waysider

There are a couple problems with this approach. 1. I may be remembering incorrectly, but, in PFAL, Wierwille says (I'm paraphrasing.) "All means all, from Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21." Later, perhaps in another teaching, he invokes the "foreknowledge" angle to explain God already knew what would be included in the canon as he was inspiring it. (Not that I place much value on VPW's opinion but that's another matter.) *Someone please correct me if I am remembering this wrong* 2. There are many demonstrable, historical and scientific errors in the Torah. Why would God inspire scripture that lacked integrity? If you're using the Torah as the gold standard of what is and what isn't God-Breathed we might have a problem. 3. Scripture, in the least common denominator, means something that has been preserved in textual form. Does that not describe Paul's letters? If it doesn't, that would mean that Paul's words were devoid of authority until they were incorporated into the Bible.

Why, that would be none other than Paul, himself. (See II Tim. 3:16 for further elaboration.) Sounds a bit circular to me. I'm just sayin'.

Here's an interesting discussion we had about Paul.

Did somebody say ramblin'?

I would like to point out, for new arrivals, that being a Christian is not a requirement of this site. People from a wide variety of belief systems and those with no belief system at all are equally welcome here. This public service announcement has been brought to you by the makers of.......

I really just come here for the blueberry scones. Have one, if you like. They go well with Twinky's coffee. YUM!

You do have to admit, though, it has a more melodic sound than "I am a chump in a mighty scam".

For most people, I would venture to say it's a combination of both, usually biased in one direction or the other. Finding an acceptable balance seems to be the problem that vexes most.

Covenant An annoying insect that pestered a '60s rock band featuring Ozzy Osborne.

I think the point being made here is that Jefferson did not believe in the supernatural.

And now for something totally outta sight, man...HERE

I had a pet rock that got more revelation than Wierwille. The man was a blowhard. Happy Fathers Day to all.

It's his own personal take on what the mark of the beast is. He offers no solid historical or scriptural basis for his opinion.

As far as I know (which is a short distance) there is nothing in the Bible stating we are in The Grace Administration. Sure, there are verses that could conceivably be privately interpreted as such, but nothing that actually states this.

We ran a mile every morning at 5:30, ate communal meals, followed a ridged schedule and were expected to follow the orders of leadership without questioning. One might say that it had military undertones, but there was no military training per se. Also, by the 980's, the program had been disbanded. I think the last group graduated in 1978 or 9.

"This is absolutely no different than how native tribes come up with folklore. Manually filling in the detail through imagination where only the sketch of an outline truly exists." "Jesus wept." ...I think we ought to take that verse and build a whole doctrine around it. We could create a youtube channel that dramatizes the doctrine with live actors. In the opening scene, we see Jesus attending a twig fellowship, having been witnessed to by a very attractive young female WOW Ambassador. In a later episode, and without warning, he discovers he's been the victim of the old *date & switch* routine. Then, an unseen Ron Howard, acting as the narrator, proclaims with a rueful voice... "Jesus Wept".

Inerrancy is only possible if you allow for a dispensational approach to the scriptures. Without it, there are contradictions. This is one of the big things that was stressed in the PFAL class. "They only seem like contradictions because you fail to recognize who they were addressed to, etc" (dispensations)

Dispensationalism is a rationalization. It's a way of explaining away the very real contradictions that exist in the scriptures. It's a way of deluding yourself into believing the scriptures are inerrant.

It's not addressed to me but I will respond by saying I really don't care who you are, what your background is, how you think or what you do or don't know. I am curious, though, why you continue to believe in a concept that has no scriptural basis while professing yourself to be an "expert" on all things biblical..

"Dispensationalism developed as a system from the teachings of John Nelson Darby (1800–82) who strongly influenced thePlymouth Brethren of the 1830s in Ireland and England. The original concept came when Darby considered the implications of Isaiah 32 for Israel. He saw that prophecy required a future fulfillment and realization of Israel's kingdom. The New Testament church was seen as a separate program not related to that kingdom. Thus arose a prophetic earthly kingdom program for Israel and a separate "Mystery" heavenly program for the church. In order to not conflate the two programs, the prophetic program had to be put on hold to allow for the church to come into existence. Then it is necessary for the church to be raptured away before prophecy can resume its earthly program for Israel." SOURCE

That defines my experience with The Way. I started out as an active learner, what people used to call a "seeker". It didn't take long, though, before Way protocol turned me into a passive recipient.Some people are perfectly content to be passive recipients. I only know I wasn't one of them.

And there you have it. "Oh, but (insert splinter name) is right on."

I wanted to pull some important points out of this to highlight but it's so packed with good advise, I found that to be an impossible task.