quote: I was told or given the impression that ALL of the vicster's work was original so it never dawned on me that he would use anything from a trinitarian or anyone else for that matter. My first TC told us that DocVic learned some keys from others but really played down contributions from others. They helped the great Vic in the way that a much lesser player gives some minor tip to the great team superstar.
Was it from someone in the know, or from a neophyte?
Mike --I first heard it from docvic himself, then later from folks running his classes in the various areas I was in, over the years. To be sure, vpw (in all fairness), did mention the fact that he had gleaned info from other folks, however -- it was made to sound like he had re-worked, and refined it himself -- to the point where it was "suitable for teaching".
The fine folks running his classes, also glossed over the fact that he took so much from others -- preferring to mention more about vpw's "hard work at researching the truth", than they did about where his sources of "said truth" came from. If you want to call 8th corps "neophites", they were the last one's running a class (offered by twi) that I was ever at attendence in.
They were most adament that doc was able to "ferret out the truth", from all of these various doctrines, and teach us what really mattered. Upshot of it is -- while others were noted as having made "contributions", docvic got the praise and glory for making it "worthy" of belief.
You wonder if I asked these questions then before I can respond take me to task for not asking? You, sir, are impatient and inconsiderate and therefore undeserving of further response.
quote: I no longer feel a need to glean truths from them, but I know that VPW did, and I receive from him what he got from trinitarians. Probably most (if not all) of his teachers believed that Jesus was God.
I've posted this before, but IMO many trinitarians just give lip service to the trinity while knowing (either consciously or subconsciously) that Jesus is a man who was tempted like we are.
I attended a Presbyterian church in 1999 and one Sunday the sermon was about trusting and obeying. The first verse the minister (definitely a trinitarian) went to was Luke 22:42 where Jesus says "not my will but thine be done". He said "even Jesus had to struggle with trust and obey at times". All right! If that minister knows that Jesus could be tempted with weakness like that, then somewhere in his mind he knows Jesus isn't really God the Creator. Some TWI leaders seemed to declare war on trinitarians, but even VPW made a distinction at AC '79. He said those who were adamant about the trinity were possessed. He didn't say all trinitarians were possessed.
Everybody who called themselves Christian believed Jesus is God; VPW had no choice but to glean from trinitarians.
Actually, Pat, that HADN'T occured to me. At least trinitarians have a way of explaining Jesus's prayers to God. If you are equating Jesus with the Father, the implication from his prayers is that he was schizophrenic. If you are allowing that Jesus had a God, why not worship Him, instead of Jesus?
You wrote at the end of the previous page: "My thought is that Jesus Christ is our God, not THE God. Moses was God to Aaron etc. The example of this type of relationship is in the old testament. __ Also, Thomas said: My Lord and MY God. He and Jesus obviously prayed to THE God who was ultimately superior."
I am happy to agree almost 100% with you on this issue as you just stated it. :)-->
I would only add to your statements Jesus’ words to Mary Magdalene after the resurrection in John 20:17 which reads:
“Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”
Interestingly, this verse is in the same chapter as the verse you just cited regarding Thomas, only 11 verses prior.
Also interestingly, most trinitarians totally exclude verse 17 from their thoughts, and they put forth Thomas’ verse 28 quote “My lord and my God” as one of their ultimate “proofs” of Jesus’ supreme “godhood.”
I once asked a trinitarian, after his quoting of Thomas’ verse 28 words from memory, if he also knew Jesus’ words to Mary Magdalene in the same chapter. He promptly and proudly spouted verse 17, but he OMITTED THE ENDING “and to my God, and your God.”
When I opened the Bible and showed him how the verse ended our conversation abruptly ended too.
***
Another way of looking at these same things as you stated them is:
God’s Word is as much God as God is God.
Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh.
Therefore Jesus Christ is as much God in the flesh as God Himself.
This is the same case as what we were taught regarding Peter standing before Cornelius’ household with all the authority of God Almighty because he was speaking God’s Word and only God’s Word.
RHST p.113 (7th ed.) with my bold fonts:
“What a tremendous statement Cornelius made when he told Peter that this group of kinsmen and near friends whom he had collected together were present before God. They had assembled themselves together just the same as if God Almighty had stood there. And Cornelius said to Peter, ‘Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.’ Cornelius was not interested in theology, he was not interested in what people said, he was not interested in ‘apple-polishing,’ nor in any fanfare. The only thing Cornelius wanted to hear was that which God had com-manded Peter to speak. In other words, he wanted to hear only the Word of God—’all things that are commanded thee of God”
***
There is still another instance of this principle in OMSW. In Chapter Nine “Choose You This Day” Dr cites Joshua 24:1, which is:
And Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel to Shechem, and called for the elders of Israel, and for their heads, and for their judges, and for their officers; and they presented themselves before God.
On page 176 Dr writes:
“The people 'presented themselves before God' at Shechem. This means that they presented themselves before God’s spokesman and prophet, Joshua. Joshua then had the challenge of presenting God’s Word to the people of Israel. God had done many great things for those people as they were led out of Egypt into the Promised Land, and Joshua reminded them of this.”
You wrote: “You wonder if I asked these questions then before I can respond take me to task for not asking? You, sir, are impatient and inconsiderate and therefore undeserving of further response.”
I apologize for that. I think you have a legitimate beef here.
It was very at night late when I posted that, and I thought my bold fonting and capitalization of the word “ANY” would be sufficient to express my thoughts. I now see it wasn’t, so I edited my post to clarify.
Even if you continue to refuse a response, I still think WE ALL should ask ourselves the questions I posed there, and to the degree of detail I suggested.
You wrote: “Mike --I first heard it from docvic himself…”
Heard WHAT from docvic himself? What EXACTLY, word for word? You didn’t fully answer here. If you can find WHERE he said that, instead of dredging it up from old memory, you’ll see that he didn’t take the credit you now think he did.
If we can’t locate these things in the record, then we should keep quiet until we do. Many errors can be avoided this way.
***
You wrote: “To be sure, vpw (in all fairness), did mention the fact that he had gleaned info from other folks, however -- it was made to sound like he had re-worked, and refined it himself -- to the point where it was "suitable for teaching".”
I’m grateful for your inclusion of the first part of the lines I just quoted, and that was fair of you. However in the second part, “it was made to sound like,” you revert to your memory again.
I agree he re-worked it and refined it, but not by himself. This is where the 1942 promise kicked in and God HIMSELF taught him the refinements and the reworkings. Dr gave the glory to God. If you had gone back to the source of your memory you’d have seen this crucial aspect that’s been forgotten.
Dr often said that he couldn’t do it himself. He was ready to throw in the towel in 1942 because he couldn’t do it himself. He OFTEN said that his ministry was by grace (and mercy) and that he was unworthy of the job he was given to bring forth God’s Word again. This is not only the case in this “copyrighteousness” area, but also in the area of personal deportment.
***
You wrote: “The fine folks running his classes, also glossed over the fact that he took so much from others -- preferring to mention more about vpw's "hard work at researching the truth", than they did about where his sources of "said truth" came from. If you want to call 8th corps "neophites", they were the last one's running a class (offered by twi) that I was ever at attendence in. __ They were most adament that doc was able to "ferret out the truth", from all of these various doctrines, and teach us what really mattered. Upshot of it is -- while others were noted as having made "contributions", docvic got the praise and glory for making it "worthy" of belief.”
Yes, at a certain point I would include any 8th Corps grad as if they were neophytes, because most of us older leader grads (remember OLGs?) had started regressing as the years went by. By “in the know” I mean someone who knows what they are talking about, someone who was accurately reflecting the original information, and not someone who was regurgitating a rotten memory adulterated with their own know-nothing theology.
I should have included another question in my post of question, and that is WHEN did you hear it. I did included this, but it was hidden at the end of the first question.
We have to WATCH OUR TIMES!
***
You wrote: “Any more questions?”
Just the one additional question on time. Plus there are still missing specifics in your answers so far such as which tape, which book, which magazine article that I think you should answer.
Although you have partially answered me, I’d like to address everyone again and challenge them to think all these through. Here’s a re-write of the questions:
Who told you?
When did they tell you?
Was it on tape, in print, or in person?
Was it from someone in the know, or from a neophyte?
Or was your "being told" a general feeling that developed over a span of time,
in a casual and undisciplined manner?
Why didn't you listen to Dr when he told us many times (I can cite references) that he got much of it from many sources?
I've posted this before, but IMO many trinitarians just give lip service to the trinity while knowing (either consciously or subconsciously) that Jesus is a man who was tempted like we are.
I attended a Presbyterian church in 1999 and one Sunday the sermon was about trusting and obeying. The first verse the minister (definitely a trinitarian) went to was Luke 22:42 where Jesus says "not my will but thine be done". He said "even Jesus had to struggle with trust and obey at times". All right! If that minister knows that Jesus could be tempted with weakness like that, then somewhere in his mind he knows Jesus isn't really God the Creator.
Scripture attests that Jesus Christ is God and it attests that Jesus Christ is man.
From those scriptural attestations orthodox Christology holds that, at Christ's incarnation, Christ's eternal divine nature and temporally beginning human nature were forever joined (without mixture) in Christ's single person.
It holds that Jesus Christ was born, was tempted, suffered, died and rose from the dead in his human nature -- and that he was not subject to temptation, suffering or death in his divine nature.
As it says in Timothy, there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.
If you trace through all the functions of you "god-man" in scripture you'll see that it's only the man part that ever does anything, even after the resurrection, and after the Ascension and at the very end in I Cor. 15:28 where the Son himself is subject to God.
The god part withers and dies under the heat of the light from the scriptures.
It’s a nice coincidence that you brought up what you just did, quoting sky4it, on being challenged to think for ourselves. The questions I’ve been posing in these recent posts are to inspire the same. One of the terrible things about mob mentality is that members of that mob feel they don’t have to think things through, because someone else in the mob already did that for them.
Interestingly enough, in Dr’s very last written words to us, in his last Way Magazine articles he TWICE challenged us to think things through for ourselves. Of course that thinking is understood to be from within the protective walls of God’s Word.
In the July/August 1985 issue both in his article “Our Only Rule of Faith and Practice – Part Two” AND in his "Our Times" editorial he issues these challenges.
On page 17 he writes:
“You have to honestly come to the place that you’re willing to keep asking yourself ‘Where did I learn what I believe? How did I get to the place of believing what I believe today?’ For the most part, men believe what they have received from tradition and not directly from reading the Word of God.”
On page 12 he writes:
“We must honestly come to the place of asking ourselves: Where did I learn this? How did I get to the place of believing this? Who taught me this? The counterfeit is so much like the genuine, you have to know the accuracy of the Word to separate truth from error.”
Did anyone notice this repetition back then?
Does anyone remember either one of these statements?
Probably not.
Like in his last verbal teaching where he twice instructs us to master the PFAL writings, here in his last written words to us he twice instructs us to think for ourselves, and in a detailed fashion.
Why did he twice instruct us (most specifically upper leadership) with his dying last words to master the writings? Because we hadn’t done it and it was hurting us.
Why did he twice instruct us with his last written words to think everything through and the sources of our beliefs? Because we hadn’t done so. We (especially leaders) were just mindlessly mouthing a bunch of TVT that was from all sorts of disparate sources, and it was hurting us very badly.
The hurt is mentioned twice also, once in each article, using the phrase "dark clouds" hanging over us to describe it.
Jesus also says where that power came from. It was from his Father and not himself. He said of myself I can do nothing.
We were taught plenty of how Jesus was not actually present at the creation or in the beginning any more than there were written scriptures existent back then.
Both forms of the Word [logos], both written and flesh, were WITH God in the beginning and at the creation, but in His foreknowledge. We, as members of the Body of Christ were “with” God back then, but we certainly are not God, even as members of his Body. When we speak the Word then we are the Word made flesh, but we are not God. We speak with the same authority of God, as did Jesus, when we are accurate, but we are not God.
HEY! This is headed to the Doctrinal forum. We’re getting far off the original topic. Out of respect we should either get back on topic or move the doctrinal discussion there.
I, for one, am done with the trinity vs. One God discussion, though. I suggest, Cynic, that you read the CES book on the topic, and then start your own Doctrinal thread and try and refute all their points.
Doctrinal correctness is most imortant for the power to rise above all forms of darkness.
The first century church was very right on, but it still went down the tubes.
Israel was God's chosen people, blessed repeatedly by God, yet, they repeatedly went down the tubes.
God sends His rain on the just and the unjust alike when and where they operate sound principles.
God's blessings on them does not mean the people you cite are correct in every doctrinal matter. The fact that they can't do ALL the things Jesus Christ did indicates doctrinal deficiencies.
There's a big difference between a few blessings and all power.
The point I'm trying to make-check of my first post- is that these groups have wrong doctrine, but God blesses them mightily because of their love.
The Bible says if you love your neighbor as yourself, you have fulfilled the entire law.
Which is better--to "know" it all correctly,
or to "do" it all.
"If I have all knowledge" etc etc, but have not love, I am nothing.
I dont mean to knock having correct doctrine. But loving God and your neighbor is much more important.
Lack of love will cause a ministry to go down the tubes. The biggest reason people left ^The Way was because of the way the leadership was treating people.
quote:Doctrinal correctness is most imortant for the power to rise above all forms of darkness.
"And though I have [the gift of] prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." 1 corin.13:2
Mike: Pull your head out of VeePee's a*s and read what the scriptures say about your precious "mastery" of piffl
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
12
26
12
Popular Days
Aug 29
31
Aug 30
29
Aug 26
22
Aug 27
17
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 22 posts
oldiesman 12 posts
Mike 26 posts
dmiller 12 posts
Popular Days
Aug 29 2004
31 posts
Aug 30 2004
29 posts
Aug 26 2004
22 posts
Aug 27 2004
17 posts
dmiller
JT -- I was told the same.
:(-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller and JustThinking,
Who told you and when?
Cite your sources please.
Was it on tape, in print, or in person?
Was it from someone in the know, or from a neophyte?
Or was your "being told" a general feeling that developed over a span of time,
in a casual and undisciplined manner?
Why didn't you listen to Dr when he told us many times (I can cite references) that he got much of it from many sources?
***
Have ANY other posters here ever asked yourselves questions like this?
SHAME ON YOU if you haven't!
Not asking these kinds of questions,
shooting off at the mouth,
and running with mob feelings
help religion to be very stinky!
.
.
.
.
.
.
At JustThinking’s prompting I edited this to more clearly express my thoughts.
I added three asterisks to separate the post into two separate parts.
I also added some words in the second part to more clearly address it in general and not specifically at JustThinking and dmiller.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Mike --I first heard it from docvic himself, then later from folks running his classes in the various areas I was in, over the years. To be sure, vpw (in all fairness), did mention the fact that he had gleaned info from other folks, however -- it was made to sound like he had re-worked, and refined it himself -- to the point where it was "suitable for teaching".
The fine folks running his classes, also glossed over the fact that he took so much from others -- preferring to mention more about vpw's "hard work at researching the truth", than they did about where his sources of "said truth" came from. If you want to call 8th corps "neophites", they were the last one's running a class (offered by twi) that I was ever at attendence in.
They were most adament that doc was able to "ferret out the truth", from all of these various doctrines, and teach us what really mattered. Upshot of it is -- while others were noted as having made "contributions", docvic got the praise and glory for making it "worthy" of belief.
Any more questions?
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Mike quote:
"SHAME ON YOU!
Not asking these kinds of questions,
shooting off at the mouth,
and running with mob feelings
help religion to be very stinky!"
You wonder if I asked these questions then before I can respond take me to task for not asking? You, sir, are impatient and inconsiderate and therefore undeserving of further response.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
DM,
I have one more question:
I have already made myself an accrediting authority according to VPs doctoral standards. Would you like to be a university? It's free. ;-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: I no longer feel a need to glean truths from them, but I know that VPW did, and I receive from him what he got from trinitarians. Probably most (if not all) of his teachers believed that Jesus was God.
I've posted this before, but IMO many trinitarians just give lip service to the trinity while knowing (either consciously or subconsciously) that Jesus is a man who was tempted like we are.
I attended a Presbyterian church in 1999 and one Sunday the sermon was about trusting and obeying. The first verse the minister (definitely a trinitarian) went to was Luke 22:42 where Jesus says "not my will but thine be done". He said "even Jesus had to struggle with trust and obey at times". All right! If that minister knows that Jesus could be tempted with weakness like that, then somewhere in his mind he knows Jesus isn't really God the Creator. Some TWI leaders seemed to declare war on trinitarians, but even VPW made a distinction at AC '79. He said those who were adamant about the trinity were possessed. He didn't say all trinitarians were possessed.
Everybody who called themselves Christian believed Jesus is God; VPW had no choice but to glean from trinitarians.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
Have any of you considered that some of us might believe that Jesus Christ is our God but are not trinitarians?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
Actually, Pat, that HADN'T occured to me. At least trinitarians have a way of explaining Jesus's prayers to God. If you are equating Jesus with the Father, the implication from his prayers is that he was schizophrenic. If you are allowing that Jesus had a God, why not worship Him, instead of Jesus?
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
George:
My thought is that Jesus Christ is our God, not THE God. Moses was God to Aaron etc. The example of this type of relationship is in the old testament.
Also, Thomas said: My Lord and MY God. He and Jesus obviously prayed to THE God who was ultimately superior.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
pjroberge,
You wrote at the end of the previous page: "My thought is that Jesus Christ is our God, not THE God. Moses was God to Aaron etc. The example of this type of relationship is in the old testament. __ Also, Thomas said: My Lord and MY God. He and Jesus obviously prayed to THE God who was ultimately superior."
I am happy to agree almost 100% with you on this issue as you just stated it.
:)-->
I would only add to your statements Jesus’ words to Mary Magdalene after the resurrection in John 20:17 which reads:
“Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.”
Interestingly, this verse is in the same chapter as the verse you just cited regarding Thomas, only 11 verses prior.
Also interestingly, most trinitarians totally exclude verse 17 from their thoughts, and they put forth Thomas’ verse 28 quote “My lord and my God” as one of their ultimate “proofs” of Jesus’ supreme “godhood.”
I once asked a trinitarian, after his quoting of Thomas’ verse 28 words from memory, if he also knew Jesus’ words to Mary Magdalene in the same chapter. He promptly and proudly spouted verse 17, but he OMITTED THE ENDING “and to my God, and your God.”
When I opened the Bible and showed him how the verse ended our conversation abruptly ended too.
***
Another way of looking at these same things as you stated them is:
God’s Word is as much God as God is God.
Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh.
Therefore Jesus Christ is as much God in the flesh as God Himself.
This is the same case as what we were taught regarding Peter standing before Cornelius’ household with all the authority of God Almighty because he was speaking God’s Word and only God’s Word.
RHST p.113 (7th ed.) with my bold fonts:
“What a tremendous statement Cornelius made when he told Peter that this group of kinsmen and near friends whom he had collected together were present before God. They had assembled themselves together just the same as if God Almighty had stood there. And Cornelius said to Peter, ‘Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God.’ Cornelius was not interested in theology, he was not interested in what people said, he was not interested in ‘apple-polishing,’ nor in any fanfare. The only thing Cornelius wanted to hear was that which God had com-manded Peter to speak. In other words, he wanted to hear only the Word of God—’all things that are commanded thee of God”
***
There is still another instance of this principle in OMSW. In Chapter Nine “Choose You This Day” Dr cites Joshua 24:1, which is:
And Joshua gathered all the tribes of Israel to Shechem, and called for the elders of Israel, and for their heads, and for their judges, and for their officers; and they presented themselves before God.
On page 176 Dr writes:
“The people 'presented themselves before God' at Shechem. This means that they presented themselves before God’s spokesman and prophet, Joshua. Joshua then had the challenge of presenting God’s Word to the people of Israel. God had done many great things for those people as they were led out of Egypt into the Promised Land, and Joshua reminded them of this.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
JustThinking,
You wrote: “You wonder if I asked these questions then before I can respond take me to task for not asking? You, sir, are impatient and inconsiderate and therefore undeserving of further response.”
I apologize for that. I think you have a legitimate beef here.
It was very at night late when I posted that, and I thought my bold fonting and capitalization of the word “ANY” would be sufficient to express my thoughts. I now see it wasn’t, so I edited my post to clarify.
Even if you continue to refuse a response, I still think WE ALL should ask ourselves the questions I posed there, and to the degree of detail I suggested.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Thank you Sky4it.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
dmiller
You wrote: “Mike --I first heard it from docvic himself…”
Heard WHAT from docvic himself? What EXACTLY, word for word? You didn’t fully answer here. If you can find WHERE he said that, instead of dredging it up from old memory, you’ll see that he didn’t take the credit you now think he did.
If we can’t locate these things in the record, then we should keep quiet until we do. Many errors can be avoided this way.
***
You wrote: “To be sure, vpw (in all fairness), did mention the fact that he had gleaned info from other folks, however -- it was made to sound like he had re-worked, and refined it himself -- to the point where it was "suitable for teaching".”
I’m grateful for your inclusion of the first part of the lines I just quoted, and that was fair of you. However in the second part, “it was made to sound like,” you revert to your memory again.
I agree he re-worked it and refined it, but not by himself. This is where the 1942 promise kicked in and God HIMSELF taught him the refinements and the reworkings. Dr gave the glory to God. If you had gone back to the source of your memory you’d have seen this crucial aspect that’s been forgotten.
Dr often said that he couldn’t do it himself. He was ready to throw in the towel in 1942 because he couldn’t do it himself. He OFTEN said that his ministry was by grace (and mercy) and that he was unworthy of the job he was given to bring forth God’s Word again. This is not only the case in this “copyrighteousness” area, but also in the area of personal deportment.
***
You wrote: “The fine folks running his classes, also glossed over the fact that he took so much from others -- preferring to mention more about vpw's "hard work at researching the truth", than they did about where his sources of "said truth" came from. If you want to call 8th corps "neophites", they were the last one's running a class (offered by twi) that I was ever at attendence in. __ They were most adament that doc was able to "ferret out the truth", from all of these various doctrines, and teach us what really mattered. Upshot of it is -- while others were noted as having made "contributions", docvic got the praise and glory for making it "worthy" of belief.”
Yes, at a certain point I would include any 8th Corps grad as if they were neophytes, because most of us older leader grads (remember OLGs?) had started regressing as the years went by. By “in the know” I mean someone who knows what they are talking about, someone who was accurately reflecting the original information, and not someone who was regurgitating a rotten memory adulterated with their own know-nothing theology.
I should have included another question in my post of question, and that is WHEN did you hear it. I did included this, but it was hidden at the end of the first question.
We have to WATCH OUR TIMES!
***
You wrote: “Any more questions?”
Just the one additional question on time. Plus there are still missing specifics in your answers so far such as which tape, which book, which magazine article that I think you should answer.
Although you have partially answered me, I’d like to address everyone again and challenge them to think all these through. Here’s a re-write of the questions:
Who told you?
When did they tell you?
Was it on tape, in print, or in person?
Was it from someone in the know, or from a neophyte?
Or was your "being told" a general feeling that developed over a span of time,
in a casual and undisciplined manner?
Why didn't you listen to Dr when he told us many times (I can cite references) that he got much of it from many sources?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
Scripture attests that Jesus Christ is God and it attests that Jesus Christ is man.
From those scriptural attestations orthodox Christology holds that, at Christ's incarnation, Christ's eternal divine nature and temporally beginning human nature were forever joined (without mixture) in Christ's single person.
It holds that Jesus Christ was born, was tempted, suffered, died and rose from the dead in his human nature -- and that he was not subject to temptation, suffering or death in his divine nature.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04169a.htm
http://www.datarat.net/DR/Lex-T.html#TheopaschiteHeresy
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07610b.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Cynic,
God cannot be tempted to go against His own will.
Jesus obeyed the Father Who was greater than him.
As it says in Timothy, there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.
If you trace through all the functions of you "god-man" in scripture you'll see that it's only the man part that ever does anything, even after the resurrection, and after the Ascension and at the very end in I Cor. 15:28 where the Son himself is subject to God.
The god part withers and dies under the heat of the light from the scriptures.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
InvisibleDan,
It’s a nice coincidence that you brought up what you just did, quoting sky4it, on being challenged to think for ourselves. The questions I’ve been posing in these recent posts are to inspire the same. One of the terrible things about mob mentality is that members of that mob feel they don’t have to think things through, because someone else in the mob already did that for them.
Interestingly enough, in Dr’s very last written words to us, in his last Way Magazine articles he TWICE challenged us to think things through for ourselves. Of course that thinking is understood to be from within the protective walls of God’s Word.
In the July/August 1985 issue both in his article “Our Only Rule of Faith and Practice – Part Two” AND in his "Our Times" editorial he issues these challenges.
On page 17 he writes:
“You have to honestly come to the place that you’re willing to keep asking yourself ‘Where did I learn what I believe? How did I get to the place of believing what I believe today?’ For the most part, men believe what they have received from tradition and not directly from reading the Word of God.”
On page 12 he writes:
“We must honestly come to the place of asking ourselves: Where did I learn this? How did I get to the place of believing this? Who taught me this? The counterfeit is so much like the genuine, you have to know the accuracy of the Word to separate truth from error.”
Did anyone notice this repetition back then?
Does anyone remember either one of these statements?
Probably not.
Like in his last verbal teaching where he twice instructs us to master the PFAL writings, here in his last written words to us he twice instructs us to think for ourselves, and in a detailed fashion.
Why did he twice instruct us (most specifically upper leadership) with his dying last words to master the writings? Because we hadn’t done it and it was hurting us.
Why did he twice instruct us with his last written words to think everything through and the sources of our beliefs? Because we hadn’t done so. We (especially leaders) were just mindlessly mouthing a bunch of TVT that was from all sorts of disparate sources, and it was hurting us very badly.
The hurt is mentioned twice also, once in each article, using the phrase "dark clouds" hanging over us to describe it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
The Christ of Scripture upholds all things by the word of his power (Hebrews 1:3) and is spoken of as having made heaven and earth (Hebrews 1:10-12).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Jesus also says where that power came from. It was from his Father and not himself. He said of myself I can do nothing.
We were taught plenty of how Jesus was not actually present at the creation or in the beginning any more than there were written scriptures existent back then.
Both forms of the Word [logos], both written and flesh, were WITH God in the beginning and at the creation, but in His foreknowledge. We, as members of the Body of Christ were “with” God back then, but we certainly are not God, even as members of his Body. When we speak the Word then we are the Word made flesh, but we are not God. We speak with the same authority of God, as did Jesus, when we are accurate, but we are not God.
HEY! This is headed to the Doctrinal forum. We’re getting far off the original topic. Out of respect we should either get back on topic or move the doctrinal discussion there.
I, for one, am done with the trinity vs. One God discussion, though. I suggest, Cynic, that you read the CES book on the topic, and then start your own Doctrinal thread and try and refute all their points.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chwester
If doctrinal correctness is so important, why does God bless the trinitarians so much?
Billy Graham, joyce meyer, chip ingram, charles stanley, andy stanley, rick ? - author of "Purpose Driven Life" etc etc.
I would hardly consider any of these ministries to have "gone down the tubes". Just the opposite!!
The Way really went "down the tubes"!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Doctrinal correctness is most imortant for the power to rise above all forms of darkness.
The first century church was very right on, but it still went down the tubes.
Israel was God's chosen people, blessed repeatedly by God, yet, they repeatedly went down the tubes.
God sends His rain on the just and the unjust alike when and where they operate sound principles.
God's blessings on them does not mean the people you cite are correct in every doctrinal matter. The fact that they can't do ALL the things Jesus Christ did indicates doctrinal deficiencies.
There's a big difference between a few blessings and all power.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chwester
The point I'm trying to make-check of my first post- is that these groups have wrong doctrine, but God blesses them mightily because of their love.
The Bible says if you love your neighbor as yourself, you have fulfilled the entire law.
Which is better--to "know" it all correctly,
or to "do" it all.
"If I have all knowledge" etc etc, but have not love, I am nothing.
I dont mean to knock having correct doctrine. But loving God and your neighbor is much more important.
Lack of love will cause a ministry to go down the tubes. The biggest reason people left ^The Way was because of the way the leadership was treating people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chwester
Jesus didnt come to make a point, he came to build a bridge.
He didnt come to show he was right, he came to win hearts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chwester
God is concerned about "motives" than about "knowledge".
Btw-Mike-I am not saying your motives are not good. This is not about you personally.
God looks at the heart, not the brain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
"And though I have [the gift of] prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." 1 corin.13:2
Mike: Pull your head out of VeePee's a*s and read what the scriptures say about your precious "mastery" of piffl
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.