Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/19/2023 in all areas

  1. Whats comical is a Christian ministry needed a "research paper" to figure out adultery was wrong... Thou shalt not commit adultery is about as plain and simple as you can get. No research needed. Geez where's that in-depth spiritual perception and awareness?
    2 points
  2. What explanations do our minds wrestle with when we struggle to reconcile sinful behavior by leadership with what we consider biblical doctrine? And is it possible there is an unspoken double standard that leadership holds to? Some rule, principle or doctrine which is unfairly applied in different ways to different people. And is it possible a whole church could have such lower moral standards than the secular world that it even freaks out unbelievers? Such was the case in 1 Corinthians 5 NIV . Paul observed the flagrant disregard for the moral standards of the Word of God - - and even the Gentiles! But for the Corinthian church, their immorality was probably considered part of a body of religious principles as promulgated by a church - - in other words, doctrine. Doctrine – no matter how simple – is man-made. It is what people think how certain passages should be categorized together and what ideas are to be abstracted from that. doctrines could be right, partially right, a teensy weensy bit right or twisted, distorted, fictitious or flat out dead wrong. Doctrine (from Latin: doctrina, meaning "teaching, instruction") is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the essence of teachings in a given branch of knowledge or in a belief system. The etymological Greek analogue is "catechism". Often the word doctrine specifically suggests a body of religious principles as promulgated by a church. Doctrine may also refer to a principle of law, in the common-law traditions, established through a history of past decisions. From: Doctrine - Wikipedia ~ ~ ~ ~ The word translated “doctrine” means “instruction, especially as it applies to lifestyle application.” In other words, doctrine is teaching imparted by an authoritative source. In the Bible, the word always refers to spiritually related fields of study. The Bible says of itself that it is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). We are to be careful about what we believe and present as truth. First Timothy 4:16 says, “Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.” Biblical doctrine helps us understand the will of God for our lives. Biblical doctrine teaches us the nature and the character of God (Psalm 90:2; 97:2; John 4:24), the path of salvation through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9; Romans 10:9–10), instruction for the church (1 Corinthians 14:26; Titus 2:1–10), and God’s standard of holiness for our lives (1 Peter 1:14–17; 1 Corinthians 6:18–20). When we accept the Bible as God’s Word to us (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20–21), we have a solid foundation for our doctrine. There can be disagreement within the body of Christ over secondary points of doctrine, such as eschatology, church organization, or the gifts of the Holy Spirit. But truly biblical doctrine is that which incorporates the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) and draws conclusions based on that which seems most closely aligned with the character of our unchanging God (Numbers 23:19; Hebrews 13:8). However, the Bible is not always the foundation upon which people or churches build their doctrinal statements. Our sinful natures do not easily submit to God’s decrees, so we often pick and choose the parts of the Bible we are comfortable with and discard the rest. Or we replace what God says with a man-made doctrine or tradition. This is nothing new. Jesus rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for “teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Mark 7:7, ESV; cf. Isaiah 29:13). False doctrine was rampant in New Testament times, and the Scriptures tell us it will continue (Matthew 7:15; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1). Second Timothy 4:3 says, “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” The Bible gives stern warning to those who would teach false or incomplete doctrine simply because it is more compatible with man’s ideas. First Timothy 6:3–4 says, “If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing.” The apostle Paul wrote harsh words about perverting the gospel with false doctrine: “Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!”(Galatians 1:7–9). from: What is doctrine? | GotQuestions.org ~ ~ ~ ~ You refer to the 14 appendixes of Schoenheit’s Paper that torpedoed the ministry fatally in late 1986, as they tried to suppress it all. I think those 14 appendixes, reasons, rationalizations, whatever just barely showed there was some correlation between the antinomianism running rampant throughout the ministry and the deliberate omission of biblical morality in wierwille’s ‘doctrines’. This is NOT a question of what-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg . It is simply that wierwille laid the groundwork driven by his own moral depravity. What is the Bible? I believe it is simply a theological message – concerning the metaphysical realm and perhaps the desires of a higher power. To use it in arguments over doctrinal squabbles trivializes the message. I am as guilty as anyone else on this point – maybe more so since one of my hobbies is systematic theology. But the Bible is NOT a textbook of theology…or a user’s manual…or any other pet description we christen it with – it is what it is – there’s no changing it – we just have to accept it for what it is – a compilation of ancient documents that many considered inspired of God…should I criticize my cat for not being a dog? Darn - you mean the Bible is not a religious textbook? correct. wierwille often talked about interpreting the Bible in context – but I’ve come to the realization he often filtered the Bible through some other context…But if you think about it – the context of the Bible is the languages and cultures that produced it…to ignore those is to proceed in a slipshod manner toward something foreign to the original intent of the Scriptures. When I was in TWI – I assumed the purpose of Bible study was to affirm the creeds…beliefs…ideas as taught in PFAL. Don’t get me wrong – creeds…doctrines have value in that they help us to focus on what’s important. But again, I bring up the what-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg conundrum – maybe we should not be so laser-focused on pet-doctrines we’re familiar with – instead, have more of an open-minded approach - and for starters just get the big picture - the overview. It’s been some 37 years since I left TWI – at first I plunged into systematic and biblical theology, hermeneutics, philosophy of religion, and philosophy in general - and I still keep up on that stuff – but more importantly some things that coincided with those studies was a growing concern for developing a relationship – not with a book – but with a person, Jesus Christ!…needless to say, this approach gives me a strong sense of fulfillment - like this is what life is really all about - building relationships with God and people. I was never interested in becoming a pseudo-Christian Bible scholar or snake oil salesman anyway.
    1 point
  3. No, that's not even remotely necessary. Ive never witnessed a muder either and I can say absolutely tha murder is wrong are so are murderers. Same with adulterers. No research needed and the fact that the truth of thour shalt not commit adultery caused so many people to run, hide, and cover shows just exactly what was going on. It was systemic adultery complete with wife swapping amongst the way corps and wierwille and martindale used others to arrange scenarios and procure victims that they could boink...no matter if the women were married or not. Thats disgusting and evil and you have spent how many years rationalizing that this behaviour that started with wierwille is somehow excusable because they talked about the bible with excitement....?
    1 point
  4. Why can't this be said enough: That this wicked "ministry" needed a monograph written to address the issue of adultery, and that the paper caused such a sh¡t storm, should tell anyone all they need to know about the FOUNDATION of this "ministry." Didn't victor paul wierwille need to loosen up LCM before putting oil on his head? ----- I grew up in a home that some might call church lady-like. Sex was an unspoken issue. Not condemned, just repressed. My mother is a devout Christian, and she raised two boys rightly. I explored sex and drugs with gleeful, unashamed fervor after I left home. I've NEVER been accused of being prude or pious. I have never been afraid of choking on the bone so that I might extract all the marrow. Whether it is the Sunday school of my youth or just my empathic character, it doesn't really matter. I could never allow anyone to "teach" me that hurting another was ok because it's all about beleeef and rewards anyway, not demerits. I'm of generation X. Now, I appreciate the sexual revolution (indeed, all the revolutions) of the 1960s and 70s, but... hippy shmippy... So what! It's no excuse for the hurt caused by this "ministry." And it all goes back to that charlatan victor paul wierwille. All. Of. It.
    1 point
  5. Makes you wonder what is the point of biblical “research”. wierwille et al have typically obfuscated the differences in disciplines - word studies and textual criticism tend to look for the original meaning. Whereas the wierwille / TWI tenets has Its own brand of skewed systematic theology - which strives to make a coherent and CURRENTLY RELEVANT doctrine out of what wierwille intuited with generous proportions of fundamentalism, spiritualism and Gnosticism. If I had paid better attention to wierwille’s butchering of simple grammar and logic in PFAL, I probably would have noticed his departure from what a passage meant to the original recipients. 19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. II Peter 1 KJV So take note at one of the first HUGE RED FLAGS in PFAL. Bullinger as well as many modern translations understood II Peter 1 (you can check out other translations if you click on the Bible Hub hyperlink above ) refers to the ORIGIN of Scripture and NOT to the INTERPRETATION of Scripture…and to make matters more confusing wierwille goes on to say it should be understood to mean that no one should interpret Scripture because Scripture interprets itself. I bought into wierwille’s nonsense - and without realizing it, I accepted wierwille’s interpretation of Scripture as if it was the original and true meaning of the Bible. Boy, did I miss it it! Mike chides us for how much we missed in PFAL - oh I see it now . I missed all the con games. Relative to this point about adultery - I’ve heard wierwille teach on mention of adultery in NT passages that it’s referring to “spiritual adultery” i.e., shacking up with other gods. Again note the pivot from the original meaning of a word to twisting it to fit into his depraved systematic theology.
    1 point
  6. So, lcm added more wrong teaching to what vp had already taught incorrectly?
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...