TLC

There are plenty of Dr.'s in the world that don't use it or go by it in their social circles. So, even if legit, one need not demand usage of it. I am neither a defender, an endorser, or a viscous critic of VPW. There's plenty enough others around that fit that bill, and at this point, I just don't think my opinion will add or subtract anything to what's already known and been said about him here. (And I'm well aware of most of it. Have been for some time now.)

Your post seems evidence enough of what "good" the Rev. title appears to have done for you. So, my previous "generalization" stands.

No, not always. But if or when something is (or was) observed repeatedly, it seems fair to make a generalized statement about it. Of course there can be, and undoubted are, exceptions. Same for the Corps training. It didn't automatically ruin everyone that graduated or necessarily make them more puffed up. But puffed up so many became, that a generalization of the effect of the program is not entirely unreasonable, is it? The knife cuts both ways. And no, I know little to nothing about you, except for some of the snide remarks towards me that you seem to be rather adept on this thread. Were you that way before your title? Do tell. (edited only slightly, for better clarity) What, did you change your mind about what you just said? Back to the snide remarks, is it?

The "Rev." label seemed to change people, but not for the better. (Corps program probably wasn't much different.) Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. Amazing how that works, eh?

Probably one of the sensible things (to me, anyways) I read yet on this thread. Personally, I think when viewed from a distance (and looking back over the last 6000 or so years) there are fairly clear indications that certain period of times had a different set of instructions that were given to men by God. (Some much more verbose, obviously.) So, I suppose that most here would peg me as a dispensationalist. Which is undoubtedly true, but not after the manner of either Bullinger, VPW, or anyone else that you might care to mention, including Schoenheit. (Unless you're familiar with Les Feldick's, as his view on this is the best I've come across. I know of no one else that matches his teachings on this, and I've looked at more than a few.)

I don't see that anyone here has cornered the market on that yet. He wasn't the originator of that, as you should (and ought) to know. That's hogwash. I see no such implication. Take, for instance, the parables that Jesus Christ spoke in. Do you suppose that they had a single meaning which was accessible to everybody? Separating truth from error is a life long task for all of us. Where and how any of us may have started on that journey, or how focused upon it any of us have remained, varies greatly, and in many ways we live in difficult times of sensory overload. (very close to the end time, I dare say.) My personal decision to accept the inerrancy and the authority of scripture didn't began with, nor did it end with, VPW.

Well, if you read exactly what I wrote (in post #194), I didn't call it "accepting a premise." I said that it (referring to choices, or conclusions, however you want to say it) "involved accepting a premise", which I think is still accurate. In post #200, where "reasons" were being discussed, points directly to "accepting a premise" as the reason why inerrancy is plausible. Had you not put quotes as you did around "accepting a premise," perhaps I could think that you weren't referring back to either of these two posts and distorting what was said by lifting said phrase entirely out of the context it was used within, and alluding to a less intelligent (and less credible) use of it. Maybe I'm mistaken, but that's what the intent of your post looks like from my point of view. (Just sayin' what it looks like. But please feel free to explain otherwise, and/or correct me if I'm wrong - it won't be the first nor the last time that I am.)

Sure, lot's of reasons to see it (which was canonized) as having errors, and maybe only one to think of it (meaning the original, of course) as inerrant. It's accepting a premise, no matter how it's viewed.

maybe we coulda found a place for 'em in the way tree...

Has how God communicates with people changed from any time in the past? How many camps do you suppose this might be split into? It's God's only way of communicating with people today. It's the only authoritative way that God can communicate. It's the primary way, out of other ways (But hasn't always been?) It's superior, more reliable, or more effective than any other way. It's more explainable or unmistakeable than any other way. It's inferior to another way. (which is?) It's inferior to nearly any other way. (because all roads lead to Chicago?) It's _________ (fill in the bank.) Appears there may be a number of ways to thread the needle, but what might you choose as the best or "correct" answer? If it's thought to contain errors, there would seem to be some inherent difficulty with any of the first four. (Which begs the question, is any one way thought to be better or more reliable than any other way?)

Okay, I better see what you intended to communicate. But what appears to elevate "scripture" to a higher level of gravitas than a mere "letter" that was sent to them is its inclusion of those that are unlearned (unlearned about what, exactly, if it's not the Torah, or other spiritually inspired writings?), wrestling them unto their own destruction. What wrangling with other "writings" carries with it such devastating consequences if not understood? That's your choice, of course, but it plainly involves accepting the premise that said consensus is more authoritative that the actual words of the writer himself.

Huhn? Why think it is magical or ethereal? I think of it as what was written down. Unlike "the word of God," which I consider as being spiritual. In other words, the word of God (which is not tangible) can be spoken or written, both of which are tangible. In this context, scripture refers to the written portion, as opposed to that which might be spoken. How can you be so certain of that, without accepting a premise that simply attributes more credibility to some other authority? Both epistles declare the writer to be an apostle of Jesus Christ. Evidently you suppose that this is an error (i.e., a lie), or that there were other apostles of Jesus Christ named Peter, or Simon Peter. (I'm not sure which, or if you might have something else in mind.) I see no logical reason not to think that he is equating it with the Torah (which was inspired.) Perhaps I'm missing something that you're trying to say, as I took (correct me if I'm wrong) your "modern sense" phrase to mean, any and everything that is written by anybody, past, present, or future.

The example of those around us always seems to have more effect than whatever might be read or heard. Talk is cheap, so to speak. Aside from what was just discussed? Col.2:18-19 offers a rather prominent reason that might interest you. Pride and humility gets all twisted around (backassward) when there's little or no personal relationship with the ascended Christ. The Way Tree? Leaf connected to the twig, connected to the branch, connected to the limb, connected to the root? Where's the connection to the head in that?

I'll agree that there were a lot of crummy practiced within TWI, some number of which stemmed from what was taught in PFAL and more that stemmed from the example set by leadership in the ministry, that we all, to some degree or another, developed similar bad habits. However, it might foster a little too much of the "I was victim" mentality to simply say that it was TWI/PFAL that made us victims. I'm not saying that no one was victimized (it happened), or that we all, to some degree might feel that way. But if part of healing and/or changing those bad habits (however you want to think of it) entails accepting a certain amount of personal responsibility for it, then I think there's a little caution merited in what we see as the reason for any bad habits that we might still have. And it's my opinion that one of the worst is this "I have more truth than you" or "he's more spiritual than you" hierarchy that was cast," which many (including many here) are still deeply ensnared within.

Then it seems the next logical question would be to ask whether they should be included when it is written that "all scripture" is given by inspiration of God. If the writer has elsewhere (Rom.15:4) distinguished things that were written "aforetime," should he not also have written "All scripture written aforetime" to Timothy if that is all that was meant? At the least, it should include all of Paul's epistles, considering that this was the last of what was written by Paul.

Life is in the blood, according to Leviticus. I don't know that science has yet discovered exactly what it is in the blood, but it won't be a surprise if they do some day. This site proposes life begins when there is blood in the fetus: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when3.htm Interesting possibility, it seems.

Does that mean that you think 2Pet.3:16 implicitly categorizes Paul's epistles as scripture? If not, why the exclusion, given they were already written by the time Peter wrote this?

Because it was sitting at the top of the list, and I didn't recall reading it previously. What, am I'm not entitled to an opinion here? Unreal. Do you give lessons or something on performing ad hominem attacks? Perhaps you will find me the post in this thread where I made reference to DWBH. Because it's a bit of a mystery to me. I'll leave soon enough, don't fret about it.

Clearly most of that is your opinion. Of course what I post are my recollections and personal opinions. However, they were not combative (certainly not in intent), and they were written entirely as a contemplative response to what someone else posted. IF they came across as combative to everyone else here, then evidently I did a .... poor job of communicating in in a manner that anyone here is open to, and for that I apologize. Perhaps this is completely the wrong forum to be in, and having no pressing need or desire to be here, and I have no problem moving on. No skin off my nose, as they say. You appear quite expert at that, stepping in here with the flame thrower that you did on this thread, in light of the fact I had never once mentioned you here. Unless, of course, you presumed my earlier nametag and "Rev" comment was somehow aimed specifically at you. It wasn't. But I don't know what else you thought might have been. So, when you start a fire, don't be surprised when you get burnt with some blowback. Why purport that my reasons are any less honorable or noble than yours? Maybe you'd see they aren't if you'd ever ditch the already prejudiced attitude. But as I said once already, if everyone sees it as you do, I have no problem with bowing out. Still, you were part of the hierarchy that was built, by your own admission. Not me, but enough others were hurt by the rampant and out of control egotism so prevalent in the structure of TWI. It is your opinion they are not, as you have repeatedly indicated. But they are what they are, regardless of your opinion of them. Does your ad hominem flaming have "off" valve? Apparently not. That diseased bandwagon is one of egotism and arrogance, that no ever gets thrown off of. (Unless they're knocked off in a manner like Saul.) Do you honestly think and claim that you were not arrogant and egotistical back then? It isn't an issue of being an authority on you. It was a ministry wide issue (and not just in leadership, where it flourished.) But you still are. I'd simply prefer any validity or credibility be observed in what is actually said, rather than hinge upon who I am.

Wasn't the truth I was looking for (I go to God for that, not Google.) I was interested in what you were trying to communicate. But, have fun entertaining others with your mind games, if that's all you're into. It wasn't intended as, nor was it set forth as, any kind of quality research. Evidently you didn't follow the thought. Then again, the discussion wasn't with you. But go right on ahead and jump onboard that wagon DWBH is steering, if that's your style.

Now at least I see why you didn't respond to my last question to you. You weren't really interested. No big deal. Think what you want.

A while back I was moved to take a more honest look at what effect my involvement in the minitsty may have had on my own elitist, know more truth than others, attitude. To put it bluntly, it wasn't a pretty picture. (The road to recovery ususally starts by first recognizing and acknowleding the problem.) Having said that, I can say with a clear and pure conscious that I do not (and have never, really) held any bitterness, anger, or resentment in my heart towards anyone or anything that took place during those years. Mistakes were made, and I certainly own my share of them. But given where I am at now, I would neither trade, nor want to go through them again for anything. As for your mistaken and misperceived comments, I'll set the record straight. No such slant exists. Who you were then had little or no effect on me, nor had I any on you. (So there is no reason whatsoever for such a slant.) What I've posted to date on this site have been straightforward and honest efforts to communicate my thoughts and recall the accurate facts to the best of my ability. If I am unsure about something, I'll say as much. If sure, then that's my recollection of it. If you don't like it, or disagree with it, you can then discuss it, or you can flame away, as you're poised to do in this post. I really don't care. Think what you want. I believe that my comments are accurate. If you care to look again, you'll see that I said all were invited. If some were subsequently "disapproved," as per your account, that's another matter. Furthermore, there is the matter of ordination vs. "gift ministiries." Perhaps you missed the meeting (imagine that) where VPW plainly stated that everyone in the first three corps had gift ministries. Not all were ordained, obviously. Nor am I saying that VPW was necessarily correct. I'm relating what he actually said, which is in opposition to your "obviously not every one had gift ministries according to the "revelation" given vic by god" statement. It's ironic that your post appears in this thread on "Why isn't TWI as big as it was in the 1970s?" rather than the one on ordinations. For any of the younger readers here, it offers an encapsulated picture of that same ministry leadership attitude from the 70's. No surprise, though, because that was you then, and evidently, is still you today. If anyone didn't have the right credentials then, they were a mere bug to be squashed if or when they were in the way or questioning anything that the hierarchy dictated. So, if anyone is thinking... if I had been there, I would have seen it and spoken up. Well... did you see it, and did you speak up? Not as easy as you think, is it? It's far easier to "go along" with it. Jump on the bandwagon, in fact, and show you're hip. Perhaps it's worth repeating something I posted a few days ago on this very same thread: Have you ever stopped to remember, DWBH, what sort of person you were before the ministry, or honestly pondered what effect it, and the lofty titles given to you, had upon your ego? Take the question however you want, but I ask it with no malice or ill will intended. (because I was sucked up into it right along with everyone else.)

Evidently others reading here can make sense out of this, so pardon my apparently less educated ignorance, but I can't. Perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining in mere layman's terms what you see as the exact difference in makes when viewed from a Stoic position rather than Platonic. Because (correct me if I'm wrong), weren't the Stoics two principles of the universe (matter and God) derrived from Plato's dualism? (duplicated word edited out.)

Thank you, Steve. Not that my voice means much, but I'd also beg to differ. Evidently 2Pet.3:15-18 has quite a different meaning to most folks here. Yeah, TWI had it's share of issues alright. Probably the least of which was the issue being alluded to in this thread. As mentioned in a post elsewhere, the way I see it, there was never a sufficient enough understanding of just how distinct and different Paul's gospel was from that of the apostles at Jerusalem. Which led to no end of problems.

I about barfed when I read this first post in its entirety. I'll try to read a bit further in the thread, but I'm not sure how far I'll make it without getting sick.