This is a very interesting thread. There is so much to consider.
For me this whole thread has been very enlightening (sorry for the pun)
Life is of course full of paradoxes.
A perfect example of this is a magnet.
it has a positive and a negative side It's energy can both repel and attract.
Life itself has a beginning and an end
electrons have a positive and negative charge.
I often wonder if the so called paradoxes of the word are not so much paradoxes but confusion caused by our understanding of what is being communicated.
Ah, I see how serious your question/quest is. Wierwille opened more than consideration for me. God and I have touched from time to time. I've never been afraid of Him. Well, that needs qualification. I've had to say that's enough - that's all I can take. He's always been okay with that. I guess, I mean I know he would have wanted me to go further, but I couldn't /wouldn't. Graciously, he still allowed me to hang out at the level of revelation he granted & I accepted. He didn't shoot me down because I didn't feel like I could go further. Actually, I asked him to let me hang out there in that degree of his presence even though I knew he wanted to take me higher. He was gracious enough to accommodate me. Is this making sense?
Dear Tom,
What I'm hearing in your post is that for you it is a relationship with the Lord. You realize that he's bigger than you can take, but you've also made your peace with where you are now. For whatever it's worth, I really like that.
There is a promise in 1John that basically says in reference to Jesus Christ that someday we'll be like him, for we'll see him as he is. That is an awesome promise for sure, but in the mean time I think that we'd at best handle it no better than John did in the beginning of the book of revelation.
John the Baptist spoke of the Lord Jesus Christ wielding fire and the fan to burn away the chaff. IMO this is simply a prophecy that foretells an aspect of the Lord that is fearful..... plain and simple! Paul spoke of fire in terms of judgment to the Corinthians also. Peter also spoke of this fire being taken into account when we consider the kind of people that we should be too.
None of these things are easy to handle. Most that do merely use these things as a hammer to bludgeon those that they look down on.
Some like Wierwille fail to take into account the Fear of the Lord when they decide that it would be o.k. to turn fine young people into their beotches or worse......f'n idiot. But then, if Wierwille had seen or perceived the Lord he would not have done that....AS IT IS WRITTEN.(see earlier post on that one)
(added in editing)
Wierwille would not have done the things that he did if he took to heart these things. My reference was to the end of post #1.
Sometimes I wonder if at the end of his life that he knew his own actions had brought it all to nothing, as if there might have been a little moment of clarity at the end.
What I'm hearing in your post is that for you it is a relationship with the Lord. You realize that he's bigger than you can take, but you've also made your peace with where you are now. For whatever it's worth, I really like that.
I've been thinking of Rom. 8:11 this morning: But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
That's some pretty kick butt stuff going on in that verse. The Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead (wow), quickening my mortal body (wow) - that Spirit, dwelling in me. There's a lot of power going on there, & we're not just talking a one time vision, but God making himself at home in me. Yet, there is no hint of fear - a quickening of my mortal flesh, but no fear.
God is love, and perfect love casts out fear.
I also came across Psalm 96 just now, "Worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness."
I'm not denying those verses where people trembled in fear.
I'm not sure of the difference. Relationship might have something to do with it.
Stephen saw Jesus standing. Intense, yes, but no fear.
Have you ever read AW Tozer? Even John Piper has some amazing things on this topic. . . I think I know what you are saying?
However, I think I can relate a bit more to what Tom is trying to say. If you are in the midst of a powerful and overwhelming storm. . . helpless to do anything against it . . . blown about and soon to be destroyed. . . you fear that storm. . . You have no recourse.
Now take the same magnificent storm and you are safely tucked into a crevice or shelter. . . snug and secure. . . protected from the wrath and might of the storm. You can look and admire the power and beauty of such a force. . . the awesome nature of such might from your vantage point . . . and you are saved from destruction.
I understand what you are saying too. Now, I always wonder if God is somewhat hidden, so that man will have the freewill choice to accept Him or reject Him. I don't know. . . I just wonder.
People ask the rocks and mountains to fall on them and hide them from the wrath of the Lamb. Things that make you go hmmmm?
The apostle John had a longer and closer relationship with the Lord than either of us when he fell down like a dead man upon seeing some of Him in that vision.
Paul said that he knew the Fear of the Lord, and his vision was not for the faint of heart either.
But Wierwille boasted of knowing his will, but did evil.
Therefore, Wierwille was a liar. His version of fear of the Lord amounted to no more than Wierwille saying," I am He, fear me." The same IMO for my former splinter group leader.
Dear Geisha,
The Lord promised lowliness and meeknes to the lowly and the meek. He spoke of blessing to the brokenhearted and the downtrodden.
In many different scriptures he promised a fearful revenge on the oppressors.
No, I've never read any of the writers that you've mentioned, but as I've PM'd you, I like hearing about brothers who are handling these issues too. :)
The apostle John had a longer and closer relationship with the Lord than either of us when he fell down like a dead man upon seeing some of Him in that vision.
Yes, but still - there has to be a difference between that and others who have seen the lord without a fear reaction.
If the lord shows the fearful side of his nature then shaking in our boots is not optional, being as how big He is and how small we are.
But if someone says that they've seen the Lord but is still as corrupt as before or worse still then they are liars.? As in my first post I still feel that we have the right to say,"He's full of it." Except that now upon further consideration that I consider it more of an obligation in terms of trying to help people.
If the lord shows the fearful side of his nature then shaking in our boots is not optional, being as how big He is and how small we are.
But if someone says that they've seen the Lord but is still as corrupt as before or worse still then they are liars.? As in my first post I still feel that we have the right to say,"He's full of it." Except that now upon further consideration that I consider it more of an obligation in terms of trying to help people.
(edited for grammar)
I don't know Jeff. I have no problem with your 1st point. I'm in agreement.
The 2nd point though... What you say seems to be correct, but does a revelation at a given point in time guarantee that someone will be better later? What about Balaam?
Anyway, my point was that there are places where people "see" God or the Lord Jesus, and the result is healing, not fear. It might be dramatic, but it is not necessarily fearful.
You don't seem to have any problem with that, but as to your second point (is that your main point?), I don't see that a revelation necessarily means that someone is going to get better. Not everyone walks on every revelation. I would think that many have received revelation that they failed to respond to. Of course, not responding to revelation, they "get worse." Does that mean they never received the revelation? No!
There are a lot of scriptures that refer to these kinds of things. I think that it is when I consider blatant frauds that these things that I've posted come to mind......hhhmmm.
And for those who do many things to hurt many people like top TWI leadership, part of the cure is to burst that bubble of great darkness with vigor. Especially when they still seem to claim living in the Grace of God with such conviction.
But even for the best Christian it is a good thing to know the more fearful aspects of the lord's nature, else why would they be written? If not for our benefit. But IMO the many Christians who seem to enjoy bullying the vulnerable with these things are the worst. Wasn't Wierwille good at that too? For the young and tender Christian, give them their due meat in due season I say.
I think we get each other Tom. I like the dialogue.
Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.
I've been thinking about this verse a lot.
John just got done explaining about a man named Diotrephes. Apparently he was a leader in the church. But he wouldn't receive people that were sent to help. He loved to be the big dog. And he was even speaking malicious words against good people and was casting people out of the church for the wrong reasons.
In other words, DIOTREPHES WAS JUST LIKE TWI LEADERSHIP. I'm not talking about every individual, but the general manner of leadership that most picked up on from Wierwille.
This is the context of John saying, "he that doeth evil hath not seen God." So in this situation the saying applied to leadership who was in terms of truth, a blatant fraud. Diotrephes was a puffed up, self seeking, power hungry bastard. But like TWI leadership he knew how to control people.
If John promised to remember what Diotrephes was doing (v10), so will the Lord. And so should we.
Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.
I've been thinking about this verse a lot.
John just got done explaining about a man named Diotrephes. Apparently he was a leader in the church. But he wouldn't receive people that were sent to help. He loved to be the big dog. And he was even speaking malicious words against good people and was casting people out of the church for the wrong reasons.
In other words, DIOTREPHES WAS JUST LIKE TWI LEADERSHIP. I'm not talking about every individual, but the general manner of leadership that most picked up on from Wierwille.
This is the context of John saying, "he that doeth evil hath not seen God." So in this situation the saying applied to leadership who was in terms of truth, a blatant fraud. Diotrephes was a puffed up, self seeking, power hungry bastard. But like TWI leadership he knew how to control people.
If John promised to remember what Diotrephes was doing (v10), so will the Lord. And so should we.
HE THAT DOETH EVIL HATH NOT SEEN GOD
Please allow me to pursue this further, Jeff. Does this mean that someone who is (present tense) doing evil has never seen God? How can we judge a man's whole life by whether he is presently doing evil or not? Does that mean that Balaam never had a true prophet's relationship with God - even though he uttered such great prophecies? Next time I'm doing evil, I'll just kill myself if that's the case. I know all too well that there is a tendency for people to keep going in the direction that they are going whether good or evil, but that is not the final sentence; there's no redemption in that.
I'm an English teacher. That doesn't mean that I'm infallible where grammar is concerned, but if I have this one correct, "he that doeth evil" is simple present tense, and "hath not seen God" is present perfect tense, not the past tense. The idea is that he that does evil is currently in the state of not having seen God (in the context, with regard to any pretense that Diotrephes was presenting that he was representing God). We have no right to infer that Diotrephes never knew, saw, nor truly represented God to people.
I agree wholeheartedly that we don't have the right to make inferences about Diotrephes that run past the situation that John was refering to. John also spoke of another man that had a good track record as far as the truth goes. Diotrephes was in opposition to Demetrious in the text. They were establishing for themselves two seperate manners, one was truth, the other was fraud.
So the reference to Diotrephes was only present tense, but it was based on John's observation of the record that he was establishing at that time.
Did Diotrephes turn? I don't know. But somewhere in the church histories there are probably differing accounts of his end. I couldn't imagine anyone that might have handled the situation better than the apostle John. He definitely had many things to say concerning the false Christs and other decievers in his epistles, but was gentle to the believers to the point that it takes my breath away.
But at the risk of sounding trite, Diotrephes was then involved in many acts that were definitely looking like they were going to be part of his permanent record. After all, in this scripture he is a bad example and has been so for almost two thousand years now. And John said that he'd remember his actions.
I don't think that we have the right to infer that Diotrephes turned either, but who knows for sure? Not me.
I think a big key for me in III John is that John flatly said what Diotrephes loved. He loved the preeminence.
As opposed to loving God or loving God's people Diotrephes was only out for himself. It is interesting to note for me that one things that comes up more than once in the scriptures, OT and NT is that leadership cannot be greedy.
The simplest thing to see in terms of selfishness is the taking of bribes and favors IMO. This Diotrephes has me thinking of more subtle forms of greed however. He loved the preeminence. In my words, he wanted to be the top dog. He spoke malicious words against even the Apostle John and John's felloworkers who took nothing from the believers.
Given these things, I think that John spoke the truth, Diotrephes did not see God. In my words, he was a self-seeking bastard who probably spoke many things accurately. But John was speaking to what he was really all about, and part of it was not seeing God.
Recommended Posts
leafytwiglet
This is a very interesting thread. There is so much to consider.
For me this whole thread has been very enlightening (sorry for the pun)
Life is of course full of paradoxes.
A perfect example of this is a magnet.
it has a positive and a negative side It's energy can both repel and attract.
Life itself has a beginning and an end
electrons have a positive and negative charge.
I often wonder if the so called paradoxes of the word are not so much paradoxes but confusion caused by our understanding of what is being communicated.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Dear Tom,
What I'm hearing in your post is that for you it is a relationship with the Lord. You realize that he's bigger than you can take, but you've also made your peace with where you are now. For whatever it's worth, I really like that.
There is a promise in 1John that basically says in reference to Jesus Christ that someday we'll be like him, for we'll see him as he is. That is an awesome promise for sure, but in the mean time I think that we'd at best handle it no better than John did in the beginning of the book of revelation.
John the Baptist spoke of the Lord Jesus Christ wielding fire and the fan to burn away the chaff. IMO this is simply a prophecy that foretells an aspect of the Lord that is fearful..... plain and simple! Paul spoke of fire in terms of judgment to the Corinthians also. Peter also spoke of this fire being taken into account when we consider the kind of people that we should be too.
None of these things are easy to handle. Most that do merely use these things as a hammer to bludgeon those that they look down on.
Some like Wierwille fail to take into account the Fear of the Lord when they decide that it would be o.k. to turn fine young people into their beotches or worse......f'n idiot. But then, if Wierwille had seen or perceived the Lord he would not have done that....AS IT IS WRITTEN.(see earlier post on that one)
(added in editing)
Wierwille would not have done the things that he did if he took to heart these things. My reference was to the end of post #1.
Sometimes I wonder if at the end of his life that he knew his own actions had brought it all to nothing, as if there might have been a little moment of clarity at the end.
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
I've been thinking of Rom. 8:11 this morning: But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
That's some pretty kick butt stuff going on in that verse. The Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead (wow), quickening my mortal body (wow) - that Spirit, dwelling in me. There's a lot of power going on there, & we're not just talking a one time vision, but God making himself at home in me. Yet, there is no hint of fear - a quickening of my mortal flesh, but no fear.
God is love, and perfect love casts out fear.
I also came across Psalm 96 just now, "Worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness."
I'm not denying those verses where people trembled in fear.
I'm not sure of the difference. Relationship might have something to do with it.
Stephen saw Jesus standing. Intense, yes, but no fear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Jeff,
Have you ever read AW Tozer? Even John Piper has some amazing things on this topic. . . I think I know what you are saying?
However, I think I can relate a bit more to what Tom is trying to say. If you are in the midst of a powerful and overwhelming storm. . . helpless to do anything against it . . . blown about and soon to be destroyed. . . you fear that storm. . . You have no recourse.
Now take the same magnificent storm and you are safely tucked into a crevice or shelter. . . snug and secure. . . protected from the wrath and might of the storm. You can look and admire the power and beauty of such a force. . . the awesome nature of such might from your vantage point . . . and you are saved from destruction.
I understand what you are saying too. Now, I always wonder if God is somewhat hidden, so that man will have the freewill choice to accept Him or reject Him. I don't know. . . I just wonder.
People ask the rocks and mountains to fall on them and hide them from the wrath of the Lamb. Things that make you go hmmmm?
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Dear Tom,
The apostle John had a longer and closer relationship with the Lord than either of us when he fell down like a dead man upon seeing some of Him in that vision.
Paul said that he knew the Fear of the Lord, and his vision was not for the faint of heart either.
But Wierwille boasted of knowing his will, but did evil.
Therefore, Wierwille was a liar. His version of fear of the Lord amounted to no more than Wierwille saying," I am He, fear me." The same IMO for my former splinter group leader.
Dear Geisha,
The Lord promised lowliness and meeknes to the lowly and the meek. He spoke of blessing to the brokenhearted and the downtrodden.
In many different scriptures he promised a fearful revenge on the oppressors.
No, I've never read any of the writers that you've mentioned, but as I've PM'd you, I like hearing about brothers who are handling these issues too. :)
(edited for spelling and :) )(grammar too)
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Yes, but still - there has to be a difference between that and others who have seen the lord without a fear reaction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Dear Tom,
How about this?
If the lord shows the fearful side of his nature then shaking in our boots is not optional, being as how big He is and how small we are.
But if someone says that they've seen the Lord but is still as corrupt as before or worse still then they are liars.? As in my first post I still feel that we have the right to say,"He's full of it." Except that now upon further consideration that I consider it more of an obligation in terms of trying to help people.
(edited for grammar)
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
I don't know Jeff. I have no problem with your 1st point. I'm in agreement.
The 2nd point though... What you say seems to be correct, but does a revelation at a given point in time guarantee that someone will be better later? What about Balaam?
Anyway, my point was that there are places where people "see" God or the Lord Jesus, and the result is healing, not fear. It might be dramatic, but it is not necessarily fearful.
You don't seem to have any problem with that, but as to your second point (is that your main point?), I don't see that a revelation necessarily means that someone is going to get better. Not everyone walks on every revelation. I would think that many have received revelation that they failed to respond to. Of course, not responding to revelation, they "get worse." Does that mean they never received the revelation? No!
Right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
I think you are right Tom!
There are a lot of scriptures that refer to these kinds of things. I think that it is when I consider blatant frauds that these things that I've posted come to mind......hhhmmm.
And for those who do many things to hurt many people like top TWI leadership, part of the cure is to burst that bubble of great darkness with vigor. Especially when they still seem to claim living in the Grace of God with such conviction.
But even for the best Christian it is a good thing to know the more fearful aspects of the lord's nature, else why would they be written? If not for our benefit. But IMO the many Christians who seem to enjoy bullying the vulnerable with these things are the worst. Wasn't Wierwille good at that too? For the young and tender Christian, give them their due meat in due season I say.
I think we get each other Tom. I like the dialogue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
I mentioned this scripture in the first post-
3John 11 (KJV)
Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.
I've been thinking about this verse a lot.
John just got done explaining about a man named Diotrephes. Apparently he was a leader in the church. But he wouldn't receive people that were sent to help. He loved to be the big dog. And he was even speaking malicious words against good people and was casting people out of the church for the wrong reasons.
In other words, DIOTREPHES WAS JUST LIKE TWI LEADERSHIP. I'm not talking about every individual, but the general manner of leadership that most picked up on from Wierwille.
This is the context of John saying, "he that doeth evil hath not seen God." So in this situation the saying applied to leadership who was in terms of truth, a blatant fraud. Diotrephes was a puffed up, self seeking, power hungry bastard. But like TWI leadership he knew how to control people.
If John promised to remember what Diotrephes was doing (v10), so will the Lord. And so should we.
HE THAT DOETH EVIL HATH NOT SEEN GOD
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Please allow me to pursue this further, Jeff. Does this mean that someone who is (present tense) doing evil has never seen God? How can we judge a man's whole life by whether he is presently doing evil or not? Does that mean that Balaam never had a true prophet's relationship with God - even though he uttered such great prophecies? Next time I'm doing evil, I'll just kill myself if that's the case. I know all too well that there is a tendency for people to keep going in the direction that they are going whether good or evil, but that is not the final sentence; there's no redemption in that.
I'm an English teacher. That doesn't mean that I'm infallible where grammar is concerned, but if I have this one correct, "he that doeth evil" is simple present tense, and "hath not seen God" is present perfect tense, not the past tense. The idea is that he that does evil is currently in the state of not having seen God (in the context, with regard to any pretense that Diotrephes was presenting that he was representing God). We have no right to infer that Diotrephes never knew, saw, nor truly represented God to people.
Selah,
Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Good point Tom,
I agree wholeheartedly that we don't have the right to make inferences about Diotrephes that run past the situation that John was refering to. John also spoke of another man that had a good track record as far as the truth goes. Diotrephes was in opposition to Demetrious in the text. They were establishing for themselves two seperate manners, one was truth, the other was fraud.
So the reference to Diotrephes was only present tense, but it was based on John's observation of the record that he was establishing at that time.
Did Diotrephes turn? I don't know. But somewhere in the church histories there are probably differing accounts of his end. I couldn't imagine anyone that might have handled the situation better than the apostle John. He definitely had many things to say concerning the false Christs and other decievers in his epistles, but was gentle to the believers to the point that it takes my breath away.
But at the risk of sounding trite, Diotrephes was then involved in many acts that were definitely looking like they were going to be part of his permanent record. After all, in this scripture he is a bad example and has been so for almost two thousand years now. And John said that he'd remember his actions.
I don't think that we have the right to infer that Diotrephes turned either, but who knows for sure? Not me.
(edited for spelling and grammar)
Edited by JeffSjoLink to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
I think a big key for me in III John is that John flatly said what Diotrephes loved. He loved the preeminence.
As opposed to loving God or loving God's people Diotrephes was only out for himself. It is interesting to note for me that one things that comes up more than once in the scriptures, OT and NT is that leadership cannot be greedy.
The simplest thing to see in terms of selfishness is the taking of bribes and favors IMO. This Diotrephes has me thinking of more subtle forms of greed however. He loved the preeminence. In my words, he wanted to be the top dog. He spoke malicious words against even the Apostle John and John's felloworkers who took nothing from the believers.
Given these things, I think that John spoke the truth, Diotrephes did not see God. In my words, he was a self-seeking bastard who probably spoke many things accurately. But John was speaking to what he was really all about, and part of it was not seeing God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.