chockfull

This is representative of one clear problem we have in doctrinal. Defining terms doesn't seem objective. It seems to involve a lot more of what you are doing here. Some kind of internal measurement. "What it means to me". I mean that's cool and all. That is kind of the major premise behind how all our church small groups work. Or most all church small groups. Topical study - people read ahead of time. Then when together go down the line of "what it means to me". I'm not saying there's anything significantly different about you - I do this too. But one of VP's major selling points of the Way is that scriptural interpretation is NOT SUBJECTIVE. He sold us some keys. Keys to the Word's interpretation. Those keys included false major ideas: 1. Remote context - the idea that "where it is used before" carries a lot of weight. Different prophet, different time, different legal, social, military environment. Potentially different "administration" or "dispensation". God does not operate according to a foolish consistency, that is according to Emerson, the hobgoblin or little human minds. 2. Harmony of the Gospels - the day jesus died, how many times paul denied him, how many crucified - all of these are examples of Wierwille's sleight-of-hand manipulation of scriptures getting the brainwashed to focus on the insignificant details of the event so that they can gain their allegiance. Wierwille trained us in Biblical research to be Pharisees. To strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

I think here at GSC we have successfully debunked that idea. If you really want the headache that involved, feel free to perouse the SIT threads in doctrinal. To summarize, SIT is conclusive proof of nothing. Many examples of known fakes are out there. And I personally practice this in my prayer life, so it's not a "sour grapes" assessment.

Best of wishes on your journey. Finding who to connect to, how, and the boundaries in relationships are the most difficult post-Way.

This is one of the problems with "Waybrained research". With extreme dispensationalism, definitions of rather common terms and concepts can become twisted. Usually it is a comparison between "how I live now" and "how people did live in another dispensation".

I personally believe that God as my Father is just enough to cover scenarios like unbelievers living a better life morally than professing Christians along with the ability to sort things out. This section of Corinthians is a major part of that. For better or for worse, what actually is supposed to occur in the end times is not something that is clearly revealed in scripture. It is something where like so many other "word studies" we did, you find a verse in jeremiah, piece it together with Ephesians, lace in a concept in Revelation, and presto you have a faith that explains the future. Thus we come up with certain verses in Revelation that are supposed to be an Abrams tank, a helicopter, and several other known things in our day and age according to some. I think mostly in the Way we have a "Strong's concordance faith" or a "Bible software faith" - one that is built upon stringing endless series of unrelated verses together to come up with a Sunday teaching, philosophy, or moral outlook in life.

You are correcting me posting on the topic of the thread because it doesn't line up with another spawned discussion? And saying that is "really what this topic is about"? No, this thread topic is about whether or not you can lose salvation. I can point you to the title of it. The fact that Dan is getting into a disagreement with his fellow long time splinter group associates, disagreeing on a doctrinal issue, and leaving over it is secondary. With your response in my highlighted words I see another passive aggressive attack. No Dan did not conclude in his paper that you should send him money. He did that after the paper. The paper is what is supposed to attract people to send him money. I read enough of it to know he did not address I Peter 1:23. After that it was enough to assess that his supposed thoroughness glossed over a main category of the discussion. My sarcasm is a direct result of you passive aggressively attacking my post saying it is off topic when it is precisely on topic but off the secondary topic you want to address. In other words, if you want to talk directly about whether or not you can lose salvation with me I will accommodate you. If you want to play passive aggressive games then p1ss off. I can tolerate your internal struggles to the point you attack others. Not beyond that.

Which is exactly what I was pointing out - the exegetical commentary I shared in the above link expands upon the major idea discussed in this thread, but it is notably absent as a major idea in Dan's paper. That of incorruptible seed. What does that phrase mean? What do those terms mean? Why doesn't he address it? Does he consider it "to Israel" or something? Also, to those who have ears, it is an exhortation to consider scholastic work in Biblical research NOT from a Way background because after a thorough examination of the Way's actual execution of Biblical research it is about as credible as Victor Paul Wierwille's mail-in box-top doctorate degree. Here's the idea. Dan's paper is not the standard on which to base Biblical research. The Bible is. This is not an "interesting article". It is an exegetical commentary on the verses in the Bible that Dan glossed over in his paper covering the idea of "once saved always saved" how it's wrong and how that means you should send him donations on his 501c site.. No, in my opinion Dan is wrong on both fronts. On leaving out that verse where we are born again of incorruptible seed, and on the donation front. Your response here is somewhat passive aggressive. I shared a Bible study tool, a thorough work on the topic of the thread, which to remind you by the way is not "Dan's Paper", but "Can salvation be lost?" and your response is "interesting but it doesn't match Dan's paper?" Who the f cares and what does that have to do with whether or not salvation can be lost or not? Born again of incorruptible seed. What does it mean? Why would God choose to draw that analogy throughout that section of scripture? Ask Dan if you need help answering.

I'm interested to see their progress. I think Jesus summed it up pretty well in his parable about broken wineskins. If you start with a plagiarized product amassed by a drunken narcissist with a swinger club, then put it into broken wineskins, what do you think you are going to have left after?

Hey I don't want to make it sound too good. Otherwise Linder will print it off and hand it to the Board of Dummies for an "outreach idea". LOL. If I have caused other image problems for myself with descriptions of Halloween candy, motivational speakers, or donuts please let me know. Oh there's a food truck advertised too. Really it's not that spectacular, nothing any ordinary community church is not doing. I'm loosely associated mostly because I have a couple idiot friends that go there and they roped me in. Since you guys are so curious and all. Sometimes I attend church. Sometimes I do a small group there. Other times I disappear for months and nobody calls me about church. Even my idiot friends. They call me for other things. Idiot things.

VPW's PFAL class also did not agree with "once saved always saved". He mentioned that specifically in the class. Then he covered the verse I Peter 1:23 Dan's paper fails to handle the basic verses in PFAL on the topic. And he started up his own 501c with a donation page on the internet for people who are impressed with someone going on and on for over a hundred pages while not being thorough. I'm not impressed. Here's an interesting write-up of commentary on I Peter 1:23 which really digs down into the core of this issue. Also, it doesn't re-invent the wheel and incorporates feedback from other vital members of the body of Christ, none of which who have ever heard of Victor Paul Wierwille. Happy reading: https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/1-peter-1-23.html Here's another link on who John Gill the commentary writer is: https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/

To clarify it was two separate parts of the day with different tickets to each. The first part was skeet shooting / target shooting during the afternoon, then beer and drinks with dinner and during the evening while the firearms are put away. Some attended both, others just one. It was not like redneck hunting, where folks are dedicated to combining alcohol, motor vehicles, spotlights, and firearms. LOL

I know I know I know I know. The Gideons Leaving Bibles in Motel 6 nightstands across America. And smuggling them into countries where they are risking their lives. They are truly moving the Word

The vicster had his little dance he did in PLAF when he talked about "once saved always saved", then did his "incorruptible seed" routine. Which is a reference to I Peter 1:23. I guess you have to examine what Paul means there by "cut off". That could mean a number of things. In the context its kind of an obvious statement. "Take a look at God's goodness towards you. It will continue towards you if you continue towards God. Otherwise it won't. Kind of like Israel. They were real stubborn and didn't continue in God's goodness. I like walking in the sunshine. I experience its rays and the warmth on my cheek. It lasts until I go stand in shadows. Cut off from what? Salvation? Rewards? Experiencing God's goodness because you are actively pushing Him away? I mean I don't know how many of you have actively dealt with teenagers with attitudes, but you take the teenagers keys with a 'tude for a period of time. You don't sell their car. So that is my response to Dan's hundred plus pages of whatever. Cut off from what? stated as a chorus to this song:

In reality, "moving the Word" - is it nothing more than language of control? Language of influence? an incentive towards division in the body of Christ? i.e. they are "moving the Word" but others are not. What activities consist of "moving the Word"? Sitting in council meetings for a splinter deciding to semi-organize a weekly teaching Having your own home church where people can focus on you and your biblical knowledge YouTube channel Videos for YouTube channel I dunno. It all just piles higher and deeper the further you go with this concept.

Is this thread going somewhere? Well, having some fun and examining a cult originated catch phrase. moving the Word over the World was like the pie in the sky yellow submarine cool thing to be doing with your life back when we were youngsters the same age as the Mormon missionaries.

The jargon controls the person. I would agree that almost any phrase is better. Yeah "the Word of God is the will of God" is another meaningless dumb catch phrase. When someone quotes that to me I feel like telling them they should go find one of the long "begat" sections and f off because it's God's will for them.

Mormons. How do Mormons "move the Word"???? I think they have a very well formulated plan. They dress up their youngsters in ridiculous looking monkey suits and send them out in the world without transportation. If they are rich, they go to an exotic place like Japan. If they are poor, they go next door to Iowa. Then they spend the next 2 years biking around being ridiculed by the world. After this, they are thus prepared to be a Mormon for the rest of their adult life.

How do other folks "move the Word"??? Hmmmm. The church I loosely associate with makes people pay for barbecue and go out on this one guy's ranch and shoot guns and drink beer. I guess sometimes random new people get the idea and like to shoot guns and drink beer and also join. Also, they give out a sh1t t0n of Halloween candy. And invite cool looking bands in and popular speakers with motivational messages. They give out free donuts and have greeters, although after reflection it is still undecided on whether the greeters have a net positive or net negative effect there.

So if the Word is like Jesus in the flesh, and we are "moving the Word" does that also mean we are moving Jesus around? Why? I thought he had this miraculous new body where he could "beam himself up Scotty" like in Star Trek. He's got much better mobility than me. Random thoughts on "moving the Word".

Subcategory of 200 - Dumb@$$e$ and religion.

So recently in discussion with the RnR railroad folks, we have learned that they are "moving the Word". However, we here at GSC are not "moving the Word". I honestly have not thought about that particular phrase in a long time. I do remember it being quite the topic of conversation when we were filling out Jehovah's Witness style "outreach plans" to turn in to our "overseers". Ah, the life of "moving the Word" through the diligent application of the Vision and Direction document. The only thing Biblically I can relate that to reflecting back is the children of Israel in Exodus 5:7 when they told the slave masters to no longer give them straw to make bricks, but they had to find their own straw. It's like a volunteer no base full commission sales job. Without the pay. Why wouldn't people want to "move the Word"? So, time for a litmus test. What is moving the Word to you? True vs False Cult vs Genuine God vs Man Help me out here 'Spotters. I want to be "moving the Word". It sounds so cool. Any advice?

That woman, starting out as a major part of the problem, was never about "moving the Word". Unless you consider the same ole cover up shenanigans with Craig and bolster your position in a cult moving the Word. Suffice it to say that of course she won't be looking at how bad everything was, as it would expose how bad she was. And she has children. So it sounds like the ex Corpse maven coordinator here has probably heard second-hand about GSC and has a snide offhand comment to make about it. She wants to point out how telling the truth about the past is somehow different than "moving the Word". What does she mean by "moving the Word" anyway? Participating in the council that semi-plans weekly teachings for the RnR Railroad? Does leadership phone hookups with the other band of RnR railroad workers? Probably not much similar to Jesus life. You know that "moving the Word" phrase when I reflect on it more has to be one of the stupidest cult ideas ever. I think it deserves another thread.

We are just like the Way - the same Word - except for without the politics, micromanagement, or controlling rules. So if you like the Way, or the Word in the classes you learned in the Way, but you don't like the controlling rules, this ministry is for you. -------------------------- Above was their approach.

I agree. Those dumb@$$es could probably learn a thing or two themselves browsing the annals here at GSC. GSC - where you won't get sunshine blown up your nether regions.

This doesn't mean the Way is right. Micromanagement is not a fruit of the spirit, a gift ministry, or a talent. It is an indicator that the person in charge doesn't have sh1t to do except other people's jobs. Thus they have no vision to lead.