It is the devil that brings the consequences, and not God, our Father.
Not according to the Bible!
In the very incident I quoted in my previous post about consequences in I Chronicles. This reads almost like a police incident report in which the narrative gives details surrounding the incident, the victims, the witnesses and main actors and their roles – I highlighted in bold redthe narrative phrases that indicate God or an agent of God acting on God’s behalfgave David a choice of consequences and/or executed those consequences:
The Lord said to Gad, David’s seer, “Go and tell David, ‘This is what the Lord says: I am giving you three options. Choose one of them for me to carry out against you.’” So Gad went to David and said to him, “This is what the Lord says: ‘Take your choice: three years of famine, three months of being swept away before your enemies, with their swords overtaking you, or three days of the sword of the Lord—days of plague in the land, with the angel of the Lord ravaging every part of Israel.’ Now then, decide how I should answer the one who sent me.” David said to Gad, “I am in deep distress. Let me fall into the hands of the Lord, for his mercy is very great; but do not let me fall into human hands.” So the Lord sent a plague on Israel, and seventy thousand men of Israel fell dead. And God sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem. But as the angel was doing so, the Lord saw it and relented concerning the disaster and said to the angel who was destroying the people, “Enough! Withdraw your hand.” The angel of the Lord was then standing at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. David looked up and saw the angel of the Lord standing between heaven and earth, with a drawn sword in his hand extended over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders, clothed in sackcloth, fell facedown. David said to God, “Was it not I who ordered the fighting men to be counted? I, the shepherd, have sinned and done wrong. These are but sheep. What have they done? Lord my God, let your hand fall on me and my family, but do not let this plague remain on your people.”I Chronicles 21: 9 -17
Conclusion: God is sovereign – it is His prerogative as Lord of the cosmos to set up laws and rules for enforcement as He sees fit…fyi that’s the real backstory behindRomans 13which wierwille twisted around to mean the gift ministries are the higher powers!How convenient for a plagiarizing, lying, thieving, Drambuie-drinking sexual predator who happened to be an ordained minister…
whereas because we were created as social beings, God ordained the institution of government. Not that God endorses any particular form of government – but perhaps it’s out of His original mandate that gave us freedom of will and some responsibility - God is a BIG risktaker I'll give Him that.
That’s all for now- more ontruth or consequencesto follow
It is the devil that brings the consequences, and not God, our Father.
I get so tired of hearing this nonsense. Answer me this....when God brings his final justice to punish satan...will it be the devil that brings the vengance?
Just to bring this back a bit to the "absent Christ" - Jesus is our advocate, our mediator, before God. If God does not bring consequences, why would we need an advocate and mediator before God?
Jesus is Our Advocate with the Father 1 John 2:1, NIVMy dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father — Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.
Jesus is Our Intercessor Romans 8:34b, ESVChrist Jesus… is at the right hand of God…. interceding for us. Hebrews 7:24-25, NIVbut because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
Jesus is Our Mediator 1 Timothy 2:5, NLT…there is only one God, and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity… Christ Jesus.
Or is Jesus so busy mediating that he doesn't have time to be with us in the present?
Didn't Paul say he got his gospel directly from the Lord, Christ Jesus, who had already ascended? Though Paul quoted (sometimes misquoted) the Septuagint, did he ever say that his interpretation of it through research keys replaced Christ?
How can you receive something from an absent source? If Christ was absent when Paul was running the streets, from what or whom did Paul receive his gospel?
How can you receive anything if it isn't available? And how can it be available if it's absent?
You've got to know what's available, how to get it, and what to do with it once you've got it.
Didn't Paul say he got his gospel directly from the Lord, Christ Jesus, who had already ascended? Though Paul quoted (sometimes misquoted) the Septuagint, did he ever say that his interpretation of it through research keys replaced Christ?
How can you receive something from an absent source? If Christ was absent when Paul was running the streets, from what or whom did Paul receive his gospel?
How can you receive anything if it isn't available? And how can it be available if it's absent?
You've got to know what's available, how to get it, and what to do with it once you've got it.
THIS ^^^^^
It was the absent Christ garbage that blinded me to the living Christ!
I see Mike is trying to compare St. Vic to the apostle Paul. The first question I'd ask would be, did Paul change after the road to Damascus? Or did he continue killing Christians? Did St. Vic change after the snow on the gas pumps event?
As far as asking for forgiveness and grace, I see Mike has forgotten Romans 6:1:
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
I see Mike is trying to compare St. Vic to the apostle Paul. The first question I'd ask would be, did Paul change after the road to Damascus? Or did he continue killing Christians? Did St. Vic change after the snow on the gas pumps event?
As far as asking for forgiveness and grace, I see Mike has forgotten Romans 6:1:
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Paul's answer: God forbid!
I think Mike's point is it doesn't matter if victor changed because he got a free pass.
I'm sure you know, there was never any snow on the gas pumps.
it’s out of His original mandate that gave us freedom of will and some responsibility - God is a BIG risktaker I'll give Him that.
Revelation 22:14-15
14 "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.(NIV®)
Just like dogs have been trained more and more of humanity will be trained to follow Jesus Christ with his mindset. Especially in the new heaven and earth as explained in Revelation chapters 21 and 22, which are the last two chapters in the bible. I scripturally teach about this in the last chapter of the book Our Loving Savior Jesus Christ.The above verses are quoted from Jesus Christ with revelation to John the writer of the book of Revelation.
One of the most wonderful passages that teaches this is 1 Cor Chapter 3, but the translators were so freaked out by God’s graciousness, that they BENT the translation towards God being a harsh punisher. No one taught them the idiom of permission, I guess.
I’m curious . How did you know the translators were so freaked out? Were you there?
I am so glad that the GSC requirement for forgiveness and cleansing (repenting) is NOT the way God forgives.
Wonder if this is a sign of cognitive dissonance - one imagines they are in a place that makes them feel calm and happy because they don’t know how - or don’t want to deal with a bad situation.
I have no idea if and when or how many times VPW repented, and anyone here who says they do know, or know to the contrary, God’s Word calls a liar. ONLY God knows a man’s heart.
Aren’t you glad? I am. All of us have really stinky old-man natures, and I am glad that only an “educated guess” can be made when we try to do heart judgement liked that.
It is always important to accurately rate our surety for each and every matter we need to juggle in life. We sometimes NEED to make as educated a guess on a person’s heart when we are deciding how much time to spend with them and work with them. But we also need to keep in mind that it’s only a guess, and only God knows who has repented, and when.
Suppose VPW did do a public, notarized repenting with tears and color video? Would
In Luke 3 John said to bear fruit worthy of repentance - meaning if one has SINCERELY repented - their reformed behavior is proof of that
Yes, repenting is important.
Yes, there are consequences.
But they really come from the devil,
because God is light and in Him
is no darkness, no none at all.
That’s odd - because in Deuteronomy and Hebrews say God is a consuming fire and to fear His wrath …well I guess a consuming fire would give off a lot of light.
I am so glad that the GSC requirement for forgiveness and cleansing (repenting) is NOT the way God forgives.
Actually, the GSC requirement is common in world religions.
I was not aware that GSC has an official policy on forgiveness
also I think you’re putting the cart before the horse - in your mischaracterization - saying repenting is not the way God forgives. God forgives ! Repentance has to do with us changing our behavior after being forgiven.
on a side note I think religions, societies, cultures, governments have some sense of what’s right and wrong. It’s called social norms. That will be spelled out in penal codes, rules, laws, policies etc.
That’s odd - because in Deuteronomy and Hebrews say God is a consuming fire and to fear His wrath …well I guess a consuming fire would give off a lot of light.
Has there ever been a discussion of the “idiom of permission” here at GreaseSpot?
Is there a different crew in the Doctrinal Dungeon? Maybe they would know better.
I will be checking myself, but I thought I'd mention it here because it can be described in different ways, like "Viewpoints - God's and Mans" does. I don't think the phrase “idiom of permission” comes up there, but it is similar. I’m obviously rusty on it, so I plan a re-fresh.
T-Bone, with all your thoroughness, you seemed to miss mentioning the idiom of permission. Is that because you don’t know it well, like me? By “know” I mean “able to call up most of the details from memory.”
One of the most interesting places where this idiom is displayed is in the Book of Job. It has both the human (sans spirit) 5-senses perspective, where Job (and others I think) say things like “The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.” But then it also has the spiritual perspective, where it is plain that it was the devil that trashed Job’s family and possessions, and God was reluctantly allowing (permission) this destruction. But notice that God sternly drew the line at Job’s life. He protected Job from the consequences of his negative believing as best He could.”
The idiom of permission started because before Pentecost most of the people, most of the time who heard or read the written Word had only body and soul, sans spirit. God had things written with figures of speech like this, and abbreviations, and condescensions, so that super important parts of life were super clear to natural-man humans and children. And which god among lots of available gods a child chose was very important in their whole education system. Everything was set up for children to grow up accepting the true God, including the language idioms.
The spiritual “mechanics” of what happened in Job during the heaven scenes was way over the head of children and adults with no spirit. They had to have a more simple algorithm to walk with the true God: FEAR of the Lord, when they were out of fellowship. The algorithm with the idiom of permission strongly resembled a parent punishing them when they were bad, and blessing them when they were good.
I’m sure there is a Church Lady debunking of this idiom somewhere without thoroughly explaining it, but I am looking for a thorough explanation of it. Maybe Bullinger?
*/*/*/*
LoL! As usual, this discussion has degenerated to resemble a political battle, with lots of memes on TV deliberately mis-characterizing the opponent’s position.
Has there ever been a discussion of the “idiom of permission” here at GreaseSpot?
Is there a different crew in the Doctrinal Dungeon? Maybe they would know better.
I will be checking myself, but I thought I'd mention it here because it can be described in different ways, like "Viewpoints - God's and Mans" does. I don't think the phrase “idiom of permission” comes up there, but it is similar. I’m obviously rusty on it, so I plan a re-fresh.
T-Bone, with all your thoroughness, you seemed to miss mentioning the idiom of permission. Is that because you don’t know it well, like me? By “know” I mean “able to call up most of the details from memory.”
No - I didn't miss mentioning the idiom of permission - I'm ignoring your attempts to sidestep the debate.
merely using Google and not GSC's search feature I found the doctrinal thread on Grease Spot:
two significant posts on that thread: WordWolf's post on substituting the passive tense with an active tense is what it is, and in this SPECIFIC case, it means turning PERMISSION into INITIATION. The average person who understands the figure would never recognize it as "idiom of permission." ( here ) and Steve Lortz's post on the didactic poetry of Job and Steve said he would give wierwille an F for explaining in collateral on human suffering why bad things happen to good people ( here )
Also I have The Jewish Study Bible: Featuring The Jewish Publication Society TANAKH Translation Translation and on page 1499 and following of the introductory notes on Job make the same point as WordWolf – but in a much more detailed way of course since this study Bible reflects the familiarity of the Hebrew Culture - The Jewish Publication Society
The spiritual “mechanics” of what happened in Job during the heaven scenes was way over the head of children and adults with no spirit. They had to have a more simple algorithm to walk with the true God: FEAR of the Lord, when they were out of fellowship. The algorithm with the idiom of permission strongly resembled a parent punishing them when they were bad, and blessing them when they were good.
I’m sure there is a Church Lady debunking of this idiom somewhere without thoroughly explaining it, but I am looking for a thorough explanation of it. Maybe Bullinger?
Spiritualism is one of the aberrant smoke-and-mirrors doctrines in wierwille’s screwy ideology. Followers flocked to wierwille’s Advanced Class to hear the latest political and spiritual sounding conspiracies. If wierwille said it – it must be true. There’s an explanation for why that corps woman accused him of sexual molestation – she’s possessed! The devil is really trying to attack his ministry and cause division in the body.
ya know, referencing Bullinger maybe isn't the best strategy...wierwille the copy-boy couldn't think for himself and just repeated Bullinger's errors and in some cases made them even worse.
LoL! As usual, this discussion has degenerated to resemble a political battle, with lots of memes on TV deliberately mis-characterizing the opponent’s position.
Said by the Grease Spotter who appears to do that for a living here
Also I have The Jewish Study Bible: Featuring The Jewish Publication Society TANAKH Translation Translation and on page 1499 and following of the introductory notes on Job make the same point as WordWolf – but in a much more detailed way of course since this study Bible reflects the familiarity of the Hebrew Culture - The Jewish Publication Society
What a cool book! Thanks, T-Bone!
Do the authors actually use the term "idiom of permission," or is that a Bullinger invention? And does it apply to EVERY (without distinction or exception) action of God in the Hebrew Bible? Does it apply to the Hebrew only? Or also the Greek? According to the authors, should all verbs relating to God be read through this lens? Or only when one needs to make a passage fit a theological proposition?
I understand what the idiom of permission means? But I'm unclear as to whenitapplies, and to which verbs. It's either always (without exception or distinction) or sometimes. Which?
Do the authors actually use the term "idiom of permission," or is that a Bullinger invention? And does it apply to EVERY (without distinction or exception) action of God in the Hebrew Bible? Does it apply to the Hebrew only? Or also the Greek? According to the authors, should all verbs relating to God be read through this lens? Or only when one needs to make a passage fit a theological proposition?
I understand what the idiom of permission means? But I'm unclear as to whenitapplies, and to which verbs. It's either always (without exception or distinction) or sometimes. Which?
I didn’t find a reference to “the idiom of permission”…that’s not to say it’s not used in this Jewish Study Bible – there’s no dictionary or cross reference of idioms in the back-I didn’t find it in the side notes of any passages of Job – doesn’t mean it’s not in there – might mean I didn’t look hard enough. Not sure if Bullinger coined the term.
However, for what it’s worth – my own thoughts on the matter (only worth 2 cents) there is a big difference in the thoughtful, culturallyimmersed theology of the ancient Hebrews and the dogmatic tendencies of Bullinger. In my opinion ancient Hebrew religious thought has a lot more humility and honesty – in that it acknowledges there’s a lot we as human beings don’t know.
Bullinger came up with or subscribed to some screwy stuff: 4 crucified with Jesus, ultra-dispensationalism, flat-Earth, the inerrancy of the Bible, astrology astronomyin Scripture, dubious definitions in his Greek lexicon, and best I can tell he seemed to think God dictated a perfect book that can be dissected…analyzed…diagrammed…and correctly understood with a mathematical exactness and scientific precision…voila the essence of fundamentalism!
“I understand what the idiom of permission means? But I'm unclear as to when it applies, and to which verbs. It's either always (without exception or distinction) or sometimes. Which?”- yeah…well… that’s the problem with dogmatism and folks like Bullinger and wierwille who come up with some dubious rules. Could it be the rule, theory or whatever is flawed? ERMAHGERD !
One of the opening remarks in the Jewish Bible on the book of Job mentions what gives the book of Job such a sense of profundity and makes it the most theologically difficult is its inconclusive conclusion: There is no way of understanding the meaning of suffering. That is, in the Lord’s argument, the reasons for suffering – if there are any – are simple beyond human comprehension.(from page 1500)
Just to bring this back a bit to the "absent Christ" - Jesus is our advocate, our mediator, before God. If God does not bring consequences, why would we need an advocate and mediator before God?
Jesus is Our Advocate with the Father 1 John 2:1, NIVMy dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father — Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.
Jesus is Our Intercessor Romans 8:34b, ESVChrist Jesus… is at the right hand of God…. interceding for us. Hebrews 7:24-25, NIVbut because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
Jesus is Our Mediator 1 Timothy 2:5, NLT…there is only one God, and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity… Christ Jesus.
Or is Jesus so busy mediating that he doesn't have time to be with us in the present?
I think it may be (remember I am inexperienced with the idiom of permission) that Jesus being our mediator and "defense lawyer" sounds like it fits right in with that figure of speech.
For one thing, the advocate role of the man Christ Jesus, matches the courtroom scenery in the opening of Job, where the figure of permission is exposed.
Twinky, I think you discovered the cue to start thinking "figures of speech" which is something doesn't fit, it is not true to fact.
So if his advocacy is figurative, then that figure is there to help us in our believing with something solid to hold on that is easy to picture. We need that when we first begin believing God's Word. As we grow, we can graduate from the advocate figure of speech, to the "Christ in you, the hope of glory" which is another figure of speech. Christ in you really means God's permanent and pure connection in you that makes you belong to God and not the devil any more.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
427
271
423
257
Popular Days
Feb 14
142
Oct 13
105
Jan 18
101
Oct 8
88
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 427 posts
T-Bone 271 posts
OldSkool 423 posts
Nathan_Jr 257 posts
Popular Days
Feb 14 2023
142 posts
Oct 13 2022
105 posts
Jan 18 2023
101 posts
Oct 8 2022
88 posts
Popular Posts
OldSkool
First off, Biblically speaking, Christ has never been absent...that doctrine does not come close to occuring anywhere in the Bible. Yet the way international teaches the word of God takes the place of
Bolshevik
Mike's apparent anger toward Christ and emphasis on obedience . . . that's Wayworld . . . that's the annihilation of the individual
waysider
Soooo...He used ONE verse from the Amplified Bible, HALF a chapter from the New English Bible and required PFAL '77 students to get some version from the 1800's that has a name so unremarkable you can
Posted Images
T-Bone
Not according to the Bible!
In the very incident I quoted in my previous post about consequences in I Chronicles. This reads almost like a police incident report in which the narrative gives details surrounding the incident, the victims, the witnesses and main actors and their roles – I highlighted in bold red the narrative phrases that indicate God or an agent of God acting on God’s behalf gave David a choice of consequences and/or executed those consequences:
The Lord said to Gad, David’s seer, “Go and tell David, ‘This is what the Lord says: I am giving you three options. Choose one of them for me to carry out against you.’” So Gad went to David and said to him, “This is what the Lord says: ‘Take your choice: three years of famine, three months of being swept away before your enemies, with their swords overtaking you, or three days of the sword of the Lord—days of plague in the land, with the angel of the Lord ravaging every part of Israel.’ Now then, decide how I should answer the one who sent me.” David said to Gad, “I am in deep distress. Let me fall into the hands of the Lord, for his mercy is very great; but do not let me fall into human hands.” So the Lord sent a plague on Israel, and seventy thousand men of Israel fell dead. And God sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem. But as the angel was doing so, the Lord saw it and relented concerning the disaster and said to the angel who was destroying the people, “Enough! Withdraw your hand.” The angel of the Lord was then standing at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. David looked up and saw the angel of the Lord standing between heaven and earth, with a drawn sword in his hand extended over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders, clothed in sackcloth, fell facedown. David said to God, “Was it not I who ordered the fighting men to be counted? I, the shepherd, have sinned and done wrong. These are but sheep. What have they done? Lord my God, let your hand fall on me and my family, but do not let this plague remain on your people.” I Chronicles 21: 9 -17
Conclusion: God is sovereign – it is His prerogative as Lord of the cosmos to set up laws and rules for enforcement as He sees fit…fyi that’s the real backstory behind Romans 13 which wierwille twisted around to mean the gift ministries are the higher powers! How convenient for a plagiarizing, lying, thieving, Drambuie-drinking sexual predator who happened to be an ordained minister…
whereas because we were created as social beings, God ordained the institution of government. Not that God endorses any particular form of government – but perhaps it’s out of His original mandate that gave us freedom of will and some responsibility - God is a BIG risktaker I'll give Him that.
That’s all for now
- more on truth or consequences to follow
Edited by T-Bonethe risky editor
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I get so tired of hearing this nonsense. Answer me this....when God brings his final justice to punish satan...will it be the devil that brings the vengance?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Just to bring this back a bit to the "absent Christ" - Jesus is our advocate, our mediator, before God. If God does not bring consequences, why would we need an advocate and mediator before God?
Jesus is Our Advocate with the Father
1 John 2:1, NIV My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father — Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.
Jesus is Our Intercessor
Romans 8:34b, ESV Christ Jesus… is at the right hand of God…. interceding for us.
Hebrews 7:24-25, NIV but because Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
Jesus is Our Mediator
1 Timothy 2:5, NLT …there is only one God, and one Mediator who can reconcile God and humanity… Christ Jesus.
Or is Jesus so busy mediating that he doesn't have time to be with us in the present?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Didn't Paul say he got his gospel directly from the Lord, Christ Jesus, who had already ascended? Though Paul quoted (sometimes misquoted) the Septuagint, did he ever say that his interpretation of it through research keys replaced Christ?
How can you receive something from an absent source? If Christ was absent when Paul was running the streets, from what or whom did Paul receive his gospel?
How can you receive anything if it isn't available? And how can it be available if it's absent?
You've got to know what's available, how to get it, and what to do with it once you've got it.
Edited by Nathan_JrGot to...make...it...FIT...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
THIS ^^^^^
It was the absent Christ garbage that blinded me to the living Christ!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Nice to see some things never change.
I see Mike is trying to compare St. Vic to the apostle Paul. The first question I'd ask would be, did Paul change after the road to Damascus? Or did he continue killing Christians? Did St. Vic change after the snow on the gas pumps event?
As far as asking for forgiveness and grace, I see Mike has forgotten Romans 6:1:
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Paul's answer: God forbid!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I think Mike's point is it doesn't matter if victor changed because he got a free pass.
I'm sure you know, there was never any snow on the gas pumps.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Which is why I refered him to Roman 6:1.
Yes, I do. I just stated it that way to save typing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Revelation 22:14-15
14 "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. (NIV®)
Just like dogs have been trained more and more of humanity will be trained to follow Jesus Christ with his mindset. Especially in the new heaven and earth as explained in Revelation chapters 21 and 22, which are the last two chapters in the bible. I scripturally teach about this in the last chapter of the book Our Loving Savior Jesus Christ. The above verses are quoted from Jesus Christ with revelation to John the writer of the book of Revelation.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I’m curious . How did you know the translators were so freaked out? Were you there?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Wonder if this is a sign of cognitive dissonance - one imagines they are in a place that makes them feel calm and happy because they don’t know how - or don’t want to deal with a bad situation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
In Luke 3 John said to bear fruit worthy of repentance - meaning if one has SINCERELY repented - their reformed behavior is proof of that
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
That’s odd - because in Deuteronomy and Hebrews say God is a consuming fire and to fear His wrath …well I guess a consuming fire would give off a lot of light.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
If it’s devoid of authority then there is no need to be responsible
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I was not aware that GSC has an official policy on forgiveness
also I think you’re putting the cart before the horse - in your mischaracterization - saying repenting is not the way God forgives. God forgives ! Repentance has to do with us changing our behavior after being forgiven.
on a side note I think religions, societies, cultures, governments have some sense of what’s right and wrong. It’s called social norms. That will be spelled out in penal codes, rules, laws, policies etc.
Edited by T-BonePutting typos before the editor
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Has there ever been a discussion of the “idiom of permission” here at GreaseSpot?
Is there a different crew in the Doctrinal Dungeon? Maybe they would know better.
I will be checking myself, but I thought I'd mention it here because it can be described in different ways, like "Viewpoints - God's and Mans" does. I don't think the phrase “idiom of permission” comes up there, but it is similar. I’m obviously rusty on it, so I plan a re-fresh.
T-Bone, with all your thoroughness, you seemed to miss mentioning the idiom of permission. Is that because you don’t know it well, like me? By “know” I mean “able to call up most of the details from memory.”
One of the most interesting places where this idiom is displayed is in the Book of Job. It has both the human (sans spirit) 5-senses perspective, where Job (and others I think) say things like “The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.” But then it also has the spiritual perspective, where it is plain that it was the devil that trashed Job’s family and possessions, and God was reluctantly allowing (permission) this destruction. But notice that God sternly drew the line at Job’s life. He protected Job from the consequences of his negative believing as best He could.”
The idiom of permission started because before Pentecost most of the people, most of the time who heard or read the written Word had only body and soul, sans spirit. God had things written with figures of speech like this, and abbreviations, and condescensions, so that super important parts of life were super clear to natural-man humans and children. And which god among lots of available gods a child chose was very important in their whole education system. Everything was set up for children to grow up accepting the true God, including the language idioms.
The spiritual “mechanics” of what happened in Job during the heaven scenes was way over the head of children and adults with no spirit. They had to have a more simple algorithm to walk with the true God: FEAR of the Lord, when they were out of fellowship. The algorithm with the idiom of permission strongly resembled a parent punishing them when they were bad, and blessing them when they were good.
I’m sure there is a Church Lady debunking of this idiom somewhere without thoroughly explaining it, but I am looking for a thorough explanation of it. Maybe Bullinger?
*/*/*/*
LoL! As usual, this discussion has degenerated to resemble a political battle, with lots of memes on TV deliberately mis-characterizing the opponent’s position.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
No - I didn't miss mentioning the idiom of permission - I'm ignoring your attempts to sidestep the debate.
merely using Google and not GSC's search feature I found the doctrinal thread on Grease Spot:
Grease Spot doctrinal idiom of permission
two significant posts on that thread: WordWolf's post on substituting the passive tense with an active tense is what it is, and in this SPECIFIC case, it means turning PERMISSION into INITIATION. The average person who understands the figure would never recognize it as "idiom of permission." ( here ) and Steve Lortz's post on the didactic poetry of Job and Steve said he would give wierwille an F for explaining in collateral on human suffering why bad things happen to good people ( here )
Also I have The Jewish Study Bible: Featuring The Jewish Publication Society TANAKH Translation Translation and on page 1499 and following of the introductory notes on Job make the same point as WordWolf – but in a much more detailed way of course since this study Bible reflects the familiarity of the Hebrew Culture - The Jewish Publication Society
check it out Mike that's all for now
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Spiritualism is one of the aberrant smoke-and-mirrors doctrines in wierwille’s screwy ideology. Followers flocked to wierwille’s Advanced Class to hear the latest political and spiritual sounding conspiracies. If wierwille said it – it must be true. There’s an explanation for why that corps woman accused him of sexual molestation – she’s possessed! The devil is really trying to attack his ministry and cause division in the body.
ya know, referencing Bullinger maybe isn't the best strategy...wierwille the copy-boy couldn't think for himself and just repeated Bullinger's errors and in some cases made them even worse.
Think about it, Mike - that’s all for now
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
What a cool book! Thanks, T-Bone!
Do the authors actually use the term "idiom of permission," or is that a Bullinger invention? And does it apply to EVERY (without distinction or exception) action of God in the Hebrew Bible? Does it apply to the Hebrew only? Or also the Greek? According to the authors, should all verbs relating to God be read through this lens? Or only when one needs to make a passage fit a theological proposition?
I understand what the idiom of permission means? But I'm unclear as to when it applies, and to which verbs. It's either always (without exception or distinction) or sometimes. Which?
Edited by Nathan_JrGloves
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I didn’t find a reference to “the idiom of permission”…that’s not to say it’s not used in this Jewish Study Bible – there’s no dictionary or cross reference of idioms in the back
- I didn’t find it in the side notes of any passages of Job – doesn’t mean it’s not in there – might mean I didn’t look hard enough . Not sure if Bullinger coined the term.
However, for what it’s worth – my own thoughts on the matter (only worth 2 cents
) there is a big difference in the thoughtful, culturally immersed theology of the ancient Hebrews and the dogmatic tendencies of Bullinger. In my opinion ancient Hebrew religious thought has a lot more humility and honesty – in that it acknowledges there’s a lot we as human beings don’t know.
Bullinger came up with or subscribed to some screwy stuff: 4 crucified with Jesus, ultra-dispensationalism, flat-Earth, the inerrancy of the Bible,
astrologyastronomy in Scripture , dubious definitions in his Greek lexicon, and best I can tell he seemed to think God dictated a perfect book that can be dissected…analyzed…diagrammed…and correctly understood with a mathematical exactness and scientific precision…voila the essence of fundamentalism!“I understand what the idiom of permission means? But I'm unclear as to when it applies, and to which verbs. It's either always (without exception or distinction) or sometimes. Which?” - yeah…well… that’s the problem with dogmatism and folks like Bullinger and wierwille who come up with some dubious rules. Could it be the rule, theory or whatever is flawed? ERMAHGERD !
One of the opening remarks in the Jewish Bible on the book of Job mentions what gives the book of Job such a sense of profundity and makes it the most theologically difficult is its inconclusive conclusion: There is no way of understanding the meaning of suffering. That is, in the Lord’s argument, the reasons for suffering – if there are any – are simple beyond human comprehension. (from page 1500)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Thanks, T-Bone. It's a real dandy. Just tremendous.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I think it may be (remember I am inexperienced with the idiom of permission) that Jesus being our mediator and "defense lawyer" sounds like it fits right in with that figure of speech.
For one thing, the advocate role of the man Christ Jesus, matches the courtroom scenery in the opening of Job, where the figure of permission is exposed.
Twinky, I think you discovered the cue to start thinking "figures of speech" which is something doesn't fit, it is not true to fact.
So if his advocacy is figurative, then that figure is there to help us in our believing with something solid to hold on that is easy to picture. We need that when we first begin believing God's Word. As we grow, we can graduate from the advocate figure of speech, to the "Christ in you, the hope of glory" which is another figure of speech. Christ in you really means God's permanent and pure connection in you that makes you belong to God and not the devil any more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Thanks much. That looks like a great thread, devoted to this figure.
And thanks to you, Twinky, for starting it.
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.