Paul's Passing Thoughts

Potter’s House Tuesday Night Bible Study

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 24, 2013

Tuesday Night Bible Study

September 24, 2013

Study of the Book of Acts

 

Brief Review

 

Acts 1:12-22

 

Mount Olivet – location of the ascension

What is a “Sabbath day’s journey”?

 

Scene from the Upper Room

Who was there?

“continued with one accord”

In those days? (sometime between ascension and Pentecost?)

 

Peter’s Speech

Parenthetical in vs 18-19

Details of Judas’ death

 

This scripture must needs have been fulfilled!  (what scripture?)

Psalm 69:25 – Judas’ death

 

Psalm 109:8 – Judas’ replacement

 

Two Items to consider

  • “went in and out”.

 

Deuteronomy 31:2, Joshua 14:11, 1 Kings 3:7, 2 Chronicles 1:10,  2 Chronicles 16:1, Jeremiah 17:19, John 10:9

  • “ordained”

 

A word study on vs 21-22.  (see study sheet)

 

Comparison of tenses

 

Does Peter think he is about to fulfill prophecy?

 

 

 

 

 

Notes:

Acts 1:21-22 Word Study

 

Greek text from Textus Receptus:

21δει ουν των συνελθοντων ημιν ανδρων εν παντι χρονω εν ω εισηλθεν και εξηλθεν εφ ημας ο κυριος ιησους
22αρξαμενος απο του βαπτισματος ιωαννου εως της ημερας ης ανεληφθη αφ ημων μαρτυρα της αναστασεως αυτου γενεσθαι συν ημιν ενα τουτων

 

 

Greek

Pronunciation

Parsing and Definition

1 21δει “die” v. indicative, present, active (impersonal) – it is(was) necessary (as binding)
2 ουν “oon” conj. – accordingly, thus, so, then, therefore, wherefore
3 των “tone” definite article, genitive case – “of the”
4 συνελθοντων “syou-nel-thon-tone” v. participle, aorist, active, genitive – compound of “syoon” meaning with and “er-khom-ahee” menaing to come or to go.  “with-coming” or “with-going”, accompanying.
5 ημιν “hay-min” personal pronoun, dative case (indirect object) – “us”
6 ανδρων “an-drone” n. genitive case – “of men”
7 εν “en” preposition – “in”
8 παντι “pan-tee” adj. dative case – “all”
9 χρονω “chro-noh” n. dative case – a space of time or interval.
10 εν “en” preposition – “in”
11 ω “hoh” relative pronoun – who, which, what
12 εισηλθεν “eis-ale-then” v. indicative, aorist, active – compound of “eis” meaning into, and “er-khom-ahee” menaing to come or to go. “in-came” or “in-went”
13 και and conjunction – “and”
14 εξηλθεν “ex-ale-then” v. indicative, aorist, active – compound of “ex” meaning out of, and “er-khom-ahee” menaing to come or to go. “out-came” or “out-went”
15 εφ “eff” preposition – “on”
16 ημας “hay-mas” personal pronoun, accusative case (direct object) – “us”
17 ο “haw” definite article, nominative case (subject) – “the”
18 κυριος “kyou-ree-os” n. nominative case (subject) – “Lord”
19 ιησους “ee-ay-soos” n. nominative case (subject) – “Jesus”
20 22αρξαμενος “arx-am-en-os” v. participle, aorist, middle, nominative case – commencing in order of time
21 απο “a-paw” preposition – “from”
22 του “too” definite article (genitive case) – “the”
23 βαπτισματος “bap-tis-ma-tos” n. genitive case – baptism, washing, ceremonial cleansing
24 ιωαννου “ee-oh-an-noo” n. genitive case – “of John”
25 εως “he-ohs” conjunction – the idea of continuance, up to, until, till
26 της “tays” definite article (genitive case) – “the”
27 ημερας “hay-mer-ahs” n. genitive case – a literal day
28 ης “hays” relative pronoun – who, which, what
29 ανεληφθη “an-el-ayf-thay”

 

v. indicative, aorist, passive – compound of “ana” meaning up, and “lambano” meaning taken away quickly, suddenly, or unexpectedly.  “up-taken” or “up-snatched”
30 αφ “aff” preposition – “from”
31 ημων “hay-mone” personal pronoun (genitive case) – “of us”
32 μαρτυρα “mar-tyou-rah” n. accusative case (direct object) – “witness”
33 της “tays” definite article (genitive case) – “of the”

 

 

34 αναστασεως “an-ahs-tah-seh-ohs” n. genitive case – compound of “ana” meaning up, and “his-tay-mee” meaning to stand. “up-standing”, arising (as from the dead)
35 αυτου “ow-too” personal pronoun (genitive case) – “of him”
36 γενεσθαι “gen-ess-thai” v. infinitive, aorist, middle – to cause to be (genesis)
37 συν “syoon” preposition – “with”
38 ημιν “hay-min” personal pronoun (dative case) – “to us”
39 ενα “en-ah” adj. accusative case – “one”
40 τουτων “too-tone” demonstrative pronoun (genitive case) – “of these”

 

Direct from Greek text translation:

“It is necessary therefore of the accompanying us of men in all time in which in-came and out-came on us the Lord Jesus, commencing from the washing of John up to the day which up-taken from of us witness of the up-standing of him to cause to be with to us one of these.”

 

My translation:

“Therefore, it is necessary, of the men who accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out with us, staring at the time of the washing performed by John up to the day that He [Jesus] ascended from us, to cause one of these to be a witness of his resurrection with us.”

 

King James

“Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.”

 

ESV

“So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us–one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”

 

NASB

“Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us–beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us–one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”

 

Young’s Literal Translation

“It behoveth, therefore, of the men who did go with us during all the time in which the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day in which he was received up from us, one of these to become with us a witness of his rising again.”

 

Why I am “Toxic”

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 24, 2013

ppt-jpeg4I often observe myself. Do you do that? I think as Christians, we are conscious of what we do and say. That might surprise some readers here as I know it seems like I throw caution to the wind. That’s because you don’t see the stuff I edit out: “No, better not say that—too harsh.” Hey, just stop it; I believe there is such a thing as harshness.

This self-observation leads me at times to question why I do what I do. In this case, my resolve to NOT “let it go and move on with life.” Folks, unless there is reconciliation, nobody “forgives and forgets.” That’s just a fallacy—anybody who works with victims knows this. Who are the ones that you are unreconciled with? The Bible has a name for them; “enemies,” this would seem fairly evident. Granted, the Bible tells us how to relate to this category of relationship in our lives, and it is different from that of “brother.” And true, to some degree, the Bible instructs us to have a thick skin in matters of little consequence. This is often an issue of spiritual maturity.

Let me further this point a little. The letter of 2Thessalonians addressed a specific problem in the home fellowships of that geography. Because of errant eschatology, brothers had become idle in everyday work. Paul said to “warn them,” but to continue to treat them as brothers and not “enemies.” In other words, those who are unreconciled. The point can be made here that Matthew 18 is not a one size fits all situations.

I was once invited to write an article for a theological journal. However, the editing committee rejected the article based on issues with me personally; i.e., he is “toxic.” I wasn’t offended; after all, it’s true. But why am I “toxic”? I have figured it out. I think I have always known, but have never brought it to the forefront of my mind and highlighted it. And I think it sets me apart, for better or worse, from most evangelicals.

Simply stated: ONE person, or ONE family, is NOT expendable for the sake of unity. Salvation is not in an institution, salvation is in love. Love and unity within the institution is an excuse not to love anyone in particular. One saint is not expendable for the betterment or preservation of the whole; that’s Plato, not Jesus Christ the Lord.

This is where Reformed theology, which I detest as I learn more and more about it, separates us from our Jewish roots. There is a Jewish proverb that states,

He who saves one life, saves the world.

That’s my heart in a nutshell. Why? Because if one life is expendable, the whole world is expendable. If the happiness of one person is expendable, the happiness of the whole world is expendable. If one marriage is expendable, every marriage is expendable. And be sure of this: if justice for one person is expendable, justice for the whole is expendable as well. This is a fundamental philosophical difference between Plato and Jesus Christ. This is a fundamental philosophical difference between The Republic and the Bible. This is a fundamental philosophical difference between St. Augustine and the Jewish philosophers.

And this is the fundamental reason that the Biblical counseling movement of our day cannot help anyone and will not help anyone. In the beginning it did until the motto, “We are just producing better Pharisees” put an end to the “first generation” of biblical counseling. Now all they are doing is making us better Reformed Platonists. People that think they are being helped are just learning to detach themselves from the “flesh realm,” or in other words, this present life in totality. Plato despised human existence. The contemporary Reformed mindset in this country is simply producing funerals where there isn’t a wet eye in the place. I was at one just weeks ago. It was truly a time warp to the Stoicism that always placates the Reformed and masquerades as spiritual superiority.

What is more obvious in the present-day biblical counseling culture that the one marriage, one family, and one lamb are expendable for the preservation of the 99 [institution]? They are fooling themselves. They are utterly self-deceived; if you don’t care about one marriage, you don’t really care about any marriage save maybe your own. If one human life is expendable, any human life is expendable. If you have a bag of diamonds, you care not just a little if you lose one.

This is why I am “toxic” to many in the biblical counseling movement. The leaders of that movement celebrate St. Augustine who was an avowed Platonist. I only regret that little ole’ me has limited means in toxicity.

And for you other discernment bloggers out there, perhaps this post is defining for you. It may not be about you as much as you thought; it may be more about the idea that if they disregarded your wellbeing, they don’t regard anyone’s wellbeing.

While the biblical counseling movement claims to be the vanguards of the gospel, they know nothing of it. They peddle Calvin’s gospel of perpetual repentance for the maintaining of  salvation that can only be found in the institutional church invented by St. Augustine.  Hence, anyone that hinders the institution by demanding justice should not only be disregarded, but executed. Supposedly, the souls of “the group” depend on it. The souls of the “missional community.” While they hide this fact in the demeanor of Mr. Rogers, the biblical counseling community’s association with the likes of James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll are well known. These are men who speak fondly of contemporary Hindu  Juggernauts that you are either on or getting run over by, and human catapults. Their only punishment is to be silently  ostracized by those who share their sacred ideology.

That’s not love, that’s not speaking up for what’s right, and it’s not the gospel.

paul

@ Greg Laurie

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 23, 2013
Tagged with: ,

The James MacDonald White Paper: “MacDonald’s State of Mind”; Post 6 of 20

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 23, 2013

“And the results? Consider the following quote by ‘Pastor’ James MacDonald:”

Correction: The quotation is from Donn Arms, an associate of  Jay Adams at the Institute for Nouthetic Studies (INS).   

This is a post I wrote this morning, and I think it is very applicable to the folks at Harvest Bible Chapel:

I have received some significant pushback for posting the following quote by Jay Adams:

Folks let’s get this straight. The mind is not a physical organ. It cannot have a disease or illness except in a metaphorical sense as in a sick economy or a sick joke.

Typhoid fever — disease

Spring fever — not a disease

Scarlet fever — disease

Bieber fever — not a disease

Most of the pushback pertains to a rejection of the idea that the brain is not an organ, but Adams isn’t saying that the brain isn’t an organ; he is saying that the mind isn’t an organ.

I haven’t done a lot of study in this area, but I have done enough to know that some solid conclusions can be drawn from such a study because the Bible, as well as medical professionals make a distinction between the mind and the brain.

Everyone agrees that the mind, unlike the brain, is not observable; hence, the field of Psychology. This is a whole different matter than brain malfunctions that are physical. The fact that there are at least 200 different Psychology theories should speak to the fact that this enters into the realm of theory. One may also note that the most popular theory, Freudian Depth Psychology, perceives the human conscience in a very negative way. And that is very dangerous.

Here we have yet another area of wisdom where Christians are far too ignorant. It is also another fusion debate; in this case, the fusion of medical science and psychology. In other words, the fusion of science and theory. Psychology is mostly theory; psychologists barely agree on anything.

I am not going to preach out of school here, but Christians need to think carefully in regard to the idea that the mind can be sick. Certainly, the mind can be hindered by the brain, but is the mind susceptible to sickness like physical organs? Can the mind catch a cold? The reason we need to think carefully about this is because the Bible explains the mind as that part of the Christian that is redeemed.

Not only is this an area that is biblically defined with many dots that can be connected, it is a paramount consideration with vast implications for the Christian. Another huge elephant in the sanctuary is whether or not the Christian mind is actually redeemed. Our Protestant fathers said, “no.” 90% of all biblical counseling in our day is predicated on the idea that the mind cannot be renewed. Therefore, actions that please God cannot flow from the inner self to outward action.* Many pastors, while not understanding these trends and issues, attempt to counsel parishioners from a contrary mindset. The pastor speaks, and the parishioner hears something totally different because of indoctrination by parachurch organizations like NANC and CCEF with secular psychology as science to boot.  Any pastor who doesn’t deem these issues worthy of focus and understanding is functioning in ineptness.

The Bible in fact states that the “mind” of the Christian is regenerated and is the engine behind new creaturehood. Christians are promised that with proper cooperation with the Holy Spirit, the mind can be “renewed.” This is not only a biblical promise; we are commanded to renew our minds with the study and application of Scripture.  If the medical model regarding the mind is true, all bets are off—every vestige of spiritual growth is now ambiguous. And look at the contemporary church if you want to see the results of biblical ambiguity.

Christians error woefully by letting the theories of “experts” inform their lives on this issue. And the church owes Adams an immense debt of gratitude for bringing this issue to the forefront.

paul

*The fundamental thesis is that faith can only look outward to goodness outside of us, resulting in experiencing the obedience of Christ imputed to us while not being a participant in goodness that pleases God. This formula enables the Christian to live by faith alone—the same faith that saved us. So, faith is like an eye, it can only look outward to what isn’t inside of us. Any inward look is the dreaded, “existentialism” that is the unpardonable sin in our day.

And the results? Consider the following quote by “Pastor” James MacDonald:

“Why spend your life doing something neither required by the Lord, nor welcomed by others? Frankly, I gave up the job a while back, but felt constrained to make my decision known to all who read this blog. Don’t be disappointed if you don’t see me at my post, I am really done this time. Yes, for me it’s over. No more fixing people—I resign ” (James MacDonald: My Resignation; April 30, 2013, The Vertical Church blog. Online source,  http://jamesmacdonald.com/blog/my-resignation/).

MacDonald then goes on to explain, in essence, that it is his job to primarily show forth more Jesus, and as folks gaze on that, Christ will either change them or not change them according to His sovereign will. Like the vast majority of pastors in our day, MacDonald has merely returned to Luther’s radical construct that often brought the charge of  antinomianism from his contemporaries (Martin Luther wrote down the following disturbing sentence in one of his letters to Melancthon in 1521: “Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ more strongly, who triumphed over sin, death, and the world; as long as we live here, we must sin.”).

NOTE FILE SHARING WIDGET FOR THIS SERIES ON BOTTOM RIGHT SIDE PANEL

Oligarchy Logo

Some Clarification on Adams’ Assertion That the Mind Cannot be Sick

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 23, 2013

I have received some significant pushback for posting the following quote by Jay Adams:

Correction: The quotation is from Donn Arms, an associate of  Jay Adams at the Institute for Nouthetic Studies (INS).

Folks let’s get this straight. The mind is not a physical organ. It cannot have a disease or illness except in a metaphorical sense as in a sick economy or a sick joke.

Typhoid fever — disease

Spring fever — not a disease

Scarlet fever — disease

Bieber fever — not a disease

Most of the pushback pertains to a rejection of the idea that the brain is not an organ, but Adams isn’t saying that the brain isn’t an organ; he is saying that the mind isn’t an organ.

I haven’t done a lot of study in this area, but I have done enough to know that some solid conclusions can be drawn from such a study because the Bible, as well as medical professionals make a distinction between the mind and the brain.

Everyone agrees that the mind, unlike the brain, is not observable; hence, the field of Psychology. This is a whole different matter than brain malfunctions that are physical. The fact that there are at least 200 different Psychology theories should speak to the fact that this enters into the realm of theory. One may also note that the most popular theory, Freudian Depth Psychology, perceives the human conscience in a very negative way. And that is very dangerous.

Here we have yet another area of wisdom where Christians are far too ignorant. It is also another fusion debate; in this case, the fusion of medical science and psychology. In other words, the fusion of science and theory. Psychology is mostly theory; psychologists barely agree on anything.

I am not going to preach out of school here, but Christians need to think carefully in regard to the idea that the mind can be sick. Certainly, the mind can be hindered by the brain, but is the mind susceptible to sickness like physical organs? Can the mind catch a cold? The reason we need to think carefully about this is because the Bible explains the mind as that part of the Christian that is redeemed.

Not only is this an area that is biblically defined with many dots that can be connected, it is a paramount consideration with vast implications for the Christian. Another huge elephant in the sanctuary is whether or not the Christian mind is actually redeemed. Our Protestant fathers said, “no.” 90% of all biblical counseling in our day is predicated on the idea that the mind cannot be renewed. Therefore, actions that please God cannot flow from the inner self to outward action.* Many pastors, while not understanding these trends and issues, attempt to counsel parishioners from a contrary mindset. The pastor speaks, and the parishioner hears something totally different because of indoctrination by parachurch organizations like NANC and CCEF with secular psychology as science to boot.  Any pastor who doesn’t deem these issues worthy of focus and understanding is functioning in ineptness.

The Bible in fact states that the “mind” of the Christian is regenerated and is the engine behind new creaturehood. Christians are promised that with proper cooperation with the Holy Spirit, the mind can be “renewed.” This is not only a biblical promise; we are commanded to renew our minds with the study and application of Scripture.  If the medical model regarding the mind is true, all bets are off—every vestige of spiritual growth is now ambiguous. And look at the contemporary church if you want to see the results of biblical ambiguity.

Christians error woefully by letting the theories of “experts” inform their lives on this issue. And the church owes Adams an immense debt of gratitude for bringing this issue to the forefront.

paul

*The fundamental thesis is that faith can only look outward to goodness outside of us, resulting in experiencing the obedience of Christ imputed to us while not being a participant in goodness that pleases God. This formula enables the Christian to live by faith alone—the same faith that saved us. So, faith is like an eye, it can only look outward to what isn’t inside of us. Any inward look is the dreaded, “existentialism” that is the unpardonable sin in our day.

And the results? Consider the following quote by “Pastor” James MacDonald:

“Why spend your life doing something neither required by the Lord, nor welcomed by others? Frankly, I gave up the job a while back, but felt constrained to make my decision known to all who read this blog. Don’t be disappointed if you don’t see me at my post, I am really done this time. Yes, for me it’s over. No more fixing people—I resign ” (James MacDonald: My Resignation; April 30, 2013, The Vertical Church blog. Online source,  http://jamesmacdonald.com/blog/my-resignation/).

MacDonald then goes on to explain, in essence, that it is his job to primarily show forth more Jesus, and as folks gaze on that, Christ will either change them or not change them according to His sovereign will. Like the vast majority of pastors in our day, MacDonald has merely returned to Luther’s radical construct that often brought the charge of  antinomianism from his contemporaries (Martin Luther wrote down the following disturbing sentence in one of his letters to Melancthon in 1521: “Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ more strongly, who triumphed over sin, death, and the world; as long as we live here, we must sin.”).