Then comes the soft chair with all of the Feelings! Ahhhhh!
That all sounds good in theory WTH, but all this "You may hold the Word but does the Word hold you" stuff is still double-speak. It still serves to inflate the ego. Feelings get lost in Greek words and inflections. Common sense becomes something to negotiate.
I've seen great artists - musicians, painters, writers. I've been around some great minds in my years. All of them were masters in their own right. They were accomplished and they not only "held their discipline" their discipline held them.
NOT all of them could teach their art to another. Many of them were so skilled in their own art that they couldn't communicate in anyway except their art.
Perhaps this is why the ten commandments were scaled down to two and then further to one.
My point here was not that the Greek had no value. My point was that it's way too easy to get lost in the minutiae without really understanding the heart of the matter.
It's entirely possible for someone to know it all and be able to recite it all - even practice it all perfectly, and yet not have the slightest clue about reaching people and caring for them.
My point here was not that the Greek had no value. My point was that it's way too easy to get lost in the minutiae without really understanding the heart of the matter.
It's entirely possible for someone to know it all and be able to recite it all - even practice it all perfectly, and yet not have the slightest clue about reaching people and caring for them.
Well, let's try and do it different, here.
I've found that third chapter in Corinthians to be very helpful to people (and myself) over the years. It seems it's not well known, so this thread can reach them and the Word in it can care for them.
Knowing how God deals with punishment and reward within His family is what that chapter teaches us. It's pretty well spread out in this thread, but there's a ton of Corinthians here for those who want to sort through the past 30 pages.
Knowing how God deals with punishment and reward within His family is what that chapter teaches us. It's pretty well spread out in this thread, but there's a ton of Corinthians here for those who want to sort through the past 30 pages.
When we see the details of how God forgives within His family from I Corinthians 3 we can start to imitate Him.
It's a matter of having confidence that God will even the score.
My point here was not that the Greek had no value. My point was that it's way too easy to get lost in the minutiae without really understanding the heart of the matter.
It's entirely possible for someone to know it all and be able to recite it all - even practice it all perfectly, and yet not have the slightest clue about reaching people and caring for them.
I know Dooj!
But seriously, Greek isn't supposed to have any "f-e-e-l-ings attached to it. Greek is to help you better define and understand the subtle nuances that the writers of the
Holy Writ were attempting to define. It is after you understand those, then any and all feelings can be lifted up to the Creator.
My point here was not that the Greek had no value. My point was that it's way too easy to get lost in the minutiae without really understanding the heart of the matter.
It's entirely possible for someone to know it all and be able to recite it all - even practice it all perfectly, and yet not have the slightest clue about reaching people and caring for them.
Know it all -- recite it all -- practice it all. Now here comes the "all" important question: Would that be all without exception, or all with distinction? If one can answer the "all" question, it will "all" lead to a better understanding of the heart of the matter.
Know it all -- recite it all -- practice it all. Now here comes the "all" important question: Would that be all without exception, or all with distinction? If one can answer the "all" question, it will "all" lead to a better understanding of the heart of the matter.
When GOD uses the word "all" then I think your point is totally valid.
But when PEOPLE use the word "all" it might be good to first check if they use it the same way God does. Usually they don't.
Here is how (and this is just one of many examples we were given in PFAL - but I think it was by far the best one):
John 12:32
And I [Jesus] if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw allmen unto me.
As Dr. W. explained in PFAL: Now, has everyone in your community been drawn unto the Lord Jesus Christ? Of course they haven't. So here the word "all" would not be all without exception, (because not everyone in your community has been called or believes on the Lord Jesus Christ) but rather, all with distinction - "all" those whom the Lord has called - all those whom he has disctinctly called.
This is a prime example where we don't allways (pun intended) think critically when we often read the scriptures, or even in our conversations with one another. Another prime example would be in the usage of the words "throughly" and "thoroughly" - as we were also shown in II Timothy 3:17:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly (it's not the word thoroughly, there is no "o" between the letter h and the letter r) furnished (the word for furnished here should be perfected. The word is exartizo, it is the adverb. The word "artios", translated "perfect" is the noun while exartizo is the adverb, so to be consistant in our translation then the word should have been translated: "perfected". i.e. perfect, throughly -that is, through and through and throughly perfected unto all good works).
I recall there was a discussion a while back on GSC where someone had said these words "throughly" and "thoroughly" mean the exact same thing. Perhaps they do in our modern day nomenclature, but not according to the Word of God. Dr W. addressed the same remark in PFAL ... He said, "Now that's what you're going to say (that is, that throughly and thoroughly mean the exact same thing - and of course, people still think these words mean the same thing today) but that's not what I'm going to say. Then he goes on to demonstrate how one can wash their hands "thoroughly" but one cannot wash their hands throughly because throughly implies an inside job.
Dr. was actually making a reference to the gift of holy spirit here in this segment of PFAL, teaching us how the holy spirit would be the one doing the cleansing - and of course, it would not be thoroughly, but rather be done throughly, because the cleansing by way of the holy spirit always starts as: "an inside job." Of course, there are still pleny of Pharisee's who only cleanse the outside - or "the flesh" thinking it somehow results in a spiritual cleansing.
We miss an awful lot when we just "blow stuff off" and we don't bother to stop and think critically about the words we often use - so why would it be any different when we come to reading the scriptures? If we would only stop, slow down, and think more carefully about what we read (and even what we say) we might (as I had stated earlier) be able to get a better understanding of the heart of the matter. This is where it begins - that is, in one's ability to manifest the more than abundant life for themselves.
Here is how (and this is just one of many examples we were given in PFAL - but I think it was by far the best one):
John 12:32
And I [Jesus] if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw allmen unto me.
As Dr. W. explained in PFAL: Now, has everyone in your community been drawn unto the Lord Jesus Christ? Of course they haven't. So here the word "all" would not be all without exception, (because not everyone in your community has been called or believes on the Lord Jesus Christ) but rather, all with distinction - "all" those whom the Lord has called - all those whom he has disctinctly called.
This is a prime example where we don't allways (pun intended) think critically when we often read the scriptures, or even in our conversations with one another. Another prime example would be in the usage of the words "throughly" and "thoroughly" - as we were also shown in II Timothy 3:17:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly (it's not the word thoroughly, there is no "o" between the letter h and the letter r) furnished (the word for furnished here should be perfected. The word is exartizo, it is the adverb. The word "artios", translated "perfect" is the noun while exartizo is the adverb, so to be consistant in our translation then the word should have been translated: "perfected". i.e. perfect, throughly -that is, through and through and throughly perfected unto all good works).
I recall there was a discussion a while back on GSC where someone had said these words "throughly" and "thoroughly" mean the exact same thing. Perhaps they do in our modern day nomenclature, but not according to the Word of God. Dr W. addressed the same remark in PFAL ... He said, "Now that's what you're going to say (that is, that throughly and thoroughly mean the exact same thing - and of course, people still think these words mean the same thing today) but that's not what I'm going to say. Then he goes on to demonstrate how one can wash their hands "thoroughly" but one cannot wash their hands throughly because throughly implies an inside job.
Dr. was actually making a reference to the gift of holy spirit here in this segment of PFAL, teaching us how the holy spirit would be the one doing the cleansing - and of course, it would not be thoroughly, but rather be done throughly, because the cleansing by way of the holy spirit always starts as: "an inside job." Of course, there are still pleny of Pharisee's who only cleanse the outside - or "the flesh" thinking it somehow results in a spiritual cleansing.
We miss an awful lot when we just "blow stuff off" and we don't bother to stop and think critically about the words we often use - so why would it be any different when we come to reading the scriptures? If we would only stop, slow down, and think more carefully about what we read (and even what we say) we might (as I had stated earlier) be able to get a better understanding of the heart of the matter. This is where it begins - that is, in one's ability to manifest the more than abundant life for themselves.
In PFAL, Wierwille notes the distinction between "thoroughly" and "throughly."
In truth, the latter is an archaic form of the former. They mean precisely the same thing (Wierwille failed to follow his own principle of interpreting words according to their Biblical usage).
Discussion: We understand and acknowledge that Wierwille was trying to teach the principle of reading that which is written. That principle is valid, and this is a good example of the need to read the Bible carefully. But Wierwille was in error when he explained the distinction between "thoroughly" and "thoroughly."
So that the man of God might be perfected towards every good work; fully equipped.
Translating this out, I would put a semicolon after work and leave out the comma that the UBS4 inserts (after "man" in the Greek text) but in the English it would come after "perfected". Reason being is this: the verse in Greek opens with a with a "hina" clause which is translated as "so that", then a word in the subjunctive mood that is then translated as "he might be" which then entails that this is the desired state, and then the final result. Per Mounce: "the subjunctive mood is used when a verb expresses a possibility, probability, exhortation, or axiomatic concept." All four could fit here because it would entail what type of ground it is being sown into, which would differ with each person. So to be fully equipped is the axiomatic concept which should happen if everything is in place within the individual who is submitted to the Holy Spirit's tutelage. In the Greek ἐξηρτισμένος is a "perfect passive participle" which simply means that this work is not being "worked out" by the individual, but it is being applied to the individual, namely by the Holy Spirit and with the "perfect" tense it denotes that the "action" was done in the past but the effects are ongoing. Just try and meditate on that for a while, it's pretty mind boggling in itself.
As far as the word "all" in this verse, it is from the paradigm of "pas, pasa, pan" and in pronouncing it the first "A" should sound like "AHHH." In the singular, it is translated as "all"; if the substantive has the article it can be translated as "the whole, entire," in those cases where the substantive is anarthrous, it can be translated as "every". Which is why I translate it as "every" since the substantive "work" is singular and lacks the article.
So to get the full flavor of v17 one must look back at the context of v16:
KJV- "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for REPROOF, for CORRECTION, for INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS:"
which is why v.17 opens with a "hina" clause, then includes the mood of possibility and ends with the desired state. The "good work" doesn't necessarily entail doing good to those around you, not that it would be excluded, but first the Word of God has to be (at least) in process of becoming grounded within the person first, then put into operation towards others. But the main thing is within ourselves receiving the DOCTRINE, and when we're wrong - being REPROVED and then CORRECTED, for the end of being INSTRUCTED IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, so that we become "fully equipped."
It never ceases to bless me that after Jesus went up yonder and then Paul, the ensuing 2000 fog years were swept away when VP took over for the absent Christ and now you guys are doing a FINE job of taking over for the absent VP.
I guess this means the world may not have to wait another 2000 years to hear the truth again. Deliverance is as far away as your next post.
(Uh....Groucho?....Ham?...What am I doing in this thread?)
It never ceases to bless me that after Jesus went up yonder and then Paul, the ensuing 2000 fog years were swept away when VP took over for the absent Christ and now you guys are doing a FINE job of taking over for the absent VP.
I guess this means the world may not have to wait another 2000 years to hear the truth again. Deliverance is as far away as your next post.
(Uh....Groucho?....Ham?...What am I doing in this thread?)
COME AND TAKE THEM! LOL LOL
"You can have my gun when you pry it out of my cold dead fingers!"
You forgot the details which are supposed to be associated with that phrase "not been known since the first century."
Most of the ELEMENTS of Dr's teaching to us were floating around in various forms long before 1942, but they were not "together."
Before 1942 a man might have one or two of these great elements of the truth in his teachings, but that same man's ministry would also be crippled with a fatal error, such as the trinity or the dead being alive prematurely. Another man might have One God and the dead being asleep in his teachings, but THAT man's ministry would also be crippled with other fatal errors, like SIT dying with the apostles.
What we were truly blessed with in Dr's ministry was that, under God's direction, he "put it all together" and THAT was something that had not been done before.
What we were truly blessed with in Dr's ministry was that, under God's direction, he "put it all together" and THAT was something that had not been done before.
Was that "all without distinction" or "all without exception"?
Was that "all without distinction" or "all without exception"?
Again, I don't know.
And again, God's use of that word is much more important than common usage.
There are some PFAL subjects that I am still studying and feel unqualified to speak up about here. This is one of them. What the Hey's recent post on "all" went into a file I keep on this subject, but there is more work I need to do in cross referencing everything with what is in the printed forms of PFAL.
You forgot the details which are supposed to be associated with that phrase "not been known since the first century."
Most of the ELEMENTS of Dr's teaching to us were floating around in various forms long before 1942, but they were not "together."
Before 1942 a man might have one or two of these great elements of the truth in his teachings, but that same man's ministry would also be crippled with a fatal error, such as the trinity or the dead being alive prematurely. Another man might have One God and the dead being asleep in his teachings, but THAT man's ministry would also be crippled with other fatal errors, like SIT dying with the apostles.
What we were truly blessed with in Dr's ministry was that, under God's direction, he "put it all together" and THAT was something that had not been done before.
NOW do you remember?
Even though I'm a Trinitarian and a cessationist – I don't take offense nor care to argue over your opinion of certain doctrines. But since you brought up "fatal error" issues I'd like to point out an obvious and overarching fatal error: assuming vp's plagiarism, Scripture twisting, and re-defining words [exemplified by one of vp's "disciples" in post # 1011] was under God's direction.
Speaking of fatal errors that cripple – I don't believe there's a more intellectually debilitating mindset than one that has a deluded liar as the crux of their belief system. For an interesting discussion about this, see the thread vp was essential to a follower's belief system:
Some of the conversations we were having on this thread a few weeks ago reflect just the opposite of your thesis that "vp was essential." For me back then, and for any diligent student of Dr's, relying on him and "his word for it" was anathema.
To augment those conversations I mentioned last week that there is more to discuss on the topic of our relationship with Christ. Want to continue? We may need a review first, though.
Some of the conversations we were having on this thread a few weeks ago reflect just the opposite of your thesis that "vp was essential." For me back then, and for any diligent student of Dr's, relying on him and "his word for it" was anathema.
To augment those conversations I mentioned last week that there is more to discuss on the topic of our relationship with Christ. Want to continue? We may need a review first, though.
I don't think a review is necessary – since the mainstay of your position is still a belief that vp acted under God's direction…And I tend to think your side of a discussion about a "relationship with Christ" and vp's doctrine would lend support to my "thesis." Didn't you say when Jesus Christ comes back He's going to have a PFAL book in His hand?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
128
169
106
102
Popular Days
Feb 19
54
Feb 26
50
Feb 22
47
Feb 25
40
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 128 posts
Mike 169 posts
Ham 106 posts
waysider 102 posts
Popular Days
Feb 19 2008
54 posts
Feb 26 2008
50 posts
Feb 22 2008
47 posts
Feb 25 2008
40 posts
Posted Images
doojable
My point here was not that the Greek had no value. My point was that it's way too easy to get lost in the minutiae without really understanding the heart of the matter.
It's entirely possible for someone to know it all and be able to recite it all - even practice it all perfectly, and yet not have the slightest clue about reaching people and caring for them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Well, let's try and do it different, here.
I've found that third chapter in Corinthians to be very helpful to people (and myself) over the years. It seems it's not well known, so this thread can reach them and the Word in it can care for them.
Knowing how God deals with punishment and reward within His family is what that chapter teaches us. It's pretty well spread out in this thread, but there's a ton of Corinthians here for those who want to sort through the past 30 pages.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
When we see the details of how God forgives within His family from I Corinthians 3 we can start to imitate Him.
It's a matter of having confidence that God will even the score.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
I know Dooj!
But seriously, Greek isn't supposed to have any "f-e-e-l-ings attached to it. Greek is to help you better define and understand the subtle nuances that the writers of the
Holy Writ were attempting to define. It is after you understand those, then any and all feelings can be lifted up to the Creator.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Know it all -- recite it all -- practice it all. Now here comes the "all" important question: Would that be all without exception, or all with distinction? If one can answer the "all" question, it will "all" lead to a better understanding of the heart of the matter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Even if it's a good key, it still has to be applied to the point at hand with some wisdom to open up any understanding. IMHO
What "better understanding" are you talking about What The Hey.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
When GOD uses the word "all" then I think your point is totally valid.
But when PEOPLE use the word "all" it might be good to first check if they use it the same way God does. Usually they don't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
So then,Mike-----
Just how DOES God use the word all?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
I don't know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hey
Here is how (and this is just one of many examples we were given in PFAL - but I think it was by far the best one):
John 12:32
And I [Jesus] if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
As Dr. W. explained in PFAL: Now, has everyone in your community been drawn unto the Lord Jesus Christ? Of course they haven't. So here the word "all" would not be all without exception, (because not everyone in your community has been called or believes on the Lord Jesus Christ) but rather, all with distinction - "all" those whom the Lord has called - all those whom he has disctinctly called.
This is a prime example where we don't allways (pun intended) think critically when we often read the scriptures, or even in our conversations with one another. Another prime example would be in the usage of the words "throughly" and "thoroughly" - as we were also shown in II Timothy 3:17:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly (it's not the word thoroughly, there is no "o" between the letter h and the letter r) furnished (the word for furnished here should be perfected. The word is exartizo, it is the adverb. The word "artios", translated "perfect" is the noun while exartizo is the adverb, so to be consistant in our translation then the word should have been translated: "perfected". i.e. perfect, throughly -that is, through and through and throughly perfected unto all good works).
I recall there was a discussion a while back on GSC where someone had said these words "throughly" and "thoroughly" mean the exact same thing. Perhaps they do in our modern day nomenclature, but not according to the Word of God. Dr W. addressed the same remark in PFAL ... He said, "Now that's what you're going to say (that is, that throughly and thoroughly mean the exact same thing - and of course, people still think these words mean the same thing today) but that's not what I'm going to say. Then he goes on to demonstrate how one can wash their hands "thoroughly" but one cannot wash their hands throughly because throughly implies an inside job.
Dr. was actually making a reference to the gift of holy spirit here in this segment of PFAL, teaching us how the holy spirit would be the one doing the cleansing - and of course, it would not be thoroughly, but rather be done throughly, because the cleansing by way of the holy spirit always starts as: "an inside job." Of course, there are still pleny of Pharisee's who only cleanse the outside - or "the flesh" thinking it somehow results in a spiritual cleansing.
We miss an awful lot when we just "blow stuff off" and we don't bother to stop and think critically about the words we often use - so why would it be any different when we come to reading the scriptures? If we would only stop, slow down, and think more carefully about what we read (and even what we say) we might (as I had stated earlier) be able to get a better understanding of the heart of the matter. This is where it begins - that is, in one's ability to manifest the more than abundant life for themselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neo
You are soooo! right.
It's late!
I will add more to this tommorow.
Neo,
Edited by NeoLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
-----------------------------------------
In PFAL, Wierwille notes the distinction between "thoroughly" and "throughly."
In truth, the latter is an archaic form of the former. They mean precisely the same thing (Wierwille failed to follow his own principle of interpreting words according to their Biblical usage).
Discussion: We understand and acknowledge that Wierwille was trying to teach the principle of reading that which is written. That principle is valid, and this is a good example of the need to read the Bible carefully. But Wierwille was in error when he explained the distinction between "thoroughly" and "thoroughly."
There is no distinction.
(from "Actual errors in PFAL)
------------------------------------------------------
Simply another example of Dr. Wierwille's own "private interpretation"
There is nothing in that teaching that demonstrates that this is how God intended for the word all to be understood.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
2 Timothy 3:17
ἵνα ἄρτιος ᾖ ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος πρὸς πᾶν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἐξηρτισμένος
Trans:
So that the man of God might be perfected towards every good work; fully equipped.
Translating this out, I would put a semicolon after work and leave out the comma that the UBS4 inserts (after "man" in the Greek text) but in the English it would come after "perfected". Reason being is this: the verse in Greek opens with a with a "hina" clause which is translated as "so that", then a word in the subjunctive mood that is then translated as "he might be" which then entails that this is the desired state, and then the final result. Per Mounce: "the subjunctive mood is used when a verb expresses a possibility, probability, exhortation, or axiomatic concept." All four could fit here because it would entail what type of ground it is being sown into, which would differ with each person. So to be fully equipped is the axiomatic concept which should happen if everything is in place within the individual who is submitted to the Holy Spirit's tutelage. In the Greek ἐξηρτισμένος is a "perfect passive participle" which simply means that this work is not being "worked out" by the individual, but it is being applied to the individual, namely by the Holy Spirit and with the "perfect" tense it denotes that the "action" was done in the past but the effects are ongoing. Just try and meditate on that for a while, it's pretty mind boggling in itself.
As far as the word "all" in this verse, it is from the paradigm of "pas, pasa, pan" and in pronouncing it the first "A" should sound like "AHHH." In the singular, it is translated as "all"; if the substantive has the article it can be translated as "the whole, entire," in those cases where the substantive is anarthrous, it can be translated as "every". Which is why I translate it as "every" since the substantive "work" is singular and lacks the article.
So to get the full flavor of v17 one must look back at the context of v16:
KJV- "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for DOCTRINE, for REPROOF, for CORRECTION, for INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS:"
which is why v.17 opens with a "hina" clause, then includes the mood of possibility and ends with the desired state. The "good work" doesn't necessarily entail doing good to those around you, not that it would be excluded, but first the Word of God has to be (at least) in process of becoming grounded within the person first, then put into operation towards others. But the main thing is within ourselves receiving the DOCTRINE, and when we're wrong - being REPROVED and then CORRECTED, for the end of being INSTRUCTED IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, so that we become "fully equipped."
Edited by brideofjcLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
WOWZERS WTH, Neo etc...
That hasn't been taught since the first century!
How blessed am I!
Do tell more...
It never ceases to bless me that after Jesus went up yonder and then Paul, the ensuing 2000 fog years were swept away when VP took over for the absent Christ and now you guys are doing a FINE job of taking over for the absent VP.
I guess this means the world may not have to wait another 2000 years to hear the truth again. Deliverance is as far away as your next post.
(Uh....Groucho?....Ham?...What am I doing in this thread?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
COME AND TAKE THEM! LOL LOL
"You can have my gun when you pry it out of my cold dead fingers!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Ron G,
You forgot the details which are supposed to be associated with that phrase "not been known since the first century."
Most of the ELEMENTS of Dr's teaching to us were floating around in various forms long before 1942, but they were not "together."
Before 1942 a man might have one or two of these great elements of the truth in his teachings, but that same man's ministry would also be crippled with a fatal error, such as the trinity or the dead being alive prematurely. Another man might have One God and the dead being asleep in his teachings, but THAT man's ministry would also be crippled with other fatal errors, like SIT dying with the apostles.
What we were truly blessed with in Dr's ministry was that, under God's direction, he "put it all together" and THAT was something that had not been done before.
NOW do you remember?
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Was that "all without distinction" or "all without exception"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Again, I don't know.
And again, God's use of that word is much more important than common usage.
There are some PFAL subjects that I am still studying and feel unqualified to speak up about here. This is one of them. What the Hey's recent post on "all" went into a file I keep on this subject, but there is more work I need to do in cross referencing everything with what is in the printed forms of PFAL.
Edited by MikeLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Mike
Perhaps you could give a brief synopsis of what you've found thus far.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Perhaps not. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Even though I'm a Trinitarian and a cessationist – I don't take offense nor care to argue over your opinion of certain doctrines. But since you brought up "fatal error" issues I'd like to point out an obvious and overarching fatal error: assuming vp's plagiarism, Scripture twisting, and re-defining words [exemplified by one of vp's "disciples" in post # 1011] was under God's direction.
Speaking of fatal errors that cripple – I don't believe there's a more intellectually debilitating mindset than one that has a deluded liar as the crux of their belief system. For an interesting discussion about this, see the thread vp was essential to a follower's belief system:
http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?s=&showtopic=16793&view=findpost&p=402191
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
T-Bone,
Some of the conversations we were having on this thread a few weeks ago reflect just the opposite of your thesis that "vp was essential." For me back then, and for any diligent student of Dr's, relying on him and "his word for it" was anathema.
To augment those conversations I mentioned last week that there is more to discuss on the topic of our relationship with Christ. Want to continue? We may need a review first, though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Mike
You may(or may not) recall that a few months ago, I posted a story of how, as a young child, I set out on a quest to capture a "golden pony".
Interestingly, though the pony was only a figment of my imagination, the story, itself, is quite true.
Life is full of twisted ironies and parallels, don't you agree?
I hope, some day, you capture that "golden pony".
I want to be among the first to rejoice with you when you do
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I don't think a review is necessary – since the mainstay of your position is still a belief that vp acted under God's direction…And I tend to think your side of a discussion about a "relationship with Christ" and vp's doctrine would lend support to my "thesis." Didn't you say when Jesus Christ comes back He's going to have a PFAL book in His hand?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.