chockfull

I'm a Bibleworks user. They just shut down unfortunately.

I looked at this the other day. I'm not as well versed on terms like "covenant theology" - but I kind of get the gist of where they are going with it. If you look at Hebrews and God's relationship to Israel, basically it can be governed into periods of "covenants" or agreements between man and God in various forms as the explanation between dichotomies in scripture, and the migration of things over time. To me that type of thinking makes more sense than a strict dispensational pattern where God is on a timeline and puny humans have to figure out where they fit before relating with Him. Where I may differ from a "covenant" approach strictly is that I would question whether or not Jesus put an end to that type of thing with his instructions to not swear oaths but instead just mean what you say.

And how far you want to take the analogy. For example: Does God get moose breath in the morning like me? How does that work with inspiration? Does God require good dental hygiene to avoid halitosis, like me? Does God ever get to the point at a party where someone checks his breath, and as a result confiscates his car keys? Again, like me LOL. Mods, I'm kind of tiptoeing on a line here between humor and doctrinal discussion. I am just going with the best I know on where to locate things with ongoing conversation in the threads. On the topic of VPW the indoctrinator I guess this would fall under "recognizing indoctrination methods" loosely or some such topic. I mean VP had specific methods he used to indoctrinate, and his God-breathed cr@pola was a big part of it, getting young hippies to believe in snow on gas pumps. So to circle back around, yes - halitosis, VP, God-breathed, and indoctrination. Yes it does seem all related - mixed together like one huge cow pie. Hey I just figured out why such the cognitive dissonance over organizing posts in this thread and Doctrinal. The title of this thread is "Wierwille the Indoctrinator" - indoctrinator has "doctrine" as its root word. How is it not going to come up? This thread by nature has elements of TWI and Doctrine in it. Two main words in the title are equally separated down each forum division.

Good stuff Mark. It's amazing to see how much we missed in the Way by censoring other Christian sources.

So it seems study of scripture is somewhat of a jigsaw puzzle with common sense interlaced. Do I have a better approach? No, I believe I also function on somewhat of a blend of those aspects as well. Is my blend the same as yours? Probably not. So on the jigsaw puzzle side of things it seems we can come to some form of agreement on a "loose fitting". i.e. if a scripture context is talking about oranges, then an apple verse meaning in the midst doesn't flow. But I think there are degrees of this - one area in focus to me is fundamentalism, which I am growing away from. A recent highlight we had in the discussion was Peter's description in scripture of Paul's writings. The more strictly you try to squeeze scripture in my opinion the more it eludes you. On the common sense side of things, we have a lot of things seemingly eliminated by common sense, or assumed by common sense. However, common sense carries an element of subjective opinion into it. This makes it difficult to reach common grounds, as what might be common sense in my family is sheer lunacy in another's family, for example. As I am growing away from fundamentalism, my view of the fitting scriptures together is moving from a jigsaw puzzle approach to more of a topical approach and inspirational approach. Where there are holes I look to fill them more in the fashion you would a fiberglass hole - a bunch of layers of fiber and resin formed over the hole, not a precise matching to the edges. Anyway that's the best description I have to my approach lately and growth lately. As to the Lord opening topics or not, I also view that as my personal journey - that certainly happens in my life. Something I possibly could have learned many years ago I learn now. I don't think there should be a predeterministic view towards this - each should grown in their continued personal journey along this path. Although I would say that the book of Revelation has quite a lot of speculative parallel imagery to people what with words in the book and modern technology. As to God's workings, I view the human body working in that fashion - pain has an awareness to most body parts, emergency situations. But the intricate detail of how the foot and hand works has to have some form of specialization to it. I don't believe the intent of that imagery in Corinthians of the one body is that of a 3rd Reich lock-step sold-out group of individuals who have an inflated opinion of themselves. Yes God works in the one body. Yes I'm largely unaware of most of it - I'm only aware of some of which pertains to my life and direct surroundings, and not always aware of how God is working even there. I only get a glimpse at times. I view scriptures saying we see through a glass darkly as the reason for that.

It does make sense on the Biblical definitions vs. usages. What is the perspective on scripture that governs it? When we are talking about a term in the Bible, what carries greater weight, the meaning to the common people it was written (i.e. Paul's letters) - which would lead towards a secular definition of inspired words, or consistency with how other prophets or writers wrote or spoke words? The second approach would lead towards "usage" definition of words. Some tools are geared more towards some approaches. Strong's, Youngs, lexicons concordances are geared towards the "usage" definition. Some other lexicons delve more into the definition angle - like Kittel's I'm thinking of. Were the words these writers wrote and spoke that which God inspired in their hearts and they crafted with their pens and tongues? Or were they words of a master marionnette, pulling the strings on the puppets in such a precise way that the touch is seen puppet to puppet? I think in the Way we were trying to do mathematical proofs with people-oriented words.

This one sounds even better through the Shakespearean translator: for the KJV folks LOL This is turning moo doctrinal than about wierwille indoctrinat'r 'r twi. Prithee keepeth doctrine whither t belongs

What doubts do you have? My point was that making Him Lord in your life indicates a living Lord, which has a prerequisite of a resurrection. I guess you can focus on the resurrection, but that is one event in a long sequence. Why that as opposed to the ascension? Or the appearances in between?

I was but a child when I experience this personally. You accept Christ as Lord. If you start dissecting it up like that you get into all sorts of questions that basically lead to people questioning whether they are "born again", "saved", whether they fulfilled that phrase exactly, or not. It's not a rune that you have to read with the right pronunciation, otherwise, no power is energized. You have a desire in your heart. God knows this. You carry out that acceptance in prayer in some fashion. God is not going to sit up there and say "whoops - you got the password phrase wrong, try again - only 3 attempts left". With respect to the resurrection, I'm not sure how there is any logical sense to making a dead man Lord in your life. But I guess there's still Nirvana cover bands with people aspiring to be like Kurt Cobain musically, right?

So just for fun I put waysider's last post through a "Shakespearean translator". https://lingojam.com/Shakespearean Before: Paul's epistles must be God-Breathed because it says so right in the epistles. And whatever you read in the epistles must be God-Breathed because, well, ya know, the epistles are God-Breathed. After: Paul's epistles might not but beest god-breath'd because t sayeth so right in the epistles. And there's few or none will entertain it thee readeth in the epistles might not but beest god-breath'd because, well, ya knoweth, the epistles art god-breath'd That just clears it right up!!!!

So Peter "speaking God-breathed words" calls the God-breathed words spoken by Paul "hard to be understood". Even enough to cause a lot of problems with uneducated and unstable minds. That is a lot of God-breathed mental acrobatics going on there. Does God regularly put on puppet shows of this nature? Are they even better than Mr. Rogers?

Hey thanks for posting this up. I am migrating on my own path with respect to my relationship to scriptures. I am with you on the Canon for sure - I think possibly people have made committee decisions to exclude texts as not part of the canon of scripture because of various bias as well as possible content in apocryphal books like gospel of Thomas not fitting 100% with accepted views and existing texts. My view is currently more inclusionary than exclusionary. Of course naysayers will say "where do you draw the line? What about the book of Mormon?" and I really don't have a clear answer for that other than it seems to be inspired by a conversation with an angel Moroni so not "theopneustos" or whatever. Actually I don't seem to be cut and dried or black and white with respect to God's inspiration either. Some things seem a little more in tune to me than others. A greater spark for a shorter time or just a view of mine that is compatible or whatever. I do think we overvalued Paul / Saul of Tarsus and preferred the epistles over the gospels to our detriment in the Way. Now I have to go back and learn the gospels better to learn about all the scribes and Pharisees in the Way LOL. I don't reject Paul by any means however - he was tapped in and had a spark going. His life was so extreme. He really didn't have a great deal of experience living with and around other Christians for any length of time. Extreme education under Gamaliel that could have easily had him set for life. He ran into Jesus on the road to Damascus. Or got run over. I think maybe many of us can relate to that with our experiences with the Lord. Our old BS getting run over. Paul worked mostly on his own I guess many times Luke was on journeys and Timothy but vastly different than the life of Peter and the boys running Jerusalem. So the letters. Words from prison - to keep the mind above. Unique, beautiful, many different contents. Like Corinthians. Gifts, the body analogy, instructions about sex and marriage. Wow - I mean some really mind expanding concepts and some really different ones all together. But by no means meant by God to frame our entire lives because of some stupid idea about dispensationalism has me reading those with more weight and ignoring my Savior. I can appreciate them in their place. I mean "husbands and wives should be fair with each other about having sex" I Cor 7 I mean yeah bro - you and which little hottie kicked back on a shipwrecked island are we speaking of here? Oh, none? Ok then thx for the opinion and hope it works for you as a pickup line. Ya know? But in my life I'm going with flowers over the scales of justice approach. No offense there Paul of Tarsus. Anyway I'm just rambling on there. I doubt its a counterpoint, and it's much more rambling than considered. I see Paul as a c-r-a-z-y dude who wrote a lot in prison. You have to have an active mind there I guess. I mean I look at some of what Stephen Hawking produced mentally with all his physicals so limited. Pretty amazing. Thanks for the viewpoints. I never heard of the Jefferson Bible. I'm going to check it out.

There seems to be some disagreement on this thread that mostly centers around the approach to Biblical definitions. Are we to accept only the most common terms that apply to a Biblical word? Or can there be nuances that take you into a corner of the definition that may not apply to every usage of the word? Here with oikonomia this is illustrated by the struggle with do we accept it to mean only "stewardship"or "household management" as the literal word translation and common usages seem to indicate? Or can there be financial implications and dispensing implications that are used in other fields that can expand our mental horizons in understanding? Or can we accommodate both views by saying here is the baseline use, and here are the expanded uses it touches on?

While we have all been in denial at one point or another, only Moses as a baby actually floated down de Nile in a basket.

They have accepted no learning centers outside of TWI based doctrine. They interact with no other Biblical scholars. They take input from no other Christians, except those that agree to go to their fellowships. I don't wonder at all.

I'm sure you'll detect the working of the leaven or yeast as it causes the bread to rise.

Here's some side material. Apparently some Greek Orthodox translate oikonomia as "economy". http://www.bombaxo.com/blog/the-gospels-and-oikonomia/ https://orthodoxwiki.org/Oikonomia Here's the full definition. I also am showing my work. " Oikonomia (also spelled oikonomeia, economia or economy) literally means "household management," the "law of the house," or "house building," and refers primarily to two related concepts in the Orthodox Church—the divine plan for man's salvation and the specific episcopal application of the canons in the life of the Church. The latter usage is a derivation of the former. Oikonomia is one of two ways of observing the Canons of the Church, the other is Akriveia or strict adherence (precision, exactness). Whereas the application of Oikonomia is generally regarded as being a more flexible application or interpretation of the Canons, the application of Akriveia is regarded as being a more precise and strict one. Pastoral Discretion is of key importance in either application."

What do you mean now? At the time of the original video before any of this discussion, they all already had jobs.

Okay so this has come up in several discussions, so I wanted to put it in a place where cult questioners can find it better. Mainstream Christianity teaches according to I Corinthians 12 - which incorporates Jesus body as an analogy or figure representing each follower as they band together. This teaching would dovetail into his ceremonial handling of the Last Supper - and the eucharist, or "body and blood" of Christ teaching is a common one in Christianity today. It is very clear that Jesus vision as well as God's vision to Paul was of Jesus followers being united together and functioning as a human body functions today with each of its parts working together. Victor Paul Wierwille, and every ensuing Way International President after him, taught and supported the idea of a "household of God". Their logic is since there is so much division in Christianity today Jesus couldn't mean all the denominations since they will never work together. Therefore the logic is the "one body" has to describe a certain group of people, a subset of the entire body of Christ that is inspired by the present truth and moves as one and works together at a very high level exactly like the pulse of the human body with the brain sending signals to the hand and the hand responding immediately. The Way and splinters label this subset the "household of God" and seperate off from the body of Christ in mainstream Christianity practically and organizationally. The Way Presidents have used this teaching to set themselves up in the position of Jesus as the head of the body of Christ, and to have complete authority over this "household of God" including the expectation that they respond quickly like the human body does. They ignore considering and discussing other Christians in the body of Christ. They work with no other Christian organization. They consider no other Christian input. They have a little closed system they have built for themselves where they have absolute control and are accountable to nobody. This teaching and functioning is ANTICHRIST. Why? Every single implementation of it sets up a single person or small elite group of people as the intercessor between the follower and God. There is an inordinate amount of control. There is the crossing of boundaries in lives. There is the using of people for their own ease. People aren't free to make decisions for themselves and their families with God and Jesus, they have to obtain approval from overseers. The logic is "since we are all one body, why wouldn't you want to share these things?" and they use good words and fair speeches to cross boundaries and control people and their finances and futures. ANTICHRISTS So folks you heard it first here on the 'SPOT. THERE IS NO HOUSEHOLD OF GOD. THERE IS A BODY OF CHRIST.

Lately my view on this has been "anything except the polar opposite which we see as common occurrences in the Way and splinter groups". Accepting Christ - I would feel no other need to embellish that phrase. People who make Christ Lord are not tricked into it. Plenty of instruction in scripture for this one. Find a place in His body - WHAT IT IS NOT: - I was a person with a high position in the Way, to preserve "my effort and years of studying scripture" I will start a new splinter group with myself as the "leader, director, originator, founder, etc". WHAT IT IS - a healthy acknowledgement that the teachings of the Way regarding a "household of God" as somehow separate and more elite than the "body of Christ" are antichrist, and actions that show appreciation for other members in particular in the body of Christ including those in denominations, in the Catholic church, in cities and communities across the world as community Christian churches. Christians acknowledge and appreciate and collaborate with other Christians, not isolating themselves off into a little small group called a "twig" or called whatever with a "twig coordinator" or a "whatever coordinator" who is or isn't calling themselves that at the moment like the RnR railroad folks. This is only answering the question "what do I mean by accepting Christ and finding a place in His body".

Sure - oikonomia and usages sound like a reasonable start. I am not 100% convinced that doing "word studies" on Greek words is going to present a great deal of enlightenment regarding "the ages" or "administrations of time" types of views. The LXX isn't as precise as the Hebrew OT. And I'm going to obviate one of my other problems. I reject a fundamentalist viewpoint of being able to do mathematical type proofs with scriptures. I see the Greek word for scribe which is "grammeteis" - or grammatician. Jesus taught much on the Pharisees and Scribes. His teachings on Pharisees are the core concept behind a favorite book around here "The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse". His teachings on scribes and Pharisees to me really pinpoint the heart of the Way and splinter groups. How Jesus teaches they operate, you can observe them operating in that fashion. I personally am recovering from acting in that fashion. So my views on scripture are influenced by that. The expanded ideas surrounding "oikonomia" of the pharmacy dispensing help and medication, and the stewardship angles to me strike a chord because my view of scriptures is as inspiration. I view it less as a rulebook of rules to live your life by, although if I examine my life I do see good things in living up to the list categories. The less people understand good heart and motive and inspiration, the more they are going to require rules to live life. The more I see people focused on rules the less freedom and grace I see in daily life. On the other side of this discussion, you present a valid point. If we aren't going to examine ideas and terms using the Bible and inherent definitions, then to what standard will the discussion adhere? None I suppose. I wish I had a better answer for myself to your questions than "somewhere in the middle of digging into detail, using good common sense, and having an active prayer life seeking guidance". But unfortunately that is the best I have at the moment. Where are you at on this?

The second rule of fight club is whenever someone breaks the first rule of fight club, you must instruct them that research means re-search.

Bullinger, Darby, Scofield - yes, pretty much the usual suspects of dispensationalism. And who VP lifted the idea from. From my perspective, all 3 had a huge propensity for "lists". For a little jingle, think of it like "if your life must be controlled by lists, you might be a dispensational - ist". LOL. As for the Way's tendencies, since VP lifted so much material, rather than doing the honest work to get there on his own, that kind of left the Way stranded in a point in time. That point in time was the one day snow on the gas pumps appeared to VP. Or at the point in time VP lifted the material. Whatever more depth and revision in a field that would have occured since then is completely bypassed by the Way, as their view is they have already received all of the modern day revelation they are going to. On this I can agree - that God isn't talking to those idiots any time soon. But anyway, this is doctrinal. I like your line you initially pursued here of dispensation = "handling the affairs of another". By the most basic least humanly embellished definition that provides good insight. We are on the planet Earth handling the affairs of another. Moses and Aaron had to do that with rules about cows. Paul did it by writing letters mostly in some form of danger, persecution, or imprisonment. I can connect with that concept without "fundamentalist rose colored glasses". Where I diverge from you is in your conclusion of the Bible as one organic whole, revealing a marvelous and profound unity. Paul's life and Moses life looked not a whole lot at all like one another. And neither do their writings. And you get into CGT - Critical Greek Textualism, and who decides the Canon of scripture? You? Me? Joe in plumbing? Next, what about all of the apocrypha in the Catholic Bible? What council decided their veracity or lack thereof? More recently, what about other scroll writings being discovered, older than the ones our modern Bible is cobbled together from? Handling the affairs of God on earth. That simplifies it. What do we do In our day? Accept Christ and find a place in the body of Christ. For cult people, don't be an antichrist.