TLC

The idea that an oikonomia can be considered a period of time goes clear back to the early Church fathers, even though the Bible NEVER uses oikonomia in that way. Oikonomia is used every time it occurs (7 times) to mean "stewardship-- an arrangement whereby one person manages another person's property."

That looks like opinion, not fact.

Earlier forms of dispensationalism were fairly innocuous, but the form Darby invented and Scofield popularized in his reference Bible is toxic, because it makes the cross of Christ of none effect to the Church.

As does that, especially considering it doesn't show how or why you think it makes the cross of no effect to the Church.

If Jesus on the cross was standing in for the whole nation of Israel,

How does that account for or include the statement in 1John 2:2 that he died for the sins of the whole world?

and if none of the prophecies or promises regarding Israel can be applied to the Church, as the dispensationalists teach, then nothing that Jesus did on the cross can be applied to you and me in the Church today!

I don't see the logical connection between the two statements. It appears non sequitur.

At present, I lean towards Dispensational, but not in the traditional form presented in PFAL or by TWI (or by STF.)

What are other thoughts on this?

After looking into this further, my view of oikonomia appears to align itself more with that of an "economy."

And as you probably already know, when economic conditions change (especially if there is a radicle change), you end up in the poor house if you don't adjust your thinking to the rules or operating environment of the new economy...

Here's a rather interesting read should you care to consider this further:

http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2014/10/oikonomia-revisited.html

One of the interesting things your post brings up is discussing things like this - ordination - seems to divide people.

I'd agree that certainly happened at TWI. The other thing is, why ordain so many? Were there really that many people dying or getting married? Anyone can correct me if you think I'm wrong, but VPW himself said (in essence, these are not exact words) that those were the two things that ordination allowed you to do.

In other words, if you didn't want to marry or burry people, you might not want to be ordained.

Yet, how many were? Seems skewed a bit out of proportion for the numbers that were in it.

Aye, but it was "the ticket" to advance in stature among the rank and file.

The "public recognition" that you were... well, enough of that.

It's made me wonder how it really was in the first century, outside the hierarchy and those "who seemed to be somewhat" at Jerusalem.

Yes, I see that Titus was to "ordain elders" in every city (as is also mentioned in Acts 14). But, where is it written in scripture that elders have gift ministries, or visa versa? Has anybody that has given some honest thought to this care to comment on it?

You want my 100% raw thoughts on the topic? Ordination was God talking to Paul after He raised him from the dead inspiring him to go on to the next city.

I'm inclined to think that 2Cor.12 probably aligns with that period of time he was being dragged out of Lystra, which is why he couldn't say whether he was "in the body or out of the body" (which had just been beaten to a pulp.) Couldn't say, 'cause he probably didn't know if he was alive or dead at the time.

There were no VP invitations, BOD letters, ceremonies, salt covenant BS, little corpse seal paperweights, foot-kissing of patriarchs or matriarchs, selling your souls, or obeying edicts you don't agree with. It didn't end up in lofty positions or titles sitting in coveted circles with other Pharisees, but in famine, poverty, shipwreck, and in the end being cast out by his own people and martyred. Paul kind of gave up the BS ordination with the Pharisees for something a little more real. Reality is a lot less appealing.

And 99.8% of all the hot air circulating around this topic is exactly that.

Amen.

Fight Club. Totally. :biglaugh:/>/>

Edited to add: I'm not sure how "less spiritual hunger" is gauged. Maybe that goes back to the definition of spiritual, did you mean the same thing as it was used in TWI?

"I wanted and needed answers from God"

I don't know how to measure that either.

I knew/believed He was real, but invisible.

Enter the invisible side of that equation, and you'll arrive at my usage and meaning of the word "spiritual."

My personal belief: A lot of people knew a lot of things, but few people knew "everything." Not that anyone knows everything now, but we have MUCH more of the puzzle pieces in place than we did when we were in.

I knew, for example, that Dubofsky and Lynn were no longer associated with TWI when I got in/out in the late 1980s. But I didn't know why. I knew that there were rumors about weapons training, but I didn't know the truth about them. I knew there were allegations of plagiarism, but I had never seen it documented. I knew that Passing of a Patriarch was a big deal, but I had never read it in its proper historical context (even when I did read it after it was formally published in the early 1990s). And I'd never heard of the JAL or Schoenheit letters/documents.

And the sexual abuse never rose above the rumor stage where/when I was.

Evidently there was much more to be known (or had started to surfaced) in those years. Backing up 10 years left much more in the dark. If there were a lot of people that knew this or that, even the bits and pieces were smaller. And if love covers a multitude of sins, well... maybe more was just covered over.

I can agree with that.

One thing I learned was there isn't much posted that wasn't well known back in the 1970s. The big questions are why people pretend not to know for so long, or admittedly say "It's not a big deal".

It was probably far less known than you seem to think, even among corps and staff.

If you want to discuss what oikonomia really means and whether dispensationalism is Biblically accurate, you can do it here or there, but THIS is the better thread for that discussion. In the Questioning Faith subforum, acceptance of the underlying authority of scripture is fair game. That aspect of the discussion is NOT fair game here. That's what distinguishes these two threads.

So have at it!

It's probably isn't possible to properly discuss what oikonomia might mean without a certain degree of speculation or reflecting on the effect it may have on the meaning of various passages of scripture. However, even before arriving at that point, the alternate meanings of it appears that it might, could, would or should (take you pick) alter the resulting segmentations of time, administrations, scriptures, or stewards (again, take your pick.) And for that, the underlying authority of scripture needs to remain in place.

There's undoubtedly very diverse opinions on this, but our position on this does have a very significant impact on how each of us view and interpret scripture.

My thought to initiate this topic, stems from this post in the "STF'S REV" thread, as it seems that it may introduce a third possibility that might be worth exploring further. (And it's been plainly stated by others here that there are only two possibilities, Dispensational or Covenantal.)

At present, I lean towards Dispensational, but not in the traditional form presented in PFAL or by TWI (or by STF.)

What are other thoughts on this?

Your queston is not as simple as you think.

AFAIK, the main positions on this are Dispensational (administrational)

and Covenantal. I lean towards Covenantal, and, frankly,

I did when I was in twi, starting from when I rendered

"oikonomia" not "dispensation" and not "administration",

but I preferred "stewardship", and focused on who were the stewards

and what they were stewarding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology

It sounds like you're saying "A lack of believing" is a major reason, or the reason, for the shrinking Way International?

(Here I want to know if I understand you correctly)

Actually, at the time I wrote that, I was probably thinking more about why it might have grown the way in did in the 70's. I recall it being a time of turmoil, of questioning the status quo and the materialism of the day. Viet Nam was a disaster. Alternatives were expanding. I can't put my finger on it, really. But, speaking for myself, I wanted and needed answers from God that I couldn't find in the church (or much of anywhere else.) It was, for lack of any better or more appropriate description, a spiritual hunger that began to steer my course. So, I suppose I'm more inclined to think there is significantly less spiritual hunger today (which I would probably attribute to a more affluent, less "needy" society, as well as significantly more "tangible" answers being propounded and available on the Internet.) Sure, it's not the only reason. Maybe not even the major one. But I think it's a significant one.

I'm not sure why you keep giving this reference to the original sin. That's not what session #7 is about. It may be mentioned in there but the essence of the session is that we are never to question what we believe to be the truth. (whatever that is) Instead, we're supposed to "STAND!" and not budge, no matter what. Bad things can happen if we don't. We could end up a grease spot by midnight. I assume you're very familiar with that expression, no?

Familiar with the LCM expression, of course. But I honestly don't (and never did, as best I can recall) associate that (what you say above) being taught in session#7. Maybe I was just too thickheaded or stubborn to hear it mean that, I don't know.

HERE is something to chew on for a while. It's definitely NOT 100 words or less. Well, I guess you could just take the session #7 route. "STAND!" on what you already think you know.....or give some careful consideration to other viewpoints. There are lots of other thought provoking discussions here on a variety of subjects. You'll never know that if you're focused on falling down rabbit holes.

I've (previously) read a number of pages there (beginning and ending), and nothing either surprised me or perked my interest to read more than what I did. Maybe that defies logic and doesn't make any sense to you, but that's my candid take on it. Aside from seeing where some number of folks here thoughts on it are, the thread doesn't interest me and nothing stirred within me caring to discuss it further. And by the way, I said nothing about falling down (indicative of fear) rabbit holes.

Yes.

I started the thread. If someone has "heard it all" and wants the thread trashed without giving any valuable input, I guess it's their right. I'll just start another.

Used to be able to block certain posts so as to focus more appropriate posts. One person's trash is another's treasure.

It's doubtful anyone has "heard it all," so no need to pin that baloney on anybody.

Furthermore, I voiced my opinion already as to why I thought TWI isn't as big as it was in the 70's when I first posted here.

But, it was probably easy to miss with all the excitement over fresh meat showing up at the table.

Here 'tis, then I'll step away (as it, or something I said early on, seemed to light a fire the last time):

The point was that great hunger for truth doesn't necessarily dull one's intelligence, sensibility, or ability to reason (any of which might make one more gullible.) Perhaps the real issue is whether or not one believes that God exists, and that He both can and will answer prayers. Do you think there were there more young people that believed that way back then? If so, is that what some are equating to being "unusually gullible"?

You asked about session #7?

The original sin was taught wrong, so I don't give a flip about your alluding to it. And as far as considering or entertaining thoughts that are contrary to anything I've learned, it's not verboten in my mind, and probably never has been. But, once a matter has been tested and proven (to myself) long enough, it really doesn't take long to weigh any "new" (if it even is) evidence against it.

So, if you suppose there is something new that I haven't already heard or considered, and can condense it to a hundred or so words or less, I'd be more than happy to read and consider it. But if you think I'm going to spend hours and hours looking down some rabbit hole looking for some, as of yet unknown or new (to me), thing... well, you're not a very good salesperson, and I'm not buyin' it.

What did I change position on, TLC? The most blatant

"I changed my mind because of this thread" stuff was probably the

result of the "Speaking in Tongues" threads.

But really, we're way off-topic.

Ask me and I can find some links to those threads.

Ugh. What a controversial issue to bring up in a forum of such divers "ex-twi" beliefs.

Given the level it was elevated to and the issues that that resulted in, there's undoubtedly far more said about it here at GSC than I have time for or have enough interest in to find or read. (I've read some things, somewhere on GSC previously.) It probably falls into a category of acceptance (yes, I believe its true) that defies reason or logic, and after so many years of benefiting from personal use of it, there simply isn't a lot of reason (or room) left for me to change how or what I think of it. So, I'd rather pass on that one.

Yeah.....leaving twi is what adds to the conversation around here.

But really.....I wouldn't doubt it one bit if TLC and I agree on 75-80%

of those things.

Maybe so. Might find out if I stick around long enough.

Heck, I'd buy him a beer or two....if he'd just slow

down and drop the defensive posture.

Maybe I wouldn't have to have a defensive posture if a few here weren't tryin' so hard to put a horn in my arse.

Thank you.

Objection to the "more" valuable aside (seriously... did you have to pile anything higher or deeper on that?), if you have something specific in mind related to this topic, you're always free to ask, but there's always the risk that I might not answer at all, or in as straightforward a manner as you (or somebody else here) would appreciate. I'm not trying to be mean, illusive, or aloof. (But who's kidding who? Those things can certainly be egged on and drawn out of me at times, 'cause I ain't as perfect as I'd like to be.) If I don't want to discuss something (for any number of reasons, including the right to preserve anonymity), then please allow me to pass on it. And, should it even need to be said, using various forms of coercion, goading, flank straps, or electric prods usually don't work well.

I've ended up changing my position on a number of things largely because

discussions here showed too many things on the other side,

and mostly conviction on the side I preferred.

(Ask me and I'll post examples.)

Likewise, I also have ended up changing my position of a number of things, some number of them due in part to things that were discussed on some of these boards showing (as you said) "too many things on the other side." Not so much doctrine, per se (as more of that change came from personal study of the scripture, my spouse, and from listening to a layman farmer's teachings), but of the practical error that was in place throughout TWI in the 70's and mid-80's.

But, since you made the invitation, what might some of the examples of your doctrinal adjustments or changes be?

(Or, were you thinking not so much about doctrinal position changes?)

Mind you, they weren't what I consider the biggest issues-

the existence of God, salvation, and so on-

but you might have come to the same conclusions based on the

same discussions. (They're still here as threads.)

Perhaps I've already taken a gander at them, or made (similar?) adjustments in my position for other reasons.

BTW, there's a LOT of disagreement here, so the idea that there's

a "party line" is more of an idea and a perception than a reality.

Except almost all the current posters agree about the harm that

vpw did, and that it was due to his freewill decisions to do the

wrong things for his own benefit that the harm existed.

Unwinding certain misperceptions and illusions of TWI has been no small or easy feat, and was not painless.

Nevertheless, it is past, and there is yet time to grow and improve before the return, for those that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. (Which seems to be a bit of a rarity anymore in our society. Maybe it's where I live. I don't know.)

You missed the poster who elevated vpw's materials above the Bible

and said THAT had the key to salvation. Now, HE really got static.

You'd think somebody that read much of anything here before posting would have had more of a clue. But, they probably just thought they were here to save y'all. Static? Is that all? Not cross-shredded into itsy bitsy pieces?

It's hard to take you seriously when you address a serious subject like

authorship of the books of the Bible,

and dismiss it with a glib comment and then a change of subject.

Yeah, I was trying to be a funny guy. But chiding accepted. It wasn't warranted, so, my apologies.

Given that I view scripture from the vantage point of inerrancy (which I realize is a premise that others here are opposed to), I simply don't see the merit of involving myself in much discussion over authorship. Being a theology major some 40+ years ago before my involvement with TWI, I was exposed to more JEPD theory than I care to remember, and need few reminders of how easily the arguments for and against it can go 'round and 'round. So, it's just hard to draw me much further or deeper into a more detailed discussion of it.

You're getting people with VERY different opinions and points of view,

who DISagree with each other on many of the most fundamental points,

to start agreeing that you're ducking issues and pretending you're not.

I don't see there being any pretense about it, I simply prefer to move on to other more interesting or pertinent discussion. I think we all make choices at times to ignore certain things posted on these board (probably not often enough), and it may be more a matter of seeing or learning about the intent of the what is posted rather than getting stuck on or squabbling over every little detail or innuendo.

Ever consider that all of them found common ground on this because

they're all correct?

After seeing that Paul and the apostles at Jerusalem never really arrived on common ground (and yes, I understand that they shook hands and agreed in essence to let each other have their own gospel and go there separate ways), I really don't hold any confidence or hope that they were all correct, or that they all found common ground.

However, that said, I do find Steve's take (though not yet clarified or well defined) on this thread to be somewhat interesting, and am curious to see what might come of it.

Fair enough?

And right there you stopped reading there to respond, "I don't see that anyone here has cornered the market on that yet."

But you stopped too soon, TLC.

You're right, I shouldn't have stopped there.

No one has cornered the market on either of them.

The truth of a premise depends on how closely it accords with objective reality.

Well, I don't see truth as necessarily (or exclusively) dependent upon someone's objective verification of it.

As for what "reality" is and/or isn't, well, there is this little matter of how completely reality is (or can be) detected with our senses.

Which, probably doesn't make any sense whatsoever if your view is that anything and everything is (or can be) detected with our senses.

The soundness of a logical argument doesn't just depend on whether or not it properly follows the rules of logic, it depends on the truth of the premises.

Granted. But sometimes there are premises that are overlooked or missed. (Which, if missed, can fail to expose the fragility of a logical argument.)

The argument that "the Bible contains no errors or contradictions because it is God-breathed" is not sound because, as is obvious to even the most casual of observers, the Bible DOES contain errors and contradictions.

So, in short, I question whether all the premises supporting that statement are clearly revealed.

And many of the contradictions were purposefully intended by the writers and editors of the Bible. When Wierwille tried to "reconcile" the "apparent" contradictions, he often defeated the purposes of the original writers, and gummed-up our understanding of the scriptures even more than it had been gummed-up before we heard Wierwille's rationalizations.

That's mostly conjecture. But anyway, I'll agree that some of the "apparent contradictions" have been gummed-up by other men's rationalizations.

If you pay attention to what is being written here by Raf and others as well as by my self, TLC, without a knee-jerk defensive response, you will learn some things about how to think critically. Critical thinking was what the PFAL series, and especially the Corps training, was designed to eradicate.

How thoughtful of me you are.

Perhaps some of my "knee-jerk defensive" responses won't appear to be so knee-jerk or defensive some day.

Or, maybe not. I don't know.

P.S. - Welcome, TLC, and good luck to you in our life-long task of separating truth from error!

That chore (if that's what it is) will all be over someday. (And its maybe not all that far away.)

Summary of what was taught in session #7:

Eve engaged in contemplative thought. Look what happened to her. You do want to meet a similar fate, do you?

Ah, the original sin, taught rather haphazardly at that.

I doubt I'll be much troubled with sorrow in bringing forth children, but I suppose that's not what you meant.

As far as what else transpired, we were all enslaved to our senses, the end of which is death.

Knowing or seeing anything beyond that is another matter, not appropriate for this thread.

If indeed these are your thoughts why do you bother posting here at all?

I'm wondering that myself. Given the meanness and viciousness that's been on display here (in this thread), it must have been a brain fart on my part.

I didn't realize that wolf packs hunt here.

It is becoming tiresome to try and engage you in meaningful dialogue.

So what. Call out the dogs and throw me out if you want. Obviously I don't know anything that you have any need or use for.

Advise for coming to GSC:

Forget what you learned in session#7.

It's O.K. to consider other viewpoints.

You'll have to entertain(?) me with what was in session#7, as I don't remember.

I've moved on from fair number of things that were taught in PFAL, but evidently you haven't figured that out yet.

(fair number = enough that I don't care to recount or try to remember them all at this point in time.)

There seems to be an inherent prejudice in this forum that presumes anybody not crawling in here with an arm and a leg missing must be a TWI supporter. Maybe that's because it's happened so much that it seems normal to y'all. But, it seems rather strange to me.

(edited "the" to "that")

...but I preferred "stewardship", and focused on who were the stewards

and what they were stewarding.

Interesting thought. I'm not aware of any covenant associated with Paul, so I don't see that as being the best fit, but he does acknowledge a certain stewardship. The difficulty with "stewardship" for me is how much reliance it seems to put on what man does rather than on what God does. But, maybe it can be seen as God opening or closing certain doors (or instructions) based upon where man is at, at such and such point in time. (I'd need to put more time and thought in it.) It initially might seem to make a stronger case for the called out (i.e., the church) of this era having started with Paul, rather than on the day of Penetcost in Acts 2.

I looked up John 11:26 using my biblical software.

...

From the actual Greek words used in this verse and my detailed study of the Greek words for "Age" as used in the New Testament with link above. This translation is more accurate.

verse. 26

"and whoever lives and believes in me will not ever die in the Age to come. Do you believe this?”

And stated again. The translation of three Greek words as seen in John 11:26 using the Strong's numbering system, with definitions above is in this order, "1519", "3588", "165". To then only translate this as the English "Never" shows a lack of understanding and perhaps also doctrinal bias.

I've found this site useful at times:

http://www.biblestudytools.com/compare-translations/

For whatever it's worth, it seems to me that the Douay-Rhiems version makes the most sense of this verse. (Of course, the Latin Vulgate carries some other baggage along.) Weymouth and Wycliffe's version also seem to allude to a similar meaning, but it's harder to pick up on.

You're newer and a few people might have nitpicked some of your early posts and you came in strong still are.

Yeah, I'm not without my share of faults. I suppose being a wuss isn't one of them.

GSC is a real minefield. Damned if you do, damned if you don't say anything in "such and such" a manner.

Chockfull.....yeah, I like discussions that have in-depth value.

Even when I link a thought-provoking thread to TLC's question....his response

is to fire back with broad generalizations and accusations.

Why take it so personal? Do you think I knew (or even cared) whether or not you were a "Rev"?

The "accusation" as you call it, was merely a generalized observation. Why you took it as being (or intentioned) as something more than that, I don't know.