It is possible that Peter may have denied Jesus 6 times. Heck, he could have denied him 100 times before the cock crowed for that matter. When Jesus told Peter he was going to deny him 3 times, it was not necessarily an absolute figure. It was more in the essence of "you will have denied me at least 3 times". If you want to go by the PFAL principle of 3 times confirmed, then Jesus was simply telling Peter that he wasn't going to keep his promise of fidelity.
The same with the number of people crucified with Christ. There could have been 10 crucifed with him for that matter. The point being made was that he would be numbered amongst criminals. Two others crucified would suffice to make that point.
I agree that the numbers are irrelevant, but rather what was accomplished was what was important.
Good point on "children of the devil". But that phrase is most certainly a figure of speech which means that you do not take part of the phrase and break it down into a literal meaning. The Hebrews used "children of" in a lot of things. "Children of light", "children of darkness", "children of the devil". These mean that if you are "children" of it, you follow it like children. If you follow the devil, you are a follower of the devil. If you are a child of darkness, you live in darkness, and if you are a child of light, you follow and live in light.
However, I am going to study that one further just to be sure. I appreciate that coming up.
It seems to me, that if we are to take "children of God" in this verse literally, we must also take "children of the devil" literally.
What The Hay --- Good post. Not trying to throw a monkey wrench into it, or even play devil's advocate, but here is something I have always wondered about, concerning "born of the wrong seed".
Vp taught that the devil can come up with nothing new on his own, he only copies. Now - if that is true, how could someone be "born again of wrong seed", thousands of years before it was possible to be "born again of right seed"?
I tend to believe that the advo only copies (an example would be in Exodus 7, at Pharoah's court, when the sorcerer's copied Moses' miracles, but didn't do anything he didn't do). I know Cain was "of the devil", and Jesus told some people that they were of "their father the devil", so that just compounds the uncertainty given what vp taught about the devil's originality -- which I think has some merit to it (not because vp said it, but because there are examples in the Word of such).
So -- what do you think?? Was the "seed" that caused these folks to be on _the wrong side of the fence_ something different than what is available to us today, as far as being born again of Holy Spirit? Or was it the same thing, or was it allegorical? I don't know.
There are some people who are so totally evil, one _has to think_ that since their malevolence transcends human nature, some sort of spiritual connection is there. Leastways I do.
This is a question I have had for almost 30 years now. It has yet to be answered.
Dave,
I tried to answer this early on: "To dmiller, LCM explained this. The devil was well aware of the promise of the seed of the woman crushing his seed. He was not able to copy the Christian new birth, of course, but was able to mimic natural seed. This spiritual "seed" left his "children" open to posession at any time. Having committed the unforgivable sin, his children would never turn to the true God."
I didn't say that my focus was solely on doctrines. My point is that a cult is simply a group that is either too small or has too little political influence to demand acceptance.
Catholicism is radically different than the totally of Baptist Congregations, yet one doesn't often hear Baptists referring to Catholicism as a cult, nor vice versa. Yet, their doctrines are vastly different. The Assemblies of God doctrines are quite a bit different than Presbyterians. Catholicism is accepted, right or wrong. Baptists are accepted, right or wrong. Assemblies of God are accepted, right or wrong. Presbyterians are accepted, right or wrong. What makes them right or wrong? All of them talk about Jesus, don't they? If all that matter was a focus on Jesus, then wouldn't it be one happy,wonderful, world!
How do we determine what's right or wrong with these groups? Group affiliation isn't the issue, it's what they teach. In other words, DOCTRINE!
The Word says that the truth shall set us free, not group affiliation. If we believe truth, it doesn't matter whether people accept our group or not, but our relationship is with God and his son, Jesus Christ.
There are plenty of people that focus on Jesus, yet blow up abortion clinics. There are plenty of people that focus on Jesus, yet deliberate twist others words to fit a preset agenda. There are plenty of people that focus on Jesus, yet engage in unbiblical condemnation of others.
The Word makes known Christ. If God didn't think his Word was important, he would not have repeatedly stressed in his Word how important it was.
What made TWI wrong was wrong doctrine and sinful practices, someone one can also find in any denomination. Group affiliation has no relevance, God's truth does.
As far as being born of God or born of the devil. There is most certainly a devil. There is most certainly devil spirits. The Gospels, Acts, and Romans talk about people being born again of God, spirit created within. It is a literal spiritual being for someone who existed only as body and soul. It is not a figure of speech, it is a literal creation of spirit within. That is becoming a child or son of God. That parallels to Jesus being God's firstborn son.
So, logically, when the Word talks about being a child of darkness, what indication is there that it is not just as literal as becoming a son of God. God would have to indicate in his Word why there being a son of God would be literally true, and becoming a child of the devil would be figurive. But he never does. A person of body and soul is missing a piece or part of his total makeup. The completing piece is spirit, whether it is from God or the devil.
quote: Catholicism is radically different than the totally of Baptist Congregations, yet one doesn't often hear Baptists referring to Catholicism as a cult,
Naw, THey [baptists} just say they are all going to hell.
You have to come to Anchorage and see the Easter Pagent put on by one of the local Baptist
churches. The final scene shows the second coming of Jesus Christ all the baptists are saved while RC priests and nuns pled ineffectually as they are denied heaven.
quote:Good point on "children of the devil". But that phrase is most certainly a figure of speech which means that you do not take part of the phrase and break it down into a literal meaning. The Hebrews used "children of" in a lot of things. "Children of light", "children of darkness", "children of the devil". These mean that if you are "children" of it, you follow it like children. If you follow the devil, you are a follower of the devil. If you are a child of darkness, you live in darkness, and if you are a child of light, you follow and live in light.
In the gospel of John in chapter 8 Jesus gets into a very heated debate with the Pharisees. In verse 44 of Jesus boldly declares the Pharisees to be of their father the devil. The word for father here is pater and is also the same word Jesus used when he spoke of his Heavenly father.
When Jesus declared God was his father, was he just communicating that as a "figure of speech", or was he truly the Son of God - literally? You decide.
Just because the same word is used literally in one place, does not eliminate the possibility that it is being used figuratively elsewhere. There is no contradiction between pater being used literally of God's relationship to Jesus and figuratively of the Pharisees' relationship to the Devil.
TWI put a lot of emphasis on what Greek or Hebrew word was used, as if there could be no nuance of meaning, or more than one meaning of the same word. I recall teachers in TWI breathlessly pointing out that the word "love" in a certain verse was agape, as if it was significant...duh! Almost ALL the occurences of "love" in the KJV are translated from agape!
There is no difference between all these denominations mentioned above. With minor differences in their various beliefs, all believe the above, therefore are one, though they say nay.
Even the Evangelicals believe the same crap, yet they declare themselves different from all the others too. -->
If ya wanna be in a cult (though imho ALL THE ABOVE QUALIFY), join something like twi, or jw, that says Jesus Christ is not God -- and then rest on your laurels. You've arrived.
To be a child of the devil or to say that "you are of your father the devil" does not mean you literally were "born of" or "born again" of the devil. There are no scriptures alluding to the devil having this kind of power. You can say that one is a literal child of God or that God is your father because the scriptures do tell you that you are "born of" or "born again" of God. This means spiritual seed was involved for God.
The devil had the rights to the human race prior to the fall and therefore was the god of this world in practice by those living on earth. A god that has followers is a "father" and the follower is a "child" regardless of any seed.
No one can substantiate from scripture that the devil is omnicient or omnipresent enough to be at all places at once where people accept the devil as lord and get "seed" from him, who was a limited being, an angel, a fallen angel at that. The devil cannot keep handing out spirit from himself less he completely disappear.
For Jesus to tell the religious leaders that they were of their "father" the devil was to tell them that they did not follow Abraham as Abraham was their ancestral father, and was in fact, a father to these religious leaders. What Jesus refers to here is that they were not following Abraham and what he spoke of, because if they had been doing that and had the committment to God that Abraham had, then they would be followers of Christ, who would lead them to the new birth.
I believe a lot of people here still cannot get over TWI teachings. They were not as "logical" as they appeared to be.
quote: Catholicism is radically different than the totally of Baptist Congregations, yet one doesn't often hear Baptists referring to Catholicism as a cult,
Naw, THey [baptists} just say they are all going to hell.
You have to come to Anchorage and see the Easter Pagent put on by one of the local Baptist
churches. The final scene shows the second coming of Jesus Christ all the baptists are saved while RC priests and nuns pled ineffectually as they are denied heaven.
I think almost any group can be considered a cult. But in the Bible, it's always the bad guys calling the good guys heretics, or accusing Paul of being the ringleader of a sect, or branding Jesus as a heretic.
There are lots of the anti-cult people that consider Amway and Alcoholics Anonymous as cults. Anytime you can find extremely committed people, it must be a cult.
Yet, I live in a city where they have a Drug and Alcohol Rehab center. I have met lots of people involved in various 12 step programs. Yes, there are people in AA, NA, CDA, etc that are very committed, but these people have changed their lives because of the programs they are involved in. I can't fault something that brings good to people's lives.
It seems that some people get caught in who said what. It isn't who said something, it is does that which they said agree with the Word.
I left TWI in '87. I wouldn't say that I went back to TWI in '89, but I did go to a WOW family's fellowship that year for a few months. The people in that fellowship were all giddy to hear a particular speaker teach. I was of the attitude that the speaker wasn't important, but that which was being spoken was. I could not share in their excitement.
We cannot rationally dismiss something automatically that VPW said, nor automatically accept it, either. The same holds true for LCM, yes, even him. It isn't who said it, it is what is being said.
VPW did a very thorough job of outlining the 4 crucified. He laid out the scriptures in relation to time and place. He showed how the soldiers how to the first one crucified with Christ, and then came to the second one, before getting to Jesus. The 4 crucified makes a lot more sense than the traditional idea.
When it came to tithing, VPW did not do such a good job. The tithe is mentioned in Malachi. That is Old Testament, in the Law Administration. The tithe was one tenth of one's firstfruits and one seventh of one's time. No special penalty was given for one's failure to tithe, other than the penalty for disobeying the law. Corinthians, in the administration of grace, mentions no percentages whatsoever. Corinthians also indicates that people are to give of their abundance. Abundance is a lot different than firstfruits. No penalty or punishment is outlined for the failure to give. Law-10% firstfruits, Grace-abundance. No penalties, only benefits in grace administration. In Corinthians, a person gives as the purpose in their hearts to give. God loves a cheerful giver. It's not obligation, it's a desire to give, in this administration.
Now what about VPW's statement that we in this administration should do more than those under the law. Where in the Bible did it ever say that we under grace should do more than those under law? No where. There were over 800 OT laws, yet Jesus summed up all the law in 2 commandments, to love God with all one's heart, soul, mind, and strength; and to love one's neighbor as oneself. From over 800 to only 2 sounds to me like God intended for us to do a lot less than those under the law. VPW added to the Word but saying that we should do more. LCM took that unbiblical statement and turned it into a law that people must absolutely give out of obligation, a minimum of 15% of total income, not just firstfruits, but total income. LCM added a penalty not mentioned in the Bible, of God not spitting in our direction.
VPW taught 4 crucified correctly. We can verify it from the Word if we have an open heart to the Word. Yet, he completely screwed up the tithing/abundant sharing topic. He did exactly what he told us in PFAL not to do as far as adding words to the Word, omitting words from, or changing words in the Word.
So, the teacher doesn't matter, the teaching matters. Hey, if Ken Copeland, Jimmy Swaggart, Billy Graham, Kenneth Hagin, or Charles Colson teaches something and it agrees with the Word, then the teaching is good. People tend to be swayed by the charisma of the teacher, rather than paying attention to what is being said.
No one can substantiate from scripture that the devil is omnicient or omnipresent enough to be at all places at once where people accept the devil as lord and get "seed" from him, who was a limited being, an angel, a fallen angel at that. The devil cannot keep handing out spirit from himself less he completely disappear.
And no one has to substantiate it, either. As I mentioned several days ago, people don't "go seed-boy" out of the blue. Assuming a reasonable amount of communication within his kingdom, the Devil does not need to be omniscient OR omnipresent to know when someone has been seduced into committing the unforgiveable sin, just aware.
Secondly, even if we accept Eagle's premise that the Devil must give up some of himself in order to father someone, there is no way to know how much power he has or how much (or how little) must be expended to father someone. The number of his children is far less than the number of the children of God (praise God!). Incidentally, I'm not omnipotent, either, but I could have a WHOLE LOT of children if each one of my seeds resulted in a birth!
quote: Just because the same word is used literally in one place, does not eliminate the possibility that it is being used figuratively elsewhere. ...
The acid test of determining whether a phrase in the Bible is to be taken literally or figuratively is whether the phrase is being used as a plain, simple, matter-of-fact statement, or if the phrase is being thrown into a peculiar form, different from its original or simplest meaning or use. There is nothing figurative in the statement "child of God" anymore than the phrase: "child of the devil" as the phrase is not being thrown into a peculiar form.
Bullinger stated, "There are figures used in the English language, which have nothing that answers to them in Hebrew or Greek; and there are Oriental figures which have no counterpart in English; while there are some figures in various languages, arising from human infirmity and folly, which find of course, no place in the word of God.
It may be asked, "How are we to know, then, when words are to be taken in their simple, original form (i.e. literally), and when they are to be taken in some other and peculiar form (i.e. as a figure)?" The answer is that, whenever and wherever it is possible, the words of Scripture are to be understood literally, but when a statement appears to be contrary to our experience, or to known fact, or revealed truth, or seems to be at variance with the general teaching of the Scriptures, then we may reasonably expect that some figure is employeed. And as it is employed only to call our attention to some specially designed emphasis, we are at once bound to diligently examine the figure for the purpose of discovering and learning the truth that is thus emphasized." [From: Note on Figures in General, "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible" - Bullinger]
If the phrase "child of the devil" was used as a figure of speech in the Bible, then it would only add and put emphasis to the literal meaning of the phrase - it certainly would not detract from or remove its literal meaning. For example: "The ground is thirsty" is a figure of speech, but this figure does not detract or remove the literal meaning of the phrase: "The ground is dry", (the literal meaning). It is usually a common misconception that figures of speech give the literal phrase less meaning, but when they are properly understood figures of speech always emphasize the literal meaning.
If your claiming "child of the devil" is only to be taken as a figure of speech, then you are emphasizing the literal meaning of the phrase - not detracting from or removing the literal meaning. But if this was your intent, to remove the literal meaning of the phrase, then it is evident you do not understand what figures of speech really are.
But WTH, there ARE figurative usages of "child" in the Bible that don't mean "offspring." Best example: Abraham is the father of all who believe. It's not literal. I don't have Abraham's seed in me. It's saying that those who believe take after him. Just like those who are children of the devil take after him: it doesn't mean they have seed that cannot be removed.
While the Pharisees claimed they were of Abraham's seed (in John 8:33) Jesus recognized the same in his response to them in verse 37 of the same chapter. Was Jesus recognizing the Pharisees then as being children of "the father of all who believe?" Of course not. While the Pharisees certainly wished to claim that for themselves, Jesus only recognized them of being of Abrahams seed or bloodline.
Here is an example in the word of God where "seed" is being put and used for "bloodline" (not that the Pharisees were the physical sons of Abraham) but here in God's word it is the figure of speech synecdoche. A synecdoche is putting "part for the whole". An example of this figure of speech would be used in the phrase, "1000 head of cattle" - where the part (the head) represents the whole (cattle). In this verse of scripture we see the part (seed) being used and put for the whole (bloodline).
Does this figure of speech then, synecdoch, negate the Pharisees literally being Abraham's children? No it doesn't. What it emphasizes is they came from the same physical bloodline (lineage) that Abraham's physical children did. Not all Abraham's children were believers though, nor were Adam's. The Pharisees certainly wished to confuse the issue however. From the spiritual point of view (and truthfully) they would have done just as well to claim themselves being of Adam's seed (bloodline) rather than Abraham's as far as Jesus was concerned - as the entire human race is Adam's seed.
First of all, the Abraham's seed reference I made was not the same as the one that you made. I just wanted that noted for the record.
Second, there is plenty to suggest that Jesus took their literal lineage, denied it, and replaced it with a figurative lineage. In fact, it makes PERFECT sense. These people REALLY WERE Abraham's seed, but Jesus looks at them and says "No you're not? IF YOU WERE ABRAHAM'S SEED YOU WOULD BELIEVE ME." Now let's look at that: are they, literally, Abraham's seed? Yes. But Jesus says "IF IF IF IF you were Abraham's seed..." Why is he denying what he knows to be true? Because he's not addressing a literal lineage. He's addressing a figurative one, one borne of their failure/refusal to believe him. They are of their father, the devil. Literal father? No. Figurative father, just like Abraham is figuratively not their father.
I'm just saying, WTH, that I disagree with you. But I have no difficulty with you continuing to believe what you do.
quote:They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
Ye do the deeds of your father...
(Yes, I know he acknowledged their physical lineage. But in denying it, he was showing that he was not being literal. Just my opinion).
Just agree with Bullinger, and move on oh ye righteous souls of truth you hold between and against each other~~~ a lively exchange of words is sure~~~ but to prove the truth! is folly only to have ones crown a divit the others staff and so on...
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
23
16
16
18
Popular Days
Oct 26
27
Nov 11
15
Nov 13
13
Oct 30
13
Top Posters In This Topic
GeorgeStGeorge 23 posts
Raf 16 posts
Eagle 16 posts
dmiller 18 posts
Popular Days
Oct 26 2004
27 posts
Nov 11 2004
15 posts
Nov 13 2004
13 posts
Oct 30 2004
13 posts
CKnapp3
It is possible that Peter may have denied Jesus 6 times. Heck, he could have denied him 100 times before the cock crowed for that matter. When Jesus told Peter he was going to deny him 3 times, it was not necessarily an absolute figure. It was more in the essence of "you will have denied me at least 3 times". If you want to go by the PFAL principle of 3 times confirmed, then Jesus was simply telling Peter that he wasn't going to keep his promise of fidelity.
The same with the number of people crucified with Christ. There could have been 10 crucifed with him for that matter. The point being made was that he would be numbered amongst criminals. Two others crucified would suffice to make that point.
I agree that the numbers are irrelevant, but rather what was accomplished was what was important.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
It seems to me, that if we are to take "children of God" in this verse literally, we must also take "children of the devil" literally.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
Dave,
I tried to answer this early on: "To dmiller, LCM explained this. The devil was well aware of the promise of the seed of the woman crushing his seed. He was not able to copy the Christian new birth, of course, but was able to mimic natural seed. This spiritual "seed" left his "children" open to posession at any time. Having committed the unforgivable sin, his children would never turn to the true God."
Does this answer your question?
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Danny
George you don't really think I would believe anything lmc said to be true do you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
That's up to you, I suppose. LCM DID have some lucid moments, though.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biblefan Dave
Evan,
I didn't say that my focus was solely on doctrines. My point is that a cult is simply a group that is either too small or has too little political influence to demand acceptance.
Catholicism is radically different than the totally of Baptist Congregations, yet one doesn't often hear Baptists referring to Catholicism as a cult, nor vice versa. Yet, their doctrines are vastly different. The Assemblies of God doctrines are quite a bit different than Presbyterians. Catholicism is accepted, right or wrong. Baptists are accepted, right or wrong. Assemblies of God are accepted, right or wrong. Presbyterians are accepted, right or wrong. What makes them right or wrong? All of them talk about Jesus, don't they? If all that matter was a focus on Jesus, then wouldn't it be one happy,wonderful, world!
How do we determine what's right or wrong with these groups? Group affiliation isn't the issue, it's what they teach. In other words, DOCTRINE!
The Word says that the truth shall set us free, not group affiliation. If we believe truth, it doesn't matter whether people accept our group or not, but our relationship is with God and his son, Jesus Christ.
There are plenty of people that focus on Jesus, yet blow up abortion clinics. There are plenty of people that focus on Jesus, yet deliberate twist others words to fit a preset agenda. There are plenty of people that focus on Jesus, yet engage in unbiblical condemnation of others.
The Word makes known Christ. If God didn't think his Word was important, he would not have repeatedly stressed in his Word how important it was.
What made TWI wrong was wrong doctrine and sinful practices, someone one can also find in any denomination. Group affiliation has no relevance, God's truth does.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biblefan Dave
As far as being born of God or born of the devil. There is most certainly a devil. There is most certainly devil spirits. The Gospels, Acts, and Romans talk about people being born again of God, spirit created within. It is a literal spiritual being for someone who existed only as body and soul. It is not a figure of speech, it is a literal creation of spirit within. That is becoming a child or son of God. That parallels to Jesus being God's firstborn son.
So, logically, when the Word talks about being a child of darkness, what indication is there that it is not just as literal as becoming a son of God. God would have to indicate in his Word why there being a son of God would be literally true, and becoming a child of the devil would be figurive. But he never does. A person of body and soul is missing a piece or part of his total makeup. The completing piece is spirit, whether it is from God or the devil.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Naw, THey [baptists} just say they are all going to hell.
You have to come to Anchorage and see the Easter Pagent put on by one of the local Baptist
churches. The final scene shows the second coming of Jesus Christ all the baptists are saved while RC priests and nuns pled ineffectually as they are denied heaven.
Specters of TWI
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hay
In the gospel of John in chapter 8 Jesus gets into a very heated debate with the Pharisees. In verse 44 of Jesus boldly declares the Pharisees to be of their father the devil. The word for father here is pater and is also the same word Jesus used when he spoke of his Heavenly father.
When Jesus declared God was his father, was he just communicating that as a "figure of speech", or was he truly the Son of God - literally? You decide.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Just because the same word is used literally in one place, does not eliminate the possibility that it is being used figuratively elsewhere. There is no contradiction between pater being used literally of God's relationship to Jesus and figuratively of the Pharisees' relationship to the Devil.
TWI put a lot of emphasis on what Greek or Hebrew word was used, as if there could be no nuance of meaning, or more than one meaning of the same word. I recall teachers in TWI breathlessly pointing out that the word "love" in a certain verse was agape, as if it was significant...duh! Almost ALL the occurences of "love" in the KJV are translated from agape!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Baptist's believe in ---
Trinity
Jesus is God/Man
Water Baptism
Crucified on Friday, raised on Sunday
Speaking in Tongues is a gift
Holy Spirit is a 3rd person, not a power
Catholics believe ---
Trinity
Jesus is God/Man
Water Baptism
Crucified on Friday, raised on Sunday
Speaking in Tongues is a gift
Holy Spirit is a 3rd person, not a power
Assemblies of God believe ---
Trinity
Jesus is God/Man
Water Baptism
Crucified on Friday, raised on Sunday
Speaking in Tongues is a gift
Holy Spirit is a 3rd person, not a power
Presbyterians believe ---
Trinity
Jesus is God/Man
Water Baptism
Crucified on Friday, raised on Sunday
Speaking in Tongues is a gift
Holy Spirit is a 3rd person, not a power
Lutherans believe ---
Trinity
Jesus is God/Man
Water Baptism
Crucified on Friday, raised on Sunday
Speaking in Tongues is a gift
Holy Spirit is a 3rd person, not a power
There is no difference between all these denominations mentioned above. With minor differences in their various beliefs, all believe the above, therefore are one, though they say nay.
Even the Evangelicals believe the same crap, yet they declare themselves different from all the others too.
-->
If ya wanna be in a cult (though imho ALL THE ABOVE QUALIFY), join something like twi, or jw, that says Jesus Christ is not God -- and then rest on your laurels. You've arrived.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
To be a child of the devil or to say that "you are of your father the devil" does not mean you literally were "born of" or "born again" of the devil. There are no scriptures alluding to the devil having this kind of power. You can say that one is a literal child of God or that God is your father because the scriptures do tell you that you are "born of" or "born again" of God. This means spiritual seed was involved for God.
The devil had the rights to the human race prior to the fall and therefore was the god of this world in practice by those living on earth. A god that has followers is a "father" and the follower is a "child" regardless of any seed.
No one can substantiate from scripture that the devil is omnicient or omnipresent enough to be at all places at once where people accept the devil as lord and get "seed" from him, who was a limited being, an angel, a fallen angel at that. The devil cannot keep handing out spirit from himself less he completely disappear.
For Jesus to tell the religious leaders that they were of their "father" the devil was to tell them that they did not follow Abraham as Abraham was their ancestral father, and was in fact, a father to these religious leaders. What Jesus refers to here is that they were not following Abraham and what he spoke of, because if they had been doing that and had the committment to God that Abraham had, then they would be followers of Christ, who would lead them to the new birth.
I believe a lot of people here still cannot get over TWI teachings. They were not as "logical" as they appeared to be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biblefan Dave
Naw, THey [baptists} just say they are all going to hell.
You have to come to Anchorage and see the Easter Pagent put on by one of the local Baptist
churches. The final scene shows the second coming of Jesus Christ all the baptists are saved while RC priests and nuns pled ineffectually as they are denied heaven.
I think almost any group can be considered a cult. But in the Bible, it's always the bad guys calling the good guys heretics, or accusing Paul of being the ringleader of a sect, or branding Jesus as a heretic.
There are lots of the anti-cult people that consider Amway and Alcoholics Anonymous as cults. Anytime you can find extremely committed people, it must be a cult.
Yet, I live in a city where they have a Drug and Alcohol Rehab center. I have met lots of people involved in various 12 step programs. Yes, there are people in AA, NA, CDA, etc that are very committed, but these people have changed their lives because of the programs they are involved in. I can't fault something that brings good to people's lives.
David
Specters of TWI
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biblefan Dave
It seems that some people get caught in who said what. It isn't who said something, it is does that which they said agree with the Word.
I left TWI in '87. I wouldn't say that I went back to TWI in '89, but I did go to a WOW family's fellowship that year for a few months. The people in that fellowship were all giddy to hear a particular speaker teach. I was of the attitude that the speaker wasn't important, but that which was being spoken was. I could not share in their excitement.
We cannot rationally dismiss something automatically that VPW said, nor automatically accept it, either. The same holds true for LCM, yes, even him. It isn't who said it, it is what is being said.
VPW did a very thorough job of outlining the 4 crucified. He laid out the scriptures in relation to time and place. He showed how the soldiers how to the first one crucified with Christ, and then came to the second one, before getting to Jesus. The 4 crucified makes a lot more sense than the traditional idea.
When it came to tithing, VPW did not do such a good job. The tithe is mentioned in Malachi. That is Old Testament, in the Law Administration. The tithe was one tenth of one's firstfruits and one seventh of one's time. No special penalty was given for one's failure to tithe, other than the penalty for disobeying the law. Corinthians, in the administration of grace, mentions no percentages whatsoever. Corinthians also indicates that people are to give of their abundance. Abundance is a lot different than firstfruits. No penalty or punishment is outlined for the failure to give. Law-10% firstfruits, Grace-abundance. No penalties, only benefits in grace administration. In Corinthians, a person gives as the purpose in their hearts to give. God loves a cheerful giver. It's not obligation, it's a desire to give, in this administration.
Now what about VPW's statement that we in this administration should do more than those under the law. Where in the Bible did it ever say that we under grace should do more than those under law? No where. There were over 800 OT laws, yet Jesus summed up all the law in 2 commandments, to love God with all one's heart, soul, mind, and strength; and to love one's neighbor as oneself. From over 800 to only 2 sounds to me like God intended for us to do a lot less than those under the law. VPW added to the Word but saying that we should do more. LCM took that unbiblical statement and turned it into a law that people must absolutely give out of obligation, a minimum of 15% of total income, not just firstfruits, but total income. LCM added a penalty not mentioned in the Bible, of God not spitting in our direction.
VPW taught 4 crucified correctly. We can verify it from the Word if we have an open heart to the Word. Yet, he completely screwed up the tithing/abundant sharing topic. He did exactly what he told us in PFAL not to do as far as adding words to the Word, omitting words from, or changing words in the Word.
So, the teacher doesn't matter, the teaching matters. Hey, if Ken Copeland, Jimmy Swaggart, Billy Graham, Kenneth Hagin, or Charles Colson teaches something and it agrees with the Word, then the teaching is good. People tend to be swayed by the charisma of the teacher, rather than paying attention to what is being said.
David
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
And no one has to substantiate it, either. As I mentioned several days ago, people don't "go seed-boy" out of the blue. Assuming a reasonable amount of communication within his kingdom, the Devil does not need to be omniscient OR omnipresent to know when someone has been seduced into committing the unforgiveable sin, just aware.
Secondly, even if we accept Eagle's premise that the Devil must give up some of himself in order to father someone, there is no way to know how much power he has or how much (or how little) must be expended to father someone. The number of his children is far less than the number of the children of God (praise God!). Incidentally, I'm not omnipotent, either, but I could have a WHOLE LOT of children if each one of my seeds resulted in a birth!
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hay
The acid test of determining whether a phrase in the Bible is to be taken literally or figuratively is whether the phrase is being used as a plain, simple, matter-of-fact statement, or if the phrase is being thrown into a peculiar form, different from its original or simplest meaning or use. There is nothing figurative in the statement "child of God" anymore than the phrase: "child of the devil" as the phrase is not being thrown into a peculiar form.
Bullinger stated, "There are figures used in the English language, which have nothing that answers to them in Hebrew or Greek; and there are Oriental figures which have no counterpart in English; while there are some figures in various languages, arising from human infirmity and folly, which find of course, no place in the word of God.
It may be asked, "How are we to know, then, when words are to be taken in their simple, original form (i.e. literally), and when they are to be taken in some other and peculiar form (i.e. as a figure)?" The answer is that, whenever and wherever it is possible, the words of Scripture are to be understood literally, but when a statement appears to be contrary to our experience, or to known fact, or revealed truth, or seems to be at variance with the general teaching of the Scriptures, then we may reasonably expect that some figure is employeed. And as it is employed only to call our attention to some specially designed emphasis, we are at once bound to diligently examine the figure for the purpose of discovering and learning the truth that is thus emphasized." [From: Note on Figures in General, "Figures of Speech Used in the Bible" - Bullinger]
If the phrase "child of the devil" was used as a figure of speech in the Bible, then it would only add and put emphasis to the literal meaning of the phrase - it certainly would not detract from or remove its literal meaning. For example: "The ground is thirsty" is a figure of speech, but this figure does not detract or remove the literal meaning of the phrase: "The ground is dry", (the literal meaning). It is usually a common misconception that figures of speech give the literal phrase less meaning, but when they are properly understood figures of speech always emphasize the literal meaning.
If your claiming "child of the devil" is only to be taken as a figure of speech, then you are emphasizing the literal meaning of the phrase - not detracting from or removing the literal meaning. But if this was your intent, to remove the literal meaning of the phrase, then it is evident you do not understand what figures of speech really are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
But WTH, there ARE figurative usages of "child" in the Bible that don't mean "offspring." Best example: Abraham is the father of all who believe. It's not literal. I don't have Abraham's seed in me. It's saying that those who believe take after him. Just like those who are children of the devil take after him: it doesn't mean they have seed that cannot be removed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hay
While the Pharisees claimed they were of Abraham's seed (in John 8:33) Jesus recognized the same in his response to them in verse 37 of the same chapter. Was Jesus recognizing the Pharisees then as being children of "the father of all who believe?" Of course not. While the Pharisees certainly wished to claim that for themselves, Jesus only recognized them of being of Abrahams seed or bloodline.
Here is an example in the word of God where "seed" is being put and used for "bloodline" (not that the Pharisees were the physical sons of Abraham) but here in God's word it is the figure of speech synecdoche. A synecdoche is putting "part for the whole". An example of this figure of speech would be used in the phrase, "1000 head of cattle" - where the part (the head) represents the whole (cattle). In this verse of scripture we see the part (seed) being used and put for the whole (bloodline).
Does this figure of speech then, synecdoch, negate the Pharisees literally being Abraham's children? No it doesn't. What it emphasizes is they came from the same physical bloodline (lineage) that Abraham's physical children did. Not all Abraham's children were believers though, nor were Adam's. The Pharisees certainly wished to confuse the issue however. From the spiritual point of view (and truthfully) they would have done just as well to claim themselves being of Adam's seed (bloodline) rather than Abraham's as far as Jesus was concerned - as the entire human race is Adam's seed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Whoops,
I need to check my zipper.
I thinks Bullinger said it all beyound your attempts to joust each other.
Bullinger makes more sence ~~~
but i am sure i will be humbled and ignored~~~
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
First of all, the Abraham's seed reference I made was not the same as the one that you made. I just wanted that noted for the record.
Second, there is plenty to suggest that Jesus took their literal lineage, denied it, and replaced it with a figurative lineage. In fact, it makes PERFECT sense. These people REALLY WERE Abraham's seed, but Jesus looks at them and says "No you're not? IF YOU WERE ABRAHAM'S SEED YOU WOULD BELIEVE ME." Now let's look at that: are they, literally, Abraham's seed? Yes. But Jesus says "IF IF IF IF you were Abraham's seed..." Why is he denying what he knows to be true? Because he's not addressing a literal lineage. He's addressing a figurative one, one borne of their failure/refusal to believe him. They are of their father, the devil. Literal father? No. Figurative father, just like Abraham is figuratively not their father.
I'm just saying, WTH, that I disagree with you. But I have no difficulty with you continuing to believe what you do.
(Yes, I know he acknowledged their physical lineage. But in denying it, he was showing that he was not being literal. Just my opinion).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Just agree with Bullinger, and move on oh ye righteous souls of truth you hold between and against each other~~~ a lively exchange of words is sure~~~ but to prove the truth! is folly only to have ones crown a divit the others staff and so on...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
So, Biblefan, the fact that we ALL were children of disobedience, what happens there? Guess it's seed, right, and we're all unredeemable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
oops.... and his open heart....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Genesis 3:20
"And Adah bare Jabal, he was the father of such as dwell in
tents, and of such as have cattle."
Genesis 3:21
"And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such
as handle the harp and organ."
Genesis 3:22a
"And Zillah, she also bare Tubal-cain, an instructor of every
artificer in brass and iron."
The first camper, the first cattle-rustler,
the first musician,
the first metalsmith.
Are all cowboys and musicians genetically descended from them?
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.