose poster trying to be a gooder articulator of my thoughtness.
till we meet again
Edited by T-Bone my editor likes to use the wrong misnomer…one day I challenged him to use the right misnomer.
I want to add something to the first post on this thread. It could be inserted right after the sentence in which I use the phrase 'there are many antichrists'.
Beginning in 1976, 4 movies were made entitled 'The Omen'. These movies are about the antichrist. The 4th one was made late 80s/ early 90s and in that one, the antichrist is a girl. There are scenes in that movie that, to me, are downright comical.
In at least one of these movies, the idea is put forth that the antichrist will be some kind of genetic wonder, who has the right combination of genes to the most evil person...EVER!!! This is horse crap.
The devil doesn't know exactly when Christ is coming back. The 2nd coming of Christ begins with the gathering together. The entire body of Christ, dead and living will be gathered together and taken from the earth. When that happens, all spiritual light will be gone, and only then can darkness make itself manifest to the degree that there will be an antichrist. The devil doesn't know when that's going to happen, so he has to have somebody ready to step in and assume that position at ALL TIMES. It will be a position of opportunity.
That's why there have to be many antichrists, not just one with a genetic pedigree.
I want to add something to the first post on this thread. It could be inserted right after the sentence in which I use the phrase 'there are many antichrists'.
Beginning in 1976, 4 movies were made entitled 'The Omen'. These movies are about the antichrist. The 4th one was made late 80s/ early 90s and in that one, the antichrist is a girl. There are scenes in that movie that, to me, are downright comical.
In at least one of these movies, the idea is put forth that the antichrist will be some kind of genetic wonder, who has the right combination of genes to the most evil person...EVER!!! This is horse crap.
The devil doesn't know exactly when Christ is coming back. The 2nd coming of Christ begins with the gathering together. The entire body of Christ, dead and living will be gathered together and taken from the earth. When that happens, all spiritual light will be gone, and only then can darkness make itself manifest to the degree that there will be an antichrist. The devil doesn't know when that's going to happen, so he has to have somebody ready to step in and assume that position at ALL TIMES. It will be a position of opportunity.
That's why there have to be many antichrists, not just one with a genetic pedigree.
I'm shocked I have to point this out.
Ah, the movies/books of the series "The Omen" are not Canon, nor Scripture. The Bible has nothing to do with their FICTIONAL accounts. It is popular for people to speak of "the antichrist"- as if there will be a single person to whom that applies, who will appear in the future, and be the supreme earthly opponent to God Almighty. In the movie/book series, Jesus had to come back as a baby once again. In Acts 1, we're told very clearly he's not going to return like that, he's going to return the same way he left- translocating as an adult, between Earth and Heaven (or, in the future, from Heaven to Earth.
What does the Bible say on the subject of Anti-Christ? It's all written in I John 2, so it's not hard to search for it. That's the only place in the Bible where that word(s) is used. It's used exactly TWICE.
According to I John 2, "antichrist" isn't a singular person to lead all sinners, "anti-christ" is anyone who is anti- Jesus Christ. Those who deny that Jesus was/is The Christ are "anti-christ" and deny both father and son.
Don't take Hollywood's word on who is "anti-Christ."
Regarding religious or political people who want praise and honor from humanity instead of being service oriented to humanity like Jesus Christ was and is. The word "beast" is figuratively used a number of times in the book of Daniel and especially many times in the book of Revelation. For the New King James Version the word "beast" is used 37 times.
The devil does not know when Christ is coming back – but WHYTHEantichrist hasn’t stepped up to the plateyet is because of“the restrainer” mentioned in II Thessalonians 2:6,7 NKJV
And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time.
For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way.
On page 2163 of The NIV Biblical Theology Study Biblesays many attempts have been made to solve the riddle of the restrainer– to identify the thing and person that Paul refers to in both impersonal v.6 and personal v.7:
1.The Roman Empire and the Roman emperor
2.The principle of law and order and the political leaders in general
3.The proclamation of the gospel and Paul.
4.The presence of the church and the Holy Spirit
5.The power of evil and Satan
6.The false prophecy and the false prophet
7.The activity and person of the archangel Michael.
Personally, I discount points 5 & 6 – because what I know of Scripture (Mark 3: 22-27) the devil and his minions would not frustrate or sabotage their own diabolical plans. I was surprised to read of point 7 – the archangel Michael’s restraining effort – but The NIV Biblical Theology Study Biblesays that though it’s not widely held it is strongly supported by allusions to Daniel chapters 10 - 12where Michael, the patron angel of God’s people is said to withstand (or restrain) the evil angels. I lean toward point 4 – the church and the Holy Spirit – but I put more stock in it being primarily the Holy Spirit – because of the syntax of II Thess. 2:7 and that it must ultimately be divinely supernatural – i.e., God’s powerthat holds back Satan so that the Antichrist would only be revealed at God’s appointedtime and no sooner.
II Thessalonians 2:7“For this lawlessness is already at work secretly, and it will remain secret until the one who is holding it back steps out of the way.”
In summary, The Antichrist (whoever that will be) cannot step up to the plate yet - though many have been chomping at the bit to do so… …ignorance of Christ’s timetable or lack of opportunity is not what’s stopping them… it’s BECAUSE of divine intervention - HOWEVERGOD does that !
Edited by T-Bone The lawlessness of typos is already at work, and it will continue to secretly gunk up the words until my editor gets back from his coffee break
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
23
71
46
60
Popular Days
Jun 28
25
Jun 19
23
Jun 23
22
Jun 18
17
Top Posters In This Topic
Mark Sanguinetti 23 posts
T-Bone 71 posts
Bolshevik 46 posts
Nathan_Jr 60 posts
Popular Days
Jun 28 2022
25 posts
Jun 19 2022
23 posts
Jun 23 2022
22 posts
Jun 18 2022
17 posts
Popular Posts
johniam
When the devil tempted Jesus, as recorded in both Matthew chapter 4 and in Luke chapter 4, he offered Jesus "all the kingdoms of this world and the glory of them". He further stated that those things
T-Bone
This thread belongs in doctrinal forum. But for now, I’ll throw my 2 cents in while it’s hot off the press. note your words are in bold red 1. “Prior to the day of Penteco
Bolshevik
Hi Johniam, Maybe reread your paragraph. You say people have a choice . . . But it sounds like an ultimatum. You start off with love and end with a threat. The middle sentence feels like a li
T-Bone
You got me thinking of another aspect of wierwille’s anti-Trinity tirades. his diatribes were more about control than a concern for “doctrinal purity”…I think it was to tighten up the ranks of TWI-followers…this got me thinking about other mutations of shunning in TWI – the homo-purge and mark-and-avoid. creating red herrings makes me wonder WHY. In logical fallacies and mysteries red herrings are intended as a distraction to what’s really going on or what’s at stake…wierwille’s strawman of deliberately misrepresenting the doctrine of the Trinity made it easier for him to shoot it down…paint it up as idolatry…after all, who wants to be known as an idolator or even be associated with known idolators...playing on fears of ostracism is a great tool of groupthink.
“Ostracism causes real pain…because our basic need for belonging, self-esteem, control, and recognition is thwarted.” From: Web MD: Why Ostracism Hurts
Decades ago, cult-leaders like wierwille were ahead of their time – but not in a good sense – rather foreshadowing more recent (since the late 2010s) anti-social methods like cancel culture …I recently saw Woodward and Bernstein commenting on 50 years after Watergate and also on reactions to the January 6th hearings. Remarking on America becoming more divided than ever, one of them said we’re in a cold Civil War.
I made the point in an earlier post - here - that sometime in the future, Satan along with the antichrist and false prophet copy the Godhead and the resurrection. Revelation 13 speaks of the ultimate threat of ostracism – imagine if you were excluded from the world of trade…you can’t buy or sell anything…how will you eat? How will you pay your bills? How will you get fuel/energy for your vehicle? How will you obtain medicine and medical services? Well…no need to worry…the Satanic trinity has that all figured out:
1 The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. 2 The beast I saw resembled a leopard but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority.
3 One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast. 4 People worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast? Who can wage war against it?”
5 The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise its authority for forty-two months. 6 It opened its mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. 7 It was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them. And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.
8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world…
…11 Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon. 12 It exercised all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed.
13 And it performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to the earth in full view of the people. 14 Because of the signs it was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived the inhabitants of the earth. It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived.
15 The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.
16 It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, 17 so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name. Revelation 13: 1-8, 11-17
~ ~ ~ ~
For extra credit here’s a few other links on social ostracism:
The Silence of Shunning…Shunning is an act of control and aggression, with powerful consequences
What You’re Saying When You Give Someone the Silent Treatment…Social ostracism
Shunning: The Ultimate Rejection; What does it mean when we shun others or are shunned?
Edited by T-BoneThe editor said typos will be ostracized
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
You've always got great insight T-Bone.
Long ago ostracism meant death. You couldn't survive outside the group. You'd starve or be eaten or give in to the elements. So in simple terms ostracism = death. (I probably said that before)
Your post reminds me of the word Fellowship. Seems a term in stark contrast to ostracism.
Wayworld has no Hell, which I have heard described as a separation from God. Not simply torture. But a life as a result of no fellowship.
Your point about a false godhead, the old spiritual switcheroo. Yes people fear being kicked out. Being kicked out of a Twig Fellowship is a blessing in disguise. That's like a double switcheroo, I guess
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Call out culture is where you "call out" an individual publicaly for some trait. They pay a price such as ostracism, whether they deserve it or not. You pay nothing or gain some perceived social points in this virtue signaling.
That's a low risk tactic. And shallow, why not talk to the individual in private?
It's like sacrificing someone else for your cause. Not giving of yourself, taking from someone. Like stealing.
Like a thief would do.
Like in a verse, John 10:10. .. which was handled in The Class.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Has a determination been made? Asset or liability? And on whose balance sheet would it be placed?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
First get "to whom" correct.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
All the bull$hit is exhausting. Like a sharp edge being rubbed down repeatedly to dullness. Like the mind of a poor child taught up in TWI - dulled, blunted, full of BS.
To WHOM is the asset or liability attached? And which is it? Asset or liability?
So much BS, who can keep up? I'm not an astute music coordinator. I need someone to rightly divide it for me. It's for my learning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
How do you like your coffee?
Hebrews 4:12
No, really, what's that verse about?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: The Bible is Not God. So a definitive answer wouldn't likely be there.
This post is not Bolshevik, but it originates from Bolshevik. What's the difference?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote:
. Can you be more specific on what the “much deliverance” was?
2. Who are the “much people”?
3. How do YOU KNOW the NUMBER “church people” who – to this day lie in fear of losing their salvation? How did YOU quantify all that? Please elaborate what metrics you used, what surveys you conducted, and what churches these “church people” go to.
It explains itself! Your "infallible doctrine" is that VP was a con artist and nothing else. I do not share that with you. So you call me an idol worshipper. That is your self righteous opinion. You have a lot of those.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
The Bible is treated as a closed book. A dead document. As I have said, new information is not being added. I find that a problem.
There's some history, it appears to me, where folks like Martin Luther were trying to shift authority away from a person, like The Pope, to a book, like at least parts of The Bible, and with good reason. Sort of the internet of its day with advances in the printing press. Get more people involved, be more transparent. I think it could be argued this process in response to real problems took on a life of its own.
There's an absurdity when The Bible becomes more Holy than God. It's like if everything found on the internet were assumed to be true or even real by the reader.
Another poster pointed out the contradictions don't become an issue anymore when we stop making it perfect, and I'd think why not focus more on where they agree? You're less likely to make $#!+ up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: The Bible is treated as a closed book. A dead document. As I have said, new information is not being added. I find that a problem.
In the grace administration, God's people have the same ability to walk by the spirit of God. No need to add anything. Churches don't teach people to walk by the spirit of God. They teach people to judge after the flesh and CALL it spiritual. I know we put up with a lot of that in twi. Not everything Martin Luther taught was rightly divided, but I think of him as one of the good guys. God will certainly sort out who was the real deal and who wasn't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
That's a mighty big brush you're painting with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I'm not following where administrations come from. Is that written somewhere? And what do you mean spirit of God? Is that something you experience?
I think Martin Luther was just trying to get a dialogue going. He was trying to point out issues any sane person could understand as a problem, and he wanted the right people to fix them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Johniam’s words in bold red
1.
Johniam: It explains itself!
T-Bone: Huh?!?! Would you please clarify what is self-explanatory
~ ~ ~~
2.
Johniam: Your "infallible doctrine"
T-Bone: “Your” = a determiner to indicate belonging to or associated with the person or people that the speaker is addressing…I’m flattered, but I’m not the one who came up with the idea of challenging someone who makes outlandish or peculiar claims by simply asking them to be more specific and qualify or quantify to show how they can HONESTLY make an assertion of a truth or fact...folks have being doing that for a looooooong time...by philosophers of old, by attorneys in court rooms, by governments, by statisticians, by psychologists, sociologists, fact-checkers, etc.
”infallible” = incapable of making mistakes or being wrong…”doctrine” = belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group…I don’t assume my perceptions regarding wierwille are infallible.
Actually, I realize my observations, comments, criticisms and arguments from Scripture, logic, academics, and moral norms ARE debatable…but what is NOT debatable is anything wierwille wrote, said or did – because it’s documented in books, magazines, newsletters, recorded on tape in teachings or witnessed by those present. What IS up for argument is trying to guess at his motivation, analyzing his use of Scripture to justify an action or to surmise any unintended consequences from what he wrote, said or did.
Speaking of infallible doctrine - how about Grease Spotters look at YOUR post - here – that I was commenting on.
~ ~ ~ ~
3.
Johniam: …is that VP was a con artist and nothing else.
T-Bone: I’ve NEVER said wierwille was just a con artist AND NOTHING ELSE. There’s MANY POSTS on Grease Spot where I’ve listed how MULTI-TALENTED he was. He was not JUST a con artist but also an unabashed plagiarist, sexual predator, malignant narcissist, megalomaniac, pathological liar, a poser, a harmful and controlling cult-leader, a voracious wolf in sheep’s clothing, a mean-drunk-Drambuie-guzzler with delusions of grandeur - obviously the man had a lot of issues - I'm just mentioning the ones I know about.
~ ~ ~ ~
4.
Johniam: I do not share that with you.
T-Bone: “share” = have a portion of something with another or others; a part or portion of a larger amount which is divided among a number of people, or to which a number of people contribute. If you’re meaning you don’t share in my opinion – that’s okay…If you’re meaning you can’t relate to my experiences and observations – I can understand that if you were never in the way corps. The honest accounts in any of my posts are NOT propaganda but a personal journal…an honest narrative of my experiences and observations…incidents and things wierwille actually wrote, said and did !!!!!!!!
if you are way corps then YOU WERE THERE TOO and so you KNOW the things that I've said ARE true ! Perhaps you’re still holding on to the persona of wierwille being the man of god because you’ve never caught a glimpse of the real man…off stage…being himself…in case you missed it see point # 3 on wierwille being himself.
~ ~ ~ ~
5.
Johniam: So you call me an idol worshipper.
T-Bone: Huh? Where and when did I call you that? You know, a guilty conscience needs no accuser…are you familiar with the term projecting ? it’s a psych term for an unconscious self-defense mechanism characterized by a person unconsciously attributing their own issues onto someone else as a form of delusion and denial.
~ ~ ~ ~
6.
Johniam: That is your self righteous opinion.
T-Bone: “self-righteous” = having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior. This seems to be a Tu quoque fallacy – which another diehard-wierwille-fan likes to use when a Grease Spotter criticizes wierwille. Rather than coming up with a valid counter-argument to a legitimate issue that was pointed out in something wierwille said or did – the diehard-wierwille-fan attempts to use the tu quoque fallacy to invalidate their opponent's criticisms by addressing them with another criticism. With this kind of argument, you find a way to attack your opponent instead of coming up with a logical reason to argue against the issue they brought up...for instance, in my post I called into question wierwille's doctrine on incorruptible seed - I pointed out that Scripture-wise and concept-wise it is erroneous. But instead of you offering a counterargument using Scripture and mental constructs - you just attack me. that right there shows me you have nothing of substance for a real counterargument...it's not perfect but as an example of arguing with real substance I modestly refer you to the link to my post using Scripture and concepts in point # 8 below...
...in case you forgot - this is the doctrinal forum.
doctrinal - means it's involving, belonging to or concerning a doctrine. see Britannica: doctrine ....I realize this might be difficult for some diehard-wierwille-fans to wrap their minds around - but on Grease Spot sometimes we point out his erroneous doctrines as a separate issue from his hypocrisy and licentious lifestyle...so there's dubious doctrines AND practical error....If any diehard-wierwille-fan wants to lump it altogether as a convoluted-doctrinal-practical-mucky-muck-mess-of-wierwillisms that's okay too...just be honest and specific - we debate one specific issue and you guys don't play dodge-deflect-distract-games of "oh like you're so perfect you should talk" ...this is the doctrinal forum - so are we here to intelligently discuss the concepts and tenets of the Christian faith...or are we here to defend wierwille and give testimonials of his greatness ?
~ ~ ~ ~
7.
Johniam: You have a lot of those
T-Bone: I could say the same thing about diehard-wierwille-fans having a lot of self-righteous opinions…for example – note the sanctimonious wierwille-hype and twisted doctrine presented in this post - here – in case you didn’t click on the link in point # 2.
~ ~ ~ ~
8.
Also, as a side note about the discussion on this thread - I find it chicken-hearted that this is like the 2nd or 3rd time you’ve quoted from my posts WITHOUT using the various quote features of Grease Spot Café’s website...one, if you use the quote feature - it provides a link back to the post that was quoted, so other Grease Spotters can verify you quoted it correctly and to get the full context of original post. As I did in quoting you - it's at the top of this post.
Another feature is that the person you quoted gets notified they were quoted by you – to give them a chance to reply in a timely manner. I could be wrong, but it seems to me it’s a scaredy cat tactic – like you’re not wanting to challenge me in an upfront and straightforward manner. Maybe that goes along with the tu quoque fallacy I mentioned in point # 6 - you attack me instead of the issue...For those interested in the source of your hissy fit they can see my post you quoted from - here ...have a nice day
Edited by T-BoneUnmistakably fallible editing since 2006
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: For those interested in the source of your hissy fit they can see my post you quoted from - here ...have a nice day
I find it intriguing that when I come here so many people obsessively make a point of attacking my credibility. Makes me think I must have something right. If ANYBODY here is having a "hissy fit"......??????
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
It seems your credibility is attacking itself.
Edited by Nathan_JrInvoking the music coordinator is a liability that can only be enjoyed while you can.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I've never liked having only two choices on anything. There is more to God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus the Christ than a bunch of doctrinal debates, more than anything anyone could actually put into words.
"I and my father are one", it doesn't say in purpose at all. Becoming one, as stated in Genesis, was not in purpose either.
Who has the courage to face themselves with no one else to argue with?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Amen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Johniam, don’t flatter yourself. You make it sound like it’s a personal attack…Here you go again with the tu quoque fallacy (the ever accusing "you also" fallacy) for the sake of repetition it’s a type of ad hominem argument in which an accused person turns an allegation back on his or her accuser, thus creating a logical fallacy. If I were you I wouldn’t make an announcement like “Makes me think I must have something right” in a doctrinal discussion – some folks might think you’re smoking crack.
What is credibility? Here’s a few online definitions and synonyms: credibility - the quality of being trusted and believed in; the quality of being convincing or believable; SIMILAR WORDS: trustworthiness, reliability, dependability, integrity.
Now let me ask you some simple questions, Johniam. How or WHY do you think someone is considered credible or trustworthy? Do you think being trustworthy is an entitlement? How does one gain the trust of another? Is trust freely given – or is trust earned? How is trust built between two or more people? Do you think trust is reactive and measurable?
In my humble opinion – and I could be wrong - building trust happens slowly over time, like building up a savings account…here’s an unsettling concept…some folks may assume they’ve amassed quite a savings account of trust – but it could be mostly unreliable counterfeit currency – and there’s a lot of folks out there who are sharp enough not to accept counterfeit stuff…like the pseudo-knowledge that wierwille promoted as truth...many Grease Spotters have survived the disappointment over wierwille’s duplicity and cockamamie teachings. So, it should not be surprising to any diehard-wierwille-fans that there will be pushback in doctrinal discussions anytime a diehard-wierwille-fan will extoll the greatness of wierwille or reference one of his dubious and untenable doctrines.
You referenced my post - this one on June 28th - in your quote - and for the sake of clarity and accuracy I will repost it – with attributions and time-stamps added for clarity and context – so it’s as follows – including your post that I was commenting about; please reread it and I invite you and other Grease Spotters to review it as well – and afterwards please point out to me where I attacked YOU PERSONALLY…When folks protest over Grease Spotters speaking derogatively of wierwille I am tempted to think they take it as a personal slight – as if it was being done deliberately to upset them...
What I fail to understand is the values scale of some folks – I’m not saying they’re wrong...maybe just out of whack – contradictory…
"Values scales are psychological inventories used to determine the values that people endorse in their lives. They facilitate the understanding of both work and general values that individuals uphold. In addition, they assess the importance of each value in people's lives and how the individual strives toward fulfillment through work and other life roles, such as parenting. Most scales have been normalized and can therefore be used cross-culturally for vocational, marketing, and counseling purposes, yielding unbiased results. Psychologists, political scientists, economists, and others interested in defining values, use values scales to determine what people value, and to evaluate the ultimate function or purpose of values." From values scale
what seems contradictory to me is that it appears some folks place a higher value on what wierwille said about the Bible, rather than a passage from the Bible that is antithetical to what wierwille said. The reason I think they place a higher value on what wierwille said is because they dodge, deflect or ignore any incompatible Bible passages or for that matter any opposing ideas that have merit from other Grease Spotters in the discussion.
...I’m not perfect and I may have been a little rough in my wording but my intent was NOT to attack you personally but to challenge your CLAIMS – and in doing so I was giving YOU a CHANCE to EARN my TRUST - if only you would have provided specifics, metrics, surveys, Scriptures and logic to counter my argument and support your claims.
…another thing –actually a really huge thing that seems to have escaped your notice is that the bulk of my post was challenging wierwille’s crazy mish mash of fundamentalism, spiritualism and Gnosticism tied up in his teaching on “incorruptible seed”.
And to overstate the obvious – I used an ADULT approach to challenge you – I disputed wierwille’s literal interpretation of I Peter 1:23 “incorruptible seed” by referencing the immediate context and a remoter context of Matthew 13 on the Sower and the seed to show that “incorruptible seed” is more likely referring to the word of God, I further argued support to my position from concepts, logic and a reference to a reputable commentary on I Peter 1:23……anyway here it is in between the green asterisks:
* * * * * *
On 6/22/2022 at 9:21 AM, johniam said:
quote: If any still believe VPW is a man of God, enjoy it while you can.
VPW is DEAD! 37 yrs and counting.
I believe he had a one of a kind ministry. Back in 1980 or so, the coordinator of the music group I was in said that VP was the 7th "THE man of God" and that this was very significant. I never heard that same message from anybody else and I'm not sure what it even means, but I do believe that VPs combination of gift ministries was unique, not cookie cutter. Nobody has duplicated the respect and impact he got from his people. LCM acted like he had automatically earned that respect, but he did not.
Chris Geer doesn't try to be the MOGFODAT; he just brokers classes and lets local leadership work without interference. He openly disagrees with more than 15 points of VPs doctrine. The fellowship I attend is very non invasive compared to twi even back in the "good old days".
As for VP, I think his teaching of incorruptible seed brought much deliverance to much people. Many church people to this day live in fear that their salvation could be 'foreclosed upon' at any time. Nice to know that isn't true. King David is the only person in the bible who is actually called a man after God's own heart, yet when he did what he did to Uriah the Hittite, the bible says the thing David did had displeased the Lord.
So it's possible to be a man after God's own heart and still have the capacity to displease the Lord. Same for us. (I assume most of you believe some of the things VP did displeased God) We can be sons of God and still displease the Lord. We're still born of incorruptible seed, we'll still be rewarded at the gathering together, same for VP.
VPs ministry changed my life. From my first twig to the present day. I will definitely enjoy that while I can.
= = = == =
T-Bone Tuesday June 28th, 2022 12:35 AM:
Your statements in bold red
I believe he had a one of a kind ministry. Back in 1980 or so, the coordinator of the music group I was in said that VP was the 7th "THE man of God" and that this was very significant.
in case you missed it – we tackled this dubious statement in the About the Way forum > here > Who were the supposed 7 "THE Man of Gods? ...care to join in the fun?
As for VP, I think his teaching of incorruptible seed brought much deliverance to much people. Many church people to this day live in fear that their salvation could be 'foreclosed upon' at any time. Nice to know that isn't true…
I have lots of questions on your statements:
1. Can you be more specific on what the “much deliverance” was?
2. Who are the “much people”?
3. How do YOU KNOW the NUMBER “church people” who – to this day lie in fear of losing their salvation? How did YOU quantify all that? Please elaborate what metrics you used, what surveys you conducted, and what churches these “church people” go to.
4. The internet definition of foreclosed is to take possession of a mortgaged property as a result of the mortgagor's failure to keep up their mortgage payments; to take away someone's power of redeeming (a mortgage) and take possession of the mortgaged property. How does that relate to salvation? I understand you’re speaking metaphorically – talking about salvation in a way that is not physically or financially applicable. But can you explain how fear of one’s salvation being foreclosed resembles repossession of something when a buyer defaults on payments? I’m not trying to be facetious – but didn’t Jesus Christ pay the price for our salvation?
Or do you consider all what Jesus Christ did as only a down payment made for a salvation we’re buying on credit? Sounds confusing and trivializes all that Christ accomplished. Is that something you heard wierwille say or did you come up with that inappropriate metaphor all on your o wn?
5. Nice to know that isn't true. What isn’t true? YOUR mischaracterization of salvation?
6. incorruptible seed… Do you interpret that as a LITERAL seed? If so, you’re following the wooden interpretation of wierwille. He made it out like it was actually a spiritual seed.
But that is erroneous – for in the immediate context – the SAME verse even – it is a reference to the word of God. “For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God” (NIV)
I’m tempted to think wierwille would get his hodge podge of ideologies mixed up - and his “ signature intuition” would shift gears from fundamentalism to spiritualism to Gnosticism in no particular order.
Gnosticism has the idea spirit is spirit and flesh is flesh and never the twain shall meet. Gnosticism invites you to transcend to a higher plane through special knowledge.
A key concept of Spiritualism is that there is more to life than what meets the senses - wierwille’s demonology is based on his speculations of the unseen world. Spiritualism is viewed as the bridge between the spiritual realm and our physical world.
competing ideologies of fundamental ism, Gnosticism and spiritualism probably confused the hell out of wierwille in trying to formulate a coherent thought - so maybe his signature intuition i.e., whatever felt right - just cobbled it all together. Incorruptible seed from the spirt realm crosses over into a human body.
The few commentaries I’ve read on I Peter 1:23 don’t even try to explain it as a literal second birth but as a beginning of a life destined for eternity.
the Greek text of I Peter 1:23 indicates that the preposition “by” in I Peter 1:23 “by the word of God” is “dia” in the Greek Strong’s # 1223 and means through, on account of, because of…The new birth comes about through the direct action of the Holy Spirit (see Titus 3:5 ) but as indicated in I Peter 1:23 the word of God also plays an important role…
Peter’s reference to the seed probably harkens back to the parable of the Sower and the seed in Matthew 13: 1- 23 …which seems to be more about the ground than the Sower in that Jesus is explaining the different reactions to hearing the word. It’s obvious in the parable that the differences lie in HOW people respond to the word – the distinctions are made by the differences in quantity of crop yield or even crop loss.
The seed sown in all the soil types is the same – it’s the word of God…so WHY do YOU interpret the incorruptible seed of I Peter 1:23 as a literal seed? The context is obviously the word of God – as is the seed of Matthew 13. Did the Sower in Matthew 13 literally tear up little pieces of Old Testament scrolls and plant them in the ground?
As Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers says of “incorruptible seed” …”That is, not of the seed of Abraham, but of the seed of God. This is the argument: “You must learn not to be selfish, or arrogant, as being of the chosen race, but to have a true brotherly feeling and earnest love for the Gentile converts, and for those who, like St. Paul, are specially working for the Gentiles, because your inheritance of the promised ‘salvation’ is grounded, not on your Abrahamic descent, but on your spiritual regeneration, in which matter the Gentile converts are your equals.” That this was the doctrine of St. Peter is certain from his speech at the Council of Jerusalem, “God put no difference between us and them, having purified their hearts by faith;” and again, “It is only through the favour of the Lord Jesus that we hope to be saved, in precisely the same manner as they” (Acts 15:9; Acts 15:11). (Comp., for the argument, 1John 5:1.)
By the word of God.—“Seed,” in the beginning of the clause, is more literally the act of sowing, or engendering, which sowing is carried on “through the living and abiding word of God,” this “word of God” being the actual seed sown.
The “seed” of all existence is the spoken Word of God, the expressed will and meaning of creative thought (Psalm 33:6); and so here, even when spoken mediately, through the lips of men (as explained in 1Peter 1:25), it is that which begets men afresh. God creates afresh, though men speak the creative word for Him, just as “it is He that hath made us,” although He does so through natural laws and human powers.
The “Word of God” here is, no doubt, the preaching of the gospel, but especially, as it would seem, the preaching of the Resurrection (1Peter 1:3), or of the sufferings and glories of Messiah (1Peter 1:12), the “truth” of the last verse. The part taken by “the Word” in the sacrament of regeneration may be seen again in Ephesians 5:26 and James 1:18; in connection with the other sacrament we may also refer to John 6:63.
“Incorruptible” (i.e., imperishable; see 1Peter 1:4; 1Peter 1:18) finds a more energetic paraphrase here in “living and abiding” (the words “for ever” not being part of the true text). The former epithet is a favourite with St. Peter (1Peter 1:3, 1Peter 2:4-5), and is perhaps borrowed from this place by the author to the Hebrews, in connection with the “word of God” (Hebrews 4:12). The epithets serve to prepare the way for the quotation.”
end of excerpt from Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
Edited June 28 by T-Bone
Undoubtedly the horrendous typos were born again of incorrigible word-seeds
* * * * * *
End of quoting my post from June 28th
= = = = =
I’m sorry if I’ve offended you personally – and perhaps “hissy fit” was a little harsh – but I’ll leave you with some online info on the term “hissy fit” – in my defense I will say that your response to my June 28th post seemed to be from anger and filled with unjustified criticism and juvenile off-the-wall remarks – and I thought my use of the term was fitting…and you know what they say, “if the hissy fit fits…” well anyway below are some online definitions of “hissy fit”:
throw a hissy fit
meaning
To throw a tantrum.
An outburst.
A temperamental explosion.
To show that one is disturbed and angry.
Example Sentences:
A hissy fit is not justified just to get someone to listen to you. You have to be more mature than that.
She needs to discipline her children, they can’t just throw a hissy fit every time they cross the ice cream parlour.
I threw a hissy fit when I learned that he is not going to come for the event even after promising to do so.
No one should be allowed to throw hissy fits for such trivial things.
The reason does not matter when you embarrass me in pubic by throwing hissy fits.
The media these days have no real news to report so paparazzi follow celebrities around until they throw a hissy fit at them.
Origin
The origination of the phrase is speculated to be either from the term hysterical or the spluttering and hissing sound that an outburst causes. The literary origin comes from the 1934 US based publication titled ‘American Speech’ which explained the concept. The best and most popular usage is to describe the tantrums that celebrities throw which is speculated to have been first used by the Daily Mirror in 2004 towards the celebrity Sir Elton John.
From: The Idioms: hissy fit
And from the Urban Dictionary:
noun. A sudden outburst of temper, often used to describe female anger at something trivial. Originally regional from American South. Thought to originate from contraction of "hysterical fit."
She threw a hissy fit when she found out the last pair of shoes had been sold.
Urban Dictionary: hissy fit
Last one is a visual aid:
Ellie Mae throwing a hissy fit on the way home from work
= = = = =
If it's any consolation to you, Johniam or even strictly in the spirit of fairness, you can charge me with having a hissy fit in this and any other post of mine. I'm an adult - I can take it...I'll probably agree with you whether or not I think I deserve it...I am a recovering a$$-hole with smart-a$$ tendencies so keep that in mind.
So have at it all you want with attacking me over some imagined slights – but can you PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE occasionally inject a substantial portion of intelligent rebuttals to any of the SPECIFIC wierwille-ideology criticisms I have expressed on this thread…otherwise your cutting remarks will only continue to “make me think I must have something right” in my criticism of wierwille’s erroneous doctrine for you to dodge, deflect, avoid, and ignore the legitimate and detailed examination and assessment I have offered on this thread…
One of my superpowers is that I am invulnerable to name-calling – and so I should warn you if you continue to pursue the path of a knock-down-drag-out-fight-by-name-calling-or-any-other-logical fallacy-brouhaha-in-order-to-dodge-deflect-avoid-and ignore-legitimate-detailed-examination-and-assessment-of-wierwille’s erroneous doctrines I have offered, you will more often than not shoot yourself in the foot...but I guess some folks enjoy the law of reversed efforts.
The French psychologist, Émile Coué, defined the law of reversed effort and said the law of reversed effort exists because our conscious mind and our unconscious mind are often in conflict, and the unconscious mind wins. It’s what Alan Watts referred to as the Backwards Law. According to the law of reversed effort, when desire and imagination are in conflict, the imagination always wins. This law exists because our conscious mind and our unconscious mind are often in conflict, and the unconscious mind wins. Why? Because it is our protector and it is rarely rational. When the imagination and will power are in conflict, are antagonistic, it is always the imagination which wins, without any exception from: Life Hack.org: law of reversed effort
As Captain America would say "I can do this all day". So don't think you wallowing in the throes of reversed efforts will discourage me from continuing to sort out the nonsense and fluff from the actual substance of this thread...it's a marathon, Dude. I consider it a personal challenge so see if my repetitive verbosity will outlast your dodge-and-deflect nonsense.
...I am serious about wanting to have an intelligent conversation! I’ll make it real simple for you: quote one point from my June 28th post where I argued that “incorruptible seed” was not to be taken literally as wierwille taught - and then state WHY you disagree with my position? What are the reason/reasons why you think “incorruptible seed “ in I Pet. 1:23 is definitely NOT a reference to the word of God?
Oh and let me reveal some other superpowers…I ain’t super-smart – just super-curious…I ain’t super-narrowminded – just a super-fan of the Socratic method and love to unpack an idea or a belief of mine and that of others…I’m not a super-grammarian – just a super-verbose poster trying to be a gooder articulator of my thoughtness.
till we meet again
Edited by T-Bonemy editor likes to use the wrong misnomer…one day I challenged him to use the right misnomer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
I want to add something to the first post on this thread. It could be inserted right after the sentence in which I use the phrase 'there are many antichrists'.
Beginning in 1976, 4 movies were made entitled 'The Omen'. These movies are about the antichrist. The 4th one was made late 80s/ early 90s and in that one, the antichrist is a girl. There are scenes in that movie that, to me, are downright comical.
In at least one of these movies, the idea is put forth that the antichrist will be some kind of genetic wonder, who has the right combination of genes to the most evil person...EVER!!! This is horse crap.
The devil doesn't know exactly when Christ is coming back. The 2nd coming of Christ begins with the gathering together. The entire body of Christ, dead and living will be gathered together and taken from the earth. When that happens, all spiritual light will be gone, and only then can darkness make itself manifest to the degree that there will be an antichrist. The devil doesn't know when that's going to happen, so he has to have somebody ready to step in and assume that position at ALL TIMES. It will be a position of opportunity.
That's why there have to be many antichrists, not just one with a genetic pedigree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Interesting in that I cover this with basics and detail in two chapters of my biblical teaching book that are the following:
Chapter 13: When Will the Dead Be Made Alive Through Jesus Christ?
Chapter 15: End Times with the Judgement of Humanity Through Jesus Christ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'm shocked I have to point this out.
Ah, the movies/books of the series "The Omen" are not Canon, nor Scripture. The Bible has nothing to do with their FICTIONAL accounts. It is popular for people to speak of "the antichrist"- as if there will be a single person to whom that applies, who will appear in the future, and be the supreme earthly opponent to God Almighty. In the movie/book series, Jesus had to come back as a baby once again. In Acts 1, we're told very clearly he's not going to return like that, he's going to return the same way he left- translocating as an adult, between Earth and Heaven (or, in the future, from Heaven to Earth.
Acts 1:9-11
And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
What does the Bible say on the subject of Anti-Christ? It's all written in I John 2, so it's not hard to search for it. That's the only place in the Bible where that word(s) is used. It's used exactly TWICE.
I John 2: 15-23 (KJV)
Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father:
According to I John 2, "antichrist" isn't a singular person to lead all sinners, "anti-christ" is anyone who is anti- Jesus Christ. Those who deny that Jesus was/is The Christ are "anti-christ" and deny both father and son.
Don't take Hollywood's word on who is "anti-Christ."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Regarding religious or political people who want praise and honor from humanity instead of being service oriented to humanity like Jesus Christ was and is. The word "beast" is figuratively used a number of times in the book of Daniel and especially many times in the book of Revelation. For the New King James Version the word "beast" is used 37 times.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
The devil does not know when Christ is coming back – but WHY THE antichrist hasn’t stepped up to the plate yet is because of “the restrainer” mentioned in II Thessalonians 2:6,7 NKJV
And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time.
For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way.
On page 2163 of The NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible says many attempts have been made to solve the riddle of the restrainer – to identify the thing and person that Paul refers to in both impersonal v.6 and personal v.7:
1. The Roman Empire and the Roman emperor
2. The principle of law and order and the political leaders in general
3. The proclamation of the gospel and Paul.
4. The presence of the church and the Holy Spirit
5. The power of evil and Satan
6. The false prophecy and the false prophet
7. The activity and person of the archangel Michael.
Personally, I discount points 5 & 6 – because what I know of Scripture ( Mark 3: 22-27 ) the devil and his minions would not frustrate or sabotage their own diabolical plans. I was surprised to read of point 7 – the archangel Michael’s restraining effort – but The NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible says that though it’s not widely held it is strongly supported by allusions to Daniel chapters 10 - 12 where Michael, the patron angel of God’s people is said to withstand (or restrain) the evil angels. I lean toward point 4 – the church and the Holy Spirit – but I put more stock in it being primarily the Holy Spirit – because of the syntax of II Thess. 2:7 and that it must ultimately be divinely supernatural – i.e., God’s power that holds back Satan so that the Antichrist would only be revealed at God’s appointed time and no sooner.
The word taken is genetai in the Greek text ( see Greek text of II Thessalonians 2:7 and Greek word genetai from Strong’s # 1096 ) and the verb form means the subject - the restrainer - is doing the action. According to D. E. Hiebert on page 207 of his The Thessalonian Epistles a Commentary that reflects a voluntary act on the part of the restrainer. And on page 421 of R.C.H. Lenski's Commentary on the New Testament Interpretation of St Paul's Epistle to Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus and Philemon , Lenski says it is better read as “to get out of the way”. In other words, the Holy Spirit is going to VOLUNTARILY move out of the way – He is NOT going to be taken out of the way. This idea of it being “the restrainer’s” OWN CHOICE …WITHOUT BEING ASKED…ON ONE’S OWN INITIATIVE is reflected in the New Living Translation :
II Thessalonians 2:7 “For this lawlessness is already at work secretly, and it will remain secret until the one who is holding it back steps out of the way.”
In summary, The Antichrist (whoever that will be) cannot step up to the plate yet - though many have been chomping at the bit to do so… …ignorance of Christ’s timetable or lack of opportunity is not what’s stopping them… it’s BECAUSE of divine intervention - HOWEVER GOD does that !
Edited by T-BoneThe lawlessness of typos is already at work, and it will continue to secretly gunk up the words until my editor gets back from his coffee break
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.