The Church creeds of past centuries were designed to root out doctrinal error and confirm the cardinal doctrines of Christianity. This was a noble cause, however creeds have serious problems that need to be addressed. First century believers focused on the commands of Christ and resolved doctrinal error in a “one accord” council (Acts 15).
1. Christ’s commands are inspired, church creeds are not
This is an important factor. The commands of Christ which He received directly from His heavenly Father deal with all areas of faith and practice. Man’s creeds deal only with the doctrinal issues that the writers thought were important. As a result, some important truths are left out and truths of lesser importance are emphasized.
2. Christ’s commands are balanced, church creeds are not
For every Biblical truth there is a balancing truth. For example, Paul stated: “In me, that is in my flesh dwelleth no good thing” (Romans 7:18). But David stated: “I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14). We are not saved by works but “we were created in Christ Jesus unto good works” (Ephesians 2:8-10). We are to “cease from our labors.” Yet we are to “labor to enter into God’s rest” (Hebrews 4:10-11). Truth out of balance leads to doctrinal heresy!
3. Christ’s commands lead to unity, church creeds lead to division
The fervent prayer of Jesus was that all believers would “be one, as you Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:21). When doctrines are removed from their moral settings, they become argumentative. For example, Christ’s return is to motivate us to purify ourselves (I John 3:3). Instead, creeds focus on when Christ will return and we argue over pretribulation vs. post tribulation, premillennial vs. postmillennial vs. amillennial! The same is true of communion. Rather than “examining ourselves” we argue over consubstantiation vs. transubstantiation vs. a memorial celebration.
4. Christ’s commands appeal to our heart, creeds appeal to our head
Thousands of churches recite the Apostles Creed every Sunday. “I believe in God the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth…” There are at least two major problems with this beginning: First, “You believe that there is one God; you do well: the devils also believe and tremble” (James 2:19). Second, there is NO mention of love in this entire creed! Jesus commanded, “You shall love the Lord your God…” (Matthew 21:37).
5. Christ’s commands are our message to the world, not creeds
When Jesus gave His great commission to His disciples He did not say “Go ye therefore and teach all nations church creeds.” Rather, He said “teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matthew 29:19-20).
Bill Gothard, Ph.D EmbassyUniversity.com
of the three one-page meditations of Bill you have published here, this one is the worst and most bizarre.
Bill cannot quote anyone or writings from “1st Century Christians” because there is nothing from the “1st Century Christians to support his claim that “1st Century Christians” only cared about commands of Christ and not doctrine. The Apostles Creed is called that because it is from the time of the Apostles, some of the earliest written copies of it come from 200’s in Rome. To claim that creeds cause divisions is so out there, is it just unbelievable. The Apostles and Nicene Creed have guided and defined what is orthodox Christian beliefs about triune God, about Christ, about the virgin birth, about the resurrection etc. People that claim we don’t need creeds, we just need Jesus or the Bible usually end up falling into error. Christianity Today published a recent survey of Evangelicals and it showed that an alarming high percentage of those that answered the survey were Arian in their views about Jesus, Bill obviously wants to throw out creeds because he has fallen into errors. The word creed comes from the Latin word Credo which means “I believe”. I am not sure what is in either the Apostle’s or Nicene Creed Bill doesn’t believe in.
Rich Mullins was a contemporary Christian musician. His is most famous for the song “Our God is an Awesome God”. He was raised as a Quaker which do not believe in creeds or even sacraments like baptism. He bounced around different Churches and became acquainted with the poetry of St. Francis of Assisi. He began to change where he took a vow of poverty and gave away most of his income from his music to others. One of the last songs he wrote is called Creed. The chorus line is this. “And i believe what I believe, is what makes me what I am, I did not make it, no it is making me. It is the very truth of God and not the invention of any man, I believe it, I believe.”
I honestly cannot read any more of these one-page meditations from Bill. He obviously has some deep heretical ideas which the above Creeds work against.
We concur with Bill that there NO human writings, no dogmas that are even in the same arena with the Word of God. It is interesting that you condemn the “Arian” perspective, not a Bible word, a set of doctrines from one sect of Christianity. I see problems with “Arian” and I see problems with “Calvin”, generally regarded as the opposite. I would not identify with either.
“Heresy” is generally “truth out of balance”. We climb on one pinnacle of light and build our world around it. Every schism with its creed falls short to some extent, either by out of balance principles, or omissions of things the Lord considers really important. It is our job to keep our eyes on Jesus, test every spirit to see whether it is approved of God.
1 Corinthians 11:19 “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.”
Arianism was an ancient dispute about the begetting of Christ. That was settled at Nicaea.
Compared to that, disputes between John Calvin and Jacob Arminius were mere froth. They agreed more than disagreed. Both were Protestant reformers whose differences were debated at the Synod of Dort. Both Calvinists and Arminians affirm the Nicene Creed.
Are creeds defective because they are men’s creeds? Whose creeds would they be if not men’s? Only men can believe. Jesus commanded men to believe, so our creeds affirm that we have obeyed him.
Rob’s defense of our creeds is correct.
Is the Apostles’ Creed defective because it is silent about love? Talk is cheap. Why, the Bible itself rebukes excessive chatter about love! St. John commanded us to love “not in word, neither in tongue but in deed and in truth.” Christ himself commanded us to let our light so shine before men that they might see our good works. Shining a light of good works matters more than talking about love.
The purpose of a creed is to confess faith. Is our confession of faith real or phony? Again we find the answer in our Bibles. Jesus commanded us to shine a light of good works among men. St. James reminds us that authentic faith is made manifest by works of love.
Every evening during family prayer, I lead my family in reciting the Apostles’ Creed, using the style I once learned from visiting my local Presbyterian church. During Sunday service the pastor would ask from the pulpit, “Christian, what do you believe?” In response, we would recite the Apostles’ Creed in unison.
The creed was no rival to the truth we heard from the pulpit, but rather an affirmation of it. It was like saying amen to truthful words uttered in prayer or preaching. As a good wife complements her husband, so our creeds complement and affirm the truth we receive from God. As good response compliments good initiative, they are partners instead of rivals.
Do creeds promote unity or division? peace or sword? By design, they promote each. The ancient church councils produced the creeds partly for the purpose of sorting heresy from orthodoxy and wheat from tares. They unify sheep and alienate goats.
As for words of Christ vs. words of men, consider what the Lord said in the gospel according to Luke. After the parables of the lost sheep and lost coin, the Lord said that likewise, “there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.”
Is there joy among angels when we recite the creeds? Possibly, but joy is guaranteed when a sinner repents.
Heresy is beliefs or opinion contrary to orthodox (especially Christian) doctrine. It is not truth out of balance. I realize that is the definition Bill gave in the seminars but it is totally understandable inaccurate.
Arianism is not the opposite of Calvinism. Arianism is the idea that Jesus was created by God, not co-eternal or co-existing. Current Arianism is found in some parts of the world of Calvinism is the form of ESS which is very much debated by different Calvinists. ESS is the eternal submission of the son.
Bill has no authority to declare creeds that have been affirmed and used by Christians null and void and declaring them works of men.
There is no Biblical definition of “orthodox”. As you know much of what is called “orthodox” is considered heresy by evangelical Christians. So that definition is not helpful for most of us.
Why does not Bill have the authority to declaring them null, void, and works of men?
1 Corinthians 2:15-16 “But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. “For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.”
THAT sounds like a lot of authority.
Orthodox is the term which evolved to label “mere” or consensus Christianity. It is a safe and helpful term. Among Christian denominations, we agree more than we differ, so our beliefs are “orthodox.” Compare the Apostle’s Creed to any evangelical statement of faith or indeed the IBLP statement of faith and you won’t find any conflicts. All are orthodox and also works of men.
That is not authority, nor does Bill any of it. You cannot point to one thing in either Apostle’s or Nicene Creed that is “man made”. Creeds define what orthodox Christian beliefs and doctrine are. Those that want to throw them out do so because they have departed from: “I believe in God the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth and in Jesus Christ his only son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontus Pilate, crucified, died and was buried, he decended into hell, the third day he rose from the dead, he ascended into heaven and sits on the right hand of the Father where he will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting”.
Bill claims on his own web site named after him that the founding of our country started with Jesus and the Apostles. He made that claim. He has no evidence for that totally bizarre statement yet he can turn around and now state that creeds are man made, creeds that have been in use since the Apostle’s time. Bill seems to be unable to connect the dots in this and other statements he is making on his web site and in these one page zingers. I just saw his one page on Charles Spurgeon where he basically threw him under the bus for struggling with depression. So unbelievable. One man shows are a clear sign of serious problems. No balance here, he isn’t having other check his writings. He clearly isn’t connecting the dots.
Most evangelicals would be skeptical that the “creeds” were generated by the Apostles. Believing that the only inspired Word of God is found in the Bible.
What I quoted is most definitely “authority”. “Judges all things but is judged of no man”? “We have the Mind of Christ?” Strong and bold statements.
Of the ecumenical creeds, the Apostles’ Creed is the earliest known and most basic. Some traditions credit the apostles themselves with authorship. Here is the wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed
The Nicene Creed came later, to define common faith about Christ and the Holy Spirit.
The Bible is the word of God. The creeds express the faith response of men. Bible and creed are complements, not rivals.
May we have a link to the Spurgeon thing? Hopefully he found relief from depression.
Man-made things cut both ways. Some make us proud, but others make us cringe with shame.
As for proofreading, apparently Bill Gothard has Rob performing that valuable service right here! Why hire a proofreader when Rob donates her complimentary services?
I believe the moderator here will have to publish this next. If your wife is on Facebook, I think they have been published there in closed groups.
proof reading is not the same thing as proof texting scripture. proof texting of scripture is what the devil did in the temptations of Christ, which is quoting one line verses out of context to try and prove something or teach something that if one actually read the whole section the verse came out of, would not be saying or teaching that. In simple terms, proof texting scripture is misquoting verses, usually one line zingers to give support to something the whole of scripture does not say or teach.
Your responses to me are surprising. First of all, there isn’t an agreement, even among Evangelicals on what is an Evangelical. It has become a catch all phrase to generally mean a more conservative Protestant. Also, there are many Evangelicals in Churches that use either the Apostles or Nicene Creed, so to make a blanket statement that Evangelicals don’t believe in either of these two ancient creeds is false. Now only churches that are in Anabaptist groups and their split offs usually state that “they have no creed but Jesus” do have in replacement as David K pointed out, statements of faith, which generally closely resemble either Apostles or Nicene Creed. IBLP has a statement of faith as David pointed out. And I am sure it was crafted while Bill was still there.
You also did not nor actually cannot point out anything in either creed what is either man made or unbiblical with them. You did not because you cannot. That is why I listed the Apostles Creed for you. I do not believe that there is anything in that you either don’t believe yourself or don’t disagree with. In 350 AD, St. Cyril of Jerusalem wrote this about creeds:
“In learning and professing the faith, you must accept and retain only the Church’s present tradition, confirmed as it is by THE SCRIPTURES. Although not everyone is able to read the Scriptures, some because they have never learned to read, others because their daily activities keep them from such study, still so that their souls will not be lost through ignorance, we have gathered together the whole of the faith in a few concise articles. …. so, for the present to content to listen to the simple words of the creed and to memorize them; at some suitable time, you can FIND PROOF OF EACH ARTCILE IN THE SCRIPTURES. This summary of the faith was not composed at MAN’S WHIM; the most important sections were chosen from the whole Scripture to constitute and complete a comprehensive statement of the faith. Just as the mustard seed contains in a small grain many branches, so this brief statement of faith in its heart, as it were, ALL THE RELIGIOUS TRUTH TO BE FOUND IN OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT ALIKE.” (Emphasis added).
I really don’t know any Evangelical no matter how you define it or where they go to Church able to disagree with anything in either the Apostle or Nicene Creed. You did not produce any evidence to the contrary. There are a number of articles in Evangelical places like Christianity Today and The Gospel Coalition that have more than one article talking about the importance and value of these two creeds. In churches that claim to “have no creed”, you find in replacement, statements of faith to fill the void. This is not a winning argument for you.
I don’t think you are understanding the point Bill is making. No matter how eloquent and studied and with what righteous of intentions a creed or “statement of faith” may be created, it is ALWAYS inadequate. Such creeds are like two dimensional pictures of a three dimensional world – any “Fact” you seek to put your foot down on coming from such a creed, you will ultimately have to move it. Sort of like declaring, “No object can be in two places at once”, and “No object can affect another object faster than the speed of light” in physics, classical Newtonian physics. Quantum mechanics continues to turn all such “facts” on their ear.
So, similarly, only God’s inerrant Word is “complete” – and inerrant – doctrine. There is a reason that the Holy Spirit gave this list of blessed people:
Revelation 1:3 “Blessed is he that READETH, and they that HEAR the words of this prophecy, and KEEP those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.”
Notice what is missing? “Understand”. In order to generate a creed or statement of faith, you have to UNDERSTAND the full meaning of Scripture. Revelation is an extreme example of the fact that while we can READ and HEAR and KEEP – And Bill would add “Meditate”, another version of “keep” – Scripture, we can never fully understand it, no more than we can ever fully understand the Lord.
I have know idea how creeds are 2 dimensional in a 3 dimensional world. Not sure where that is coming from. Revelation 1:3 has nothing to do with creeds or is even bashing them.
I am trying to make the point . . . That ANYTHING that man comes up with is at best an approximation of the Word of God. Like a picture is an approximation of a 3D item.
Using this kind of bizarre deduction, then Bill’s teachings and ideas are also man made. Acts 15 records the first Church counsel in Jerusalem which made authoritative decisions and rulings. Authoritative Church Counsels since then also include Counsel of Nicaea which wrote the Nicene Creed and also includes in later Church Counsels what books belong in the Bible. Your reasoning here is not supported or found in scripture. Decisions from the first 7 Church counsels are considered authoritative even in many Protestant circles.
Again, what holds in many even “Protestant” circles caries little weight in the perspectives of many of those that support Bill. And your comment about Bill’s teachings and ideas not being “Scripture” (my way to say “man made”) is correct. Which is why he consistently is pointing us to God’s Word, to gain our strength and insights there, much like the Bereans who, refusing to take Paul’s word for it, “searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
Exactly. Our creeds represent a Christian consensus (a best guess?) about the faith which God requires of man. We make no boast about the quality of our faith, we simply confess it. Our creeds begin with, “I believe,” like the man who said, “help thou my unbelief.” When we say our creed in faith, we are also petitioning for help, because our belief is so easily corrupted by traces of unbelief. The Bible warns us against sin which “so easily besets us.” Isn’t unbelief among our worst sins?
In the Bible Jesus is called, “finisher of our faith.” Mine needs finishing. How about yours?
The dimension analogy says to heed our limits. Because our mortal flesh we sees “through a glass darkly,” we should assume that our understanding has room for improvement.
During the recent years of virus scare, we learned that “settled science” was not quite settled. Dare we boast as though our theology were settled with no room for improvement? We believe our Bibles are settled. Our theology? not necessarily.
Maybe “your” theology isn’t settled, that seems to be obvious by your many statements here. Bouncing around between different churches teaching different things that you have admitted to yourself, no wonder. My “theology” is very settled.
Bill Gothard once taught a helpful meaning of “keep.” Of course we ought to obey God. That is the first and obvious meaning of “keeping” his commandments. Even so, obedience begins with another sense of “keep,” the way a sentry keeps his post under observation. He keeps it before his eyes. His first duty is vigilance. Similarly, we keep God’s word by holding it before us, front and center. Unless we begin there, how can we obey?
The cannon of Scripture was decided upon AFTER the Nicene Creed of 325. (Synod of Rome 386, Counsels of Hippo and Carthage respectively). The Bible does not state what books should or shouldn’t be in it. That was decided by Church counsels nearly 400 years after Jesus birth, death and resurrection. You cannot say that the Nicene creed is man made and secondary. And there was rather heated disagreements on what should be used in the NT. St. Clement’s letter ( mentioned in Phil. 4:3) to the Corinthians, Shepard of Hermas ( mentioned by St. Paul in Romans 16:14), St. Ignatius letters. the Didache were used as scripture in some parts of the early Church. John 2 & 3, Jude, II Peter, Revelations, Hebrews nearly didn’t make it in. History just doesn’t back up your ideas here. Nor do they back up Bill’s ideas. It is totally meaningless to say that the small band of Bill believers and supporters don’t consider Creeds and authoritative Church counsels.
Those eschewing Creeds and Counsels are in far greater numbers than just “Bill believers”. I am sure you know that. They make the same case: ANYTHING men come up with, including some famous “systematic theologies” is ultimately tainted . . . Two dimensional . . . Certainly not worthy of memorization and meditation like Scripture is.
There have been disagreements on the “Cannon” . . . That is correct. Declaring a book in or out does not make it so. The Holy Spirit makes it plain, the only authority that matters.
And how does the Holy Spirit make it plain? How? The Holy Spirit uses the authority of the Church. That is a meaningless statement. I just read an article on Christianity Today that the largest Protestant group is now non-denominational. That means anything goes. Anabaptists groups and all their finger and toes are really the only ones that eschew historic Church counsels and creeds. I once saw an interview with Paula White, Trump’s “pastor” and she stated that she was answering the charges of being heretical. She stated that she “believed in the Nicene Creed” which made her an “orthodox” Christian.
“The Holy Spirit uses the authority of the Church.”
Please back that up with Scripture. What I read:
1 Corinthians 2:15-16 “But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.”
St. Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 3:15 that “the pillar and bulwark of the truth is the Church”. Jesus in his final last supper discourse that the Holy Spirit would come and guide the apostles in all truth. You again are misquoting 1 Corinthians 2 which was St. Paul defending his teaching as being guided and founded by the Holy Spirit.
The church does indeed present and support the truth, but it is not the truth. Yes, it is the Holy Spirit that presents and guides – in the end He – and the words of Scripture – are the full embodiment of that truth. We can see that truth with our spiritual eyes, but we cannot ever fully capture it in writing, even if given the entire sky to write on with the ocean of ink to do so. When you want to create a replica of something, you go back to the original for reference, not someone else’s replica. Each of us, saved by grace, full of the Holy Spirit become an “image” of Christ, and of His truth. We encourage each other and we point the way for others, but we must never elevate each other – and our words and thoughts – to a place that only the infallible Word of God can occupy.
I really don’t have any thing more to say to you or this topic. One man nearly 1700 years after the fact, has no business to declare the Nicene creed, which was an authoritative summary of faith to be a work of man. Bill cannot point to anything in either the Apostles or Nicene creed that isn’t supported and founded in the Bible. Bill’s own teaching are a “work of man”. Your efforts in trying to reason this is not addressing what is wrong or off with either of these two creeds. the Bible records and supports Church counsels being authoritative and that includes these creeds as well as what is actually in the Bible. I will go with 1700 years instead of one man writing out of his own ideas 1700 years later. And yes, I realize that there are groups that claim they have “no creed” but actually get around this via so called statements of faith which is the world Bill is from and of. I really have nothing more to say. I think Jinger Vuolo said it best in her new video for her new book. She was stating that her book was for “those who sat under someone claiming to speak for God but didn’t”. She mentions Bill Gothard directly. Claiming 1 Corinthians 2 for Bill has having the “mind of Christ” is totally debatable and there are more that don’t think that about Bill than do. That doesn’t support your arguments for Bill and his claim that creeds are a work of man kinda show that he is heretical.
So . . . I am a servant of Jesus Christ, filled with His Spirit . . . A Child of God . . . And I am not beholden to Jinger or Bill or the counsel of Nicene or any church. I report directly to the Lord. I, like the men of Berea, check EVERYTHING out by Scripture, as enlightened by that same Holy Spirit. I memorize the “God Breathed” Word of God, not Bill’s writings or any creed. That is EXACTLY what Bill has taught, Lo these many years.
I am interested to see what Jinger has to say. Maybe I will agree with her, maybe I will not. She and I will both stand trembling before our Lord and give an account.
I believe it to be healthy for believer to discuss doctrine and church creeds in an amicable manner.
My wife grew up in a Lutheran home. She was baptized as an infant and later as a teenager came to faith in Christ at a church camp.
My father-in-law was an intelligent man, highly educated and a devout Lutheran. He served as a Elder in the Lutheran Church. When I would share my testimony of becoming a believer in Christ as an adult he would drag me back to the Church Catechism. He believed with all his heart that he came to faith as an infant and held on to that faith through his life.
For him the Scriptures were to be interpreted in light of the church creeds and writings of Martin Luther. These were his words.
I firmly believe the writings of men, no mater how great, pale in light of the Holy Scriptures.
On 11/18 above, Fish Bowl wrote in favor of amicable discussion. Many years ago, I followed an online discussion between two homeschooling fathers of differing denominations. One was Baptist, the other Presbyterian. Each made earnest and charitable attempts to persuade the other of his church doctrine. Neither budged from his doctrine. But following the debate was good education.
They loved Christ and one another, but each was loyal to his home team. Although the debate ended in a tie, there was plenty of victory to go around. They helped one another, and they helped me.
When I attended Seminary my Church History Professor was C. Daniel Kim. He grew up in North Korea and graduated from a Presbyterian Seminary. I remember a comment he made in class. He said in Seminary when there are some hallway theology discussions between students he would always win the argument by saying “John Calvin says such and such.” He said that would always end the discussion. He said when he entered Dallas Seminary to work on his Th.D he was not there long when a spirited discussion broke out among several students. He said he thought he was delivering the deciding blow when he said “John Calvin says such and such.” Then it happened, one enlightened student looked at him and said “SO WHAT!” Dr. Kim stated he sat down and said to himself “SO WHAT.” In that moment of time the Scriptures became the predominant Truth in his life. Dr. Kim is a great man of God who the Lord has used mightily in His Kingdom.
The Jinger Vuolo book promotion video is available online. On the video, Mrs. Vuolo explicitly renounced Gothard and his teaching. The video covered only a few generalities. Because I have not followed the Duggars, I saw only a random pretty woman. First, I saw her earnest face insisting that I was about to hear something important. Then some choreography followed. Gentle music played, and the scene cut to Mrs. Vuolo’s profile as she approached a stool. Briefly, the camera targeted her back and hindquarters as she mounted the stool to deliver her message.
We saw a woman with a dispute to settle, sales to promote, and people to rescue.
The dispute was against Gothard. Mrs. Vuolo implied that five years ago, Gothard had turned some of her friends apostate, so she felt constrained to rescue people from him.
Supposedly if we buy the book, we get the anti-Gothard details.
re: speaking for God? or sneering at difficult teaching?
Mrs. Vuolo said she wrote her book to refute people like Gothard who “claimed to be speaking for God, but didn’t.” This raises questions. For whom was Mrs. Vuolo speaking?
As for Gothard, what claim did he make about divine endorsement? He quoted Bible verses and inferred meaning from them, as all preachers do. Gothard did much teaching over his career, but rather than boast about divine authority, he let his teaching speak for itself. Some agreed, but others (like Mrs. Vuolo) disagreed.
Mrs. Vuolo emphasized the suffering she endured to write her new book, which will soon be available for sale. Was this martyrdom? or the price of commerce?
Does Mrs. Voulo believe in divine authority for her own message? or does Bill Gothard have a monopoly on hubris?
Was Gothard’s teaching tried and found wanting? or found difficult and left untried?
re: pillar and ground
On 11/20 above, Rob reminded us that St. Paul affirmed the important role of Christ’s church concerning truth. Indeed he did. According to his building metaphor, pillar and ground (or bulwark) are important. They support and elevate. Jesus compared himself to Moses’ brazen serpent which was lifted up for salvation. Who is going to lift up the Truth if Christ’s church does not?
“You cannot have God has your father is you do not have the Church as your mother”
St. Cyprian of Carthage 250 AD.
The idea that it’s just “me and my Bible” is not found any where by anybody pre-reformation times
I know we are getting into theological divides here . . . But that statement by the good saint is nowhere to be find in the Bible, regardless of what theologians may have held it.
As to “me and my Bible”, that IS found in Scripture:
Acts 17:11 “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
They searched the SCRIPTURES daily to cross check Paul.
“They” is the key word here. Like the Bereans, it was a collective search, NOT an individualized search. Me and my Bible is talking about individualization. They searched the scripture as a collective group. Very few people had their own Bibles. You missed my point.
At this moment I am hard pressed to see the difference. Whether I search the Scriptures daily, or my wife and I search the Scriptures daily together, or our entire church gathers to search the Scriptures . . . Daily . . . it remains that we search the SCRIPTURES, not the writings of important people.
re: solo scriptura
Rob makes a good point on 11/27 above. The famous Reformation doctrine was sola scriptura. We acknowledge our Bibles as our only infallible authority for doctrine. But Satan would substitute caricature for truth. The caricature has been called “solo scriptura.” Dare we isolate ourselves with only our Bibles? Of course not. Following Christ is a team sport.
Another metaphor says we are members of one body, and not merely one team. Members of a body are either mutually nourished, or not nourished at all.
re: Bibles before the Reformation
On 11/23 above, Rob seemed zealous for the church and dismissive of the Bible. What does it betoken if Christians did not treasure their Bibles before the 16th Century Reformation? How could they treasure Bibles which they did not possess? Access to Bibles was limited by access to printing. After mass printing became available, it was finally realistic for the common man to have his own Bible.
For the Christian, church and Bible must be mutual complements, not rivals! If one supplants the other, hasn’t something gone badly wrong?
David,
How do you think the Bible was put together and stated what was in it and was should not be in it? Did the Bible just fall from the sky? This has nothing to do with being dismissive of the Bible. Quit twisting around what I have written here.
I heard through the grapevine that Bill broke his leg and is in a recovery facility rehabbing. If it’s the hip, which is common at his age, that can be painful and a tough recovery. Maybe that’s old news. Still sad in that regard and that he has been unwilling to complete what he agreed to in Denver eight and a half years ago. If he had I believe his world would be so different today. Tell him I still pray for him and wish him a speedy recovery.
Yes, Bill broke his ankle in three places when falling off his ladder as he was pruning trees in his backyard. This was a week before his birthday, late October, last year. A neighbor saw it happen and called for help. It was a long recovery, as you can imagine. He was “incarcerated” in the Manor Care facility across from HQ for a few weeks, then went home. Various folks came to help, he ended up with a young man he had seen saved moving in with him for a while, there evenings on weekdays. By God’s grace he got out of the wheelchair and has been back to walking unassisted and driving for a number of months. Along the way he tested positive for COVID once – no symptoms I was aware of – and was definitely exposed to it again a year later after he called a men’s meeting and two of us – me included – came down with full blown COVID in the week following. Again, no symptoms.
I will pass on your love, thank you. I trust you are well . . . As we march on through these last days with Jesus by our side, faithful to the end of the ages.
re: falling from the sky
In a sense, both Bible and church fell from the sky. We are told that the sound of a windstorm (from the sky, where else?) preceded the tongues of fire which appeared on Christ’s followers at Pentecost. We are also told that all scripture is “given by inspiration from God” (there’s that sky-wind again). As both fell from the sky, shouldn’t they be complements instead of rivals?
https://credomag.com/2024/05/the-need-for-the-creed/?amp
Now I find it curious that SBC will be considering adopting the Nicene Creed while Bill Gothard states that their isn’t a need any more.
Trying to catch up. I believe he stated that creeds cannot take the place of Scripture? Or something along the lines of being an artificial extra-Biblical standard? He is very Bible focused, as that is the only thing we know is “inspired”. He has, to my knowledge, not spent any time decrying specific creeds, just the general interest in such things.
Rereading Bill’s article here just proves why he is so off based and people like him that reject creeds end up in heresy and being supported by heretics. SBC adopting something like the Nicene creed kinda demonstrates that they need something more than “just the Bible” which is what the SBC advocates are stating. Although outside voices do raise how adopting the Nicene Creed may pose conflicts with some of their views on baptism. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/80-one-holy-baptist-and-apostolic-church-joe-heschmeyer/id1655970197?i=1000658055214
We are not aware that SBC has adopted the Nicene Creed. Serious opposition continues. The reasons for not doing so are precisely why Bill is opposed to such things, however well intentioned. Bill and the SBC would consider many of those that have adopted the Creed to be heretics. That argument would immediately quash any further discussion if true.
Can a man or an entire denomination believe the Nicene Creed and yet be heretical? Nonsense! A belief cannot be orthodox and also heretical. For a season we might believe, yet live unworthily of our faith. But eventually our faith and works come back into alignment.
We may pretend that nonsense is sense, even that a man is a woman and a woman is a man. But reality is ruthless. It eventually catches up with us.
Jesus warned that we cannot be sheep and also goats. We may devote a lifetime to deceiving both others and ourselves. But someday he truth will be revealed. Our works and hearts will be tried.
One final note, if Bill is considering Nicene and Apostle Creeds to be extra Biblical and “man-made”, then how does he answer his critics in that most see his teachings to be “extra-Biblical” and “man-made”? Reread Acts 15 and the first counsel of Jerusalem which gave out authoritative decrees and rulings. Also reread 1 Corinthians 15 were St. Paul give an early creed or statement of belief. I can trust authoritative Church counsels over and above one man’s teachings and opinions that are not Biblical or authoritative.
Acts 15 was executed by Apostles – AND is Scripture (part of our Bible). No “creed” outside of Scripture has that authority. Nothing Bill says has that authority. The Holy Spirit still works through men and women of God speaking His words in the Bible and interpreting them. But the second we elevate anything to the level of reverence of the Scriptures we will surely fall.
Reread Acts 15, scripture is not mentioned which would have just been the Septuagint (OT) since the NT was in the process of being written at the time. So, based on what you just said here, all of Bill’s teaching is non-biblical since it is not scripture and should be rejected just like Bill rejects creeds since they are not the ‘bible’. I really don’t think you realize the conclusions of what you just wrote here. You have not even tried to show where the creeds like the Nicene and Apostles are unbiblical but one sure can demonstrate where and how Bill’s teachings are not Biblical. This is not a winning argument for you.
You miss my point. Being the book of Acts it IS Scripture. Whatever the rationale given by the Holy Spirit guided Apostles, the end result is God speaking.
I am not sure what to make by your last comment. It is pretty off the wall and a diversion argument to my comments that it is not a winning argument for you to state that we don’t need the creeds because they are not the “bible”. But Bill’s teachings and ideas are “not the Bible”. You want to dismiss Church counsels, yet it was Church counsels that gave you the Bible and decided what books should be in it because the Bible does not list them. You can’t have it both ways. All you have is nonsense of diversion answers and arguments.
Church counsels did not give us the Bible. They may have had a hand it clarifying “the canon”, but those writing exist separate from any council.
Church counsels did define what books are to be considered scripture. The Bible does not define this, early Church counsels did. At that time, some books like St. Clemens letter to the Corinthians and Shepherd of Hermes were read as scripture. Both men are mentioned in St. Paul’s letters. Others did not think II Peter, Jude, Hebrews and Revelation should be part of the Canon of Scripture. These things were decided upon by early Church Counsels which you and Bill Gothard claim have no authority.
Not every “church father” knew the Lord. Amazingly, each believer has the Holy Spirit to enlighten them, He the author of the Bible. That is worth infinitely more than the writings of man.
1 Corinthians 2:14-16
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.”
And how do you ‘know” that “not every Church Father knew the Lord”? You absolutely cannot judge this. Your answers are getting more and more bizarre. I am scratching my head at your responses here.
You know that is what we Protestants believe, maybe that was something you too once believed. A person does not know the Lord until they put their trust in Jesus alone, like little children, without concern for churches and creeds and sacraments. Just simple, living faith is a Living Christ.
Let me reiterate again, you cannot make a statement that “some early church fathers did not know the Lord”. It is a false statement. Most of them died as martyrs, examples, St. Irenaeus,
Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Cyprian are just some examples. The only groups of Protestants that share your views come from Anabaptists backgrounds. All the rest, Lutheran, Anglican/Methodist, Reformed use the ancient creeds you disparage here. St. Cyprian wrote in 250 AD, “One cannot have God as his father unless he has the Church as his mother”. I can trust that, he was a real martyr, unlike Bill Gothard who isn’t. The me and Jesus and my bible is not found anywhere at all in anything but recent American circles.
Trust me, lots of people believe as we do. We can discern the spiritual standing of so called authorities – it is our calling. Dying, as a martyr, is, according to 1 Cor. 13 worth . . . Nothing. Only genuine love of and faith in the Living Savior is worth something.
Most of the valuable things in our lives are man-made, especially the keyboards on which we peck out these comments. This is grounds for rejoicing, not for shame! We are privileged to be created in the image of God.
Although we sin, we are still endowed with enough of God’s creativity to make our neighbors wealthier.
We may trust God for the truth he reveals in our Bibles. Fortunately, we may also trust men to make good keyboards, and also good statements of faith.
Welcome back, Rob. If the SBC wants to anchor their theology in the Nicene Creed, they do well.
Bill Gothard seems to be emphasizing our duty to elevate the word of God over the words of men. Of course he ought to do that. Fortunately, the word of God and words of men are not mutually exclusive, but should be mutually complimentary.
The SBC is also debating whether to permit or forbid women as pastors. Hopefully they end up doing the right thing.
SBC has not adopted Nicene creed yet; it is up for proposal for their current meeting. David, last year SBC adopted the no women pastors or leaders where they shot down the proposals by Rich Warren and disassociated his church, Saddleback because they have installed female associate pastors. You might want to update yourself.
We are just so far apart on views on creeds and Church history that it is nearly impossible to even have a conversation over these issues. Just as there is “fake News”, there is also “fake history” and part of “fake history” is what is called the “great apostasy”. There are several versions of the ideas of the great apostasy, but they usually claim that the great apostasy happened when Constantine issued the Edit of Milan which gave tolerance to Christianity as well as all other religions (it did not make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire). The claims of the great apostasy are found in Anabaptist circles, fundamentalist circles, Mormon etc. The Nicene creed which started the counsel of Nicaea and finished under the counsel of Constantinople would fall under what proponents of the bogus ideas of the so-called great apostasy. If you believe in the trinity, that is what the Nicene creed defines which came about in response to the teachings of Arius and Arianism which was the reason for the counsel of Nicaea was called in the first place. For Bill to claim that creeds are not needed, not inspired, not important points to bogus fake history of the great apostasy which would make sense since he is a fundamentalist Baptist, and they teach and promote this fake history.
Thanks for teaching me a new term. I had never heard of the great apostasy, so I looked it up online. Perhaps it was not so great after all?
Perhaps it also illustrates our projection sin; our tendency to accuse our neighbors of our own faults, as we see in Romans 2. Are we looking for apostates everywhere but in our own mirrors?
The Council of Nicaea succeeded because Santa Claus (Nicholas of Myra) put coal in the stocking of Arius, who was on his naughty list. Good for Nicholas.
Read the book, “The Apostasy that wasn’t” by Rod Bennett. Very good book. Likewise read “The Creed” by Scott Hahn which I think is one of his best books.
The counsel was successful because the bishop Alexander of Alexandria where Arius was a priest and causing all the problems had the humility to have his assistant deacon speak on his behalf and for him. That deacons name, Athanasius which we know as St Athanasius and it was this younger assistant deacon that saved the day against Arianism. So now you know the rest of the story
Everry year on Trinity Sunday, our church covers the Athanasian Creed. The Creed is mind-bending, but we appreciate the effort it took to develop the ideas and find consensus.
Stating that martyrdom is nothing is about ridiculous as it gets. Billl Gothard himself has written in the past that he read the book ” Foxes book of martyrs” that he himself desired to be a martyr since he admired that book.
https://www.azquotes.com/author/38623-Ignatius_of_Antioch/tag/bones. He was on his way to Rome to be fed to the lions in the colosseum. He didn’t want to be rescued by fellow Christians. He viewed his pending death as a true sign of being a Christian.
You are grasping at straws here and demonstrate really how broken and shallow fundamentalism really is. It is pretty sad. I will pray for your soul.
“And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing.” (1 Corinthians 13:3)
Martyrdom as literally . . . NOTHING. That is love to the Lord – Jesus specifically – and then, in second tier status, love to my neighbor. There are people trying to get into heaven by neglect of the body and giving away all of their money. That self-serving motive reduces all of that pain, once again, to – nothing.
As Ronald Reagan would say “there you go again”. St. Paul was not pitting the different things he mentioned as nothing or opposite of love. If you actually read the whole passage and its context, suffering, generosity, martyrdom etc. are meaningless without underlining love. That is the point of St. Paul. That passage does not support your false statement that early Christians “did not know the Lord”. You have made a completely false statement, it is fake history and shows how bankrupt the teachings of Bill Gothard are.
So, every professed Christian in the early days was automatically sincerely saved? That is silly.
Being a martyr is nothing without genuine love to the Lord, and others. Hoping to escape hell or get a better place in heaven is the opposite of love.
On 7/21 above we ask, what does martyrdom prove? Does it prove saving faith in Christ? St. Paul acknowledged that good men sometimes die for their good neighbors. So martyrdom is brave and noble. That is axiomatic. Martyrdom takes more guts than most of us have.
Using hyperbole, St. Paul demoted even martyrdom beneath charity (1 Corinthians 13).
What about Bill Gothard? The entire final 90-minute session of his Basic Seminar was voted to charity (genuine love), and how to cultivate it.
As for early Christians, aren’t they probably like every generation, with some true men and some phonies? Even our Lord’s handpicked twelve had a serious defect among them!
This entire weird complaint against creeds is one of many examples of how Bill Gothard’s thinking is so muddled that he’s clearly not qualified to teach anything, let alone to run a “university”. All the things listed as “serious problems” with creeds aren’t problems.
It’s true that creeds aren’t inspired. So what? Neither is Gothard. Neither is any pastor today, at least not in the same way we think of Scripture as being inspired. Why is that a problem?
I’m not even sure what it means to say that Christ’s commands are “balanced” and creeds aren’t. Gothard can’t just pluck out random verses that sound kind of different—but not contradictory—and say, “see, everything is balanced!” If anything, creeds are more “balanced” because they’re designed to be broad summaries, whereas different books of the Bible have different emphases because they have different purposes. Why should “balance” automatically be superior to having an emphasis?
Christ’s commands don’t necessarily lead to unity. Those who obey them/Him can be at conflict with those who don’t, even among believers. Whereas the whole purpose of church creeds was to solidify major doctrines that all Christians could agree with, even if they differed on minor issues. The timing of the tribulation or the millennium isn’t even mentioned in the old creeds. If anything, that might be an argument /for/ going back to the ancient creeds instead of using our modern divisive every-church-for-itself doctrinal statements.
As far as appealing to our hearts vs. our heads, a creed is a statement of belief. It comes from the Latin word credo, which means I believe. So why exactly is it a problem for a statement of belief to have the words “I believe”? Love isn’t a belief, so it isn’t mentioned in a statement of belief. Again, why is that a problem?
As for what Jesus said in Matthew, He said “teach” twice. The first time He said, “teach all nations”, without specifying what the disciples were to teach. The second time He said, “teach them to observe what I command.” I think it’s quite a stretch to say that means we should teach only Christ’s commands, and not other doctrines, like the doctrine that Jesus is the Son of God, or that He died, was buried, and rose again. These are the things that creeds teach. Is it bad to teach those things just because they aren’t commands from Christ?
“It’s true that creeds aren’t inspired . . . Why is that a problem?”
It isn’t. But you have simply proven the point that they are not even in the same universe. Creeds do not get the veneration that Scripture does.
The word “teach” means to “disciple”. That is way more than what and how. We are to make disciples of all nations. Disciples of Jesus, not ourselves. NOTHING we can say to direct them to Him compares to pure, beautiful Scripture.
If it’s not an issue, why was it the first bolded heading in an article that started with, “creeds have serious problems that need to be addressed”? Was Gothard just stating the obvious, that creeds aren’t Scripture? What’s the point of that?
I don’t quite follow your last paragraph about discipleship. I can’t tell what you’re saying or what it has to do with creeds.
Creeds that are elevated to Scripture status are a problem. He rejects that kind of veneration.
You made a comment that we are commanded to “teach all nations”. You were attempting to make some point – that we are not just teaching Bible? I don’t know – it seemed appropriate to point out that “teach” is not actually “teach” but “make disciples of”. We could be making disciples of us, or our church, or our favorite theologian, or even philosophy. Is THAT what Christ directed us to? Of course not. We are to make disciples to Jesus. So . . . We focus on Him and His words, not church stuff.
Every Sunday at my church, we recite both the Lord’s prayer and once of the creeds. Of course, the hazard lies in that little word, “recite.” We are prone to lapse into “vain repetitions, as the heathen do.” Our faith can degenerate into formalism. Jesus warned us against this, so we must keep the devotional thoughts of our hearts connected with the words of our mouths.
The Lord’s prayer is our scriptural command, and the creed is our answer of faith. May it reflect authentic faith!
To the moderator: Gothard seemed to imply that, because Jesus said to teach others to obey Him, we should be teaching Christ’s commands to the exclusion of everything else, such as creeds. I was trying to point out that that interpretation doesn’t fit with the context.
Jesus didn’t say, “teach/disciple the nations to obey me” as if that was it. He said, “teach/disciple the nations, baptizing them…teaching (didasko) them to observe what I’ve commanded.”
So in that very passage, the focus isn’t exclusively on teaching Christ’s commands. That’s part of it, of course, but you can’t Scripturally support the idea that there should be nothing else. Ironically, in this very passage, Jesus mentioned baptism—a ritual carried out by the church—before He mentioned teaching people His commands.
To be consistent with what the Bible says, you can’t dismiss creeds as “church stuff” while venerating the Scripture. The New Testament says a lot more about “church stuff” than it does about reading the Bible.
Baptism IS His command. You acknowledge that we are to disciple the world in “His Commands”. Those are His words. Creeds are not His commands or words.
I gave you three reasons why your interpretation doesn’t make sense.
One, the apostles themselves didn’t treat inspired Scripture that way.
Two, that interpretation doesn’t fit with how the Bible was transmitted.
Three, Spirit-led Christians didn’t interpret I Corinthians that way for the first 1500 years of Christianity.
You only addressed number two, and all you said was the Jews memorized Scripture, which just furthers my point. In ancient Israel, how did the Jews memorize the whole thing without each of them having their own copy to study until they knew it by heart? They needed someone (if not multiple people) to read or recite it to them until they had it memorized, which is the opposite of “just me, my Bible, and the Holy Spirit”.
Besides, the passage you quoted simply doesn’t say that. Paul was contrasting the human wisdom of those who don’t know Christ at all with the spiritual understanding that Christians should have.
He wasn’t saying the Corinthians didn’t need to listen to /other Spirit-filled believers/ to gain a better understanding of what God was saying. The very letter of I Corinthians is a Spirit-filled believer (Paul) under inspiration clarifying spiritual truth to other Spirit-filled believers. The Holy Spirit didn’t just zap the Corinthians with understanding. Instead, He inspired Paul to write a letter, using normal human language.
What you said was silly 🙂 Nowadays you have to learn to read and you have to buy a Bible and you have to sit down and read it. Back then somebody had to learn to read and get a copy of the Bible and sit down and read it out loud so people could memorize it.
What makes you think the apostles did not believe that? 🙂 Paul clearly did. People have made note that some of his interpretations did emphatically not follow the lines of the learned folks. Where did he get that clearer understanding? From the Holy Spirit, obviously. Exactly what I am saying.
If you are going to wave your hand at 1500 years of church history, provide a wee bit of proof, eh? And remember, we may honor different elements of “church history”. I, for example, greatly favor the ordinary type folks, the ones that made copy after copy of the Word of God and wore them out, leaving us with the “Byzantine texts”. I am less enthralled with the “scholars” that sat in monasteries and thunk and pondered and created their “Alexandrian texts”, carefully squirreled away for us to find later. The ordinary man always ends up trumping the scholar.
Matthew 11:25-26 “At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.”
1 Corinthians 1:19,25 “For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent . . . Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”
I think we’re just going round and round in circles with Corinthians. The verse you quoted hasn’t added anything new to the discussion.
Let me ask you this: what do you do when two Christians disagree on how to interpret the Bible? Say one of them “just reads” the text, and interprets it, and the other one does some more study and interprets it a different way based on that study. Both of them have the Holy Spirit. How do you determine which one has the “Spirit-led” interpretation, and is therefore correct?
Yes, the Christian path is narrow, but where does the Bible say that being a Christian isn’t a group walk? That’s /exactly/ what it is, all over both the Old and New Testament.
Sometimes, a few of the prophets seem to be alone (like Ezekiel), but that’s the exception rather than the rule. Even in the days of the wicked king Ahab, there was a group of true prophets that went around, like the ones that Obadiah hid in a cave (I Kings 18), and the ones that followed Elisha around after Elijah was taken up to heaven (2 Kings 2). When the Israelites were taken captive, Daniel and his three friends were still godly. In the book of Esther, there was a whole group of Jews that could fast (and presumably pray, though the text doesn’t say that explicitly) before Esther risked her life to save her people (Esther 4). Malachi 3 talks about those who fear the LORD speaking of Him together while the rest of the nation had turned away.
In the New Testament, Jesus chose 12 disciples, and there were also women who followed Him who financially supported the group (Luke 8). There were about 150 in the upper room in Acts 1, right before the Holy Spirit came. The first Gentiles were saved in a group (Acts 10). All of Paul’s epistles are written either to churches or pastors. Christians being on their own is unheard of except for when they’re under the severest church discipline (Mattthew 18, I Corinthians 5).
Yes, we are all sons of God and priests. But we’re sons of God and priests together, not in isolation. Ephesians 4 describes the church growing up together, all using their spiritual gifts to reach the fulness of Christ. I Corinthians 12 describes the church as a body, specifically saying in verse 14 that the body is NOT just one member, but many.
Even in I John, which at one point says “you have no need that anyone should teach you” (I John 2:26, ESV), is itself teaching, and relates how Spirit-led believers were being fooled by false teachers, even though they had the Holy Spirit. And John gives the believers two tests they can use to determine if someone is really a believer. One is if they have love for other believers (I John 2:10-11), The other is if they acknowledge that Jesus is the Son of God (I John 2:21-23). John didn’t say “just pray and the Holy Spirit will show you”. He gave them tangible guidelines.
And no, we are not all teachers with full authority. To go back to Ephesians 4, it says different people have different gifts. All the different gifts work together. We don’t all have the same one or ones. I Corinthians 12 is even more explicit. In verse 29, Paul asks a string of rhetorical questions to which the answer is supposed to be No. “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?”
Let me ask you this: what do you do when two Christians disagree on how to interpret the Bible?
The Lord will make it clear. Because, see, HE only has one interpretation, although the same Scripture is “profitable” in many different ways. When two believers sharply disagree on interpretation it is often that they are not speaking the same language. It takes times, sometimes, to “interpret” the “tongues” so they can both understand and agree. Sometimes it is because of sin in one or both of them. God uses the confusion to probe that.
1 Corinthians 11:19 “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” < -- The ones "approved" will be made manifest. Yes, the Christian path is narrow, but where does the Bible say that being a Christian isn’t a group walk?
Both are true. But the fact that “we walk alone” is true would counter your contention that that is not normal. Fellowship is essential, no argument there. But “group think” is not from God. We stand on our own feet before Him, we individually report to Him. That is when the church is the safest. “Group think” is what is destroying us, Christians way more concerned with finding and supporting the consensus than finding and preaching what God says in His word.
To go back to Ephesians 4, it says different people have different gifts.
Of course. But some are preferred. And some are commanded.
1 Corinthians 12:31 “But covet earnestly the best gifts . . . 1 Corinthians 14:1 “. . . desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy.” 2 Timothy 2:24 “And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach . . . ”
See? God wants us ALL to teach and preach (prophesy).
I’m sorry, but you’re so muddled I almost don’t know where to begin.
First, you said the Lord will make it clear what the correct interpretation is. How? And if God makes it clear, then how come Christians still disagree?
Second, I Corinthians 11 wasn’t talking about Christians disagreeing about Bible interpretation. It’s about the Lord’s Supper. So you just completely ripped it out of context to say that Christians might disagree om Bible interpretation because of sin.
Third, interpreting Scripture and interpreting tongues are two different things. Interpreting tongues is/was a spiritual gift. Interpreting Scripture is never presented that way.
Four, where does the Bible say that we walk alone?
Five, I wasn’t talking about group think, so I’m not sure why you brought that into the conversation.
Six, you didn’t even try to quote Scripture to back up the idea that the church is safest when we stand on our feet before God. I gave you passage after passage which shows that such individualism is absent from Scripture.
(Maybe you think the only two possibilities are either individualism or group think?)
Seven, teaching, preaching, and prophesying are three separate (though related) things, and you just shoved them all together into a random string of half-verses to try to say that all Christians should “teach/preach/prophesy”. None of the verses you cited command all Christians to do any of them. 2 Timothy is a pastoral epistle, so the instruction to be “apt to teach” was for Timothy as a pastor, not for all Christians.
You’re barely even coherent, and you want me to believe that such confusion is somehow true Christianity. If that’s true Christianity, how come it can’t stand up to—anything? Basic questions? Education? A group of Christians? Studying the Bible in any depth? Your version of Christianity is threatened by all those things.
First, you said the Lord will make it clear what the correct interpretation is. How? And if God makes it clear, then how come Christians still disagree?
That is muddling of the human mind. The LORD said that those that are approved will be obvious. Like Jesus said:
John 7:17 “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.”
See it? Divine revelation – a person that is committed to the truth in Christ WILL instinctively know whether this or that is of God or not. All the books and training in the world cannot do that.
And Christians disagree because one or the other or both are not “spiritual” but rather either “natural” – Greek word is “soulish”, soul centered – or even worse “carnal”, tied to the flesh, as is cited at the end of 1 Cor. 2 and the beginning of 3.
It’s about the Lord’s Supper.
“Heresies” is in the plural. It is a general statement, not focused on one issue. When “heresies” happen, it is allowed for the purpose for God to “manifest” those that are “approved”. That IS what is says. You ask “how”. The Holy Spirit inside each spiritual believer will be that compass to make that plain. You DO have to believe in a supernatural God for this to be true, but once you do, it is not difficult at all.
interpreting Scripture and interpreting tongues are two different things.
Back in that day, I am not sure it was. Divine pronouncements, by the Spirit of God. The Spirit being the author of “Holy Writ” and also that which was not written down, but spoken back before Scripture was complete. Back to the end of 1 Cor. 2 – “judges all things” encompasses exposition and interpretation of Scripture if it means anything. The Holy Spirit in the spiritual man – the “mind of Christ” – will give a thumbs up or a thumbs down. It is a divine, supernatural revelation.
Four, where does the Bible say that we walk alone?
THAT we should not even be discussing!
Galatians 6:4-5 “But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For every man shall bear his own burden.”
John 21:21-22 “Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.”
Luke 14:26-27 “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.”
Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”
you didn’t even try to quote Scripture to back up the idea that the church is safest when we stand on our feet before God.
Our opening passage in 1 Cor. 2 makes that plain:
1 Corinthians 2:15 “But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.” Note the “he” “himself”. That is the individual, judging all things. Caring not for the opinions of others, at least not of those called “natural” or “carnal”.
Deuteronomy 33:9 “Who said unto his father and to his mother, I have not seen him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his own children: for they have observed thy word, and kept thy covenant.” Levi is the example to follow – standing alone.
“teach/preach/prophesy”
Au contraire.
Teaching: 2 Timothy 2:24 “And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach . . .”
Preach is the same as prophesy: 1 Corinthians 14:1 ” … desire spiritual gifts, but rather [specifically] that ye may prophesy.”
So far “my version” of Christianity is amply supported in the Scriptures cited. You really don’t need to go any past the end of 1 Cor. 2, although the first 3 chapters are all about this. It is real, it is supernatural, it is not subject to the controls of men.
John 3:8 “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” THAT reality is scary to the “natural” and the “carnal” man. Can’t figure it out.
Yes, creeds are not Jesus’ commands or words. Again, why is that a problem? Are you against people learning truths about Jesus, like that He’s the Son of God, or that He died, was buried, and rose again? After all, those aren’t commands.
Are you against preaching because pastors use their own words to make sermons instead of just reading Scripture and sitting down again?
Creeds are far more than just “learning truths”. They are memorized, repeated at times like a mantra, and venerated by some has having special blessing or meaning. IF we are going to memorize something, let’s memorize Scripture!
Moderator,
A mantra is a few words that are repeated over and over again in religions like Hinduism and Buddhism. The Apostle or Nicene creed do not fit that definition. Look up what mantra means. The more you try to defend Bill’s ideas here, the more you dig a deeper hole that you cannot get out of and the more and more illogical and weird your stances become. You cannot show whatsoever what is “unbiblical” about either the Nicene or Apostle creed. But one can easily show how unbiblical Bill Gothard is. Your own arguments you have used here and be turned around and stated about Bill Gothard and his teachings.
I just report what I see. Are you saying these “creeds” are not repeated en Masse, large groups of people? Same effect as the “Lord’s Prayer”, repeated over and over and over again. Because one or twice is not enough. SOMETHING is gained by repeating, year over year, decade over decade, century over century, millennium over millennium. The Catholic Church even does it in Latin, a language incomprehensible to the average person. I am concerned that that is exactly what the Lord was warning CHRISTIANS away from.
First of all, Latin was the universal language of the Roman Empire and was the universal language used to communicate in Europe for a long long time. We have Latin words and phrases even on our money and in many of our founding documents. I am not sure what your point is about Latin. Currently most all Catholic Masses are done in the vernacular, not Latin. I don’t go to a TLM Mass, they are actually not that common and if you have paid attention to Catholic news, the current Pope has kinda restricted TLM use. For a short time, my daughter went to a Charter school that had Latin as part of it’s curriculum because they considered an understanding of Latin to even be foundational to our own English Language. This was not a religious Charter school. I am not sure about your comments about Latin, they seem to be out of ignorance and prejudice.
To the moderator,
I’m all for memorizing Scripture, but there’s nothing magic about reciting verses, either. After all, even Satan knowns Scripture.
Creeds have a different purpose and function from Scripture. The Bible is composed of works of literature designed to be read and understood in context with the help of a group. In the Old Testament, there were people like prophets and priests to help. In the New Testament, you had the apostles and pastors. That’s part of the purpose of the church to this day. Creeds are a concise way of stating Scriptural truths that aren’t clearly expressed in one Bible verse or passage.
One really good way to learn a truth is to memorize it a specific way. For example, I learned 7 X 8 as a kid because my mom would say over and over again to the same rhythm “7 X 8 is 56”. She could have said it in different rhythms and sometimes said “8 X 7 equals 56”, which means exactly the same thing, but that would make it harder for us to learn it.
Certainly, there are other ways of learning truth, and those are fine too. But it’s rather odd to criticize an ancient and effective way of learning Scriptural truth just because it’s—not something else?
Got no problem with learning truths that have been simplified from Scripture. Great technique from your Mom, we have used similar technique with our kids. The problem is when we leave childhood and we are still all taken up with the arts of men instead of straight Scripture. Creeds are for kids, for the immature – time to move on.
Did not quite understand your comments of what the Bible is, or if I did, strongly disagree. The “Bible” is a collection of infallible, God breathed writings that are taken by the Spirit of God to teach us. They do so in context, out of context, in any language they are translated into. As such they are, well, “magic”, the power of the living God living therein. Scripture itself teaches us that, no, we do not need “helpers” to understand it, no not if we are “spiritual”, i.e. spiritually mature:
1 Corinthians 2:13-16 “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.”
See it? That “spiritual man” can figure it ALL out, and no man can “judge” him. The reason? Because the Holy Spirit gives us the “Mind of Christ”. The very author.
So, again, the tools we use to teach the children better drop away once we get to maturity. Raw Scripture, that is our food.
Hebrews 5:12 “For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.”
To the moderator,
People have viewed creeds as a good way for adults to learn truth for centuries. On what basis are you saying it’s only appropriate for kids?
Christians—with the Holy Spirit—have been reading I Corinthians 2 for centuries, and they didn’t take it to mean that anyone with the Holy Spirit can just sit down with a Bible and understand it properly without any instruction. That’s a very modern idea, and I believe it’s caused great harm for the past four centuries. I know I’ve been hard on Gothard, but the truth is, I believe much of Christianity in America is about as bad, and it’s because of this spiritualized every-man-for-himself view of Scripture.
More to the point, that idea doesn’t even fit with how God chose to transmit His Word. God gave the Old Testament to an oral culture. The Hebrew didn’t even have vowel marks for centuries. Even somebody literate with a scroll in front of them couldn’t “just read it” without already knowing what it said.
To give you an example in English, here’s one Old Testament verse with all the vowels taken out and the letters run together:
Thsthhvnsndthrthwrfnshdndllthhstfthm.
Imagine an entire book of the Bible like that. Is it really the job of the Holy Spirit to help someone understand that?
And as far as the New Testament, letters were read aloud in a group. The person reading it could then explain it. We see an example of that in Acts 16. There was a dispute about Gentiles being circumcised, and so the apostles and others on the Jerusalem council wrote a letter saying that the Gentiles only needed to “abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood” (Acts 15:20). They then sent Paul and Barnabas to explain the letter, to say the same thing in person. So they didn’t believe that inspired Scripture needed no human explanation. If the apostles didn’t believe it, why should we?
I can read that (you forgot to write it backwards). People were not as big of fools as you imagine them to be.
They memorized it. The whole thing. The Jews do it even today as a part of Barmitzvah, I spoke with a saved Jew who memorized the Torah, IN Hebrew. That is way better than reading it, right?
So kindly go back to my passage and explain how that is saying anything different than what I said. Saying it can’t possibly mean that doesn’t count as a reason. Here it is in another translation:
“This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, for, “Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?”
But we have the mind of Christ.” (1 Corinthians 2:13-16)
There are things only a spiritual person can understand. And God’s Holy Spirit does that, giving us the “mind of Christ”. This makes that person able to judge ALL things, and not be judged by human logic.
I didn’t say that we shouldn’t buy Bible and read them on our own. I’m challenging your assertion that God intended for Christians to understand the Bible on their own, despite the fact that most Christians were unable to do that for centuries.
And I told you why the apostles didn’t believe it. They wrote a letter about what the Gentile Christians did and did not have to do. We have it in Acts 16, so it’s inspired Scripture. They also sent Paul and Barnabas to explain the letter. Why would they do that if all the believers could just read what it said and the Holy Spirit would explain everything?
And Paul himself was highly-educated, in both Jewish and Greek culture. Totally apart from anything spiritual, scholars will often come up with their own ideas. That’s what makes them scholars. A dissertation is a scholar adding something new to his or her field rather than just copying what everyone else says.
And on a more spiritual note, Paul was an apostle. He had an authority that the rest of us don’t have. God gave Him special revelation. Some of it he wrote down and we have it as Scripture. But we know from the beginning of 2 Corinthians 12 that Paul also received a revelation that he wasn’t allowed to talk about, and possibly couldn’t. So how do Paul’s actions prove your assertion that all Christians can just sit down with a Bible and understand it?
I thought you knew about the 1500 years of church history because there’s been an extensive discussion of the councils on this page. There weren’t any different denominations. Major issues were discussed in councils, in which leaders from churches over large regions talked and argued and discussed. That’s how believers hashed out the Trinity, even though there’s no single Bible passage that says, “There is one God in three persons.” That’s how we came to the understanding that Jesus is fully God and fully man, something else for which there’s no one explicit Bible passage.
Denominations didn’t start until after the Reformation, let alone “independent churches”. Martin Luther saw that the Catholic church needed reformation, but he didn’t say that Christians should reinvent the wheel and just do their own thing ‘cause they had a Bible and the Holy Spirit. You asked me to provide proof, but where’s your proof that believers thought the way you do prior to the 1600s?
I’ve nothing against “the ordinary man”, but I’m not sure why you would sooner trust someone less educated. That’s a little odd. Why be so suspicious of learning? I don’t think God Who made the world and our minds is threatened by people learning, so why do people who follow Him view it with such suspicion?
” wrote a letter about what the Gentile Christians did and did not have to do. We have it in Acts 16″
I know you meant Acts 15. You acknowledged that Apostles – and they were all in on this – have special authority to WRITE Scripture. We agree that the canon of infallible, God-breathed Scripture is complete. And I never said that the more spiritual among us should not teach those less spiritual. BUT, the “Truth-O-Meter” to judge whether something is from Scripture, and so from the Lord, belongs to EVERY believer. The Holy Spirit will not only elucidate the Scriptures for each of us, but also guide as as to whether teaching coming from another is based in it. Note how the Bereans actually had full authority to cross-check the Apostle Paul – they literally would not receive His utterances until they verified it:
Acts 17:11 “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
That completely upends the notion that a bunch of degrees after one’s name means the less experienced need to believe and accept what they say.
I just read over the Nicene Creed – I find the notion of Jesus being “Born of God” unscriptural, since Jesus is God and God never started nor will end. Also the notion that Baptism forgives sins. We know that only God can forgive sins, so no sacrament is able to do that. That statement made by Peter refers to the specific sin of the people in front of him, they guilty of refusing to confess Christ through public baptism previously, something a public baptism now would fix.
ALL creeds – other than those encapsulated in the literal words of Scripture – are tainted with sin. Nobody processes it and gets it completely right.
Proof that they thought that way is encapsulated in the urgent desire to translate the Scripture into the common tongue. For what purpose? William Tyndall told one of those self important scholars: “I intend to make it possible for a common farmer, a plowman, to know more of the Scripture than you do!” It drove Martin Luther to make his translation. So that the COMMON MAN could read and decide for himself.
As to “hashing out the Trinity”, it is right there in Scripture. Scripture proves that Jesus is God, and we have all three at the baptism of Jesus – Voice from heaven, dove descending, and the Lord Jesus. The problem is that some aspects mess with human purpose and will, and so get suppressed, then denied. And it may well take a council acting in humility and repentance to get back to the reality. Nothing new here, just truth returned to.
Yes, I meant Acts 15. But I think you missed my point. Acts 15 shows that the apostles understood that they needed to go to the believers in person and explain what they had written. It wasn’t enough to write under inspiration, send it to believers, and just assume that the Holy Spirit would enable them to understand it.
As for the Bereans, Acts 17 is contrasting the unbelieving Berean Jews who searched the Scripture with the unbelieving Thessalonian Jews who ran Paul out of town. So this was a group of people that didn’t even have the Holy Spirit inside them yet. And since we’re not told the education level of the Bereans, it doesn’t upend the idea that education is important. It says nothing about education one way or the other.
As far as the Nicene creed, what did they mean by the phrase “born of God”? I don’t know, and I don’t think you do, either. Not much point criticizing something you don’t even understand.
As far as Tyndale and Luther, they were championing the common people having the Bible in their own language to read for themselves. That’s one thing. It’s something else entirely to say “never mind learning. Never mind context. Me and my Bible and the Holy Spirit is enough.” Where did Luther or Tyndale say anything that sounds like that? Besides, you know what Luther and Tyndale were? Scholars! The common people couldn’t understand the Word of God until scholars put it in their language, and even then, just like the first-century believers in Acts 15, they would need people to help them understand it.
As far as the Trinity, the passage you referenced doesn’t make it obvious that there’s one God in three distinct Persons. Jesus’ baptism could have been depicting one God in one Person simply manifesting Himself in three different ways. It also doesn’t in any way demonstrate that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternal.
So no, it’s not that Scripture was clear and the councils needed to repent of something before they understood the correct doctrine. It was that God intended for them to understand truth by using the brain He gave them to seriously think through hard concepts. And yes, of course the Holy Spirit should have a role in that, but there’s nothing in Scripture—or church history—to indicate that His role means that we spiritualize matters to the point of turning ignorance into a virtue. Again, that’s a very modern idea.
we spiritualize matters to the point of turning ignorance into a virtue
Had to start with this. What does THIS mean?
1 Corinthians 3:18 “Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.”
What ordinary, simple Christians are and do and believe looks so stupid to the smart people in our world. This seems to suggest that we deliberately “dumb it down” when confronted with that, instead of giving into the temptation to join them and try to match wits.
Acts 15 is an example of a multitude of Scriptures brought to bear on a situation. The wisest among us, the most “spiritual”, find that process the easiest.
That is the first time I have had anyone suggest that the “Bereans” were not saved. I think you are most definitely in error on that. They proved it out, and they trusted Christ, and they kept proving it out.
Tyndale and Luther had no “helps” to publish to help those poor ordinary believers left with only God’s Word to ponder. This is emphatically an acknowledgment that God speaks to the plowman through His word – DIRECTLY.
There are many witnesses to the “Trinity”, of which my example is but one. YES, I know some that do double backflips to turn that into something else. I have a relative of my wife’s that is into “Jesus only” – He finds Jesus talking from heaven, while flying down as a dove, and also getting baptized. Amazing. No, that makes no sense.
For the fact that the Trinity is eternal, we simply look to creation:
Romans 1:20 “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse”
we spiritualize matters to the point of turning ignorance into a virtue
Had to start with this. What does THIS mean?
You’re using “the Holy Spirit” as a reason to downplay the value of the work and teaching done by educated Christians. You said you don’t trust manuscripts copied by scholars, as if being educated is somehow a threat to scriptural purity or being truly Spirit-led.
As far as I Corinthians, again, it’s not contrasting educated believers with educated unbelievers. It was talking about less educated Christians and non-Christians who didn’t have the Spirit of God at all. So it doesn’t really have to do with our discussion.
As for the Bereans, here’s the text (from the ESV):
10 The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. 11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so. 12 Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.
It says they believed /after/ they searched the Scriptures. It was /because/ they searched the Scriptures. It says they examined the Scriptures daily, and /therefore/, they believed. That’s why context is important. If you read verse 11 in isolation, it’s natural to assume that they’re Christians. But if you read just the very next verse, you see that that’s not the case.
As for Tyndale and Luther, the ordinary believers had other believers. Even if “the church” as a broader institution was corrupt, that didn’t mean there weren’t any believers who could teach them. Besides, I’m not questioning the idea that God can use His Word to speak directly to believers. I’m questioning the idea that “me, my Bible, and the Holy Spirit” is God’s usual method of teaching Christians. Both in Scripture and throughout church history, God’s people have usually learned in groups with others. People and groups that broke off and did their own thing were usually heretics.
As far as the verse in Romans, it mentions the Godhead being eternal, but it doesn’t say that there are three distinct Persons in the Godhead Who are eternal. Again, there’s no one passage that says that. And that’s fine. There doesn’t need to be, because God gave us brains and the ability to think and reason and work things out.
I don’t “use the Holy Spirit” for anything. I read the passage. Both passages. The force of the first 3 chapters of 1 Corinthians appears to be the exact opposite of what you are lobbying for. Starting with chapter 1:
1 Corinthians 1:25 “Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”
Is God ever foolish? Nope. But His people are. The foolishness of a simple believer, in the fear and love of the Lord, with the Holy Spirit blowing on him, is smarter than all of the smart people lined up to oppose him. One of my favorites is John Jasper, ex-slave, preacher. Fiery preacher. Full of the Holy Spirit. His most famous sermon, preached over and over, was “The Sun Do Move”, proving that the sun rotates around the earth. He is the biggest “fool”, as seen by the world and, frankly, most Christians. *I* think that in the end he will be proven right. There are enough weird things in theoretical physics to make that feasible. The world of physics, backed by all of Newton’s insights and all that Einstein started STILL, to this day, does not understand how things move. To the point that they freely admit (look it up) that they have no idea what 96% of the universe is made of. “Black Matter”, they call it, which means, “we haven’t a clue”. That should shock the common man. God LOVES to bring the wisdom of this world to nothing. So . . . I suspect the sun “do move” around the earth, somehow. John Jasper is my hero. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jasper
The Bereans, you are correct, those Jews were part of the “sons of God scattered abroad”, those whose hearts God had captured previously and who, guided by the Holy Spirit, searched all Paul said out for themselves, trusting Christ. It remains that them proving it out for themselves is commended as “honorable”. That is something we should all do.
You say “God’s people have usually . . . ” I don’t think that is true, not with genuine believers. Lots of church goers, sure. Many were never saved. Salvation is a personal introduction to Jesus Christ and a separated walk with Him. That is why it is a “narrow path”, not a group walk. Every one of us is expected to be and act like a son of God, a priest, a teacher, with full authority.
“On the Jericho Road there’s room for just two
No more and no less just Jesus and you
Each burden He’ll bear each sorrow He’ll share
There’s never a care for Jesus is there.”
Revelation 1:6 “And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.”
On 7/22 above, we are told that because he objects to formal creeds, Bill Gothard’s thinking is muddled. Was the thinking of Jesus muddled? and St. James also muddled? What about Gothard’s enemies? is their thinking muddled? Do their lives manifest works of the flesh or fruit of the Spirit?
Jesus warned us that many who declared him lord never knew him. Why? because their lives disproved their declaration.
James famously warned us that a mere declaration of faith is something we can have in common with devils. But our actions prove what we believe and disbelieve. Remember the children’s song? “I love thee, I love thee and that thou dost know. But how much I love thee my actions will show.”
To David: Neither Jesus nor James were talking about creeds. Yes, actions speak louder than words and reciting creeds doesn’t somehow save us. That’s just another way of saying that creeds don’t do things they were never designed to do, which nobody claimed that they do. How is that a “serious problem” with creeds, which is what Gothard claims?
On 7/27 above, we dispute whether Jesus and James were talking about creeds. Of course Jesus and James were talking about creeds! A creed is a declaration of belief. Our Lord’s worst enemies were hypocrites who lived by pretense. When we affirm a belief, then live unworthily of it, we nullify our affirmation.
Our Lord’s enemies affirmed the law of God, even while violating it. So can we, if we are not careful.
In his article, our moderator itemized five serious problems with creeds. Does that answer our question about the serious problem? We may rebut the five serious problems, but they are right there before us.
Stating obvious things about the difference between creeds and Christ’s commands and then calling those obvious differences a serious problem doesn’t make it a serious problem. That would be like me saying that a serious problem with this website it that we need Internet access to view it, unlike with reading paper books. It’s true to the point of being laughably obvious, but that doesn’t mean that this website has some deep flaw just because I said something obvious about the difference between a website and a book.
We read a good point on 7/28 above. Indeed, Christ commanded us to obey him. The most blunt command he issued was, “repent and believe.” believe what? believe the gospel. and what is the gospel we must believe? we affirm it in our creeds.
Above, we also dispute whether obeying Christ is “it.” Of course that is it! What other “it” could there possible be? All our church administration, all the routine of our lives must be either obedience to or derivative of, that great IT! Baptism, teaching, and all our activities fold into the great IT. How well are we doing IT?
In reference to the comment on “vain repetition”. Jesus was not referring to repeating prayers like the Lord’s prayer in a Liturgy or even reciting an ancient creed. This is often proof texted and misquoted by some Evangelicals that Jesus was against repetition. Just read Psalm 136 which repeats the phrase “His mercies endure forever” after each verse. In Revelations, the four Seraphim in front of the throne repeat Holy, Holy, Holy day and night. Jesus was talking and stated “vain repetitions like the pagans” which is about pagan prayers that were practiced by Greeks of repeating meaningless words to appease the gods. It has nothing to do with the Lord’s Prayer or other stated prayers used in a liturgical service, in one”s private prayer life etc.
Repetition is well defended on 7/29 above. Our Lord explicitly endorsed repetition when a nagging woman’s petition was granted because of importunity. Repetition is all around us in both our Bibles and nature. So how do we distinguish between good and vain repetition? Is it the difference between belief and unbelief?
Heathen repetition is vain because of unbelief. But our repetition should be animated by faith Can our prayer degenerate into thoughtless muttering? of course. Can lovers lose their first love? Indeed we can. That’s why we are commanded to repent if we do.
Our love is too precious to squander on thoughtless habit. May we love with heart, soul, mind and strength!
On 8/3 above, we are told that Latin was the universal language of the Roman empire. But isn’t this improbable? Although Latin may have been the language of Rome and Italy, Greek must have been preferred enough for the NT writers to choose Greek instead of Latin.
Indeed prejudice and ignorance go together, and for good reason. St. Paul was prejudiced against public speaking in unknown tongues. Was St. Paul ignorant? of course not, but he was prejudiced against meaningless noise. He said that tongues of men and angels were unhelpful unless people understood them.
If nobody understands the language, then qui bono?
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2022/september-web-only/state-of-theology-evangelical-heresy-report-ligonier-survey.html
to the moderator,
your latest answers Joanna demonstrates why fundamentalism is bankrupt. Your quote from I Corinthians has nothing to do with creeds and what they teach. I feel sorry for you. All you can do is spit out random verses that have nothing to do with nothing. No wonder why there are many that have left Bill Gothard, IBLP/ATI, fundamentalism etc. and become atheists. The people like you that trumpet “no creeds just me Jesus and my bible” need them the most. If you and Bill think that you are “spiritual mature”, you both have deceived yourselves because the various answers and excuses given here demonstrate otherwise. I’ll pray for you.
That passage has everything to do with our discussion. The Living God explaining His Word to His people, directly. No need for helpers.
“The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8)
On 8/8 above, we are offered both pity and prayer. Pity we can do without, but the proffered prayer raises questions. Our context was a warning against heresy. So to whom shall the prayers be offered? to Molech? to the world, flesh, and devil? If we are fussy about orthodoxy, shouldn’t we specify whether our prayers are going upward? or downward?
We also lament that random Bible verses and gospel preaching is producing atheists. Indeed, many are atheists. But are they atheists because of orthodox preaching, or in spite of it? Were they believers who ceased believing, or were they phonies who never repented? To the random mind, all things are random. Our sin reduces our thinking to chaos.
Is fundamentalism bankrupt? then cash your checks elsewhere. Most -isms are poor investments, anyway. What exactly was wrong with the moderator’s post? Rant is not rebuttal. It is only rant.
The comments are directed at the moderator not you.
Do creeds teach? of course not. Only people teach. But rather, creeds declare. Creeds affirm that we believe the gospel message in our Bibles.
On 8/8 above, we slay a straw man deader than Jacob Marley. If only American Christians were afflicted with too much Bible reading and heeding! But is that really our crisis? Isn’t it exactly opposite? For every Christian heeding the voice of his Good Shepherd as he reads his Bible, don’t we have ten more heeding the voices they hear in Vanity Fair? Are we afflicted with excess godliness? or excess worldliness?
Of course our neighbors should help us understand and obey God. But they can also help us sin, and they sometimes do. That explains the old lyrics, “though none go with me, still I will follow; the world behind me, the cross before me.”
Why not concede the obvious? For every one thing we misunderstand in our Bibles aren’t there ten more which we understand but sinfully neglect? Do we need better coaches? or better souls?
In reference to comments on the Nicene Creed by the moderator.
One can’t pluck out on sentence and proof text that to mean something else when the Nicene creed continues “eternally begotten from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father.” Jesus always existed with the Father. Begotten is not implying the father came before the son but an eternal divine relationship. See John 1:14,18 and John 3:16,18.
The idea that baptism does not “save” is only from the Anabaptist groups from the Reformation. Water Baptism has always been taught to be the essential first step to be saved. There are many numerous Biblical references for supporting this. Romans 6, Col 2:12, Gal. 3:27, Acts 2, I Peter 3, John 3:3-5 and many more. That has been and still is the historic Christian teaching and views. That is why it is included in the Nicene Creed which soon will be 1700 years old. If one’s understanding doesn’t line up with the Nicene creed, then maybe that understanding needs to be re-evaluated. There is a big gap between 1700 years and only 500 years.
I don’t understand “God from God”. God created me, so I sort of come from God, but I am not God. If He always was, then there is no act of “God FROM God”.
And strongly disagree on baptism. Baptism has always been seen as super important, but it finds its place as an expression of what is, rather creating something that is not.
Let’s not stumble over terms. Here, “from” is a synonym for “of.” We can use either preposition when we describe the incarnation. Bethlehem’s baby came “from” his mother as all babies do. But he was begotten “of” God and not of man. So some English translations of ancient creeds use “from” as a synonym for “of.”
My arm comes “from” my shoulder, but most importantly, it is “of” my body in organic union.
Let’s also not stumble over baptism. There’s plenty of scripture which connects baptism with remission of sins, even though Christians disagree over which direction cause flows to effect. Does baptism cause remission or does remission cause baptism? In what way did the Lord’s baptism fulfill righteousness? Was the water cleansing him or was he cleansing the water? or was our sin being imputed to him? Different Christians embrace different theories. But mainly, we need regeneration by Christ.
Well, I would not expect agreement on baptism. But Baptism is more than just ‘important”.
The Nicene creed was formulated against the Arian heresy which taught that Jesus was created, not fully God. You and I and everything else is created by God. Using your statement “I am from God”, would only mean we are created by God, we are not ‘from God” in the sense that we are created beings, we are not “God” or of a divine nature. We are not the same nature as God. That is what “God from God” when taken with the whole statements in the creed means that Jesus which is what is being talked about here is God, he is not made or created by God like we are. Jesus is one and the same with God the father. He became incarnate in a physical body. That is what “consubstantial” means. I am not sure if your question is due to genuine confusion or just trying to be a smart.
Do you believe “Jesus” has always existed, or did He have a beginning?
As the divine 2d person, the Lord is “eternally begotten, before all worlds.”
But there was a time before the Lord was incarnate in Mary’s womb. Although it has no ending, the Lord’s incarnation had a beginning. We expect our flesh to someday be glorified like his. “We look for the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting.”
No more let sins and sorrows grow,
Nor thorns infest the ground
He comes to make his blessings flow,
Far as the curse is found.
In a short answer to your question, yes, absolutely. I would suggest reading John 1, Philippians 2 and Colossians 1 for this. “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God”. John 1
My point is – if He always existed, then there is no “God from God”. God IS. You get man from God, you get a body for Jesus from God, but God does not beget God.
Let’s review Christian theology, based upon what we read on 8/27 above. Of course God begets God, who else could he beget? Just as man begets his son, God begets his son. We believe that Jesus is the son of God. What are sons, if not men begotten by their fathers?
(BTW, this fact contradicts the Darwinist narrative. If Darwinism is true, each species in the chain must have begun to beget a different species. Men and beasts may beget genetic adaptations in their seed, but they are always the same species as their father!)
This means that each begetting is a miniature incarnation. When I begot my sons, I supplied the genetic code by which God formed their flesh. Then God “curiously wrought” sons in their mother’s womb. When we beget, we begin to give a body to our sons. That is what we mean by “beget.”
We would differ on that. God IS. He always has been, and will never cease to be. There is no point where He came into existence, not as Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. “This day have I begotten thee” in Psalm 2 and quoted in the NT speaks of His revelation, but not of Him “coming into existence”. Does that perspective make sense?
So, no, God does not begat God. Otherwise, this:
James 1:18 “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.”
This would mean that we are God, if “God begets God” . . . Because He “begat” us as His sons. That is the cavernous difference between us and the “Only Begotten Son of God” – HE has always been, not so focus.
I can supply numerous links which explain “God from God” and I think that no matter how many links or quotes from others I could supply here, that is will not matter because you are misinterpreting “God from God” as one preceding the other, which when you read the whole of the Nicene creed, it is not. But when one follows people like Bill Gothard here who misquote and chop up the bible into unrecognizable quotes, this isn’t surprising. The proof texting continues, now it is just the Nicene Creed instead of scripture. If one is truly seeking to understand this, they can easily come up with many sources, written and in YouTube video format for the explanations and answers to your questions. And the resources aren’t just Catholic but Orthodox and Protestant as well. God from God is obviously stating one and the same when one reads the whole context and statement of the Nicene creed. Trying to understand from with modern ideas and understanding doesn’t cut it but is being used by you to misunderstand and discount creeds.
I, personally, make it a habit to avoid videos offered to prove a point. Scripture ought to be enough.
See what I posted in response to David.
And this: John 8:58 “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.”
“I Am” = no beginning and no end. Never “begotten” in the sense of coming into existence.
Well, if you make it a habit of not watching videos because you don’t think you need them, then if you have videos of Bill Gothard and IBLP, you better toss them because you don’t need them. And even further, the seminars of Bill Gothard are unnecessary too. What a mentality, me, Jesus and my Bible. But the problem with this is that the Bible doesn’t teach it. It is a sign of arrogancy and pride when someone thinks I need nothing else. In 1700 years of the Nicene creed, only you can come up with the ideas that you seem to have with it and falsely claim it states. While “no theology” is bad, trying to do theology when one doesn’t know what they are saying is just as bad. And that is what you and David are doing here. You are arguing what the Nicene creed actually does teach while arguing that the Nicene creed doesn’t teach this; David, who knows, delving off into Arianism. Theology done badly isn’t working for you both.
If I sign up for a teaching by a teacher, I am all in. I attend Bible conferences regularly. But I do not have time for video snips by people I do not know. If they convinced you, then you convince me how you were convinced. That is, BTW, exactly what Bill taught all those years, demanding that “we” not quote him for this or that, but rather discuss and argue and teach what we have ourselves proven. That is safe and good and I expect you would agree.
Rob, that’s a pretty good explanation above. We struggle for words to express what God has revealed to us. Our best words still have room for improvement.
James 1:18 is a beautiful assurance. The great apostle reminds us what it means to be “born again.” The Lord was cryptic with Nicodemus when he taught about regeneration, but St. James gives it to us straight. To be born again means that God’s spirit begets new life in men who were “dead in trespasses and sins.” By his spirit of regeneration, God upgrades us from mere mortal creatures to immortal “sons of God.”
Our Lord’s enemies were outraged by his claim to be son of God. But Jesus doubled down and quoted the OT, “ye are gods.”
We Christians sometimes speculate whether mysterious personages in the OT were visits by the pre-incarnate Christ. We believe that Jesus always existed. Yet we also believe that his Father wrought him in Mary’s womb “in the fullness of time” and not before. We call that “begetting.”
We agree about the womb but not that the Father “wrought Him” in that act. He prepared for Him a body. HE was there beforehand, in fact HE was the one that created Mary and Mary’s womb.
We are “gods” in that we have a free will and we will live – or die – forever. We are not “God” because God never had a start, like we did.
The best explanation of God “begetting” was written by C.S. Lewis. It appears in Book Four of Beyond Personality, his fourth book in the Mere Christianity compilation. He solves the paradox of God begetting Christ while eternally coexisting with his only begotten son (John 3:16). I would summarize it here, but the Lewis text is much better than any summary. It uses brief, vivid analogies.
Summarize, if you would. I respect Lewis a lot. A lot of smart people believe a few things they (we) should not. John McArthur taught for years that “this day I have begotten Thee” referred to Jesus BECOMING the Son of God. Lots of people howled. In the end – he changed his mind.
The “wrought” part means that Mary’s seed was in the Lord, commingled with God’s. Otherwise, Jesus can be neither “son of man” nor “seed of the woman.” Both are necessary for him to be our savior, and for us to be branches of his vine! Our theology says, “fully God and fully man.” God planted his identity into Mary’s womb, but unless he mingled it with our mortality, God could not really die on Calvary.
Men cannot slay God, but men can slay men. So Christ got his humanity through Mary’s seed, while step-father Joseph was an innocent bystander.
Because of Mary’s DNA, Christ is the prophesied “seed of the woman” who bruised the serpent’s head!
When my seed commingles with my wife’s seed I “beget” a son, half me, half her. Jesus was NOT “half Mary”. His body, maybe, and He would look like her, but He was not “half human”. He was fully God and fully human, something my kids can never claim for me or my wife.
Hebrews 10:5 “Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:”
“A body hast Thou prepared me” is NOT something that was ever said by us, you or me. We did not preexist, and then get a body to hold us, unlike what the Mormons teach, for example. There is nothing in the conception and birth and body of the Savior to compare to us in that regards. He was always, He – the “Son” specifically – created ALL things, including Mary.
Colossians 1:16 “For by him [Jesus] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:”
We revisit an ancient paradox on 8/31 above. How can Christ be son of God and son of man? Aren’t those mutually exclusive categories? The ancient church wrestled with that question, and heresies needed an answer. So church officers convened the Council of Calcedon to sort it out. The Definition of Calcedon is available online, and widely accepted as the best answer to this paradox.
But we have to ask, was Mary the real mother of Jesus in every sense, or was Mary merely a surrogate who carried the incarnate 2d Person? Was Jesus human by fiat only, or was he the promised “seed of the woman” as material fact?
The Lord’s favorite title for himself was “son of man.” Probably, he was not just quoting from Daniel. Probably, he meant it. That’s why our Bibles devote so much attention to his genealogies.
Understood, and thank you for acknowledging that many smart people have wrestled with this over the centuries.
As I read the “definition” I am quickly brought to this: “He was begotten before the ages from the Father according to his deity”
And therein lies the problem. EVERY “son of God” so named, including the angels and including us, saved, have a time when we were “Begotten” by God with His holy and external nature. 1 John 3:9 says that that which is born of God “cannot sin”, ever. That is, in context, clearly referring to us. So we have a dual nature, one the “flesh” which is irreversibly corrupt, and one the “new man” which is created to be “like Christ”. The part He creates “cannot sin” and so we quickly come to “once saved, always saved”. Also the peace in knowing that in the unending eternity to come, we will NOT EVER repeat Adam and Eve’s folly and turn back to sin. Our “flesh” will die, evaporate, as we pass into eternity, and our body will be resurrected. So will be forever the “new man” begotten by God.
The Savior is, however, the “Only Begotten Son of God”. He IS, has always been, there is none like Him. He had the nature of man on earth but unlike us He had no original sin, and unlike Adam He COULD NOT sin. Because He was as He has always been . . . God.
There is no change outside of a timeline. No changes in eternity. He was “Before the ages”, and before the ages there was no time. There is no place we can look back to where He came to be.
To put a bow on it:
John 1:18 “No MAN hath seen God AT ANY TIME; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”
So you can see – HE is no “man”. Not like us, not like Mary.
We are “like Him”, in “His image”, in part, because we too have 3 parts: Spirit, Soul, and Body. We never had one or two of those without the third. Similarly, God IS 3 persons and has always been so.
Deep things, I know. But we are left with a point of theology encapsulated in the creed and the definition which is outside of Scripture and, frankly, I think, wrong.
Okay, here is a summary of Lewis, from p. 172 of Mere Christianity:
Suppose that two books are stacked one upon another. The bottom book causes the position of the top book. Now suppose that both books had been in that position for ever and ever. The top book’s position would always have resulted from the bottom book’s position. This cannot happen in our world, because for us effect always follows after cause.
Like the imaginary books, the Father can beget the son forever. Christ is “eternally begotten,” not sequentially begotten, as in our world. The son exists because the Father exists: but there was never a time before the Father produced the Son. That’s how the Father can eternally beget the Son without being before him in sequence. Lewis continues, “In the same way, we must think of the Son always, so to speak, streaming forth from the Father.”
To the moderator:
I’m starting a new thread, since the current one is getting too clunky, but this is still a continuation of the same conversation.
My question is about Christians interpreting Scripture, and you keep citing verses that have nothing to do with that. In John 7:17, Jesus wasn’t talking about Bible interpretation. He was talking about people believing Him. Jesus is not the Bible.
As far as the “heresies”, the ESV translates the same word “factions”. In context, it’s talking about divisions. In the immediate context, it’s talking about how the Corinthians observed the Lord’s Supper in a way that made a distinction between the rich and the poor. In context of the whole book, it’s talking about other divisions as well, like the way the Corinthians argued over “I am of Paul” and “I am of Apollos”. People can disagree without being divisive, and the issue with the Corinthians was that they were divisive. That’s a major theme of the book. Nowhere does Paul say that mere disagreement over the interpretation of a Bible passage is a sign that at least one person is carnal.
And lots of people believe in a supernatural God without believing that the Holy Spirit will automatically reveal the correct interpretation to the more spiritual believer.
I’m not sure why you say that “judges all things” in I Corinthians 2 means interpreting Scripture when there’s nothing in the entire book to suggest that it’s about that. Again, this was about certain Corinthian believers setting themselves up as if they were better than other believers, based on worldly, carnal reasoning—because they were rich, or because they were male, or because their favorite preacher was more eloquent than someone else’s favorite preacher. Even thinking they were better because they had the spiritual gift of tongues was a carnal reason, and that’s the setting for the famous love chapter in I Corinthians 13.
With walking alone, none of the passages you cited are about walking alone. In Galatians, just a few verses before it says “bear one another’s burdens”. It’s like if you’re talking to a group going on a hike and you say “have each other’s backs, and carry your own backpacks”. That’s not contradictory. You’re all looking out for each other, but each person also has his own load.
When Peter was asking about John, Jesus didn’t say “John’s not following me. You follow me alone.” Jesus was saying that Peter could follow Him (Jesus) without knowing God’s exact plan for John. John did follow Jesus as well. Peter and John even worked together in Acts. They weren’t alone. They end up being taken into custody together (Acts 4) and when they get out, they report what happened to the other believers and they pray together. That’s the farthest thing from being “alone”.
Likewise, the disciples did have to leave their families, as you mentioned in Luke 14, but they weren’t alone. James and John left their father Zebedee and the fishing business and joined the /group/ of disciples. How is that being alone?
Matthew 7 says that /few/ find the narrow way, not that any one person is the only one.
As far as the church being safest when people stand on their own feet, you turned I Corinthians 2 on its head. The problem in Corinth was not that believers were too unified and trusting in the judgment of other believers. The problem was that they were carnal and divisive. Paul’s statement about the spiritual person judging all things and not being judged by any man was his own defense. Many of the Corinthians looked down on him because he wasn’t an eloquent speaker; he was saying he didn’t care about their carnal judgement of him. So no, the passage is not “plainly” advocating a stand-alone Christianity. The book is rebuking a divisive Christianity, which is literally the opposite idea.
(As far as Deuteronomy, an Old Testament verse about Levi has nothing to do with the church. That’s super random.)
Quoting part of 2 Timothy 2:24 and part of I Corinthians 14:1 doesn’t somehow show that teaching, preaching, and prophesying are the same thing. I can’t even figure out where they’re going with that.
Your version of Christianity isn’t remotely supported by any of the Scriptures you cited. You’re just taking bits and pieces of phrases, applying them however you feel like it, and adding some of your own ideas in there for good measure, just like Gothard does.
Waving your hand at an argument and disagreeing is not helpful. Let’s keep the response size to something manageable.
“heresies” – it remains that there are two groups of Christians coalescing around differing understandings of Scripture – and God says He will make the one approved “manifest”. Plain to see.
“I’m not sure why you say that “judges all things” in I Corinthians 2 means interpreting Scripture”
“Judges all things” means . . . “All things”. All topics. The “mind of Christ” in us guides us. To put it another way, the criterion to be able to correctly answer a question has nothing to do with the number of letters behind the name . . . And everything with knowing God and being a “spiritual” person.
“Likewise, the disciples did have to leave their families” – They were told to hate them all. Literally. That is very much aloneness, just me and Jesus.
“an Old Testament verse about Levi has nothing to do with the church.” – the OT teaches us how God thinks, what He prizes, values. God exalts those that leave the “group” and follow Him alone.
“Quoting part of 2 Timothy 2:24 and part of I Corinthians 14:1 doesn’t somehow show that teaching, preaching, and prophesying are the same thing. I can’t even figure out where they’re going with that. ” – You aren’t even trying, sister. This one was very obvious. “The best gifts” – “covet them”. What are they, according to Paul? Please humor me and go back, take what I said and at least figure out where I was coming from. Explain that to prove that you can at least follow my line of reasoning. Otherwise there is little point to continue on here. It is frustrating.
“just like Gothard does.” – The wind blows . . . And others can’t tell where it is coming from, or where it is going. That is not the wind’s fault. Like I said, humor me and try a bit harder. We are not having a conversation here. I appreciate your involvement as it is a whole lot better to have dialog than a forum with no participants. You like to write, that is good, so do I. But I am not going to go back and continue explaining the same things. Pick a topic to explore – add something to the dialog.
When I can follow your argument, I’m never just “waved my hand and disagreed”. I’ve given you a reason why I don’t think your interpretation is valid, based either on the broad context of the passage, or on the context of the whole Bible.
Other times, I do have a hard time following your line of reasoning, because you don’t carry it all the way through. I can try to piece it together, but I’m not sure why you want me to guess based on clues rather than just telling me your point. It seems rather odd. And I’m not the only one on this thread who can’t see the connection between the verses you cite and the point you’re trying to make.
But I can have a go at it. You asked me what the best gifts are, according to Paul in I Corinthians. He said in verse 1 that prophecy is best. He said that that’s better because it helps other believers. It builds them up. He also said, in verses 13-18, that interpreting tongues is better than speaking in tongues, because nobody else is encouraged or built up by someone speaking in tongues without interpretation.
I’ll grant that there’s a similar idea in 2 Timothy 2. Paul is exhorting Timothy to be able to teach in order to be of benefit to others, to show people how they’re wrong so they can change. I can’t tell whether Paul is talking about reaching unbelievers or about believers who are going astray.
So both prophecy and preaching have in common the idea that it’s for the benefit of others. Neither should be private spiritual exercises that have nothing to do with others. But I honestly can’t see how that makes both of them the same thing. Nor can I see the connection between either of those and the way the average believer interprets Scripture. I’m afraid you’ll have to explain that.
The word to “prophesy” is the word for “preach”. There is no other word in the Greek to mean “preach”. Most everyone understands the difference between teaching and preaching.
1 Corinthians 12:28 “And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.”
“Apostle” is our “missionary”, “Teacher” is . . . A teacher. Where is our “preacher” in there? 🙂 It is the prophet.
So there is a word for preach, kēryssō. It’s not in 1 Corinthians 12:28, but you can find it in 2 Timothy 4:2. It’s not the same as the Greek word for prophesy, prophēteuō, from both 1 Corinthians 12 and 14.
But whether it’s the same word or the same thing or not, what does any of that have to do with how regular believers interpret Scripture?
That word is indeed translated “preach” but is nowhere linked to a spiritual gift. We know that a man is “gifted” as a preacher, which is not “teaching”. And that gifting is the word translated to “prophesy”.
We are getting lost in the weeds here. I THINK you were trying to imply that one gift is not superior to another, for reasons that escape me, and I demonstrated that to “prophesy” was indeed superior to other gifts, including “teaching”. Perhaps you were seeking to establish that research and doctrine were at least if not more important than spirit guided extemporaneous pronouncements? I am not sure. Double back and catch me up. The tool that I have to edit and respond gives me zero history context.
Can you have the regular webpage open on a tab, so you can read the thread and use your editing tools at the same time? Or do you have Microsoft Word? I’ve been copy-pasting your most recent response into a Word document and then working on an answer in there so I can also look up previous comments without scrolling every single time.
But anyway. I’ll try to summarize the general gist of the conversation. I said (August 4) “The Bible is composed of works of literature designed to be read and understood in context with the help of a group.”
You said (August 7), “Did not quite understand your comments of what the Bible is, or if I did, strongly disagree. The “Bible” is a collection of infallible, God breathed writings that are taken by the Spirit of God to teach us. They do so in context, out of context, in any language they are translated into. As such they are, well, “magic”, the power of the living God living therein. Scripture itself teaches us that, no, we do not need “helpers” to understand it, no not if we are “spiritual”, i.e. spiritually mature:
That’s what we’ve been debating ever since: how exactly do Christians understand the Bible? You’re taking a more spiritualized view, to the point of practically dismissing the normal way we understand written texts. I believe in the Holy Spirit helping believers—and perhaps even unbelievers—to understand Scripture, but I don’t believe the Bible is so different that we can ignore all normal means for understanding writings.
I appealed both to the history of how believers have handled the Bible, and also to the passage in Acts (15) in which the Jerusalem Council sent two apostles to explain the letter they put together for the believers, clarifying what parts of the law Gentiles had to follow and what parts they didn’t. It’s recorded in Scripture, so it’s the inspired Word of God, and yet the believers in Jerusalem didn’t assume that the believers could understand it if only they were spiritual enough.
You started quoting a bunch of verses, and I could never get you to explain what they had to do with the conversation. On August 31, you said (among other things)
“1 Corinthians 2:15 ‘But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.’ Note the ‘he’ ‘himself’. That is the individual, judging all things. Caring not for the opinions of others, at least not of those called ‘natural’ or ‘carnal.
…
“Teaching: 2 Timothy 2:24 ‘And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach . . .’
“Preach is the same as prophesy: 1 Corinthians 14:1 ‘ … desire spiritual gifts, but rather [specifically] that ye may prophesy.’”
I think we got a little side-tracked about whether preaching and prophesying are the same thing. I’m not sure what that has to do with the topic, either. But I kept trying to get you to explain how any of the verses you cited supported your view of Bible interpretation (especially in context) and you never did. You scolded me (September 6) for not being able to follow your train of thought, and now you’ve forgotten it yourself.
OK, that is helpful, thank you.
This is the crux of the entire matter. The Bible IS decidedly different from any other written text. God wrote it! It is “living” in that it is power of God driving a man to spiritual life, and feeding that spiritual life. Jesus said:
“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.” (John 6:63)
What other writing can say, “This is Spirit, and this is Life”?
The Bible is “The Holy Bible”. There is nothing like it. In part because it is written into our hearts – there is no book of man with that credential:
“For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)” (Romans 2:14-15)
It is “magic”, it is spiritual . . . So, no, the normal rules of interpretation do not apply.
—————————-
I Cor. 2 is absolutely key to everything. I will quote snips from it again:
1 Corinthians 2:6 ” . . . we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world” – we are not appealing to people who are not “perfect”, or mature spiritually, and certainly not with the “wisdom of this world”, including such secular things are “hermeneutics”.
7 “But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom” – What we say is mysterious and hidden to the normal human mind, I.e. the one accustomed to “analyzing texts”.
10 “But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit” – That is the only place we can get this insight from.
11 “. . . the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God” – Man has no clue.
12 “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God . . . ” – there is a “spirit of this world”, the thing that moves and motivates the unsaved and unspiritual man.
13 “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.” – And, again, what we proclaim as revealed by the Spirit of God looks like foolishness to the “soulish man”, the “natural man” as the KVJ calls him . . . The mind centered man (the word is “psyche”), soul, mind dominated.
—————————-
I was at one point making a big deal about the difference between “preaching” (prophesying) and “teaching”. The former is speaking with authority, “Thus saith the Lord”, not logic or supporting sources or anything else that a teacher would normally do. And, yes, Paul declares that the “best gift”. It links generally to the other topic, I am just not recalling how we got over there.
Not sure if this comment will end up in the right place on the thread, but this is a reply to the moderator comment on November 5.
I agree that God’s wisdom is different from man’s wisdom, and there are certainly aspects of the Christian life that non-Christians simply can’t understand, no matter how intelligent or educated they are. But I Corinthians 2 isn’t talking about Bible interpretation. Paul, under inspiration, was dealing with the Corinthian believers being carnally divided along “worldly” lines, like who was their favorite speaker, who had more money, or who had more education. He was calling them to a radical unity in Christ. He wasn’t saying there was some special other way of understanding Scripture.
Besides, Jesus reasoned from Scripture, in ways that the Pharisees and Sadducees could understand, even if they didn’t agree with Him (Matthew 12:3-8; Mark 12:35-37). One time, He even makes an argument based on a present tense verb (Mark 12:26-27). Jesus didn’t appeal to some mystical or spiritual knowledge.
Furthermore, we have language in the first place because God gave it to us. It’s not a man-made invention. It’s from Him. So why would a Book specially from Him have to suspend the normal way we understand language? A good bit of the Bible is God appealing to rebellious people. He can communicate with them, even they’re not in a right relationship with him at all. They often chose to reject what He said, but they knew what He was talking about. They never said “huh?” to which God responded, “Oh, you’re just not spiritual enough to understand what I’m talking about”.
You state without backup what you believe Paul was doing, “he was”, “he wasn’t”. We disagree on that. Unity is based on the Holy Spirit Who NEVER says two different things. That is most definitely a direct appeal to the guidance of that Living One to lead us into all truth.
Jesus reasoned from Scripture because Scripture is “Spirit” and “Life”. Far different from the writings of men. “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63) Within the confines of “spiritual truth” we compare “spiritual” (things) with “spiritual”. “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” (1 COR. 2:13)
Language! You bring that up. The version of “language” that we use is significantly dumbed down from what they used before the Tower of Babel. Linguistics and common sense show us that ALL known languages have devolved from a common root language they call “Indo-European”. And THAT has happened in recorded history. There is no way the inhabitants of Babel were speaking English, French, German . . . Because those languages did not exist. I believe they had a higher “spiritual” way to talk, thought to thought, spirit to spirit, which kept the language from diverging as it will once people are separated. The “gift of tongues” undoes that . . . You see in Acts 2 that they all HEARD them in their own language . . . One speaker, and they heard their own language.
Consider this from our passage: “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.” (1 COR. 2:11) Only by means of my spirit do I know what another is thinking . . . That person can say they exact opposite in words to what he means, and we understand what he is saying. Women talk like that all of the time 🙂 Without a healthy spirit, no husband can understand what his wife is saying. Children too – child abuse comes most often from a parent not reading their child’s spirit and reacting to surface words and actions. It is “magic”, a “sixth sense”, not logic.
And you are wrong. God is very much into cloaking His meaning so that only those with spiritual ears hear it:
“And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.” (Mark 4:11-12)
This is a reply to your comment on November 18
“You state without backup what you believe Paul was doing.”
In the first place, so do you. You still haven’t given me a single reason, based in the text, to apply this passage to Bible interpretation.
Second, I thought you were familiar with the book, and that if you really couldn’t see what I was talking about, you might at least skim it. After Paul’s introduction, the first thing he mentions is the divisions among the Corinthians (I Cor. 1: 10-17). Only then does he start talking about the wisdom of God and the foolishness of men (vv. 18-29). He briefly discusses how his preaching exemplified that. (2:1-4). Then he starts talking about the spiritual mind (2:6-14). Then in chapter 3, Paul goes right back to talking about their divisions. The Corinthians can’t understand his spiritual talk while they have these immature divisions among them (vv. 1-4). Then Paul goes into even more detail about why their “I am of Paul, I am of Apollos” divisiveness is wrong by giving two illustrations, one of a garden (3: 5-9) and one of a building (3:10-15). And just in case it’s still unclear how wisdom fits in, he ends his final paragraph about wisdom with the words (ESV) “So let no one boast in men. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.” (I Cor. 3: 21-23)
When discussing the Lord’s supper, long after he’s done talking about wisdom of God, Paul again rebukes the Corinthians divisiveness. Instead of eating a meal in unity, it had become a time to “humiliate those who have nothing” (I Cor. 11:22)
Later on in the book, Paul goes into a lengthy discussion of spiritual gifts (chs. 12-14). And instead of elevating the “spiritual” side of it, as we might expect him to do, he instead says that love is the most important thing. The famous love chapter is written in the context of spiritual gifts. In chapter 14, he actually downplays the spiritual tongues-speaking, and says that it’s better to do things that everyone can understand and benefit from. Verses 20-25 even contain the only passage in the entire Bible in which believers are instructed to do something a certain way in church for the benefit of unbelievers.
All that to say, unity between believers is a major theme. If you want to talk about the Holy Spirit not saying two different things, He wouldn’t say—in the very book in which He’s emphasizing the importance of unity between believers—that Christians should judge each other based on whether they’re spiritual enough to interpret the Bible correctly.
“Jesus reasoned from Scripture because Scripture is “Spirit” and “Life”. Far different from the writings of men.”
I think you missed my point. Yes, Jesus was reasoning from Scripture. I was talking about /how/ He reasoned. He didn’t use some mysterious other reasoning just because He was explaining the Bible. Again, He once made an argument based on a verb tense in Scripture (Mark 12:26-27). It’s grammar. It’s nothing uniquely spiritual.
I’m not sure where you got your idea about the Tower of Babel and some higher “spiritual” talk. Even if that was true, how does that relate to interpreting Scripture? God didn’t inspire any Scripture before the Tower of Babel, nor for generations afterward. Either He was intending to communicate to people—limitations of language notwithstanding—or He wasn’t. And I believe God was actually communicating with us, not playing games of “guess what I’m talking about. Oops, you’re not spiritual enough!”
“And you are wrong. God is very much into cloaking His meaning so that only those with spiritual ears hear it:”
Yes, /sometimes/ God deliberately keeps people from understanding. Sometimes. That wasn’t the norm for most of Scripture. Again, the Pharisees understood Jesus. They didn’t agree with Him. They didn’t like what He had to say. But they understood Him. Sometimes they even understood Him better than the disciples did. After Jesus died, They knew He said He would rise again (Matthew 27:63) while the disciples were cowering in an upper room. Furthermore, the Old Testament is filled with people who understood what God was saying, even if they weren’t “spiritual” and didn’t like it or obey it—Pharaoh, Balaam and the people he prophesied to, Cain, King Ahab, the disobedient Israelites through centuries of prophets prophesying.
So again, I’m really not sure how you can justify the idea that we need to bypass using the mind God gave us in order to understand what God says. Because it’s not in I Corinthians, and the whole rest of the Bible shows the opposite.
“After Paul’s introduction, the first thing he mentions is the divisions among the Corinthians (I Cor. 1: 10-17).”
Yes, I know that. But that is a symptom which needs a root cause solution [words you would recognize from the Basic Seminar].
“For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” (1 Cor. 11:19)
In a fight at most one side is right. Sometimes both sides are partially right. When it comes to matters with a spiritual root, there IS no solution without understanding the spiritual side clearly. He complains:
“And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?” (1 Cor. 3:1)
THAT is the sum and substance of why those 3 chapters exist. They have to become spiritual, not “natural” (literally “soul-based” or even “psychological”) or, even worse, “carnal”, body or lower-nature based. Spiritual people KNOW, they know the Lord and they know each other, and no man can judge them. (1 Cor. 2:15) That is the “superpower” that is our birthright as “sons of God” with a “new nature”. THAT – knowing God – is the unity that ties all believers together in “another dimension”, a spiritual one, which is as far above human reasoning and knowledge as the heavens are above the earth.
“And instead of elevating the “spiritual” side of it, as we might expect him to do, he instead says that love is the most important thing.”
Love is ABSOLUTELY a spiritual thing! 🙂 Animals cannot “love” like that, only those that are spiritual can love. That is the entire point. In fact, the word “gifts” is missing in 1 Cor. 12:1 . . . It is literally, “regarding spirituals . . . ”
“Yes, Jesus was reasoning from Scripture. I was talking about /how/ He reasoned.”
We are to reason like He reasoned:
“Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” (1 Corinthians 2:13)
The logic is not the issue, but the facts themselves. And the premises. When believers – who should know better – appeal to “hermeneutics”, a secular way to interact with the writings of men, they have committed a crime. Spiritual truth is, to the human mind, like the wind – you can see the results, but you CANNOT discern why. You can’t predict or backcalculate a hurricane, other than generalities.
“The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8)
“I’m not sure where you got your idea about the Tower of Babel and some higher “spiritual” talk. Even if that was true, how does that relate to interpreting Scripture?”
It should be obvious how it relates. I described the why generally. Genuine “spiritual” communication is “spirit to spirit”, my spirit connecting to another person’s spirit, no or few words required. In another context you would agree with me heartily. People appeal to “body language” but that is silly, as the same movements can be used in different contexts where something else is meant. THAT is how we can understand God and what He is saying to us.
The “why” I am not going to parse in greater detail unless you really care and it might make a difference. Probably the best “proof” is the “tongues” of Acts 2:
“Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?” (Acts 2:6-8)
They all HEARD what was said in their own language. It was not a cacophony of different languages shouted about – each speaker sounded like something they recognized. Direct communication without the need to learn the language. THAT was what was lost at the Tower of Babel. And THAT is what we get back – in general principle, or even more focused with the “gift of tongues” – the more spiritual we are. Some argue that the need for the “magic” aspect for human speech as gone and I am not going to enter that debate.
“Again, the Pharisees understood Jesus. They didn’t agree with Him. They didn’t like what He had to say. ”
I am so going to disagree. They understood the part He wanted them to understand – that they were stupid, sinful, didn’t know the Bible, that HE claimed to be God and that they needed to bow and surrender. The wonder of it, the glory of it was hidden from them. If you know CS Lewis’s Narnia books, I often think of the band of dwarves in the very end of the last book, sitting in glorious freedom surrounded by a feast, and yet believing they were still locked in a tiny stable surrounded by dirty hay and poop. THAT was the state of the Pharisees. NO, they did not understand.
In response to your comment on November 21:
I’ll do my best to make it clear what part I’m responding to, but I don’t think I’ll be able to quote you and then respond for this first part. You said that division is a symptom that needs a root cause, and then a couple paragraphs later, you said that the whole point of those three chapters is that the Corinthians had to become spiritual and not “natural” in order to have true Christian unity.
But the problem is, that wasn’t how Paul framed it. He didn’t tell them that their carnal divisiveness was because they hadn’t tapped into some mysterious spirituality. He told then, in normal Greek words, that as Christians, their divisions were wrong. To paraphrase 1:10, he simply said, “I appeal to you to stop being divided and be more united.” And then he reminded them of what was already true about them spiritually. In 1:26, he references their calling. That was something in the past. In 1:30, he says “you are in Christ Jesus”, present tense. There wasn’t some extra, “spiritual” thing they had to do.
“Love is ABSOLUTELY a spiritual thing! Animals cannot “love” like that, only those that are spiritual can love.”
I agree with you that love is spiritual, and that’s why I put it in quotes when I said that Paul advocated love instead of the “spiritual things”. The Corinthians were taking pride in their spiritual gifts of prophecy and tongues speaking, and they had forgotten about love. They weren’t thinking about love being spiritual and Paul had to remind them. My point is that the tongues speaking and prophesying, which could sound “more spiritual”, even to believers, weren’t the things that really were the most spiritual.
Love can seem “less spiritual” because even unbelievers understand it to quite an extent. Jesus told the disciples that others should know that they were His disciples because they loved one another (John 13:35). Unbelievers would see it and understand that it was real love. They might not understand everything about it, but they understand that it’s love.
“We are to reason like He [Jesus] reasoned:
“Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” (1 Corinthians 2:13)”
You just said we should reason like Jesus reasoned, and then you quoted Corinthians, which is not a conversation that Jesus had.
You then asserted—still without quoting anything Jesus actually said—that it’s a “crime” to treat the words of the Bible, written in human languages like—words written in human languages. I’m not denying that there’s a spiritual component to understanding God’s Word, but the very existence of the Bible, in words, challenges your assertion that we’re supposed to understand it—without words. If we weren’t meant to understand spiritual truth in human words, why did God give us a Book at all? And why was it transmitted through the normal human means of writing and copying and repeating it orally? He could have just dropped it from heaven (like the Mormons claim with the Book of Mormon) and had it written in esoteric language that only mystic sages could understand. But He didn’t.
Since God inspired words, I’m going to treat them like words. Why would God inspire words and then make it so that everything we know about words, using the mind that He gave us in the first place, doesn’t apply to His Word?
Anyway, to your credit, you next quoted something Jesus actually said, about how being born of the Spirit is like the wind. But that’s about the mystery of salvation, or to use the biblical terminology, entering the kingdom of God (John 3:5). Unlike with physical birth, which is quite a dramatic and very visible physical action, becoming a Christians doesn’t “look like” anything. It’s like the wind. You see the change, but you don’t see what caused it. But that’s not about how to interpret or reason from Scripture. Neither Nicodemus nor Jesus referenced it even once in the entire chapter.
“They [the Pharisees] understood the part He [Jesus] wanted them to understand – that they were stupid, sinful, didn’t know the Bible, that HE claimed to be God and that they needed to bow and surrender. The wonder of it, the glory of it was hidden from them… NO, they did not understand.”
I think you’re conflating understanding with saving faith. I agree with you that the Pharisees didn’t have saving faith, and without it, they couldn’t understand all the wonder and the glory of Jesus’ message. But that didn’t mean that they didn’t understand Jesus at all. They had back and forth conversations with him. They could follow His train of thought. They weren’t constantly going, “huh?” That means that to a large extent, they understood what Jesus was talking about.
“He didn’t tell them that their carnal divisiveness was because they hadn’t tapped into some mysterious spirituality.”
Nothing “mysterious” about it! I quoted and will requote where he did indeed say that:
“And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. 2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?” (1 Corinthians 3:1-3)
See it? He definitely brought the problem down to being “carnal”. “Carnal” is the opposite of “spiritual”, that that is the solution for both root and symptom. “Carnal” means “of the body” . . . And “Spiritual” is “of the spirit”. Contrasted here:
“For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.” (Romans 7:14)
“Love can seem “less spiritual””
Apples and oranges. Love is the motive, the gifts are the means for love to act. Love without deeds are dead, James tells us. And the most effective deed to give love is through prophesying (preaching). It is called “the best gift” for a reason.
“You just said we should reason like Jesus reasoned, and then you quoted Corinthians, which is not a conversation that Jesus had.”
I ALSO quoted Jesus words:
“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63)
“Flesh” is the word “sarx”, the word that forms the adjective “carnal”. Jesus says words can be “spirit”, contrasted with those that are “flesh”. Which is what Paul stated when he said that we deal in spiritual currency, “comparing spiritual with spiritual”, not carnal, earthy, with carnal. And “hermeneutics” are of the earth, fleshly man’s brain, not of the spirit.
“Since God inspired words, I’m going to treat them like words. Why would God inspire words and then make it so that everything we know about words, using the mind that He gave us in the first place, doesn’t apply to His Word?”
He does that to “take the crafty in their craftiness”. Brains can’t figure it out. It takes our spirit illuminated by His Spirit. Elsewhere He speaks of that futility as . . . . “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (2 Tim. 3:7)
As He says in our section: “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14)
The “big brain” (“natural” = “soulish”, big mind) CANNOT understand spiritual things – they are “foolishness” to them. Which speaks to your other point:
“But that didn’t mean that they didn’t understand Jesus at all.”
Nope, the Pharisees were “carnal” and “natural” . . . And “neither can he know them” . . . Can’t understand.
A response to the moderator comment on November 24:
You: [After quoting I Corinthians 3:1-3] See it? He definitely brought the problem down to being “carnal”. “Carnal” is the opposite of “spiritual”, that that is the solution for both root and symptom. “Carnal” means “of the body” . . . And “Spiritual” is “of the spirit”.
[Me] It’s one thing to say that the Corinthians were divided because they were carnal. It works just as well to say that they were carnal because they were divided. It’s rather circular, as a matter of fact, with causes and effects somewhat blurred. But anyway, that wasn’t all you said earlier. You also said:
“THAT is the sum and substance of why those 3 chapters exist. They have to become spiritual, not “natural” (literally “soul-based” or even “psychological”) or, even worse, “carnal”, body or lower-nature based.”
And that’s the part that’s not in the passage. It doesn’t say the Corinthians had to “become” anything. Paul simply said that they had divisions because they were carnal. And then he gives them truth about the wisdom of God. In other words, he reasons, in words, to help them be motivated to be less carnal/divisive. He doesn’t give some sweeping but vague instruction to “become more spiritual”.
[Me] “You just said we should reason like Jesus reasoned, and then you quoted Corinthians, which is not a conversation that Jesus had.”
[You] “I ALSO quoted Jesus words:
“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63)
[Me} I wasn’t talking about what Jesus taught in the abstract about flesh and spirit. I’m talking about how Jesus reasoned in actual conversations, like in His disputes with the Pharisees. When Jesus is actively in dialogue with someone who’s disagreeing with Him, can you give me even one example where He appealed to something so “spiritual” that the other person had no idea what He was talking about because they just weren’t spiritual enough? Ironically, it’s His close disciples—who already believed in Him and followed Him and were closest to Him—who were forever not understanding what Jesus was talking about.
[You]“Flesh” is the word “sarx”, the word that forms the adjective “carnal”. Jesus says words can be “spirit”, contrasted with those that are “flesh”. Which is what Paul stated when he said that we deal in spiritual currency, “comparing spiritual with spiritual”, not carnal, earthy, with carnal. And “hermeneutics” are of the earth, fleshly man’s brain, not of the spirit.
[Me] I think you’re taking metaphors too literally. And you’re definitely making a sharp distinction between “human” and “spiritual” where the Bible doesn’t. Yes, there are /times/ when flesh and spirit are contrasted, and one is presented as the complete opposite of the other. You’ve quoted those passages over and over again. But it doesn’t then follow that any and all human reasoning is carnal and unspiritual. Again, God made our minds in the first place. You keep ignoring that and just repeatedly quoting the same verses.
And if you want to talk about word definitions, did you know that in both Hebrew and Greek, the same word that means “spirit” as in “the Holy Spirit” also means “breath”, as in, “the breath that keeps humans physically alive”? So in the very languages of the Bible, the physical and the spiritual go hand in hand. They’re not intrinsically against each other at all times.
The second verse in the entire Bible talks about the Spirt of God moving over the physical waters, and Genesis 2 talks about God—a Spirit—breathing life into Adam, a physical man. God—a Spirit—created the actual literal earth, the dirt on the ground. And God repeatedly said in Genesis 1 that everything—all those physical things, including humans and their human brains—was good.
And lest we think that it all became completely bad once sin came into the world, Paul under inspiration says that everything God made is good, and we should be thankful for it (paraphrase of I Tim. 4:4). Granted, in context, he wasn’t talking about thinking or reasoning, but he /was/ talking about very physical, human things, like eating, drinking, and getting married. A few verses earlier, he said it was the false teachers who tried to say that being a Christian meant avoiding those normal human activities.
If you want something Jesus said, His greatest command was to love God with our hearts, souls, and /minds/ (Matt. 22:36-38). He didn’t say that we had to shun every bit of normal, human thinking in order to obey Him. We love Him /with/ our minds, with the minds that He gave us in the first place. Our minds are no longer /all/ good like they were before sin, but they didn’t become completely bad, either. That would make sin more powerful than God, which I don’t think either of us believe. You can’t just ignore those Bible passages because they don’t fit with your idea of what the other passages mean.
[Me] Why would God inspire words and then make it so that everything we know about words, using the mind that He gave us in the first place, doesn’t apply to His Word?”
[You] He does that to “take the crafty in their craftiness”. Brains can’t figure it out. It takes our spirit illuminated by His Spirit. Elsewhere He speaks of that futility as . . . . “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (2 Tim. 3:7)
[Me] In 2 Timothy 3, Paul wasn’t attacking all learning just because humans were using their minds. He was talking about people who were claiming to be Christians even though they had very poor character. He lists their negative characteristics all through verses 2-5. Their learning meant nothing since their lifestyle and attitude was so bad, and yet they were leading people astray. But Paul didn’t tell the believers “oh, don’t use your minds at all”. He said that his readers should know better because they’ve followed his (Paul’s) /teachings/ (verse 10). How do you follow someone’s teachings? By using your brain!
Then again at the beginning of 2 Timothy 4, he tells Timothy to preach—to reprove, rebuke, exhort. That’s cognitive. He didn’t say “just tell the people to be more spiritual. Discourage them from using their brains.”
Trying to step out of our brains isn’t Christian spirituality; it’s mysticism.
[You] Nope, the Pharisees were “carnal” and “natural” . . . And “neither can he know them” . . . Can’t understand.
[Me] Again, you haven’t given an actual example of the Pharisees not understanding, a passage where they had no idea what Jesus was talking about, and Jesus telling them they could understand Him if only they were spiritual enough. In fact, in John 3, the very passage you quoted earlier about spiritual matters being like the wind, Jesus expresses surprise that Nicodemus doesn’t understand, and He continues to explain Himself, in normal human words. And we find out later that Nicodemus believed after that (John 19:39). (Although it’s not clear if it was right after the conversation with Jesus on the roof, or later.)
“It doesn’t say the Corinthians had to “become” anything. Paul simply said that they had divisions because they were carnal. And then he gives them truth about the wisdom of God. In other words, he reasons, in words, to help them be motivated to be less carnal/divisive. He doesn’t give some sweeping but vague instruction to “become more spiritual”.”
That is EXACTLY what he is saying! “And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.” ( 1 Corinthians 3:1) Stop being carnal (babies) and start being spiritual.
“can you give me even one example where He appealed to something so “spiritual” that the other person had no idea what He was talking about because they just weren’t spiritual enough? ”
Matthew 13:13 “Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.” The “parable” is a cloaked truth . . . That only the spiritual can understand.
“But it doesn’t then follow that any and all human reasoning is carnal and unspiritual.”
There is a reason I quote the same passages over and over – because they so clearly make the point.
“Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.” (1 Corinthians 3:18-19) Human reasoning – human “wisdom” – is “foolishness”. Plain as day.
“And if you want to talk about word definitions, did you know that in both Hebrew and Greek, the same word that means “spirit” as in “the Holy Spirit” also means “breath”,”
No it doesn’t, not in the Greek:
g4151. πνεῦμα pneuma; from 4154; a current of air, i.e. breath (blast) or a breeze; by analogy or figuratively, a spirit, i.e. (human) the rational soul, (by implication) vital principle, mental disposition, etc., or (superhuman) an angel, demon, or (divine) God, Christ’s spirit, the Holy Spirit: — ghost, life, spirit(-ual, -ually), mind. Compare 5590.
AV (385) – Spirit 111, Holy Ghost 89, Spirit (of God) 13, Spirit (of the Lord) 5, (My) Spirit 3, Spirit (of truth) 3, Spirit (of Christ) 2, human (spirit) 49, (evil) spirit 47, spirit (general) 26, spirit 8, (Jesus’ own) spirit 6, (Jesus’ own) ghost 2…
Our “breath” is NOT tangible. Our physical life is not the same as our spirit. A corpse can function when the spirit is gone.
And Jesus said it so plainly: “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 6:63) “Profiteth nothing” = “good for nothing” Our physical being – including our physical brain – is good for nothing, as opposed to the spirit.
“In 2 Timothy 3, Paul wasn’t attacking all learning just because humans were using their minds.”
A completely unsubstantiated statement. Your opinion, nothing more. Paul called human “wisdom” foolishness – the Greek word for “wise” and “wisdom” is sophos . . . Where we get “philosophy”, love of wisdom, human wisdom. This is absolutely the highest form of human thought . . . And he calls it all “foolishness”
“How do you follow someone’s teachings? By using your brain!”
NO! That is precisely the point. We use our SPIRIT. 1 Corinthians 2:11 “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.” <-- the ONLY way we can understand the thoughts of another is through our spirit. And that is the ONLY way to know God's thoughts. Computers can only guess - and our minds, big computers, can also only guess. Our spirits SEE inside the mind of another to understand their thoughts. Just like God ordained: Proverbs 20:27 "The spirit of man is the candle of the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly."
A response to the December 4 moderator comment:
Me: Paul… doesn’t give some sweeping but vague instruction to “become more spiritual”.”
You: That is EXACTLY what he is saying! “And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.” ( 1 Corinthians 3:1) Stop being carnal (babies) and start being spiritual.
I Corinthians 3:2 doesn’t say “therefore become more spiritual.” The passage goes on to say “I fed you with milk, not solid food.” In fact, there’s no command to the Corinthians until the end of the chapter which says “become a fool” (v.18) and “let no one boast in men” (v.21). “Become a fool” is rather vague, but “let no one boast in men” is more clear and specific.
Me: can you give me even one example where He appealed to something so “spiritual” that the other person had no idea what He was talking about because they just weren’t spiritual enough?
You: Matthew 13:13 “Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.” The “parable” is a cloaked truth . . . That only the spiritual can understand.
Matthew 13 is a good example of Jesus not always making everything clear to everyone. But Jesus didn’t say that the key to understanding was being spiritual enough. Jesus says Matthew 13:13 in response to the disciples asking Him why He taught in parables. Right after that, He explains to them—presumably including Judas—what He means in plain words. Other times, when the same disciples didn’t ask Jesus to explain Himself, they didn’t know what He was talking about (Mark 9:30-32).
Me: And if you want to talk about word definitions, did you know that in both Hebrew and Greek, the same word that means “spirit” as in “the Holy Spirit” also means “breath”
You: No it doesn’t, not in the Greek: [I’m not going to include your copy-pasted definitions and usages]
Your Greek definition includes both a breath or a breeze, and also the Holy Spirit. It’s just never translated breathe in the KJV. And if you put your hand in front or your mouth and blow, you’ll feel your breath. If you blow up a balloon, a sensitive enough scale will register the difference in weight between the balloon before and after you blew into it. So yes, our breath is tangible.
Me: In 2 Timothy 3, Paul wasn’t attacking all learning just because humans were using their minds.
You: A completely unsubstantiated statement. Your opinion, nothing more.
I substantiated it by describing Paul’s train of thought that followed, by going through the passage. How do I know Paul wasn’t attacking all learning? Because he was talking specifically about people who had poor character. How do I know that? Because He described those poor characteristics just a couple verses later. It’s right there in the text. I even put the references in parentheses. You just have to read the whole thing instead of looking at part of a thought in isolation. You quote a section, and then you just assume what it means without even looking at what comes right after it, and insist that that’s the “plain meaning.”
Me: How do you follow someone’s teachings? By using your brain!
You: NO! That is precisely the point. We use our SPIRIT. 1 Corinthians 2:11 “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.” <– the ONLY way we can understand the thoughts of another is through our spirit. And that is the ONLY way to know God's thoughts. Computers can only guess – and our minds, big computers, can also only guess. Our spirits SEE inside the mind of another to understand their thoughts. Just like God ordained: Proverbs 20:27 "The spirit of man is the candle of the LORD, searching all the inward parts of the belly."
It’s not an either/or between spirit and brain. Yes, we can’t understand spiritual things without the Holy Spirit. Our physical brains aren’t enough. That’s the idea of those verses you keep quoting. But that doesn’t mean our brains are of no use. When our brains stop working, we die. That’s how God made us. He doesn’t expect us to somehow transcend our physical creation and understand things without using our brains at all. None of the verses you keep quoting say that. That’s Eastern mysticism, not Christianity.
It isn’t necessary to respond to every point and sub point.
“But that doesn’t mean our brains are of no use. When our brains stop working, we die.”
No, we do not “die” 🙂 We don’t even lose consciousness.
“Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?” (John 11:25-26)
Take a deep breath . . . And think about that, please. In those moments when our brain stops working, according to the information above, are we ANY less able to process information and be smart? Absolutely not. The SPIRIT is where we process that information. I will grant you that we may forget our phone number and other useless data stored physically there. And maybe not even that.
The parts of our brain related to reasoning, logic, are inactive while we are dreaming – yet we are lucid, we are processing, planning AND, interestingly, using an entire raft of memories that we cannot typically access after we wake up. Cultures around the world see dreams as our spirits out, walking. There are things we KNOW while dreaming that are shocking completely opposite to our carefully crafted logical arguments. That is a God ordained warning to us . . . To “wake up”.
Job 33:14-17
“For God speaketh once,
yea twice, yet man perceiveth it not.
In a dream, in a vision of the night,
when deep sleep falleth upon men,
in slumberings upon the bed;
Then he openeth the ears of men,
and sealeth their instruction,
That he may withdraw man from his purpose,
and hide pride from man.”
THAT is our being that processes Scripture and all other spiritual things. Jesus said His words were SPIRIT. All of the Bible is SPIRIT. Our big brains are of little help, other than related to the mechanics of reading, understanding words in languages that we know. And even there – the apparent brain meaning may be completely different from what God put there.
Man loves his big brain, with which he seeks to master his world, others, and, shockingly, the Lord. God despises it, at least when it is used to try to understand or, even worse, contradict Him.
“At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.” (Matthew 11:25-26) <-- Little kids have little brains . . . And yet an unrestricted capacity to understand the Lord and His word. So you see? It is EXACTLY OPPOSITE to what you so fervently believe. Why Paul says, "Deliberately dumb your big brain down, so you can actually be wise".
In response to the moderator comment on December 10:
It’s fine to not “respond to every point and sub point” but your entire reply is based on a tangent. Yes, it would have been more accurate if I had said that when our brain stops working, our /bodies/ die. But I wasn’t trying to deny life after death, and I’m not quite sure why you took it that way when we weren’t talking about life after death.
Our conversation is about interpreting the Bible here and now, when our souls and our bodies are together. Right now, by the will of God, we think with our brains. If in this life, we were supposed to use spirit-thinking by turning off our brains, God would have told us that. And there would be people who could do that spirt-thinking while scans showed that they were brain dead, and yet their bodies would still be alive. But we can’t do that. God hasn’t given us instructions on how to do it. That means He doesn’t intend for us to do that. That means that all those verses you keep quoting were never meant to tell us that we’re not supposed to use our brains. Rather, the God Who made our brains in the first place intends for us to use those brains, not shun them as if that part of His creation is inferior.
And the fact that our spirits will be able to understand without our brains later, when our bodies die, doesn’t change anything. We’re not there yet. We can’t interpret the Bible now based on a future reality that we haven’t even experienced yet.
Do you know what the Bible itself actually says about understanding the Bible? It says to meditate on it! (Joshua 1:8; Psalm 1:2) The Hebrew word comes from a root that means to mutter or growl. That’s what we do when we’re thinking on something deeply. It’s /not/ what we would do if we wanted to somehow enter a state where we’re not using our brains. Again, scores of verses about flesh and spirit don’t change that.
Merry Christmas to you, Joanna. Thank you for keeping the conversation interesting. Respect.
“If in this life, we were supposed to use spirit-thinking by turning off our brains, God would have told us that.”
That has been kind of my point, Joanna. He DID.
1 Cor. 3:18 “Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.”
Matthew 11:25 “At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.”
Matthew 18:3 “And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
The primary characteristic of a child is NOT being able to logically reason things out. They see, they hear . . . And they TRUST.
“We can’t interpret the Bible now based on a future reality that we haven’t even experienced yet.”
We don’t need to experience to know. THAT was the folly that the devil presented to Eve – that she had to experience the fruit to know. I had a Christian friend in high school . . . Whose chums convinced her that she had no right to condemn drunkenness unless she had experienced it. So she did, and, of course, they laughed at her. What a lie. All we need is to trust the Lord, and then we know through His eyes. The brain is not required for that.
“Do you know what the Bible itself actually says about understanding the Bible? It says to meditate on it! (Joshua 1:8; Psalm 1:2) The Hebrew word comes from a root that means to mutter or growl. That’s what we do when we’re thinking on something deeply.”
It is a conversion between our mind and our spirit, that “meditation”. The “mind” is our soul and is not the same as our brain. Otherwise our soul could not exist apart from our brain. But it can, and does. That is a small step in your direction – but the “mind” is not organic.
I double down that human logic and reasoning, the stuff that makes us confident in our own abilities and perception is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what we need to understand Scripture. The most helpless mentally among us – the “children” – are the best equipped to understand Bible truth.
In response to the moderator comment on December 28:
So I probably should have asked this a lot sooner, but what exactly is your understanding of logic? In what way is it a “man-made or demonic philosophy”?
Because the logic I’m talking about is part of the world God made, just like math. They’re both about the relationship between ideas. Cause and effect is part of logic. And it’s all throughout the Bible itself.
Isaiah 46:11b “I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass. I have purposed, and I will do it.” (ESV). That’s cause and effect. That’s logic.
Psalm 33:9 “For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.” It’s the same thing. Cause and effect. This happened because of that. That’s logic.
In Matthew 22:31-32, Jesus gives a more sophisticated logical argument for why there’s a resurrection of the dead. He uses both logic and grammar.
Since God Himself uses logic in His Word, how can logic be part of the “foolish wisdom of the world”? The “foolish wisdom of the world” may not give credit to God for logic, but they don’t credit God for anything else either—food, life, breath, family—and that doesn’t make those other things bad and worldly things that we should avoid. So why view logic that way?
“If you cannot differentiate between your own musings and the voice of God, that suggests you have no spiritual life in you.”
You haven’t differentiated between it either. You’ve just said that we should be able to. Okay, how? You said the Holy Spirit will show us. Again, how? I John 4 says we should test the spirits to see whether they’re really from God or not. So what’s your test?
“what exactly is your understanding of logic? In what way is it a “man-made or demonic philosophy”?”
I am not sure I called it “demonic”, but man-made, sure. It is our brains processing information, giving relative weight to certain “facts”. As an example, human logic, being presented with a few very, VERY old copies of a single original source collected and hidden away by scholars and a ton of much newer copies from lots of common folk with little training, when seeing a difference in readings, that logic will happily and invariably favor the older, scholarly ones. A simple believer full of the Holy Spirit may sense that the older reading seems “off” and favor the other – or not. The basis for acceptance is based on the spirit connecting with the writing, rather than procurement facts.
A simple believer may sense that scholars tend to worry more about syntax and structure than what God is saying . . . And that simple believers will gravitate toward where they find the Jesus that lives in them . . . Which causes them to wear their copies out and copy them far more frequently than the scholars and monks that tuck the book away and never open it . . . Where it is found millennia later.
Logic is the domain of the computer. Spiritual discernment is a real time gift from God and no artificial thing can duplicate it. [I am a mathematician by training, BTW, Summa Cum Laude, and a programmer by profession, if you care. I do understand logic]
“Cause and effect. This happened because of that. That’s logic.”
Also very wrong. “And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.” (Ex. 32:9-20) If God – with His mouth – told you to “leave me alone”, and you chose to not leave Him alone, what does cause and effect tell you will happen? Moses, however, read God’s spirit, that He secretly wanted Moses to jump in the middle and intercede, and did, and procured the pardon of the whole nation.
Here is another. Paul tells demons to leave a possessed person using the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, and they go, every time. You have a business of casting out demons so you decide to apply this cause to get the same effect. Oops – Acts 19:15-16 “And the evil spirit answered and said, ‘Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?’ And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.” If only they had been spiritual enough to read the spirits, let alone the Spirit of God that was in Paul. See, it DID work for others:
Luke 9:49-50 “And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.”
Logic is not going to help. That is why we have a spirit.
““If you cannot differentiate between your own musings and the voice of God, that suggests you have no spiritual life in you.”
You haven’t differentiated between it either. You’ve just said that we should be able to. Okay, how?”
Joanna, you open your spiritual eyes. There is nothing more to say. You can’t read what I write unless you open your physical eyes. You can’t tell the difference between good and rotten food (often) except by unplugging your nose or using your taste buds. Logic is some help, but create a situation where you have no way to check labels or procurement history. You have to SMELL it and TASTE it. And that is the ONLY way to correctly understand Scripture.
In response to the moderator comment on December 26:
Merry Christmas to you, too! (Even if this doesn’t get posted until the New Year.)
You said the verse in I Corinthians 3:18 about becoming a fool means that we’re supposed to turn off our brain and use spirit-thinking. Let’s say for the sake of argument that it’s true. Okay, now what? How do we do it? How do we know when we’ve done it? Can we know if someone else has done it? If that’s really what the verse means, important information is missing.
And as for being like a child, yes, children usually trust more easily. And faith is an important part of being a Christian. But that’s the point of comparison—the presence of faith. Not the absence of logic.
I actually could think logically when I was small. I remember trying to reason things out at five years old. I didn’t have enough vocabulary or general knowledge to be very good at it, but the basic reasoning was there. When I became a Christian at the age of seven, I didn’t believe because I had turned off all logic. Logic and faith weren’t somehow against each other so that I couldn’t have one without the other.
And they aren’t against each other in my life now as an adult. Of course there are aspects of the Christian life that we can’t reason out. Of course we need faith and not just logical proofs for everything. But why would I need to banish logic from my thinking about God as if God wasn’t the One Who gave me a logical mind (an unusually logical mind) in the first place?
The “logic” whereof you speak is what the world prizes without any regard for the Lord. The “Wisdom of the World”. The atheistic so called scientists constantly trumpet it. God likes to humble us by twisting our logic around.
“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.” (1 Cor. 3:19)
“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith . . .” (1 Timothy 6:20-21)
How do we know when we have done it? THAT . . . Is marginally scary. If you cannot differentiate between your own musings and the voice of God, that suggests you have no spiritual life in you. That is presented as a context-less reality, but reality it is.
” . . . ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:” (Romans 8:15-16) <-- THIS is the entire sum and substance and crux of the matter. THIS is why it is real, and not equivalent to any number of man-made or demonic philosophies all around us. Without this, there is nothing.
In response to the moderator comment on January 7:
If I had said that we can understand spiritual things completely using logic alone, then the verses you cited—about Moses interceding when God said He would destroy the people, and about the man who wasn’t able to cast out demons even though Paul could–would show very effectively that my view is unbiblical. But I never said that. I didn’t say that God never communicates in ways that transcend our human way of thinking and doing things.
I don’t see it as an either/or between logic and being spiritual. I see it as a both/and. Yes, there are times when logic isn’t the way to go. And you gave scriptural examples of that. But those examples don’t show that God /never/ uses logic or human reasoning to communicate with us, or that we /always/ have to transcend logic in order to understand what God is saying. Scripture is filled to the brim with God using physical human concepts to explain spiritual things—wind and the Holy Spirt, marriage and the relationship between Christ and the Church, animal sacrifices to pave the way for Christ’s sacrifice. You can’t ignore all of that just because there are some instances in Scripture where logic doesn’t work.
You said, “open your spiritual eyes”. What if I did, and God showed me through His Word and His Spirit that I don’t need to be afraid to use the brain He gave me? I’m a Christian. I’ve trusted Christ. It’s true that human reasoning didn’t lead me to Him, but I didn’t have to switch it off entirely in order to trust Him.
“Trust in the LORD with all thine heart;
and lean not unto thine own understanding.
In all thy ways acknowledge him,
and he shall direct thy paths.” (Prov. 3:5-6)
Scripture most DEFINITELY says to rely on our spirit and not our “understanding”. If “understanding” is anything, it is human logic.
If God took away much of the ability for your brain to process, you would finally be forced to “open your spiritual eyes” like a little child with undeveloped brain. Like you used to as a helpless little one. I do not wish that on you, just making a point. You are not desperate enough, humbled enough – it appears – to “be converted” (Matt. 18:3 – this is NOT about salvation, necessarily), to yield your brain to the master and . . . Just trust Him . . . And LOOK with His eyes.
In response to the moderator comment on January 16:
“Trust in the LORD with all thine heart;
and lean not unto thine own understanding.
In all thy ways acknowledge him,
and he shall direct thy paths.” (Prov. 3:5-6)
“Scripture most DEFINITELY says to rely on our spirit and not our “understanding”. If “understanding” is anything, it is human logic.
The irony is that you’re doing the very thing you say I’m doing. You’re interpreting those verses based on your own understanding. You used human logic to say that the “understanding” in Proverbs 3:5 must be human logic. That’s not a terrible inference, but it doesn’t have to mean that. It’s just the idea that makes the most sense to you. I can appreciate where you’re coming from, but since that part of Proverbs contains a lot of admonitions to listen to the advice of others, such as parents–regardless of the spiritual condition of those parents—I’m not sure it fits to interpret Proverbs 3 as saying we shouldn’t go by human logic.
“If God took away much of the ability for your brain to process, you would finally be forced to “open your spiritual eyes” like a little child with undeveloped brain. Like you used to as a helpless little one. I do not wish that on you, just making a point. You are not desperate enough, humbled enough – it appears – to “be converted” (Matt. 18:3 – this is NOT about salvation, necessarily), to yield your brain to the master and . . . Just trust Him . . . And LOOK with His eyes.
I do believe that God, in mercy, saves those who lack the cognitive development to understand or believe in the traditional sense. And I do believe that there are aspects of the Christian life that none of us can understand just using our brains. But you still haven’t explained why or how it’s somehow bad to use the brain God gave us to understand the Book He gave us.
“The irony is that you’re doing the very thing you say I’m doing. You’re interpreting those verses based on your own understanding.”
NO! 🙂 I am quoting a scripture that states – unequivocally – that we are are to trust in the Lord with ALL our heart, leaving no room for relying on our understanding. That is what it says. Now explain what THAT verse – in context – means . . . If it doesn’t mean what I am saying. You are going to likely dive into all kinds of explanations involving your human logic, without . . . Explaining that verse. You said “it doesn’t have to” and “I am sure” . . . With no backup. Try again.
“But you still haven’t explained why or how it’s somehow bad to use the brain God gave us to understand the Book He gave us.”
I have explained, over and over. Let me try again:
“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Cor. 2:14)
SOMEBODY here – the “natural man” – CANNOT perceive the things of God, because they are not “natural” but “spiritual”. WHO is this dumb guy, this “natural man”? Here is the word:
Psychikos – from the word “soul”, i.e. “psychological”. Soul centric. Our soul is the part you prize, our mind, our human force, personality, ability to wield that big old brain. It is not a particularly bad word . . . Example:
1 Corinthians 15:44 “It (our corpse) is sown a natural [psychikos] body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural [psychikos] body, and there is a spiritual body.”
Our body on earth IS a “psychological” body, but is it NOT spiritual. Two completely different worlds. You want to use both worlds – psychological, your mind, and spiritual, your spirit – and yet God forbids it. You can ONLY understand it by being a spiritual person – the other guy CANNOT discern it, simply can’t (back to the verse). Any conclusion you arrive at based on your soul, your mind, is going to be flawed. You will at least miss the point because those two worlds DO NOT TOUCH.
In response to the moderator comment on January 30:
“I am quoting a scripture that states – unequivocally – that we are are to trust in the Lord with ALL our heart, leaving no room for relying on our understanding. That is what it says. … You are going to likely dive into all kinds of explanations involving your human logic, without . . . Explaining that verse. You said “it doesn’t have to” and “I am sure” . . . With no backup. Try again.
You said in your previous comment (on January 16) “if understanding is anything, it is human logic.” That wasn’t quoting what the Scripture states. That was you making an inference, saying something that the text doesn’t actually say. And I’m not criticizing you for that. That’s how Bible interpretation works. I’m taking issue with the fact that you’re in denial that that’s what you’re doing.
You’ve explained /what/ you think the verse means, but you haven’t explained /why/ you think it means that. You’re just assuming it. And I did say why I’m not sure it means that. I said, “Proverbs contains a lot of admonitions to listen to the advice of others, such as parents–regardless of the spiritual condition of those parents—”. Therefore, the idea is not that following any and all human reasoning is bad or displeasing to God.
As for I Cor. 2, you’re trying to parse out the definition of Greek words to determine what God meant, rather than looking at how the whole rest of the Bible talks about it. You say the two worlds DO NOT TOUCH, but the Bible is the story of those two worlds touching! That was the Garden of Eden. Physical humans in a physical garden enjoying unbroken fellowship with God, the Spirit, who walked with them in the cool of the day.
The separation between the two was the result of sin. And even in a sin-filled world, there were still times and places where the physical and the spiritual touched. It’s all over the Bible. When God tells Moses (Ex. 3:5) and later Joshua (Josh. 5:15) that the physical ground they’re standing on is holy, the physical and the spiritual are together. When the glory of the Lord fills the physical tabernacle (Ex. 40:34) and later the physical temple (2 Chron 7:1-3), God the Spirit was inhabiting a physical place that humans built.
And most important and significant of all, Jesus Christ Himself, God in the Flesh, is the epitome of the joining of physical and spiritual. And not just physical, but human. Even Jesus’ eternal, resurrected body was a physical human body that others could literally touch (John 20:27). When Jesus Christ the God-man ascended into heaven (Acts 1:9), He did so with a human brain inside Him.
So yes, I Corinthians 2 talks about how the natural man doesn’t understand the spiritual. But perhaps you should find a definition of “natural man” that doesn’t contradict the whole rest of the Bible.
“You said in your previous comment (on January 16) “if understanding is anything, it is human logic.” That wasn’t quoting what the Scripture states.”
Back to . . . What do YOU think those words mean? “Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.” (Proverbs 3:5) Trust with ALL of your heart, i.e. there is no part of the heart involved in any other activity. Especially not “your own understanding”. Please tell me precisely what Solomon meant.
“That was the Garden of Eden. Physical humans in a physical garden enjoying unbroken fellowship with God, the Spirit, who walked with them in the cool of the day. “
Amen. They 100% believed Him like little children. The SECOND they started analyzing God’s word mentally, they fell into sin. A very logical argument. THAT is human logic followed over divine revelation. Of COURSE we are both spirit and soul . . . And body. We experience them all simultaneously. But those worlds DO NOT TOUCH. Here is more proof:
“While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.” (1 Cor. 4:18)
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:9)
God’s thoughts are WAY above – infinitely higher – that our thoughts. WHAT in the world could our puny reasoning and logic add to them?
“And most important and significant of all, Jesus Christ Himself, God in the Flesh, is the epitome of the joining of physical and spiritual.”
He is 100% God and 100% man. Lives in two worlds at once. But He is NOT a “natural man” let alone a “carnal man”. Natural men are dominated by their minds in the driver’s seat, carnal men are dominated by earthly passions. The Lord Jesus spoke words that were 100% spiritual:
“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” (John 66:63)
The “flesh” – all that is uniquely “human” . . . Profits NOTHING.
“But perhaps you should find a definition of “natural man” that doesn’t contradict the whole rest of the Bible.”
The words are – literally – “psychological man” or “soulish man”. You tell me what that means. We glorify a “soul man” – God does not. The soul is the seat of the human mind. So a “natural man” is a “mindful man”. A brilliant thinker, a mathematician, a philosopher. Does that make it any clearer?
In response to the moderator comment on January 31:
“Back to . . . What do YOU think those words mean? “Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.” (Proverbs 3:5) Trust with ALL of your heart, i.e. there is no part of the heart involved in any other activity. Especially not “your own understanding”. Please tell me precisely what Solomon meant.”
Why do you keep insisting that I have to come up with an alternate interpretation? You offered that verse as evidence that the Bible teaches that we shouldn’t use the minds God gave us in order to understand His Word. I want to know why you believe it’s saying that when it doesn’t even fit with the rest of Proverbs. That’s a legitimate question whether I offer an alternate interpretation (which you wouldn’t accept, anyway) or not.
“They [Adam and Eve] 100% believed Him like little children. The SECOND they started analyzing God’s word mentally, they fell into sin. A very logical argument. THAT is human logic followed over divine revelation.”
Scripture doesn’t say any of that. It doesn’t say Adam and Eve believed God like little children, nor that they fell into sin because they started analyzing God’s Word mentally. It says that Eve was deceived (Genesis 3:13; I Tim. 2:14), and that they shouldn’t have eaten from the tree (Gen. 3:17), not that they shouldn’t have ‘analyzed God’s Word mentally’. Ironically, believing a random stranger (like the serpent) over the person that you know (like God) is more like what a child would do. That’s why parents teach their kids stranger danger: because kids are naïve and trusting and don’t think well, and that’s dangerous.
Adam and Eve were full-grown adults. Adam had the mental capacity to name all the animals (Gen. 2:19). Humans—perfect humans—were given the task of multiplying and having dominion over the earth (Gen. 1: 26-28). You can’t do that with the mentality of a child. Do you really believe that God intends for us to think like adults in every other area of our lives, but that when it comes to interacting with God Himself, we’re supposed to become mentally deficient?
“The words are – literally – “psychological man” or “soulish man”. You tell me what that means. We glorify a “soul man” – God does not. The soul is the seat of the human mind. So a “natural man” is a “mindful man”. A brilliant thinker, a mathematician, a philosopher. Does that make it any clearer?”
See, that’s the thing. Your entire argument rests on nothing but the literal dictionary definition of a couple words in Corinthians. Our language—whether Greek or English—has limitations when it comes to talking about the natural and the divine. You can’t just stick dictionary definitions in there and call it a day. It’s beyond our comprehension. Our words fall short. You’re the one who believes we shouldn’t be using our minds at all, and yet you’re binding yourself to human definitions. You’re assuming you know exactly what Paul meant based on the literal dictionary definitions of words rather than on the Bible itself, then adding to passages like the Fall in Genesis 3 so that it fits with that assumption.
And you’ve consistently ignored the significance of one of the most basic biblical truths: God made humans human, including our minds. You can say that our minds have been corrupted by the Fall, but to say that using our minds is intrinsically bad is to say that God made something bad. Quoting a bunch of verses doesn’t change that.
“Why do you keep insisting that I have to come up with an alternate interpretation? You offered that verse as evidence that the Bible teaches that we shouldn’t use the minds God gave us in order to understand His Word.”
Do not rely on your mind, your “understanding”, to accept or reject what God says. That is what it says. If you can’t trust your own “understanding”, there must be another way. Something that is outside of your mental grasp. That IS what it says 🙂
“nor that they fell into sin because they started analyzing God’s Word mentally.”
I weary here. Eve MOST DEFINITELY used her own mental analysis of the data presented to her to accept the words of the snake over the words of God. “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” (Genesis 3:6)
“That’s why parents teach their kids stranger danger: because kids are naïve and trusting and don’t think well, and that’s dangerous. ”
We teach children rules and they are to obey. If they have no rules, they ALSO have a spirit to discern good from evil. If unborn John the Baptist could tell the voice of the woman carrying the Son of God from no more information than what God provided him in his infant spirit, then God is able to direct and protect our little ones with His voice. Back to Eve – she was innocent, she did not know evil. All she had was God’s voice and the spirit that He had given her. Her mind here was a 100% liability.
“You can’t just stick dictionary definitions in there and call it a day. It’s beyond our comprehension.”
NO, IT IS NOT! 🙂 1 Corinthians 2:9-10 “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit . . .” READ IT! It is beyond the heart of man . . . And YET we know them. How?! By His spirit directly revealing them to our spirit. The mind remains useless.
And God’s choice of words in the Greek is important. He distinctly refers to the “spiritual” man, the “soulish” man, and the “carnal” man.
“You’re the one who believes we shouldn’t be using our minds at all, and yet you’re binding yourself to human definitions.”
The analysis of the mind can shore up what we discern in our spirit. Helps us explain it to others . . . With words. But the core truth is ALWAYS a revelation.
“God made humans human, including our minds.”
Yes He did. And He made Jesus “human”. But Jesus was first of all God . . . And we are first of all “spiritual”, a reflection of that. NEVER confuse the two. The mind is the helpless slave of the spirit . . . And if not, we are subject to great darkness and deception.
In response to the moderator comment on February 14:
Do not rely on your mind, your “understanding”, to accept or reject what God says. That is what it says. If you can’t trust your own “understanding”, there must be another way. Something that is outside of your mental grasp. That IS what it says
Or, seeing as how much of the first part of Proverbs is about listening to the advice of parents, it could be saying that you should heed the advice of those older and wiser than you who God has placed in your life, rather than assuming that your understanding as a young adult with minimal life experience is good enough. It’s not like the only two possibilities are either leaning on our own understanding, or trusting in something completely outside of our mental grasp. Because that’s not what it says. That’s an assumption.
“nor that they fell into sin because they started analyzing God’s Word mentally.”
“I weary here. Eve MOST DEFINITELY used her own mental analysis of the data presented to her to accept the words of the snake over the words of God. “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” (Genesis 3:6)
“… Back to Eve – she was innocent, she did not know evil. All she had was God’s voice and the spirit that He had given her. Her mind here was a 100% liability.
To say that Eve’s mind was 100% a liability is to say that God gave Eve something bad. When God gave us human minds, He gave us something we can use for good or evil, because He also gave us free will.
Eve could have used /the same mind and ability to reason/ to think, God already made Me in His image and likeness (Genesis 1:26). Why or how would disobeying Him make me more like Him than I already am? That doesn’t make any sense.
In other words, the problem was not the mere fact that she used her mind. It was that she used her mind in the wrong way. And the way she used it was naïve (believing a stranger), superficial (being distracted because the fruit was pretty), and poorly-thought out (because the reasoning didn’t even make sense, as I described above).
“You can’t just stick dictionary definitions in there and call it a day. It’s beyond our comprehension.”
“NO, IT IS NOT! 1 Corinthians 2:9-10 “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit . . .” READ IT! It is beyond the heart of man . . . And YET we know them. How?! By His spirit directly revealing them to our spirit. The mind remains useless.
Now I’m getting weary. You left off my key statement, which is “language has limitations when it comes to talking about the natural and the divine.” Yes, there are some things we can understand with the Spirt of God that we can understand no other way. But the verse you quoted says that nobody understands what God has prepared for those who love Him. THAT is what is revealed by the Spirit and only by the Spirt. Those verses are NOT a promise that we can understand the exact relationship between the physical and the spiritual.
“God made humans human, including our minds.”
“Yes He did. And He made Jesus “human”. But Jesus was first of all God . . . And we are first of all “spiritual”, a reflection of that. NEVER confuse the two. The mind is the helpless slave of the spirit . . . And if not, we are subject to great darkness and deception.
Jesus was God Who became a Man so He was Spirit first. We are not. According to Genesis 2, humans started out as dirt or clay and became living when God breathed life into Adam. There was nothing wrong with being physical humans. When God made physical humans, He said everything was very good.
When we’re ruled by our physical lusts, passion, and pride instead of by the Spirt of God, then yes, we’re subject to great darkness and deception. /That’s/ what Paul was talking about in Corinthians, according to the broader context. Instead of discussing dictionary definitions over and over and over and over again, look throughout the book at what Paul was actually, specifically rebuking the Corinthians for. /That/ will tell you how to interpret what he means by the spiritual and the carnal.
Again, if we say that simply using the mind God gave us is bad and detrimental to our spiritual life, then we’re saying that God gave us something bad. That tendency for the two to work against each other is the result of sin, and in perfect humans, like Jesus, the two are together in perfect union. Hebrews tells us that Jesus was tempted in all ways like we are, yet without sin, and that He can sympathize with our weakness because He was made human like us (Hebrews 4:15). If he was a human who never did anything human because being human is automatically bad, then how could He sympathize with us like Scripture says?
” . . . it could be saying that you should heed the advice of those older and wiser than you who God has placed in your life . . . ”
It says to “trust in the LORD with all your heart” – if He consumes “all”, there is no room for any other authority. Unless they are in support, but that is nowhere in view. Why are we trying to get creative here?
“To say that Eve’s mind was 100% a liability is to say that God gave Eve something bad.”
No. The mind has its place, just not to analyze what God is telling us to do, so we can decide if we like it or not.
“Eve could have used /the same mind and ability to reason/ to think, . . . .”
You are demonstrating the fallacy. That ONLY makes sense if we are trying to decide whether God is reliable or not. She already knew what He told her to do. ANY attempt to figure it out, to analyze the reasons meant she was already in trouble. The Jews, I am told, have an ancient saying: “Obey, and understand”. That is the order: First we trustingly and blindly obey, then it starts making sense.
“God already made Me in His image and likeness (Genesis 1:26). Why or how would disobeying Him make me more like Him than I already am? That doesn’t make any sense.”
I had to respond on that. Can you lie? You shouldn’t but you can. See, lying is literally impossible with God. THAT is the “gift” that the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil gave us, the ability to make our own rules, sin if we felt like it, or not – we decide.
Titus 1:2 ” . . . God, that cannot lie . . . ”
Hebrews 6:18 ” . . . it was impossible for God to lie . . . ”
“But the verse you quoted says that nobody understands what God has prepared for those who love Him. THAT is what is revealed by the Spirit and only by the Spirt. Those verses are NOT a promise that we can understand the exact relationship between the physical and the spiritual.”
?? 🙂 We understand the un-understandable. We understand things that humans are not naturally supposed to be able to figure out. It is a statement of fact. Once again proving that the human mind is useless to perceive eternal stuff, the stuff that really matters. My math degree has taught me a lot about infinity, which is, BTW, the domain of the mathematician since the physicist declares that no such thing exists. All of my learning has simply shone a bright light on all that I do NOT understand with my mind. That is God’s domain, and it is something He has presented to my spirit from His spirit.
“When we’re ruled by our physical lusts, passion, and pride instead of by the Spirt of God, then yes, we’re subject to great darkness and deception. /That’s/ what Paul was talking about in Corinthians, according to the broader context.”
No, you are ignoring that he speaks of THREE men, not two. The one you just referred to is called “Carnal” or “fleshly”. Completely different from the “Natural” man, the one dominated by his soul, as opposed to his body. What we need to be is a “Spiritual” man – THAT is the one that understands the deep things of God.
“Again, if we say that simply using the mind God gave us is bad and detrimental to our spiritual life, then we’re saying that God gave us something bad.”
That makes as much sense as saying that, by giving us the law, God gave us something bad. NO! It is pure and good IF we use it where it was intended to be used:
1 Timothy 1:7-8 ” . . . Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully.”
That is a most classic case of sticking the mind where it does not belong. The Jews study and study and study the law . . . And they STILL don’t get it.
“If he was a human who never did anything human because being human is automatically bad, then how could He sympathize with us like Scripture says?”
He NEVER sinned, never was tempted by sin like we are, where we are drawn away of our own lust and enticed. He is the absolute authority on sin and the human condition. Sort of like saying that neither Paul nor Bill Gothard can talk about sex and marriage because neither was ever married. It doesn’t work that way.
In response to the moderator comment on February 20:
“It says to “trust in the LORD with all your heart” – if He consumes “all”, there is no room for any other authority. Unless they are in support, but that is nowhere in view. Why are we trying to get creative here?
Because it fits better with one of the main themes of Proverbs. Why interpret a tiny phrase in isolation from the rest of the book?
“To say that Eve’s mind was 100% a liability is to say that God gave Eve something bad.”
“No. The mind has its place, just not to analyze what God is telling us to do, so we can decide if we like it or not.
“Eve could have used /the same mind and ability to reason/ to think, . . . .”
You are demonstrating the fallacy. That ONLY makes sense if we are trying to decide whether God is reliable or not. She already knew what He told her to do. ANY attempt to figure it out, to analyze the reasons meant she was already in trouble. The Jews, I am told, have an ancient saying: “Obey, and understand”. That is the order: First we trustingly and blindly obey, then it starts making sense.
I just gave you an example of how Eve could have used her mind to keep her from sinning, and yet you assert that she would have been in trouble if she used her mind. But God didn’t say “thou shalt not use thy mind to think about what I say.”
Furthermore, in Scripture, God is often remarkably patient with people’s skepticism and desire for proof. Gideon is one of the men mentioned in the Hebrews 11 faith chapter even though he repeatedly asked God to prove what He had already clearly said (Judges 6:11-40; Judges 7:9-15). God eventually became angry with Moses when he kept making excuses, but He provided him with many signs prior to that (Exodus 3-4). Zacharias was punished with muteness for questioning Gabriel, but it did provide him with an extra sign, and God didn’t say that John the Baptist wouldn’t be born after all because of Zacharias’s doubt (Luke 1:18-25).
If God can still work with people who are using their minds to actively doubt Him, why should simply thinking about God with the mind somehow be a problem?
“But the verse you quoted says that nobody understands what God has prepared for those who love Him. THAT is what is revealed by the Spirit and only by the Spirt. Those verses are NOT a promise that we can understand the exact relationship between the physical and the spiritual.”
?? We understand the un-understandable. We understand things that humans are not naturally supposed to be able to figure out. It is a statement of fact. Once again proving that the human mind is useless to perceive eternal stuff, the stuff that really matters. My math degree has taught me a lot about infinity, which is, BTW, the domain of the mathematician since the physicist declares that no such thing exists. All of my learning has simply shone a bright light on all that I do NOT understand with my mind. That is God’s domain, and it is something He has presented to my spirit from His spirit.
You haven’t responded to my interpreting the verse in context. You just said, “no, it doesn’t mean that” with nothing from the text to back it up.
“When we’re ruled by our physical lusts, passion, and pride instead of by the Spirt of God, then yes, we’re subject to great darkness and deception. /That’s/ what Paul was talking about in Corinthians, according to the broader context.”
“No, you are ignoring that he speaks of THREE men, not two. The one you just referred to is called “Carnal” or “fleshly”. Completely different from the “Natural” man, the one dominated by his soul, as opposed to his body. What we need to be is a “Spiritual” man – THAT is the one that understands the deep things of God.
There’s a difference between saying that we can’t fully understand the things of God with our “natural” man, and saying that using our natural man in any way, shape, or form to try to understand God is a detriment. Paul didn’t say that. And, as I pointed out way back in August, the very existence of the Bible–and the way its words and meaning were transmitted—contradicts that idea. The Bible is a Book with words. We can understand the concept of communication through a Book with words using our “natural” man. God could have chosen a less physical way of communicating—and sometimes in Scripture He does exactly that through dreams and visions—but He didn’t.
Furthermore, the Bible was transmitted in an oral culture. Most people became aware of its words, not through reading it themselves, but from having it read to them, by people who were educated, in the normal way that people were educated back then. The idea of someone reading the Bible in isolation and understanding it simply because they were spiritual enough would have been considered extremely arrogant.
The Apostles themselves discussed things in counsel rather than defaulting to “the Holy Spirit told me.” Did that mean the Holy Spirit had nothing to do with it and it was all human thinking? No! As they thought and talked and discussed things, they trusted that the Holy Spirit would use that process to show them the right way. The Holy Spirit works /with/ our minds. Just because our minds aren’t /sufficient/ to understand those things doesn’t mean we have to shut it off.
“Because it fits better with one of the main themes of Proverbs. Why interpret a tiny phrase in isolation from the rest of the book?”
Because Proverbs is especially like that. There are couplets and other groupings, but most of the verses stand largely alone.
“But God didn’t say “thou shalt not use thy mind to think about what I say.”
That is PRECISELY what the passage in Proverbs is saying! Do NOT lean on your own understanding. The whole concept of “shalt” in God’s commandments would be a great example as well. There is simply no room for negotiation or compromise. Every step taken to try to understand the why IS dangerous, for it runs the risk of uncovering some line of reasoning that makes us start to doubt the Lord.
“Furthermore, in Scripture, God is often remarkably patient with people’s skepticism and desire for proof. Gideon . . .”
I see it very differently. YES, He worked with Gideon’s weakness, but his mind was not the target. When we need confirmation that it was GOD telling us something, that He will work with. Once we know it was the Lord, then all of that ceases. Here is proof:
Matthew 12:39 “But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:”
And back to the masterclass on this topic: 1 Corinthians 1:22-23 “For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness”
Do you see it? God goes OUT OF HIS WAY to mess with us in the area where we demand further proof before we believe. Want a sign? You get Jesus crucified. Want intelligent answers? You get foolishness.
“There’s a difference between saying that we can’t fully understand the things of God with our “natural” man, and saying that using our natural man in any way, shape, or form to try to understand God is a detriment. Paul didn’t say that.”
YES, he did say that:
1 Corinthians 2:14 “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
The “Natural man” can’t get there from here, impossible.
“The Bible is a Book with words.”
The Bible is a book with SPIRITUAL words. Very different from “natural” books. Only with the spirit can you understand spiritual words. That is why they come across as foolishness to the “natural man”. Like a riddle you just can’t understand.
John 6:63 “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”
“The idea of someone reading the Bible in isolation and understanding it simply because they were spiritual enough would have been considered extremely arrogant.”
Yes, positively preposterous. That is the confusion that dogs the “natural man” all the way to the descent into eternity, when suddenly there is nothing but spiritual left.
1 Cor. 2:15 “But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.” NIV: “The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments” How arrogant . . . To believe that you can make judgements about ALL THINGS, and those judgements are not second guessable by brainy human critiques.
“The Apostles themselves discussed things in counsel rather than defaulting to “the Holy Spirit told me.””
And this is the type of process going on there: 1 Cor. 2:13 “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” We have spiritual discussions, comparing spiritual things in Scripture to other spiritual things. The natural man is incapable of understanding either one of the “spiritual things” being compared . . . And so is left out of the discussion.
We raise a question on 9/5 above:
Is Jesus the same of the Bible? For all intents and purposes, of course he is. The Word is the Word.
We also raise what has been called “solo scriptura,” the hypothetical man who isolates himself with only his Bible, then presumes to hear from God. He shuns help and correction from other Christians, and is a law unto himself. But is this caricature or reality? Is this imaginary man only a rhetorical weapon of last resort, after sticks and stones?
Speaking of last resorts, that’s what produced every real martyr in history. We Christians love consensus, good will, and communion. But when these fail us, we must follow Christ alone. Remember Luther’s famous words of last resort? “Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.”
I agree with you that since Jesus is God and the Bible is the Word of God, the Word of God is like God in very important and significant ways. It has an authority and a power and an ability to change lives that no other book has. But to say that that makes the Bible equal to God is indeed a caricature.
It’s still a book. The Bible is not Jesus the God-Man. The Bible didn’t walk this earth healing the blind and lepers and casting out demons. The Bible didn’t die for us, rise again, and ascend to heaven. The Bible is not at the right hand of God, interceding for us. Those are major, major “intents and purposes” of Jesus that the Bible doesn’t share.
I also agree with you that most people who hold to Sola Scriptura don’t represent the hypothetical man you described. However, the moderator wasn’t describing the typical Protestant view of Sola Scriptura, but rather an extreme view. On August 7, he said,
“The ‘Bible’ is a collection of infallible, God breathed writings that are taken by the Spirit of God to teach us. They do so in context, out of context, in any language they are translated into. As such they are, well, ‘magic’, the power of the living God living therein. Scripture itself teaches us that, no, we do not need ‘helpers’ to understand it, no not if we are ‘spiritual’, i.e. spiritually mature:”
Sola Scriptura has never been the belief that it’s normal for the Holy Spirit would teach us from the Bible by taking it out of context, nor has it been that the /only/ thing we need to understand Scripture is the right amount of spiritual maturity. And yet the moderator has been taking verses out of context ever since then to try to back up his view
We find that any verse that shades a strongly held belief by others typically is declared “out of context”. You have done nothing to find a context for 1 Cor. 1-3 that diminishes the point that Paul made over and over, particularly the end of chapter 2, that the Holy Spirit instructs the spiritual man, giving him authority that frankly cannot be countered. It is not a side point – it is the entire thrust of those chapters.
I’m not disputing the idea that the Holy Spirit instructs the spiritual man. I’m disputing the idea that when it comes to a difference of Bible interpretation between believers, the best way to know who’s right is to figure out who’s the more “spiritual.” That is what’s not the main thrust of the chapters.
In context, Paul was encouraging unity between believers. He wasn’t saying they should trade one type of division for another, that they should go from saying “I am of Paul, I am of Apollos” to saying, “I have the right Bible interpretation because I’m more responsive to the Holy Spirit.” That was the very thing Paul was arguing against—believers setting themselves above one another. The entire thrust of the chapters was that such division was an example of carnal, worldly wisdom and that wisdom from the Holy Spirit wasn’t like that, that it brought people together even when the wisdom of the world would have separated them.
The one “approved” will be certified by the Spirit of God to the heart of spiritual believers who are listening. That “inner witness” that we read about in Romans 8. It is by revelation, not logic and deduction.
As to Apollos, the focused loyalty to a particular teacher – be that Paul, Apollos, or Bill Gothard – is not of God. We are loyal to the Holy Spirit alone. Others will speak by that same Holy Spirit and the spiritual man will recognize the Voice of the Master and embrace it. No one is “approved” in every instance for we all fail. The exception to that, of course, is all that the Lord allowed to be written down in Scripture generated by Paul and Luke and John and Moses and others. That is why we search the Scriptures daily to see whether these things are so. But Bible School and hermeneutics (a discipline that came from the godless secular world, truth be told) and lots of degrees from that are worthless toward that end. If anything, perhaps the opposite. We will never correctly understand Scripture from mental and logical analysis (alone or primarily). Never.
Romans 2 is true! We have a bad habit of accusing our neighbor of our own errors. The pattern is two reliable that we can predict a man’s own secret trespasses merely by hearing his accusations. Does my neighbor accuse me of quoting my Bible out of context? He is probably guilty of the same. Does he accuse me of bad faith? Where is his good faith? of being uncharitable? where is his charity? of being stupid? how bright is he?
Romans 2 has nothing to do with the repeated proof texting of scripture done by Bill Gothard and those that still defend him which are very few in number. Attaching a one-line zinger Bible verse at the end of any statement does not make something biblical nor does it really defend Bill Gothard and his teachings. Some of us really have avoided quoting the Bible like a machine gun in order not to be accuse like you just did here, “well you do it too”. False defense, false use of scripture which is really abuse of the bible. This is just grasping at straws which isn’t working for you.
I would not normally approve a message like this . . . Because you really didn’t add to the discussion. But since we have been on “big pause” mode, fine. The biggest issue – I think y’all meant 1 Cor. 2, not Romans 2, right?
Scripture says what it says, like a rock. One passage to nail a point is enough. The entire context sweep from 1 Cor. 1 through chapter 3 is taken up with this matter . . . Of not trusting the “wisdom of man” and instead accepting the “wisdom of God” which is revealed to the “spiritual man” directly, without need for fact checkers and vindicators. Now, we all have a responsibility to cross check each other, like the Bereans did – but the fact checking that I have seen has consisted of “Nope, I don’t see it”, instead of either clarifying the context to have some other primary meaning, or other Scriptures in opposition. Kind of like in a court of law – you have to talk “law talk” to make a point, not personal opinions. For the Bible “law talk” is Bible passages that shore up or defeat a point. Lots of Bible, Bible exclusively with whatever glue makes the thought flow.
Moderator, you are saying almost exactly what I have said recently over at RG. I’m all for fact-checking. Iron sharpens iron. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
But I am very frustrated how it becomes a game of “nuh-uh” with nothing said in response. Truth is true because it is truth.
It cuts both ways, too. And it hurts sometimes. But that is what makes truth beautiful.
You’ll not need to be reminded of the logic blows we’ve traded at times over this. But I stand with you here on this topic. I must be fair.
I feel you’ve defended this point well. I would love to hear some actual responses.
In response to JM’s comment on October 29:
In the first place, I have given reasons for my disagreement, over and over again, based on the broader context of the passages. And it’s been ignored. You can’t ignore the reasons people give and then accuse them of not giving a reason.
Second, when people just make an assertion, like, “such-and-such a passage means X”, it’s on them to explain it or prove it or back it up. If they’re unwilling or unable to do that, then it’s appropriate to say, “no, it doesn’t mean that. You haven’t given me a reason to believe that it does.” Why should we respond to an unproved assertion—which takes little time or effort to make—with a detailed response?
Sometimes I and others genuinely can’t even tell how the verse or passage quoted is remotely connected to the topic at hand. There’s not much we /can/ say in response beyond “Nuh uh”. The way for the conversation to continue is for the person to explain and defend how the passage means what he says it does. And spitting out more and more verses and making even more unproved assertions about them isn’t a defense.
Joanna, that is blatantly not true.
I have personally asked you on three occasions to back up or clarify your positions, and you have yet to do so. I’m keeping the tab here.
In the cases at present, the folks who are claiming “this means X” are not just saying “this means X.” They are indeed providing their reasoning to back it up.
The cases I address over at RG specifically are music. In these, Bill, David Cloud, Frank Garlock, and Kurt Woetzel, among others, are indeed providing proof behind their claims.
And it is not just one thing, or one verse taken out of context. There are case studies and testimonies of those within the rock community. You can follow those facts and verify them. I have. It happened. No question.
The response to this body of evidence is then “Nuh-uh” by those who disagree.
Do you not see how that’s a problem? It must be. It is simply avoiding the evidence.
It’s akin to disagreeing with a runner’s final race time. You’re welcome to do so, but the race was timed. That tine exists. We have it. If you disagree, your evidence must rise to override what it is established. It must also be empirical.
That is where you and others are failing.
Let me be clear here. I am of the opinion that those musical arguments can be answered and the evidence better explained. I insist that that is what we must do. Not just ignore it and move on. That is not good science and even worse for faith.
In response to JM on November 21:
I was talking about this page and website, not RG. I’m somewhat familiar with RG, but I haven’t spent enough time on there to say anything one way or the other about the quality of discussion or the strengths of anyone’s argument.
I don’t remember you asking me to back up anything, but the conversation threads get so tangled up and complicated that it’s easy for a comment to get lost in the shuffle. If you’ll remind me what you asked, I’ll do my best to answer it.
I was referring to my conversation with the moderator when I referred to people spitting out more and more verses and making unproved assertions.
If Bill Gothard really is guilty of repeated proof-texting, may we have one example among the many? Might we also define our terms? If a Bible text really does prove something, why not use it? Don’t preachers do that every Sunday all over the world? Isn’t that an important part of preaching? or do we simply dislike preaching?
Do we object because we dislike what the Bible proves? or is proof-texting only a term which means proving?
Isn’t proving a good thing? No pupil passes his rhetoric course without proving his points! At least that was true in my rhetoric course.
How one quotes and uses scripture has everything to do with Bill Gothard and his teachings and he has been accused of this going way back into the 70s. If you have even studied or read about or researched historic heresies, you will see that all of these started out with someone misquoting the Bible and building an idea around one or two verses taken out of context and in contradiction to other verses. The devil in the temptations of Christ quotes scripture. Quoting the bible here and there and everywhere to the point of no return is called proof-texting and then having David come along and say the ‘well you guys do it too” based on Romans 2 is a false accusation. It does not answer the repeated charges against the teaching and ideas of Bill Gothard. Is he the only one doing this? Absolutely not.
I honestly can’t follow what you just wrote even if I wanted to. But I think you don’t really know either.
As we read on 10/24 above, Bill Gothard has indeed been accused. So has our Lord Jesus. so has Charles Manson. But which accusations are true and which are false? which accuser meets his burden of proof?
Okay, let’s define our terms. Suppose I declare that God forbids stealing. To support my claim, I quote the 8th Commandment. Am I proof-texting? or proving? What is the difference?
You have missed the point. BTW, there are many verses in scripture that condemn stealing as sinful, you don’t need to stick to one. People quote the Bible to justify all sorts of sick, sinful and even evil stuff. The Bishop of Canterbury, head of the Anglican Church just resigned due to his complacent behavior in a long ago abuse case in an Anglican boarding school. What happen was some sick and evil man would beat boys left in their care. When he did so, he would quote Bible verses to his victims, trying to justify his beatings. Sick stuff. I guess then we should all go to our roof tops and jump off because Psalm 91 can be quoted in that angels will watch over us, “lest we dash our foot against the stone”.
Speaking of quoting the Bible, have you ever heard of the book “The Chariots of the Gods”? Well, History channel has a whole show about “Ancient Aliens”. They like to quote the Bible too. In fact, they use Elijah being taken into heaven via a “chariot of fire” as a sign that ancient aliens really exist. Amazingly, they use many different Bible stories to support their claims that beings like angels etc. are really ancient aliens, and Elijah and Enoch were taken up by aliens, the visions of Ezekial and Daniel are about aliens and spaceships. I wish I could make it up, but this is what these people that believe in aliens do. You are missing the point and sadly, people quote the Bible from here to the moon to justify all sorts of sick, evil, sinful behaviors, heretical ideas, slavery, polygamy, abuse, etc., etc. etc.
Okay. Fine.
Let’s just take one example. You have accused Bill of proof texting. Present us just one example, and we can have a conversation about it to determine if it is.
That should be easy, right? If you’ve been following this for so long, you should be able to pull one out of your hat easily. Right?
So let’s do it. Put your money where your mouth is. Give us one.
On 11/21 above, JM asked for one example of Bill Gothard proof texting. Don’t you see that we don’t need one? All we need is a syllogism.
Major premise: Every time Bill Gothard quotes the Bible, he is proof texting.
Minor premise: Bill Gothard just quoted the Bible.
Conclusion: Bill Gothard is proof texting. Q.E.D.
Why bother with fussy facts when we can smear with phony syllogisms and deductive reasoning?
There honestly are too many to even start and be reasonable with. Haven’t you even read any of the articles and even books that discuss Bill’s use of scripture that go into much more detail that can be done here.
One example would be Bill’s teaching on “motivational gifts” which take St. Paul’s simple list in Romans and turns it around into the idea that everyone has “one” gift and that there are “strengths” and “weakness” with each gift. The lists in Romans which isn’t St. Paul’s list of gifts and service in his letters never mentions that there is only ‘one” gift or that each “gift” has strengths and weaknesses which are never ever spelled out in the Bible.
Another example would be Bill’s use of 1 Corinthians 11:15 which is turned around by Bill to become some kind of mandate for woman always to have long hair and not only that, have lone curly or wavy hair which seems be a personal fetish of Bill. So, a chapter by St. Paul about behaviors at communion and Church service which is what 1 Corinthians 11 is about is taken about of context and out of culture and turned around to be a mandate for woman’s hair styles.
Another example would be the sad story of Jacob’s only daughter Dinah. As recorded, she went out to visit the local city and ends up being violated by the son of the city’s leader. So, this brief and sad story is used by Bill to set as a standard that single daughters need to stay at home until married because Bill uses this sad story as an example of what can happen if your single daughter leaves home. This brief story in Genesis has nothing to do with whether or not single young woman can leave home when they become adults.
As a final wrap up here, when I attended IBYC, when Bill opened Tuesday night, the night about authority, he said that if you want to have “great faith”, you needed to be under authority, then he launched into the Gospel story about the Centurian asking Jesus to heal his sick servant, the Centurian told Jesus that “just say the word and my servant will be healed” because he was a man of authority and under authority. The problem is that Bill misuses this example. The faith wasn’t because of “authority” but the Centurian recognizes Jesus’s own authority and understood how commands by authority could work. It took a while to undo Bill’s false interpretation here but after re-reading and re-reading in context, I was able to untangle myself from false interpretations. The Centurian was also used by Bill to set up his “chain of command” and umbrella of authority which if you actually read in context, the Centurian and his faith does not teach at all Bill’s ideas of authority. The faith of the Centurian was in Jesus, not in authority for the sake of authority.
JM, you really need to review the many articles and books expressing concerns about Bill’s use of the Bible and proof texting isn’t an accusation I made up but has been expressed all alone, going all the way back to the hey days of the 70”s
On 11/26 below, we have an example of “proof-texting.” We have the account of the centurion whom Jesus praised for his faith. Why did the centurion trust Jesus to heal via a mere word from a distant location? The centurion told us! He explained that he was “under authority” — which he was. In the emperor’s name he could send servants scurrying to run remote errands.
So the centurion believed that Jesus could also do the will of his boss with only a spoken word. If the centurion could accomplish the emperor’s will by speaking a word, how much more could Jesus do God’s will by speaking a word?
So Bill Gothard is guilty of proof-texting. Why, he quoted a text which proved something obvious within the text itself. What’s next? Will adulterers complain that the Seventh Commandment should not forbid adultery? That’s a proof text they hate!
Rob, I faithfully read through all of those articles over at RG. I did. I challenged you here to see if you could bring something up.
If there are that many, it shouldn’t be a problem right?
Well you kinda did. I give you credit for that. But there’s no citation. In which of the Wisdom books or any of Bill’s books do you find him using these examples as such?
Okay. You were there at meetings and heard Bill say something. Okay. I wasn’t. I also have no way to verify that. I have to trust that you remember it correctly or are not exaggerating. That’s why this kind of anecdote usually doesn’t hold up in court.
You half did the job right.
Indeed, man is never more creative than when justifying his sin. Religious justification is one of our favorites. Our Lord’s enemies earned his most withering scorn by doing this very thing! Doesn’t that make sound doctrine all the more important? “According to the scriptures” are four common words in our Bibles. If some men abuse their Bibles, isn’t that a poor excuse for not using them at all? Our creeds matter because they are “according to the scriptures.” Otherwise they are merely superstition.
Psalm 91 is ours to use, not abuse. One of Satan’s most spectacular fails was the wilderness temptations, so “forewarned is forearmed.”
Chariots of the Gods was a popular book about fifty years ago, probably a best-seller. Unbelief has been a lucrative industry ever since the guards at the garden tomb cashed their hush-money checks.
On 11/21 above, we read an objection to people spitting out Bible verses. For a long time, quoting the Bible has been offensive. One early objection was registered by Satan during the wilderness temptations. He was disgusted because every time he tempted Jesus, he was met with Bible verses spitted forth. It became so nauseating that he finally stomped away in protest.
Are the Bible verses true? do they address the topic? Shouldn’t we be asking this?
If we sneer that Bible verses are only spittle, what does that say about us?
In the Bible itself, merely quoting verses doesn’t mean much. Satan himself quoted Scripture in the very passage you referenced. The apostle Peter talks about ignorant and unstable people twisting Scripture to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). The Pharisees had the whole Old Testament memorized, and yet Jesus was always scolding them because of all the things they got wrong. Jesus didn’t “spit out” verses like a machine gun. He responded with one relevant passage to each temptation. Satan was the one who quoted a little piece of Scripture, ignoring the context and outright omitting a phrase in a twisted attempt to make his point. And if we’re okay with people treating Scripture the same way Satan did, what does /that/ say about us?
And my whole point has been that the verses constantly being quoted /don’t/ address the topic. And if the moderator would read the rest of the chapter when he quotes verses, instead of inserting his own thoughts into isolated fragments of verses and assuming they prove his point, he might see that.
Joanna, I have indeed asked you to back up your claims before, specifically about which of Holly’s claims were fraudulent. I did it at least three times on that page (which is here).
The issue at RG had to do with music and answering the common conservative claims about it. I’m all for returning argument. It’s healthy, and it’s a great way to arrive at truth. But sadly, when music is involved the response to the conservative is simply not there. There is no answer to the evidence. I have to conclude that those who write such posts don’t have an intellectual problem with the conservative view of music. They just don’t like someone stepping on their toes.
That is the danger in these kinds of debates. If a claim is unfounded, it can be demonstrated as such and must be. We simply can’t say “Nuh-uh.”
I mentioned the flat earth claims at one point at RG. Those who believe in such nonsense claim to have evidence. But we can use that same evidence and reason it differently. Plus, there are other demonstrations of the opposite. It isn’t simply a flat earth claims and is saying no. That’s the kind of return we need here.
So after I sent my comment saying I didn’t remember you asking me to back something up, I thought to look at the other post about Holly’s YouTube videos. (I probably should have done that first, but oh well.) And I went ahead and answered you on that post. Furthermore, I /had/ already answered the same question earlier in the thread. I had given–and I repeated it in my specific reply to you–a specific, concrete example of Holly misrepresenting Brooke Arnold about wife-spanking. (I may have got the name wrong, and it was a different person talking about that.) If I were to go back and look at the videos, I could probably give more, but my main point with Holly’s videos was that arguing piece-meal the way that she did wasn’t even the right method for her topic, and that her research strategy was flawed. Even if all her information was fully accurate and correct, she still wouldn’t have proved her point because she ignored the broad, overarching indisputable facts in favor of picking at details. I spent quite a bit of time on that post talking about that.
As far as RG and music, again, I haven’t spent enough time to comment on that. I’m not quite sure why you’re bringing it up on this page. I haven’t said a thing about music, either on this post or in the one about Holly. On this page, in this conversation, I’ve been giving evidence over and over again, and I’m the one receiving the “nuh uh” response with almost no explanation given for what I said that was wrong. I’m just getting the same contrary assertions over and over again, with the same tired “evidence” that I’ve already challenged multiple times by going deep into the context.
Well I want to know which broad indisputable facts she is ignoring. Obviously, she doesn’t respond to everything. No one could in reality. Most of these accounts are anecdote. You can’t really disprove an anecdote.
But you CAN disprove claims of fact, which is what Holly has done. I’m looking into the wife spanking claim, now that you have responded. I’m going to determine whether she really did.
The point I have always made was that claims of fact need to be established. A response to such claim need be factual as well. That is why I have a problem with the music arguments at RG. The adherents of the conservative side have certain factual claims. We can’t simply “Nuh-uh” that.
That was the point. Sure, it works both ways. I’ll gladly stand with you on that.
In response to JM’s comment on December 11:
I discussed the broad, indisputable facts at length on the Shiny Slander page, but I can reiterate them here. One is that the Duggars had a TV show about their family right on the heels of finding out that their oldest son Josh had inappropriately touched his sisters.
Another is that the Duggars sent Josh away to some camp instead of going through the law. Years later, Josh was found with child porn on his computer. Furthermore, the police officer friend who broke the law by giving Josh a slap on the wrist was later himself found with child porn on /his/ computer. I posted a link to that on the Shiny Slander page.
Another fact is that Gothard headed the group the Duggars were part of, and that the group was very insular, with an emphasis on large families, home-schooling, and family-run businesses. That would make it hard for people who grow up in it to leave or be part of anything else because they didn’t know much about anything outside of it.
For such an insular group, quite a few people did leave. And they didn’t say they merely disagreed with the religious or moral teachings of the group. Rather, they talked about how the group harmed them, so much so that they started a website telling their stories. And as I said ad nauseum on the other page, I am NOT talking about the sexual abuse allegations.
That was the context for how we, the general public, thought about Gothard and the Duggars even before the documentary came out. We’ve got a right to ask why we should believe the group is good at all when so many bad things came out of it.
Holly ignored all that and she’s just focusing on the documentary in excruciating detail as if that’s the beginning of the story. She won’t even admit that she’s trying to defend the group. It’s just “oh, the documentary is lying, and I care about truth.” But nobody puts that much time and effort into debunking lies about a group—lies that make the group look bad—unless they think the group is actually good. And yet she hasn’t attempted to give us a reason to think the group is good because “oh, it’s just about truth and the documentary is lying.”
Now, switching gears. About Brooke Arnold. Yes, she said “fundamentalist families”. Her family and the families she knew practiced wife spanking, and they were fundamentalist. So that wasn’t a lie.
She also said that when she saw the Duggars on TV, it looked the same. What if it /did/ look the same? Whether something “looks the same” as something else is rather subjective. So that’s not a lie, either.
As for the documentary makers, one, if they were trying to say that the Duggars or IBLP families practice wife-spanking, that was a reasonable inference on their part. It could be an honest mistake, not a lie.
Two, I don’t know for sure that they really were saying that. Even if the IBLP doesn’t do that particular thing, it’s still significant that someone who went through that would watch the Duggars on TV and it would seem the same to them. To say “but the IBLP doesn’t do that” is missing the point. Okay, they don’t. But why do they look so much like a group that does?
You have missed Holly’s intention entirely
Holly has only ever tried to respond to the claims in the documentary. She is not intending to respond to every criticism found on RG. She never claimed that
Thus, it doesn’t matter to this discussion that she hasn’t. She’s just answering the claims of the documentary.
If the documentary is lying, then it is false. Plain and simple. Surely you agree there. She’s not trying to take down RG, just the lies that are present in the doc.
That is not only fair, it is necessary in this case. The documentary is flat wrong (and it is not the first time – I. E. Blackfish, All In, Seaspiracy).
On the subject of Brooke, you’ve again missed the point. Brooke is lying here. You can’t claim “fundamentalist families do” when so many will stand up and say they don’t. It’s an easily disprovable claim. So why make it?
It’s obviously not true, but she is claiming it. Why? Maybe it was true for her family. She could have said that. But she didn’t. She made what we call a sweeping generalization. And the producers of the doc didnt bother to look it up and demonstrate it. Why not?
These are questions you must ask and answer. When you do, you’re gonna realize something about this documentary and those sources you think are authoritative.
In response to JM’s comment on January 6:
This may have got buried in everything I said, but my point is that Holly’s intention is bizarre to the extreme unless she believes the group is good. Why would you bother answering slanderous claims in a documentary for a group that’s bad? If someone made a documentary about Hitler, and it said a bunch of bad things about him that were untrue, would anyone be that invested about going into detail about why all those bad things are lies? And if for whatever reason someone did, would he/she really say absolutely nothing about how Hitler really was bad, even if those particular bad things about him were untrue?
The very existence of Holly’s videos implies that she’s saying the group is good. But since she hasn’t actually said it, she conveniently doesn’t have to defend it. That’s what I have an issue with.
You’ve established that Brooke was wrong. You haven’t established that she’s lying. Yes, it’s a hasty generalization. In logic, that’s a fallacy. But expecting a traumatized and abused woman to speak with academic-level accuracy isn’t a very reasonable expectation. It’s honestly rather callous to call her a liar for not meeting that standard.
I never said the documentary was authoritative. And they probably should have done better research. But the irony is that these complaints end up highlighting an issue with fundamentalism which neither you (nor Holly) nor the documentary makers seem to have noticed. It’s slippery. With its emphasis on independence and non-denominational-ism, it’s very hard to know what’s true of fundamentalism in general, what’s unique to specific sub-groups of fundamentalism, and what’s unique to an individual family. They have no hierarchy, little to no accountability, and no official spokesman. Even people like me who grew up in a fundamentalist family (though not an IBLP family) have a hard time untangling those threads. Why is that? I think those are questions that fundamentalists should ask and answer before they complain about people/documentaries misrepresenting them.
Joanna, that is a very odd thing to take away from Holly.
It also illogical.
Holly made her videos to respond to false claims within a documentary. That is it. At no point is she claiming any group is good, nor would we expect it.
The point is to set at right something that is maligned.
To answer the question about Hitler. Why is this so hard to understand? Truth is true. That is the standard. It is not okay to malign someone just because the person does something evil.
In other words, yes. Any documentary about Hitler has to reach that same standard. They can’t just tell lies about him because we all know he did turn out bad. We still have to be truthful. Period.
It is that simple.
Holly responds to falsehood. She has done an amazing job.
Now you are not wrong about fundamentalism being slippery. It is independent and very isolative. I suggest to you that that is not a bad thing.
Indeed, our nation was founded on these very ideas. Individuality, Liberty, freedom to choose for one’s self.
But that means anyone commenting on it needs to get it right. That means really understanding the greater puzzle.
There is never a case where it is okay for a documentation to intentionally skew the truth or spread outright falsehood. That is exactly what has happened here.
I’d have to split with you on Brooke. We have established that she is wrong and the makers of the doc chose to use her statements without verifying.
If that is not a lie, what is it? Can we not conclude it was told with the intent to deceive? I have to say yes. People don’t just slip up and do that
The documentarians had to opportunity and obligation to confirm these facts, but they chose not to. Sorry. That’s a lie. And it is libel. They ought to be sued.
In response to JM’s January 16 comment:
“Joanna, that is a very odd thing to take away from Holly.
It also illogical.
Holly made her videos to respond to false claims within a documentary. That is it. At no point is she claiming any group is good, nor would we expect it.
The point is to set at right something that is maligned.”
What you said would be completely logical if we were computers programmed to respond to all inaccuracies, and if Holly had done a similar series on other documentaries. (I’m guessing you don’t think that SHP is the only inaccurate documentary?) But neither of those are true.
Holly chose to respond to that particular documentary in a very detailed way. Let’s say that she didn’t do it because she thought the group was good? Okay. What is the reason then? Because “she’s just responding to falsehood’ isn’t an answer. Why has she devoted so much time and energy to responding to /that particular falsehood/? Why is she (and why are you, for that matter) acting as if a generic commitment to truth is sufficient motivation for a very specific action?
“Now you are not wrong about fundamentalism being slippery. It is independent and very isolative. I suggest to you that that is not a bad thing.
Indeed, our nation was founded on these very ideas. Individuality, Liberty, freedom to choose for one’s self.”
Is there anything in the Bible or in the pre-American history of Christianity that suggests independence and isolation are good things when it comes to how believers do things? Those aren’t Christian ideals. Those are American ideals. I think they’re fine American ideals when it comes to politics. But what exactly makes it a good thing to base our 2000-year-old Christianity on 300-year-old political ideals?
On 12/2 above, we mention the claims on RG. But have we noticed a novelty in word usage? Everywhere except RG, a “witness” is a man with personal firsthand knowledge. Apostles were witnesses because they had personal firsthand knowledge of Christ and his resurrection.
But on RG, we dispense with that standard. To qualify as “witness,” all we need is Gothard Derangement Syndrome and enough ill will to repeat gossip. All we need is a keyboard and liberty to smear without penalty of perjury. That’s why the late lawsuit matters. The accusers went silent when they faced penalties for perjury. How convenient. That dog didn’t bark.
When a “witness” has witnessed nothing, what is the difference between him and a talebearer?
JM,
How many seminars did you or have you attended? I attended 4 basic and one advanced. I knew that no matter what examples I gave you, you would say that they are not credible. This isn’t a court of law so no matter what I gave you, you were going to state “well that isn’t credible”. Whatever JM. The motivational gifts are directly from the advanced seminar. I sat in a cell group at the Church at the time and we pour over them like they were the gospel truth which they are not. Looking back on the time period, no one ever questioned them. The single women not living away from home is also personal. For example, just look at Jana Duggar. But also, I was single and lived away from home, about 3 hours away and all the so-called bad things that were supposed to happen never did. When i did move back home to get married, my former cell group leader told me that I was finally being Biblical because she followed Gothard closely. If you don’t find any of these credible, you never will. I shake the dust off my feet and am moving on.
Rob, with all the seminar experience you boast on 12/4 above, you should gave joined us in ATI. You qualify by a wide margin. We might have been Knoxville buddies!
But beware of sneering at warnings. Some bad things do not happen until they do. So man does not dread the lake of fire until he arrives there. We are too busy enjoying the pleasures of sin for a season. Sometimes the pleasant season is so long, we think it is permanent. Satan mocks. He has our gullible souls right where he wants us.
As for dust-shaking and moving on, men have been doing that for much too long. Our Bibles document many of Christ’s former followers moving on. Seed on shallow soil produces shallow roots. They moved on, but to where? away from light and toward darkness? “Lord, to whom shall we go?”
I can’t disprove anything from any seminar you may or may not have attended. That is the problem.
But the publications and recordings are definite. That is why they count higher in court.
Until you are willing to apply the same standard here as the courts are, you will never understand why some of us do not follow you.
You could literally be making everything up, and I would have no way to know it. I could in fact, not disprove it
But should you have anything written or published or recorded to the effect, that would be something. Surely, it’s not so difficult to find, is it?
Is Rob summarizing Bill Gothard’s teaching fairly? Rob’s recall of Bill Gothard’s seminar material has been pretty good. Every time she attributes a statement to Bill Gothard, it has agreed with what I remember from his seminars, which are still widely available online.
You can buy on Amazon the Basic and Advance seminar, so you can look up this stuff yourself. This isn’t a court of law, and you are not a lawyer so your so-called standards here are just an excuse.
Basic Seminar also available for free on basicseminar.com/seminar/basic-seminar/
Rob, we are dealing with fact. I trend toward to legal side, because that is a discipline that deals in fact and makes rulings based on evidence, not feeling.
Until you are willing to ascribe those principles to what we are doing here, you will not arrive at fact properly. And yes, I do insist on that. If you want to get to the real meat, the real fact, you have to think as a lawyer in a court.
That is how it works. I’m sorry if you don’t agree, but that is fact.
I have attended Bill’s seminars, and you have not and that is a fact. You ask for examples of Bill’s misquoting the Bible and I gave a few answers that even the moderator here and other supporters have not even disputed. Your construct is baloney and an excuse. This is not a court of law but that is your excuse to discount what people do share. It is amazing that someone who has not even attended the seminars has the capacity to tell someone who did, more than once, that they are not dealing with facts but emotions. You have exposed yourself.
Seeing myself referenced I had to go back and look. We try to stay out of interpersonal chats unless we have something important to add. I found the post, so will respond to the three examples given:
“The lists in Romans which isn’t St. Paul’s list of gifts and service in his letters never mentions that there is only ‘one” gift or that each “gift” has strengths and weaknesses which are never ever spelled out in the Bible.”
This is life, Rob, not some kind of theory. Paul definitely speaks of one person being an eye, another a foot or a hand. Science would not allow us a loosy-goosey list of parts of the body, and God is more precise than any scientist. Most of us have never heard another coherent explanation for the difference in the lists between Romans 12, Ephesians 4, and 1 Corinthians 12. Those differences are dramatic, to the point that they hardly match. The explanation that Bill provides – which he borrowed from others – leaves us with the gift classifications in Romans, the means of expression in Ephesians, and the way a gift affects others in 1 Cor. 12. There is a reason – do you have a better explanation?
The body is our example, and YES, there is only one purpose for each member. We could take it to the cellular level, which God designed. You don’t get to be a muscle cell, and then turn into an optic nerve. To accuse Bill of abuse because he has studied this and, using Scriptural examples and case studies, is wrong.
“Another example would be Bill’s use of 1 Corinthians 11:15 which is turned around by Bill to become some kind of mandate for woman always to have long hair and not only that, have long curly or wavy hair”
It most definitely states that long hair is a gift of God to each woman, with two purposes – to show submission to her “head”, and to cover her in the Lord’s presence. You do know that myriads of churches and believers over the millennia have come to the same conclusion – God wants women to have long hair, and to have their heads covered. Somehow we, in the last hundred years, have finally found something else in Scripture? NOTHING in the Bible has changed.
“Another example would be the sad story of Jacob’s only daughter Dinah.”
God never wastes His breath. He didn’t have to tell us why Dinah went to the city, but He did – it was to see her chums. God could have protected her from the lustful advances of the prince, but He didn’t. If God is real (He is), and if He loves (He does), and if He sees all (He does), and if He has the power to stop any aggression (He can and often does), when He doesn’t, there is a good reason. It is worth pondering. One well known evangelical leader told Bill that his appeal to the masses was his ability to “creatively explain the sovereignty of God”. That is correct, and Bill is simply taking the Living God very, very seriously.
“The Centurion . . . The faith wasn’t because of “authority” but the Centurian recognizes Jesus’s own authority and understood how commands by authority could work.”
The Centurion is commended for having the greatest faith Jesus had ever seen (Matthew 8:10). Jesus wants us to understand why, so we can have great faith too. Interesting that when the disciples asked Him to “increase our faith”, He went RIGHT BACK to an example of authority. (Luke 17 – Read it). Bill is absolutely correct – seeing God in authority is the highest form of faith . . . According to Jesus.
All right, Joanna. Thank you for taking a moment to find actual issues with Holly’s videos. Now we’re getting somewhere. Unfortunately, you’ve not found anything significant. Here is why.
First, your issue with Holly’s use of Amy and her complaint. Yes, it is fair for Amy to be cynical. Just as it is fair for us (and Holly) to be cynical of her. Yes. That sword cuts both ways, and it is exactly what Holly is doing here. She is not disproving anything Amy said, just saying it’s fair to be skeptical of the skeptic, too, which it is. In other words, there isn’t any disproof here for Holly’s claim, because there is no claim.
On to the second and what I find a bit more egregious. You misrepresented exactly what Brooke claimed. She said her group practiced wife spanking, but she did indeed say “fundamentalist families,” not specifying her specific group, and she did indeed say she saw the Duggars and saw that they were the same. She did indeed rope the two together. Yes. She did.
Holly is absolutely right to criticize this. The documentary is trying to connect it to the Duggars and Bill by extension.
I want to appeal to your sense of logic here. If it were completely her group and upbringing that were the problem, and the documentary did explain it (which it doesn’t), then why would they even want to bring it up? It has nothing to do with Bill or the Duggars. Why is her story relevant? It’s not an extension.
This is why this criticism is valid. They are trying to get people to think Bill and the Duggars do this. Holly is right to set it straight, and she did so. Sorry. She has the high ground here.
To the moderator,
In a back handed way, thank-you, because you just confirmed that Bill Gothard used these verses.
In reply to you, all you have done was parrot what Bill Gothard said or taught. The Centurian has nothing to do with how Bill used it which was support his teachings on authority and umbrella of authority. The Centurian had faith in Christ and knew Jesus had and is the ultimate authority. It is not faith in authority for the sake of authority and does not teach or go off into the “umbrella of authority”.
Dina is very similar or another sad rape story of Tamar. Both was raised and in polygamous families which is just open immorality by the fathers of those families. Both had do nothing fathers when both girls were violated. Both did have brothers that took up revenge with deadly consequences, especially Absolum. If there is any sort of lesson to be taken from both Dina and Tamar is that polygamy is bad news for the women raised in it and more likely both Dina and Tamar did not see or detect that they might be in danger of being raped because of the immorality that already surrounded them coming from and living in polygamy families. Again, Dina has nothing to do with whether or not single women can’t live alone and even go out with girlfriends. This is a misuse of scripture by Bill and is fear mongering.
There is nothing in Romans 12 list of gifts that states someone has one gift or only one purpose. That is being read into Romans 12 list. All the strengths and weaknesses that Bill dives into are not there at all whatsoever and made up by Bill.
thank-you for confirming that Bill used these different passages from scripture. Your responses again just restate Bill’s use of scripture.
You still have not explained what it was about the Centurion that made his faith greater than all of the examples in Israel. Bigger than Peter, John, . . . Simeon and Anna . . . That was quite a statement.
Polygamy was in NO way immorality. That is twisting Scripture. It is a bad idea, like alcohol and slavery are bad ideas, but those items were never condemned as sin.
You ignored a main point so I will restate it. Spiritual gifts are likened to parts of the body. There is only one design function per organ, and particularly cell, period.
“If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? 18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. 19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?
20 But now are they many members, yet but one body. 21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. 22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: 23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. 24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:” (1 Corinthians 12:15-24)
We are “members”, so clearly defined in function that there are “less honorable” and “more comely” ones. Like an eye is to a stomach. It is silly to postulate that we can be a stomach for a while and then get promoted to an eye. Or two time.
Romans 12 list of gifts or functions has nothing to do with what and how Bill turned it into “motivational gifts” and that everyone only has “one”. Likewise, your effort to try to support this with quoting I Corinthians 12 doesn’t work because that is adding unrelated statements to this. St. Paul’s description body parts and how they work together for the whole and that we are part of the body of Christ is a different topic than gifts described in Romans 12. Nice try but it doesn’t sell. Proof texting isn’t working.
I will stand by my statement the polygamy is immoral. There is as difference between what may have been legal during the times of the OT and what is moral. Look at Genesis and the statement that “a man shall leave is mother and father and cling to his wife.” It doesn’t say wives, it says wife and is the passage that Jesus used in His discussions about divorce and remarriage. That even though divorce and remarriage was allowed under the Law of Moses, it was not God’s plan or design. Look at our current laws, divorce and remarriage are legal and allowed, same sex marriage is legal and allowed, abortion is legal and allowed. Do you think any of these things are moral and OK? Polygamy is just legalized immorality and Dinah and Tamar are victims of it. At. least right now, polygamy is not legal (yet). Just because the Bible and even the Laws of Moses had allowances for them as well as slavery etc. doesn’t mean that they are moral and part of God’s original design and plan for marriage and family life. For you the state that polygamy is not immoral is in the words from Dan Aykroyd’s new series “simply unbelievable”
Bill Gothard as well as WoF peddlers both abuse the Centurian’s great faith. Bill attributes it to authority. Word of Faith peddlers look at “say the word”. The Centurian obviously heard of all the healings Jesus was doing. He knew that Jesus has authority and power to heal. He obviously knew that just giving a command as an authority would get something done. That is not faith in authority nor faith in just saying the word. It is faith in who Jesus is which is the Son of God. Look at some of the other examples of faith that came from Gentiles such as the Magi and the Phoenician mother wanting Jesus to heal and free her daughter. Maybe the lesson is how outsiders, non-Jews had or recognize who Jesus is than many of the Jewish people themselves. The Centurian’s great faith had nothing to do with umbrella of authority or as Bill Gothard taught and used as a launching pad for his authority teachings. I doubt you will get what I am saying to you, that’s ok, you have been under this stuff way too long to see out of it.
The parts of the body analogy is EXACTLY related to the role that God has given us in the body. How those different roles interact and affect each other. Just saying, “No it isn’t”, doesn’t change that. Anyway, I and millions of others found the explanation of spiritual gifts compelling.
If polygamy is immoral then almost all of the great ones in the OT were guilty of immorality. God does not pass by immorality like that, nary a word in rebuke. Alcohol is similarly made allowance for, even naming it as an acceptable way to celebrate a sacrifice – named “strong drink”. In our western culture we have (largely) found that alcohol is a bad idea, maybe even sinful. Just like we jettisoned multiple wives. I think both are excellent moves, but we had best be careful about the “sin” tag. Same with contraception. As you well know that was regarded as immoral not all that long ago. I recall working in a large store where those goods were hidden and had to be asked for. I have good friends that believe birth control is “immoral”. I agree that it is a bad idea, but, again, we sin against the Lord to go beyond Scripture. I know how you feel, I disagree, meaning, your appeal to polygamy as the reason for Dinah’s violation is not, in my mind, Scriptural.
You still have not explained the amazement that the Savior expressed at the Centurion’s faith. Everything you describe is not that rare, both in Israel and outside it. When Jesus says that there has never been a greater man “born of women” than John the Baptist, well, we had best figure out why. When He says that the Centurion had the greatest faith that Jesus had ever seen, well, that is worth taking a deep breath and pondering deeply. You seem too eager to not allow Bill any honor to even focus. And you did not even blink at the fact that the other time when Jesus was focused on “great faith” as a personal acquisition, He used an odd example of authority of a master over a slave. Luke 17. Did you look it up?
On 1\15 above, that’s a good point about the body analogy we find in the NT.
I hope polygamy is not sinful, because my beloved wife once affirmed that I have different spouses twice per month at opposite times in her hormonal cycle. That puts the -poly in polygamy.
Look at all the polygamy families in the OT, they are all a hot mess.
There was never ending conflicts between people and even had acting out in sexual assaults by the likes of Reuben and Ammon. King Solomon lost his faith due to his many wives. None of these people should be considered great based on their moral and family life behaviors. Have you ever heard of Chief Sitting Bull? In some of pictures, he even wears a cross, but he never did become a baptized Christian. One of his close friends Black Elk became a baptized Christian and then turned around and was very active in conversions of other Native Americans. Sitting Bull never did become a Christian because he had four wives and would not give up 3 of them to become a Christian. Polygamy was the block. Catholic, Orthodox and even Protestant have always condemned polygamy. The fact that you cannot is very telling.
So David was a “hot mess”? Lots of monogamous individuals fall into adultery, so can’t blame Bathsheba on that. You are not accurately reporting the testimony of Scripture.
Reuben was guilty of incest – what has that got to do with polygamy? By Ammon I suspect you mean Lot’s daughters, again incest – Polygamy was nowhere in view there.
There is no Scripture anywhere that would mandate a Christian entering salvation be forced to shed any wives beyond the first. It DOES prohibit divorce. It DOES say he can’t be a church leader – that is all.
On 1\14 above, we read another “nothing to do with” lecture which contradicts itself. Every nothing-to-do is offset by a something-to-do from the Bible. Every nothing-denial has a something-affirmation.
But why the polygamy diversion? Why pretend that anyone affirms polygamy? Did we need a straw man to destroy? When did Bill Gothard teach about polygamy? at the Institute in Basic Life Harems? As C.S. Lewis said, Christians have debated whether a man may have one wife or five. But they agree that he may not simply have any woman he wants.
On 1\14, we are served Bible illustrations from OT Dinah and Tamar to the NT centurion. Apparently, only Bill Gothard is forbidden to use Bible illustrations. When he does, they are dismissed as mere proof texts. Gothard-haters have eyes but will not see, and ears but will not hear.
On 1\8 above, we read a couple more “nothing to do with” denials. Is that the motto of Hell? “The Bible has nothing to do with.” But beware. The damned are eternally consigned to “nothing to do.” They are sentenced to nullity forever.
Shouldn’t we mortals be more circumspect with our denials? Can we make ourselves unbelieving believers? Will we discover too late that this is a contradiction in terms?
If our Bibles have nothing to do, then why did the Holy Spirit bother to proffer them to our unbelieving hearts? What a waste of grace!
On 1\9 above, we raise a good question, to which we already know the answer. When we defend a man, do we affirm him? Sometimes we do and sometimes we don’t. When a man defends his son, it probably means affirmation. But when a lawyer defends an accused man, he is only discharging a duty or generating income.
When Holly defended Bill Gothard from the late slander series on Amazon, did she endorse Gothard’s teaching? Barely. In fact, she mentioned Gothard’s teaching only enough to debunk the bad-faith caricatures invented by his enemies.
So why did Amazon create a slanderous smear against Gothard and other Christians? Were they affirming enemies of Christ? or only generating income?
Rob,
I say this with kindness and respect. We are dealing with fact. As such, we must be willing and able to present those facts when asked.
Saying “I attended the seminar” says absolutely nothing to the point. No one here can confirm or deny that you did. No one could prove or disprove anything you claim to have read or heard at said seminar unless that person also attended and happened to be near enough to you to confirm it.
To date, no one here has admitted to anything other than attending other seminars of the same ilk.
You are relying on anecdote to establish fact, but that is by nature questionable. The only one who can be reasonably convinced is you, and those willing to believe you. I am asking for something concrete. Again. If it is that obvious, it should t be difficult for you to find. Surely, you have a Wisdom Book or notebook page somewhere that could be shown. Even a picture would count.
Do you remember when I challenged the moderator on the nature of the Board and their motions? (I’m sure he does.) What did the moderator do? He posted the by-laws in the comments section. We could all see it and read it. There was no question at that point. I was then able to comment on the claims.
This is how it works. We are not making excuses here. I am challenging you reasonably. You might want to look in the mirror to see who is really making excuses. Many of us are giving you the opportunity. Do you rise to the occasion?
JM, You asked for examples of misuse/proof texting of Bible verses by Bill Gothard. I think you thought I wouldn’t have any. I gave very specific examples that are not anecdotal at all and if fact personal. The moderator here as well as David who have been to the seminars have not come forward to deny them. I don’t care if I convince you of anything. It is evident that nothing will by anyone. Bill Gothard is a false and heretical teacher. If you don’t think so that is your choice.
Just for the record “the moderator” most definitely came forward to challenge, “deny” your examples. Was sort of baffled by your statement.
As I mentioned in that response, it was only half a job. Again, I want to know which Wisdom book, which line in the notebooks, these things come from.
I am asking you to do diligence in reporting fact, just as anyone in research would.
I am being stubborn here. I intend to be. My standard is that high. But I must be fair. If I challenge the moderator and others for the line, the page, etc, I have to challenge everyone else.
Why do you have a problem with this?
I was never involved in ATI so I do not have the wisdom booklets. I have the red notebook from the Basic seminar and the book from the advanced and the 3-character books. That is all I have. They are all packed away. You can take my word or not. I am not sure why you keep asking for wisdom booklets since they are only associated with ATI and I was never a part of that. I gave my word, if that is not good enough for you, I do not care. I do not have to prove anything to you. It is a pretty pathetic that someone’s word is not good enough.
On 1\31 above, we are reminded of the mess that results from man’s sin. Indeed it is pretty pathetic that men’s words are so unreliable that we have to confirm our word. Sometimes we confirm it with an oath.
But Jesus said that only proves how unreliable we are. Let your communication be yea, yea, or nay, nay. Whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil!
Well no. It isn’t good enough. I wasn’t involved with ATI or IBLP. I have to make decisions based on what I can believe reasonably. In the case where there is claim and counter-claim, BOTH sides expect me to take their words.
I have to do more digging to see who is factual. That is how this works. It must.
No. I can’t take your word for it. Sorry. But I do the same for the moderator and anyone else here. They know I have.
JM, you can watch the Basic seminar yourself, the link has been provided to you by the moderator. You can also buy on Amazon the books from the seminars where you have a hard copy and study and review this stuff yourself. IBLP has the spiritual gifts I mentioned up on their web site, you can study that stuff yourself which was one of my examples. In a back handed way, the moderator argued with me about interpretation of some of the verses i brought up but never argued that Bill Gothard did not use them. Your real issues here isn’t so called hard evidence because the so-called hard evidence is available to you in different forms, all you have to do is look at them yourself. The real issue is that much of the teachings of Bill Gothard are part and parcel in IFB teachings of which you have admitted to working for in their smaller university. And if one has accepted much of what they have been taught in IFB types of circles, it will be very hard to separate that from many of the ideas and teachings of Bill Gothard.
Joanna, I’m starting a new thread so we can respond better and more cleanly.
No. What Holly did was the logical choice. This is how responses are done. Do you think those engaged in debate have to pursue every avenue related to the topic at hand? You have to have a limiting factor when you are making a factual statement. It’s the only way it works.
I would give you that Holly does believe Bill is good, but her exact allegiance isn’t at question, nor should it be. Again. We have to look at the facts. If she has responded falsely, let’s discuss it. We’re not doing that though, and I believe there’s a reason for that.
We’ve got to stick to the issue. What are the facts and falsehoods here? That’s what must make the difference.
As for independence, the first 300 years or so of church history were not marked by any overarching authority. After the apostles died out, all there was were shared beliefs and copies of Scripture. A WIDE variety of beliefs existed among some of these groups. It was the church Councils that helped codify much of this
But the church Councils merely sanctioned and recognized widely held beliefs. It was basically folks getting together and agreeing on things.
The Reformation itself was a reaction to corruption within the established church. And it led to a number of independent groups, and brought to light some such groups that had always been somewhat independent, such as the Waldenses.
The idea of independence within the church being a strictly American idea is simply not true. It’s a stretch at best. Fundamentalism simply took an idea and ran with it
I can concede that bad has come from that, for sure. We can find that in nearly any concept. But we can’t ignore the good or positive in the same hand. Fundamentalism sought to get people to read and understand Scripture for themselves, instead of simply relying of whatever he leader happened to say.
We have to remember that it was also a reaction to modernist movement of its day, which brought a lot of compromise and rejection to churches at large. The fundamentalist movement got people looking again. We can’t ignore the positive elements that came out of that.
You’re assuming the very thing that I’m questioning. Why should we limit ourselves to Holly’s oddly narrow focus without questioning why she chose that in the first place? Yes, we could debate the “just the facts” of everything that she chose to talk about. And let’s say that everything she said was true, meaning that everything she challenged in the documentary was false. Then what? The most we could possibly conclude is simply that one documentary is bad. Is it really worth all that time and effort just to say “this one documentary is bad”? Since truth is so important, surely the truth about Gothard and his group is more important than the accuracy of one measly documentary about the group, and yet this entire exercise with the documentary seems to be purposely avoiding that very question. Why? And why shouldn’t I ask why?
As for the church, it’s true that they didn’t have a formalized structure for the first couple of centuries. But as you just said, they worked together and then they solidified matters in councils. That’s a far, far cry from having hundreds and hundreds of completely autonomous local churches. There may have been scattered groups that did that, but that wasn’t the norm until after the Reformation. And even then, the first thing that developed was denominations with some sort of accountability and hierarchy, not our modern fundamentalist “every man for himself” independent local churches. Even Reformers like Luther and Calvin wouldn’t necessarily approve of that.
It’s true that the idea of independence within the church preceded America as an independent country, but they were still based on the same political ideals. And I’m questioning why we should base our Christianity on that. The Reformation was called the Reformation, not the “throwing out everything and starting from scratch with nothing but the Bible in our language” and yet that’s effectively what happened, and Fundamentalists took that to the nth degree. Should we really throw out 1,000 years of history just because the Roman Catholic church was corrupt?
Holly’s Youtube series is a rebuttal of the slander in Amazon’s SHP feature. Is that oddly narrow? why? only because we prefer a rebuttal of something else? or because the rebuttal was true and the slander was false? When we resort to ad hominem, isn’t that a retort of last resort?
Bill Gothard has drawn enemies for many decades. Some have attempted academic rebuttals of his teaching. When that failed, they resorted to ad hominem as the final arrow in their quiver.
When that failed, they tried prurient tales of seduction and incest. SHP was the latest installment. If that was oddly narrow, whom else did we want them to slander? the pope? After the Get-Gothard moment passes, who will be the next target of their bitterness? As Joseph Sobran showed back in 1999, Jesus Christ is The Man They Still Hate. http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/991202.shtml
I said in my previous comment why Holly’s’ focus is oddly narrow. It tells us nothing important or meaningful about the topic, which is Gothard and the IBLP. The most her videos can tell us is that a bunch of random bad things about them aren’t true. Her videos are so laser-focused exclusively on the one documentary, they don’t even attempt to discuss anything else—whether Gothard and the IBLP are good or bad, honest or dishonest, helpful or not helpful. In other words, anything about the topic that actually matters. That’s odd. That’s a huge amount of time and effort to devote to—frankly, a whole lot of nothing. So my question stands. Why is Holly doing it?
Holly’s Shiny Slander rebuttals are neither more nor less narrow than the material she targets. She rebuts the accusations in Amazon’s SHP series, which was a smear in concentric circles, like a target. SHP took aim mainly at the Duggars, then by extension at IBLP, then at religious homeschoolers, then by implication at religious conservatives.
Why did Amazon design SHP this way? Was it better marketing to indulge in ad hominem smears than to create a neutral investigation of the questions raised on 2\2 above? Many people expended much time and money to participate in IBLP ministry. Shouldn’t they have found it helpful? otherwise, why did they bother?
Because Amazon neglected this substantial pro-Gothard population, they produced only a one-sided smear. So we might call Holly’s effort an altruistic public service. Isn’t that a good enough motive? If Holly’s materials are nothing, then isn’t Amazon’s SHP also nothing?
You really fail to understand how this works. The video series is just a response to the documentary and its claims. It’s narrow because it must be.
There isn’t a problem here.
I have challenged to identify where Holly is factually wrong. You cannot do so. We must therefore conclude that Holly’s series is factually correct
Unless you think it okay to make factually incorrect documentaries. Consider Blackfish. It is responsible for near singlehandedly changing public perception of SeaWorld within the course of a single year.
The problem is they got next to nothing right, and even edited in the sound a whale crying to make it sound as if the whale was crying for her calf (and that whale didn’t even have a calf!).
SeaWorld responded to this. They did. Guess what? It was very narrow in it’s scope.
When you are answering an accusation, it is always narrow. That is how this works.
Let’s stop talking about this aspect of it and get back to the challenge – what did she say that is incorrect? Present the evidence and we will discuss it.
To JM’s February 17 comment:
You’re not really answering my question. You’re just repeating yourself. “Holly’s videos are narrow because she chose to respond to just the documentary” isn’t an explanation. My question is /why/? Why, out of all the information—all the negative information—about the group, did she choose such a narrow facet to explore?
I had never heard of Blackface before you mentioned it, but this isn’t equivalent. If SeaWorld had already had a tarnished reputation, and then Blackfish came out, and some random person with an ambiguous connection to SeaWorld publicized something about how that Blackfish was inaccurate, /that/ would be equivalent. And if that had happened with SeaWorld, a lot of people would—quite reasonably—figure that if this person talked only about Blackfish, then all the bad things /not/ mentioned in it were likely to be true.
As far as SHP, I saw it once and I remember almost nothing from it. I got maybe a third of the way through Holly’s videos and got tired of them. Her research method is highly flawed, she consistently fails to make a clear distinction between the documentary-makers and the people being interviewed, and most importantly, as I said before, even if everything she said was accurate, it’s meaningless if it tells us nothing significant about the actual topic.
Let’s say you’re right: Everything Holly said was correct. Then what? So what? What should anybody do with that information? Just shake their heads and click their tongues and tell everyone all about the bad, bad documentary, all without knowing anything true about Gothard and the IBLP? What’s the point of that? Why is Holly devoting so much time for such feeble results?
Joanna, I don’t have to answer that question because the answer is already made.
She chose to answer just the documentary, not every criticism of Gothard ever, and not all the criticism on Recovering Grace.
That was not the point. The point was to set to right what was false in the documentary.
Yes. That is an answer. That is precisely why, and it is logical. What you are expecting is not logical or reasonable. It is not how these things work.
Again I ask you. Tell me what Holly did that was flawed. I find nothing flawed in her methodology. Tell me what she has produced that is false. I have followed her links and spoken with some of the same individuals she contacted. They do back up what she says. The moderator here has done a lot of that, too.
You need to do some research on Blackfish. Your understanding of it is incorrect. It did singlehandedly change public perception of SeaWorld overnight, and it was INCORRECT. I’m worried you are not taking away the important crux of the argument.
Again I ask. Is it okay to have documentaries that are factually wrong? Your answer should be “no.” No question, no excuses. I’m worried you are not willing to say that. I am.
My standard is truth. Those who proclaim must do so truthfully. No exceptions. Not here, not there. Truth above all
In respone to JM’s February 24 comment:
If you’re satisfied with that answer, then that’s fine for you. But I’m not. And if you can’t see how it’s a shallow non-answer, I really don’t know what to tell you.
You’re asking me to point to specific problems in videos I haven’t seen for over a year. How is that a reasonable expectation? Why should I take the time to do that when, again, even if I do, and even if everything Holly said turned out to be true, I’d have no greater understanding of the topic? How is that a good use of my time? Of course truth is important. But there are many, many lies in this world. We can’t focus on all of them. Maybe Holly doesn’t need a reason to focus on something so narrow, but I do.
I think you missed my point with Blackfish. Yes, it singlehandedly changed public perception of SeaWorld overnight. But the thing is, the Amazon documentary did not. People already had a negative view of the Duggars and the IBLP (those who had heard of it, anyway) because of what happened with Josh Duggar. You may think that that negative view is unfair—that there was nothing hypocritical about what Josh Duggar or his parents did, and that they couldn’t reasonably have been expected to handle the situation any differently. But the public disagrees with you, based on actual facts—things that Josh Duggar himself admitted to, things that his sisters said, etc. For a guy so interested in truth, you’ve been studiously ignoring those things.
I’m not even sure what you mean by asking if it’s “okay” for documentaries to get their facts wrong. Lying is wrong, but people have the freedom to do it. When lying fits the legal definition of slander, then someone can get into legal trouble for it. But interestingly, neither the Duggars nor the IBLP have chosen that route.
I don’t think we’re responsible for calling out any and all lies that we come across. We don’t have enough time for that, and we’re not God. So again, if someone chooses a particular lie to focus on, it’s reasonable to expect them to have a reason for it beyond “just because it’s a lie”. I’m really not sure how or why that’s a confusing idea to you.
Holly made a good response to this below.
Yes, this is an answer. Period. She responded to the documentary because it was loaded with lies. And yes, that narrows a response.
She is branching out from there. That is fine. The point was it was completely okay for that response to be so narrow. The purpose was to respond to the documentary. She has.
Holly and I both split with you over whether this documentary was a non event. It certainly was a big deal. Just last week, I had a student worker tell me he saw it, and he was shocked by what he learned about Bill and the Duggars.
It did do something. You don’t have to accept that. Maybe it didn’t for you, but it did for many. That is why it is so dangerous.
You and I seem to agree that lying is wrong, but you still didn’t answer my question. Is it okay for documentaries to lie. I need to admit something here.
This was a trap. You see. There is only one answer to this, and it is a resounding no. Documentaries are part of journalism, which attaches libel laws to the medium.
It isn’t slander legally. It is LIBEL. And it is crime. They CANNOT be false. Period.
Whether they get prosecuted or not does not change that. In this case, Bill, IBLP, and the Duggars could indeed sue for this. I think they should. Holly could help. It is that clear.
The discussion really is over right there. No. They don’t have the freedom to do it. No more than you have the freedom to drive over the speeding limit. You have committed a crime every time you do so. You may get away it, but you are a criminal nonetheless.
The issue is that cut and dried.
As to whether it’s reasonable to ask you to point out inaccuracies in a set of videos you haven’t seen in a year. Of course, that’s reasonable.
You claimed they had inaccuracies. It is only fair for me to ask you what was. That is how it works.
You don’t have to, if you don’t want to. Just don’t go around saying it. Be consistent. It’s not too much to ask.
In response to David Scott Knecht’s comment on February 15:
Was Amazon’s SHP nothing? Frankly, yes. We already had plenty of information about the group. Nobody changed their minds because of the documentary. It was a money-maker because it was about a hot topic and therefore a lot of people watched it. I was one of them and I remember almost nothing about it.
I’m also very aware that personal testimonies are prone to bias and inaccuracies and that documentaries can edit people’s words in such a way that it doesn’t accurately reflect what those people said. Anyone who doesn’t know that needs a lesson or two on media literacy and healthy skepticism, not hours and hours of a random person dissecting a documentary that came out nearly two years ago.
On 2\19 above, Joanna affirms healthy skepticism. An older affirmation comes from 1 Corinthians 13, where we read that charity “thinketh no evil.” When malicious gossip reaches us, do we think no evil? or do we indulge in confirmation bias? Did we savor the gossip on SHP because it confirmed our prejudices?
Indeed, Holly’s YouTube videos rebut SHP material which is two years old. But what if the real topic is much older than that? As Joseph Sobran said, “Of course the hatred of Christ usually pretends to be directed at side targets: St. Paul, the ‘institutional Church,’ or, more vaguely, ‘organized religion’ (as if religion would be all right if only it were a solitary activity).”
What if they really hate not merely Jim Bob Duggar or Bill Gothard, but Duggar and Gothard’s Lord? What if Jesus really is The Man they still Hate? http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/991202.shtml
I can’t speak for the “we” you’re referring to in your first paragraph, but for me, I’ve already said that I barely even remember what the documentary said. I remember more of it from Holly’s vidoes than I do from actually watching it. I can hardly savor gossip that I don’t remember.
And I don’t see people on hear “thinking no evil” about the people telling their personal stories on the RG website, or about the documentary makers who were trying to get a handle on an insular sub-sub-group of conservative Christianity that’s so ambiguous and hard to grasp that even the people in it don’t agree on what it’s like. Rather, I see the uncharitable assumption that inaccuries are a slanderous lie spread by people who hate Jesus Himself.
You’re right that the real topic isn’t a two-year-old documentary. The real topic is the Duggars, Gothard, and that group. And yet people defending him have consistently tried to limit the topic to a few narrow aspects of the situation, like the court case or the Amazon documentary, while the only defense of the group itself has merely been to say “watch the Basic Seminar videos”.
In the first place, if the first couple of Basic seminar videos are anything to go by, then they’re hardly a robust defense that make him look shining. At best, he has some decent ideas based on (1) his personal experience and (2) general character traits that the Bible says are good. But they also show that he has no idea how to handle Scripture, and that he’s woefully unqualified to have anything to do with education, whether the home-schooling materials he’s been selling for years, or his somewhat newer “embassy university”.
But more importantly, the very fact that Gothard (or his spokesmen) points to decades-old videos instead of being able to point to the many people who have interacted with him and could vouch for him is very telling. Jesus could say to his enemies “which one of you can convict me of wrong?” and they had no answer (John 8:46). Paul could say to Timothy, “you know how I lived among you” to affirm his consistency (2 Timothy 3:10). The prophet Samuel could say, “who have I wronged?” and the people affirmed he hadn’t been oppressive or unjust (2 Samuel 12:3-5). And then there’s Gothard. “Watch my videos.” The contrast is pretty stark. Clearly, there are people like you who do vouch for him. But even his own group doesn’t seem to think that’s a good defense. Why is that?
As we see in the 1/25 comment above, Bill Gothard is like Christ and St. Paul in one important way. All three had dedicated enemies who were reduced to teeth-gnashing because they could prove nothing.
Neither Christ nor Paul nor Gothard needed more than a two-word defense, “prove it.” Christ’s enemies proved nothing against him, nor did Paul’s, nor did Gothard’s. Have Gothard’s “decent ideas” been tried and found wanting? or have they been found difficult and left untried?
If Gothard’s seminar teaching does not make him shine, then what teacher makes himself shine? entertainers do that, but not teachers. If Gothard’s materials were vanity, how do we explain his millions of users? Is the multitude accursed? That explanation has been tried before.
To David:
You turned what I said on its head. Unlike Jesus and Paul, Gothard did not—and cannot—say that nobody can accuse him of wrong. Because many people have. You can say his accusers were lying or mistaken—and I’m sure some of them are—but the thing is that nobody can really guarantee that he /didn’t/ do those things. In a court of law, that doesn’t matter. People are innocent until proven guilty. But when we’re talking about the testimony or reputation of a Christian leader, that’s not good enough. They should be above reproach. That’s what Scripture says.
Unlike Jesus and Paul and Samuel, Bill Gothard can’t appeal to the general public who knows him for his defense. Nor can he appeal to the people involved in his group. That’s where the accusations are coming from in the first place. It would be akin to one of Jesus’ disciples accusing Him. Even Judas who betrayed Him didn’t actually accuse Him of anything.
Rather, people like you are taking it upon yourselves to defend Gothard even though he hasn’t appealed to you as his defense. And you can’t merely say that you know him and he really is a great guy, because there are accusations, and you need some kind of explanation for them. And, to give credit where it’s due, Gothard’s defenders have explained some of them. That’s one of the main points of this very website.
But the very fact that you feel the need to do that indicates that the accusations carry some weight. Gothard has /not/ been so above reproach that you can simply stay silent while his accusers contradict themselves, like Jesus could at His trial.
And I didn’t say that Gothard’s materials are vanity. He has some genuinely good advice (even if is rather generic). Good advice is good. I’m not criticizing that part. But giving genuinely good life advice that happens to be compatible with the Bible doesn’t make someone a Bible teacher or a Christian leader. Teaching the Bible should mean teaching the /Bible/, not making up your own system and using Bible verses almost at random to prop it up.
The Bible isn’t primarily meant to teach us “Life Principles”. And if we read the Bible with that mainly in mind, then we miss the actual point. And yet Gothard acts as if all he has to do is quote a verse that’s vaguely related to his topic and that that somehow shows that the Bible teaches what he says it does. The very idea that we’ll definitely have success if we follow those principles isn’t biblical at all. All we have to do is read Job and Ecclesiastes to see that.
For example, the principle of authority. Does the Bible teach that God set people in authority and those of us who follow God should respect those authorities? Absolutely! And in general, I think our lives will be better if we do that. But here (https://billgothard.com/what-bill-gothard-really-teaches-in-the-basic-seminar/), Gothard goes far, far beyond that and says, under the heading The Principle of Authority, that “the entire universe is built on the principle of authority.” To “scripturally” back that up, he cites Psalm 22:28, which says He is the governor among the nations”. That verse is so far removed from saying that “the entire universe is built on the principle of authority” that it’s almost laughable.
Just under that heading alone, there are so many issues. He goes back and forth between power and authority as if they mean the same thing. He invents “two kinds of power” unnecessarily instead of just saying that God’s power is of course absolute, whereas man’s is not. He somehow manages to blend authority and love so that God’s act of love in sending Jesus was “demonstrating his authority”, despite the verse he quotes immediately after that attributing it to God’s love, not His authority. In short, Gothard sounds like a complete mess. Either he’s doing that without realizing it, meaning he’s totally incompetent, or he’s deliberately being confusing so that nobody can pin him down on what he actually said, and all that’s left are these generic moralisms which of course are good and true.
Of course he was popular. He talked out of both sides of his mouth. People could take away whatever they wanted to and back it up with something that he said, because he said everything and nothing. And if ever anyone called him out on something wrong, someone else could point to something else Gothard said and be like “oh no, he didn’t really mean it like that, because he said such-and-such over here.”
In response to David Scott Knecht’s comment on March 8:
Bill Gothard did not “defend himself with dignified silence, as Jesus did”. On the IBLP website, they had a defense, but it was an extremely poor one: the media lies and by the way, watch our Basic Seminar videos. (I’m not sure if that’s still up there, although I do know the videos are still available to watch for free.)
People like you /are/ trying to prove Bill’s goodness. That’s why this website exists. That’s what Holly McLean is doing, whether she wants to call it that or not. The accusations aren’t of a nature in which everyone who supports Gothard can just be quiet and wait for “the truth” to come out.
And I’m afraid the pattern you’re talking about only exists in your head. Everyone outside of the little Gothard bubble pretty much takes it for granted that he has zero credibility anymore. The poster family for his group—the Duggars—are in disgrace after what happened with their son and the things their daughters have revealed.
And most people with even a casual exposure to what Bill Gothard himself teaches can see that it’s shallow at best. This very article supposedly giving the problems with creeds is one example of many of extremely poor thinking on the part of Gothard, and his “embassy university” that’s linked at the bottom is a joke. He doesn’t even seem to know the difference between biblical wisdom/spiritual insight and an academic education. I have no idea how he managed to get the two confused unless he’s genuinely losing his mind.
Yes, I’m sure that some people are lying about Gothard, and yes, God will hold them accountable for that. But is it any better for you to ignore all the uncomfortable truths about Gothard, and make up a fictional narrative in which /everything/ about him that’s bad is a lie? I’ve given examples of things that are undisputable—including things from his own writings—and you just ignore them or downplay them as nit-picking. What happened to being interested in the truth?
“Everyone outside of the little Gothard bubble pretty much takes it for granted that he has zero credibility anymore.”
Boy, even if that were true, that is what one would expect . . . If he is right. Full court press by the devil, slander, lies . . .
Paul: “This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me” (how he died) The greatest of all of God’s servants ending his life in virtual universal rejection and global shame. God writes last chapters.
Paul: “Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.”
Jesus: “And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake”
“The poster family for his group—the Duggars—are in disgrace after what happened with their son and the things their daughters have revealed.”
That is funny. Same deal – there is no beef there, there is no disgrace. Other than Josh’s troubles, which the family, for the record, handled in the best possible manner. Midlife crisis for celebrity kids.
In response to moderator’s March 11 comment:
I’m assuming you read my comments about the difference between Bill Gothard and Jesus or Paul? And about how Peter said we shouldn’t automatically assume that we’re being persecuted because of doing the right thing?
As for the Duggars, the public disagrees with you. And when people choose to make themselves public figures, the evaluation of the public is more important than what personal friends think.
When the public found out that the Duggars made money by presenting their lifestyle and being wholesome and positive (and Jill Duggar confirmed in her book that they viewed the show as being a witness to the world), all while knowing what Josh had done, the public cried hypocrisy. The fact that you want to think the best of personal friends doesn’t change that.
And the Duggars did not, by any stretch of the imagination, handle the situation “in the best way possible”. The help they got for Josh was woefully deficient, and if they knew he still had those issues years down the line, they should have strongly discouraged anyone from marrying him.
I don’t even blame them for not doing “the best possible thing”. Very few people would in that situation. I understand that. But it’s foolish to pretend they did the best thing when they clearly didn’t, and I do blame them for not having the humility to admit that they made major errors in judgement.
And you will recall my comments in reply that it remains a primary characteristic of those who are doing right.
2 Timothy 3:12 “Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.”
1 Cor. 4:13 “Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.”
Matthew 24:9 “Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.”
Luke 6:26 “Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.”
That last one is quite poignant – If the world loves you, you are in trouble. If everybody hates you for trying to live and do right, THAT is a badge of honor.
In reply to the moderator comment on March 13:
The world may not love us, but the Bible also says that they should find it hard to accuse us, that our lifestyle should be such that people who accuse us will end up ashamed. The opposite is true for Bill Gothard.
And yes, there are a bunch of verses about godly people being persecuted. The problem is, the other category of people who are “persecuted” are people who are genuinely doing wrong things and are rightly being held accountable for them. And the Bible teaches that, too. I won’t insult your intelligence by quoting verses that teach that.
If I was saying “people are accusing Bill Gothard. Therefore, he must be bad”, then you would have an excellent point. It’s very true that people can accuse godly and innocent people. However, I never said that. What I said was that Gothard cannot and has not made the same defense that Jesus, Paul, and Samuel could. He can’t ask people openly, “what wrong have I done?” and hear from people—whether they like him or not—that there’s nothing. He doesn’t have that kind of reputation or testimony. That’s not proof that he’s evil or that accusations about him are true. But it does demonstrate that it’s simply inaccurate to compare the accusations against him to those made against godly people in Scripture.
I also said that there are things which are definitely true which make Bill Gothard look bad, and both you and David have either completely ignored them, or else taken a feeble potshot at one or two of the things I’ve mentioned.
There is nothing that Bill has been smeared with that has stood the test of the 17 plaintiff, $8.5 million lawsuit. On top of that we have had our doors open the entire time, asking for corroboration that others can provide. We print what people give us. Am I wrong?
He didn’t do it. If you were right then somebody would have gotten something across the line to get to a jury. I speak for myself, but others have said the same thing: If MY son or daughter were to have been sexually abused, harassed by a leader we trusted, there would be no end to the effort to prosecute and bring to justice. So fun question to ask: WHERE are the parents of all of the aggrieved? Just thinking of the parents of the girls being forced to undress before boys with sexual problems – the anger from “Momma Bear” knows no bounds. Some ATI parents generally believed their offspring in the tales from “recovered memories” wantonly fortified by years of chatter and collaboration . . . But I have yet to see a parent with the personal drive from deep personal knowledge and conviction. THAT is extremely telling.
Stop accusing Bill based on the coordinated smear campaign that has been completely debunked. Bill, the Duggars, all of IBLP and ATI and us in particular have suffered way too much to allow that any longer.
In response to the moderator comment on March 18:
I said that Bill Gothard can’t defend himself in the same way that Jesus and other godly people in Scripture did. The fact that there wasn’t enough evidence to convict Bill Gothard in a court of law doesn’t change that fact. I haven’t once accused him based on anything in the court case. I’m not sure why you keep bringing that up when it has no bearing on anything I’m talking about.
It has everything to do with it. The charges – “me too”, repressed memories – were presented to the world and were found to be without substance. That is about as clear of a “bottom line” as you could ever hope to find.
Why can’t Bill defend himself? He has defended himself, and won.
In response to the moderator comment in March 24:
So again, I wasn’t accusing Bill Gothard of anything in the court case, so the fact that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to convict him of those things doesn’t mean that he’s innocent of completely different things. We had that conversation on the other page a long time ago.
Also again, the topic of conversation was whether Gothard can be compared to Jesus when it comes to the accusations against them. They did both have a trial. But Jesus’ trial was so bogus that the religious leaders had to illegally hold it at night so the public didn’t cause an uproar at the obvious injustice of it, and the Romans were so uninterested in the clearly trumped-up charges that they kept passing Jesus from person to person—from Pilate to Herod and then back to Pilate. Are you seriously comparing that to Gothard’s situation just because Gothard wasn’t found guilty?
Of course I am! And Jesus was found “guilty” to boot, which not even Bill was.
I know you choose to disregard the evidence of the Gothard trial. Not wise. If you wanted to know, you could.
There is a real possibility – I say guaranteed – that you are following a satanically motivated mob to tear down a work of God. THAT is serious business and should drive you to humble yourself and make so very sure you have not missed anything. This is not game.
Funny thing, those are the words we used when the suit first dropped in all of its ugly, overwhelming solemnity. We said, “Lawsuits are not a game”, which is how so many jumping on seemed feel it to be. When it was said and done it cost them all dearly. Several lost marriages. The repercussions keep coming, years and years later. There is no satisfaction from this, as unjust as their attacks were – I have made plenty of mistakes that deserve a spanking. But it makes the point.
Is this a game for you? Sometimes it feels that way.
BTW – we posted one of Holly’s videos as a new topic some time back. More keep coming, including this one: “Victimhood in 3 Easy Steps” Take the challenge and watch some of this. Carefully researched, fact based. This one highlights one of the prominent plaintiffs. Let us know what you think.
Of course, “we” are the sons of Adam and daughters of Eve. Sometimes we are not very good at resisting temptation. Indeed “telling personal stories” sounds innocent, but Holly has done a pretty good job showing that the stories by Gothard’s enemies are actually malicious lies.
As for thinking no evil, there’s the dilemma. At West Point, cadets are bound by the honor code, which uses a good definition of a dishonorable lie. A lie is a falsehood told with intent to deceive. How do we establish intent? There are many considerations. But with Gothard’s enemies is there any serious doubt? How can deliberate and false accusations possibly be innocent?
Are Gothard’s enemies also Jesus haters? We cannot be certain, but Joseph Sobran made a good case that Jesus-haters attack side targets instead of Jesus himself. Duggar and Gothard are two more among the side targets which Sobran mentioned.
“Above reproach” is our topic on 3/3 above. When a man is above reproach, it means that he is ABOVE reproach. A good man is above reproach. When he is above reproach, do his enemies still lie about him? indeed! Often, bad men hate good men, and bad men lie about good men. Our own experience and some browsing of RG prove this!
Do accusations need explanation? Suppose they do. how do we explain Satan’s accusations? We need only three words. He is evil. Why do some men rebut accusations? Sometimes the accused man has earned our loyalty, and sometimes natural law constrains us. If you accuse my spouse, be prepared to deal with me! That is natural law.
As noted above, Bill Gothard offered good teaching about virtue (research in principles of life). No one disputes this, so his enemies resort either to picking nits or inventing sleaze.
In response to David’s comment on March 3:
You raised the questions “did we savor the gossop on SHP”? Did we think no evil when people spread malicious gossip? Did we engage in confirmation bias? My point was that, regardless of being “sons of God and daughters of Eve”, I’m not doing any of that with the documentary because I can barely remember it.
You were the one who brought up the idea of thinking no evil in the first place. If you’re going to bring it up, then apply it equally. It we’re supposed to “think no evil” of Gothard without hard proof (despite the fact that Scripture holds leaders to a much higher standard than that), then we should also “think no evil” of the people telling their stories unless we have hard proof.
And maybe there is hard proof for some of the stories told by some of the people, such at many stories in the documentary. But what about the others? Are you lumping them in the same category simply because they accuse Gothard, even though you have no proof they were lying? Or are you just ignoring them>
And I agree that stories can be less harmless than they seem. You know who else told a lot of harmless-sounding personal stories? Bill Gothard! His “biblical” ideas are more based on personal anecdotes than they are in Scripture. I don’t have any reason to doubt the stories are true (although I don’t have any reason to believe them, either), but the “innocent stories” seem to hide the fact that his teachings are barely based in the Bible. And that’s not nit-picking. That’s a major, major issue for someone who claims to be a Bible teacher.
As for Joseph Sobran, his attitude is the opposite of what Scripture teaches. The apostles didn’t tell the believers that if other people accused them or thought ill of them, then they should just assume that it was really because people hated Jesus. Rather, Peter told the Christians that they should be sure that they didn’t actually deserve the persecution they got, that it was their responsibility to make it hard for people to speak out against them (I Peter 2:11-21; I Peter 3:13-17). If they were really doing the right thing, then yes, people might still accuse and slander them (as they did with Jesus). But that wasn’t supposed to be the go-to assumption.
Can Bill Gothard defend himself with dignified silence, as Jesus did? Of course he can, just as he has been doing for many years. It is working. Like the Lord’s enemies, Gothard’s enemies squander more credibility with every fresh accusation. Isn’t that the pattern we have witnessed for many years?
Nobody is constrained to prove Bill Gothard’s goodness, but his enemies are busy proving their badness. Why interrupt them? But hopefully they will repent and believe before it is too late. All liars have their part in the lake of fire.
Bill Gothard is correct about seeming contradictions. When we are faithful, God promises both success and suffering. Our Bibles and our own experience prove this is true. We prefer to skip all suffering and savor only success, but we are usually denied this privilege.
[I can’t remember if I already posted this, so to the moderator, please disregard if I did.]
In response to David Scott Knecht’s comment on March 3:
You raised the questions “did we savor the gossop on SHP”? Did we think no evil when people spread malicious gossip? Did we engage in confirmation bias? My point was that, regardless of being “sons of God and daughters of Eve”, I’m not doing any of that with the documentary because I can barely remember it.
You were the one who brought up the idea of thinking no evil in the first place. If you’re going to bring it up, then apply it equally. It we’re supposed to “think no evil” of Gothard without hard proof (despite the fact that Scripture holds leaders to a much higher standard than that), then we should also “think no evil” of the people telling their stories unless we have hard proof.
And maybe there is hard proof for some of the stories told by some of the people, such at many stories in the documentary. But what about the others? Are you lumping them in the same category simply because they accuse Gothard, even though you have no proof they were lying? Or are you just ignoring them?
And I agree that stories can be less harmless than they seem. You know who else told a lot of harmless-sounding personal stories? Bill Gothard! His “biblical” ideas are more based on personal anecdotes than they are in Scripture. I don’t have any reason to doubt the stories are true (although I don’t have any reason to believe them, either), but the “innocent stories” seem to hide the fact that his teachings are barely based in the Bible. And that’s not nit-picking. That’s a major, major issue for someone who claims to be a Bible teacher.
As for Joseph Sobran, his attitude is the opposite of what Scripture teaches. The apostles didn’t tell the believers that if other people accused them or thought ill of them, then they should just assume that it was really because people hated Jesus. Rather, Peter told the Christians that they should be sure that they didn’t actually deserve the persecution they got, that it was their responsibility to make it hard for people to speak out against them (I Peter 2:11-21; I Peter 3:13-17). If they were really doing the right thing, then yes, people might still accuse and slander them (as they did with Jesus). But that wasn’t supposed to be the go-to assumption.
Who has attempted to prove Bill Gothard’s goodness? Neither Bill himself nor IBLP nor anyone one else would be that foolish. What an exercise in futility! Shall we prove that a sinner is good, when Jesus has already denied that men are good? But even sinners are presumed innocent of unproven accusations. Because sinners cannot commit every possible sin, we insist that accusers meet their burden of proof.
Notice the name of this website, “Discovering Grace.” Grace is imputed goodness which comes from outside of us through Christ. Without grace we have no goodness.
But many of us have insisted that accusers prove their accusations. They have accused Bill Gothard of being unchaste. When accusers accuse without proof, does this prove their badness? not necessarily, but shouldn’t it arouse our suspicions? What unchastity burdens Gothard’s accusers?
You miss the point entirely. Yes, we DO need random people on YouTube rebutting the documentaries. These documentaries dont just sit on the shelf. People watch them and have their opinions formed because of them. Blogs work in the very same manner.
If the content is incorrect, factually wrong, what do we do? Ignoring it is letting it continue to spread false information. Let’s put it in a more familiar vein, shall we?
Someone you don’t know well runs into you in a store and later learns abot you through some mutual friends. This person becomes troubled by what she perceives your beliefs and actions to be. So she starts going around talking to others about you, even writing in the paper and speaking in local radio. But you find out about it when she makes a round of interviews in local and state television. Then she gets invited to share her story on CNN.
The problem is she met you only once, and in passing. And most of what she says is absolutely false. The rest is taken wildly out of context. It’s true, but not to the extent she is promoting it. It is so false that it is laughable to you.
So what then do you do? You’re welcome just to ignore it. But this person is still in the media and still very active. This kind of broadcasting has certain consequences, and they are serious. You might find yourself asked to leave some places (which is legal by the way). What if you find your bank doesn’t want to do business with you, and it’s all based on very false statements?
This is the problem. It’s not okay to allow falsehood to fly. It is not. It is that simple.
That is what Holly has done here. She wanted to answer the accusation on one documentary, and it is necessary given that this documentary is on AMAZON – one of the major media companies of our day. This thing isn’t just sitting on a shelf. It’s being viewed by millions and opinions are forming. That kind of falsehood must be answered and stopped if possible.
Again I have to ask. Are you okay with documentaries being wrong? I don’t believe you’re properly answered that yet.
The comments on 1\17 above are like the old lawyer slogan: “When the facts favor you, pound the facts. When the law favors you, pound the law. When neither facts nor law favor you, pound the podium.”
When Gothard’s enemies find facts and law unhelpful, what then? insist that somewhere, somehow, some accusation must stick. They just have not found it yet. Like the Jews who swore to destroy St. Paul, they will neither eat nor drink until they have slain Gothard.
Gothard’s enemies have spent themselves in podium pounding. Holly has exposed their futility, so they resent her.
I will readily admit I have not read all the comments here, but I wanted to address part of what I did read.
First, my main focus has been on SHP and the lies and misrepresentations in it. True. I will do a Q&A video soon that will explain some of the questions here. Look for that to come.
But to the point that SHP is all that has been addressed, know that this is not all that has been nor is it all that WILL be addressed. It has been mostly that because there is a HUGE MOUNTAIN of false information shared in it and it was the whole reason I started researching. So many lies that it has taken this long just to uncover all of them and I’m not completely finished yet! The amount of slander was overwhelming.
But, recently I have started to address the false allegations in the lawsuit that was mentioned in the documentary. If you think the only thing to consider is the SHP documentary, I suggest you do a quick Google or YouTube search on IBLP, Gothard and the Duggars and tell me how SHP is just a little thing. It is the catalyst for a rampant attack on Christianity in general using these three entities and those in it have used the platform it gave them to continue to slander IBLP and Gothard — and in turn the Duggar family.
I think it is important that we don’t close our eyes and pretend that blatant anti-Christian propaganda is harmless because it’s only one documentary. It isn’t just one documentary at all. It’s a campaign of lies that use this documentary as proof and resource material.
I will be continuing to address the lawsuit issues that are used to spread false accusations against IBLP and Gothard — and link to the Duggars — which link to Christianity and homeschooling. Then I will start going step by step through Recovering Grace and it’s slander. That will be months and months of content right there! Then the slander former IBLP participants are saying in interviews online. LOTS more material there.
Whoever was posting that all I have done is videos about SHP has not been watching my latest videos. Many of them barely mention it at all. Not that there would be anything wrong with doing so.
Also, Season 2 of SHP is supposedly in the works to be released this year. Have these Shiny Slander videos scared the producers into reconsidering slandering further? IDK. Maybe. And what about Until the Truth? That was supposed to be released last year. Have these videos exposed enough that this won’t happen? IDK.
Regarding not separating the producers from the interviewees… the ENTIRE documentary WAS interviewees. There was no narrator doing the interviews and then fact checking or scrutinizing the commentary they were giving. Other than clips of news programs to drive home a point, the entire thing– all four episodes—were interviewees. Does that mean NONE of it matters or can be scrutinized or questioned? The lies cannot be exposed because it was just interviews? That’s a ridiculous argument.
And, then the argument about how it was edited… So which is it? Are the producers putting forward a narrative by their editing techniques or are we to believe the interviewees completely no matter how it is edited and the producers have no liability for what they present? It can’t be both.
Either the producers are editing to put forward a narrative or they are not. And whether they are or not, it is reasonable to question the narrative that was presented…all by interviewees.
I hope this made sense. I do not get on this forum much so I don’t see the comments here often, but I do when I am making out a Q&A.
After ALL this has been addressed…I may start uncovering slander against other Christian groups. For now, there is, what seems to be, an endless amount of material to talk about already.
My question is, what about the the things that are definitely true that make Gothard and others look bad? It seems like you’re just assuming that anything bad is either false or irrelevant. Why?
Also, it’s simply not true that the documentary was the catalyst. The Duggars show was cancelled because of truths that came out, not because of lies, and certainly not because of lies in a documentary that didn’t come out until years later.
You can’t just assume that any group that calls itself Christian must truly be Christian and anything bad about them must be a slanderous lie. Wolves in sheep’s clothing are a thing.
Okay, which “definitely true” things impugn Gothard? If they are definitely true, what are they? Why have none of his accusers cited them? Let’s unpack them one by one.
On 3/9 above, revisit three topics; thinking evil, lumping accusers together, and scrutinizing teachers.
Indeed, charity thinketh no evil. it is gracious, giving benefit of doubt. Apparently, that does not preclude severe, snarling reproofs. Sometimes, God’s men used harsh labels. Were they being uncharitable? What is the difference? When Jesus and his followers hurled accusations, they were ambiguously true. All the evidence was up front. What about Bill Gothard and his enemies? For years, Gothard waited to hear his accusers in person. But they hid behind keyboards and performed before cameras. Are those facts charitable, uncharitable, or simply true?
Who needs to lump accusers together when they lump themselves together? Their most important attribute is the one they share with Satan; hurling unfounded accusations.
Indeed St. James warned us that teachers invite scrutiny. St. Peter said we will be accused on two occasions; when we deserve it and when we don’t.
In the first place, for those of us who didn’t hear Gothard’s teachings in person, expecting us to contact him personally is—odd. That’s not how it works for public figures. If I hear him impersonally through a computer, it’s fully appropriate to talk about him impersonally through a computer.
And—to answer your question in your other comment—I’ve been mentioning “definitely true” things this whole time. The fact that the Duggars, the poster family for the group, did what they did. (I went into more detail in my reply to the moderator which will probably get posted about the same time as this.) The things confirmed by their own daughters (so, not unfounded accusations) are enough to condemn them, no matter how much personal family friends want to skew it some other way.
I’ve listened to the first couple Basic Seminar videos. I lost count of how many times Bill Gothard took Scripture out of context in the first video. In his second video, he starts talking about “unchangeables” based on a story about one random girl who didn’t want to be so tall, and a list he just made up in his head. That’s not Bible teaching. And it’s from his own mouth. It’s not an unfounded accusation by his enemies.
What about his Embassy University? I’ve looked at that website. It’s his—his words, his ideas, his teachings. Again, not unfounded accusations by others. And his idea that meditating on Scripture while going to sleep is equivalent to a doctorate is absurd. I’ve read the Bible cover to cover 22 times. There’s nothing in there about what constitutes an academic education.
There’s the fact that Gothard’s whole shtick is Basic Life Principles, and so he reads that into the Bible even though that’s not the point. The Bible’s not about that. That’s pragmatism and moralism, not genuine Christian living.
There’s the random website I came across in which he had a jumble of barely coherent thoughts about “The Principle of Authority.” There’s this very page, in which his complaints about creeds make no sense. How many more things do you want?
Suppose as we read on 3/12 above, that Bill Gothard taught pragmatism and moralism. Do we prefer impractical and immoral? Practical and moral is better than sinful and chaotic.
If Gothard’s teaching on these topics is a jumble of barely coherent thought, why hate it so much? Isn’t gibberish harmless? We pity lunatics, but do they earn millions of listeners?
Gothard’s enemies hate him because they understand him, not because they don’t. What else explains their zeal?
Herein is a marvelous thing. On 3/12 above, we have a testimony of reading the entire Bible more than twenty-two times without learning anything. How regrettable that all that Bible-reading did not at least produce the faith of devils.
St. James says that devils tremble when they read their Bibles. But reading the entire Bible more than twenty-two times with no trembling, but only ignorance? That’s a record which is levied in Hell.
Devils wish they had only ignorance, but they are consigned to trembling. We mortals could use more trembling and less ignorance.
Is there only a little Gothard bubble, as we read on 3/11 above? Then we know two important things about the little bubble. We know that the little bubble attracts big attention. We know that little things can be important things. Jesus emphasized this when he talked about leaven, motes, and mustard seeds. St. James talked about little rudders steering big ships, and little tongues destroying big lives.
To his enemies, the Gothard bubble is obviously huge. What else would they work so hard to deflate it?
A little bubble of seven basic principles stirs up big obsession. Why? Like the law of God, it exposes our sin. As Gothard taught, we will do one of two things with our sin. Either we will repent, or we will balance our guilt with blame. To quiet our nagging conscience, we will accuse our neighbors of being worse than we are.
There’s currently only a small bubble of people who think that Bill Gothard is still good. But he was very popular in the day and the people who no longer agree with him are talking about their experiences. It’s hardly “working so hard to deflate the Gothard bubble”. People talking about their experiences is a normal thing. So is people bonding over shared bad experiences. And they really don’t attract that much attention. The average person on the street would still have no idea who Bill Gothard is, even after the documentary. People without some sort of tie to him aren’t going to be that interested. (I’m interested because I came out of a slightly less strict fundamentalist group that was loosely and informally connected with them in a rather covert behind-the-scenes way.)
Why do you ask me to mention specific things and then ignore them and talk in generalities when I do? I didn’t mention seven basic principles so you could ignore what I said about them and invent a reason why people react against them. I said that Gothard is so intent on his seven principles that he ignores what the Bible is really talking about just so he can push his own ideas. The Bible is supposed to be about God and being in a right relationship with Him, not about merely making wise life choices so my life turns out better (although it’s true that there’s some of that in there).
What about Embassy University? What about the Duggars? What about Bill Gothard taking Scripture out of context? Do you want time stamps?
Are Gothard’s enemies talking about their experiences? or inventing accusations? Do they deserve to be taken seriously if they begin talking about their experiences as queen of England? Those experiences are equally probable.
Of course few people know who Bill Gothard is. His name rarely even appeared on his materials. Indeed, what about Embassy University? what about Jim Bob Duggar? what about Charles Manson? If we need excuses either to hate or to get drunk, there’s no shortage.
Taking scripture out of context? Scripture itself takes scripture out of context. Examples abound. St. Paul commanded Galatian believers to support their teachers by comparing them to oxen treading out corn. Scripture often declares gospel truth “according to the scriptures” without supplying the proof texts. Although Bill Gothard’s seminar used many Bible references, it was not a Bible course. Apparently, Gothard hoped that his pupils would get more curious about their Bibles. Hopefully some did.
David, in response to your March 18 comment: I know this thread is long and convoluted (and if you’re using a phone, it’s almost impossible to read every comment), but I responded to what you said in my latest comment—the one beginning with “David, I’m going to try to respond to all three of your comments in this one”. If we try to discuss the same issue in multiple comment threads, we’re going to get very confused, and it’s going to get more repetitive than it already is.
To the moderator,
You cannot claim like you did to Joanna that Josh’s moral problems that landed him in jail are do to midlife crisis. Groping his sisters at age 14 is not a midlife crisis. Having his first potential courtship fall through with the Holt’s daughter is not a midlife crisis. Visiting and using an affair site like Ashley Madison is not a midlife crisis. He has a long history of sexual problems. Yet he was raised in the star family for IBLP that were held up as the model family for IBLP and Bill’s teachings and ideas. Having Jill and Jinger come out with their books only further demonstrates the family problems. None of this is due to midlife crisis. Looking at child porn is not a midlife crisis. No one is trying to defend Bill and his teachings any more but this web site and his handful of supporters left. Bill no longer has a “good name” in even the Evangelical worldly let alone anywhere else. His Embassy University is a joke and anyone with half a brain even looking at this can realize that. Offering a degree based on falling asleep while quoting Bible verses to one else is lunacy. There is n credibility left in this and with him.
No, I was referring to his siblings writing books and going on speaking tours. They join many of their fellow ATI kids in this. The constant attacks from the devil leave their mark. Life is tough for everyone seeking to live for Jesus – the devil’s attacks are relentless. The devil had 100 times more demons assigned to that family than more everyone else, for obvious reasons. Politicians who seek to stand for right and truth go through similar attacks. Duggar parents were aware and were prepared – not every child was.
Seriously? Siblings writing books and going on speaking tours is not a midlife crisis. None of them are even old enough to qualify for midlife. Your statement was about Josh and him alone. Your are giving the most flimsy of excuses that the “devil made him do it”. His problems began before the TV shows started. Stop talking these people off the hook for their own bad behaviors
We know the Duggars, we know Bill, we know ATI and we know ATI families. “Mid-life crisis” is psychological, not necessarily age based. When you are taught that God’s ways, although they involve suffering, will give you great blessing, and then later your life falls apart, you go through a “mid-journey crisis”. This is especially true of you were in a train driven by parents that believed God, but those convictions were not completely your own, yet. I will say that Scripture has some serious words for children that “shade” their parents that all of us would do well to keep in mind:
Leviticus 20:9 “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.”
To curse is to speak evil of. We live in a world where it is in vogue to violently revile parents – and not saying the Duggars did that. In the end, last chapter, we will all weep for any area where we thought we were smarter than the Lord.
I just read a bunch of mumbo jumbo right now. Mid life crisis has nothing to do with cursing parents or whatever else you are trying to say here. Jinger and Jill have not cursed their parents and if you even read their books, that is not what comes out in them. Especially Jinger, there is quite an expression of love and concern for hem and a desire to see them set free from Bill and IBLP.
Desire to set them free? That DOES appear to be a curse, basically rejecting all that her parents have attempted to do . . . Dismissing it as evil. I have only read parts of the book, so have no idea if you are correctly representing her. God is judge and will sort it all out in the end.
And “mid-life crisis” is that time when all of the expectations one rode into adulthood on are being reevaluated. Seeking a new foundation to carry one through the middle years and old age. I think I nailed it.
I have read both Jill’s and the first book by Jinger, not just parts of them as well as watched a number of both their interviews which are readily available. You stated as well as claimed earlier that you have only read “parts” yet want to accuse me of “misrepresenting” them. Jinger repeatedly has called IBLP and Bill Gothard a cult and cult leader. Yes, Jinger has stated in her many interviews that she desires to see her siblings as well as her parents set free from IBLP and Bill. It seems that this may be happening with Joyann and Austin as they are now moving to California and coming out with interviews of their own which are not very pretty. If you want to call this mid-life crisis, you are just grasping at straws. If you want to call this or twist this as some kind of curse, you again are grasping at straws. You really haven’t read them or even listen to their numerous interviews but have the audacity to tell me I am misrepresenting the things all of them are saying.
Humor me and point out where in the book she calls IBLP and Bill Gothard a cult. I am willing to accept that she does, but I did not see it.
I have one advantage over you and that is that I know the family. So forgive me for interpreting things a wee bit differently. There has been and continues to be a concerted effort to take Bill and the Duggars down for all they stand for. “Cancel culture” in its fullest expression. The reality is not anywhere close to what that rapid media is portraying. That includes spinning every little thing in that direction.
So, back to the book. I am assuming you have highlighted the passages to that end, so I would like to ponder her words. I do recall her making a statement to the effect that she did not know whether it was a cult, would leave that to the “experts”. Which I found interesting, given that she would have all of the evidence right there in front of her. If ANYONE would know, instantly, it would be her.
I don’t have to humor you at all. You humor yourself very well. She and Jeremy have given over 100s of interviews and in those many interviews, she and Jeremy have stated and called IBLP a cult. You can use google search them yourself. Whether or not you “know” the Duggars in person, I hardly think you know them very well. You certainly have not been invited to their big weddings and other life events. This is a meaningless statement that you know them. So what.
Bring me to one in the book. If not – and that was I thought your assertion – bring me to an interview where they said that. At least early on she was really careful to not actually say that.
What if ending our day by quoting Bible verses is lunacy? Aren’t there worse lunacies? What do we prefer as final thoughts for the day? counting our blessings? or reviewing our grudges?
We can sin our way to sleep, and sometimes we do.
Maybe some excuses explain Gothard-hate, but meditating on God in the night watches? why that one?
No, ending one’s day by quoting scripture etc. is not lunacy. But offering college credits in some kind of make believe degree is.
On 3/18 above, we apparently have two differing academic degrees. One is a contemptible make-believe degree, which is supposedly inferior to a real degree.
Is this true? Some students earn degrees through passing scores in an academic curriculum. Degrees are prestigious because the curriculum is rigorous and the student had to to pass difficult courses. So the degree proves a man has worked hard. Unfortunately, it does not prove he has mastered a body of knowledge. Exams have proven that degree-holders retain only about ten percent of the academic material they studied.
But honorary degrees are commonly awarded to high achievers. Are they contemptible make-believe degrees? of course not. They prove real mastery, not ten-percent retention of academic material. So what about the Embassy University Bible-meditation model? Do we know anyone who has actually earned that credential? Are they good men or bad men?
You are confusing honorary Doctorate degrees with the current nonsense Bill Gothard is trying to offer in his Embassy University. They are not the same thing.
Daivd, I’m going to try to respond to all three of your comments in this one, so we don’t get confused by having conversations in three different places on one page.
In your first March 14 comment, you defended pragmatist and moralism as being better than being impractical and immoral.
I agree, but how is that a good reason for a Bible teacher to not teach what’s in the Bible?
In the same comment, you questioned how Gothard could be so harmful if he was really that incoherent. I think that’s a good question that you should ask yourself. As you said, he clearly wasn’t a lunatic, or he wouldn’t have had millions of listeners. So what was he? What caused so many people to listen to Bill Gothard without realizing that he was neither biblical nor even coherent, as I’ve demonstrated multiple times?
In your second March 14 comment, you accused me of learning nothing and not trembling as I read the Bible. But I didn’t say I learned nothing. I said there’s nothing in there about an academic education (beyond very occasionally acknowledging that someone got one, whether religious (Acts 22:3) or secular (Daniel 1:3-4)). God is more interested in people knowing Him than He is in how they can get a PhD.
In your final March 14 comment, you asked why I’m so against nightly Scripture mediation. I’m not. I’m against the idea of equating that with an academic education. Spiritual disciples such as Scripture meditation producing spiritual maturity is one thing. Education earning academic credentials is something else entirely. I’m really not sure how anyone could get the two confused. If I were a personal friend of Bill Gothard’s, I would be encouraging him to get tested for signs of cognitive decline.
What do we make of the statements about Bill Gothard’s intellect on 3/19 above? Supposedly, Gothard’s material was incoherent. Millions understood him well enough to attend his seminars. They had eyes to see and ears to hear. But one commenter has neither. She cannot understand him. Where is the cognitive decline when millions understood but one does not? in the millions or the one? Which needs cognitive testing? the instructor or the ignorant pupil?
Perhaps enough Bible meditation to earn a degree from Embassy University may remedy the pupil’s cognitive decline? Why not try? or is it easier to indulge in keyboard snark than to earn that Embassy degree?
Was Bill Gothard defective as a Bible teacher? Then why not learn enough Bible to teach it better? As Theodore Roosevelt said, “the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.” Why not put up or shut up?