cwb01

2 hours ago, waysider said:

Here's an interesting discussion we had about Paul.

After reading the first three pages (that was all I could stomach) of that thread, as well as this thread and other posts I have seen in this forum,  I have come to the conclusion that the majority of those posting at GreaseSpot cafe are even wackier than  TWI or any of the other offshoots.  I didn't even know that was possible. I am bowing out of this whole forum.  Later you all.

I would say the most overrated is Dan Marino and I'm a Dolphins fan.  My all time favorite was Earl Morrall.  I don't think he was the best ever but was my favorite none the less.

I am just curious and have a question for other posters here who disagree with dispensationalism.  I certainly respect your position.  However I would like to ask if you share the belief that what the apostle Paul wrote is not scripture and that he preached a different form of Christianity than its founder?  This sounds very extreme to me. I have spoken with a lot of Christian believers in person and on the internet who disagree with dispensationalism.  Yet very few have had the extreme position that what the apostle Paul wrote is not scripture and that he preached a different form of Christianity than Jesus Christ.  Actually I think the only place I have heard such an extreme position from non dispensationalists is from ex way people.

DontWorryBeHappy - so you don't believe what Paul wrote is scripture and should be thrown out of the bible? You believe the apostle Paul preached a different Christianity than its founder.  I would say most non dispensationalists out there and here as well would disagree with you.  Your position is very extreme to say the least.  I am just curious,  do you feel EVERYTHING the apostle Paul wrote should be thrown out of the bible or just the parts you don't like? What exactly are the parts you don't like?

4 hours ago, Raf said:

I am not aware of VF being "exclusionary" or "elitist" in the sense of his group being the only group that gets saved. I would say that is inconsistent with the character of the man whose teachings I followed throughout most of the 1990s. It's been ages, so that could have changed. I would be surprised as a matter of character, but not as a matter of potential.

To be fair to Vince,  I was going by what one of his followers said to me and not something Vince himself said.

On 4/12/2016 at 5:25 PM, DontWorryBeHappy said:

Very easy Mr. Geiger.

Romans 13:1-7 is Pauline "revelation", most of which is not "godbreathed", and it preaches a different Christianity than its Founder, Jesus Christ of Nazareth. 

I just read this post from the starter of this thread.  The starter of this thread has lost all credibility with me.

On 4/12/2016 at 5:25 PM, DontWorryBeHappy said:

Very easy Mr. Geiger.

Romans 13:1-7 is Pauline "revelation", most of which is not "godbreathed", and it preaches a different Christianity than its Founder, Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Chew on that for awhile, 

This is the biggest bunch of nonsense I have read in any forum.  Do you think everything the apostle Paul wrote should be thrown out of the bible.  Chew on that for awhile.  Chew on that for awhile? I don't think so.  The very smell of it makes me want to vomit.

Hopefully I am not opening up too big a can of worms starting this thread.  I remember when I was with TWI, they were very adamantly pre-trib. Since leaving,  have you changed your end-times viewpoint or are you still pre-trib?  if you changed,  what do you believe now?

On 6/12/2018 at 7:16 AM, Taxidev said:

Not at all.

Until yesterday, I hadn't even heard of dispensationalism.  And I most certainly never considered the impact of focusing on the epistles over all else.  And I had already learned that ALL scripture is for our learning, yet I had missed this important point.

Yes, it's definitely the ever present Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, that makes the difference in our lives, not a dead man named Paul.  Great as he was, he certainly wasn't the Christ.

My understanding of what VPW proclaimed about being the greatest teacher since Paul was that he couldn't compare himself to Jesus.  Silly me, I inferred that - he certainly never said it that I know of.  And I did watch a couple of JAL's videos.  I couldn't watch more because it felt like I was in a TWI class.

You have been incredibly instrumental in my eyes opening wider regarding not only the impact TWI has had on my view of the bible, but also the flaws in that view.  Keep it coming, brother!

Paul wasn't Christ,  yet the words he wrote in the epistles ARE the words of Christ  He got them by revelation from Jesus Christ.

3 minutes ago, WordWolf said:

Of Some type or another, yes.  Please keep in mind, however, that titles and categories are no excuse to stop thinking.  I think more in terms of "covenants" than "dispensations", but I'm not interested in what's "standard"  in "covenant theology" because I don't have to just jump on some bandwagon.  If some doctrine makes sense to me, that's one thing.  I'm not a fan of any theology in the same sense that sports teams have fans.   So, technically, you're some type of Dispensationalist, and then go on to think for yourself concerning specifics. BTW, vpw would have HATED you to do the thinking for yourself, lcm and rfr also.  So, every time you think for yourself, that's another poke in the eye for them, if you think of it that way.

Someone once told me, "every viewpoint has some valid points.  If not, nobody would believe it.  By the same token,   every viewpoint has holes in it.  if not everybody would believe it".   The person who told me that was referring to end times view points.  In my study of end time viewpoints I have come to conclusion that person was right.  I think what he said could probably apply to all the theological viewpoints. 

10 hours ago, WordWolf said:

You are correct. It's about diving the Bible into time periods, with different rules for different time periods.  In Time Period A, Ruleset A applies, and in Time Period B, Ruleset A no longer applies but Ruleset B applies.  And so on.   That's independent on your beliefs about anything that happens IN them, or even which ones apply.  Bullinger and wierwille both promoted them, but gave different lists.  They vary widely depending on who you ask.

 

The thing is I have seen some take dispensationalism to such an extreme,  it doesn't even represent what most dispensationalists believe.  TWI, in my opinion did that.  I had a friend at the time I was part of that ministry (between 1980 and 1985) who was told by somebody very high up in the ministry that he didn't have to worry about lusting after women because when Jesus said that looking at a woman to lust after her was the same as adultery, he was talking to a different administration and that doesn't apply to him. So knowing that TWI and their offshoots is a very small subset of those who believe in dispensationalism,  I can't base my position on dispensationalism on anything coming from them.

By the same token,  I have seen a lot of extremism on the other side as well.  I have heard anti-dispensationalists basically say that the epistles of the apostle are irrelevant (since Paul is dead and I follow living Christ).  What a bunch of nonsense.  The words the apostle Paul wrote ARE the words of Christ. He got them by revelation from Jesus Christ.

5 hours ago, Infoabsorption said:

Yes, WordWolf is exactly right. Dispensationalism is about dividing the Bible into time periods, but the focus of modern dispensationalists tends to be on the "end times". Here is just one example why I am no longer a Dispensationalists: http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2072678_2072683_2072696,00.html

 

So if I believe the dispensationalists have a valid point in saying a new "era" (or dispensation, or administration or whatever you want call it) began with the day of Pentecost,  yet don't agree with them on the end times stuff should I still consider myself a Dispensationalist ?

On 6/12/2018 at 10:31 AM, Infoabsorption said:

Taxi, "Dispensationalism" is the theology of a certain viewpoint of eschatology. 

 

 

 

is Dispensationalism only about eschatology? I am just asking about the definition of Dispensationalism.   I thought it was about dividing the whole bible into different time periods, not just the end times. So if I believe there is different "dispensation" between the law and the gospels, and a different "dispensation" between the gospels and the day of Pentecost till today,  but don't believe the rapture is before the tribulation,  should I still consider myself a Dispensationalist?

1 hour ago, Grace Valerie Claire said:

 

O1, Caca is caca, no matter who teaches it.

I still believe there will be a new earth for those who have accepted Jesus Christ as lord and savior.  There wont be so much caca there.  There is just too much caca in this present world,.

1 hour ago, Taxidev said:

I believe this group got its name because of LCM claiming if you walk away from TWI you'd be a grease spot by midnight.  So, not much different.

LOL.  I think I would rather be a "grease spot" than lose my salvation.  In any case,  I guess trying to compare the two is kind of like having  to compare a hard stool with diarrhea - or having to compare republicans with democrats (now you know how I feel about both political parties).

17 minutes ago, modcat5 said:

Vince has been teaching that you could lose your salvation for at least 20 years.

--Raf posting.

I fellowship with a lot of Christians who believe somebody can lose their salvation.   Even though I disagree with them on this particular issue,  I have no problem working together with them.  The big problem I had was the reason this person from Vince Finnegan's offshoot told me I could lose my salvation.  He basically told me if I go with any group other than Vince's that would mean loss of salvation.  According to him,  you could lose your salvation for merely hanging out with a any Christian other than those who are following Vince..  To me,  that is far worse than anything I was ever told by anybody from TWI or the other offshoots.  I am just wondering if Vince holds the same viewpoint as one of his followers.  I am assuming the follower who told me I was going to lose my salvation for hanging out with Christians other than Vince's group got this idea from Vince's teaching.  

I only said I thought Living Hope International Ministries was more cultish the TWI or the other offshoots is because one of their members told me I could lose my salvation for attending a Trinitarian church.  When I was with TWI,  I was basically told if I left it would ruin my life and I would no longer be in fellowship with God,  but was never told I would lose my salvation for it.  To me what this individual said was way worse and absurd than what any follower of TWI ever said.  That being said,  it could be that this individual does not represent Vince Finnegan and his ministry's viewpoint.  However the person who told me I was in danger of losing my salvation for attending a church is very dedicated and committed to Living Hope International Ministries.

On 8/1/2017 at 8:21 PM, Thomas Loy Bumgarner said:

 

Quote

For those wondering what Vince F is up to...

http://lhim.org/

 

They seem to be me to be even more cultish than the other offshoots.