TLC

12 hours ago, waysider said:

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

Simple obedience to the teachings of Jesus can be (and probably is) taken by some to mean "making him Lord" in your life.  However, while that may be a nice way to live life, there is nothing in that that involves believing anything more or beyond what can be known by your senses.  

13 hours ago, chockfull said:

What doubts do you have?  

My point was that making Him Lord in your life indicates a living Lord, which has a prerequisite of a resurrection.  I guess you can focus on the resurrection, but that is one event in a long sequence.  Why that as opposed to the ascension?  Or the appearances in between?

Doubts about why or how a person thinks they "make him Lord."  If that requires a living Lord, which has a prerequisite of a resurrection, no problem.  Yes, it's one event, but it's the key issue. 

On ‎6‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 3:53 AM, chockfull said:

There seems to be some disagreement on this thread that mostly centers around the approach to Biblical definitions.  Are we to accept only the most common terms that apply to a Biblical word?  Or can there be nuances that take you into a corner of the definition that may not apply to every usage of the word?

Perhaps it has more to do with the approach to biblical research.  I suspect I was "as well" trained and indoctrinated into twi's methodology as anyone else here, probably more so than most. So, yeah... given sufficient time (and motivation), I have the both the materials and the means to dig into the etymology of pretty much anything appearing in scripture.  And there was a time in life when that was pretty much the touchstone used for testing or "measuring" (so much softer a word than "judging") how much truth was in something.  And you know... it did wonders for my ego.  Like, wonders how it got so big?  

Oddly enough, after some number of rather significant "turn of events" over the last, oh, maybe 8 or 10 or 15 years or so (I won't bore you with any details), I've developed a new perspective on quite a number of things, including both how to do (and evaluate) biblical research.  It's probably more of a "top down" approach, based of how it might fit within the overall framework of scripture, rather than a "bottom up" approach that seeks to define or establish basic building blocks prior to seeing what sort of construct can be built from them.

Hence, when I see you talk about "Biblical definitions," in my mind I'm instead thinking about "Biblical usages."  Not sure if that makes sense to you, or not...   

6 minutes ago, Taxidev said:

 Or maybe it just depends on what your understanding of God-breathed really is.

scripture.  (same as what Peter aligns it with.) 

34 minutes ago, chockfull said:

You accept Christ as Lord.

I have no doubt that worked just fine for an Israelite (back then.)
But honestly speaking, I have plenty of reason to doubt that it works the same for anybody and everybody today. 

34 minutes ago, chockfull said:

With respect to the resurrection, I'm not sure how there is any logical sense to making a dead man Lord in your life. 

Because separated and apart from the resurrection,  I see nothing that requires anyone to believe anything beyond or more than what they can know and believe by their senses.  And as I see it, Israel is the proof (after hundreds and hundreds of years of repeated signs, miracles, and wonders) that "going by your senses alone" never had any long lasting effects, and is actually rather incapable of genuinely pleasing God. 

p.s.  He was no longer dead, after the resurrection.

12 minutes ago, Taxidev said:

I wonder if that is referring only to the Torah.  It doesn't actually say "my epistles are God-breathed", or some such.

You don't need those exact words do you?  If not, maybe one of the following will work for you: 

• For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
• For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
• In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
• Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
• If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
• I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.
• ...whereof I Paul am made a minister;  Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church: Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
• Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
• Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion.

Or, maybe it is best left to be said in the words of another (like Peter):

• And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;  As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

On ‎6‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 10:07 PM, WordWolf said:

Geer decided that the issue could be decided by rejecting God's Omnipotence.  Specifically, he rejected God's Omniscience, His "All-Knowingness", if you please. 

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.

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.

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?