CONTEXTile Mill-ing Around

[andrew]

Oh, I'm okay with criticism, just want to be sure that I'm being criticized for something I said and not something I didn't say. And your point about responding to "a great many different assertions from many other people" is one of the reasons I'm thinking a lot these days about the practical utility (is that a tautology?) of these kinds of discussions on this kind of platform.

Thanks for the edit. If time permits, I'll come back and go over your posts again, because I really think you and are more eye-to-eye here than it may appear (another thing to ponder about discussion boards...), and I'd like to write more about that. But I'd still rather swap points in person over a good bottle of wine....

 

[Keith Martin]

In this thread maybe we could return to a consideration of what the dream means?...

I agree.

Oh, I'm okay with criticism, just want to be sure that I'm being criticized for something I said and not something I didn't say. <snip>

Thanks for the edit. If time permits, I'll come back and go over your posts again, because I really think you and I are more eye-to-eye here than it may appear (another thing to ponder about discussion boards...), and I'd like to write more about that. But I'd still rather swap points in person over a good bottle of wine....

As would I (especially if I get to do it in the context of an altered state other than wine!). Unfortunately, the fact that I don't yet (and may never) again live in Texas means that our ability to conduct discussions in person is quite restricted. And that's why I really appreciate having these forums in which to communicate.

I should state the following publicly, and not just to you but to anyone on here: my wrestling with these ideas are just that: wrestling with the ideas, something I experience as being something we do together, not as adversaries but as fellow members of the Body of Christ. To the extent that I don't accomplish a win/win at any given point, I have failed my own general intentions, which means in those instances that I must have let some kind of pettiness within me prevail over my general desire to engage in mutual edification. Typically, therefore, if my conscious intention is to correct the person or be critical of the person, I would move that to a private conversation (that's not the only motivation I might have for having private conversations, because I have started them up to express gratitude, to get to know an individual better, or for other reasons, but it is my intention in the context of expressing criticism to do that privately instead of in a public forum), where we can cover ground without having to be concerned about showing our asses in front of everyone else.

Having said all that, Andrew, I want you to know that learning that you're questioning the value of the discussion threads emphasizes for me the importance of taking your admonitions to heart. Going forward I will make a much greater effort to ensure that my participation is such that it would more likely perpetuate the availability of these discussions than lead to their dissolution.

 

[andrew]

I should state the following publicly, and not just to you but to anyone on here: my wrestling with these ideas are just that: wrestling with the ideas, something I experience as being something we do together, not as adversaries but as fellow members of the Body of Christ. To the extent that I don't accomplish a win/win at any given point, I have failed my own general intentions, which means in those instances that I must have let some kind of pettiness within me prevail over my general desire to engage in mutual edification. Typically, therefore, if my conscious intention is to correct the person or be critical of the person, I would move that to a private conversation (that's not the only motivation I might have for having private conversations, because I have started them up to express gratitude, to get to know an individual better, or for other reasons, but it is my intention in the context of expressing criticism to do that privately instead of in a public forum), where we can cover ground without having to be concerned about showing our asses in front of everyone else.

Amen and amen. Very well said.

Having said all that, Andrew, I want you to know that learning that you're questioning the value of the discussion threads emphasizes for me the importance of taking your admonitions to heart. Going forward I will make a much greater effort to ensure that my participation is such that it would more likely perpetuate the availability of these discussions than lead to their dissolution.

Your graciousness in conversation and debate continues to impress me and encourage me by example to reach for a higher standard. Just want to clarify that I meant my comments not as any kind of threat of withdrawn fellowship or expression of dissatisfaction with the way my comments are received by you or anyone else. Just processing some issues in the area of my time commitments and the relative merits of cyberspace and meatspace. It's not you, it's me.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Well, so much for Keith's dream thread....

AFM&MH, I notice you're carefully ignoring Paul's specific instructions re prophecy in all your proof texting. What does that verse I cited mean to you? While you're at it, let me know what you think about this one:

Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the others judge.

Sorry Andrew, I wasn’t trying to ignore these verses, I got side tracked.

It was not my intent to proof text. In fact, I wanted to copy and paste whole chapters to give the context. However, that would be a post that would multiple pages long that nobody would want to or bother to read (and I don’t blame them lol). I listed the chapters and verses there so that the context can be looked at by whoever wants to. I’ve always understood proof texting to be the twisting of individual passages without regard to their context. I have tried to make points from the verses that are consistent with their context. If simply using specific passages without including all the surrounding verses is proof texting, then the writer of Hebrews uses a lot of proof texting. If I have twisted the meaning of some of these verses please show me where, so that I will not be in error.

Ok, to the verses you mentioned. They come from the same chapter.

1 Corinthians 14:3,29 KJV
[3] But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.

[29] Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.

I don’t think that the prophecy refered to here is one and the same with what i was responding to eternaldreamer about. He was speaking of divine revelation in the form of a dream and stated the following:

“The purpose of ANY prophecy should be encouraging and exhorting us. If you are feeling/reading negative criticism/threats/condemnation into any aspect of your prophetic dream, that's either the enemy or your own human fears putting a spin on it. But the Holy Spirit does not speak to us in fear, but in the fruits of theSpirit.” Eternaldreamer

However, in Revelation, Jesus says things to the churches that would be reasonably taken as criticisms, threats, and condemnations.

The verses that are being used as proof texts here are not really in the same category. These are people standing up and speaking the word of God, not in the sense of telling the future, but simply speaking the word of God. Prophecy in the sense of telling the future is judged by whether or not what is spoken comes to pass. If it doesn’t come to pass, that is a false prophet. In the sense that someone is speaking the word of the Lord as in proclaiming the scriptures and their meaning. Then that would be judged by comparing it to scripture. As Keith pointed out we must take into account when and to whom this was written. At the time, the canon of scripture was not completed and was still being written and as such was being authenticated by the signs and wonders of the Apostles. The word of God was still being written and as it was in times past when large potions of scripture where written, it was accompanied by miracles and signs and wonders. When someone stands up and speakes the word of the Lord today, we compare it to scripture, not our feelings.

 

[andrew]

Sorry Andrew, I wasn’t trying to ignore these verses, I got side tracked.

No worries, and sorry for the snippiness. On a better day I might have said something like, "Hey, AFM&MH, why haven't you responded to my post yet?" instead of assuming I knew what was going on on your end.

I’ve always understood proof texting to be the twisting of individual passages without regard to their context.

I use a simpler definition that is simply snagging the verses that prove your point. The difference between an exegetical study of a passage with no particular endpoint in view, and having an argument you want to make and grabbing the verses you remember that support your position. With that in mind, I think it's clear what I meant (but let me know if it's not): You referenced verses that supported your view of prophesy and did not reference the one I had submitted or others that might point in a different direction. No twisting express or implied, just adducing the evidence that supported your point.

I don’t think that the prophecy refered to here is one and the same with what i was responding to eternaldreamer about.

Well, then we just disagree. Since ED's language echoes that of Paul ("encourage and exhort" v. "edify, exhort, and comfort"), I didn't think it was that much of a stretch to cite Paul in support of what ED said, and in my experience, the prophetic gift in the church is precisely for that purpose: to edify, exhort, and comfort (or to build up, to encourage with words, and to give strength). It's probably worth pointing out also that Paul mentioned to the Ephesians that God gave prophets (among other gifts) to the church for the purpose of edifying (building up) the church—again hitting the same tone of positive reinforcement.

The verse from Timothy about rebuking sin just doesn't apply. You see sin, you call it out, no reason to call that "prophesy". Same basically for Jesus's messages to the churches: Jesus can say whatever He wants, and if John says he saw and heard Jesus saying all that stuff in a dream, I'm not going to argue with him. Same for Jesus's direct rebuke of Satan who at the time was speaking through Peter. I wouldn't call any of that "prophesy".

You and I are way apart on our understanding of what scripture teaches about prophesy and what is "the word of the Lord", and I'm not sure this thread is the best place to hash that out. Rather, I'm sure this thread is not the best place to hash it out.

If someone wants to split off a new "let's argue about prophesy" thread, go for it. Meanwhile, unless someone is specifically standing up and saying "the Lord has revealed to me the precise meaning of the dream", let's move on and try to get back to Keith's dream and anything helpful we could say about what it means. Brother asked for help, let's give him some if we can....

 

[Keith Martin]

Meanwhile, where is the practical application of this discussion? There is nobody in my sphere of influence that I'm going to counsel to go back to the first person they had sex with and sort out that 'marriage'—are you?

Well, I'm not going to argue for that, but, yes, I have indeed counseled people to do that very thing (I'm not going to tell the whole story here, but I'll be glad to have an in-person conversation with just about anyone about how I successfully counseled the divorced parents of my 2nd ex-wife to remarry at ages 89 and 90 -- they're still together 6 years later).

IRL, don't we tend to focus on the present situation? Aren't our sins covered by the blood of Christ, whether promiscuous sex resulted in a busted putative marriage and some kind of putative adultery or whether it resulted in 'mere' fornication? Can you give me a hypothetical situation in which you and I would reach different end results from a counseling POV based on our different descriptions of how we think sex and marriage work? Are our descriptions really that different, or are we just looking at the same thing and using different words to describe it?

Actually, @andrew, it is my impression that where you and I are coming from really isn't that different. As I've mentioned in an earlier post, some of what I wrote in response to your earlier message took the form of being a springboard for responding to a wide variety of statements made by several people here.

But here's why I think a discussion about what constitutes and what begins marriage is much more important than we all generally recognize. I don't believe we need to have it for the purpose of fixing what is already done. The value of coming to a consensus about the fact that our God purposefully designed sex to be what both initiates and (along with other things, of course) sustains marriage is in what we then communicate to those very important people in our lives (e.g., our children) about what their decision-making should be about when to begin engaging in sexual behavior. Yes, of course, we are all forgiven for our sins, and no, we cannot change the past, but we can be instrumental in encouraging our children and our friends who aren't yet in highly-intimate relationships to use better judgment than to think that the subject of sex and marriage doesn't make that much difference. And the reason why I think this is so important is because our children especially swim in a culture that bombards them with the message that sex is something to engage in sooner rather than later, damn the consequences. The popular culture relentlessly encourages us to elevate ourselves to god status, to think that sex is just this cool accidental function that randomly developed over millions of years of Darwinian evolution -- and that only spoilsports and Puritans would discourage us from availing ourselves of each and every opportunity to get our rocks off in or around whomever happens to be willing and within reach. That it is a much, much more powerful force than that is something that is rarely discussed in the sex ed classes, for example, that most children experience in public schools. Instead, it's, "Here's the basics of how your reproductive systems work, here's what goes in where, here's how much fun it will be, make sure you use a condom or get on The Pill, and if you get pregnant here's the address to the nearest Planned Parenthood for a convenient abortion." I suspect every one of us knows someone whose life has been nearly devastated by following that path without ever considering that maybe they should have thought much longer and harder before playing with fire.

So, yes, I think it makes a difference what conclusion we come to, but I should also note that I was more arguing with those who asserted that marriage began with a contract or the payment of a dowry, because the consequences of entering the realm of intimate sexuality without recognizing what's in store for the participant are significantly more profound than being unprepared for negotiating a bride price or a contract.

 

[Cap]

View attachment 509

I find some of your posts cute.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

@andrew hey no worries, it’s easy to get wires crossed in a text message, which is practically what we are communicating with here lol.

You are correct, the rebuking of sin doesn’t necessarily apply to the case of prophecy. It kind of got muddled when eternaldreamer and i were going back and forth. My only point was that, how something makes us feel isn’t the end all be all for determining what is from God and what isn’t. I believe prophecy is speaking the word of the Lord, and that can take several forms. There’s my definition for you. The word of God, whether it came in a dream, or a vision, or an audible voice etc. doesn’t always give us the warm happy fuzzies. Sometimes it’s serious and sobering and causes us to repent because we fear God.

When it comes to believing the Apostle John wrote concerning vision, I believe him because God authenticated his ministry as one of the Apostles with signs and miracles.

In regards to the issue of not using the verses you brought up o didn’t see them as pertaining to what is was specifically addressing. What i was addressing specifically is God speaking directly to us and the suggestion that it will never have criticism, threats, or condemnation. I think scripture is pretty clear that those things are quite possible. The verses that were “left out” I believe have a different context.

We can thrash about over prophecy some other time haha

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

I find some of your posts cute.

Oh that’s not a picture of me... I’m way cuter

 

[The Revolting Man]

There is nobody in my sphere of influence that I'm going to counsel to go back to the first person they had sex with and sort out that 'marriage'—are you?

I don't think I'm violating my self imposed gag order when I say that I think that there are situations where this would of real value, not every situation but many. Look, God gave us work arounds for a lot of this stuff. A lot of eligibility issues can be easily resolved with a little bit of humility. I think it's telling about many people's true priorities that they are unwilling to suffer a little bit of discomfort and humiliation to make sure that there isn't even the appearance of evil.

 

[andrew]

But here's why I think a discussion about what constitutes and what begins marriage is much more important than we all generally recognize. I don't believe we need to have it for the purpose of fixing what is already done. The value of coming to a consensus about the fact that our God purposefully designed sex to be what both initiates and (along with other things, of course) sustains marriage is in what we then communicate to those very important people in our lives (e.g., our children) about what their decision-making should be about when to begin engaging in sexual behavior. Yes, of course, we are all forgiven for our sins, and no, we cannot change the past, but we can be instrumental in encouraging our children and our friends who aren't yet in highly-intimate relationships to use better judgment than to think that the subject of sex and marriage doesn't make that much difference. And the reason why I think this is so important is because our children especially swim in a culture that bombards them with the message that sex is something to engage in sooner rather than later, damn the consequences. The popular culture relentlessly encourages us to elevate ourselves to god status, to think that sex is just this cool accidental function that randomly developed over millions of years of Darwinian evolution -- and that only spoilsports and Puritans would discourage us from availing ourselves of each and every opportunity to get our rocks off in or around whomever happens to be willing and within reach. That it is a much, much more powerful force than that is something that is rarely discussed in the sex ed classes, for example, that most children experience in public schools. Instead, it's, "Here's the basics of how your reproductive systems work, here's what goes in where, here's how much fun it will be, make sure you use a condom or get on The Pill, and if you get pregnant here's the address to the nearest Planned Parenthood for a convenient abortion." I suspect every one of us knows someone whose life has been nearly devastated by following that path without ever considering that maybe they should have thought much longer and harder before playing with fire.

Keith, it again feels like you're talking to someone else, like other readers of the thread. I agree with all of your contextualizing just not with your contention that the other formalities of marriage have nothing to do with it.

As we've both commented on, I don't think we're actually that far apart, and would not be that far apart in our practical application to specific fact situations, which is where these ideas get put to the test.

Anything else you want to know about the dream?...

 

[andrew]

@andrew hey no worries, it’s easy to get wires crossed in a text message, which is practically what we are communicating with here lol.

True dat. Text, email, bulletin boards, discussion forums. Lots of opportunities for misunderstanding....

You are correct, the rebuking of sin doesn’t necessarily apply to the case of prophecy. It kind of got muddled when eternaldreamer and i were going back and forth. My only point was that, how something makes us feel isn’t the end all be all for determining what is from God and what isn’t. I believe prophecy is speaking the word of the Lord, and that can take several forms. There’s my definition for you. The word of God, whether it came in a dream, or a vision, or an audible voice etc. doesn’t always give us the warm happy fuzzies. Sometimes it’s serious and sobering and causes us to repent because we fear God.

I don't have any beef with any of that taken as general propositions. In my experience, though, the primary application of prophetic ministry within the body is as per Paul's instructions to the churches re building each other up. Yeah, we have the Ananias and Sapphira incident, and I've seen some stuff over the years where God comes down pretty hard on someone through specific spoken words (nobody struck dead, though...), but in the main—and more importantly, I take it as applicable to ED's encouragement of Keith—God is on our side and trying to point us in the right direction. When His intent is to bring us up short, it's pretty unmistakable, so if there's doubt about meaning or application, try to find the positive in it, that which edifies, exhorts, and comforts, and that's the part you can work with. That's my experience; YMMV.

I do not mean to suggest that prophetic ministry in the body will never be used by God to stop somebody in their tracks. I'm just saying that the scriptural instruction we have on the matter points toward a positive ministry of encouragement and edification, and I believe and agree with ED that that's how Keith should be interpreting this particular dream.

We can thrash about over prophecy some other time haha

Maybe just a little thrashing?... Are we getting any closer?

 

[andrew]

I think it's telling about many people's true priorities that they are unwilling to suffer a little bit of discomfort and humiliation to make sure that there isn't even the appearance of evil.

I have no idea what that sentence means if it's supposed to be related to what you quoted me on. Try again?...

 

[The Revolting Man]

I have no idea what that sentence means if it's supposed to be related to what you quoted me on. Try again?...

I think it's more of a general either unwillingness or just simply misunderstanding that many of the eligibility issues can be resolved retroactively. But when you talk to people about this they are frequently very resistant to the idea. The prospect of approaching an ex and asking them for a divorce or extending the option to renew the marriage is very distasteful to man people, even more distasteful than the idea of potentially committing adultery. I've had to do it myself so I know that it's no fun but is that really a good enough excuse?

 

[andrew]

Okay, got it, and yes, I think as a general commentary that’s accurate. Not where I was coming from but I get it.

 

[rejoicinghandmaid]

Fear comes from guilt. Doing what we know we are not suppose to do, that's the fear that we create that is supposed to keep us from sinning. But, from God's point of view, He is just stating facts. If you sin you will die. It's not a curse, it's a fact.

I have always wondered, what would have happened if Adam had just said, I'm sorry, please forgive me.

Hmmm-THAT is a very interesting thought, and can't say as I've ever pondered the scenario! But, of course, today we would automatically let the "I'm sorry, please forgive me" be our go-to because we've been forgiven. Not only had Adam never sinned--he'd never experienced forgiveness. Being human, both Adam and Eve immediately experienced the shame and guilt of having disobeyed and were facing the reality of their sin--the innocence of their nakedness was now gone. They had never known the need to be covered, and after eating of the forbidden fruit, they were now desperate to find a covering. Side note that just popped into my head as I'm writing this--Eve lost her state of innocence first. Imagine what may have been her thoughts racing through her mind, besides that of shame and guilt--because ALL of that was there with the first bite. How many bites had she consumed by the time Adam took his first bite? No matter because the number of bites wouldn't have increased any amount of shame, guilt, or loss of innocence. She would have been viewing her Adam in a completely different context at that point compared to how he was continuing to see her--as he had always seen her because until his first bite, he was still in his original state of innocence. @Keith Martin--not trying to hi-jack or derail your thread--just following a thought process resulting from @Cap's post.

 

[Keith Martin]

I agree with all of your contextualizing just not with your contention that the other formalities of marriage have nothing to do with it.

Well, that may be just another example of how much you and I agree, because I don't agree with the contention "that the other formalities of marriage have nothing to do with it," so your disagreement is only with what you mistakenly thought I said.

Just to clarify to anyone who is reading: I do not in any way believe that other formalities of marriage (vows; covenants; declarations; buying homes together; having children; sharing meals; cooperating on chores/division of labor -- even perhaps dowries) have nothing to do with marriage. ALL I've been asserting is (a) that the sexual union is of paramount (i.e., chief or primary) importance when it comes to the specific issue of when a marriage begins, and (b) that God very purposefully designed sexual intercourse to be the paramount (i.e., chief or primary) activity that would initiate and sustain marriage, which is thus the primary reason why we should all abstain from having sex with people we don't want to be committed to.

I am not saying that nothing else goes into the initiation and/or sustenance of marriage, and I am also not saying that sex is always what sustains a marriage. In addition, I'm not saying that it is advisable for a man to marry a prostitute after he has sex with her, even though I am saying that it is precisely because sex was designed by God to make two people "one flesh" why men shouldn't pay women for supposedly-meaningless sex or believe that paying for sex will short-circuit the bonding that will ensue.

So, to summarize:

• I am not saying that I believe other formalities, activities or incidentals associated with marriage have nothing to do with marriage;
• I am saying that I believe that one-fleshing sexual intercourse is the top contender for initiating and sustaining marriage (take it away, and we're now talking about a devoted friendship); and
• I am also saying that I would conclude that one message of my dream/nightmare would be that, even though it wasn't addressed due to when the nightmare ended, my marriage to the other woman had already begun and that, should I have escaped with my life, I would have borne responsibility to seek out the other woman for the purpose of sustaining our marriage (not that I would have needed any encouragement to do so!).

Anything else you want to know about the dream?...

Yes, of course -- I want to know anything else you have to tell me about the dream!

 

[Keith Martin]

@Keith Martin--not trying to hi-jack or derail your thread--just following a thought process resulting from @Cap's post.

No hijack surmised, my friend.

Almost by definition, putting one's dream/nightmare out there for group interpretation is an invitation to head off on any relevant tangent participants are inspired to go on. And, personally, I have found almost all of what has been written to be highly useful.

Thanks for being here!

 

[Cap]

Hmmm-THAT is a very interesting thought, and can't say as I've ever pondered the scenario! But, of course, today we would automatically let the "I'm sorry, please forgive me" be our go-to because we've been forgiven. Not only had Adam never sinned--he'd never experienced forgiveness. Being human, both Adam and Eve immediately experienced the shame and guilt of having disobeyed and were facing the reality of their sin--the innocence of their nakedness was now gone. They had never known the need to be covered, and after eating of the forbidden fruit, they were now desperate to find a covering. Side note that just popped into my head as I'm writing this--Eve lost her state of innocence first. Imagine what may have been her thoughts racing through her mind, besides that of shame and guilt--because ALL of that was there with the first bite. How many bites had she consumed by the time Adam took his first bite? No matter because the number of bites wouldn't have increased any amount of shame, guilt, or loss of innocence. She would have been viewing her Adam in a completely different context at that point compared to how he was continuing to see her--as he had always seen her because until his first bite, he was still in his original state of innocence. @Keith Martin--not trying to hi-jack or derail your thread--just following a thought process resulting from @Cap's post.

I agree with you, it seems we have to go through what we have to go through to find God.