TLC
-
Posts
1,313 -
Joined
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Posts posted by TLC
-
-
3 hours ago, T-Bone said:
back then the only seeds I knew about was what I found in my bag of weed…
ha! lucky you.
-
3 hours ago, skyrider said:
They desire to keep you tethered to the same, denounced doctrines of wierwille: 1) law of believing, 2) absent Christ, 3) dispensationalism, .........ie all things wierwille taught.
Denounced by most here at GSC, for sure. But there are caveats I am inclined to make here, as there is something that is true to "the law of believing" (although not taught right in twi), and my understanding of how he taught "Christ in you" seems to be different than others here, and dispensationalism (like the rest of these things) is definitely not something new or original with vpw (nor was it taught right.) Not to say that this (or any other splinter group that I've heard of) has (or ever will have) it sorted out correctly, given the mistakes and misunderstandings that are so deeply imbedded in twi culture.
-
On 6/23/2018 at 7:07 PM, T-Bone said:
...now if you've ever read my deliverance story of a bad acid trip and Jesus answering my cry for help
Hey... at least you didn't think you'd gotten born of the wrong seed.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:
I don't believe I would "insist" on anything. But I do believe and see in the writings that God has planned it that way from the very onset of creation, not that I couldn't be mistaken. But from Genesis 1:1 through to the end. Not sure why the first verse was omitted, as I wouldn't think God's division of earth and heaven(s) should be absent from that plan. As for detailing his plan "by way of His son", would take a good amount of time, which might become necessary, but at this very moment I don't have the time. But maybe you see a time or place that you don't see it through His son, in which case, what would that be?
Are you a fatalist?
-
11 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:
As with who knew what, and when, is not something I believe we can arrive at.
Well, evidently I think it's possible to know (from what's written) a lot more of what they knew than you seem to think possible. (And, I also think it's just as important to consider what they probably didn't know.)
11 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:Cursed is the ground itself
Think it's still cursed?
11 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:Saved by what?
Exactly. That's the question that needs a better answer. If we can't work forward, then how about working backwards. Let's start with how anyone can be (or is) saved today, and never mind whether it applies anywhere else.
-
On 6/23/2018 at 10:26 AM, chockfull said:
Accepting Christ - I would feel no other need to embellish that phrase. People who make Christ Lord are not tricked into it.
Does "accepting Christ" always necessarily make Christ Lord (viz., in your life)? Frankly, I'm not persuaded it does. Which raises a question of what you (or anyone else) thinks either of those statements mean. So, let me cut to the chase here. What is the relationship between either statement, and believing that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead? Is either one possible without the other? Because it appears to me that there have been deliberate efforts by some in positions of prominence (not by you, per se) to diminish and/or eliminate any need to believe in his resurrection.
-
On 6/22/2018 at 12:52 PM, chockfull said:
How much does God intervene in human affairs?
Probably far, far more than He is ever given credit or thanks for!
(Obviously, that's not in the sense of judgments.)However, speaking of judgment, it appears to me that God (being longsuffering as He is) tends to wait until iniquity has run its course in a nation and is "full" before judgment is unleashed (see Gen. 15:16; Rom. 11:25.) Perhaps it's akin to allowing someone to stick their foot so far down their own throat there's absolutely no way to retract or correct what's been done. Of course, where that is or what that means isn't exactly clear... and we never tend to have the sort of patience and longsuffering that we could ever relate much to it anyways.
On 6/22/2018 at 12:52 PM, chockfull said:In my mind I don't try to determine how God carries out or should carry out justice.
Yikes! Who in their right mind would?
-
23 hours ago, chockfull said:
I am not 100% convinced that doing "word studies" on Greek words is going to present a great deal of enlightenment regarding "the ages" or "administrations of time" types of views.
Nor am I. But it's "the twi way."
23 hours ago, chockfull said:The less people understand good heart and motive and inspiration, the more they are going to require rules to live life. The more I see people focused on rules the less freedom and grace I see in daily life.
Agreed.
23 hours ago, chockfull said:I wish I had a better answer for myself to your questions than "somewhere in the middle of digging into detail, using good common sense, and having an active prayer life seeking guidance".
But unfortunately that is the best I have at the moment.
Where are you at on this?
Pretty well said. Seems I agree.
-
11 hours ago, WordWolf said:
That wasn't what I asked about, as we can see. You answered a question I didn't ask, and ducked the question I asked, and pretended they were the same.
Never "pretended" they were the same. You asked how I got to home plate, and evidently weren't expecting or open to anything except answers in a format that you're accustomed to and conditioned in, and you have zero interest in first or second base because they're "the wrong direction" in your mind. Maybe you figure it out yourself someday (but I doubt it.) I'm done with it.
-
2 hours ago, WordWolf said:
I'm surprised to see someone make a virtue of not having a Scriptural rationale for something, but I'm fine with continuing on about "stewardship".
I'm nearly dumbfounded that you won't, can't, or don't care to consider any of the directly quoted from scripture phrases I plainly gave in my last post as being some "Scriptural rational" for a certain "dispensing" (of the Word of God) that markedly set or changed or altered the relationship between God and man. What, did you need chapter and verse quoted with each phrase before acknowledging that they were indeed "scriptural"? Furthermore, lest anyone forget, this thread didn't exactly start in a doctrinal forum - else I might never have gone there. But, since you asked (and since its not something fabricated on a whim), I steered into it by illustrating the basic fact that there was indeed a "dispensing" of something at various times which coincided with a significant change in the relationship between God and man. However, that part of it evidently either went over your head, or went clean clear through. (Which is probably why I might have avoided this aspect of it had it started some other way.) You want to drop it because its too hard for you to see any scriptural rational for it? Fine. Kindly lay off the unjust critique that it doesn't exist just because you can't (or don't care to ) follow it.
2 hours ago, WordWolf said:I think the sensible thing here will be to pull out that word "oikonomia" and get into its usages- specifically, what it was meant to say and what was not meant to say.
Have at it. I can hardly wait to see your detailed Scriptural rationale and in-depth explanation of it. Who knows, maybe I'll like it.
-
On 6/4/2018 at 10:00 AM, T-Bone said:
So to be born again - could mean to have the connection restored - one who was spiritually dead ( separated from God) - is now alive to pursue a holy calling.
If that were so, why is it that none of the prophets of old (who obviously had a connection of some sort restored) are ever thought of as being "born again"?
-
On 6/4/2018 at 10:00 AM, T-Bone said:
My point was that “incorruptible” is referring to the word of God and not to salvation...
I think this is important to note, and am inclined to agree with it. Furthermore, I don't see the usage of it in 1Pet.1:23 being a simple one time event in the past (as would be indicated if in the aorist tense,) which doesn't exactly fit with its typically Christian "born again" usage or reference to it here in verse 23. However, it does fit with the living word of God (that is required for the purification of "your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren" that is written in verse 22...)
On 6/4/2018 at 10:00 AM, T-Bone said:.in other words I believe the soul is immortal - when one speaks of going to heaven I understand that to refer to the soul’s eternal state...the 2nd death referred to in the Bible would then mean one’s soul is eternally separated from God...
yeah, well... I don't believe that, seeing he giveth to all life (and as noted in Acts 17:28, "For in him we live, and move, and have our being...") And even were it feasible for the soul to have any sort of consciousness or awareness apart from (or eternally distanced from) God - the crux of it being the awareness of their separation from God - there would be absolutely no will (nor reason) to remain alive. If there is no conscious in the grave (i.e., the first death), why suppose it would be any different in the second (forever) death?
-
10 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:
If we are talking about the ultimate deliverance from the final death, from the final judgement, then yes, I would most definitely say God has always had it planned by one way, Christ. Whether it be the first Adam, or his final descendant, it has, is, and will always be by way of His son.
Giving some consideration to the manifold wisdom of God, I don't know why you would insist on saying that God always had it planned by one way (unless you start with Genesis 1:2 and jump straight to Rev. 21.) Sure, I wouldn't have questioned it had you said that He knew which way it would play out. (Maybe He did, maybe He didn't. Frankly, I'm not sure. Either way, I believe He has the means to, and knows exactly how to keep it on track.) I'm just not so quick to think or say it was only planned by "one way." Perhaps you need to fill in a lot more details of what you see in "by way of His son."
-
7 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:
Is it a work?
No, it's an issue of the heart.
-
7 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:
Would you define "pistis" as a condition?
Yes, but it merely shifts the issue to knowing what it is to believe, or what is to be believed. Okay, "Believe God." Are you going to leave it at that with no other parameters? Then how does that fit with and what do you make of James 2:19?
-
6 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:
But of course, I think ultimately, at least in regards to the topic of this thread, I believe we are all talking about salvation from the one and same thing. That is, saved from the wrath to come. The final judgement.
My view of it sees these as two very different events. The wrath to come points to the tribulations written in Revelations (and referred to in Jeremiah as the time of Jacob's trouble.) The final judgement sounds like something after death, such as the great white throne. Of course, the question arises as to when anyone might have first known of either of these events, and why anyone that didn't know about them would need (or would think they needed) salvation from them.
6 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:I don't believe "conditions" is a word I would use in regards to "salvation".. God judges based on the heart and has only asked that anyone trust Him.
Really? And exactly what sort of evidence or scriptures might you be basing that statement on? Who or where do you see that anyone is saved by that?
-
21 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:
But the plan of salvation as set forth in the Bible is one organic whole, revealing a marvellous and profound unity.
So, you think what saves one person is no different that what saves anybody else?
-
23 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:
For myself, I see no reason to add those into the equation of defining "salvation" itself. Which as mentioned, usually is along the lines of a delivering from something.
Why suppose that everyone seeks rescue or deliverance from the same things?
Furthermore, are you supposing that the conditions for salvation are the same for all? -
On 6/20/2018 at 10:53 PM, WordWolf said:
"oikonomia"- which, actually, is the word TLC's saying should properly be rendered "dispensation" and further asserts that this word should be taken to mean something akin to a "dispensary" like we think of for medication.
No, I never said that. I very plainly said that I've "come back to liking dispensation" (and have given you several reasons since why.) Frankly, I'm not convinced there is a perfect translation for it, as it carries with it several nuances of meaning. One of which (that I see as being essential to it) is that there is/was a "dispensing" of words (i.e., of) which markedly set or changed or altered the relationship between God and man.
At first, man was put in the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. Then he was sent forth from it to till the ground from whence he was taken. Then, in addition to the green herb, every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for man. Of course, that all changed with Moses and the giving of the law. When did that change? Yeah, with the apostle Paul (see Col. 1:25). Of course, this is but one little aspect of it. But if anyone wants to blenderize it all and live on the slop, just don't blame God if you aren't feeling nourished by it, or it if makes you sick, or if you can't make sense of certain things. There's a (healthy) reason for the separations.
Truth is, I also very much like the nuance of stewardships, in light of it involving different "economies." Perhaps its a reflection of certain fiduciary responsibilities. If you're going to prosper (or at least, not be sent to the poor house), you need to be able to recognize and adapt to what the "real" economy is all about. Sure, there may be patterns and similarities involved, but if you fail to see the differences... well, no need to go too deep into it. But if you really want to get deep into another perspective on it, there appears to be a certain "crossing over" involved with each change. (However, I'm not going there, as I couldn't even get you past the dispensing issue without you demanding - in typical twi fashion - "chapter and verse.")
-
On 6/18/2018 at 2:00 PM, TLC said:
Maybe I missed one or two... or maybe not.
Anyone want to consider whether the woman of Canaan (Matt.15:32) qualifies for being saved? Frankly, I don't think it can be ruled out. She did, after all, call him Lord and (evidently) believed him to be "the son of David..." which, as far as I know, actually appears to parallel the most basic (and essential) requirement for an Israelite's salvation.
-
On 6/19/2018 at 12:38 PM, Thomas Loy Bumgarner said:
actually the Geneva Bible and Bishop's Bible proceeded KJV. Me, I prefer the 1960 NASB updated. Also most scholars agree that Hebrews was written by either Lydia or Priscillia and Aquilla
Well, it just doesn't make much sense to me. Without a doubt, there would have been absolutely no one more qualified (from some number of perspectives) to address the nation of Israel on the subject matter than the apostle Paul himself. And, given that 2 Peter (which appears to be written to fellow Jewish believers that obtained "like precious faith") specifically mentions Paul as having "written unto you," the implication appears to be that he is referring to Hebrews. So, while it's not certain, it does seem this offers a fairly reasonable basis for it.
Moderator's note: This post quotes an exceprt of a previous post that was deleted for reasons having nothing to do with this excerpt.
-
6 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:
So to imply what one's "disciples likely thought" as you put it, is rather impossible and just a red herring. We have their words.
Seriously? It is no where near "impossible" to speculate what his disciples likely thought based on what is written about them, and what I said was plainly and most certainly not a "red herring" of any sort. (Perhaps there's a misunderstanding here of what a red herring is or means...) At times, especially when plumbing the depths of meanings in scripture, that speculation as to what it could or might mean is more than appropriate, it is essential. And there should have been no doubt that what I wrote was in fact, speculative (else I never would have said that I suspected something was likely.) But it does seem a bit odd to me that you would think and say that what is lost, is lost, or that you're not attempting to add more speculation here. Evidently you see everything that you have (and are) - or that anybody else should be - going to contribute to the discussion is... proven facts? the absolute truth?
6 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:So exactly how do you see this salvation of some as being different or not equaling that of others? Are some half-saved? Partially delivered? What is it I'm not understanding?
Well, what explanation might you have for "thy lot" in Dan. 12:13. Why are some to "meet the Lord in the air" and some (that are saved) not? Why do some come with the Lord (at his return) and some (that are saved) do not? Why are some said to be "arrayed in white robes" while some (that are saved) are not? Why do some have the Father's name written in their foreheads and some (that are saved) do not? .Why are some in "the first resurrection" and some (that are saved) not? Why are some referred to as "priests of God and of Christ" and some (that are saved) are not? Why do some come before the great white throne and some (that are saved) do not? Or, perhaps you suppose that these are all one and same once (or if) you're "saved."
Oh yeah... I just remembered. You're not much into speculating. Seems I don't know (and can't guess) how you might address these things. (So, it'd probably only add a bit more confusion to the issue if I speculated that from a certain perspective, "perhaps" John 14:2 also points towards this.)
-
9 hours ago, WordWolf said:
I quoted Hebrews 8:6, which states outright that Jesus is the mediator OF that better covenant.
I realized that. My point was that the "new covenant" of Hebrews (as detailed further in verse 8) was promised to and with "the house of Israel and with the house of Judah," and again (in verse 10) "with the house of Israel." Furthermore, I don't really see this part of it as yet being fulfilled: "I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts."
Galatians 4:24ff more directly applies to my question (and I'm still pondering it), but it won't necessarily change my view of what is written in Hebrews - which I believe was specifically written to/for all of Israel (believers in the Lordship of Jesus Christ, or not) and not (as you state) "Christians of a Jewish background."
-
10 hours ago, WordWolf said:
That's supposing it matches what the translators of one or more versions were thinking without actually presenting any evidence for it.
Actually, it's the 1611 KJV and 1881 RV , which (as far as I know, and as I presume you know already) were collaborative translations done by some of the (if not the) most extensive group of highly qualified language scholars ever assembled to translate the texts into English (in use at that time.) So, I just don't see it as something to be taken lightly, and not bother to look at it in light of that particular nuance.
Another STFI split...an offshoot of an offshoot.
in Spirit and Truth Fellowship International
Posted
Seems I may not be as informed or aware of exactly what (or how) Geer may have taught this, but I (personally) am not sure that necessarily see or take Omniscience to mean the same as (or be the equivalent of) Omnipotence (or visa versa.) Furthermore, I don't have any real difficulty thinking of His Omnipotence (His unbound and unrestricted ability to create, change, conceal - or in short, "do" - whatever He wants) as something specifically reliant upon Omniscience. Now, as far as thinking about what Omniscience itself might means, it gets a bit more complex, as it appears (to me) to be bifurcated. From nearly all perspectives, it appears to be unrestricted and limitless. The one exception (of course) being that of "free will" - any further discussion of which wouldn't have much of any place here in this forum. However, I'll conclude this by stating the reason why this works, is because "love never faileth" - which God, in His infinite wisdom, surely knows.