Oakspear

Harry Wierwille's autobio is full of examples of taking out loans to buy things

In my opinion wise cracks can actually help get to the truth by introducing uncomfortable subjects cushioned with humor. Well, before he was a bus driver flunky, while after he was a self-appointed prophet and the man with the ANSWERS.Oh, I'm sorry, were you just looking for folks to say nice things?

My old fellowship coordinator had a plan for buying a house without (supposedly) going into debt: A) Find someone who is selling a house. B) Convince that person to make you a partner in the ownership of the house. For example, if the house is worth $100,000, and you can come up with $10,000, the $10 thou makes you a 10% partner in the house. You pay 10% of the taxes, repairs, etc. If you rent it out, you get 10% of the rent C) As you make more payments, you own a greater percentage of the house. If you stop making payments, your share never increases. Of course the plan is to eventually own the whole house. The guy who preached this plan owned his own house free and clear. However, he claimed that he was buying it in this manner from his parents. His parents died before the deal progressed very far and he inherited it outright. I can see several holes in this plan, other than that I never heard of anyone actually doing it. Anybody else see 'em?

Thanks Steve, well put.

Okay Steve!, all "with distinction" -->

????????? (oikonomia) occurs seven times in the bible: Three times in Luke 16:2-4, translated as stewardship I Corinthians 9:17, Ephesians 1:10, Ephesians 3:2, and Colossians 1:25 all translated dispensation. The first three in Luke apply to one person's personal responsibility to act as a steward. The steward talks about being put out of the stewardship and having the stewardship taken away. It is referred to as if it is a thing. While there certainly is a time period over which the steward exercised his stewardship, the emphasis appears to be more on actions, as opposed to time. I Corinthians 9:17 and Colossians 1:25 seem to fit the explanation that Goey gave of Ephesians 3:2, "Paul is simpy saying that he was given grace by God by allowing him to preach and minister to the Ephesians (Gentiles)". Ephesians 1:10 could go either way, in my opinion, maybe somebody who has studied it can give some insight. In my view, the idea that there are distinct administrations, or periods of time, where things are completely and sharply different, is not supported by the verses that use the Greek word ????????? (oikonomia). To support administartionism/dispensationalism you have to get your evidense elsewhere. One of the results of following the idea of administrations/dispensations is that you get the "to whom is it written?" quandry. Certain parts of the bible are relevant, and some are not. It is self evident that things changed over time. There was a Garden of Eden and then there was not; there wasn't a torah and then there was; other examples can be cited. But to conclude that the periods of time that coincide with these occurences are somehow sealed off from each other, where God's rules of salvation are completely overturned, needs more documentation than has been given so far. Just where does it say in the bible that what dispensationalists claim is true? Can dispenstaionalism be documented from the bible, rather than just illustarted by analogy?

Posted earlier by WordWolf quoting Goey: Dave writes concerning Diepensationalism: And where would that be? Which Epsitle and what Bible mentions an "administration of grace". Not the King James. Not the NIV. Not the ASV. The words "administration of grace" do not appear in any Bible that I am aware of. Paul does however write in Epehsians 3:2: Eph 3:2 2If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: Is this talking about an "Administration" as defined by Wierwille/Bullinger/et al - as in a period of time? No. In the context read verses 7 & 8: Eph 3:7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. Eph 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; Paul is simpy saying that he was given grace by God by allowing him to preach and minister to the Ephesians (Gentiles). To pull a time framed "administration of grace" out of these verses is absurd and sloppy interpretation and is not reading it in the context. Dave said elsewhere: Huh? What "actual words" are you taking about?Following is my comments on the above: No matter what words you want to use, they have to fit the context of what is being discussed. Paul is not talking about a "time period" of grace. He is talking about being given the stewardship, the responsibility to preach about grace. If you want to posit a "time period" of grace, then you have to find another part of the scripture to back it up.

Yes indeed, it is a momentous day :D--> Although, whatever it was, I'm sure it mattered to Adam and Eve; God gave them specific instructions, and they decided to take a different path. Here's some more food for thought: Was God's command totally arbitrary and capricious, or was there some logic and ssense that Adam and Eve could easily perceive? Was the "thou shalt surely die" part of the command because God was going to punish Adam & Eve, or because of an inherant danger in "the tree" that would cause death in and of itself? An illustration: When my children were small I told them to eat their vegetables. No inherant, immediate harm would come from not eating their vegetables, but there might be a consequence from failure to obey imposed by me. On the other hand they were told not to play in the street, inherant, immediate harm could result if a car ran them over. The first was a standard that I imposed because of my standards, which were debatable and arguable, the second was imposed to keep them alive. Which was the command to not "eat"?

BFD: Check your Private Topics

All the Grease Spot women that I have met are stunningly beautiful and the men extraordinarily handsome. Yes, Steve! does look like Mr. Bill, especially before his morning coffee, and I really am a red two-headed eagle :D-->

I like to say "Merry Christmas" sometimes, mainly because TWI frowned on it, but as a non-Christian, "Happy Yule" is more what you'll hear from me. I happily and joyfully accept all manner of holiday greetings however :D-->

I apologize to all for the "oh yeah, sez you" level of debate in the middle of my last post :D-->

Why yes I have, thank you. SOME people were expected to live by those laws, not all. Israel only. The law was never sent to China, or North America, or Sub Equatorial Africa. So non-Israel would be functioning under the same divine expectations that they had all along. If God doesn't label the time period, why do you feel the necessity to do so? Calling the Law that was given to Israel an adminstration makes an assumption that may or may not be warranted without more thought than you appear willing to give it. No you haven't by you That would be you once again I think that you just made the opposing viewpoint I guess calling something that would be as biblical as calling it an administration since neither are biblical

Evan & BFD: Yup, the particulars aren't that important are they? Whether it was a literal tree, a tree standing figuratively for something else...Adam and Eve disobeyed God. End of story, eh?

BFD:If you are a bible believin' type o' guy, shouldn't you be concerned about what something is called? That whole "God means what he says and says what he means" thang? AS Song would day "Just a thot" :D-->

:D-->

While I'm not a fan of suicide, computer crashes or dogs crapping on my carpet, I am in favor of the !'s having good sex. With each other.

For example...?

On the night that the lawsuit was announced to the "innies" we were told to keep our eye on the newspapers for any information, but that we didn't need to check the internet. That night I hardly slept after finding Waydale. I posted for about eighteen months while "in" under a variety of handles. I discovered Grease Spot shortly before Waydale shut down through a link on Waydale. Through both sites I discovered that what was happening in our somewhat isolated area was not unique, that our abusive leadership were not rogue Corps out on their own ego trip, but it was all part of a greater pattern. Through both sites I had an outlet to discuss problems I had with TWI doctrine, and see things without the TWI filter. Through both sites I met others who were going through what I was in my marriage and became good friends with them. Thanks, TWI leadership for telling me not to look to the internet for information about the lawsuit!

BFD: Can you, speaking as someone who believes that administrations are biblical, address Steve Lortz's position? Or perhaps my questions about possible additional "administrations"?

Okay, no talking about Wierwille, no personal attacks. Sounds good. No dismissing what people post as "lack of understanding" without supporting verses either

I don't know about anyone else, but BFD stood for BibleFan Dave in my posts, nothwithstanding what the "right" way to abbreviate it is -->

There is some disagreement here at GSC about just what Wierwille ("doctor" purposely omitted) was teaching and just how much of it was "The Word of God". You're saying that the Word of God is a foreign concept to def59? Do you even read his posts? def & I frequently disagree and can get kind of snippy with each other...but "The Word of God" as a foreign concept? What planet are you from? Why, because def comes up with a different conclusion than you do?

Let's start with the so-called Law Administration: When did it begin? Probably with the giving of "The Law" to Moses, wouldn't you say? But that "Law" was given piecemeal over a period of forty years according to "The Law" itself. Didn't God deal differently with Israel during the forty years in the wilderness? During the time of Joshua? The time of the Judges? The Kingship? The Captivity? Did you know the rules for observing the passover were different in several of those time periods? And what about non-Jews during the time between the giving of the Law and the ministry of Jesus? They weren't under the Law, were they? So what administration were they under? What about what Wierwille called "The Appearing Administration? Is God really dealing with anyone the same before the thousand-year binding of Satan and after? By the way, I have always tended to think that the bible teaches some form of dispensationalism, but am re-thinking that opinion in light of other information...just "for your learning" ;)-->

BFD: In one of your posts on this page you mention how it is wrong to assume what someone's motives are, referring to VPW. Yet you are regularly doing that to others here. You are assuming that the motivation of several of the posters here is a hatred of VPW, TWI et al. You then deride those who disagree with you as "clearly unable to understand administrations", or "really don't understand the bible at all". Posters bring up points of disagreement; you don't address those points, but tell the posters to "address their anger issues", accuse them of believing what they do due to a blindness brought on my unthinking anti-Wierwillism and repeat the same analogies ad infinitum. You pat yourself on the back for parting ways with Wierwille on several points, illustrating that you are an independent thinker, and rip other posters for disagreeing on others. Pick some points that other posters have made and discuss them, why doncha?