Leaderboard

Yeah, LCM is in prison - with his Bible with the hand-turned pages. Much good that did him. FRAUDS the frikin lot of 'em.

Actually, it did, by way if implication. VPW led the students into drawing an unspoken conclusion and then said, "I didn't say it, you did.". It's a backhanded way of making a statement... the "nudge, nudge- wink, wink" approach. This tied in nicely with the appeal of speaking in tongues. "It's proof in the senses realm, etc."

I am adding my own OPINION when I say "we should WANT TO walk in love." I explained WHY we should want to. (It pleases God, and it's the right thing to do-which is why is pleases God.) I thought this was actually beyond dispute and that Christians would stipulate to that without an argument. (No, we shouldn't, no it does not please God, no, it's not the right thing to do...) I made that clear by not putting my OPINION in quotation marks. Really, junior high school English rules should make that clear. ============================== As for Bullinger and definitions of "other" and "another", he's defined "heteros" and "allos" completely differently in 2 ways. A) "Heteros" means "another of a different kind" and "allos" means "another of the same kind." This is consistent through the Bible. (One usage is in Galatians 1, the warning against being drawn to "another gospel which is not another". "Another/heteros gospel which is not another/allo", or "a different gospel with is not of the same kind", which sounds redundant when rendered plainly. Then again, if you accept "pleonasm" as a legitimate figure of speech as Bullinger did, that's just fine.) The other usage was to say one was "another when there are exactly two" and the other was "another where there are more than two." That actually is not used consistently in Scripture, and that was pointed out here, long ago. (Someone said that the mention of cheeks should obviously refer to two since a person has exactly two, but the Greek word used was the other, and so on.) I haven't looked into that one for something like 20 years because that definition seemed both INCORRECT and SUPERFLUOUS. The usage of "same kind" and "different kind" was consistent, sensible, and easy to demonstrate. So, in other words, I say Bullinger was correct in his OTHER (heteros, different) definition, and not in this one. Since the definitions contradicted each other, it seems evident at as many as one could be correct (both could have been wrong, or one could have been wrong, but since they contradict, they couldn't both be right.) ================================== There's this thing that's actually pretty common among ex-twi splinter leaders. It's a false bifurcation that's based on over-compensation. They take one extreme position on something, see that there's problems with that extreme position, so they conclude that the polar opposite position must be true, and skip over the problems with that extreme position. We saw that when Geer attempted to reconcile God's Love and God's Omnipotence with the continued existence of evil. (This is a very old question, and smarter men than him have hit the reefs on it.) Time Magazine addressed this same problem once as their cover story. They claimed that any TWO of those could operate together, but that all 3 could not. If God was Omnipotent and evil existed, He wouldn't be Love because He'd be fine with evil existing. And so on. Geer decided that the issue could be decided by rejecting God's Omnipotence. Specifically, he rejected God's Omniscience, His "All-Knowingness", if you please. He imposed that explanation on Scripture, and mangled Genesis 3 to claim it supported his assertion when it actually did the opposite. In this case, the problem was looking at vpw's proclaimed grotesque position that- once one is saved, one can sin with impunity without any significant consequences and God would just let it go because you have Eternal life and Incorruptible seed. Well, the seed won't corrupt, the life won't end, but that's hardly the same as saying there will be no consequences. I'm confident there will be severe consequences but that they won't end eternal life or rot incorruptible seed. If you like, we can get into this in a Doctrinal thread. Personally, I think it doesn't matter because of the results. If I'm planning on backstabbing God, the actual consequences won't scare me into a turnaround. And if I don't, then it doesn't matter what the penalty would be for doing so. (I don't care about the legal penalty for counterfeiting because I have no plans to ever counterfeit.) In other words, no, I don't think that we have "a guaranteed place in Heaven." I think we have "eternal life" and "incorruptible seed". None of that guarantees "Heaven." That was what vpw referred to (incorrectly) as "private interpretation" no matter how many people taught that in twi.

Really, thanks for the clarification. The group sounded VERY different before and after that little addendum.

Ok. My initial point here is salvation cannot be lost. If a man sows to the flesh, the old man nature, that man will reap the consequences of his actions - both now and loss of reward at the gathering together. Rejecting God is covered by the blood of Christ. Here we go! Btw Taxidev, thanks for posting here. Im at a point where i am saying Dan is wrong, but Im learning much from the topic. Thanks!

Chock, guns and Beer seem like a terrible combination to me! No way, would I go any place, where people are drinking, and shooting guns!!!

A) Ephesians says nothing about salvation being dependent upon us walking in love. It says to walk in love. It doesn't say "walk in love OR ELSE..." We should WANT TO walk in love because it pleases God AND because it's the right thing to do (which is why it pleases God.) B) One of the great problems of twi survivors is this dependency on a version of the Bible that's 450 years old. This introduces 2 problems: 1) It doesn't correct various corrections that were made in the last 450 years (most weren't retro-fitted into the KJV, although a few were.) 2) The archaic language suits those of us who read Shakespeare for fun, but for the rest, relying on Elizabethan English and not modern words leads to MISUNDERSTANDINGS and MISCOMMUNICATIONS. vpw made a lot of bank on some of those, and exploited them. (Example: A page of explanation on "replenish" being used rather than "fill"- when the non-English texts translated INTO the KJV said "fill".) In this case, "creature" is not understood they way it would have been understood by Shakespeare or any of his contemporaries. It means, in simple modern English, "created thing." The sentence is making a very big point, and builds up to it somewhat from big to GIGANTIC. "I am convinced that neither what's dead, nor what's alive, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor the things that EXIST, nor the things that DON'T EXIST YET, nor height, nor depth, nor ANY OTHER THING IN CREATION, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." I agree with Paul here. I'm also convinced, but I can only speak for myself here. I obviously don't speak for Dan. We count as "created things". things in creation. So, we can't separate ourselves from the love of God either.

"And if you ever want to talk, if you every want to do anything, we're here." In other words, YOU come to us. We are not going to find you (and apologise). No, Jacque. YOU come here, you apologise. You will get a lot of flack. But you might find a little forgiveness or compassion, too, IF if if you are humble enough. You will need to LISTEN and not to (pretend to) preach.