Leaderboard
Popular Content
Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/01/2022 in all areas
-
sky I looked over rnr and oikeos. I can't discount either of these groups from being part of the body of Christ obviously. Rnr seems not governed with just a teaching series. Oikeos seems like Rico invented another class based ministry fixing what was perceived wrong with way structure. Both groups are permeated with old way acquaintances and no mixing in with any other Christian groups at all. Oikeos did acknowledge they were not the only group spreading the gospel so at least they are a step up from the Way there. Is this a shipwreck of the family faith? With Gilligans Island castaways? Or is it a Living Word example with people doing the best they can with their past and limits? I can't honestly answer that. I can't do splinters personally. To me they just form large balls of puss under the skin. But Jesus Christ does get to a person where they live, and God works with what He has. Let them heal and recover. Let the Savior move freely with his recovery and restoration. I don't think they are living the verses in Corinthians they teach. I think they have blinders on to the rest of the body of Christ.2 points
-
Idiom of permission Yeah that is Bullinger but the dude had nobody really before or after to break down analytically poetic language from the Bible in that fashion. He presents like he was on the autism spectrum. And extreme OCD - buckets and lists for everything. While that presents a very interesting and innovative perspective, who really wants to live that way lol? The gist of it I remember was kind of a combination of royal language along with counting up the mentions to see who gets more press. Like a rule against saying Satan too many times in a given period of time (not applicable to SNL sketches with Dana Carvey) So God did everything good and bad. I personally think that one is a little more on Bullingers spectrum side so I don't buy it. I don't have a solution for the moral dilemma with OT verses. My simpleton philosophy is shizzle happens God helps his pizzle.1 point
-
Except when it is. Getting too hung up in man-made technicalities causes one to miss the forest for the trees. This was one of the great stumbling blocks for victor and bullinger. The Mediator, the Advocate... these are functional titles. They are descriptive, they are not mysterious linguistic codes. Now, "at the right hand of God" is, indeed, a figure of speech. These titles and figures of speech are NOT in conflict with each other, nor are they in conflict with "Christ in you." Just because it SEEMS to be mysterious or difficult or ill-fitting a man-made theological proposition, doesn't mean it's any of these. Where is God? Far away on a cloud with a long beard and a lightning bolt? Where is God? Is God near to you? How close is God? Can you measure the distance? Try it. I submit to you if you can measure the distance in inches or feet or miles, that is not God. Is Christ in you? Where is Christ? At God's right hand? Where is God? Is God absent? Where is Christ? Is Christ in you? Is Christ at God's right hand? Is Christ absent? Find out for yourself - no one else can find out for you. Cutting off one's fingers in order to MAKE the hand fit the glove is stupid. If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit; if they don't fit, it is not true to fact that OJ is the murderer. BULL$HIT. Except the gloves DO fit, they are HIS gloves, and he IS the murderer.1 point
-
Mike - unfortunately, you have let wierwille and his extremely sloppy so called research methods define scripture for you. Where it says he is our advocate he is literally our advocate -- it's not figurative that the devil accuses the brethren day and night before our God and it's not figurative that he is our advocate, making intercession for the saints before our God in our defence. That's just one of Jesus Christ's current function in his non-absent role as God's right hand man.1 point
-
https://revivalandrestoration.org/ and https://oikeos.org/ seem to be working together somehwhat from what I can tell. RnR is Ed Horney taking the lead and Oikeos is Rico Magnelli. Thats all I really know though. I did goto two RnR fellowships in Indy in 2018 I guess....basically functioned like a TWI fellowship to the letter with a less rigid vibe to it. Wasn't for me then or now.1 point
-
BUMP ############ Well, it's been over five years...... and it seems appropriate to ask a few questions. Anything happening with all those cloistered-clergy efforts at Revival and Restoration? Are they gaining any momentum or has their bluster faded away? Are their teachings reaching any one besides the choir? Any one here privy to their status? ############ I can't help but think what I said a few years ago has come to pass......i.e. "First of all, this RnR group will SOON REALIZE.......once people break away from the fear-based twit-cult, they will NOT automatically follow another "designated leader." Once the stranglehold is broken......and IF any venture on over to GSC......they will find whole new vistas of thought and freedom. Their critical thought processes will engage......AND......many will STOP GOING TO AN RnR-SPLINTER GROUP, as well. Many who went to CES..........don't anymore. Many who went to CFF..........don't anymore. Once people break free from the chains of fear, manipulation and exploitation........they ain't going to regularly attend RnR "fellowships" and give a hunk of their hard-earned money to ANOTHER group that preaches wierwille-adulation. Plus, add in some corps grad egos who want salaried........and, bang, off to the races they go with more in-fighting, back-biting, and splintering. Once people exit a cult..........it's a new world out there." .1 point
-
Appreciate your questioning and honest minds, Raf and T-Bone. I do think that codified religion and many hierarchical church systems are a big turn-off. And that includes TWI's branch of hierarchy. There are times (and many Christians admit to this) when you wonder (or doubt) why you believe something, why you believe in God, whether it's all a big con job. In the same way, perhaps, as one wonders why they're married to this annoying person, why they don't walk out on these disruptive kids, why they don't just get rid of the annoying pet. And then, the wonderer remembers why they choose to believe rather than doubt, to stay, to keep, etc. That's honestly loving. Do we not make loving God too complex with manmade rules, strictures, words, robes, etc? And we forget, sometimes, that it's not just a personal, individual love, but a corporate / community love too. A way of living with other people. Micah 6:8 What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? Matt 7:12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets Mark 12:30,31 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ f 31The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ g There is no commandment greater than these. 2 Cor 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means [including over-complicated churchy stuff], as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. Raf, you act in a loving, kind way, taking care of your wife and kids, trying to avoid fights and looking after the needy. You're keeping it simple, bro. I respect your position (just as I respect the position of a friend of mine, a muslim convert from Catholicism), know the reasons why, but I don't properly comprehend the decisions either of you made.1 point
-
Maybe they are not yet, but don't be surprised if they are actually doing that and you just haven't heard about it. They may be keeping it secret and not making it publickly known.1 point
-
I've read a lot of chapters in a lot of books. Some have more than 1,000 pages. Some have fewer. The fact that someone wrote a chapter in a book that documents a phenomenon he has identified is no guarantee that the phenomenon he describes is an accurate reflection of the truth. I'm not saying Bullinger is flat out wrong about the idiom of permission. He could be absolutely right. But peculiar how few others have made the same observation, independently coming to the same conclusion. And is it or is it not time we started asking some serious questions about the reliability of Bullinger as a scholar? Because the man was BATS. Too soon? He was nuts. I mean, flat-earth, Adam was created in 4004 B.C. cuckoo. I humbly submit that his opinions on tons of subjects are... what's the word... suspect.1 point
-
1. "Sadly, I cannot get this man to accept the notion that the Bible really is the word of God." Ok, let's start there. The Bible never calls itself the Word of God. That's part of the problem right there. The Bible speaks of the Word of God quite often, but it never has the self-awareness to declare itself to be that Word. Maybe, just maybe, you can be wrong about the Bible being the Word of God and still be a good Christian. 2. "I think he would like it to be..." Well, no one asked you what you think, did they? Maybe he has no preference one way or another and is just waiting for you to make a plausible case for your thesis. 3. "... but is overly obstinate and has an awful attitude towards God and his plan for man's redemption." A lot to unpack there. Has it occurred to you that maybe YOU're the one being "obstinate" with an "attitude" that won't budge no matter how many facts he presents to counter your preconceived notion that the Bible is the Word of God? Like, maybe YOU're the stubborn one, not him? Because he shows you the Bible, and you start making excuses. Oh, that's the Old Testament. God's different now. He's really kind and gentle. He did what he did before because he HAD to to fulfill the plan of redemption. Problem: The plan of redemption is only the plan of redemption because God wanted it that way. It didn't have to be. He could just accept an apology without shrugging his shoulders and saying oh well because someone found a particular fruit of a particular tree to yummy to pass up (He also could have put that tree ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET but instead put it right in front of two people who did not know good and evil; then said don't eat from that tree. Not exactly a strong case for omniscience. It's like I put a cookie on the table in front of my 7-year-old and said "Don't eat that," then walked out of the room. He's gonna eat the cookie. I'm not all knowing, and I know that). So your friend, I submit, is not stubborn. Rather, he's amused at the contortions you'll twist yourself into to deny what's obviously written. There IS not idiom of permission in the Bible. Bullinger, for what he's worth, appears to be the only one who makes an issue of it. It's hardly a scholarly consensus. The existence of other figures of speech does not verify the "idiom of permission" as something the Bible employs on a regular basis. It is, however, an extraordinarily convenient tool for believers to employ whenever their holy book shows God doing what no good God would ever do, even though the book is unambiguous about it being God who did it. But that's just the old testament. Unless, of course, you're holding back tithes from the apostles in Acts, which is New Testament. (Oh, but it doesn't say God did that. It was Satan -- even though the Bible doesn't say THAT either). The Bible is filled with examples of God saying he'll do something and then saying He did it. It doesn't say he allowed it to happen or he allowed Satan to do it. It says HE did it. Now, it COULD have said he allowed Satan to do it, very easily. Look at Job. Satan did those things. It says so. Yeah, he got God's permission, but it says that, clearly. There's no ambiguity, and there's no "this is how it works normally." A figure of speech is supposed to be a statement that is true in essence though not literally true. "It's raining cats and dogs" is a figure of speech. "This car can stop on a dime" is a figure of speech. A figure of speech is not supposed to be a way for you to get the Bible to say the opposite of what it clearly says just because what it clearly says is inconvenient for your theology. God ordered the execution of a man for picking up sticks on the sabbath. He didn't give man permission to kill the offending sabbath breaker. He gave man an order -- cast those stones! God didn't allow divorce. He prescribed it. He didn't allow Satan to kill all the firstborn of Egypt. He had it done. And he DID have a choice. When my kid offends me, I have a choice how to discipline him. You have no idea how many times my discipline has stopped short of killing him because he did his chores between sunset on Friday night and Saturday night! So here's a thought. Bear with me: Maybe your friend isn't the stubborn one in this equation. Maybe he's not the one being inflexible. Maybe, just maybe, he's given this far more thought than you have.1 point