TLC

Then it appears to me that the difference between thinking one can, or can't, lose their salvation, probably resides in how we view righteousness. Is it uncommon, or a surprise, to see most people going about to establish their own righteousness? I think not. We can "genuinely want to be righteous" a lifetime. But where does that lead to? Well, according to Romans 3 (and elsewhere), there is none righteous, all have sinned, and all come short of the glory of God. The genuine recognition and acceptance of that (i.e., one's own shortcoming and failure) seems to be a prerequisite for recognizing and accepting the need for a savior. And once past that hurdle, it's a short distance to realizing and believing that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. It suddenly makes sense. It's not my own righteousness that even matters anymore. Not right then (at the time of salvation)... nor ever after. Why? Because the righteousness of God is a gift. And as such, simply put, it is not our own righteousness. It's a gift. Of course, that doesn't automatically mean that we will never again go about trying to establish our own righteousness. Perhaps it's just something bred into man, to "genuinely want to be righteous." And, like as always happens, that path is a dead end. So, I find myself somewhat in disagreement with the statement that we are "continually saved as long as we genuinely want to be righteous." Because I no longer cared to find or think of myself measuring up to it. Maybe that's not a great thing - I don't know. But, never again did I ever doubt my own salvation - not even for a second - in the last 45+ years.

Then, according to this, anyone: 1) is saved, as long they genuinely want to be righteous... and (or) 2) won't lose their salvation as long as they genuinely want to be righteous. Is this your position? Or... not?

LOL... that link won't last long there.

What difference does it make to the topic of dispensationalism? (None whatsoever, as far as I can tell.) In fact, it doesn't appear to me to make much difference most anywhere else either. However, this: ...is another matter altogether. What criteria do you suppose anyone is going to use to think or say what is "profitable writings"? Although, the wealth gospel teachers (and there's a bunch of them nowadays) would surely love that particular translation, and would undoubtedly have a field day with it.

Okay, let's see if I have this right. You don't think that salvation is the result of righteousness, you think that righteousness is the result of salvation. And, if salvation can be (or is) is a state of flux (i.e., if salvation can be lost), then righteousness comes or goes right along with it. So, if you think (as you said) that righteousness implies how we live... hmmm.... (thinking...) Well, shoot. Who ever sees themselves righteous all the time? And when that "not righteous" view strikes... better get myself saved (again.) Am I missing something from your perspective on this?

What does "it" refer to in your sentence? Righteousness ? (The sentence doesn't actually make much sense to me, so I'm trying to read into it what I think it might mean.) If you're saying that you see righteousness as "our feeble attempt to live as God would have us to live," perhaps it helps illustrate that this is the crux of issue. How (or what) we define (and attain to, or acquire) righteousness casts the basis for our soteriology.

My "position" (so to speak) is far from weak, and I think you just proved my point. https://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj20d.pdf However, I have no further interest in arguing the issue, nor will I contend with your belief in (and promotion of) preterism (or partial preterism, or whatever else you might care to call it.)

I recently read (on the Internet, naturally) where righteousness is said to be the "state of moral perfection" that is required by God to enter heaven. And while that might not be the most complete or best definition for it, it doesn't appear to me to be far off. Perhaps if it said that righteousness is the state of moral perfection required for salvation, it'd be right on target. Anybody think otherwise?

curiosity getting the better of me, I checked out the website (just to see who they are or what they do.) and, won't you know, there's video teachings there (many over an hour long...) started and skipped through a couple. 'bout 15-20 minutes was all I could suffer through. and in a nutshell... to me they looked as dead as the twi's ever were. (I.e., not a spit's worth of difference, from what I recall. same old, same old...)

It probably is, because it espouses replacement theology (which is very popular.) Can't say as I agree much with some of the other stuff in that link, though. "New age" stuff has grown so much that it probably ranks well ahead of a couple of "the four major" he mentions (one of which he says is already "dead."). And claiming there was "only one view of end times that existed during the first 300 years of the Church"? Good grief... do they not even read the Bible? Or maybe they've cut the Pauline epistles out entirely. Know what I'm referring to? Well, maybe not. Okay... 2Tim.2:17,18. What resurrection do these folks think Hymenaeus and Philetus were talking about if not related to the end times? And evidently they haven't given much (if any) credence to the idea that Tyndale (or some number of other scholars) may have a better translation of 2Thess.2:3. http://bibleone.net/print_tbs118.html

Well, if it could be read, fine. (I can skim crap - if it is, not saying it is or isn't - pretty quickly.) But to have to listen to it (or watch it on a video) is a real turn off to me unless I know a whole lot more about what it is they're talking about. So, if you can't explain it any better in your own words, I'll have to take a pass. (Besides, I'm just not a big fan of - or believer in - hell anyways.) Furthermore, I don't even know what the heck the "CFFM" website is, or who they are.

Maybe, maybe not. However if (or when) thinking in terms of its general biblical usage, does it matter? After all, it was Peter that put his "epistles" on par with "other scripture" Technically, yes, that is what the word in and of itself means. However, I'm inclined to disagree that fits with its "biblical usage" (unless there's some uniqueness when used with the participle, "the scripture.") I think WW's posting (and position?) on what Scripture is makes pretty good sense to me. (...hey... kind of like holy spirit and Holy Spirit. Make a distinction with the Capital letter. Big - for biblical usage - and a small letter - for the common vernacular usage of it) https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24710-dispensationalism/?do=findComment&comment=593649

I'm inclined to agree, but only because it doesn't exactly fit with my own experience or (limited) understanding of how revelation works. It's a difficult (if not outright impossible) thing get into any kind of sensible discussion on how Paul (or anyone else, for that matter) might have (much less, did) received revelation (say nothing of there being an abundance of it given to him.) If there were a reasonable basis for comparison (and quite frankly, I'm not sure that there is), I probably would lean towards the thinking that he just wrote what he clearly knew was right thing to write. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean he didn't get a poke in the arm (or some other flash of reality) to get him on task. How it went down is all very speculative. Does it even matter at this point how aware of it he was at that exact moment in time, if it was God at work within him? If anything, I suspect that revelation is much more recognizable in hindsight (if it is at all) then it is when it is actually happening.

Unfair or not, I'd still be interested in reading it. If I had to (or for some reason needed to) go listen to what he said about the issue on a Gartmore tape (if it exists there) as a result, maybe I could rummage around for it in some dusty corner of storage (if I even had a ballpark idea where to start looking for it.) Namely because I think there's some truth to the matter, but not necessarily in how it was presented.

What's that suppose to be? A "teaser" line of some sort? Care to explain?

You kept a copy, yes? Something you can share?

too bad. perhaps WW does.

It appears there is something in the semantics, and the difference between how we see or use certain vocabulary that we don't seem to agree on. If there is a distinction that can be made between speaking by permission or by command, I would be more inclined to take that to mean speaking by inspiration or speaking by revelation. If you were to tell me that you wrote a book, I would probably hear that and think... okay, so you wrote a book. But, if you were to say that you were inspired to write a book, my first thought is probably going to be....okay, what inspired you to write it? Maybe it's that association in my own head between "inspired" and "in spirit action" that I'm too hung up on, but I suppose that a great many things are said and done and accomplished by "inspiration." In a certain sense, one might even say (or claim) that everything that is said or done is the result of inspiration. However, that seems to significantly lessen the worth even having or ever using it in our vocabulary. And for the record, I just don't think it is very common to equate someone being "inspired" to say or write something with them being "commanded" to do so. But then, perhaps the "not by commandment" spoken of by Paul relates more to the message itself rather than the messenger.

Why is this issue so important to you, or why does it bother you so much, chockfull? I don't get it. Why try to make it mean something more than it does? I think we have it really easy in many respects compared to what Paul evidently had to contend with in his day and time. On one hand were the religious zealots of Judaic law (more than a few of them stemming directly out of the church in Jerusalem, led by James.) On the other hand were pagan idolaters that were, in so many words, the extreme opposite. Just imagine how impossible it must have seemed to bring either out of the muck and mire of "the senses world" that they were bred into. In so many words, it required change. And my, oh my... how people in general do hate change. Fast forward to our world today, and what is (or isn't) required for us to fit into the culture around us. Very little, if anything, really. At least, not in the USA. You can pretty much do what you want, go where you want, think what you want, say what you want, whenever you want. The culture today is so diverse, what common molds or casings for it stand out as binding us or holding us back from what God might desire for us? Seems I see what is written here (and certain things written elsewhere) as being meant to free believers from certain cultural practices, norms or ensnarement's, some number of which simply don't exist in our culture today, and direct their (non-spiritual) thinking more towards Christ.

Frankly, I'm not so convinced (at least, not as convinced like I might have been years ago) that these gift ministries "once given" equates to and/or necessarily means "always there." They're given to... whom? The individual, or the church? Okay, I get that they refer the function of an individual within the body. But, exactly what does that mean? That individuals can never function differently if the situation in (or needs of) the church change? Well, I'm not sure. Maybe somebody else here can enlighten me on what the truth really is. However, what I am sure of, is that twi made far, Far, FAR too big a deal and much "to do" over these "5 gift ministries" and who supposedly did or didn't have them.

'Cause it wasn't just in Corinth, and I never said it was or wasn't happening in their fellowships. You injected that. I spoke of it being "in the culture" of that day and time.

Makes no diff to me. (But I blame waysider for posting the link that brought me here... lol.)

I did answer it, in nearly as direct a way as you asked. What was far more obvious was (your) bringing twi's interpretation of it into the picture (which I subsequently called "crap.") That bothers you? Trust me, I've had more than my share of trouble understanding certain verses because of what twi taught. What did you expect, or would have liked me to say? Not so much on those particular verses. Does that mean I have a full or complete understanding of them? No, I never said or claimed that, nor will I. And yeah, I could be wrong... but I think I understand them well enough that they don't jump off the page and scream at me, "Something's wrong here." It was nothing of the sort, and I'm sorry you feel that way. Maybe it's a generational thing (as in, I don't think peers in my generation would have ever taken it as such.) But, maybe it's me, and my thinking is so different than most here, I ought to just quit. We don't have (at least, not in this country - that I've ever heard of) open practices where the worship involved sex with the temple harlots that had shaved heads. So, if you or anyone else wants to rip that verse of context and the culture of its day and time to make some dumbass law out of it, so what? Think that changes the truth of why it was written and what it means?

Hey, you were referring to "Way jargon" and how they interpret those verses, so the crap I spoke of should be plenty obvious enough, and it doesn't need for any more clarification from me. If you have an issue understanding a couple of verses because of some BS that was taught in twi, and are going to throw out or otherwise use that to denigrate the Pauline epistles as a result, well... that's some serious damage that twi has put in your head.

Disgraceful? Never heard of such ridiculousness. (And btw, our girls wore 'em. ...loved'em, as a matter of fact.) Well then, evidently they were full of chit. Sounds like a prime example of how to use the scripture deceitfully. Wrong. Not that crap.