rrobs

1 hour ago, Bolshevik said:

the phrase "your walk" strongly implied we are talking people's lives

You already stated the doctrine was in The Bible.  Although your initial post doesn't say you got your information from The Bible.  So it begs the question what doctrine are you trying to discuss????

Chaos and order would make more sense in the Doctrinal Forum if they were metaphysical in nature.  You used doctrine, chaos and order in the same sentence in your initial post.  Maybe you are trying to equate physics with The Bible?

You've missed the whole point.

1 hour ago, Bolshevik said:

the phrase "your walk" strongly implied we are talking people's lives

You already stated the doctrine was in The Bible.  Although your initial post doesn't say you got your information from The Bible.  So it begs the question what doctrine are you trying to discuss????

Chaos and order would make more sense in the Doctrinal Forum if they were metaphysical in nature.  You used doctrine, chaos and order in the same sentence in your initial post.  Maybe you are trying to equate physics with The Bible?

This might help: Analogy

23 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

 

Your analogy gives the impression that we should be drug through life.  Or at least, drag ourselves through life.  It sounds depressing.

Plus it begs the question on what exactly the "doctrine" is that we should have knowledge of.

You mention order and chaos, that there's some sort of guarding system for the doctrine, but again, begging the question.

 

 

 

Not talking about pushing or pulling people.

The Bible has the doctrine.

Chaos and order are physical phenomena. I learned the concept in Physics 101.

4 hours ago, chockfull said:

Just curious.  Is this you pulling your own trailer here?  Or you cut and pasting someone else's words into GSC's "trailer" ???

It is my very own trailer. If you want to confirm, checkout copyscape.com. 

On 7/5/2017 at 4:34 PM, Infoabsorption said:

I think we have put too much mind into these spiritual things. I mean we were arguing that there is a difference between spiritual gifts and manifestations. I think the manifestations are spiritual gifts. To receive these spiritual gifts maybe we need to clean our act up and get close to the Lord. I think it's more than just "believing" for them. If one is a bad representative is God going to bestow spiritual power to that person? I saw very few genuine spiritual happenings while involved with TWI, although there were a few. I think it's not just a problem with TWI followers(and ex followers) but Christians in general especially in the USA and Europe. One of the biggest problems is the fact we've become too materialistic which in our culture is very hard to avoid. Perhaps we've been blocking the reception of these spiritual gifts. I no longer buy into the prosperity gospel. Not that God wants us to live in poverty but we are so focused on making gobs of money that we may be getting close to the realm of idolatry. I'm speaking in general terms and I'm not pointing fingers because I'm in this boat as well.

The language of 1 Cor 12 definitely makes a distinction between gifts and manifestations. We should also. Otherwise we are saying God's opinion doesn't matter. That won't go anywhere.

Although some say manifestations, the Bible uses the singular. 

1Cor 12:7: But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

That first word, but, sets the manifestation apart from the gifts in the first part of the chapter.

4 hours ago, chockfull said:

Yes.  He was encouraging them.  It was figurative language.  Like I tell my kids "you'll grow up to do so many greater things in the world than I have".  

Now perhaps Dake, or others with extreme OCD would want to enumerate works and compare.  

But the whole "see I told you so Jesus prophesied that we would do all 9 all the time" vision of John 14:12 with acrobat logic over to I Cor 12 is a very PFAL like interpretation of all of that.  I mean I haven't watched those tapes in decades but the ole VP logic of "what are those greater works?" SIT, no, no, no.

I mean when I read John 14 the whole chapter in context it doesn't really seem to flow to drill in on minutae to try and prove something in one of Paul's letters.  That doesn't seem to be looking at it in the spirit of Jesus' intentions speaking it.  He was preparing them, comforting them, and shedding light on a few details to be seen later about the comforter.

The question remains, did Jesus do 7 of the 9 things in 1 Cor or not? Furthermore, did he or did he not say they would also do those things? I'm not talking about the greater works. Was God OCD for enumerating 9 ways the spirit manifests? 

33 minutes ago, waysider said:

"I see what's going on here."

 

Haha! There you go with that humor thing again.

I don't know what else to do with DWBH's replies. It doesn't seem like he's being very serious, so I just reply in kind and have a little fun.

18 hours ago, DontWorryBeHappy said:

LOL waysider! Weekend At Bernie's prequel!

I see what's going on here.

1) You are convinced I am a wayfer, a wafer of the wafers, in fact.

2) I leave the intellectually superior "Way" section and came to the basement.

3) You followed me to the basement. How humiliating that must have been for you. Why would you have done that?

4) The only conclusion is: you must be a closet Wafer that needs to read all the way doctrine I write. You can't get enough.

Why not just go back to Ohio and sit at the feet of queen riverbark and let her tickle your ears with her doctrine? That's clearly what you want. I know it now. You are a phony. You don't belong here at gsc.

Sorry to out you dude, but you'll feel better as time goes on. You'll finally be able to express the true wafer you. The closet is a dark place.

20 hours ago, waysider said:

In the U.S., his fate (for his actions, not his beliefs) would be decided by society and governing entities, not.Christendom. If Christendom became  part of the decision making process deciding David's fate, it would mean we have entered a Theocracy. The Constitution warned against this. It would be in conflict with the first amendment.

In 1802, Jefferson wrote this in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists:

'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.^']

It was emphasized in The Treaty of Tripoli, Article #11, which, though discussing a specific scenario, set the tone of future dealings. (1796)

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

 

On this basis, I propose the aforementioned question raises a moot point.

 

Dave's not here.

True enough. In our society the civil trumps the lay.

I was asking a hypothetical question. Yes, a hypothetical question, by nature, is moot. Nevertheless, people engage in hypothetical questions all the time. It stimulates thought and conversation.

9 hours ago, WordWolf said:

A) I Samuel 1 covers Samuel, not David (who may not have been born yet.)

B) God warned Israel at length that having a king was an awful idea for them, before acquiescing to THEIR insistence that THEY wanted a king. (All of I Samuel 8.)  The first king was Saul, the second was David. Both seemed ok to some people's views, but both were disastrous for Israel, each in his own way.

C) "things wouldn't be going very well for him and Israel from now on." That's remarkably understated.  "But David immediately repented and so God completely forgave him". Actually, God promised David's punishment would be PUBLIC (II Samuel 12:12), that strife would never depart from David's house (II Sam 12:10).  and that he'd lose from his house (II Sam 12:11), and that his future son FROM this sin would die (II Samuel 12:14.)  You make it sound like God blew off David's punishments. David wasn't killed for it, but he suffered the losses he earned.

D) David repented, and is mentioned in Hebrews 11. Then again, Gideon's also mentioned in Hebrews 11, and he's hardly the poster-boy for bravery.

E) The top leader of all Israel had sex with another man's wife-and the power dynamics in play make this coercive by virtue of him being able to have her killed or everyone she cares about killed if he feels like it, so she MUST comply.  David attempts to cover it up by arranging to have an innocent man murdered and made to look like an accident (the fortunes of war, but he was set up to be the only man behind enemy lines and thus certain to die.)  David was unrepentant UNTIL Nathan confronted him directly with what he had done, and God's Judgement upon him for it.  THEN David repented (he'd been caught and was going to be punished.) That's no better than any little kid who's not sorry UNTIL HE'S CAUGHT. THEN he's "repentant."   David served his full sentence, and repented. THEN God forgave David-but David still had to live out his well-earned punishment first (as much as could happen "first",anyway- the sword never left his family during his lifetime.)

F) Present-day Christendom is not a political entity like Israel, nor a country like Israel. Furthermore, it's not a country ruled by God Almighty.  So, this really doesn't seem to go anywhere close to a reasonable comparison.   

All your points well said. I painted everything with a pretty broad brush. Thanks for the clarifications. Can't imagine how I mistook 1 Sam 1 for 2 Sam 11 (point A).

With regards to F: All true. But I was more wondering what individual Christians would have done. Of course today, David would be tried and probably convicted apart from any religious connections. In our society the civil trumps the lay. It's just a hypothetical question. Maybe a better question would have been, What would you have done to a man like David? Or how about Christian killer Saul?

Me? I doubt I would have been anywhere near as gracious as God.

14 hours ago, waysider said:

You forgot about humor. You're way up there in humor, too.

Hahahahahahahaha!

I did forget about the humour. The best part. Thanks...

Just now, Bolshevik said:

No.  

It's not important.

2 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

Not sure what "you guys" means.  

 

In Latin it would be: "vos guys." Got it now?

18 minutes ago, DontWorryBeHappy said:

Yawn

Barf...

29 minutes ago, waysider said:

"Dave's not here, man."

And?

19 hours ago, DontWorryBeHappy said:

Once a troll always a troll, LIAR.

It's funny how you and certain others followed me here. I thought the basement was pretty low. I guess you just don't want to miss any of my knowledge. That's cool. Stick around. I'll teach you a few things.

27 minutes ago, Bolshevik said:

Trolling . . .

You guys so invite it. Have you not noticed that I reply according to people's reply to me? I am perfectly able and willing to discus things like adults. But if people want to act like children with snarky and cryptic replies, I'm very good at that also (even though it's waste of time). Like I said, in wit and doctrine, I have no equals here at gsc. Stop messing around and stay on topic.

God hand picked David to be king over Israel. He was the top leader over all of Israel (1 Samuel 1).

He used that position to commit murder in the first degree. He had Bath-sheba’s husband, Uriah, killed so he could have Bath-sheba all to himself. That is outlined in 2 Samuel chapter 11. A law school could use this chapter as an example of murder in the first degree. Conspiracy also and probably a few other niceties.

God wasn’t happy about David’s behaviour (2 Sam 11:27) so he had a talk with him. He told David that things wouldn’t be going very well for him and Israel from now on. But David immediately repented and so God completely forgave him (2 Sam 12). In fact, David ended up in the Hebrew’s chapter 11 “believers hall of fame” (Heb 11:32).

So the top leader of all Israel murders an innocent man. David repented. God forgave him.

The question: what would present day Christendom do to a man like David?

48 minutes ago, TLC said:

lol...

neither does (nor can) a colorblind person see much of any difference between these:

 

Say or explain to them whatever you want, they will never "get" or see the difference that you do.

 

I see V and P. LMAO.

1 minute ago, waysider said:

I didn't ask you what Bullinger or Darby said. I asked you what the scriptures say.

The scriptures also say it. Check out the words, "administration" and "dispensation" in a concordance. I'll help get you started in your own research so you don't have to rely on my, vp, or gsc (get the rhyme there? ) for the answer:

Eph 2:1-7,

1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

In those verses your have in time past (v2), present (v6) and the future (v7). They are quite distinct from each other.

If you go from there, you will see that they all represent very different ways God deals with man in the different times.

Did the death and resurrection of Jesus change anything? I would say a major affirmative on that. Different times, different "rules."

Just now, waysider said:

May I kiss your ring, Your Holiness?

Easy there, my friend. I'm not into fetishes!

1 minute ago, waysider said:

Heavy, dude!

Allow me to rephrase my comment:

Are you saying that, in light of of this verse, the Bible has offered proof of itself that it's been sub-divided into distinct time periods?

Yes. Bullinger, Daraby and others see it that way also. Either could explain it to you better than I. Check 'em out.

15 hours ago, DontWorryBeHappy said:

This fraud Robson knows as much about the Trinity as dictor paul.....which is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! He's a 2-cult bible student, and overt plagiarist of anything that is of any critical value in textual and MSS evidentiary critique. LIAR and plagiarist.......anyone see a familiar pattern???? It is not in any way difficult, disciplined, or academically acceptable to base all of one's "personal theology" upon the previously published and widely quoted works of others, without serious scholastic recognition and detailed footnoting. To say "I studied Greek" is no valid credentialling! Where? Under whom? How long? What academic or scholastic accomplishment or recognition of your "studying of Greek" did you obtain? Did you get your ThD at Pikes Peak Bible Seminary too??? LMAO!  You understand that sky pilot for dictor paul ?? Like faddah (in-da-woid) like son.

Clearly I am superior to the typical gsc cult follower, both in wit and scriptural knowledge. You guys should all humble yourselves, join my flock, and let me teach you the real interpretation of the Bible.

1 minute ago, waysider said:

So you're saying that verse proves the Bible is chronologically compartmentalized?

Chronology, by nature is compartmentalized. Now is now, then is then, and what will be is what will be.

21 hours ago, waysider said:

I see a lot of cherry picked scripture references supposedly supporting a man-made concept. What I don't see is something showing me the Bible has been sub divided into neat little compartments. But, hey, if that's what you need to make it all fit like a hand in a sock, more power to you.

Maybe 2 Cor 4:4 explains why you can't see it. I hope that's not the case for your sake, but it looks like that may very well be your problem. But not to worry, with God all things are possible and the scales may fall from your eyes yet.

I'm clearly superior to the the typical gsc cult follower, both in wit and scriptural knowledge. You guys should humble yourselves and learn from me.