Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Recommended Posts

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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, cwb01 said:

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 ?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, cwb01 said:

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.

I agree with you on that, Keep in mind there's lots of positions represented by posters here, so don't be surprised if someone's posts sound like what you just said.  Freedom to think and disagree tends to have side-effects like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, cwb01 said:

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. 

For the most part, I agree with you.  (I'm sure I could find SOME far-out doctrines SOMEWHERE that don't seem to make even a little sense, but that doesn't count. Not even the people who say that vpw was getting revelation from God and pfal REPLACED the Bible.)   Of course, there's no money in that doctrine, so don't be surprised that group leaders aren't pushing any form of eclecticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretend I'm posting as a moderator for a moment here:

54 minutes ago, cwb01 said:

The starter of this thread has lost all credibility with me.

That's nice. We urge all posters to keep their comments focused on people's arguments, not on the people making them. If the starter of this thread has lost all credibility with you, that says NOTHING about the validity of his or your argument. I'm sure he has his feelings about you, too, based on your dismissal of his position. So what?

If you don't like what he said, challenge his argument. And be ready to have your argument challenged right back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 9:54 PM, cwb01 said:

is Dispensationalism only about eschatology?

While it certainly may shape certain views on eschatology, it is not actually about eschatology (much less, "only" about it.)  Some here adamantly contend that dispensationalism itself is a modern invention.  However, it's hard to get around the fact that Paul rather plainly speaks of "a dispensation of the gospel" (aka, the dispensation of the grace of God) that was committed to him, to "fulfill the word of God."  Perhaps what we see that meaning depends on a bit on how oikonomia is perceived or understood.  Personally, it makes perfectly good sense to think of it as an economy.  There's a complexity to it when the layers are peeled back (to reveal the work of God.)  Yet, on a much simpler note, it's a mere matter of what does or doesn't work at (or during) a particular point (or time.)  One of the biggest pitfall (as I see it) to thinking in terms of an economy, is thinking of it in terms of (physical) wealth or well being rather than in terms of spiritual health & prosperity.  The gospel (i.e., "good news") of an oikonomia is not focused on how to be kings or princes of the world.  I think another somewhat obvious weakness to it is that, generally speaking, economies are more inclined to change by evolution, rather than being "dispensed" (from above) by revelation.  

BTW, I'm also not of the persuasion that the oikonomia of grace started on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2.  If Paul says it was given to him, then by golly, so be it.  He pretty much says he was first saved by it, in  1Tim.1:15.  (Check out the real meaning of that word "chief."  I just don't see it meaning that he was the biggest or worst sinner ever saved.)  Furthermore, neither do I think the birth of Jesus Christ or the start of his ministry coincide with the start of some different oikonomia than the one that was already in place.   His life and his ministry here on earth was specifically to Israel, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers (even as so clearly and plainly stated in Romans 15:8.) 

      

 

Edited by TLC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cwb01 said:

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. 

Yeah, well.  It actually might not be as extreme as you seem to think.  As far as I can tell, there's a pretty large number of folk that think and call themselves Christian that would just as soon cut Paul's epistles out of the Bible,  especially among those that are called (or viewed as being) "non-dispensationists."  Personally, I don't think the gospel that Paul preached ever matched or synchronized very well with the gospel preached by James, the 12 apostles, and the church based in Jerusalem, even after Acts 15.  Matter of fact, there's an interesting (but misunderstood and/or overlooked) verse in Phil.1:10 that refers to certain "things that are different."  Of course, it doesn't help any that it was translated as "excellent" rather than "different." 

Edited by TLC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, chockfull said:

It seems that mankind goes through a series of fails after technology disrupts their dominion over their world before coming to any form of success on the ethical, moral, and yes intelligence front.

It's interesting how any of us shape or define what success is or means.  Frankly, I can't for sure tell by that what your view of it is.

Perhaps I should have more carefully spoke of intelligence as it relates to spiritual perception.  Seeing (or at least giving consideration to) what God's perspective on something might be, and not just what mankind might agree to call ethical, moral or intelligent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rude.

Look, if you're not open to exploring what other people think, that's fine. No one's forcing you. But the namecalling is juvenile.

You believe a man born of a virgin walked on water and then took a 3-day nap for our sins because God couldn't just say "I forgive you" without slaughtering him first. Personally, I now find that "wacky" and I'm embarrassed I ever believed it. Had the concept been introduced to me as an adult, I would have laughed as hard as you laugh at Scientology or the Book of Mormon.

But I respect the fact that others disagree with me and I'm even, occasionally, willing to explore what the Bible teaches on its own terms.

This forum is for people who are trying to process their exits from The Way International. We're open to people who DON'T want to exit, though we would probably find that "wacky." What we don't do here, generally speaking, is consider ourselves above each other's company.

But if you're too good for us, by all means, the exit fee is three times the entrance fee. Don't forget to tip your servers. And the door is always open if you want to come back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, waysider said:

Here's an interesting discussion we had about Paul.

I read the first few comments, and here is my take on the matter of Paul:

It says in the bible that what was written aforetime is for our learning.  So, while Paul's letters are all to a specific group of people - other than Colossians - we can all learn from them all.  And, while I have tried to find evidence that Paul was inspired of God in these writings, I have been unable to find any such thing. 

So, knowing Paul's background with the Torah, I would say that these responses to these specific groups' actions, and basic instruction like in Romans, are from his understanding of God's Truth.  And, because I believe Paul had a thorough and deep understanding of the Torah as it relates to Jesus Christ, I take his writings very seriously, but not to the exclusion of the rest of the bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, cwb01 said:

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.

You can choose where to go and who to hang out with.  It's unfair to judge everyone- and what they do all day- with what a handful of posts say in one thread that a few minutes were spent on.  But you can prejudge everyone that way.    There's posters who don't debate or argue- you're judging them based on posts they never made.  And there's posters who disagree with the same posts you disagree with.  "Wacky", you called them.  Well, if you ever reconsider, you're welcome to return and try again. Perhaps you'll learn something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Taxidev said:

I read the first few comments, and here is my take on the matter of Paul:

It says in the bible that what was written aforetime is for our learning.  So, while Paul's letters are all to a specific group of people - other than Colossians - we can all learn from them all.  And, while I have tried to find evidence that Paul was inspired of God in these writings, I have been unable to find any such thing. 

So, knowing Paul's background with the Torah, I would say that these responses to these specific groups' actions, and basic instruction like in Romans, are from his understanding of God's Truth.  And, because I believe Paul had a thorough and deep understanding of the Torah as it relates to Jesus Christ, I take his writings very seriously, but not to the exclusion of the rest of the bible.

"For our learning."  "..is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction..."   Same word in Greek.  What was written aforetime was for our DOCTRINE.  vpw took a single verse and ran with a whole doctrine- which is often a sign the verse didn't mean what he said it meant.

Jesus endorsed Peter, Peter endorsed Paul.  As text goes, that's good enough for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, waysider said:

Here's an interesting discussion we had about Paul.

hadn't read anything there before, but the following post from Tzaia on page 3 of that thread stirred up a response from me... so I thought that I might just as well copy it to this thread in doctrinal:

On ‎2‎/‎5‎/‎2010 at 10:35 AM, Tzaia said:

It has come to Paul's word being as good as Jesus' when there is no evidence to suggest that he ever had any real authority other than what he bestowed on himself.

12 hours ago, TLC said:

Seems it does indeed come to that.  Furthermore, there is a difference in the message (the gospel) that each spoke.  Why the difference?

In short, because "things changed."

Before his death, Jesus Christ was a minister unto the circumcision. As were the 12 apostles. Period.
(If anyone can plainly show from scripture where this directive for the 12 ever changed, please do so...  because I don't think it exists.)

Whereas Paul very openly declares himself to be "the apostle" (not "an apostle") to the Gentiles.
Why take Paul's word to be (as Jesus Christ's was during his ministry) "the word of God"?
It's not the only one, but maybe one of the best reason is rather succinctly stated in 1Thess.2:13.  Because it "effectually worketh also in you that believe."
In other words, it just plain works.

So, I take issue (and exception) with your statement that "there is no evidence to suggest that he ever had any real authority other than what he bestowed upon himself."  However, the evidence (or proof, if you prefer) is something that each of us must garner for ourselves.  What I have and hold won't suffice for you, nor anyone else.  Just like no one else's would for me.  We each must "prove it" for ourselves, even as we can (and should) prove for ourselves what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God. (see Rom. 12:2; Eph.5:10; 1Thes.5:21.)

 

Edited by TLC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2018 at 4:42 PM, cwb01 said:

 

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?

 

I say everything Paul wrote was what Paul wrote. WHO determined Paul’s personal letters and writings as being “the god-breathed word of God”, or pure “revelation from Jesus”? Bullinger? Constantine? Walter Cronkite? Buddha? Mohammed? Brahma? Vishnu? Confucius? Moses? The Pope? Billy Graham? Kenny Copeland? Pat Robertson? Joyce Meyer?

Which exactly, are the parts of the Pauline writings that you can prove to me are written by “revelation from Jesus Christ” to Saul of Tarsus? Who Canonized the books of the Bible? What were the criteria they used to determine what was god -breathed and what is man-breathed? What criteria do you use besides some man-breathed commentary, book, or theological theory? PFAL? How To Enjoy The Bible? The Companion Bible? Any one you choose is only as good as the private interpretation of it’s author. Your view of my “credibility” is equally as valid. 

Edited by DontWorryBeHappy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2018 at 12:18 PM, TLC said:

Let's try looking at this from another angle.  Do you see or think of yourself as your father's seed?  Surely each of us were, and in a certain sense one might even say of themselves, "I am my father's seed."  Is that literally true now?  Do you see of think of yourself as a wee little sperm, with a wiggly tail? Of course not.

Maybe you get the point. Or, maybe not.  You tell me.  But as I see it, seed is seed.  It dies.  It becomes something new.  And when it does, it's no longer actually seen or thought of as "seed," except in a historical (or history looking forward) sense.           

Maybe I understand your thinking. It's not thought of as seed, except it is with a caveat.. I guess as long as it makes sense to you. 

While you're right, that seed is seed. But like many words, it has different shades of meaning depending on context, so I'm not so certain I would try and paint everything with such a wide brush as only this one "exception" in historical/looking forward sense. As I would tend to also think that God uses it, like so many other things, in more than one sense at the same time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TrustAndObey said:

Maybe I understand your thinking. It's not thought of as seed, except it is with a caveat..

mmmm.... trust me, you don't.

Being the gardener that I am, once that little fellow pops up out of the ground my thoughts are on the plant itself.  Not the seed it came from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DontWorryBeHappy said:

I say everything Paul wrote was what Paul wrote. WHO determined Paul’s personal letters and writings as being “the god-breathed word of God”, or pure “revelation from Jesus”? Bullinger? Constantine? Walter Cronkite? Buddha? Mohammed? Brahma? Vishnu? Confucius? Moses? The Pope? Billy Graham? Kenny Copeland? Pat Robertson? Joyce Meyer?

Which exactly, are the parts of the Pauline writings that you can prove to me are written by “revelation from Jesus Christ” to Saul of Tarsus? Who Canonized the books of the Bible? What were the criteria they used to determine what was god -breathed and what is man-breathed? What criteria do you use besides some man-breathed commentary, book, or theological theory? PFAL? How To Enjoy The Bible? The Companion Bible? Any one you choose is only as good as the private interpretation of it’s author. Your view of my “credibility” is equally as valid. 

Yes my viewpoint also.  I love reading Paul.  There is some really inspiring uplifting stuff there.   But other stuff really wild.   And whatever direct issues he was dealing with, like at Corinth, when you get a group like the Way with its secret society swinger's club interpreting it, it's bound to be twisted.

Your question posed on "canon" had me look that up in a dictionary.  Intriguing:

can·on·ize
ˈkanəˌnīz/
verb
verb: canonize; 3rd person present: canonizes; past tense: canonized; past participle: canonized; gerund or present participle: canonizing; verb: canonise; 3rd person present: canonises; past tense: canonised; past participle: canonised; gerund or present participle: canonising
  1. (in the Roman Catholic Church) officially declare (a dead person) to be a saint.
    "he was the last English saint to be canonized prior to the Reformation"
    synonyms: declare to be a saint; More
     
    • regard as being above reproach or of great significance.
      "we have canonized freedom of speech as an absolute value overriding all others"
      synonyms: declare to be a saint; More
       
    • accept into the literary or artistic canon.
      "a familiar, canonized writer"
    • sanction by Church authority.
       
       
      Those who decided which writings were "in" and which writings were "out" were a council of Roman Catholic priests.  I wonder if they had the same type of questionnaire they did then they do for saint evaluation.  "Did he perform a notable miracle while alive?"  If so, check yes.  If not, check no.  LOL.  
       
      And of course councils like this never, ever, ever, ever, ever make mistakes, right?
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×