waysider

Well, yeah, but really what I'm saying is that there is another facet to it. We've probably all heard some variation of the idea that for every rat you see in the open, there's a bunch more hiding in the dark.When someone comes here over an extended period of time professing that the PFAL book replaces the Bible, you can be pretty sure there's a good chance they've ALREADY created a support system .

Festinger stated that five conditions must be present if someone is to become a more fervent believer after a failure or disconfirmation: A belief must be held with deep conviction and it must have some relevance to action, that is, to what the believer does or how he or she behaves. The person holding the belief must have committed himself to it; that is, for the sake of his belief, he must have taken some important action that is difficult to undo. In general, the more important such actions are, and the more difficult they are to undo, the greater is the individual's commitment to the belief. The belief must be sufficiently specific and sufficiently concerned with the real world so that events may unequivocally refute the belief. Such undeniable disconfirmatory evidence must occur and must be recognized by the individual holding the belief. The individual believer must have social support. It is unlikely that one isolated believer could withstand the kind of disconfirming evidence that has been specified. If, however, the believer is a member of a group of convinced persons who can support one another, the belief may be maintained and the believers may attempt to proselytize or persuade nonmembers that the belief is correct. source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails The section I bolded is the scary part. It not too likely anyone goes 20 years believing PFAL is God-Breathed without a support system to solidify their belief.

I clicked on your website. It now presents the following message: Hello World.I can be found at GSC. Are you the world? More importantly why do you need to remind yourself where you are? Please tell me you're not one of those lizard people. Those dudes can be scary.

Awww. How sweet. Thank you for being so worried about us.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, there's a pretty good chance it's a duck.

Final judgement?? Wow! That sounds so final and, well, judgmental. You say you created the website for your own private use while you are on the road. What kind of person creates a website to be used exclusively by themself? I ain't buying it. But, wait, there's more. I see the site now encourages the visitor to refer to GSC. What's up with that? Will you need to remind yourself, next time you're on the road?

We don't know who or what you are? Well, for starters, we know you're someone who came to this site and deceptively misrepresented yourself. How am I doing?

OOPS!

How do we know Jesus didn't speak in tongues? Speaking in tongues predates the time of Christ.

"Nobody held a gun to your head." Ahhh. The old gun to the head trick. Because there is really no way to control people other than holding a gun to their head. /s

Exactly.

Deleted by poster.

Aren't you the same guy who questioned why VPW and The Way seem to so often find their way into these discussions? Have you ever questioned whether using those *keys* in PFAL is even a valid approach to understanding the Bible? Hint: It's not. Edit: Sorry, WW. I didn't see you had posted. You said it better than I could.

rrobs What methodology or system do you use when you read the Bible? Do you simply read it and take it at face value or do you use some sort of protocol?

Why not try to convey it in your own words?

Sometimes the journey is more important than the destination.

There is nothing in that verse that even remotely suggests the bible is divided into separate compartments. Without going into further detail, i might suggest some other discussions that have taken place of that very same word that has been translated as dispensation in that verse. I'm not very good at searches but there is a search window at the top.

Maybe I've failed to convey the significance of adhering to dispensations/administrations. Dispensationalism is a concept that promotes the idea of different sections of the bible being walled off from other sections. That's the essence of saying "Such and such a directive doesn't apply to me because it was addressed to a different administration." It's quite handy in explaining why the Old Testament seems to contradict the New Testament. The problem, of course, is that it has no basis in scripture. If it does, could you be so kind as to show it to me?

rrob In the realm of critical thinking, this is what is known as a straw man. A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man". The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition...SOURCE No one said nothing has changed since Adam and Eve or that everything is just the same.

rrobs No one is attacking you. Disagree with some of your points? Sure. But, not attacking you. Do you not realize that what you assume to be "the word" is really just someone's private interpretation of it? Sometimes you can spend years, even decades, thinking you understand a verse or section of scripture, only to find you were mistaken about it's meaning. It's just simply not possible to "know that you know that you know". Learning is an adventure. You can never be quite sure where it will lead you.

You can say it if you want to. Me? I'll pass because, quite frankly, it doesn't.

That's a huuuuge assumption, especially when you factor in chronology. Remember...the gospels were written quite a bit AFTER the epistles. At any rate, the audience would have been limited and you can't know what depth of understanding someone might have come away with.

I can only speak for myself on this point: I've heard more than enough "teachings" to last me a couple lifetimes. But, anyway, who's wound up? Certainly not me. The simple fact is, all this stuff is inextricably interwoven. If you heard something in, let's say, PFAL, what would be the point in avoiding the name of the class? Likewise, if you heard something that was taught by VPW, what would be the point in avoiding where you heard it? That sounds counterproductive to me. You don't do that with secular subjects, do you? I mean, if you're discussing the inner workings of an aircraft powerplant, it's perfectly fine to cite the source of your information, is it not?

Fine, I'll rephrase my response. The organization we aligned ourselves with was completely dependent on John Nelson Darby's dispensationalism, which we knew to be called administrations. Better?

Who knows what they understood? It's not like they were in a situation where information was readily available.