WhiteDove

Gee that's a nice award and all ,but you might just want to keep it until you read further Well not quite what I said, It's NOT representative in WD's post.....BECAUSE I think it was often very confusing in the way it was written in various books It is pretty clear to me that VP intended that God would be involved in the equation. It is also evident that VP was greatly influenced by the men of his day like Norman Vincent Peale, and Glen Clark. Far too many things were put in the mix that were not believing and I don't think they ever figured out what to do with them. Then we added to the problem with terms, that we may have understood at times what each other was saying, but were a mystery to others. Like believe for, not in the Bible, often substituted for Pray for. While sometimes used in conjunction at times in scripture they are not the same thing. We became adept at using terms that one could not sit down with a Bible and concordance and see in scripture. In other words.......wierwille's "law of believing" is off on another tangent and is FALSE PROPHECY. I don't believe it is a law, I'm not sure VP did either in the sense of some Ohio statute. In many respects it is like a law in that it works faithfully. Christians understand that when God states that something is going to happen , and we believe and trust those words, then we see the results. In that point it is like a law like gravity, perhaps that is what he meant to illustrate.

Ok, I'm calling agents Mulder and Scully cause there has been an alien abduction somewhere in Texas. the X-10 is now an X - File..... I know your an imposter cause the X I know has much better sense and taste in music. My Jesus, My Savior Lord there is none like You All of my days, I want to praise The wonders of Your mighty love My Comfort, My Shelter Tower of refuge and strength Let every breath, all that I am Never cease to worship You Are you kidding me? Jesus did not even allow himself to be called good, much less ask people to worship him. Matthew 19:16,17 (King James Version) 16And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Jesus continuously pointed to the Father as the one to worship Luke 4:8 Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.' " Scripture is pretty clear on who the true worshipers that the Father desires are. John 4:23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. Creepy? You bet! That's putting it nicely. Zombies for Jesus is more like it. Eyes fixed in a blank stare, hands waving while chanting repetitive chorus's, lost in some Jesus Nirvana State.

I don't watch American Idol, but is this song one of those creepy tunes that is on that infomercial for the hand waving, glassy eyed praise & worship CD? Seems like it was...... That thing is scarier than the night of the living dead. They look like zombies from the Thriller Video cleaned up. Why it's more annoying than the Head-On commercials. Thoughts ? ......... Does anybody think it odd that a group of people who want us to worship them as our next American Idol, are singing a song about someone that had no earthly Idols? I Do.......

...... same answer as before You are correct, thanks you read what I wrote

First I'll leave out Matthew 6:27 one verse at a time, I spoke as to Thessalonians. There is no contradiction there 1 Thessalonians 2:13 - For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. Exactly what it says the word of God works effectually in those that believe, it does not work in those that do not believe. the condition for it to work effectually is that it must be one must believe. Just like in the money example I gave if one does not believe that the money is there for the taking you will not reap the benefits. If one does not believe that the word works effectually in them then one will not reap the benefits, Believing is as I said not a cause it is not taking thought, or adding cubits it is recieving information from God either by written scripture or by revelation manifestations and accepting it as truth, and if need be acting on that truth.

Really? and then would I end up like you? Will I ramble in circles like you as well? Gee that would be swell, let me think about it a min........Naw I'll pass..............

Yes it is the The WORD OF GOD that is EFFECTUALLY WORKING in those that believe If it did not work for sinners then we would all be in dire straits.

I've had situations where this has worked and where it has not ,sometimes people just want to expound wrath whether you speak softly or not. It's not a promise , not guaranteed to work, its a proverb a wise saying . It may work in general most times but not in all cases. On the other hand there are at least I see promises that can be believed, when one does the results are received when one does not they are not.

Jeff you are not on ignore nor have you ever been, I can read your posts fine I have no disagreement with what you posted. Just to clarify I doubt God would watch over a sinner in the same way he would a believer either but the rain falls on the just and the unjust, He does what he wants so I can't rule out that grace is involved at times. I agree that people were hurt by wrong application of doctrine , I believe it was both parties error at times , wrong teaching /wrong application of what was said. That's done , it does not make the truth of no affect. They can be a little perturbed if they like ,it's a free world, but that does not make their reasons correct, only what they want them to be. We differ on correcting the doctrine problem I think, I believe, you seem to be saying some folks here have lost an awful lot due to these type of things, so they are perturbed, because of that you are ok with whatever they say. While it's nice to be a peacekeeper , one can not do it at the expense of truth. Correcting the wrong doctrine requires right learning in any situation. I don't associate lack of believing with any blame, one either does or does not. If one does not , that is just the fact, I see no scripture that includes any blame, but the fact remains that is what happened. So big deal? pick up and start again. Look..... if I fail my driving test that is the fact, denying that I did won't do any good , at the same time there is no blame in that. If the instructor informs me that I failed is he blaming me ? I don't think so, he is telling me the truth. If I choose to hear that as blame that's my problem.

Thomas ,TBone Doojable I never said I believed it was a law, I do believe that it works for saint and sinner ,or anyone that believes. I think I was pretty clear when I said it was not a cause, What I believe causes God to do nothing, but it does fulfill the conditions necessary for God to bring to pass His will. The basic commitment God requires of man is the same in every administration,it is believing. Believing is not a cause,it simply fulfills the conditions necessary for God to bring to pass His will. Example: If I posted on GreaseSpot that the first 10 people to PM me I would give a hundred dollars to. You would have two choices ,you can walk away and get nothing believing that there is no money, that I have lied to you, or you can believe what I said and send the notice. It would work for saint or sinner , the only requirement being to believe and PM me. Now what you believe caused nothing, I made the choice to make the money free to the recipient, with one condition . Your believing did not cause me to act, I did so of my free will. But your believing of what I said ,in this case the money is available with one condition, fulfills the conditions necessary for you to receive what I promised. Had you not believed and walked away you would not have received. Likewise there are gifts, promises call them what you like available from God . Free for the taking, the same applies we simply need to believe that they are there for the taking if we don't then we will likewise walk away and get nothing. Again you put words in my mouth I missed the post where I said that.

A proverb and a promise are not the same thing. A soft answer does not always turn away wrath ,no matter who is speaking, that equation involves another person who also has freedom of will to respond as they wish speaking softly while in many cases will provoke a different response is not a guarantee

Again you fail to read what I said , what is written . what I said was The basic commitment God requires of man is the same in every administration,it is believing. Believing is not a cause,it simply fulfills the conditions necessary for God to bring to pass His will. 1 Thessalonians 2:13 - For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. Vines - effectual "energeo" to put forth power, be operative, to work.also used as the effect produced in a man When one receives the Word of God not as the word of men but as it is in truth ,the Word of God it puts forth power it opperates, produces effect, in who? ...... those that don't believe? NO, in those that believe. Believing fulfills the condition. If it worked automatically then it would contradict the free will that God gave us. Those that believe what God's word says get the effect produced.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 - For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. The basic commitment God requires of man is the same in every administration,it is believing. Believing is not a cause,it simply fulfills the conditions necessary for God to bring to pass His will.

It is true that there was no work after that Acts 15 period where any record of Barnabas's work was noted in scripture once he went back home to Cyprus. The mentions in Galatians are all not new work but further details of the pre Acts 15 records. John Mark as I noted is mentioned later on as being again useful to Paul Barnabas was never mentioned in that manner again. Given the relationship they had I think Paul would have noted it had they reconciled and Barnabas was again useful in the work, he did so for John Mark and his relationship was far more closely intertwined with Barnabas. He was born of Jewish parents of the tribe of Levi. His aunt was the mother of John, surnamed Mark (Colossians 4:10), widely assumed to be the same Mark as the person traditionally believed to be the author of the Gospel of Mark. He was a native of Cyprus, where he possessed land (Acts 4:36, 37), which he sold, and gave the proceeds to the church in Jerusalem. When Paul returned to Jerusalem after his conversion, Barnabas took him and introduced him to the apostles (9:27); some believe that it is possible that they had been fellow students in the school of Gamaliel. Given all this I can't imagine that Paul would note John Marks change who he had less interaction with, and fail to note Barnabas if in fact his relationship to the work changed.

I think what I said was ....... I don't believe that either Peter Wade or myself mentioned the story in relation to The Way, no parallel was made to the Way that I saw. I did not say it had "no relation to the Way", those are your misquotes I said the story did not, another words the story was about quitting and starting again in life and Gods point of view when we do . I placed it in about the Way because that's where most people know Peter Wade from. However the story is not exclusive to former way people ,in fact it applies to anyone , also noted that neither I nor Peter addressed any examples to the Way. If you imported those from your life into it that would be you doing. CLEAR NOW ? ..........

30 Yeras Ago was my sixth ROA after sleeping in a sheep barn my first, a tent for a couple of years, an RV a couple of more I finally got smart and booked a hotel........ :D

I think Peters Wade's message was pretty clear, at times in life we may quit things along the way. I offered the example of a runner in a race , mid race he quits..... whatever the reason he quits for, does not alter the fact, he might have quit because he just decided to ,he may have been physically able to continue but just choose not to, then again he may have had a better reason for quitting maybe a medical one where he could not continue, either way the outcome is the same he quit. At that point he has two choices he can go home and remain a quitter end his running career as a quitter or go home and start over training for next year where he may finish the course. In the case of John Mark, John Mark failed but he was not a failure. Peters message was..... People, you may quit for a time but the Bible says that "if we are faithless, he remains faithful—for he cannot deny himself" (II Timothy 2:13). That's good isn't it? You may fail but you're not a failure. You may quit and say I've had enough for awhile but God says He remains faithful. He loves you just the same as he loved you before. So can you learn something from John Mark? Yes, you certainly can. There are times when we quit but what we have to do is to pick up the pieces and get going again. I think that is the point as well. Well then there is this record Galatians 2:13 - And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. (to join in acting the hypocrite ) "sunupokrinomai" That sounds pretty negative, it looks like a negative outcome from where I sit, it sure doesn't sound good. Barnabas is not mentioned in Acts again, the few records where he is is in reference to the events in Acts and give us more background on the record. And as we see above in Galatians not particularly good at that. Looking at the words used in scripture like revolt, withdrew, to stand off, aloof, together with the record in Galatians and the lack of further mention in Acts. I cant see much support for a positive rendering, I'd say if they did their case would not have much to hold up on. It appears that Barnabas went home to Cyprus what he did there is not known, he may have continued with his own ministry, Clearly there is no mention of it. There is however of Paul's, I think that is telling. Barnabas may have continued with his ministry, but Paul I believe continued with Gods. The lesson to be seen in these three guys in my opinion is resolution and continuance. Nothing stopped because they got ticked off at each other and split up. I don't believe that the church only grew because of a few people. I don't believe that either Peter Wade or myself mentioned the story in relation to The Way, no parallel was made to the Way that I saw. I understood the point to be that sometimes in life we quit things for whatever reason. We may quit even our relationship with God, but he is faithful and loves us as he always did. However if we want a relationship with Him (relationship being two not one sided) then we have to pick up and start again. I think that is exactly what John Mark did ,and as set as Paul was on him not going with him ,he remained open to John and down the road his view toward him changed. I think a case could be made for the reason they left, being grace vs circumcision it is quite possible that John Mark and we know that from Galatians that Barnabas at least at one point sided with Peter, and James and those at Jerusalem. It's certainly speculation but interesting food for thought.

[ I'd say he did a little more than left, if it were that mild Paul would not have had issue with it. And actually Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words translates the word as" aphistemi " as does Young's concordance. in the active voice used transitively signifies "to cause to depart, to cause revolt' intransitively "to stand off, or aloof, or to depart from anyone. Berry's Interlinear Greek English New Testament translates it " withdraw" Looking at the following verse 39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; Remembering that at the start of the chapter Paul and Barnabas had had gone to Jerusalem because of "a no small dissention "with those who had come and were teaching circumcision. Barnabus and Paul stood together , later in the chapter it says they continued teaching and preaching together. For them to have such contention that they withdrew from one another is telling. these are two individuals that had traveled and fought side by side for the gospel. Remember also that it was Barnabas in chapter 9 (who after Paul was taken by night out of Damascus) who stood up for Paul at Jerusalem. It was Barnabas who spent a year in Antioch with Paul. Not likely Paul would have thrown that away on a whim, he clearly felt very strongly about John Mark not coming along. not only does the scripture note than John Mark departed but also that he went not unto the work. It was clear to Paul that it was John Mark who had "aphistemi " "to cause to depart, to cause revolt' intransitively "to stand off, or aloof, or to depart from anyone. Also notable in scripture is the fact that Barnabus sailed off to Cyprus never to be heard from in scripture again. While quit and deserted are not King James ,Bibles like the Amplified who translates it as quit and deserted and the NIV attempt to make the King James English more understandable in a modern sense. When someone sets out on a task or course and fails to complete that task or course that's what we call it. If you prefer to cause revolt, "to stand off, or aloof, that's fine as well , While it is true that no specific reason was outlined in scripture it is clear that the reason was not passive in action, It certainly was of such note that Paul clearly remembered it. In any case it was not that he simply left and went home for some good reason to imply that is misleading

:blink: :blink: :blink: So is there some point to addressing your response to Oldies a few posts back to me? Because I don't believe I discussed ....... Other "religious" group sanctions. Severing ties Popping in and out Hedge of protection Free thinking and other items contained in you post/........

This is exactly what I was thinking as I was reading through the last several posts... sometimes what looks like quitting to one person, might just be correcting a mistake or moving on to someone else for someone else. In my lifetime, I have tried several occupations, each of which called upon some talent I thought I had. And as I discarded these occupations, one-by-one, there were definitely those who called me a quitter. Folks who thought I didn't give things enough time or just didn't know how to stick it out. Sorry folks, I spent 20 years "sticking it out" in a marriage that never did work, in a religious group that didn't work. And what I learned is, if my gut says "this isn't working for me" I am the only one who can truly determine if I've given it my best shot, and have reasonably assessed why it is time to change or move on. And in my experience, if it truly isn't working for me, it truly isn't working for the other folks involved either, no matter how much they try to say it is. You seem to be confused at what was said. No one said you could not or should not quit things at times BUT ,that only when you do that's what it is called, that's the word we use to describe it. You seem to include some irritation that the description includes some form of judgment it does not, it only describes what the person did. In the cases mentioned it is accurate to say VPW quit what he did at that point, he was a quitter in that area of his life . The point as Peter mentioned is that one can pick up and start again which was what VP did as well as John Mark. It sounds like you have done the same a few times as well. The end result of all my "quitting"? I now have a job I thoroughly enjoy and could see myself doing for the rest of my life. And, oddly enough, this job uses bits and pieces of many of the different things I tried earlier in life. And if I hadn't tried them all, and gained those bits of experience and training, I don't believe I would have been well-suited for this job. Again no one said that quitting does not bring you experience in life, or learning, only that if you start something and fail to reach your planned end by your choice, then you have quit, John mark had a planned course of action he went part way , and withdrew, he quit, pretty simple Bottom line -- a person should never be forced into following someone else's direction for their life. When you think about it, why is there all this confusion about what twi meant by "commitment" and "service"? Is there any confusion about what the Armed Forces mean when they recruit you? Is there any doubt that they own you for a specified number of years? Is there any question that you will accept their assignments, even go to war, or face the consequences? Is there any question that at the end of your term you have a choice to leave or re-sign? VP says he patterned the way corps after the marine corps. Why didn't he just say, straight out, what the terms of service were? Because twi thrived on vagueness and innuendo. It was their stock in trade. It allowed them to shape the commitment to suit each recruit and bring in the most people. If they had been straight up, we wouldn't be having this debate. There wouldn't be any questions about the meaning of the terms. It's just that simple. Well though I might agree with about being forced non the less it happens all the time when people sign up for things and relinquish that choice to direct their own lives. It happens in the service as your pointed out. And yes there is often a vast difference between what the recruiters told you would be the plan and what reality was after you signed up. I've often experienced that people change their perception of what was said based on their emotional response to the outcome. In general people IMHO don't like to be accountable for their choices many times. Example - you ask someone if they can volunteer to help at a function? The answer is Oh I would love to but I'm to busy! ( standard covenant excuse) These are the same folks that watch American Idol several nights a week, the truth is they are not too busy, the truth is they just don't want to put forth the time or effort. And that's fine, just say so . Be honest just say so. But they don't, why ? they want to walk away feeling that they had some good reason why they just could not possibly help. They just don't wan to be honest and say I don't want to do that. Being to busy sounds better it takes the rejection off of their decision ,the business of their life just wont let them help. I see the same with way experiences, some want to walk away with a reason they have changed their course and what was clear now becomes vague, because it makes them not responsible for their choice. Me I say make a choice and stand by it say I quit and here is why like it or not, but yes that's what I did. And now I am doing this ,I quit, but I started again. That was Peters message We don't have to remain in the quit position in life.

I believe the vet was for veteran of the in residence program, much like when your an alumni at school. Now the next phase begins the application of what one learned. They quit selling Takit shirts too so what? Once a veteran of the in residence training you could take a assignment of their choosing or one of yours, either way it was an assignment. As I said before that's not to say that their was not considerable pressure to take the one they suggested.

I'll remind you that you were the one who drug this into your thread not me. I guess when it's clear that scripture says he withdrew and deserted Paul we don't want to discuss it anymore. Kind of shoots down the labeling and liberties with scripture argument I guess.