Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


TLC last won the day on March 16 2019

TLC had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,830 profile views

TLC's Achievements


Rookie (2/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Week One Done Rare

Recent Badges



  1. Agreed. And for supposedly being "experts in the holy spirit" field, the biggest achievement of going through TWI was a great puffing up of what anyone thought they knew about spirit and "how it works." But, seems to me there's an incredible amount of pride that needs (or needed, if any insist on a benefit of doubt) to be flushed out before the door leading to any real answers (aka, truth) in this field even begins to crack open. It was, is, and most likely will remain a "hit or miss" struggle that is never able to paint a clear enough picture to make much (much less "good") sense, especially for anyone deeply indoctrinated in certain religious beliefs... Seriously, Mike? You appear to be saying that people had no spirit whatsoever. How in the world then might you explain what is written in Luke 9:55? If you're some expert on spirit, exactly what "pneuma" do you suppose Jesus is referring to in this verse? And yes, I'm not stupid... I am aware that spirit (or pneuma, if you prefer) can and might refer to different "things" (for lack of any better word.) But my question (again) is simply this... What spirit do you suppose is being referred to in Luke 9:55? And why might Jesus refer to it being a "manner of spirit"? Or, if there's someone else in this forum that supposes themselves to be an expert on spirit... please feel free to answer the question.
  2. Considering that's such an obvious and blatant contradiction of what is so plainly written in Romans 6, perhaps it shouldn't be all that difficult to figure out why 2 Maccabees was left out of the King James... Romans 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
  3. That depends entirely on what you see... or, depending on how one prefers to say it... on what you believe to see. In other words, people (for the most part) can only believe what they see. However, according to scripture, it is not only possible to believe what is not (and can not be) seen... it appears to be one of only two very specifically given requirements written in Hebrews 11:6.
  4. If there were any such thing as a '"cleansing process," why might you (or anyone else) suppose that it so plainly omitted from Heb. 9:27? ...it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment...
  5. Is not one of the primary "keys" of biblical interpretation a consideration of "to whom is it addressed"? If so, then who spoke what is written in John 10:10, and to whom was it directed? Who were those words given to? In other words, exactly who does the "you" in John 10:10 refer to? Matthew 15 [22] And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. [23] But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. [24] But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Rom.15 [8] Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers But, I suppose you can cut those verses out of the Bible if you don't like them. Or, you can just ignore them and claim that anything and everything that Jesus Christ said or did here in his earthly ministry was actually directed to anyone and everyone... then ANYONE can have POWER for Abundant Living !!! Because having a wonderfully rich and prosperous life right now is available for everyone that wants to pretend this is addressed to them...
  6. thanks for the reminder why I stopped coming around here. It's mean, arrogant, comments like yours that just can't stand the plainly stated opinion of another ... which reveals far more than I care to think about or know.
  7. Well, you're certainly not the first (nor are likely to be the last) to proclaim that. Typically stirs a rather simple question in my mind as to whether (or perhaps I should say, why) someone ever truly believed that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. Because I see that as the real (and perhaps the only) crux of the issue. Furthermore, there's not a doubt in my mind that more that a few think that they do (or did, at one time or another) "believe" it... but if the truth be known, don't (and/or didn't ever.) Okay, so it brings up the question of what "believing" really is or isn't, which I don't have a pat answer for. But speaking from an obviously personal perspective, I simply can't relate to a "change of mind" about something that from a strictly "physically real" perspective is genuinely impossible to believe. So, to ever arrive at a time or place in life that you can and do cast aside the reality that you know, and replace it with the risen saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.... well, seem to me that it goes way beyond a crossing of the Rubicon, mentally speaking. I just don't know how anyone that "makes that jump" ever ends up being appeased or satisfied with going back to what was (or might have been) before.
  8. well, yeah... I suppose most probably are the product of certain genetic breeding, but beyond that, I'm inclinced to think there's also a rather distinctive commitment involved.
  9. Perhaps so, but certainly there are enough references to children of Belial (or of the devil, as in Acts 13:10) to make one wonder why they were singled out as such, or what set them apart from other more commonplace (or "natural") folk. Wasn't until many years later (courtesy some real life experience) and an epiphany that something in how VPW taught it was probably off, that something clicked (spiritually) and said characters actually make sense.
  10. So, that's your only care and concern? Not, what the truth is? Look, the fact here is, I really don't care much what your reason is or isn't for posting what you did. I was simply stating what it looks like, AND some number of reasons why it does. Why do you have to take this so personal? We both know it's not even a point of view that you actually believe, but rather, some bit of a reasoning process (that I plainly stated I wasn't familiar with and didn't make sense) which now appears far easier to avoid for what appears to me to be some rather emotional and artificial reason, rather than given much of any real thought to the points or questions already posed.
  11. This "who is in charge" angle (or approach, if you prefer) to oikinomia is not something I've really encountered or thought much about before, and quite frankly, I'm just not sure how or someone else might see or want to frame it in those terms, aside from it being a strawman. It seems to me that a more biblical perspective deals with (and hence, is more important to understand) what is dispensed or administered, and perhaps why it is so... and not really so much (if at all) with who or where it comes from, and when or how it arrives. Regardless of whether or not anyone says they ended abruptly, even that can lack contextual meaning. In other words, "abruptly"... as compared to what? For instance, was there supposedly some blink of the eye when Adam instantly moved from one administration to the next? And if so, when was it? As soon as he ate, and "eyes were opened"? Or, when God asks, "Where art thou?" Or, when God said, "...unto dust shalt thou return"? Or, when God clothed them? Or, maybe when God "sent him forth from the garden"? Or, was it when God "placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims"? Well, perhaps all in one day is "abrupt" enough. But then, what about the change that occurred with Noah? Was that at the beginning of building the ark... or, after the flood ended and they disembarked? And then, what does one then say when it comes to the change with Abraham? Or with Moses? Is there some "abrupt" that happens in their life where some switch is flipped? One instant before it was this, the instant after it was that? Well, I don't doubt that you are well aware of the fact that there was some sort of change that occurred and is recorded in Genesis 3. Likewise with Moses... although you seem to have missed or skipped over both Noah and Abraham. Does it really makes much difference what name might be used (i.e., Paradise, Patriarchal, Law, Grace, etc.) to label and/or identify these changes? Not so much, I think. Call them whatever, as long as it's not too misleading or inappropriate. Seems to me it's far more important to realize what changed, and perhaps, why it changed. AND, is what appears to have changed so significant that it should be called a change in oikinomia? Ah... so now we arrive at the real heart of the issue. What sets apart or distinguishes one oikinomia from another? And it's back to possible definition(s) of oikinomia. In short, I think how someone defines it can certainly limit or restrict what "changes" they do or don't see (or want to see) or acknowledge in scripture. As noted in a previous post, I currently lean towards thinking of it as an economy. Didn't always think of it that way... but I do now. Economies tend to be rather intricate, though not necessarily complex. But almost always not easily understood, even by the most intelligent. Sometimes it just take the right angle, or perspective, on it to make perfectly good sense. Hence, there is beauty and wisdom inherent within "rightly dividing" (...separating?) the word of truth. Try forgetting anything that vpw or twi or anyone else has said about, or what you think you know about, 2Tim.2:15... and just for a minute, consider what that verse might really mean if the separating (right dividing) that is written there is about making the appropriate distinctions between the word of truth that was given "prescribed" for this day and time, and that which was given for any other day and time. Why else would Paul refer to it as "my gospel" (Rom.2:16). which (according to Gal.1:11,12) was not received from man, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ?
  12. Geesh... can't say that I've ever even heard reasoning against seeing it as periods of time because there was some hard cut off point where one starts the other ends. When or where or why did "transition periods" get cut out of that picture? But, perhaps the intention is merely to make that particular aspect or perspective sound as difficult or as "unlikely" as possible... Personally, I've become rather fond of thinking of it in terms of an economy. Economies change (or evolve, if you prefer) over time. Even though that may not be a perfect way to see it, it makes plenty of sense to me. In a particular economic environment, certain things work great, some things sort work, and other things don't at all (i.e., you end up in the poor house.) Factor into that equation what is prescribed (or, "dispensed") for physical and/or spiritual health and well being in that particular economic environment, and you have a "dispensation." Furthermore, it makes the most sense from a global position, not having isolated bits and pieces or parts that operate independently or apart from the whole... 'cause when two economic systems enter the picture, one eventually overcomes or overwhelms the other and pushes it out or subjugates it. (i.e., puts it in the poor house.) which is why, I suppose, that the grace administration - as "good" and as overwhelming as it is - will need to be removed and taken out of the way for any other "system" to be viable.
  13. Sounds simple enough. The question it leaves, of course, is what do you see or think that He expects of us? Something different?
  14. Ah... so, perhaps you also think Rome is (or was) the "man child" that Rev. 12:5 speaks of. But, if so... then how is it that Rome is "caught up unto God, and to his throne"? After Pentecost (Acts 2)? mmmm.... okay, I guess. Maybe it was "in progress." But to be fair, I'm really not sure what all that might or might not mean or entail, and whether it was or wasn't, one way or the other at this point. Finalized? I'm not convinced. Granted, the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed - which btw, wasn't the first time it was lost. And it's no secret that Israel (today) already has very advanced plans, and is prepared to rebuild and restart the temple in Jerusalem. Which in and of itself doesn't necessarily make the old covenant any less obsolete... but it does raise some doubt as to how "disappeared" it might be. Well, if the primary way that you've ever viewed (or understood...?) administrations was through the lens that vpw or twi (and some number of others) framed or portrayed it as, then I suppose it's easy to see why you might be somewhat glib about, or befuddled with, certain things. Yes, I do believe in a pre-trib rapture, which effects a change in what can be (and is, or will be) prescribed for spiritual health and well being (aka, salvation) during something referred to in scripture as "the time of Jacob's trouble." What that is exactly, and when or how long that might remain, seems to be much more difficult to put a finger on. However, you might also think it a bit strange that I'm not of the persuasion that there won't be such a thing as death during the 1000 (millennial) year reign of Christ here on earth. Yeah, the dragon (i.e., that old serpent, etc.) is bound a thousand years. But death itself is not mentioned as being bound or done away with during that time, even though "as the days of a tree are the days of my people," and "there shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed." So, apparently there is (or will be) something in effect that can (and likely, will) result in, shall we say... severe consequences? Rev. 19 [12] His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. [13] And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. [14] And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. [15] And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. But, least this sound or appear to be too foreboding, perhaps this might also be kept in mind: The law (to be) in effect is also not written in stone or inked on pages somewhere. (see Heb. 8:10;10:16.)
  • Create New...