-There are lots of ways the word "spirit" can be used. I am talking about one such usage. Example. The day before Jesus was baptized he did not have something that he did have the day after he was baptized. It is to denote that something that the word "spirit" is used.
-Sure, they have connections, but the Bible also has plenty of verses that document vast differences between spirit and flesh. I find that the PFAL teaching on body/soul/spirit was eye opening and clarifying. The scriptures make sense with that in mind.
I found that it is easy to drift from the PFAL teaching on body/soul/spirit. I did not know I was drifting, but I was, and I have proof in the writings I did on science in the 1970s. I was writing about the brain and free will being beyond science and UN-explainable. That means I was moving the word "soul" from the natural realm to the spiritual realm.
I did it so slowly, that I didn't run into contradictions and puzzles until years later. Around 1995 I caught myself in major error, and was amazed at how far I had drifted, unknowingly, from the simple PFAL teaching that body and soul are in the fleshrealm, the natural realm.
So, cman, when you refer to the "body soul spirit bs teachings" I figure you may have drifted a little, yourself. If you want to see some of the many verses that document vast differences between spirit and flesh, we could start looking in the Gospels to see how Jesus divided spirit and flesh.
-I'm only talking about a ONE TIME EVENT, not an on-going process such as learning, growth, and expanding horizons, as you rightfully bring up.
The ONE TIME EVENT that I am talking about would be in the OT where a prophet "get" spirit upon him. One time a prophet student asked his teacher prophet if he could get a double dose of the spirit interface. The student was seeking and driving his mind to not rebel against the things of God, so he was building new circuits in his brain to make hearing God work better.
The other way this ONE TIME EVENT of getting spirit can happen is in the NT where a natural man receives holy spirit for the first time.
Once such a one time event happens, then a lifetime of learning can take place, and this spirit interface can grow and get stronger, as well as the brain/mind/soul can learn every day as life progresses.
-You are right; drive-trains, linkages, interface modules are not Biblical words, but modern tech words.
In the Bible the word "spirit" is used. The same word "spirit" is used in about 8 or 10 other ways in addition to being used LIKE an interface module or drive-train linkage.
The portion of your quote I bold-fonted is too difficult to comment on, because it mixes the modern terms with the Biblical.
The purpose of the spirit upon a prophet in the OT was to help him orient his mind in an unnatural, super-natural direction. That is no small feat for a natural-man's mind, a God-rejecting mind.
Like Pop-Eye eats his spinach one time event?
Next thing you know you'll have people wary of spiritual kryptonite.
Absurd Mike. Your views are completely about control.
It really is surprising how much the GP (Great Principle) comes up in the film class, and how hard VPW hammers it out.
So far I found 7 different segments that it is in: 10, 11, 38, 42, 50, 52, 55.
Here is the first one, segment 10, where the red fonts are the GP and the blue fonts are the supporting context, or the reasons why the GP.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
(PFAL’68 seg. 10)
We saw from John chapter four verse twenty-four that God is what? Spirit. God is Spirit.
God being Spirit can only speak to what He is.
God cannot speak to the natural human mind.
This is why the Word could not come by the will of man,
because the will of man is in the category of the natural realm.
God being Spirit can only speak to what He is, spirit.
Like things in the natural realm can be known via the five senses.
The natural senses of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching. Things in the natural world can be known by the five senses, but God is Spirit.
God being Spirit can only speak to what He is, which is Spirit.
God cannot speak to your brain cells.
God cannot speak to your mind.
God can only speak to what He is.
You see this is a law. God never oversteps His laws,
God never breaks any laws.
God being Spirit can only speak to what He is, Spirit.
This is why the spirit of God had to be on all the holy men of God who spoke as they were moved by the holy spirit. The spirit of God had to be upon these men otherwise they could never have received revelation as Paul declared in Galatians that he received it by revelation. They could not have received it by revelation if they had not had the spirit of God on them.
Your saying for God to work with or speak to people . . .
Let’s finish the go-kart analogy. What you need between the engine and the wheels is LINKAGE.
If this were a piece of computer hardware, it would be called an INTERFACE.
In the Word it is called spirit upon, or spirit within and is similar to these common intervening mechanisms.
In the OT are many accounts of the need to have spirit to have a real deep, detailed conversation with God. Even Jesus needed it, and finally got it from his cousin John the Baptist.
I have been looking into this for many years. The Great Principle is brought up a lot in the film class; a surprisingly large number of times.
Each time there is contextual teaching about where it came from. A large part of Great Principle (GP) came from 1Corintihans 2 section below. I’ll get into the many appearances of thesometime soon.
*/*/*/*/*/*
I wondered at where VPW got the GP from.
At first I thought it had to be in scripture, but couldn’t find it.
Then for the following years I gave it the name on my paper folder’s tab: “The Enlightened Postulate” because it looked like VPW just plucked it out of nowhere, having no backing in scripture. I had drifted into thinking he might have got it by revelation.
But in the past 25 years I have seen some more detail to this whole story.I now think that VPW saw “spirit upon” in the OT as an interface mechanism, like the go-kart linkage.
Key to this topic is remembering that the things of God are foolish to the man without spirit.
I slightly modified the KJV below to reflect the spirit usages given at the back of RHST.
1 Cor 2:9-16 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by His spirit 5 gift: for the spirit 5 powersearcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit 4 selfof manwhich is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit 1 Godof God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit8 devils of the world, but the spirit 2a giftwhich is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the spirit 5 powerteacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit 1 Godof God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*
For a natural OT man who happens to seek God and drive his mind to consider these “foolish” things of God, any assistance in this learning process by God would help build a new set of synapse settings that could counter the natural reflex to scoff and be repulsed at the things of God.
This could be how the spirit is “put upon” them. They needed something to get something built within their natural mind, that is at least pointed in the right direction to hear from God.
This new and unnatural network of brain cells (this interface of neuron settings) can resist the reflex to scoff at and be repulsed by the things of God. This would give God more to work with as these new brain connections are built strong enough to get heavy revvy.
*/*/*/*/*/*
In my often scoffed at “dog and cat analogy” for the GP, this interface might be likened to an Elon Musk brain implant in a pet’s brain that makes it able handle human language better.
This is a natural tactic of bullshonta artists everywhere - oh you see it with your “spiritual eyes” that the “natural man” can’t see.
Like the Mormon comedian was joking about the Urim and Thummim stones that Joseph Smith was seeing.
The problem is that in scripture we heard a great way to distinguish between the true prophet and the bullshonta artist.
If their prophecies don’t come true don’t listen to them.
For instance the slogan for PLAFT - 1 - “Word Over The World”
Then it was announced “the Word IS over the world”.
Then the present truth was “The Prevailing Word To The World”
And now that that is no longer the case we are apparently back to the Word NOT being over the world again and it is back to “Word Over The World” in PLAFT-4
Look if you are so confused by Kool Aid snowstorms that you can’t figure out whether or not “the Word” is “over the world” then that pretty clearly indicates the prophets in charge of TWI-4 can’t find their butt in the dark blindfolded with both hands.
So I’m directed by scripture to ignore your trip down nostalgia lane with “heavy revy” and calling logic natural man scoffing.
But hey peace and love. Spread love not war. And enjoy those Grateful Dead albums bro those were the days.
God cannot REALLY speak to the natural man's mind, but He can if that mind is augmented by some learning that is in the spiritual direction, then the word "spirit" can apply (not in the same usage #, though) to those new brain connections.
Do you know who stupid this sounds?
The unlimited God, God Almighty, --- With God nothing is impossible...but you are attributing folly to by stating that God by made a creation he is unable to communicate with. As if God cant just do an audible voice if he so chooses...he had a Donkey speak to Baalam...oh wait...we had this dumb@$$ conversation across several threads now.
And now that that is no longer the case we are apparently back to the Word NOT being over the world again and it is back to “Word Over The World” in PLAFT-4
I thought it showed some progress on the part of TWI-4 to change their goal back to WoW.
Had they gone one step farther, and announced at the same time that it was in error to say that WoW had been accomplished, then it would have qualified as a genuine E.C.N..
It sounds like you were lumping me in with them. I never thought that WoW had happened when Craig said it had. I was long gone from TWI by then. It sounded crazy for him to say that WoW had been accomplished.
It really is surprising how much the GP (Great Principle) comes up in the film class, and how hard VPW hammers it out.
So far I found 7 different segments that it is in: 10, 11, 38, 42, 50, 52, 55.
Here is the first one, segment 10, where the red fonts are the GP and the blue fonts are the supporting context, or the reasons why the GP.
*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*
(PFAL’68 seg. 10)
We saw from John chapter four verse twenty-four that God is what? Spirit. God is Spirit.
God being Spirit can only speak to what He is.
God cannot speak to the natural human mind.
This is why the Word could not come by the will of man,
because the will of man is in the category of the natural realm.
God being Spirit can only speak to what He is, spirit.
Like things in the natural realm can be known via the five senses.
The natural senses of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching. Things in the natural world can be known by the five senses, but God is Spirit.
God being Spirit can only speak to what He is, which is Spirit.
God cannot speak to your brain cells.
God cannot speak to your mind.
God can only speak to what He is.
You see this is a law. God never oversteps His laws,
God never breaks any laws.
God being Spirit can only speak to what He is, Spirit.
This is why the spirit of God had to be on all the holy men of God who spoke as they were moved by the holy spirit. The spirit of God had to be upon these men otherwise they could never have received revelation as Paul declared in Galatians that he received it by revelation. They could not have received it by revelation if they had not had the spirit of God on them.
There is no law there. It is a false claim. The false Teacher made up false laws like the law of believing which is an occult mind exercise.
Yes it was hit harder in the film class. That is because the Publications department functioning as a research department had not yet edited out the inconsistencies.
This supposed “law” is easily refuted by a number of accounts in scripture, the first we have discussed in length already being Balaam and his foot.
The unlimited God, God Almighty, --- With God nothing is impossible...but you are attributing folly to by stating that God by made a creation he is unable to communicate with. As if God cant just do an audible voice if he so chooses...he had a Donkey speak to Baalam...oh wait...we had this dumb@$$ conversation across several threads now.
Yes the New Great Principle lol.
God who is Spirit talks out of Balaams a$$.
Mike who is full of Bullshonta about spirit talks out of his own a$$
I thought it showed some progress on the part of TWI-4 to change their goal back to WoW.
Had they gone one step farther, and announced at the same time that it was in error to say that WoW had been accomplished, then it would have qualified as a genuine E.C.N..
It sounds like you were lumping me in with them. I never thought that WoW had happened when Craig said it had. I was long gone from TWI by then. It sounded crazy for him to say that WoW had been accomplished.
Well the Word tells us not to follow those prophets who need ECNs.
You are telling us TO follow them.
So the Word also tells us not to pay you any attention.
The unlimited God, God Almighty, --- With God nothing is impossible...but you are attributing folly to by stating that God by made a creation he is unable to communicate with. As if God cant just do an audible voice if he so chooses...he had a Donkey speak to Baalam...oh wait...we had this dumb@$$ conversation across several threads now.
The way God set it up, and the way it is documented in the Scriptures, there needs to be that "spirit upon" or that "spirit within" for good communication to take place. That is the reality.
You are simply objecting to the grammar that VPW uses to describe this reality, with phrases like "God cannot...."
Those phrases are FIGURES OF SPEECH and are not to be taken literally.
Sure God can do phenomena, like the handwriting on the wall, but a lot more heart-to-heart and detail can be communicated when the scriptural formula of spirit upon or spirit within is added to the formula.
Ask God why He set it up and had it written that way. And while you are at it, ask Him why He hid Jesus from our sight with a cloud on the day of the Ascension.
Sure God can do phenomena, like the handwriting on the wall, but a lot more heart-to-heart and detail can be communicated when the scriptural formula of spirit upon or spirit within is added to the formula.
Ask God why He set it up and had it written that way. And while you are at it, ask Him why He hid Jesus from our sight with a cloud on the day of the Ascension.
There is no such “scriptural formula” my math dude. The upon or within is more of the hocus pocus with Greek prepositions that your fodder in da verd was so good at.
Ask God why He described scribes and Pharisees in such detail in scripture?
So we could join them in their logic and be pillaged? Or we should avoid the leaven of their doctrine?
I mean, it's in the collaterals so it must be akin to Biblical doctrine. amiright?
And I thought that, according to mike, that the collaterals are God breathed....so that must mean he doesn't take the Bible to seriously either..I mean obviously cause he elevates the wierwilles garbage over scripture and he just said that wierwilles garbage shoudnt be taken too seriously.
Help me understand. Are you now saying The Great Principle Should NOT be taken seriously?
I mean, it's in the collaterals so it must be akin to Biblical doctrine. amiright?
I am NOT saying, nor implying what I bold-fonted above.
The GP is to be taken as a summation of the pattern in the scriptures.
Trying to fiddle with the words in the GP, to unveil the mechanics of the spirit/natural boundary is NOT what it was designed to do. The GP is designed to help students read the Bible with clear understanding.
The GP sums up all the Bible verses, OT and NT that use the word spirit to indicated God was REALLY working with someone, that He was REALLY talking to that person, that He wrought might works by the hands of that person.
The collaterals don't generate new doctrine.
The GP is there to help explain the established doctrine in the ancient scriptures. If the GP had additional secrets locked up inside it that fiddling with it's words would reveal, then it would be generating new doctrine. That would be wrong. I wont go there.
The GP is not "akin" to Biblical doctrine.
The GP is provided by God to us modern people, to help us understand better the ancient Biblical doctrine.
The fact that the GP was provided by God does not mean it is akin to Biblical doctrine. It means that the GP helps ups understand Biblical doctrine in an authoritative way.
It is "authoritative help" and not new doctrine.
This might correspond to phrase "inspiration of explication," that I picked up from Karen Martin, years ago when we discussed the God-breathed nature of the collaterals.
If you put that word "really" in there it can make sense.
God cannot REALLY speak to the natural man's mind, but He can if that mind is augmented by some learning that is in the spiritual direction, then the word "spirit" can apply (not in the same usage #, though) to those new brain connections.
But, as Saint Vic said in the class, add a word to the Word of God and you no longer have the Word of God.
There are no men or women without spirit, always has been, always will be
Excellent doctrinal point, Cman!
It’s been shared on other threadsthat many Biblical scholars like Wayne Grudem in his Systematic theology , chapter 23, The Essential Nature of Man, pages 472ff - Scripture uses “soul” and “spirit” interchangeably.
I think wierwille misled and confused a lot of folks by his dogmatic fundamentalism of interpreting death of the spirit as something literal
However consider how the ancient Hebrews defined death:
15 The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it. 16 Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.” Genesis 2: 15-17 NET
Heb. “dying you will die.” The imperfect verb form here has the nuance of the specific future because it is introduced with the temporal clause, “when you eat…you will die.” That certainty is underscored with the infinitive absolute.
The Hebrew text (“dying you will die”) does not refer to two aspects of death (dying spiritually, you will then die physically). The construction simply emphasizes the certainty of death, however it is defined. Death is essentially separation. To die physically means separation from the land of the living, but not extinction. To die spiritually means to be separated from God. Both occur with sin, although the physical alienation is more gradual than instant, and the spiritual is immediate, although the effects of it continue the separation.
Because death did not immediately befall Adam and Eve on the day of transgression, but took hundreds of years later the expression “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (as it so reads inGen. 2:17 KJV) must be conceived in a wider sense, or the delay of death must be attributed to the entering-in of mercy Gen. 3:15.
However, the Bible Encyclopedia states Gen. 2:17 may be showing a close connection of violating God’s commandment and the resultant consequences thereby attaching to death a religious and ethical significance and makes the lives of humankind dependent on obedience to God.
The religious-ethical nature of life and death is not only decidedly and clearly expressed in the early chapters of Genesis, but we find it is the fundamental thought in the entire Bible and forms an essential element in many of the declarations of salvation.
The Encyclopedia goes on to say some theologians past and present have denied the spiritual significance of death and have separated the connection of between ethical and physical life, usually base their opinions on passages that show death as a punishment for sin Rom. 5:12Romans 6:23I Cor. 15:21 …this opinion has some merit though – since we are made aware of the consequences of the weaknesses and frailty of human nature Job 14:1Eccl. 3:20 …For the most part death is portrayed as something natural.
What is the meaning of death?
The Encyclopedia states that we are influenced by the Greek Platonic idea, that the body dies, yet the soul is immortal – but such an idea is utterly foreign to the ancient Hebrew concept of death – and is not found in the OT. The whole person dies, when in death the spirit Eccl. 12:7 or soul I Ki. 17:21 goes out of them.
Death is not understood to be annihilation – as in complete extermination…utter destruction…obliterated, but rather deriving one of all that makes for life on earth.
To the Israelites death meant separation from all that they loved – separation from God, and from His service, His law, His people, His land.
The physical contrast between life and death gradually makes way for the moral and spiritual difference between life spent in the fear of the Lord, and a life in the service of sin.
~ ~ ~ ~
wierwille had a strong tendency to interpolate his trichotomy theory (body, soul and spirit) into many passages – and wierwille-followers would follow his lead. For instance, regarding
13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John.But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.
16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
It’s been said by wierwille-followers that the day before Jesus was baptized he did not have something - that he did have the day after he was baptized and that’s why the word “Spirit” is used in that passage.
However, it seems evident to me that the functional relationship of the Trinity is delineated in Matthew 3 – note the Father’s command to hear His Son and the Holy Spirit’s vindication and empowerment, anointing Jesus, commissioning Him for His ministry!
~ ~ ~ ~
Understanding death of the spirit as figurative seems more reasonable and appropriate in the context of evangelizing and even Christian counseling. Spiritual death is separation from God...think about that in the context of the second death mentioned in Scripture - that's eternal separation from God! Makes more sense to think of it this way - when we were saved our "dead spirit" - our separation from God was healed! We are reconciled back to God! Not by the introduction of something new - but by a reawakening !
We don't have to try and play God to determine if someone has Spirit or not - and we shouldn't assume everything is cool because they have Spirit. Because of the Fall the image and likeness of God is now tarnished - and it is from that point we start - assuming there is always a problem because we are fallen creatures in need of redemption, redemptive living and most of all we need the Redeemer Jesus Christ!
Edited by T-Bone I heard my editor singing "I've got soul, and I'm superbad !"
When I look at I Cor 2 outside the fundy lens what I see is a basic passage of Paul contrasting “natural” thoughts with “spiritual” thoughts.
What you dwell on you become. If people have “natural man” prosperity goals, like viewing non Christians being “prosperous” and Christians “not manifesting prosperity” then your entire thought patterns are natural man.
Each one win one is a natural goal. There are no spiritual goals that state this in the Bible. The “ministry of reconciliation” is not a hyper ventilating push to “put together a class”. It is the ability to stand in for Jesus Christ and forgive people’s sin on His behalf.
The Way basically is taking a package of natural man sales department goals and super imposing them on a Christian ministry. And unlike the tent evangelists who were VPW peers they “lock in” their “non members” via cultish doctrine and logic that isolate the follower from fellow Christians throughout their lifetime. Billy Graham and Oral Robert’s won people to Christ and then partnered with local churches to take care of the increase. Many followers including myself were influenced directly by those men’s ministries and never thought once about joining their organization or sending tithes to them.
Next thing you know you'll have people wary of spiritual kryptonite.
Absurd Mike. Your views are completely about control.
And yet, they are totally out of control. IOW, lacking coherence.
IF he ever had any intention of doing anything other than aimless rambling, wouldn't he have to have an awareness of what and how his posts get lost in a miasma of nothingness?
And yet, they are totally out of control. IOW, lacking coherence.
IF he ever had any intention of doing anything other than aimless rambling, wouldn't he have to have an awareness of what and how his posts get lost in a miasma of nothingness?
One way to face reality is to let oneself experience the pain. Then insight and growth can possibly happen.
Or one can distort reality through a variety of means, avoiding the pain.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
155
52
146
54
Popular Days
Dec 23
92
Dec 26
75
Dec 24
70
Jan 30
68
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 155 posts
chockfull 52 posts
OldSkool 146 posts
Nathan_Jr 54 posts
Popular Days
Dec 23 2022
92 posts
Dec 26 2022
75 posts
Dec 24 2022
70 posts
Jan 30 2023
68 posts
Popular Posts
outandabout
I copied the emotion graph and wanted to comment on how it made me aware of the wide range of emotions we as humans are capable of. A little off topic but looking at it reminds me that we were taught
WordWolf
It's also interesting to see what happened and what did NOT happen. We all know that vpw never went to his congregation and confessed his sins against them. That would have been required after havi
chockfull
I think when VPW taught that sincerity is no guarantee for the truth that is what they call a “Freudian slip”.
Posted Images
Bolshevik
Like Pop-Eye eats his spinach one time event?
Next thing you know you'll have people wary of spiritual kryptonite.
Absurd Mike. Your views are completely about control.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Your saying for God to work with or speak to people . . .
People must BECOME GOD
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
This is a natural tactic of bullshonta artists everywhere - oh you see it with your “spiritual eyes” that the “natural man” can’t see.
Like the Mormon comedian was joking about the Urim and Thummim stones that Joseph Smith was seeing.
The problem is that in scripture we heard a great way to distinguish between the true prophet and the bullshonta artist.
If their prophecies don’t come true don’t listen to them.
For instance the slogan for PLAFT - 1 - “Word Over The World”
Then it was announced “the Word IS over the world”.
Then the present truth was “The Prevailing Word To The World”
And now that that is no longer the case we are apparently back to the Word NOT being over the world again and it is back to “Word Over The World” in PLAFT-4
Look if you are so confused by Kool Aid snowstorms that you can’t figure out whether or not “the Word” is “over the world” then that pretty clearly indicates the prophets in charge of TWI-4 can’t find their butt in the dark blindfolded with both hands.
So I’m directed by scripture to ignore your trip down nostalgia lane with “heavy revy” and calling logic natural man scoffing.
But hey peace and love. Spread love not war. And enjoy those Grateful Dead albums bro those were the days.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
LoL I'm sorry. I didn't catch myself saying that. Could you explain this some?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Do you know who stupid this sounds?
The unlimited God, God Almighty, --- With God nothing is impossible...but you are attributing folly to by stating that God by made a creation he is unable to communicate with. As if God cant just do an audible voice if he so chooses...he had a Donkey speak to Baalam...oh wait...we had this dumb@$$ conversation across several threads now.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I thought it showed some progress on the part of TWI-4 to change their goal back to WoW.
Had they gone one step farther, and announced at the same time that it was in error to say that WoW had been accomplished, then it would have qualified as a genuine E.C.N..
It sounds like you were lumping me in with them. I never thought that WoW had happened when Craig said it had. I was long gone from TWI by then. It sounded crazy for him to say that WoW had been accomplished.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
There is no law there. It is a false claim. The false Teacher made up false laws like the law of believing which is an occult mind exercise.
Yes it was hit harder in the film class. That is because the Publications department functioning as a research department had not yet edited out the inconsistencies.
This supposed “law” is easily refuted by a number of accounts in scripture, the first we have discussed in length already being Balaam and his foot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Yes the New Great Principle lol.
God who is Spirit talks out of Balaams a$$.
Mike who is full of Bullshonta about spirit talks out of his own a$$
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Well the Word tells us not to follow those prophets who need ECNs.
You are telling us TO follow them.
So the Word also tells us not to pay you any attention.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I would, but being human I can only speak to that which I am.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
The way God set it up, and the way it is documented in the Scriptures, there needs to be that "spirit upon" or that "spirit within" for good communication to take place. That is the reality.
You are simply objecting to the grammar that VPW uses to describe this reality, with phrases like "God cannot...."
Those phrases are FIGURES OF SPEECH and are not to be taken literally.
Sure God can do phenomena, like the handwriting on the wall, but a lot more heart-to-heart and detail can be communicated when the scriptural formula of spirit upon or spirit within is added to the formula.
Ask God why He set it up and had it written that way. And while you are at it, ask Him why He hid Jesus from our sight with a cloud on the day of the Ascension.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
No Im not...Im saying the entire, remedial, over-simplistic concept that God can only speak to spirit is an outright lie.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
There is no such “scriptural formula” my math dude. The upon or within is more of the hocus pocus with Greek prepositions that your fodder in da verd was so good at.
Ask God why He described scribes and Pharisees in such detail in scripture?
So we could join them in their logic and be pillaged? Or we should avoid the leaven of their doctrine?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Help me understand. Are you now saying The Great Principle Should NOT be taken seriously?
I mean, it's in the collaterals so it must be akin to Biblical doctrine. amiright?
Oh, Hey, here's a fun thought. Maybe The Law of Believing shouldn't be taken seriously, either.
Edited by waysiderspelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
And I thought that, according to mike, that the collaterals are God breathed....so that must mean he doesn't take the Bible to seriously either..I mean obviously cause he elevates the wierwilles garbage over scripture and he just said that wierwilles garbage shoudnt be taken too seriously.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I am NOT saying, nor implying what I bold-fonted above.
The GP is to be taken as a summation of the pattern in the scriptures.
Trying to fiddle with the words in the GP, to unveil the mechanics of the spirit/natural boundary is NOT what it was designed to do. The GP is designed to help students read the Bible with clear understanding.
The GP sums up all the Bible verses, OT and NT that use the word spirit to indicated God was REALLY working with someone, that He was REALLY talking to that person, that He wrought might works by the hands of that person.
The collaterals don't generate new doctrine.
The GP is there to help explain the established doctrine in the ancient scriptures. If the GP had additional secrets locked up inside it that fiddling with it's words would reveal, then it would be generating new doctrine. That would be wrong. I wont go there.
The GP is not "akin" to Biblical doctrine.
The GP is provided by God to us modern people, to help us understand better the ancient Biblical doctrine.
The fact that the GP was provided by God does not mean it is akin to Biblical doctrine. It means that the GP helps ups understand Biblical doctrine in an authoritative way.
It is "authoritative help" and not new doctrine.
This might correspond to phrase "inspiration of explication," that I picked up from Karen Martin, years ago when we discussed the God-breathed nature of the collaterals.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
There is no spirit/natural boundary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
But, as Saint Vic said in the class, add a word to the Word of God and you no longer have the Word of God.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
And where, pray tell, does this provision occur, outside of PFAL, which you just stated is not Biblical doctrine?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Excellent doctrinal point, Cman!
It’s been shared on other threads that many Biblical scholars like Wayne Grudem in his Systematic theology , chapter 23, The Essential Nature of Man, pages 472ff - Scripture uses “soul” and “spirit” interchangeably.
I think wierwille misled and confused a lot of folks by his dogmatic fundamentalism of interpreting death of the spirit as something literal
However consider how the ancient Hebrews defined death:
15 The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it. 16 Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.” Genesis 2: 15-17 NET
Notes on verse 17 in my Net Bible: Second Beta Edition read:
Heb. “dying you will die.” The imperfect verb form here has the nuance of the specific future because it is introduced with the temporal clause, “when you eat…you will die.” That certainty is underscored with the infinitive absolute.
The Hebrew text (“dying you will die”) does not refer to two aspects of death (dying spiritually, you will then die physically). The construction simply emphasizes the certainty of death, however it is defined. Death is essentially separation. To die physically means separation from the land of the living, but not extinction. To die spiritually means to be separated from God. Both occur with sin, although the physical alienation is more gradual than instant, and the spiritual is immediate, although the effects of it continue the separation.
End of excerpts
~ ~ ~ ~
The following is a summary of some stuff about death that I read in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia - Kindle Edition - location 45009ff of the Kindle version:
Because death did not immediately befall Adam and Eve on the day of transgression, but took hundreds of years later the expression “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (as it so reads in Gen. 2:17 KJV ) must be conceived in a wider sense, or the delay of death must be attributed to the entering-in of mercy Gen. 3:15 .
However, the Bible Encyclopedia states Gen. 2:17 may be showing a close connection of violating God’s commandment and the resultant consequences thereby attaching to death a religious and ethical significance and makes the lives of humankind dependent on obedience to God.
The religious-ethical nature of life and death is not only decidedly and clearly expressed in the early chapters of Genesis, but we find it is the fundamental thought in the entire Bible and forms an essential element in many of the declarations of salvation.
The Encyclopedia goes on to say some theologians past and present have denied the spiritual significance of death and have separated the connection of between ethical and physical life, usually base their opinions on passages that show death as a punishment for sin Rom. 5:12 Romans 6:23 I Cor. 15:21 …this opinion has some merit though – since we are made aware of the consequences of the weaknesses and frailty of human nature Job 14:1 Eccl. 3:20 …For the most part death is portrayed as something natural.
What is the meaning of death?
The Encyclopedia states that we are influenced by the Greek Platonic idea, that the body dies, yet the soul is immortal – but such an idea is utterly foreign to the ancient Hebrew concept of death – and is not found in the OT. The whole person dies, when in death the spirit Eccl. 12:7 or soul I Ki. 17:21 goes out of them.
Death is not understood to be annihilation – as in complete extermination…utter destruction…obliterated, but rather deriving one of all that makes for life on earth.
To the Israelites death meant separation from all that they loved – separation from God, and from His service, His law, His people, His land.
The physical contrast between life and death gradually makes way for the moral and spiritual difference between life spent in the fear of the Lord, and a life in the service of sin.
~ ~ ~ ~
wierwille had a strong tendency to interpolate his trichotomy theory (body, soul and spirit) into many passages – and wierwille-followers would follow his lead. For instance, regarding
13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”
15 Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.
16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
Matthew 3
It’s been said by wierwille-followers that the day before Jesus was baptized he did not have something - that he did have the day after he was baptized and that’s why the word “Spirit” is used in that passage.
However, it seems evident to me that the functional relationship of the Trinity is delineated in Matthew 3 – note the Father’s command to hear His Son and the Holy Spirit’s vindication and empowerment, anointing Jesus, commissioning Him for His ministry!
~ ~ ~ ~
Understanding death of the spirit as figurative seems more reasonable and appropriate in the context of evangelizing and even Christian counseling. Spiritual death is separation from God...think about that in the context of the second death mentioned in Scripture - that's eternal separation from God! Makes more sense to think of it this way - when we were saved our "dead spirit" - our separation from God was healed! We are reconciled back to God! Not by the introduction of something new - but by a reawakening !
We don't have to try and play God to determine if someone has Spirit or not - and we shouldn't assume everything is cool because they have Spirit. Because of the Fall the image and likeness of God is now tarnished - and it is from that point we start - assuming there is always a problem because we are fallen creatures in need of redemption, redemptive living and most of all we need the Redeemer Jesus Christ!
Edited by T-BoneI heard my editor singing "I've got soul, and I'm superbad !"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
When I look at I Cor 2 outside the fundy lens what I see is a basic passage of Paul contrasting “natural” thoughts with “spiritual” thoughts.
What you dwell on you become. If people have “natural man” prosperity goals, like viewing non Christians being “prosperous” and Christians “not manifesting prosperity” then your entire thought patterns are natural man.
Each one win one is a natural goal. There are no spiritual goals that state this in the Bible. The “ministry of reconciliation” is not a hyper ventilating push to “put together a class”. It is the ability to stand in for Jesus Christ and forgive people’s sin on His behalf.
The Way basically is taking a package of natural man sales department goals and super imposing them on a Christian ministry. And unlike the tent evangelists who were VPW peers they “lock in” their “non members” via cultish doctrine and logic that isolate the follower from fellow Christians throughout their lifetime. Billy Graham and Oral Robert’s won people to Christ and then partnered with local churches to take care of the increase. Many followers including myself were influenced directly by those men’s ministries and never thought once about joining their organization or sending tithes to them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
And yet, they are totally out of control. IOW, lacking coherence.
IF he ever had any intention of doing anything other than aimless rambling, wouldn't he have to have an awareness of what and how his posts get lost in a miasma of nothingness?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
One way to face reality is to let oneself experience the pain. Then insight and growth can possibly happen.
Or one can distort reality through a variety of means, avoiding the pain.
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.