Now, once again, let those of us who are able attempt to approach this thread's
topic (which is not social gender relations) in a logical, and possibly Scriptural, fashion.
Nobody is a good man.
Nobody is a good man.
Too bad some of us skipped over the initial post, eager to emotionally react and call it
emotional and angry, rather than actually READ THE CONTENT.
The rest of us saw that it contains the following:
"
All right.
So, what does the Bible say on this subject of "good man"?
Luke 6:45.
The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.
Proverbs 12:2
A good man will obtain favor from the LORD, But He will condemn a man who devises evil."
For the sake of brevity, I didn't even make an attempt to be encyclopedic in listing the verses.
(I know my posts can be long, so I try not to make them longer than I think is needed to address
the subject.) Otherwise, other verses would have come up.
Psalm 37:23
The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his way.
Matthew 12:35
A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
Acts 11:24
For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord.
Romans 5:7
For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
===============
So, we have a poster saying "Nobody is a good man." Now, if the poster claimed to disbelieve the Bible overall,
the verses would be irrelevant-this person would consider them null and devoid of authority.
But for a Bible believer, these verses make the matter plain- there is such thing as a "good man."
The Bible also says there's such things as evil men:
Proverbs 24:20
For there shall be no reward to the evil man; the candle of the wicked shall be put out.
Proverbs 29:6
In the transgression of an evil man there is a snare: but the righteous doth sing and rejoice.
(Also check out the words of Jesus Christ above, from the Gospels.)
(I have no plans on being encyclopedic here- I think the point is made already.)
======================
Now, let me save some time.
The response can either be an EMOTIONAL counter (defame me, change the subject)
or a LOGICAL counter (try to use Scripture to disprove the issue, or if that's impossible,
to cloud the issue.)
The LOGICAL counter would be "But Jesus himself said there weren't good men!"
16And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
20The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
23Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mark 10:17-23
17And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
20And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
21Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
23And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
Luke 18: 18And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
19And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
20Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
21And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.
22Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
23And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.
24And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
========================================
I included the surrounding verses for a reason. It should be plain to all that these verses from different
(SYNOPTIC) Gospels all address the exact same incident, from 3 slightly different "observers."
But this is all one event, therefore, all one INSTANCE. Jesus didn't go around all the time saying
"Only God is good-so never call anyone else 'good'.)
If he did, he would have confused his followers worse than they already were when he said that
"Luke 6:45.
The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.
(And said the same in the same instance in Matthew.)
So, Jesus APPEARS to have said something in one place, and APPEARS to have said the opposite in another place.
We have an APPARENT Bible contradiction.
How do we resolve it?
Well, if we skip the ones saying "discard the Bible" and "don't trust the Bible",
we have an approach that says "the many clear verses clarify the few exceptions."
Lots of places in the Bible-including from Jesus himself, say there's "good men."
And one instance has Jesus saying "there's nobody good."
Do we discard all the others and laud the exception? We can, but that's not intellectually honest.
We can, however, ask ourselves
"In light of knowing there ARE "good men", what did Jesus mean when he said
"none are Good EXCEPT GOD?"
Obviously, he was drawing a contrast between all men including himself, and God Almighty.
In another place, he called his followers "evil", yet we don't go around calling them THAT!
Matthew 7:11
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
Luke 11:13
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
Jesus was making a point about the goodness of God by using an obvious exaggeration and saying
they were evil (BY COMPARISON TO GOD ALMIGHTY.) If you think Jesus really thought all his followers
were evil people- including the 12 he himself chose- then I have no words to convince you otherwise.
======================================
So, to review,
the Bible says some people ("men") are good ("good men"), and some people ("men") are evil ("evil men").
The Bible gives attributes of both "good men" and "evil men."
We are to avoid "evil men" and not avoid "good men."
We are also to be careful to determine which is which before making any statements.[/b]
"Isaiah 5:20
20Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! "
A) A man's speech will reveal what's in his heart. If he sees nothing wrong with hurting others with his words,
with using his words to deceive, then that is what is in his heart, and that is an evil man with an evil heart.
B) A man who devises evil is the opposite of a good man, and the LORD disapproves of him. By "devising" evil, we are
not talking of someone who saw a near occasion of sin and committed it in the heat of the moment. We are speaking of a man
who has sat down and worked out a plan that facilitated evil- that worked out how to do evil and get away with it.
(Like, say, establshimg a network of people to approach young women, contriving excuses to being alone with them,
having arranged to be alone with them in a place that's been furnished with a bed, having taught that physical affection
is not sinful so they're less likely to protest, having liquor on hand to lower their inhibitions,
and possibly drugging them if that doesn't work,
then having a network of people to monitor her afterwards,
and destroying her reputation or driving her to suicide if she seems likely to report it.
That takes a lot of planning, and considerable shopping.)
C) The opposite of a godly person and an upright person is someone who lies in wait to take advantage of others,
and enjoys himself at their expense.
D) Finally, there's good men, and there are men who lead people astray. When we see someone who teaches others
that they can engage in sinful behavior, that sinning is ok "if they can handle it", and so on,
we can see we're dealing with a man who is NOT good.
The thing is, when we look at both what people say, and what Scripture says, the man's institutionalizing
and premeditation of evil mean that the evil things he purposed, did and planned show that he WAS an evil man.
There's plenty of men vpw's age who didn't view women as combination slave and concubine, and many still don't.
Being a boss and hiring a secretary with the intent to pressure her to have sex is both a crime and reprehensible.
Was vpw called of God to teach His Word?
His own testimony was that he considered it as one of 3 possible careers- along with music and business,
and chose ministry as his career path. When he was at it for A YEAR, he was ready to give up.
When he was at it LATER, he AGAIN was ready to give up.
He was WORKING his CAREER of ministry for over a year, having preached for over a year, and having completed
his entire time in ministry education, WITHOUT BELIEVING THE BIBLE WAS GOD'S WORD.
That's what he HIMSELF said. He didn't BELIEVE THE BIBLE WAS GOD'S WORD
when he decided to go into ministry, or when he began his career.
Small wonder he was so discouraged early on.
He had spent years in preparation, and STILL was unprepared to believe God's Word or seek answers for
people there. In fact, the decision to go into ministry was made while he was still maintaining his
reputation as a bully and a show-off with his local community.
He NEVER had respect for the authority of other men of God. He spoke well of them-to the point he could
get something from them. Otherwise, he chafed against any sort of rules or authority.
And once he got what he wanted from another man of God- like Stiles- he either stopped talking about them
entirely (he deleted Stiles' name from the White Book) - or like Leonard- he dropped out of sight and hoped
they'd never find out he'd stolen their material.
This man found a book from Stiles- then he reproduced Stiles book, said it was his own, and charged people
retail for Stiles' book. This man found a class from Leonard- then he reproduced Leonard's class, and
said it was his own, and charged people retail for Leonard's class.
Those are not good deeds, those are evil deeds. The man did not choose ministry for good, and did not
use morally correct actions once he was a minister- nor did he use the Bible as a moral guide for his own
actions. He also used his previous denomination to pay his salary and give him a title while he was
building a ministry of his own on the side- he was running pfal classes for about a decade before he
left- and that as all outside his denomination and never actually TO his congregation.
If a RESPONSIBLE MARRIED MAN OF GOD suddenly finds himself hip-deep in young women, and some of them begin
to show interest in having sex with him,
he's supposed to put up some really strong boundaries rather than agree to sin.
He's supposed to make sure he's not in private with them- Billy Graham's managed that for a lifetime-
and satisfy himself and his wife in conjugal relations with his wife if he wants sex,
and teach the group in general to NOT sin and have sex outside of marriage.
That's all manageable-if one is determined to do what God says to do, and NOT do what God says
NOT to do.
Joseph didn't have sex with Potiphar's wife because God said it was wrong. When she cornered him,
he ran off and refused to sin, no matter how easy it was, and no matter how young and hormone-driven
he was.
You can't convince me a RESPONSIBLE, GOOD man of God who's 50 years old and married will not be able
to restrain his sex impulses IF HE WANTS TO.
And, again, vpw didn't even find himself in this situation- he ORCHESTRATED this situation.
==========================
So, in summation:
1) The Bible says there are "good men" and "evil men."
2) The Bible lists criteria to tell "good men" and to tell "evil men."
3) When the Bible's criteria are applied to vpw's life, it is plain that BY THE BIBLE'S STANDARD,
vpw was an EVIL MAN, not just a man who did a few bad things in his life.
4) It is our RESPONSIBILITY to APPLY THE BIBLE'S STANDARD and IDENTIFY the GOOD MEN and IDENTIFY
the EVIL MEN.
Too bad we didn't know more and were unable to identify vpw as an EVIL MAN during his lifetime,
but we are remiss in our duties if we can't clearly see him as an EVIL MAN now,
or see that he is and stubbornly REFUSE TO APPLY THE BIBLE'S STANDARDS
just because we don't want to hear that he wasn't an ok guy.
God never promised us all our duties would be PLEASANT, but he expected us to be honest with
HIM and EACH OTHER. So, if we DON'T WANT TO SAY that a certain EVIL MAN is EVIL,
that's a non-issue. The truth is, the man is evil.
vpw was an EVIL MAN who DEVISED EVIL THINGS, then PERFORMED EVIL THINGS on God's children,
and fed his lusts on their bodies, on their money, and on their adulation.
Anyone who finds that unpleasant to hear should change their heart to find the truth more pleasant
rather than try to call the truth a lie, or to silence me from telling the truth,
or to call me names for declaring the truth.
Besides, if I had to choose between pleasing God by telling the truth, or pleasing every single
I think both you WW and johniam may have covered this point but if not -
There's a difference between the words "good" and "sin", and the context they're being used here. That context is - and if I'm wrong correct me please:
good/bad
sinless/sinful
I don't believe that's a correct alignment, although those terms are used in the bible to describe a myriad of different things - they're similar but they aren't interchangeable and they don't mean the same thing as each other.
The words sin and good don't describe the same type of thing.
PFAL terminology would place the difference in how these terms are used in the bible as "standing" and "state".
There's clearly a difference.
Standing - sin/sinless (unsaved, saved, etc.)
State - good/bad ( in , out of fellowship )
The term and meaning of the word "grace" applies to both of these too, as a sidenote, but not in the same ways.
When we say "is someone good" the criteria has to be set in order to measure correctly.
I could say "all are saved" but could not therefore say "all are good".
Salvation in the N. T. is relational - people become children of God, "sons", and God is now a "father".
All of the so-called righteousness, sanctification, and justification is IN Christ, by and through Christ....................
"Good" is a bad word for "saved" therefore. (I'm killin' myself!) The change of salvation is in the relationship. The "goodness" - ie in PFAL "sonship rights" aren't earned by behavior ("works")
Therefore - "none are good" - of themselves in that that "goodness" doesn't produce the relationship salvation in Christ does. (All are "saved" in Christ). We know that from the bible - but that doesn't exclude a measurement of good/bad after that, other than that and/or outside of that.
We are to change our behavior or respond "worthily" of His calling (as we see in the bible anyway, far be it from me to claim clarity around what God thinks beyond that)
Too much of today's "theology" implies, even claims, that God just loves us like li'l coo bears no matter what we do. He does love consistently - but God being equal and just to all can't see everything all the same regardless. Thus "unconditional" love takes on new depth and meaning from that vantage point. Unconditional but not blind. Loving but not without care, concern or preference.
Whether this differs from PFAL teaching or not I'll leave to others to decide, but i do believe that a lot of people still struggle with this out of fear that they will srode or degrade the doctrines of salvation by faith not works, grace, and love, etc. etc. It actually enhances those things and solves some bumps in the road morally and ethically that we're left with if we produce a theology where God excuses behavior and doesn't expect anything from us in our lifes efforts.
I don't think we need scripture to look at the evidence and make a judgment about what kind of human being VP was..... Maybe just a somewhat working moral compass.....not too many leave this kind of destructive wake when they leave this earth. It is a baaaad thing to use and hurt others......to not change ones evil way.......seems pretty straight forward.
Any good person will tell you that. . . . . no matter their faith.
Heck....people are even writing books about their pain.. . . . . it is ALL going to come out.
So your point is: Other than that did you enjoy the play, Mrs.Lincoln?
I almost had to dial 911 ~ that was so funny...
WW~
I do not think you were mean or angry, I think you just want to know what he means by what he said but instead it has gotten to "men and women throwing stones at each other". Like an A / B story line. We are talking about the "A" Story here ~ Was VPW evil and he is having a completley different discussion on why we should not be men bashing.... However, most posts against VPW have been written by MEN!
Nah...he was grandstanding. "Let's all feel sorry for Vic and make him feel better. How impressive that our "Father in the Word", who knew more of the Word than anybody, was still so humble that he didn't feel he lived up to his full potential. (Sigh) What a Man of God he was!"
So, when Wierwille (allegedly) said "I wish I were the man I knew to be." was he, perhaps, pondering this very question as a matter of introspection?
Just FYI, not that it matters, I personally heard VP say, "I wish I were the man I know to be". It was during a Corps night at Emporia in 1981 for the 9th and 11th Way Corps. It was during a teaching on Ephesians 1:6. Actually it may have been 1980. Harve Platig and Pat Lynn put it to song, it was made past tense on his gravestone. For whatever that's worth.
Wordwolf: We've debated before. You are what baseball people call a "tough out". But I don't recall ever seeing you in total defense mode like this. I think you DID start this thread to call me out.
You can't literally read emotion. You can read anyone's posts over time and register a personality, even a profile, but emotion is a judgement call...a 'left side of the brain' kind of thing. I've been directly told by moderators to "cool it" when I really wasn't amped up at the time, although I didn't argue the point.
IMO I have stated my case as thoroughly as I can. I owe you nothing. If anything, WW, I have verified to you whatever point you claim you were trying to make with the first post in the thread. Why all the verbiage?
Ultimately, as I have already said, you are a member in particular of the one body of Christ. You will be gathered together when the fulness of time is come back, as will everybody else here. If the last enemy to be destroyed is death, then certainly strife and bitterness will be destroyed before that, huh? One can only hope.
Wierwille died and took the elevator up to Heaven. When the elevator stopped, the doors opened to The Pearly Gates. St Peter stood there to greet him and said, "Can I help you, sir?" "Why, yes", said Wierwille, "I'm here to collect my rewards." There upon, St Peter looked him square in the eye and said, "You know, there are three kinds of turds in the world. There is mus-turd, there is cus-turd and there is you, you big poopie-turd. Now hit the damn down button and get the hell outta here!"
Just one more bit of gasoline to throw on the fire. No, VP being a man doesn't excuse him for violating someone's consent, but we do live in a male bashing culture. Any unscrupulous woman can falsely accuse any man of sexual harassment and have fair odds of getting away with it. Perhaps she does it to steal his job; perhaps to get her kicks or some other reason. Happens every day.
The following is an email I sent to the St. Louis Post Dispatch. They printed it on April 12, 2003. That would be the day of the final round of the Masters Golf Tournament that year. That would be the same Master's Golf Tournament which Martha Burke tried to hijack. It didn't appear in the regular editorial section; it was in the sports section editorials called SOUND OFF. There were 4 emails in that day's edition about this topic. Three of them, including mine, were against Martha Burke. One was for her. Here it is...
Long ago a professor taught me that a misogynist is one who hates women. He further stated that there was no corresponding English word meaning one who hates men. Recently I supposed the reason feminists picketed outside Promisekeepers meetings was that they had problems with their beliefs. No such thing! They simply know how much mileage they themselves (feminists) have gotten by getting together and comparing notes without any men around, and are most threatened by the idea of men doing the same. Let me get this straight. If women want to assemble without men around, it's "liberation", but if men want to assemble without women around, it's "bigotry". OK, I think I've got it. While I find it both appalling and annoying that these fanatical women are actually being allowed to disrupt and sabotage the Master's Golf Tournament, I see one positive thing here. There is now definitely an English word which means one who hates men. It is the word 'feminist'.
The following is an email I sent to the St. Louis Post Dispatch. Long ago a professor taught me that a misogynist is one who hates women. He further stated that there was no corresponding English word meaning one who hates men.
You might want to let your "professor" know that the corresponding English word meaning one who hates men is the word, "misandry". See below:
World English Dictionary
misandry (ˈmɪsəndrɪ)
— n
hatred of men
Word Origin & History
misandry
1946, from miso- "hatred" + andros "of man, male human being" (see anthropo-). Related: Misandrist
You can verify this by looking in any credible dictionary. Obviously you neglected not to use one when you wrote that editoral. Nor did you use one prior to posting it here on GSC. I'm sorry, but you throw your credibility into question right in the first sentence. I find it hard to believe an actual professor would make such an obvious error, but stranger things have happened. It wasn't a "professor" from TWI was it?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
27
49
45
19
Popular Days
Jan 26
31
Jan 21
29
Jan 30
25
Jan 20
25
Top Posters In This Topic
johniam 27 posts
Ham 49 posts
waysider 45 posts
Broken Arrow 19 posts
Popular Days
Jan 26 2011
31 posts
Jan 21 2011
29 posts
Jan 30 2011
25 posts
Jan 20 2011
25 posts
Popular Posts
Grace Valerie Claire
Well, the last time I checked, I was a woman who joined the Navy!! I love this poster!! Anyhow, to add my few pennies, I think VBW was a sick man!! A few years ago, a woman posted here at the Cafe
waysider
I think the realization they were able to keep so much hidden speaks volumes about just how corrupt and deceptive the whole operation was.
chockfull
"Was vpw a good man?" for God to decide - I don't own the scales of Justice. but you only need to insert one little adjective into that statement to make it one that resounds with a universa
Posted Images
WordWolf
Now, once again, let those of us who are able attempt to approach this thread's
topic (which is not social gender relations) in a logical, and possibly Scriptural, fashion.
Too bad some of us skipped over the initial post, eager to emotionally react and call it
emotional and angry, rather than actually READ THE CONTENT.
The rest of us saw that it contains the following:
"
All right.
So, what does the Bible say on this subject of "good man"?
Luke 6:45.
The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.
Proverbs 12:2
A good man will obtain favor from the LORD, But He will condemn a man who devises evil."
For the sake of brevity, I didn't even make an attempt to be encyclopedic in listing the verses.
(I know my posts can be long, so I try not to make them longer than I think is needed to address
the subject.) Otherwise, other verses would have come up.
Psalm 37:23
The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD: and he delighteth in his way.
Matthew 12:35
A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
Acts 11:24
For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord.
Romans 5:7
For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
===============
So, we have a poster saying "Nobody is a good man." Now, if the poster claimed to disbelieve the Bible overall,
the verses would be irrelevant-this person would consider them null and devoid of authority.
But for a Bible believer, these verses make the matter plain- there is such thing as a "good man."
The Bible also says there's such things as evil men:
Proverbs 24:20
For there shall be no reward to the evil man; the candle of the wicked shall be put out.
Proverbs 29:6
In the transgression of an evil man there is a snare: but the righteous doth sing and rejoice.
(Also check out the words of Jesus Christ above, from the Gospels.)
(I have no plans on being encyclopedic here- I think the point is made already.)
======================
Now, let me save some time.
The response can either be an EMOTIONAL counter (defame me, change the subject)
or a LOGICAL counter (try to use Scripture to disprove the issue, or if that's impossible,
to cloud the issue.)
The LOGICAL counter would be "But Jesus himself said there weren't good men!"
--------------------------------------------------
Matthew 19:16-23.
16And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
20The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
23Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mark 10:17-23
17And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
20And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
21Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
23And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
Luke 18: 18And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
19And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
20Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
21And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.
22Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
23And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.
24And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
========================================
I included the surrounding verses for a reason. It should be plain to all that these verses from different
(SYNOPTIC) Gospels all address the exact same incident, from 3 slightly different "observers."
But this is all one event, therefore, all one INSTANCE. Jesus didn't go around all the time saying
"Only God is good-so never call anyone else 'good'.)
If he did, he would have confused his followers worse than they already were when he said that
"Luke 6:45.
The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.
(And said the same in the same instance in Matthew.)
So, Jesus APPEARS to have said something in one place, and APPEARS to have said the opposite in another place.
We have an APPARENT Bible contradiction.
How do we resolve it?
Well, if we skip the ones saying "discard the Bible" and "don't trust the Bible",
we have an approach that says "the many clear verses clarify the few exceptions."
Lots of places in the Bible-including from Jesus himself, say there's "good men."
And one instance has Jesus saying "there's nobody good."
Do we discard all the others and laud the exception? We can, but that's not intellectually honest.
We can, however, ask ourselves
"In light of knowing there ARE "good men", what did Jesus mean when he said
"none are Good EXCEPT GOD?"
Obviously, he was drawing a contrast between all men including himself, and God Almighty.
In another place, he called his followers "evil", yet we don't go around calling them THAT!
Matthew 7:11
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
Luke 11:13
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
Jesus was making a point about the goodness of God by using an obvious exaggeration and saying
they were evil (BY COMPARISON TO GOD ALMIGHTY.) If you think Jesus really thought all his followers
were evil people- including the 12 he himself chose- then I have no words to convince you otherwise.
======================================
So, to review,
the Bible says some people ("men") are good ("good men"), and some people ("men") are evil ("evil men").
The Bible gives attributes of both "good men" and "evil men."
We are to avoid "evil men" and not avoid "good men."
We are also to be careful to determine which is which before making any statements.[/b]
"Isaiah 5:20
20Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! "
A) A man's speech will reveal what's in his heart. If he sees nothing wrong with hurting others with his words,
with using his words to deceive, then that is what is in his heart, and that is an evil man with an evil heart.
B) A man who devises evil is the opposite of a good man, and the LORD disapproves of him. By "devising" evil, we are
not talking of someone who saw a near occasion of sin and committed it in the heat of the moment. We are speaking of a man
who has sat down and worked out a plan that facilitated evil- that worked out how to do evil and get away with it.
(Like, say, establshimg a network of people to approach young women, contriving excuses to being alone with them,
having arranged to be alone with them in a place that's been furnished with a bed, having taught that physical affection
is not sinful so they're less likely to protest, having liquor on hand to lower their inhibitions,
and possibly drugging them if that doesn't work,
then having a network of people to monitor her afterwards,
and destroying her reputation or driving her to suicide if she seems likely to report it.
That takes a lot of planning, and considerable shopping.)
C) The opposite of a godly person and an upright person is someone who lies in wait to take advantage of others,
and enjoys himself at their expense.
D) Finally, there's good men, and there are men who lead people astray. When we see someone who teaches others
that they can engage in sinful behavior, that sinning is ok "if they can handle it", and so on,
we can see we're dealing with a man who is NOT good.
The thing is, when we look at both what people say, and what Scripture says, the man's institutionalizing
and premeditation of evil mean that the evil things he purposed, did and planned show that he WAS an evil man.
There's plenty of men vpw's age who didn't view women as combination slave and concubine, and many still don't.
Being a boss and hiring a secretary with the intent to pressure her to have sex is both a crime and reprehensible.
Was vpw called of God to teach His Word?
His own testimony was that he considered it as one of 3 possible careers- along with music and business,
and chose ministry as his career path. When he was at it for A YEAR, he was ready to give up.
When he was at it LATER, he AGAIN was ready to give up.
He was WORKING his CAREER of ministry for over a year, having preached for over a year, and having completed
his entire time in ministry education, WITHOUT BELIEVING THE BIBLE WAS GOD'S WORD.
That's what he HIMSELF said. He didn't BELIEVE THE BIBLE WAS GOD'S WORD
when he decided to go into ministry, or when he began his career.
Small wonder he was so discouraged early on.
He had spent years in preparation, and STILL was unprepared to believe God's Word or seek answers for
people there. In fact, the decision to go into ministry was made while he was still maintaining his
reputation as a bully and a show-off with his local community.
He NEVER had respect for the authority of other men of God. He spoke well of them-to the point he could
get something from them. Otherwise, he chafed against any sort of rules or authority.
And once he got what he wanted from another man of God- like Stiles- he either stopped talking about them
entirely (he deleted Stiles' name from the White Book) - or like Leonard- he dropped out of sight and hoped
they'd never find out he'd stolen their material.
This man found a book from Stiles- then he reproduced Stiles book, said it was his own, and charged people
retail for Stiles' book. This man found a class from Leonard- then he reproduced Leonard's class, and
said it was his own, and charged people retail for Leonard's class.
Those are not good deeds, those are evil deeds. The man did not choose ministry for good, and did not
use morally correct actions once he was a minister- nor did he use the Bible as a moral guide for his own
actions. He also used his previous denomination to pay his salary and give him a title while he was
building a ministry of his own on the side- he was running pfal classes for about a decade before he
left- and that as all outside his denomination and never actually TO his congregation.
If a RESPONSIBLE MARRIED MAN OF GOD suddenly finds himself hip-deep in young women, and some of them begin
to show interest in having sex with him,
he's supposed to put up some really strong boundaries rather than agree to sin.
He's supposed to make sure he's not in private with them- Billy Graham's managed that for a lifetime-
and satisfy himself and his wife in conjugal relations with his wife if he wants sex,
and teach the group in general to NOT sin and have sex outside of marriage.
That's all manageable-if one is determined to do what God says to do, and NOT do what God says
NOT to do.
Joseph didn't have sex with Potiphar's wife because God said it was wrong. When she cornered him,
he ran off and refused to sin, no matter how easy it was, and no matter how young and hormone-driven
he was.
You can't convince me a RESPONSIBLE, GOOD man of God who's 50 years old and married will not be able
to restrain his sex impulses IF HE WANTS TO.
And, again, vpw didn't even find himself in this situation- he ORCHESTRATED this situation.
==========================
So, in summation:
1) The Bible says there are "good men" and "evil men."
2) The Bible lists criteria to tell "good men" and to tell "evil men."
3) When the Bible's criteria are applied to vpw's life, it is plain that BY THE BIBLE'S STANDARD,
vpw was an EVIL MAN, not just a man who did a few bad things in his life.
4) It is our RESPONSIBILITY to APPLY THE BIBLE'S STANDARD and IDENTIFY the GOOD MEN and IDENTIFY
the EVIL MEN.
Too bad we didn't know more and were unable to identify vpw as an EVIL MAN during his lifetime,
but we are remiss in our duties if we can't clearly see him as an EVIL MAN now,
or see that he is and stubbornly REFUSE TO APPLY THE BIBLE'S STANDARDS
just because we don't want to hear that he wasn't an ok guy.
God never promised us all our duties would be PLEASANT, but he expected us to be honest with
HIM and EACH OTHER. So, if we DON'T WANT TO SAY that a certain EVIL MAN is EVIL,
that's a non-issue. The truth is, the man is evil.
vpw was an EVIL MAN who DEVISED EVIL THINGS, then PERFORMED EVIL THINGS on God's children,
and fed his lusts on their bodies, on their money, and on their adulation.
Anyone who finds that unpleasant to hear should change their heart to find the truth more pleasant
rather than try to call the truth a lie, or to silence me from telling the truth,
or to call me names for declaring the truth.
Besides, if I had to choose between pleasing God by telling the truth, or pleasing every single
person by hiding the truth.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I think both you WW and johniam may have covered this point but if not -
There's a difference between the words "good" and "sin", and the context they're being used here. That context is - and if I'm wrong correct me please:
good/bad
sinless/sinful
I don't believe that's a correct alignment, although those terms are used in the bible to describe a myriad of different things - they're similar but they aren't interchangeable and they don't mean the same thing as each other.
The words sin and good don't describe the same type of thing.
PFAL terminology would place the difference in how these terms are used in the bible as "standing" and "state".
There's clearly a difference.
Standing - sin/sinless (unsaved, saved, etc.)
State - good/bad ( in , out of fellowship )
The term and meaning of the word "grace" applies to both of these too, as a sidenote, but not in the same ways.
When we say "is someone good" the criteria has to be set in order to measure correctly.
I could say "all are saved" but could not therefore say "all are good".
Salvation in the N. T. is relational - people become children of God, "sons", and God is now a "father".
All of the so-called righteousness, sanctification, and justification is IN Christ, by and through Christ....................
"Good" is a bad word for "saved" therefore. (I'm killin' myself!) The change of salvation is in the relationship. The "goodness" - ie in PFAL "sonship rights" aren't earned by behavior ("works")
Therefore - "none are good" - of themselves in that that "goodness" doesn't produce the relationship salvation in Christ does. (All are "saved" in Christ). We know that from the bible - but that doesn't exclude a measurement of good/bad after that, other than that and/or outside of that.
We are to change our behavior or respond "worthily" of His calling (as we see in the bible anyway, far be it from me to claim clarity around what God thinks beyond that)
Too much of today's "theology" implies, even claims, that God just loves us like li'l coo bears no matter what we do. He does love consistently - but God being equal and just to all can't see everything all the same regardless. Thus "unconditional" love takes on new depth and meaning from that vantage point. Unconditional but not blind. Loving but not without care, concern or preference.
Whether this differs from PFAL teaching or not I'll leave to others to decide, but i do believe that a lot of people still struggle with this out of fear that they will srode or degrade the doctrines of salvation by faith not works, grace, and love, etc. etc. It actually enhances those things and solves some bumps in the road morally and ethically that we're left with if we produce a theology where God excuses behavior and doesn't expect anything from us in our lifes efforts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
when the time lords get him, he will wish you DID kill him..
the second doctor.. didn't indulge in sex with fawning followers..
somehow he survived into the second, third, fourth incarnation..
I wonder what da victoid thinks at the moment..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I don't think we need scripture to look at the evidence and make a judgment about what kind of human being VP was..... Maybe just a somewhat working moral compass.....not too many leave this kind of destructive wake when they leave this earth. It is a baaaad thing to use and hurt others......to not change ones evil way.......seems pretty straight forward.
Any good person will tell you that. . . . . no matter their faith.
Heck....people are even writing books about their pain.. . . . . it is ALL going to come out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix
Socrates ~
I almost had to dial 911 ~ that was so funny...
WW~
I do not think you were mean or angry, I think you just want to know what he means by what he said but instead it has gotten to "men and women throwing stones at each other". Like an A / B story line. We are talking about the "A" Story here ~ Was VPW evil and he is having a completley different discussion on why we should not be men bashing.... However, most posts against VPW have been written by MEN!
Edited by Dot MatrixLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
So, when Wierwille (allegedly) said "I wish I were the man I knew to be." was he, perhaps, pondering this very question as a matter of introspection?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
maybe.. vp is what it is that defines pain..
I wish I were.. the pain in the foot I thought I should be..
maybe that was the real quote here..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I think what he really said was, "I wish I was a man, I know I could have been."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Nah...he was grandstanding. "Let's all feel sorry for Vic and make him feel better. How impressive that our "Father in the Word", who knew more of the Word than anybody, was still so humble that he didn't feel he lived up to his full potential. (Sigh) What a Man of God he was!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
----but, instead, I think I'll start an MLM.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i think i'd like to thank sir socks here
such a difference in being saved and being good lol
i have never felt good -- well i have never felt good about being unworthy -- but i feel very good about being god's kid and saved by jesus christ
does that make me good? no way
i do not try to hurt people. have i hurt people? more than i want to think about
so i guess i was focusing on past hurt -- not the reality of not deserving anything
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Just FYI, not that it matters, I personally heard VP say, "I wish I were the man I know to be". It was during a Corps night at Emporia in 1981 for the 9th and 11th Way Corps. It was during a teaching on Ephesians 1:6. Actually it may have been 1980. Harve Platig and Pat Lynn put it to song, it was made past tense on his gravestone. For whatever that's worth.
Now THAT'S funny!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Wordwolf: We've debated before. You are what baseball people call a "tough out". But I don't recall ever seeing you in total defense mode like this. I think you DID start this thread to call me out.
You can't literally read emotion. You can read anyone's posts over time and register a personality, even a profile, but emotion is a judgement call...a 'left side of the brain' kind of thing. I've been directly told by moderators to "cool it" when I really wasn't amped up at the time, although I didn't argue the point.
IMO I have stated my case as thoroughly as I can. I owe you nothing. If anything, WW, I have verified to you whatever point you claim you were trying to make with the first post in the thread. Why all the verbiage?
Ultimately, as I have already said, you are a member in particular of the one body of Christ. You will be gathered together when the fulness of time is come back, as will everybody else here. If the last enemy to be destroyed is death, then certainly strife and bitterness will be destroyed before that, huh? One can only hope.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
ps. yam not trying to ignore your post me. i just don't know what to say really
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I dunno. Reading emotion is almost like seeing through water..
*Mr* Iam. why do you persist in masking this nonsense with a bunch of mystic mumbo-jumbo?
just a question..
seems rather obvious you have something at stake in this little as you might portray it "squabble"..
what might that be..
Edited by HamLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Wierwille died and took the elevator up to Heaven. When the elevator stopped, the doors opened to The Pearly Gates. St Peter stood there to greet him and said, "Can I help you, sir?" "Why, yes", said Wierwille, "I'm here to collect my rewards." There upon, St Peter looked him square in the eye and said, "You know, there are three kinds of turds in the world. There is mus-turd, there is cus-turd and there is you, you big poopie-turd. Now hit the damn down button and get the hell outta here!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Just one more bit of gasoline to throw on the fire. No, VP being a man doesn't excuse him for violating someone's consent, but we do live in a male bashing culture. Any unscrupulous woman can falsely accuse any man of sexual harassment and have fair odds of getting away with it. Perhaps she does it to steal his job; perhaps to get her kicks or some other reason. Happens every day.
The following is an email I sent to the St. Louis Post Dispatch. They printed it on April 12, 2003. That would be the day of the final round of the Masters Golf Tournament that year. That would be the same Master's Golf Tournament which Martha Burke tried to hijack. It didn't appear in the regular editorial section; it was in the sports section editorials called SOUND OFF. There were 4 emails in that day's edition about this topic. Three of them, including mine, were against Martha Burke. One was for her. Here it is...
Long ago a professor taught me that a misogynist is one who hates women. He further stated that there was no corresponding English word meaning one who hates men. Recently I supposed the reason feminists picketed outside Promisekeepers meetings was that they had problems with their beliefs. No such thing! They simply know how much mileage they themselves (feminists) have gotten by getting together and comparing notes without any men around, and are most threatened by the idea of men doing the same. Let me get this straight. If women want to assemble without men around, it's "liberation", but if men want to assemble without women around, it's "bigotry". OK, I think I've got it. While I find it both appalling and annoying that these fanatical women are actually being allowed to disrupt and sabotage the Master's Golf Tournament, I see one positive thing here. There is now definitely an English word which means one who hates men. It is the word 'feminist'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Oh no. I heard it differently..
st. peter examined his records, his life..
and st andrew (or whoever was the then assistant) said..
well, look. He gave a buck to a beggar once..
St. Peter says..
lets give the b*stard a refund..
honestly, all I see here.. is an argument to excuse men (? and don't include ME in this..) behaving badly..
one more excuse..
"it's da PEOPLE.."
sound "biblically* familar?
yep.. it's not ME.. it's da PEOPLE..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
So, then, this whole song and dance routine has really been about you feeling like women have been "bashing" you? You could have said so pages ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
excuse me while I choke laughing..
sowy..
there is no devil here. If it comforts you.. you can think I'm da devil laughing at this nonsense..
"God bless you" Mr. Iam..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Don't gimme no lip, Buster!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
both men and women were abused by vp
and rosie and donna were just as bad
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
You might want to let your "professor" know that the corresponding English word meaning one who hates men is the word, "misandry". See below:
World English Dictionary
misandry (ˈmɪsəndrɪ)
— n
hatred of men
Word Origin & History
misandry
1946, from miso- "hatred" + andros "of man, male human being" (see anthropo-). Related: Misandrist
You can verify this by looking in any credible dictionary. Obviously you neglected not to use one when you wrote that editoral. Nor did you use one prior to posting it here on GSC. I'm sorry, but you throw your credibility into question right in the first sentence. I find it hard to believe an actual professor would make such an obvious error, but stranger things have happened. It wasn't a "professor" from TWI was it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Thanks CMAN, nice quote!
Edited by Broken ArrowLink 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.