| Author | Comment | Steve Lortz
(8/28/00 5:24:42 pm)
| PFAL REVIEW
Thank you, Jerry, for this difficult, yet much needed thread!
Back in '87, a friend and I sat down with a borrowed bootleg copy of PFAL and started trying to do what you are actually doing now. We never made it past session 3, because the illogic got so disgusting. We gave up in part because we ourselves had already left TWI, and we didn't have a ready means to communicate with any more than a handful of other people who had done the same. Waydale is great!
Please don't get hung up by thinking you have to provide immediate, correct answers for every question raised in your re-examination of the class. Sometimes it takes a lot of spadework to prepare the foundation for major shifts in point of view. I believe you are aware of some of the things I've written about VPW's handling of "administrations". It took me quite a while, after I became convinced that what we'd learned was wrong, to figure out exactly *why* it was wrong, and how to articulate what I felt was biblically accurate.
For those who might be interested in various interpretations of John 1, I recommend "Christology In The Making" by James D.G. Dunn.
For those of us who were involved with TWI, and who are interested in becoming aware of *what* we believe and *why*, it's important to reconsider PFAL in detail. I encourage you, Jerry, not to become disheartened by the size and scope of the task you've taken on, but to continue bringing things to light as the Lord leads you. Again, thank you, Jerry!
Love,
Steve
| JBarrax
(8/28/00 7:12:12 pm)
| re; Council of Nicea
Larry, you pervert! LOL
Well, at least you're direct. Despite the fact that we are far apart in our approach to this topic, I appreciate your candor and sense of humor. And thanks for adding that the Trinity was adopted under the heavy-handed influence of a pagan king. Saves me the trouble of bringing it up. 
Steve:
Hey thanks for the kind words. It is a daunting task and sometimes a little overwhelming. I'm sure you've felt as I do; that you just have to work through it in order to know what the truth really is. I also feel obligated to chronicle the changes in belief because I've posted so many times in the recent past in defense of PFAL. It would be hypocritical for me to just change my mind and slink off silently, leaving all those
pro-Wierwille posts perpetually floating in my wake.
I am familiar with your work on administrations. I can't say that I agree with it, but then again, by the time I finish this review I might.
Evan:
Hi! As I mentioned to D.A. Reed, I don't see the idea of a god-man as the obvious answer. It's not that I reject the idea of Jesus as God the Son because I've been told it "can't be". It's just that concept has never made sense to me; that is, I've never understood it. To me, it raises too many apparent contradictions in the scripture. The most obvious is Luke 24:39, which reveals that even after Jesus' resurrection, he was still not a spirit, but a man of flesh and bone. God is a spirit and, as such, has no flesh. (There is a pile of scripture we could insert here indicating that flesh and spirit are two
separate realms). I don't see how these two beings can be the same person.
Maybe when this is done, I'll wade into to the deep water over on the Trinity debates thread and get fully involved.
For now, it's onward to session four!
Peace
Jerry
| Larry P2
(8/29/00 9:41:07 am)
| Re: re; Council of Nicea
I bring in the perverse, paradoxical nature of the Counsel for one reason Jerry: Can you in your wildest imagination simply believe this esteemed counsel pulled out of thin air the doctrine this executed Jewish carpenter was really God? Out of thin air? Really??????? There doesn't seem to be too many other instances where these hardnosed, Jew-hating Romans fabricated Jewish Carpenter/deities willy nilly.
There also didn't seem to be much, if any, market for other similar wild fairy tales in the 4th Century.
In addition, don't you think it took some cajones to elect Jesus as God with the king, egotistical ba$tards that Kings tend to be, sitting RIGHT THERE? I bet Constantine would have PREFERRED, at the very least, some of the later blather about Divine Right of Kings. Was electing Jesus as God supposed to warm this King's heart with his subject's undivided loyalty?
Would Constantine have chosen Lieberman as his running mate? Were Jews THAT popular in the Roman Empire? REALLY? Enough to safely deify one? Could a Jew have won election as a dogcatcher in this
Kingdom? (Hint: History was redolent with the Roman Empire's extraordinary visceral dislike of Jews. Remember Masada?)
There's just too many extra-Biblical indicias of truth in the bizarre inner-workings of this counsel and its paradoxical work product. That they were actually getting at the truth is so apparent to this jaded trial lawyer it just staggers my imagination.
In editing this post this morning, and researching this further, you may be interested in knowing that we were BOTH wrong about Constantine's religious bent. He converted to Christianity more than one year before the Council was convened. While one may certainly doubt the motivation and sincerity of his conversion, there is no doubt that he in fact converted. So to say that the Council was presided over by a "Pagan" King is just another one of
Wierwille's bald-faced lies.
Edited by Larry P2 at: 8/29/00 9:41:07 am
| Outin88
(8/28/00 8:30:00 pm)
| Re: The Living Word
Jerry I must
disagree with the absent Christ, not only from my own experiences but from
scripture, please consider the following;
I John 1:3 (NIV)
"We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his son Jesus Christ."
How can John have had fellowship with Jesus is he was absent? This verse indicates that we can have fellowship with God and Jesus.
Ephesians 1:2 (NIV)
"Grace and peace to you from God our father and the Lord Jesus Christ."
Galatians 1:11,12 (NIV)
"I want you to know brothers that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, rather I
received it by revelation from Jesus Christ."
John 14:21 (NIV)
"Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."
Acts 16:7 (NIV)
"When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the spirit of Jesus would not allow them to."
II Corinthians 13:3 (NIV)
"Since you are demanding proof that Christ is speaking through me. He is not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful among you."
This last verse implies that not everyone always hears from Jesus, but the fact remains that Jesus does not appear to be absent from the above verses.
Jesus Christ may be absent in the flesh, but not spiritually
Didn't Jesus say he has more to share with the dsicpiles that they couldn't bear at that time? I can't remember the verse, but that would imply that he would be contacting them, which tells me he wouldn't be abesent, at least not spiritually.
Where to or more are gathered in my name there am I (Jesus)in the midst.
Ever notice that the phrase "lord thy God" is not used in the epsitles? I believe it's because God made Jesus Lord and Christ. And depending on context, the word Lord refers to Jesus in the epistles.
There is much more I can share but this post is long enough.
Jerry you bring up some very good points, and I enjoy reading your posts, thank you. Please consider that our Lord Jesus Christ is not absent spiritually, and that according to John we can have fellowship with him.
How can he be the head of the body, and be our Lord if he is absent? No he is active in His body.
BTW, Jerry, have you read the VPW & talking to Jesus thread
I posted an article which you might find interesting.
I still don't believe he is God, but I've changed my mind on doctrine before, gradually the scales are falling from my eyes as I learn more. But at this time I can't accept that he is absent from his body.
God bless ya'll.
| JBarrax
(8/28/00 11:37:12 pm)
| Jesus, where are you?
HI Outin
Yes I've read your post recently. I spent about a half hour writing a response to your post and when I hit the add post button
Compuserve collapsed. I'll try again tomorrow.
Peace
Jerry
| Cynic
(8/29/00 5:03:39 am)
| John 1:1
As profligate in speculation as he is, Jerry nonetheless appears to be one who is realizing that Wierwille-like dismissals of Scriptures that declare Jesus Christ to have existed eternally require taking those Scriptures as non-attesting.
WayDale's Trinitarian-rising-in-the-oven (Evan) wrote:
" I think it is your [Jerry's] rejection of the divinity or deity of Christ that leads you farther afield in your reasoning, rather than see the more obvious picture."
That brings us back to John 1:1.
Largely, it is John 1:1 that sets the Trinitarian understanding of God, and hermeneutically it was John 1:1 about which the Council of Nicea swirled.
Crucial to understanding John 1:1 is understanding how God is used in the attestations "the Word was with God" and "the Word was God."
In attesting "the Word was with God," God appears with the Greek article.
In attesting "the Word was God," God appears without the Greek article.
In "the Word was with God," the appearance of the article with God communicates identity. The God whom the Word was with in John 1:1 holds the personal identity of God and is the Father.
In "the Word was God," the absence of the article indicates characteristic. The Word who was with God was Himself God: being, consisting of, existing in that singular eternal nature, character, essence, that alone is God.
The John 1:1 recognition of the personal identity of God and the characteristic (ontology) of God appears:
In the Nicence Creed's recognition of "one God, the Father Almighty" and its confession that the Son is "very God " and is homousios (i.e. of "one substance") with the Father.
In my favorite Arminian's (D. A. Reed) statement:
" What Jesus is, is God (that He shares in the divine essence). But who Jesus is, is the Son of God. The same distinction applies to God the Father. What the Father is, is God (sharing the same essence as Christ). But who the Father is, is God the Father of Jesus Christ. "
With some consideration of Greek grammar in "A Review of the Book 'Jesus Christ Is Not God'," by Donald Dicks at John Juedes' website ( e2.empirenet.com/~messiah...ksjcng.htm ).
[The lucid part of that consideration starts at the paragraph that begins, " Mr. Wierwille's third error is seen . . . . " ]
I urge anyone having some conviction towards truth to run on to truth while it is possible for them to run on to truth--while whatever grace and workings of God towards truth are upon them.
Edited by Cynic at: 8/29/00 5:03:39 am
| Moses848
(8/29/00 7:07:52 am)
| Jerry
I have been waiting for this topic to come up on this thread----somewhat with nervous dread----mostly for you Jerry.
When I saw John 1:1 my throat constricted and my palms got wet. Okay not really, but my heart raced a bit faster! I was pleased to see your response. In it I caught a glimmer of questioning concerning Christ pre-existence. GOOD!!
Why? Because I believe there are two things which one must examine prayerfully while throwing that damn bathwater and baby out the freakin window.
One is the sovereignty of God. Two is the deity of Christ.
With these two things given proper consideration and time---the rest of your journey is smoother as PFAL melts away into a mass of tangles. . . . designed to WOW the hearer and confuse the truth.
Anyway----maybe you could take a little time to check these things out----like Cynic said "while it is possible for them to run on to truth--while whatever grace and workings of God towards truth are upon them."
These are two of the most important truths you will ever understand.
God Bless,
Moses
| chastened
(8/29/00 11:07:40 am)
| Re: Cynic, Moses
"Anyway----maybe you could take a little time to check these things out----like Cynic said "while it is possible for them to run on to truth--while whatever grace and workings of God towards truth are upon them."
These are two of the most important truths you will ever understand."
A hearty amen!
Jerry, now is the time to seek. When you get to the very edge of anything, the worst thing you can do , is to shut your eyes. It is there, it is RIGHT THERE! Grab it and hang on !!
chastened
| JBarrax
(8/29/00 9:41:42 pm)
| Re: Cynic, Moses, Chastened
CYNIC: I considered the presence of the article in John 1:1 and the possibility that the use thereof might distinguish the two uses. However, I can't really base a doctrine on the presence or absence of an article in Greek at this point. You see, this little voice in my head says "the article the is devoid of authority when it comes to interpretation". Yes that little voice is a VP soundbyte, which makes it 'devoid of authority', but if the use of the article is inconsistent in the usages of
pneuma, it shouldn't be touted as THE key to interpreting John 1:1. I may return to this topic after I've had a chance to reexamine the holy spirit thing, but I just felt like it was an easy out that might not hold up throughout the scripture.
MOSES, CHASTENED: The deity of Christ? Sorry, it makes no sense to me. Just this morning, I was reading John 17:3 and it resounded in my mind even more loudly because of this discussion
"And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent."
There are two persons in this verse. They are presented as being distinctly
separate. Jesus wants us to know both him and God. If they were the same person, there's no need to distinguish them with the phrase, "...and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent."
Furthermore, Jesus, in distinguishing himself and God, called God, "THE ONLY TRUE GOD." This simple phrase contradicts the idea that Jesus Christ is God. The Father is the ONLY TRUE GOD. That's not my opinion, that's the word of the Lord. I really don't see how you can take simple verses like that and say that Jesus is God too. It makes no sense to me.
Furthermore, Chastened, I assure you, my eyes are not closed. My eyes are wide open, my mind and heart are continually questioning, and searching with the goal of learning and gaining a new understanding. I actually WANT to believe the way you all do, but I have restricted myself to what I can understand from the Scriptures.
Peace
Jerry
| Larry P2
(8/30/00 8:45:11 am)
| More on Constantine....
I am chortling to myself about the latest multi-layered Weirwillian fraud. Originally, I had taken the position from sheer perversity and a spirit of contrariness that the work product of Nicea was MORE reliable and trustworthy because it WAS presided over by a "Pagan King." I had just assumed, without checking of course, that Weirwolf was correct in this depiction of Constantine.
I should have known better. It has now been clearly established on this site that virtually ANY pronouncement VPW made on any given subject was dishonest and fraudulent on more than one level, usually.
It turns out that Weirwolf's depiction of Nicea was in line with his usual shoddy, blatantly dishonest "scholarship." Not only had Constantine indisputably converted to Christianity a year or so before Nicea, but it turns out that if ANYTHING, he was predisposed to agree with the LOSERS at Nicea.
Weirwolf was a modern-day Arian. Arius of Alexandria was the leading proponent within the Fourth Century church of the doctrine that Jesus was not God. The Council of Nicea was called to settle this dispute, Constantine being primarily interested in sheer unity in the Church and hence the Roman Empire.
As an aside, Wierwille lied about another issue facing the Bishops at Nicea. It is true that most of the Bishops in attendance were from only half the Empire (I can't recall now whether they were from East or West.) However, they were in attendance to settle the Arian controversy which only infected that particular half of the Empire. The OTHER half of the Empire left OUT of the Council's deliberations was staunchly and monolithically trinitarian!!! It would have been a pointless exercise for them to attend Nicea: The dispute simply had no effect on that half of the empire. So
Wierwille's inference that somehow the half of the Empire left out of Nicea's deliberations would have supported Arius had they attended Nicea is a weirdly-dishonest conspiracy theory.
The other reason those Bishops did not attend Nicea is they did not trust Constantine's belated coversion. It turns out Constantine's ardent monotheistic views were widely-known and not necessarily well-recanted publicly by the time Nicea was called. To argue that Roman religion featured a crude pagan "trinity" of its own that Constantine forced and finagled upon Nicea is simply BIZARRE and WIERD - Constantine believed in ONE GOD so fervantly that Roman coinage had long been made with the imprint ONLY of the Sun God.
Following Nicea and Arius's consequent excommunication, it was actually Constantine who serepticiously worked behind the scenes to have Arius reinstated and rehabilitated to the church! Once that feat was accomplished, it WAS AN ARIAN BISHOP WHO PERSONALLY BAPTIZED CONSTANTINE ON HIS DEATHBED, THE HIGHEST HONOR GIVEN TO ANY BISHOP IN THE EMPIRE!!!!!
With this background in mind, one must marvel even MORE about Nicea's iconoclastic work product. If ANYTHING, the resulting deification of Jesus was a direct slap in Constantine's face, and overruled all his theological and political predispositions. It certainly manifested an unprecedented level of integrity and courage and
independence on the part of the Bishops.
Edited by Larry P2 at: 8/30/00 8:45:11 am
| Moses848
(8/30/00 7:11:42 am)
| Larry P2
It is interesting to note that Athanasius couldn't even stay at court long enough to make his point!
He was exiled 4 or 5 times!!
I think that is interesting given the outcome of the council.
| EarlyOut
(8/31/00 6:37:32 pm)
| Does Jesus exist physically right now?
Jerry,
First, thanks for starting this thread and for sharing your research. I'm learning a lot from this thread.
Here's another wrinkle to consider as you think about Jesus being "translated" back to the beginning: Does Jesus exist in a physical body right now?
In Acts 1, Jesus ascended into the sky and a cloud received him. What happened after that? Did he "dematerialize", to become purely spirit and join God in heaven? Or does he still exist in physical form, somewhere -- perhaps in the clouds? (Which would make his position at God's right hand figurative, rather than literal -- but since God doesn't actually have hands, it's figurative anyway, to some degree.)
When he returns, he'll return to earth physically, in a physical body. But what about in the meantime?
There are two possibilities. Either he has existed physically in his new, post-resurrection body ever since he arose, or he "dematerialized" after his ascension and will "rematerialize" immediately before he returns.
For the record, I have no idea which it is. There's not enough to go on. To me, it seems more likely that he does exist now in a physical body, but I can't back that up.
EarlyOut
| JBarrax
(8/31/00 10:29:09 pm)
| Re: Does Jesus exist physically right now?
Early Out
It depends on which scripture you choose to believe.
Luke 24:39 says "Behold my hands and my feet that it is I myself: handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have".
According to this verse, and of course the logic you mentioned above, Jesus had a physical "flesh and bones" form after his resurrection. Since we will be like him, for we shall see him as he is, it's logical to
extrapolate from that verse that he still has a bodily form somewhere in heaven (which is probably beyond the realm of the physical universe).
BUT---
if you go to I Corinthians 15:44 & 45 to nail this down, as I did two nights ago, this is what you'll find.
"It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
And so it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit"
According to THIS passage, Jesus Christ is a living or life-giving spirit. Now this, to me, is an indescribably troubling situation. Here we have two verses of scripture talking about the identical person in the same context: the resurrected form of Jesus. One says he's not a spirit cause he has flesh and bones. The word "spirit" is
pneuma. The other says of Jesus' resurrected body that he was made a quickening spirit
(pneuma).
I don't think this is an "apparent contradiction" ladies and gentlemen, I think this is a blatant contradiction. And it
has robbed me of sleep for two days now. There is no error in translation that I can see that resolves this discrepancy. The entire foundation of PFAL is that the Word of God does not, yea CANNOT contradict itself. We were told that if there is an apparent contradiction, it is either an error in translation or in our understanding. Well, here is one that seems to defy those rules.
So is Jesus a man in a physical body? Yes. Is Jesus a spiritual being? Yes. What does this mean? I haven't a clue. I will say that, upon further review, I've found similar clashes
concerning the topic of his presence or absence. The Word; that is, the Bible supports BOTH doctrines. What do you want to believe? Pick your theology and pick your verses.
I really don't know what to do with this information. I suspect it means that there are contradictions in the Bible regarding certain topics because when it comes to things like this, God doesn't want us to be able to quantify Him. He doesn't want us to be able to treat Him and His Son like atoms in a test tube and think we know all there is to know about either of them. I suspect, as far as God is concerned, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference if we believe
Jesus is here or there, as long as we respect Him as Our lord and do his will. It doesn't matter whether we pray to God or to Jesus as long as we pray with love and faith. It doesn't matter whether our intercession is by the spirit or our understanding as long as we are loving enough to intercede ("There is no intercession for the saints outside of speaking in tongues" saith VP).
[sigh]
I fear we've been lead down the dark path of Pharisaism. Straining at gnats, condemning our brethren for wrong teaching while refusing to help feed the hungry and clothe the needy ("second-rate causes" we were told).
That's about all I can muster right now. I hope to be posting more later, but I may find I have nothing else to say except, "I love you."
Peace
Jerry
| Outin88
(9/1/00 6:07:31 am)
| Re: Does Jesus exist physically right now?
Hey, Jerry I thank God for your life.
Thanks again for sharing what you've researched in the Word and for sharing your wonderful God lovin heart with us.
Luv ya too man, God bless you.
| evanpyle
(9/1/00 7:51:48 am)
| Re: The race to quantify
Jerry, I'm thrilled to see your statement about quantifying God...or rather, God not allowing himself to be quantified. Somewhere along the line I came to the same conclusion. I questioned 'why is there no single concise definition of the Godhead in the Bible?' Answer: Because the Godhead is not concise! His ways are higher than our ways. He is Almighty & we are not.
Any doctrine of the Godhead that fits into a neatly defined box is too small for our God. So, like you, I've come to think that some of these issues are quite possibly deliberately vague, which drives me back to trust issues. Do I truly trust the lord, or do i trust MY understanding of Him? This is a serious question for any serious Bible student.
Whenever doctrinal discussion turns into 'duelling verses' I fear we've lost our way. Like you, I see verses on both sides of a number of theological arguments. Too often my beliefs have followed the line of the better dueller, the faster gunslinger, as it were. Or in the case of the way, I'm sure I followed some beliefs simply due to the absence of open consideration of other views.
So where does this leave us, whose Christian paradigm has been largely doctrinal, and which consists of picking at biblical nits? For me a new paradigm has developed, to which you allude in your post above: what am I doing with the Message (not the doctrinal
nits) presented in the Bible? Where is my love, my charity, my submission to the lord of the Book? How much of Christ is in my dealings with my fellow man? This shift in focus helps me resolve
previously uneasy feelings about the undefinable or the uncertain in the bible.
When asked 'what scriptures about _____ issue do you believe?', I answer 'all of them'! The apparent contradictions no longer bother me for I have been graced with a greater trust than i knew before...and if the lord wants to resolve some of them for me that's His business. Meanwhile, the Bible remains my textbook...for faith and PRACTICE.
Where have the fruits of Pharisaism been more in evidence than in the doctrinally fixated, anal-definition-driven system of the Way?
I think we're getting somewhere and I'm thrilled.
| Twosum
(9/1/00 9:02:27 am)
| Re: Simplicity
In its most simple meaning, the word "Godhead" means - God over.
TWOsum
| Steve Lortz
(9/1/00 10:38:37 am)
| Godhead?
In its simplest meaning the English word "godhead" is a variant, archaic spelling of the English word "godhood". The Greek concept that the word translates is better conveyed simply by "divinity". Check a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary. It seems incredible how much theology has been built on an English mis-spelling.
Love,
Steve
P.S. - God bless you, Jerry Barrax, in the name of Jesus Christ! My prayers are with you as you pursue the task you've undertaken. Remember Hebrews 11:6b,
"...for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."
You've diligently sought Him in PFAL. Now you're commencing to diligently seek Him *past* PFAL. Expect rewards.
| Moses848
(9/1/00 11:24:48 am)
| Jerry
Don't get discouraged Jerry---truly we are finite beings who seek an infinite God.
And. . . .
Isaiah 45:15 Truly you are a God who hides himself, O God and Savior of Israel.
It is just that He is God, Jerry He doesn't fit like a hand in a glove.
But take heart because. . . .
Deuteronomy 3:24 "O Sovereign LORD, you have begun to show to your servant your greatness and your strong hand. For what god is there in heaven or on earth who can do the deeds and mighty works you do?
The thing is. . . .
Romans 11:34 "Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?"
So like Evan said----we trust in the Lord and don't lean to our own understanding. . . . . .
Psalm 71:5 For you have been my hope, O Sovereign LORD, my confidence since my youth.
And it is He who does deliver and it is He who gets the glory. . . . .
Ezekiel 34:10 This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against the shepherds and will hold them accountable for my flock. I will remove them from tending the flock so that the shepherds can no longer feed themselves. I will rescue my flock from their mouths, and it will no longer be food for them.
Ezekiel 34:11 "`For this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them.
Ezekiel 34:15 I myself will tend my sheep and have them lie down, declares the Sovereign LORD.
Sometimes I think we went astray so that the Lord could deliver us and be glorified and that we who were so
deceived would acknowledge an infinite and sovereign Lord.
Romans 8:28 And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.
| evanpyle
(9/1/00 11:51:49 am)
| Re: More good juice
Great verses Moses! (I know, I know, you didn't write the book! 
| swankeep
(9/4/00 11:10:40 am)
| "DEITY" AND OTHER GOD-STUFF
*GOOD* STUFF, THAT IS!
I am amazed and uplifted to read this thread (again.) It is uplifting to notice that obviously well-educated and articulately intelligent people such as you who have been posting here recognize that GOD is God!!
Looking back, one of the things which most drew me to TWI (and especially the PFAL class) was the press toward unification and like-mindedness. "Joining together" in belief and practice was comforting to me. I had been an "outsider" all my life, craving to become an "insider." In the beginning whatever I was required to believe or to do was worth it just to "belong."
Eventually though, I recognized that I really just wanted to KNOW GOD! The scary thing was that the more I searched, the more I tried, the less certain I became. Then there must be something wrong with ME, I thought! And at that point, I almost gave up.
The truth of it is God is beyond my human ability to grasp Him. Yet my desire to try, my drive to chase after Him is the best part of me. It is humiliating, because of how often I find I have misunderstood Him or thought I knew when I didn't. That humiliation is also the best part of me, if I do not run away from it and settle in with what I think I know.
THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD. THE DEITY OF CHRIST. THANK YOU, MOSES848!
The sovereign God is the God and Father of our Lord, Jesus Christ. And our Lord, Jesus Christ is "the first-born among many brethren." SEED! REPRODUCTION! Father and offspring. ("Everything after its KIND..." Reread 1Cor. 15 with that in mind. And consider the deity of Christ is this light also.)
It is the power of the sovereign God which causes the seed in the ground to change form from seed, to sprout, to plant, to mature plant, bearing fruit. (I don't know for sure, but probably seven stages...) But it all happens IN SECRET PLACES. If you try to uncover it and examine its progress, it dies! These patterns are for *examples* (figures) of God's workings in the spiritual/physical realms.
"Mathematical exactness and scientific precision" is no longer a phrase which causes me to think of scripture and the workings of God. It causes me to think of man's definition and description of the results of his own human search (of scripture) and the workings of God.
The sovereign God took care of the process and nature of the transformation of the resurrected Christ. He will do the same for me also. In the meantime, I am able (by Him) to love God, love my neighbor. And I STILL can't save myself! The flesh is only a tabernacle, a house, a dwelling for spirit. But for it to last forever, it must pass through every stage of the entire process! The sovereign God is still in charge of that process.
I love this thread!
SHALOM!
|
|
