waysider

Here's a wacky thought that passed through my brain cell. If, on one hand, one applies the Calvinist "predestination concept" to rationalize that people would have ultimately been "hurt some other way", how, on the other hand, can they then dismiss said concept as it relates to the possibility of hearing the information from another source? ************************************* "In common English parlance, the doctrine of predestination often has particular reference to the doctrines of Calvinism. The version of predestination espoused by John Calvin, after whom Calvinism is named, is sometimes referred to as "double predestination" because in it God predestines some people for salvation (i.e. Unconditional election) and some for condemnation (i.e. Reprobation). Calvin himself defines predestination as "the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. Not all are created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or to death."[4]. On the spectrum of beliefs concerning predestination, Calvinism is the strongest form among Christians. It teaches that God's predestining decision is based on the knowledge of His own will rather than foreknowledge, concerning every particular person and event; and, God continually acts with entire freedom, in order to bring about his will in completeness, but in such a way that the freedom of the creature is not violated, "but rather, established"[5] Calvinists who hold the infralapsarian view of predestination usually prefer that term to "sublapsarianism," perhaps with the intent of blocking the inference that they believe predestination is on the basis of foreknowledge (sublapsarian meaning, assuming the fall into sin).[6] The different terminology has the benefit of distinguishing the Calvinist double predestination version of infralapsarianism, from Lutheranism's view that predestination is a mystery, which forbids the unprofitable intrusion of prying minds. Calvinists seek never to divide predestination in a mathematical way. Their doctrine is uninterested, in the abstract, in questions of "how much" either God or man is responsible for a particular destiny. Questions of "how much" will become hopelessly entangled in paradox, Calvinists teach, regardless of the view of predestination adopted. Instead, Calvinism divides the issues of predestination according to two kinds of being, knowledge, and will, distinguishing that which is divine from that which is human. Therefore, it is not so much an issue of quantity, but of distinct roles or modes of being. God is not a creature nor the creature God in knowledge, will, freedom, ability, responsibility, or anything else. Calvinists will often attribute salvation entirely to God; and yet they will also assert that it is man's responsibility to pursue obedience. As the archetypal illustration of this idea, they believe Jesus in his words and work humanly fulfilled all that he as part of the Trinity had determined from the Father should be done. What he did humanly is distinguishable, but not separate, from what he did divinely." Here's a link to Predestination

And there are people who can, by trickery and highly developed observational skills, provide information that would seem to be impossible for them to know. The popular television show "The Mentalist" features such a person as the lead character. THE MENTALIST stars Golden Globe Award nominee Simon Baker as Patrick Jane, an independent consultant with the California Bureau of Investigation (CBI), who has a remarkable track record for solving serious crimes by using his razor sharp skills of observation. Within the Bureau, Jane is notorious for his blatant lack of protocol and his semi-celebrity past as a psychic medium, whose paranormal abilities he now admits he feigned. Jane's role in cracking a series of tough high-profile cases is greatly valued by his fellow agents. However, no-nonsense Senior Agent Teresa Lisbon openly resists having Jane in her unit and alternates between reluctantly acknowledging Jane's usefulness and blasting him for his theatrics, narcissism and dangerous lack of boundaries. Lisbon's team includes agents Kimball Cho, Wayne Rigsby and rookie member Grace Van Pelt, who all think Jane's a loose cannon but admire his charm and knack for clearing cases. http://www.cbs.com/primetime/the_mentalist/about/

We had a Momentus type experience in Fellow Laborers (mid 1970s). If it had a name, I don't remember it. People were brought in from outside the program and conducted the weekend "seminar" at the limb BRC. Lots of "scream in your face", "make you or break you" type activities. It was a bad scene. Real bad. If it had any lasting effects on people, they weren't good effects. We didn't pay extra for it, nor was it optional. It was part of our "program". I can't imagine anyone actually paying hard earned cash to have someone trash them in front of a room full of people and tell them how insignificant they supposedly are.

Oh, we had our share of screaming fits in FLO. They were usually (but not always) directed at the whole group, though.

You know that it would be untrue.

The wild dogs cry out in the night As they grow restless longing for some solitary company I know that I must do what's right Sure as Kilimanjaro rises like Olympus above the Serengeti I seek to cure whats deep inside, frightened of this thing that Ive become

Hi, shiftthis Thanks for your response. I hope you don't mind;I've taken the liberty of reformatting your response for easier readability. If you would prefer I not do that in the future, just say the word. *************************** got in the way in 1980 had some good leaders had some mean leaders, when the twig i was in split off from twi in 1987 i stayed with it ( the independent fellowship) when the independent fellowship ceased to exhist after several years i found a twi fellowship to attend, then i moved a few years later and attended a twi fellowship with a major "A" of a coordinator , i spoke up about him and he was fired and we got a nice new coordinator, a year or so later martindale wanted a superclean household and for some unknown reason i was booted out, a few years later i met up with someone in twi i had known and was told about lcm being fired and decided to start going to twi again, boy was i surprised to find this was not my grandpas ministry (I am my own grandpa,i got proof i was born in mississippi !!!) that was 2001 and as far as i know to this day peole who would hurt or be major "A" 's are not tolerated, yeah i got hurt a few times and so did others at the mouths of those that never should have ben put up with ,but it took lowely believers like me not being afraid to speak up i'v ben on both sides the independents and twi and have experenced hurt from both, if the way ceased to exhist i'd find others who would rightly divide the word and go to there fellowship, GOD looks on the heart and not at what church you go to , now i must go and see if i can find some old friends here , i already got united with a few a while back i got friends in all kinds of groups , GOD bless you, btw GOD also rides in a FORD !!!!

I don't see anybody trying to prove they are "holier-than-you-know". What I see are some people who are offended by this statement: "You see we did not select VPW to "put it all together" and distribute it around the world. God selected Dr to get the job done and it got done. Anyone hurt in the process would have probably gotten hurt some other way, and either way God is there to help them get healed if they want it."

I'm not sure. A well replenishes itself. A cistern doesn't.

Must have been long after I left.

Yes, I can see if one were still obsessed with defending the tenets of PFAL, some of these points might seem to have merit. Personally, I see PFAL for the error filled piece of crap that it really was, especially the bogus "law of believing" nonsense. Your "only rule" requires that one, of necessity, subscribe to contaminated doctrine in order to access non-contaminated doctrine.

My, aren't we clever?

In the interest of condensing things a bit, I am pasting the items referred to from post # 241. **************************** In a few cases grads presented their “only rule for faith and practice” confusing it with things like the idea of “the most important” rule for conduct, or confusing it with the “greatest commandment,” or confusing it with an abbreviated thumbnail summary of a system of rules. On January 15, on the “snow” thread, in Post # 401 Twinky wrote: “One rule for faith and practice: well, here's mine. God is love and in him is no darkness at all. Because he loves us, God will never leave us nor forsake us.” On January 31, on this thread, in Post # 107 socks wrote: “I do have a single rule of faith and practice, actually, to the original topic - and again in Galatians as it's written in these words, a perfect way to view it for every Christian - ‘I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.’” On February 1, on this thread, in Post # 140 waysider wrote: “If I had to declare ONE rule of faith and practice, it would be The Golden Rule. It transcends religious boundaries and theological inclinations.” *************************** Suppose we just cut to the chase and you state what you think is "wrong" with those statements. Is it because they don't precisely reflect what "Doctor" insisted must be our only rule? I don't need a lengthy chastising explanation. Just get to the point and state your case.

This is a statement that was made recently on another thread regarding people who were adversely affected by the depraved lifestyle of VPW. ********************************** "You see we did not select VPW to "put it all together" and distribute it around the world. God selected Dr to get the job done and it got done. Anyone hurt in the process would have probably gotten hurt some other way, and either way God is there to help them get healed if they want it." *********************************** I'm personally at a loss to understand the sort of rationalization it would take to accept this statement. Any comments?

I was never involved with any splinter, though the last twig I attended was a bit on the rogue side in regards to "towing the line". I have often said, and this is, of course, just opinion, that the lifestyle that evolved from our involvement played, perhaps, a larger role in our destinies than the actual scriptural tenets we adhered to, such as "four crucified", "Jesus Christ is not God", etc. Something that I think was overlooked in The Way was the reason believers met as they did in the first (and second and third) centuries. There is speculation as to the actual reasons but, for all intents and purposes, it can probably be summed up as "necessity". They really had nowhere else to meet. Couple that with the persecution and a pattern begins to evolve. These "churches" were autonomous. They didn't emanate from a central location. Early groups during "The Jesus Movement" bore some similarity in that, they too, were decentralized. They had few formal meeting centers and thus they enjoyed a level of autonomy. And, in fact, there were pockets of groups, twigs, inside The Way in the earlier days that were operating in a similar manner. Wierwille changed all that. He centralized everything at HQ. Yes, we continued to meet in homes. We weren't however, "home fellowships" in a strict sense. We were "cells" of a centralized organization. This is one of the biggest realization I garnered from my Fellow Laborer experience. Here we were, living in a commune, pretending to be replicating the lifestyle of the first century "believers" when, in reality, we were living a contradiction. Every move we made was dictated from the outside. That's not how the church existed in the first century. From what I have observed, many of these so-called splinter groups favor the home meeting format as well but are really nothing more than a perpetuation of the cell group structure. If that's what they really want, more power to them. I think people need to take an honest look, though, at what they call "home fellowships" and see if that is an accurate description before they decide to declare allegiance.

50 years ago

Chance--Man On A Mission

Which of these are you handing out?

Sorry, Twinkie It's amazing how these simple critters can bring so much pleasure to our lives.

Here is an example of a question that would warrant a short answer. QUOTE (Mike @ Jan 30 2009, 12:19 PM) * Christ formed within is Christ in you THE GLORY, whereas pneuma hagion is only the token, the hope of glory to come. It came. My response Reference? **************************** Care to explain why you think that would require a lengthy answer? Mike's answers aren't short because he doesn't want them to be short. He dodges the questions. He takes a simple question and responds with lengthy jibber-jabber that makes no logical sense in context. Then he belittles his audience by telling them they are either suffering from attention deficiency or just not smart enough or caring enough or their memories are faulty, or they lack proper study skills or they're not spiritually sharp enough to get "it", whatever "it" is. Then he cries, "Boo Hoo, poor me, I'm living a life of martyrdom for such a noble cause. Nobody understands me." Like the old saying goes, "You made your bed, now sleep in it." It's really just that simple.

-------------Da Boss

How can I know if I want his answers or not if he never brings them out in the open? Am I bothering him? I don't think so. He is, after all, the one who continues to broadcast and re-broadcast his PFAL infomercial. Why advertise if you don't expect anyone to respond? Mike spends inordinate volumes of time and space pitching his product when he could simply answer a few simple questions and be done with it. I don't feel the least bit of sympathy. If he feels it's taking too much time, maybe he should rethink his priorities and be a bit less evasive. Now what would you give for it? Wait!!------There's more.

My questions have all been very straightforward. They are the type of questions that require short and to the point answers. Perhaps if Mike didn't devote page after page after page to dodging them, he would have the time to answer them.

You dodged my question---again. (Not that I'm surprised.) My question was---"What does PFAL say we should expect of our ministers and teachers?", not how they are chosen? You're the guy who says he knows more about PFAL than all of us. Surely this should be easy-------AND SHORT!

He sounds like someone I would like to have known.