TLC

Do you likewise think that serpent is perfect? Or when and how is it that fallen creature excluded? And if everything is perfect... why do you suppose God gave instructions to the man to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Did evil already exist at the time of this instruction... or didn't it? Can this be explained?

I see and have no reason to think that anything written in 1John is intended for the body of Christ, which no one aside from Paul ever speaks of, or refers to. Of course God is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us... but that is no clear or certain promise that there there is anything that we can think or say that will bring it to pass. Well, I strongly disagree. I believe that it's an integral part of understanding the difference between what was given and promised to Israel, and what was been done for us in Christ. The gospel of the Kingdom was given to Israel. The gospel of grace was given to us. And there are differences between the two. Even with many signs, miracles and wonders, Israel (as a nation) failed to believe and accept that Jesus was the Christ, the son of the Living God. We, on the other hand, believe that God raised Christ from the dead... in complete and total contradiction to anything and everything that can be known by our five senses. How or why did we do that? Perhaps only because of a recognition and acceptance of the fact that all men (or most notably, our own selves) have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God... and that we needed a savior. So we, in our heart, knew and understood that it was the only way... and believed the impossible. There's a simplicity in Christ that should never be lost or complicated in or with any of the great many things that have been said or written to or for Israel...

Unfortunately, there is a lot of confusion (especially for many of us that were so deeply indoctrinated into the "what you can believe you will receive" teachings of PFAL) as to what - or perhaps I should say, which - of God's promises are specifically given and intended for us, rather that merely being "for our learning." Frankly, it's took far too long a long time for this to have ever begun getting straightened out in my... but after finally hearing it (and seeing it pointed out in scripture) from someone older, much wiser (and far more humble) than myself, it explained and made much more sense of a whole lot of things. Honestly, there might be no really good or easy place to start, aside from ripping off the band-aid (which will probably take some hair and skin with it.) So, here goes... What if a lot (i.e., most nearly all) of the promises of God that you have heard and think or suppose are given and meant to be applied and work for you... really aren't addressed to you? I said "what if"... because I know how hard that might be to even consider being a possibility. So let's leave it at that. What if they aren't? Then... what is? And how does it differ from what we might have thought "was"? Well, that's what we have to find and look at from scripture. But, if you need or will want to have a possible reason why all the other promises aren't, then rather than chase that down some never seeming to end rabbit hole, perhaps you allow me to simply cut to the chase and summarize it in a word or two, and then move on. There are a lot of promises that are written and given specifically to Israel, most of them pertaining to life here on earth, and a great many of them being conditional. Jesus Christ was a minister to the circumcision. (Rom.15:8) Would not then all of what he said and did while he was here on earth be specifically addressed to and intended for those that he ministered to? So to, was all the law and the prophets of old. The Gentiles had neither God, nor the law. (Eph.2:12; Rom.2:14.) So... when did any of this change? Well, I suppose one might say that it started with the resurrection. However, there appears to be no proof or evidence of it on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, or in much of what transpires for quite some time after that. It really isn't unit after Stephen's testimony before the council and high priest of Israel (Acts 7), their rejection of it, and the subsequent conversion of Saul that anything or anyone outside of Israel enters the picture. This is why some (myself included) believe that the church of today (aka, the body of Christ) first began with the apostle Paul, and not on the day of Pentecost. (For whatever it's worth, I don't see 1Tim.1:15-16 as intending to make Paul as the worst sinner that ever was. Rather I think being "chief" simply names him as being the first in line.) Perhaps it's time to take a much closer look at the prayers or promises that are written in the church epistles, and compare them to what might have been written and intended only for Israel. Philippians 4: [6] Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. [7] And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. If you can find anything else specifically written to "the body of Christ" (which we are part of) that tells us what God has promised or will or will not do for us in this day and time... well, maybe I haven't seen it. But these verses alone leave little to no doubt that after we take things to God.... and then LEAVE IT WITH HIM.... regardless of whatever does or doesn't subsequently come to pass in this life here on earth, we are told that the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep our hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. That's it. Pretty much everything I've come to know and believe about what is and/or isn't promised to us in this day and time. Give it to God, and let it go. That's what Paul did. So that's the example we are given to follow. Paul had no easy life, that's for sure. But... as for what is to come in all of eternity? That's another matter altogether. And whatever happens in this life... I believe God has been, and continues to, prepare us for whatever it is or will be doing for all of eternity. Eternity... Have you thought about it? Israel was (and will always be...?) an earthly people and nation. Recipients of a lot of earthly promises. How many of the promises that Paul has written of speak of things that are heavenly in nature (and perhaps is yet to come), rather than things which are earthly?

Can't say that I'd agree "there's no way" to do that. The problem with trying to use some "scientific" theory or formula (verified with certain empirical evidence) to reach a definitive conclusion resides in the failure to accept the premise it's based on. However, I question whether or not there might be a way to look at the issue starting with a more definitive, yet... what shall I call it... "biblically sound," premise than merely launching anything and everything from a "God can do anything" premise. I have yet to hear or make any sense out of what any proponent of this "young earth" theory actually thinks or believes about why God created the devil. Or maybe they don't believe there is a devil. Who knows? But whatever it is, I can't see where or how it would make any sense or fit with some of the rest of the Bible. I'll leave it at that... TC

While it might not always be that obvious or apparent or easy to identify, all logic and reason starts with and builds on a premise that is simply accepted and presumed to be true, regardless of whether it is properly identified, or how common and universally accepted that premise is (or isn't.) I don't think this is missing from Paul's writings... but, perhaps it is not all that obvious. I think parts of it show up in places like Romans 3:23. Unless or until someone relates to that, there probably isn't going to be much sense in (or need for) a personal savior, much less any change in the already common and universally accepted basis for reality in their heart. Where or how does any change start? Well, regardless of whatever words are spoken, even by the apostle Paul himself, it appears they are only attended to when the Lord opens someone's heart. see Acts 16:14.

So, now you're going to attack me for merely posting my opinion on the piece? No wonder so few post here anymore...

Well, I listened to (all of) on my morning walk, and I don’t think you missed a thing. Not a single word or mention of the resurrection (which is the crux of Christianity) in her entire diatribe. So frankly, that tends to make me wonder if she even is a Christian. Maybe she is, or maybe she isn’t… I don’t know (and don’t much care), but as a professed teacher (or critic… however one might refer to her), she should certainly know better. Whether you believe that Jesus is or isn’t God (which she seems to think matters, but it wasn't very clear to me what her position on that is), or profess that God loves you, or that Jesus is Lord, or claim to walk in his name or power… or anything else, for that matter… matters not one single whit without (truly) believing in your heart that God raised Christ from the dead. And honestly, I view everyone in that same light, including those that were at anytime involved with the Way Ministry (or S.I.T.). There is one criteria for being a Christian, and one criteria alone.

Agreed on both points, although I think that the book also served to effectively open a new perspective for a lot of people on how to think of and see Christ. But (as so often happens), knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifeth.

Apparently our time (and definitely our experiences) at HQ and with research dept members didn't overlap. Do you mind if I ask if you think anyone's belief regarding the Trinity has anything at all to do with salvation?

Well, that sure doesn't fit with my experience while at HQ and some number of discussions I had with others in the research dept. (But, perhaps it did with others involved in the ministry, that I was unaware of.)

Well, I do recall him saying (probably in a staff meeting somewhere) that whenever a building was named after someone, they usually end up dying shortly thereafter... Furthermore, it seems that sometime around the time the auditorium finished being built, there was something like $25 million cash sitting in the cofffers of TWi... (something which Geer brought to light a year or so after VP's death...)

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.

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.

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.

Dante's writings are not scriptural... lol.

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...

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Sounds simple enough. The question it leaves, of course, is what do you see or think that He expects of us? Something different?