Mark Clarke

the language of the Spirit, Mark

not definitions and sentence structure

if his thoughts are higher then ours

then wouldn't his communication be also?

sure plenty of things to learn with definitions

is it possible that there are higher things being communicated

not bound by books but unbound by the spirit

not just what's on the surface

but that which is hidden within

meanings will change and change again

much like parables, the hearer hears more

as the bible is opened to us by the spirit

and not by limited definitions of words

His thoughts are higher than ours but He still chose to communicate to us with words. That's the whole point of the Scriptures. True, the holy spirit can enlighten us as we read the Scriptures, but the Scripture has to be where it starts. Nothing the spirit shows us can contradict what God has written. And again, it's not just "definitions of words," it's understanding what they mean by observing how they are used, and understanding concepts by what words are used. As I said, both Jews and Greeks in the first century used the word hades, but when you consider what they each said about it, you see the difference in their meanings.

Never considered another language Mark?

A new tongue within tongues beyond language.

Though using it..

"their beliefs?" based on language alone?

Even in Greek and Hebrew and English it exceeds it's boundaries.

I'm not sure what your point is. I already said their beliefs are not based on language alone. Beliefs are ideas which are communicated by language. What do you mean by another language?

the greeks knowledge of hell is in the definitions of words?

rather bland and lacking the experience

No, their beliefs are communicated by the words, as are those of the Hebrews. But the words they use must be understood in their context and usage.

Odd that the writer's of the New Testament would use well known Greek words for well known concepts/beliefs, but mean something entirely different than the accepted use of the words. Seems like that would be horribly confusing to all the newbie gentile converts. Or maybe it was one of those'Christianize the pagan belief to win converts' deals.

Not so odd, when you consider that the word hades had been used to translate sheol in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) which was many years before Christ. They were both talking about the abode of the dead - they just had different beliefs about what it was like.

Uh, yeah, it is. Believing something does not make it true. It just means you believe it. I can't imagine an omniscient being giving out extra points for simply being credulous, or casting one into everlasting torment for exercizing a modicum of skepticism. Such a being could only be described as petty, I'd think...

The point I have been making is that God doesn't cast anyone into everlasting torment. Everybody dies at least once. Those that accept His offer of salvation based on what Jesus did are resurrected and given the gift of life in the age to come. Those that reject His offer are raised to be judged and then have the second death which is final; they no longer exist. I agree that a being that would cast anyone into everlasting torment would be at least petty if not cruel.

I won't dispute that what you've got there is the biblical use (or at least one interpretation of a biblical use) of those words. But what I don't understand is if that's true, why did the biblical author use words to mean one thing, when the popular understanding of those words was something else? Hades was not an unconscious state of the dead, but a conscious place where the dead went after "life". It was an underworld ruled over by a god of the dead/underworld. Tartaros was a section of Hades, or below Hades where post-death puishment is meted out. (As opposed to the Elysian Fields, kind of like a pagan Roman paradise or heaven). Gehenna is a Greek rendering of a Hebrew word and concept.

Those are Greek ideas. But the writers of the New Testament were communicating Hebrew ideas. The word in Greek for the abode of the dead was hades, and it was used to translate the Hebrew word sheol in the Septuagint. The writers of the NT used the word hades because they were writing in Greek, but they used it in a different way. You have to examine how the word is used in the Scriptures to see the difference between the Hebrew idea of unconscious sleep and the Greek idea of a conscious abode.

But some say that this "death" is just separation from the True God, not "death" as we define it located in the flesh realms. The fact that man's spirit died on the day they sinned, simply means that the connection point to God died. It doesn't mean that it ceased to be eternal. When we got born again, it was that connection point that got reestablished via the Holy Spirit.

That was what PFAL taught, but it doesn't fit with the Biblical usage of "death," "spirit," or "born again."

Ignore religion, and you can enjoy your short existence. Buy into religion, and you wast precious time. . .

Damned if you do, Damned if you don't.

On the other hand, believe the words of Jesus Christ, not what organized religion tells you he said, and it's not a waste of time.

Placing things, including hell, in the future as well as many other good things, at one's own will is foolish and misleading.

Depends on which "hell" you're referring to.

Mark - So, you are saying to be tortured forever you have to live forever and therefore have "eternal life" which God does not give anyone but believers. Then would eternal damnation truly just be seperated from God --- by non existance?

Exactly. The Bible says repeatedly that the wicked will be destroyed, not endlessly tortured. And there are other very straightforward verses, such as, "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 6:23), and "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life" (I John 5:12). The Bible is really simple when we don't allow man-made ideas to complicate it.

Any theory that has to do with endless conscious torture misses the whole point of the Bible. For anyone to survive endless torture, God would have to grant them eternal life, since man is not inherently immortal. Only God is immortal and the gift of God is eternal life, given to those who confess Jesus as Lord.

The confusion comes largely from the fact that the word "hell" the in KJV can be the translation of one of three Greek words:

• g'henna, the lake of fire where the wicked will be destroyed
  
• hades, the unconscious state of the dead to which everyone goes
  
• tartaros, the pit where the wicked angels from Genesis 6 are imprisoned
  

It's also relevant that the Lake of Fire is in the future. It does not exist now, underground or anywhere else.

Yup, it's House! Long before that show, Hugh Laurie was half of a British comedy team with Stephen Fry. They seem to have been very much influenced by Monty Python too. Do a search for "Fry and Laurie" on YouTube for some great laughs.

Ever talk to people and find they just don't get it no matter how clear you make it? It feels like this classic Fry and Laurie sketch:

Ah, no, burden of proof is in the other direction.

I produced the text of her supposed "vision."

MacPherson claims her "vision" pushes a pretrib position.

Rather than saying I have to prove there NONexistence of any further

NONexistent visions,

formal logic says MacPherson (or his proxy) has to present some proof

of ANY vision with a pre-Trib position on her part.

I don't HAVE to prove a NEGATIVE.

(Prove the NONexistence of something? Come on, Mark...)

Actually, I didn't say you had to prove anything. I asked WHO - what sources - say that MacPherson's claims are manufactured, and how do they know? I ask this out of curiosity, as someone who knows practically nothing about what MacPherson claims.

Johann Sebastian Bach had twenty children.

Apparently his organ had no stops.

So far, I've run across that "vision" a number of places, but no others.

I'm inclined to believe sources who say MacPherson's claims concerning McDonald,

at least, are entirely manufactured by MacPherson.

(BTW, I was incorrect when I mentioned Darby. It's true he didn't get

his positions from MacDonald at all.)

This is why it's so often fruitless to go on "so-and-so said so" evidence. The next logical question would then be, "What sources say MacPherson's claims are manufactured, and how do they know?" And then, "Why are you inclined to believe it?" It gets very speculative, IMO.

I've read other authors who have read her other comments-but THAT one was the most famous-

that was "THE vision" MacPherson hinged it all on. (She wasn't getting them ALL the time...)

As you can read, she was perhaps a mid-tribber, a "partial rapturist" at most.

The cornerstone of her speeches was that the church was going to live through

the tribulation- and it wasn't READY.

Can you find some OTHER quote of hers that MacPherson says is related to

pre-trib- that actually IS pre-trib?

Does this mean you've reconsidered this, and are now going to dig through MacPherson's stuff?

I don't really have time right now, although at some point I wouldn't mind looking into it. Since you were so positive that what MacPherson writes is misinformation, I was wondering if you based it on other things besides that quote.

WordWolf,

I haven't read MacPherson's book, but I've heard others refer to the supposed origins of a pre-trib rapture, and I'm sure there is more to it than that one quote you posted. What other sources have you read that convince you that what MacPherson said was misinformation?

It's a waste of time to argue who said what and when, as it is a waste of time arguing about whether an author did or didn't do or say something. I prefer to stick to what they wrote and determine if it fits with the Bible or not. Personal likes and dislikes for the writers aside, there are a number of books besides McPherson's exposing the fallacy of the pre-trib rapture. George Ladd's The Blessed Hope is one.

Like DWBH, I regret getting sucked into this argument. What is the point, what is the profit? It's not about trying to shut up the people who dare to speak up about wrongs. I haven't done that, nor will I. The bad things that went on or still go on, which are known about, should not be swept under the carpet.

But on the other hand, it seems most people are going to believe what they want to believe, and will only hear what they want to hear. Their minds are already made up. This has already been seen in several posts on this thread alone. As DWBH said, it's a free country.

I'll just leave you with the following.

God bless!

Anybody who is thankful to the "founder" of a religion.. a false prophet at the best, abusive, alcoholic sex maniac and false prophet at the worst..

even today..

words can't describe my contempt here..

If you read that paragraph in his letter again, you'll see that he was not thankful for the false things that VPW taught or the evils that he did. But if even the worst sinner happens to teach me a few things about the Bible (especially at a time when I had no idea what a sinner he was) I can still take the things he taught me away with me and be thankful for them. Had he never said or done anything right in all that time, he never would have deceived anyone.

No matter how bad VPW was, many of us can still be thankful for having learned those things I highlighted.

In addition to the line that has already been quoted ("I consider myself to have been a part of the problem and deeply regret the many things I did wrong") Vince also said in that letter, "We parted from The Way without bitterness or anger. In the long run, we had thankfulness for the good and repentance for that which we had done wrong. God gave us a clean new start."

Does anyone have evidence that he did not repent? Lack of hearing from him in over 20 years is not evidence, since it is just possible he had no knowledge of how badly he hurt DWBH or others. He doesn't surf the net or read GreaseSpot and would have no knowledge of what's being discussed here were it not for the fact that I emailed him and told him about it. But just as I shouldn't have to defend him, I also shouldn't have to tell him someone has a problem. If DWBH feels he was hurt, does badmouthing him on the internet make it better? Shouldn't we all strive for peace?

It isn`t gossip or back biting if it is true. Otherwise I suppose Jesus is as guilty as all us bad old Greasespotters for talking about pharacees and saducees, in other words, creeps that hurt people in God`s name.

You tell him that he is a back biter or a gossip ....lol

Just another good sounding excuse to get people to shut up about information and experiences that makes one uncomfortable, imo.

First of all, NOBODY on this thread really knows what's "true" regarding VF since nobody but God knows what's in another man's heart (let alone what goes on in his life when they haven't been in contact for over 20 years).

Second, even if it IS true, it doesn't mean it isn't gossip or backbiting. When an individual believer has a problem with another individual believer it should be dealt with between them, not talked about all over the internet by people who aren't involved. Jesus did not complain about the Pharisees behind their back - he confronted them face to face.

God doesn't cause the problems, but He does allow them, because He is God and He is in charge. That is comforting to me, because it assures me that nothing is beyond His control. But He doesn't allow bad stuff just to be mean. When He does, it's for a good reason, but we may not understand the reasons at the time. But many times He allows us to go through things so that we can relate to and encourage others with the same problems, like the doctor that WG mentioned.

In TWI we were taught that martyrs died for their faith because they didn't or couldn't believe for deliverance. That contradicts Hebrews 11:39, though, which says, "And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise." They didn't receive the promise in their lifetimes, but were confident that God would keep His promises, even if it meant raising them from the dead. They held fast to the same promise of blessings that were given to Abraham, who also did not receive it in his lifetime. When we see the "big picture" - that this life is just preparation for what's to come - even the worst of life's problems are nothing in light of resurrection and eternal life.

The following is from the thread about VF's Living Hope church. I am addressing it here to avoid getting into a doctrinal debate in that thread.

Oh, and Mark, Jesus was pretty sure the kingdom was going to be coming within his generation. Some have argued that his crucifixion might have been his way of hurrying it along. Whether that's true or not, one of his main points was that until the kingdom has come, his followers were to live as though it had already arrived. While exceedingly difficult, I think that's a great way to be.

Actually, he said he didn't know when he would return. And in several of his parables he described a period of time of undetermined length before the Kingdom was established on earth. The idea that he thought he was going to be coming within his generation is based on misunderstanding a couple of passages. The one where he said that some standing there would not die before they saw the Kingdom was referring to the fact they would see a vision of his coming in what we know as the Transfiguration (as Peter refers to in his epistle).

The other couple of verses that mention "this generation" are most likely using the word "generation" in a different way, that is, not referring to a period of time so much as the moral character of this evil age. See this article for further dtails.

We are certainly expected to live according to new standards which Jesus gave us. But it is not living "as though it had already arrived" since when it arrives we will be ruling with Christ over the nations, while in this life we will be persecuted and downtrodden at times.

I don't fully understand the record of A&S, but I wanted to comment on a couple of recent posts.

The flood story is in every ancient culture just about. I wonder why?

... including cultures that _predate_ the Bible, ... by centuries. ... s-o-o it begs the question. Where did the flood story originate again?? wink.gif

It began with the event itself. If many cultures have accounts of it, doesn't that suggest that there is a common event behind all those accounts?

When you're the Creator and all is yours anywhooo, if you want to pass judgement upon what you have deemed evil, then its rather pedentic isn't it?

Flawed response, _particularly_ considering the oft-made (and loud, I daresay) claim that the aforementioned deity is (supposedly) perfectly moral. ... S-o-o, if _we_ behave in like manner, and it is considered _immoral_ (and that by the same 'holy and moral' standard that comes from said deity) to inflict murder (s-u-r-e, let's cut the crap and call it for what it really is, shall we? wink.gif ) upon someone for doing nothing more than lying, ... and yet this aforementioned perfectly moral deity does the same, ....... then, sorry Charlie, but you don't get to get away with the "but He's the Creator of the Universe" copout as a means of getting around that blatant discrepancy.

That depends on your definition of "perfectly moral." Would it be "moral" to allow sin to go unpunished? (Again, I'm speaking in general here, not relating to the A&S record specifically.) I'm sure you know there are different Hebrew words used for "kill" depending on whether it's talking about murder or judicial killing (which only God has the right to decree, IMO).

As far as Allah... uhhhmmm... are you indulging in non sequitur fantasies?

N-o-o-o, I'm indulging in logical comparisons of actions between one deity and another, and exposing the practical cognitive dissonance that many people (ohhhh, ... like you) apply when they see the injustice done by one deity (the one they don't believe in), and totally miss seeing it done by the other deity (the one that they do believe in). dry.gif ... It's kinda like how it's easier to see "the mite in your brother's eye" but not the "log in your own" principle.

From what I've read (which admittedly is not a lot), Allah as presented in the Quran does not exhibit the mercy and grace to balance out the judgment that YHVH does in the Old Testament. Not to mention that Muslims do not believe Allah sent his son to die for our sins.

If God, in a righteous, just, loving act, can kill a lier for lying, what then prevents his children followers etc from doing the same? Are they not supposed to imitate their God? Isn't that the type of thought that fuels religious violence?

What SHOULD prevent that (although sadly it doesn't always) is the fact that His children are told to be imitators of God in context of his love, mercy, and grace. It doesn't say we are to imitate Him in wrath and judgment. Unfortunately, failure to make this distinction does indeed fuel religious violence.

Eph. 4:31 - 5:2:

31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:

32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.

1 Be ye therefore followers [mimetes, imitators] of God, as dear children;

2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

The real debate is, On what basis does God predestine? We know that he predestines, but why does he predestine, and what is the basis for his choices? Many Christians believe that God knows in advance what people are going to do, what choices they're going to make, and what activities they're going to be involved in.

As he looks through the corridor of time and knows what choices you will make, for example, he knows that you will hear the gospel. He knows whether you will say yes or no. If he knows that you are going to say yes, then he chooses you for salvation on the basis of his prior knowledge. I don't hold that position. I think that God does this sovereignly, not arbitrarily, not whimsically.

The only basis I see for predestination in the Bible is the good pleasure of his own will. The only other reason is to honor his only begotten Son. The reason for his selection is not in me and not in you and not in some foreseen good or evil, but in his own sovereignty.

Geisha,

In the writing you quote from, does Sproul go into why he does not hold that position? It seems to me the position that God predestines us based on His foreknowledge that we will believe the Gospel is a better fit with the Bible. Otherwise why would there be so much emphasis on believing the gospel? This isn't "arbitrary" or "whimsical" - it's God fulfilling what He said He would do, namely sending a Prophet like Moses, and charging us all to hear his words, which God put on his lips.

I really like what you said in your other post, which I think hits the nail on the head:

"No one likes trials. . . but we can be thankful for what they teach us. Very thankful and actually rejoice in them because we know God will deliver and teach. God is not the author of evil, but who says He can't use it for good?"

And also this one:

"Jesus feels WITH us not against us!! He is in this with us. These trials can be so that we will come to Him. Our confidence is in Him.

The purpose of trials is to come to Him. . . . NOT ashamed. "

I think that sums up the whole point as presented in Scripture.

DWBH,

I find it amazing that you would claim you don't "desire to engage in mudslinging 20 years after the fact" after having just "slung" a significant amount of mud in the previous two paragraphs. What was the purpose of making such statements if you refuse to even accept that things could be different, let alone find out whether they are different?

First of all, since you admit that the firsthand knowledge of his acts that you have is no more current than 1989, I have to assume that the extramarital sex you refer to was before that. So truthfully then, you don't really know if "Vinnie" or his "partners" have "fessed up" or resolved anything since then, especially since, as you say, you wouldn't expect them to do so in a public forum.

Second, you say you don't wish to discuss his theology again, but you accuse him of developing "his own personal brand of religion" to keep his family fed, and his "congregation" sending in the money. But you have no idea what happened to change his doctrinal views. I can assure you it had nothing to do with feeding his family or getting money from his congregation. In fact it began in the late 1990s, with the biggest changes after 2000. Besides, if he wanted to make up a doctrine just to keep people happy, he would not have chosen such controversial ones.

And speaking of his doctrinal views, you and several others still claim it's only slightly different from TWI, and lump it in with CFF and STFI. But as has been discussed at length here at GreaseSpot, much of the root of the problems in TWI were based in wrong doctrine, leading to sinful actions. Specifically the misguided "grace" idea, whereby we were taught that as long as we confessed Romans 10:9, we were saved, "heaven bound and all hell couldn't stop us" no matter what we did afterward. This was the rationalization behind much of the crap that happened in the old ministry, and still does in many of the offshoots. Far from holding to that idea, Living Hope, and Vince specifically, believes and teaches that our actions are indeed relevant, and are an indication of the faith we claim to have. So much so that if one continues to habitually practice sin unrepentantly, he will not inherit the kingdom. This point, especially, has caused many other TWI offshoots to question the validity of his doctrines.

Now I don't want to get into a debate about the doctrine here. My point is that the people who keep saying they don't see much difference between Vince's doctrine and TWI's aren't understanding what he is teaching. And what he is teaching has been making changes in the lives of many people in his area, when they realize that this period of preparation for the Kingdom has its purpose, and it is not to "live a more abundant life and operate all nine all the time." It's one thing if people disagree with his doctrines (that can be handled in the Doctrinal Forum), but it's quite another to keep saying that what he is teaching is only slightly different from TWI, when that is certainly not the case.

I don't wish to argue about who's church or offshoot is better. What I do want is for people to have their facts CURRENT before making a judgment on someone. That's only fair.

Ohh by the way, how many 'cultic' characteristics does Reformed Theology (ie., Calvinism) portray, hhmmmm? ... Ever consider that?

You mean like killing dissenters and heretics?