Exhorting: A Spiritual Gift

[Lorin]

Oh dear. That is what I was afraid of. The more I study the Bible and personality, the more I have become convinced that the Bible is an accurate source of truth about God and man. You say, in contrast, that the Bible is the only source of truth about God and man. However, we all enjoy the benefits of a modern technological world that started when people with a Christian worldview believed that truth about the nature of God could be discovered by studying the natural world.

You say that "there is not one single bit of knowledge we need regarding man—his life, his purpose, his nature, his needs, his growth, his relationships—than that which is found between Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21". That is a very strong statement. If all knowledge regarding man's life lies within the pages of the Bible, then one should not go to medical doctors, because they did not learn their knowledge from the Bible. Similarly, if one works for a business that sells a product that is not mentioned in the Bible, then one is following a human purpose that is not biblical. If not one single bit of knowledge regarding the relationships of man exists outside of the Bible, then one should not even look in a phone book for a phone number, because that means looking outside of the Bible for knowledge regarding human relationships. And if anyone has problems running this computer forum, they had better look only to the Bible for help, because there is not one single bit of knowledge regarding the relationship of man anywhere else.

Obviously, that is not what you really mean. Therefore I have to guess what is really meant. As far as I can tell, people who make such statements are trying to preserve the purity of the Christian message in a world that no longer respects the Bible. But I have discovered that God is bigger than my fears. His message of salvation is embedded in the very structure of the mind and the universe. We do not have to cling to the Bible to defend God's truth.

If you ever want to come out of your theological bomb shelter, I have tried to translate the Biblical message into the language of the outside world.

Enjoy living in a bomb shelter. I hope that it is not too dark and dingy.

 

[livin_in_the_Son]

Respectfully.... I believe that you took what mattfivefour out of context... he posted,

And in like fashion everything we need to know regarding our walk with Christ and our function in the Church is to be found within the Bible.

He was talking about what we need to know regarding our walk with Christ, and our function in the Church... and your "quote" left that part out.

You say that "there is not one single bit of knowledge we need regarding man—his life, his purpose, his nature, his needs, his growth, his relationships—than that which is found between Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21".

He wasn't talking about everyday "jobs" or that reading ANY other book, including the phone book, was "looking outside the bible for knowledge regarding human relationships" He never mentioned working for "business that sells a product that is not mentioned in the Bible" was following a "human purpose" In fact, almost your entire post was written either in error because of confusion... or to blatantly offer up your own opinion by twisting words, in order to fit into your own agenda.

As for the Holy Bible as the only source of truth about God... that is correct... which is why we are admonished to test every "idea" or "feeling" against the scriptures. The Holy Bible is God's Holy Word, and infallible... however, man's ideas. opinions, and exhortations are NOT infallible. So when deciding what is "truth"... if something goes against what the Bible dictates... even the phone book... then yes, that book, and NOT the Bible, is in error.

Good day.

 

[mattfivefour]

Oh dear. That is what I was afraid of. The more I study the Bible and personality, the more I have become convinced that the Bible is an accurate source of truth about God and man. You say, in contrast, that the Bible is the only source of truth about God and man. However, we all enjoy the benefits of a modern technological world that started when people with a Christian worldview believed that truth about the nature of God could be discovered by studying the natural world.

You say that "there is not one single bit of knowledge we need regarding man—his life, his purpose, his nature, his needs, his growth, his relationships—than that which is found between Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21". That is a very strong statement. If all knowledge regarding man's life lies within the pages of the Bible, then one should not go to medical doctors, because they did not learn their knowledge from the Bible. Similarly, if one works for a business that sells a product that is not mentioned in the Bible, then one is following a human purpose that is not biblical. If not one single bit of knowledge regarding the relationships of man exists outside of the Bible, then one should not even look in a phone book for a phone number, because that means looking outside of the Bible for knowledge regarding human relationships. And if anyone has problems running this computer forum, they had better look only to the Bible for help, because there is not one single bit of knowledge regarding the relationship of man anywhere else.

Obviously, that is not what you really mean. Therefore I have to guess what is really meant. As far as I can tell, people who make such statements are trying to preserve the purity of the Christian message in a world that no longer respects the Bible. But I have discovered that God is bigger than my fears. His message of salvation is embedded in the very structure of the mind and the universe. We do not have to cling to the Bible to defend God's truth.

If you ever want to come out of your theological bomb shelter, I have tried to translate the Biblical message into the language of the outside world.

Enjoy living in a bomb shelter. I hope that it is not too dark and dingy.

Trust me, the Word of God is not in the least dark and dingy! Respectfully, Lorin, I would suggest that the Bible is not AN accurate source of truth about God and man, but the ONLY source of truth about God and man. Everything else must line up with it. If it does not, then it is not of God.

That said, I clearly do not mean that we are not to discover the wonders of what exists in creation—whether in nature, in physiology, in biology, in the universe, etc. But where the difficulty comes in is in the area of essentially abstract theoretical sciences such as psychiatry and psychology. Psychiatry's roots are occultic. Anybody who has studied its development can see that. So we can dispense with psychiatry: if the root is rotten, so is the tree. Psychology is an observational science; and insofar as it operates in the realm of observable behaviors it is valid. I had the benefit of professional studies in behavioral and motivational psychology many years ago. The PhD I studied under was as secular as you can get; but to the degree that his teaching recorded behaviors and their observable rots, it was useful. Unfortunately, his teaching—as that of the world of psychology cannot avoid exploring what they call the "unconscious mind". They move from deductive to inductive reasoning as they attempt to plumb the depths of the human psyche. The theories are all man-based and man-centered. In attempting to answer the deeper questions of life without reference to God, they ride the whole train right off the rails.

God gave us an inquisitive nature to discover the wonders He has created for us. From my decades of Bible study I believe He enjoys it when we humbly explore His Creation and open up and use the treasures He has laid up for us in THIS life, as just a slight foretaste of what He has prepared for us in eternity. But the key words are "explore" and "open up". When we discovered gravity or the true nature of the solar system or bacteria, etc, etc, we were discovering what exists. And we used them properly as He intended, for the good of mankind. The trouble came when we attempt to manipulate those things out of our own hubris. Much of science that has caused harm in this world is the result of this self trust and self determination. Further trouble comes when we try to synthesize Bible teaching with worldly wisdom. At that point we engage in eisegesis—finding Bible passages that support the ideas and wisdom that we have developed outside of the Word. Research and discoveries are good, but must always be submitted to God as to how they are to be used. Indeed,. there are certain areas of exploration that the Bible would not have us explore. Unfortunately, unregenerate man will always pursue his own agenda.

Anyway, this is all far afield from where our discussion started, brother. I am not without understanding of the many years of study and research you have put into your theories. Indeed, I appreciate your heavy personal life investment in your studies. However, I have to be honest that as I read what little you have written earlier in this thread, I see the use of secular knowledge being brought to bear on an understanding of the Bible and its teachings. And, frankly, I believe that to be erroneous. I am sorry if this offends you, as I am sure it does. But I have to be honest with you and faithful to the call God put on my life when He called me into ministry— to defend the Word and preach and teach only what He has written and handed down to us as fully sufficient for all of our emotional and spiritual needs and entirely complete in its teaching regarding the individual believer's purpose and the proper understanding and operation of his/her ministry.

(BTW, Juli, yours was an excellent response to this member.)

 

[athenasius]

2 Cor 10 v 5 says we are to cast down every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God. Also mentions speculations needing to be destroyed. Context is battle, in our minds, bringing our knowledge, our thinking, our understanding under God's direction as given thru Scripture and illumined to us by the Holy Spirit. Which I take to mean that we cannot take the position that everything that LOOKS like it's truth, is. First before believing anything it must check out with all of Scripture not just a few proof texts.

Not all "truth" REALLY IS God's truth. That is a fallacy that assumes truth to what is generally believed to be truth. Then that fallacy goes further and adds it's "truth" into Scripture bending Scripture to fit. Just a little bend here and there to make it comply. That is like the Old Earth Creation position which bends Genesis to fit what they perceive as the truth as given in current science texts. It is NOT the right order. First the Scripture as the 2 posters above make clear, THEN if this teaching supports all of scripture, it may well be true. Start with scripture. Never validate scripture with science, it's the other way round. Scripture validates Science that agrees with Scripture. Science and knowledge in general change with changing theories and observations. The Bible does not change therefore take the Bible first, as I taught the kids when teaching science, even creation science. Start here first, with Scripture. That is your whole world view. All else fits into it or gets discarded.

Our perceptions can be as faulty as our human heart and just as likely to lead us to jump to the wrong conclusion. The Bereans took time to search the scriptures to see if what Paul said was actually truth. Any teaching must be fully, not partly grounded in Scripture for it to be truth.

 

[Lorin]

Unfortunately we seem to be talking past each other. Before I jumped in, the traits of the Exhorter person were being discussed. Unfortunately, what I said triggered preconceptions and the topic shifted from the Exhorter to asserting the wrongness of my approach. Cognitively speaking, one major problem about saying that ‘the Bible is the only source of truth’ is that it easily gets distracted from talking about truth to attacking what it views as false sources of truth, and this thread provides an example.

I have done a lot of thinking about epistemology and methodology. Mattfivefour appears to be advocating a split methodology whereby one uses empirical evidence to analyze the natural world and biblical fundamentalism to analyze the mental world. He is also making conclusions about my methodology based upon the few comments that I have made, combined with his experiences in secular psychology. However, even though I try to learn from honest research that is done by secular psychology (and other secular fields), I have never been a part of secular psychology, my assumptions are not the same as secular psychology, and most secular psychologists would reject my approach, because I dare to talk about topics such as God, conscience, sin, and the need for personal salvation.

If anyone is interested in returning to the topic of Romans 12 spiritual gifts, I have done several decades of research on the subject, which can be accessed by googling ‘mental symmetry’. After all, I presume that one of the rules of this forum (which were vigorously enforced when I first posted) is to stay on the original topic, which was discussing the traits of the Exhorter person.

 

[mattfivefour]

Friend, I don't think we will dissuade you from your beliefs as you have so man decades invested in their development.

But I will nonetheless comment on a couple of your most basic introductory precepts:

• My topic is cognition. In other words, when I examine the theories of others, I try to understand why they are thinking the way that they do and decipher what is happening under the surface within their minds

  .

To underestand the way people think and to decipher what is happening under the surface within their minds is to engage in what only God can do— see a man's heart: the heart being the seat of his cognition, perception, and volition. I do not think that we can ascribe motives nor determine why someone thinks as they do, since—despite your efforts at empiricism—we are merely theorizing based on our own conceptions. (Unless you hold to Ach's volition motivation threshhold theory.)

• I use analogy to evaluate theories and concepts. Whenever a person performs some activity or builds some theory, the mind is being used. A person cannot do or think anything without using his mind. Therefore, it should be possible to discover the structure of the mind by comparing how people think and act in different contexts.

Your logic works only if your premise is not flawed. I suggest that your above premise is flawed. You have fallen into the usual trap of psychology by viewing the mind mechanistically.

• My goal is to discover mechanisms and not just describe behavior or pose questions. This focus upon 'how does it work' is a result of my engineering background. I suggest that a search for general mechanisms makes it possible to combine theory and practice. If similar cognitive mechanisms show up everywhere, then one has discovered a general theory. But, if this theory describes how the mind functions, then it is possible to use this understanding to reprogram the mind so that it functions in a better manner, something which is eminently practical.

Courtesy of your a prioris, you have merely gone farther down the erroneous trail you have been led to by your ideas.

If one starts with the theory of mental symmetry, then the system of systematic theology that emerges is consistent in detail with biblical Christian theology, and it also provides an explanation for religious practice in general as well as the different variants of Christianity. Finally, the theory of mental symmetry is natural--in several ways. First, it is consistent with cognitive mechanisms that have been discovered by researchers. Second, it is consistent in detail with the latest findings of neurology, a claim that is backed up by a 70 page summary that quotes from almost 100 neurological papers, most written in the last five years. Third, if one uses the theory of mental symmetry to analyze how the mind integrates general abstract understanding with concrete personal existence, then this matches in detail with the way in which both math and science can be used to describe the natural world, as well as the description of incarnation that is found in the Bible.

"If one STARTS with the theory of mental symmetry!" If one starts with anything and works from that basis, you can wind up anywhere. But if the foundation is faulty, everything build upon it will be equally faulty. In fact you can build the most magnificent edifice, correct and structurally sound even to its minutiae, but all of that work is in vain if the foundation is incorrect.

Brother, with the greatest respect for your efforts and your intellect, I see little difference in your theories than those I see from well-known humanist psychologists. Trying to tie theories to Scripture, adding God to an equation, or redefining secular concepts as scriptural ones does not change the fact that you have merely introduced into theology another form of syncretism. I am afraid I cannot agree with your teaching.

 

[Lorin]

Your post raises valid concerns that need to be addressed. However, I suggest that the method you are using to an address these concerns is inadequate and this inadequacy only became apparent to me gradually as I studied Romans 12 spiritual gifts.

The Contributor (giver) person naturally falls into two subcategories: the concrete Contributor who emphasizes goal oriented behavior and the abstract Contributor who uses abstract logic. Abstract Contributor thought uses logical reasoning to reach digital conclusions (results that are either right or wrong). The abstract Contributor naturally specializes in some field and then tries to be the best in this field. Whatever lies outside of this field tends to be ignored and/or belittled. The abstract Contributor is good at winning arguments, which is generally done by a combination of rigorous logic within the field combined with belittling outside the field, and the abstract Contributor uses expertise within the field to justify the belittling. This is standard Contributor behavior, and I have repeatedly encountered it in both religious and secular fields. We all have a sin nature and this is the way that it tends to express itself in the abstract Contributor person. These traits are all described in more detail in my latest book.

I am a Perceiver (prophecy) person. Perceiver thought functions at a pre-logical level, using reasonableness and repetition to build confidence in facts and truth. Facts that reach a sufficient level of confidence then become raw material for Contributor thought, which then treats them as if they are digitally true. My primary method of research is to compare different fields for similar types of thinking. When one sees the same kind of thinking occurring in radically different fields, then this provides strong evidence that one is dealing with an underlying cognitive mechanism. For instance, I am reasonably confident that the traits of the previous paragraph are accurate because I have encountered them in so many different fields. The Perceiver person also has a sin nature. He is naturally judgmental, he escapes into alternate reality, is driven by duty rather than love, and so on. Both Don and Katie Fortune and Bill Gothard describe this type of judgmental Perceiver person.

That brings us to the core of human nature which, as you mention, is the heart. The Mercy person lives in this part of the mind, focusing upon culture and identity, driven by emotional habits that I call ‘mental networks’. The Mercy person also has natural strengths and weaknesses. Unlike the Contributor person , the Mercy person is naturally good at seeing the heart of people and emotional situations. The Mercy person may be lousy at knowing how to change a situation or person, but is usually (though not always ) surprisingly accurate at reading people's hearts and spirits. For the Mercy person, the sin nature primarily means worshiping and loving people, culture, and identity rather than God.

I say that my starting point is the theory of mental symmetry. That is the starting point for my analysis, but it was not the starting point of my personal journey. Instead, I was raised in a Mennonite home with a strong respect for the Bible, an Anabaptist insistence that biblical principles need to be obeyed and not just asserted, and a parental exhortation that popular opinion does not make behavior or belief correct. Looking back as well as looking at others , I can conclude with reasonable certainty that my research would not have been possible without that foundation.

When I was in high school, my brother became schizophrenic, and that emotional hell-on-earth forced me as a Perceiver person to go beyond escapism to dealing with matters of the heart. In addition, several times throughout my life I have chosen to submit to truth at the cost of losing, not just a job, but a career. Looking back, I can see that this trauma has given me at least a partial ability to think rationally in matters of the heart. I also see a combination of divine Providence and personal choice. On the one hand, I see the hand of God. On the other hand, I still had to make proper decisions at critical times.

This has instilled in me a deep fear of God. Not a fear that I will get struck by lightning from heaven for committing unacceptable deeds but rather a deep knowledge that if I do not apply the truth that I have, then I will deceive myself. I have seen too many pastors, theologians, researchers, and even colleagues go astray into self-deception because they were unwilling to pay the personal price that truth demands. And I say this from a deep Anabaptist tradition that has learned over the centuries the personal cost of holding on to truth. (Look up Foxe's book of martyrs.)

Concluding, it appears that the fundamental problem is not that the mind, Christian doctrine, and the nature of God are incomprehensible, but rather that the untransformed mind is locked into self-deception that makes it incapable of comprehending the nature of itself, Christianity, and God. This is a doctrine of original sin, but it is not one that can be magically cured merely by asserting the words of the Bible and mouthing a prayer of salvation. That may enroll a person in God's school of salvation, but one still has to take the classes and pass the tests.

I mention all this with some misgivings, because it is intensely personal and I do not know where you are in God's school of salvation.

 

[mattfivefour]

Concluding, it appears that the fundamental problem is not that the mind, Christian doctrine, and the nature of God are incomprehensible, but rather that the untransformed mind is locked into self-deception that makes it incapable of comprehending the nature of itself, Christianity, and God. This is a doctrine of original sin, but it is not one that can be magically cured merely by asserting the words of the Bible and mouthing a prayer of salvation. That may enroll a person in God's school of salvation, but one still has to take the classes and pass the tests.

I think what you have written in this excerpt adequately reveals the error of your teaching. Nobody has suggested that our spiritual problem is "magically cured" by anything that we do or say, but solely by the Holy Spirit working in us. There are only two main classes of people on this earth— those without the Spirit of Christ and those with that Spirit. The first class is broken into three subsets— those who have heard the gospel and entirely refused it, those who have never heard the gospel, and those who have heard it and not yet accepted it but in whom the Holy Spirit is working to bring them to salvation. The second class has two subsets— the first being those who have accepted Christ and are cooperating with the Holy Spirit through self surrender in order for God to produce the nature of Christ in them so that they may do the work of ministry and participate in the quantitative and qualitative building up of the Body. The second subset consists of those who are not cooperating but due to a strong reliance on their flesh nature are resisting the Holy Spirit, forcing Him to bring circumstances into their lives to get their attention and break their reliance on self and others. Any godly characteristic a Christian manifests in his or her life is NOT the product of their own natural nature (if it is, it is worthless in God's Kingdom) but is, rather, the result of the work of the Holy Spirit in them. All glory goes to God. Beyond that I don't know what else to say, brother, than what I have said before. You are convinced of the rightness of your theories. I only ask that you not engage in teaching them here on RF.

 

[Jan51]

I think what you have written in this excerpt adequately reveals the error of your teaching. Nobody has suggested that our spiritual problem is "magically cured" by anything that we do or say, but solely by the Holy Spirit working in us. There are only two main classes of people on this earth— those without the Spirit of Christ and those with that Spirit. The first class is broken into three subsets— those who have heard the gospel and entirely refused it, those who have never heard the gospel, and those who have heard it and not yet accepted it but in whom the Holy Spirit is working to bring them to salvation. The second class has two subsets— the first being those who have accepted Christ and are cooperating with the Holy Spirit through self surrender in order for God to produce the nature of Christ in them so that they may do the work of ministry and participate in the quantitative and qualitative building up of the Body. The second subset consists of those who are not cooperating but due to a strong reliance on their flesh nature are resisting the Holy Spirit, forcing Him to bring circumstances into their lives to get their attention and break their reliance on self and others. Any godly characteristic a Christian manifests in his or her life is NOT the product of their own natural nature (if it is, it is worthless in God's Kingdom) but is, rather, the result of the work of the Holy Spirit in them. All glory goes to God. Beyond that I don't know what else to say, brother, than what I have said before. You are convinced of the rightness of your theories. I only ask that you not engage in teaching them here on RF.

Excellent! I love the way you summed that up!

 

[Lorin]

In order to address your legitimate concerns, I shared how the Holy Spirit has worked within my life. You have essentially blasphemed that explanation. That is a dangerous response. When a situation escalates to this level, then I appeal to a higher power. Therefore, I am now officially appealing to God to make it clear who is following truth and who is following error.


This is not addressed to you personally. Rather, I see this specific exchange as a test case, because I know that there are many other Christian fundamentalists who hold to similar views. How you choose to interpret this appeal is unimportant. What matters is that over the years I have found that this prayer tends to get answered.

 

[townerka]

Luke 18:9-14American Standard Version (ASV)

9 And he spake also this parable unto certain who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and set all others at nought:

10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12 I fast twice in the week; I give tithes of all that I get.

13 But the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote his breast, saying, God, be thou merciful to me a sinner.

14 I say unto you, This man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled; but he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.