"Milk" is Doctrine, "Meat" is.....?

[marks]

But alas you do not like videos so I will not press this point further.

Actually I like lot's of videos.

But I'm choosey, and descriptions help me to choose.

Much love!

 

[marks]

instead of speculating

Where did you see any of that??


?

 

[marks]

If You watch the first 15-20 minutes of the video you would get the gist of the sermon, instead of speculating and questioning.... But alas you do not like videos so I will not press this point further.

Suffice it to say this is refreshing to hear from fundamentalists.... the being taught by the Spirit of Truth from the Word of God and how everyone is prone to deception, not just the proverbial "they".... this is part of the meat of doctrine, that bears the fruit of humility and unity of the Spirit. It is a very deep sermon for a young man to be preaching.

He "pleads the blood" over the building and so forth. This speaks volumes to me about his paradigm of what our relationship with God is like.

The notion that the more you think you are not deceived, the more likely you are, nonsense. Sounds pretty, means nothing. Some who believe rightly doubt themselves. And manipulative preaching makes it worse.

I'll agree, pride works against you, so stop being prideful.

8 minutes in, so far he hasn't really said much, his ideas on deception and pride, but I'm hearing how he talks.

About 9.5 minutes in, he's just said that we can get too close to things that have spirits attached to them, and those spirits will lead us back to their source, something like that.

Wow!

I have this idea I'm not going to make it all the way through.

Now he's playing word games over "perceived truth", "truth and facts", I already know where he's going with this now. I'll let him confirm, but I'm thinking this fellow is about to preach a message of fear of evil spirits. He already is!

And he's not using Scripture much at all. Just telling us all his ideas. I just heard him say he was going to read a couple of passages, and you don't need to turn there, to read it for yourself . And then he barely reads a 1/4 of a verse, then back to his ideas.

Now he's using satanic interferance with Abner to define the reborn. This is a man who does not properly divide Scritpure.

OK, you were right, by 15 minute in, I'll know what he's talking about.

Don't you trust the Holy Spirit?

At least he gives service to the Bible being the source of truth in our lives. Even if he doesn't practice that.

I made it 20 minutes in.

I compare his teaching with MacArthur, Sproul, Farley, I could go down the line . . . they preach from the Bible, and he preaches his own ideas. They read Scriptures, and tell you what they mean, and are saying.

He tells you his ideas, and peppers it with bits of verses. I'm frankly used to what I see as a much higher and more accurate caliber of teaching.

And the Bible itself . . . spirits on things? And all that? Really? Where?

Much love!

 

[marks]

What I got from the youtube description was that he was going to give a false idea of what Spiritual warfare in the Christian is like. I don't see that being far from what I heard him say. This comes across to me a false mysticism.

Well, I gave it a shot.

Much love!

 

[David H.]

He "pleads the blood" over the building and so forth. This speaks volumes to me about his paradigm of what our relationship with God is like.

The notion that the more you think you are not deceived, the more likely you are, nonsense. Sounds pretty, means nothing. Some who believe rightly doubt themselves. And manipulative preaching makes it worse.

I'll agree, pride works against you, so stop being prideful.

8 minutes in, so far he hasn't really said much, his ideas on deception and pride, but I'm hearing how he talks.

About 9.5 minutes in, he's just said that we can get too close to things that have spirits attached to them, and those spirits will lead us back to their source, something like that.

Wow!

I have this idea I'm not going to make it all the way through.

Now he's playing word games over "perceived truth", "truth and facts", I already know where he's going with this now. I'll let him confirm, but I'm thinking this fellow is about to preach a message of fear of evil spirits. He already is!

And he's not using Scripture much at all. Just telling us all his ideas. I just heard him say he was going to read a couple of passages, and you don't need to turn there, to read it for yourself . And then he barely reads a 1/4 of a verse, then back to his ideas.

Now he's using satanic interferance with Abner to define the reborn. This is a man who does not properly divide Scritpure.

OK, you were right, by 15 minute in, I'll know what he's talking about.

Don't you trust the Holy Spirit?

At least he gives service to the Bible being the source of truth in our lives. Even if he doesn't practice that.

I made it 20 minutes in.

I compare his teaching with MacArthur, Sproul, Farley, I could go down the line . . . they preach from the Bible, and he preaches his own ideas. They read Scriptures, and tell you what they mean, and are saying.

He tells you his ideas, and peppers it with bits of verses. I'm frankly used to what I see as a much higher and more accurate caliber of teaching.

And the Bible itself . . . spirits on things? And all that? Really? Where?

Much love!

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(1 Corinthians 2:13-14)

 

[VictoryinJesus]

you are dealing with two fairly different contexts there imo

You said two fairly different context there Imo …can you explain because I’m not sure how they are different?

I was thinking about it last night and with all due respect; my question is how to not build ideas that lead me to be so fully convinced that within there are thoughts of “come on, it seems pretty obvious” …is that deception? To be deceived? For example where I’ve seen you quote on the topic of homosexual where (unless I’ve misunderstood) there is another perspective there of what homosexual is? So all those start to add up and build…or tear down (I’m not sure which)… until we are here on a board pushing something yea? whether the standard or another perspective? There is something formed in the way we view things even if there are claims of being neutral? It is still what we come to think and assert in some way the perspective we now hold? Does that make sense at all? So I get all kinds of confused for example with Armageddon where one can believe one way then another …but both are a perspective where for me it is deceptive to pretend or play there is not some opinion being formed. in it is either homosexual like this, or homosexual like that…still it is there, a view. how is there any way to be certain or stable in our thoughts with all the back and forth? …

Right or wrong this is the motive or purpose for bringing Peters denial into the topic. for me it seems to blow apart a superiority over, in considering the end result. Where there can not be any “I’ve never been that.” for example 1 Timothy 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

In topic of ‘knowledge’ Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

1 Corinthians 3:18-19 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. [19] For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

concerning Peter, it seems something significant is there in Peter saying “I am ready to go with you unto prison and death”

(For me) It causes a consideration of what is that perspective of to ‘go with you unto prison and death’…did Peter receive exactly what he said he was ready for in ‘satan is asking to sift you as wheat’? Is that the death? To be clearer maybe Peter’s perspective at the time was ‘with you to death’ could only be he would take up a literal cross, follow, and be nailed to it, crucified as in ‘I will follow you’. But for me there is a clarification possibly there, a strong one I think, of to go with the Lord to prison and death was not literal but the ‘trial’ ‘test’ in ‘satan wants to sift you, Peter’. Consider ‘I will follow you’, even in ‘beheaded’(literal?) …with when you are converted strengthen your brothers. ‘Do you love Me Peter. follow Me. Feed My sheep’

‘I will follow you’
‘Follow Me.’
Still question from Peter’s perspective of what ‘with you to death’ looked like, and how if differed from ‘Follow Me’.

 

[bbyrd009]

You said two fairly different context there Imo …can you explain because I’m not sure how they are different?

well i dont know that they are for sure, but it seems that the first is describing a seeker whereas the second is describing a “runner” more?

was thinking about it last night and with all due respect; my question is how to not build ideas that lead me to be so fully convinced that within there are thoughts of “come on, it seems pretty obvious” …is that deception? To be deceived? For example where I’ve seen you quote on the topic of homosexual where (unless I’ve misunderstood) there is another perspective there of what homosexual is?

i dont know, but i suspect that our “homosexual” is a more literal manifestation of a spiritual state, what we might call “fascism” now, or iow “everyone has to do/believe the exact same thing.” But i dont mean to deny the literal words there, so much as to point out that they are english, so translated iow, and imo a study of the etymology of the words arsenokoitai, which Paul may have even coined, only tends to cast more doubt on our current understanding—for me.

people like to look down on homosexuals, right? they generally make easy targets, have a rep of not fighting back, etc? And i just notice a distinct similarity with convicts who castigate child molesters there, iow homosexuals often cause a visceral reaction, which i have even used when i want someone to hate me.

So all those start to add up and build…or tear down (I’m not sure which)… until we are here on a board pushing something yea? whether the standard or another perspective? There is something formed in the way we view things even if there are claims of being neutral? It is still what we come to think and assert in some way the perspective we now hold? Does that make sense at all? So I get all kinds of confused for example with Armageddon where one can believe one way then another …but both are a perspective where for me it is wish-washy to pretend or play there is not some opinion being formed. in it is either homosexual like this, or homosexual like that…still it is there. how is there any way to be certain or stable in our thoughts with all the back and forth?

ha well for that i would just be certain that i could not be certain, the better to keep an open mind? How am i called to treat literal homosexuals, anyway? Not to start a debate or argument on this, but imo it would be exactly the opposite of the way they are treated by most believers, wouldnt it? We are quick to condemn them, right? And i suspect that that is a Bible setup, a case of giving a “believer” enough rope to hang themselves, while also making a commentary on “why does fascism always seem to be our default?”

we might also note that patriarchs going in to whores is perceived as completely acceptable in the Bible, and i could prolly go on for pages on how this came together, coat of many colors would imo be the opposite (of homosexual as “fascist” anyway), but this is not really a belief so much as a suspicion for me now, that just seems to keep coming up.

a similar misdirection scenario might revolve around Armageddon, which is widely perceived to be in the collective future, rather than the individual now; again, i do not know, but suspect that the revelation of Christ is couched in corporate terms to appeal to the fascist in us, while actually being about…well, just what it says, “the revelation of Christ,” which no one who believes in a literal “Return” will even be looking for, right? Christ to be personally revealed to them? Now?

Isnt a new believer much more likely to find themselves involved in a corporate chant about When We All get somewhere, tomorrow? At what other time in your walk, ever, has there been a concurrent “corporate” reaction? Go tell Jesus “we’re all in this together” and see what He says lol. Go tell that to the Rohingya. It is a feel-good way to exclude imo

Right or wrong this is the motive or purpose for bringing Peters denial into the topic. for me it seems to blow apart a superiority over, in considering the end result. Where there can not be any “I’ve never been that.” for example 1 Timothy 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

what did Hymenaeus and Alexander do, anyway?
Hymenaeus “Pertaining To Hymen, Having To Do With Celebratory Joining”
Alexander “in defense of men”
suddenly sounds like we’re back on “homosexual,” huh

In topic of ‘knowledge’ Romans 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

1 Corinthians 3:18-19 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. [19] For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

concerning Peter, it seems something significant is there in Peter saying “I am ready to go with you unto prison and death”

(For me) It causes a consideration of what is that perspective of to ‘go with you unto prison and death’…did Peter receive exactly what he said he was ready for in ‘satan is asking to sift you as wheat’? Is that the death? To be clearer maybe Peter’s perspective at the time was ‘with you to death’ could only be he would take up a literal cross, follow, and be nailed to it, crucified as in ‘I will follow you’. But for me there is a clarification possibly there, a strong one I think, of to go with the Lord to prison and death was not literal but the ‘trial’ ‘test’ in ‘satan wants to sift you, Peter’. Consider ‘I will follow you’, even in ‘beheaded’(literal?) …with when you are converted strengthen your brothers. ‘Do you love Me Peter. follow Me. Feed My sheep’

well, i suspect that “satan” is personified here, and cannot literally “ask” for anything, so imo a different perspective should be applied…and i would suggest going where “wheat” leads you, or iow what does “sifting as wheat” mean?

i could go a couple different directions here, but i might point out that an accuser has nothing on a confessor; when i am accused, and openly confess rather than deflect or otherwise obfuscate, the whole dynamic immediately changes? So i suggest that Peter was obfuscating,
31Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift each of you like wheat.
“you are all still holding back, have dark corners, not being genuine”
“you are all full of it, and I am just not calling you out on your behavior/condemning you”
“an accuser would be dying to point out all of the tares in your wheat”
32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith will not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”
“and when you have turned back?”
iow to Jesus, Peter already gone i guess

as the proceeding passage maybe even indicates,
“i would follow you to hell”
“negro, please, you are going to deny Me three times before morning”

 

[marks]

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(1 Corinthians 2:13-14)

Now there's a cop out. No comment on my observations, no, "See, here in this verse, . . ."

Nothing like that, only,

"You just don't get it."

What I do is follow Scripture, and test everyone, including myself, against Scripture.

He reminds me of Frank Perreti's books, have you read those?

Much love!

 

[bbyrd009]

Now there's a cop out. No comment on my observations, no, "See, here in this verse, . . ."

Nothing like that, only,

"You just don't get it."

What I do is follow Scripture, and test everyone, including myself, against Scripture.

He reminds me of Frank Perreti's books, have you read those?

Much love!

apparently we’re just not worthy?

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
(1 Corinthians 2:13-14)

yikes?

 

[bbyrd009]

"Milk" is Doctrine, "Meat" is.....?

milk might be more accurately “seeking,” and meat “knowing”

 

[VictoryinJesus]

well i dont know that they are for sure, but it seems that the first is describing a seeker whereas the second is describing a “runner” more?

wow on all of your whole post. Not “wow” as in a condemning way but there are some good insights there. Thank you. I quoted a few out to comment thoughts on, one the above ‘seeker’ and ‘runner’…’runner’ makes me think of ‘forerunner’ Hebrews 6:20

How am i called to treat literal homosexuals, anyway? Not to start a debate or argument on this, but imo it would be exactly the opposite of the way they are treated by most believers, wouldnt it?

I won’t be debate or argue because you have some good points. no argument…

And i suspect that that is a Bible setup, a case of giving a “believer” enough rope to hang themselves, while also making a commentary on “why does fascism always seem to be our default?”

1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
?

‘giving them enough rope to hang themselves’ makes me also consider Judas. For whatever reason, he went out and hung himself…

 

[bbyrd009]

The notion that the more you think you are not deceived, the more likely you are, nonsense. Sounds pretty, means nothing

i dunno, what is wise in his own eyes after all?

 

[bbyrd009]

wow on all of your whole post. Not “wow” as in a condemning way but there are some good insights there. Thank you. I quoted a few out to comment thoughts on, one the above ‘seeker’ and ‘runner’…’runner’ makes me think of ‘forerunner’ Hebrews 6:20

ha well i was struggling to characterize someone running from the truth, more like

 

[David H.]

Now there's a cop out. No comment on my observations, no, "See, here in this verse, . . ."

Now quoting scripture is a cop out? Before you used to complain that I did not quote scripture.... Here's a clue, the scripture points directly to your response and is a comment unto itself.

 

[David H.]

yikes?

Yes, Yikes, self deception is the worst kind of deception. From A.W. Tozer below:

“Of all forms of deception self-deception is the most deadly, and of all deceived persons the self-deceived are the least likely to discover the fraud. The reason for this is simple. When a man is deceived by another he is deceived against his will. He is contending against an adversary and is temporarily the victim of the other’s guile. Since he expects his foe to take advantage of him he is watchful and quick to suspect trickery. Under such circumstances it is possible to be deceived sometimes and for a short while, but because the victim is resisting he may break out of the trap and escape before too long. With the self-deceived it is quite different. He is his own enemy and is working a fraud upon himself. He wants to believe the lie and is psychologically conditioned to do so. He does not resist the deceit but collaborates with it against himself. there is no struggle, because the victim surrenders before the fight begins. He enjoys being deceived.” (A.W. Tozer, Man: The Dwelling Place of God)

 

[David H.]

What I got from the youtube description was that he was going to give a false idea of what Spiritual warfare in the Christian is like. I don't see that being far from what I heard him say. This comes across to me a false mysticism.

Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. (1 Corinthians 3:18-19)

As 1 Corinthians 3 is one of the milk vs meat passages i think it it is worthy to note that this deception, self deception, is part of the reason the church has a hard time moving from milk to meat. That is using the carnal mind to understand Spiritual things.

 

[marks]

Now quoting scripture is a cop out? Before you used to complain that I did not quote scripture.... Here's a clue, the scripture points directly to your response and is a comment unto itself.

You quoted a verse, but you were non-responsive.

Only, once again, not responding to my comments, but posting a verse to say what? What are you expressing by quoting that verse?

Much love!

 

[David H.]

What are you expressing by quoting that verse?

That your mind is unable to grasp what the Spirit is saying to the churches....that reliance on your intellect is the root of self deception.

 

[bbyrd009]

That your mind is unable to grasp what the Spirit is saying to the churches....that reliance on your intellect is the root of self deception.

superior much? i mean why not just pray it with me one mo time,
“Thank you, God, that i am not like that guy over there”

self deception is the worst kind of deception

no kidding lol

 

[David H.]

superior much? i mean why not just pray it with me one mo time,
“Thank you, God, that i am not like that guy over there”

Yup, That is the root of the problem. self deception, The Laodicean problem.
Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked (Revelation 3:17)