TLC

I disagree with quite a bit of what VPW both taught, and how he lived his life. And no, I do not believe that the bible teaches (much less "clearly teaches") that God's love is conditional. That doesn't automatically or necessarily rule out anything else being conditional. Salvation is conditional. So are rewards. Many other things in this life are as well. However, God's love is not. To say that it is makes God Himself (who is love) conditional. And nowhere does it say or teach in the Bible that God Himself is "conditional."

Aside from what is revealed in or by the Word of God, probably none that you (and many others) would account as such. There's no sense in comparing anything to a god that is only imagined. Probably not, given I don't know nor relate to all of the biased bagged you seem to have been burdened with. However, I do know what it feels like to be freed from the fear of failure and the fear of eternal death. I'll also say this. If you have ever truly and honestly been touched by the grace of God... it is something that you never forget.

My perspective sees the “all have sinned” in Romans more basically as a statement of fact rather than some new pronouncement of judgement… in other words, being the result of Adam’s choice, which we all are ensnared within. Furthermore , I see “fallen short of the glory of God” more as a failure to… (I pause here, because it seems there may be no easy way to communicate this very clearly)… live worthy of eternity. Because I think the glory of God here relates to something that is eternal. Which puts it on a level that is so far above and beyond anything even remotely related to “self-esteem” or “self-worth,” it makes “the antithesis” of one’s treasured self value as laughably worthless as anything else on the opposite (highest) end of the scale.

You obviously don’t know or understand what I believe, much less have any sort of credibility in saying that the love of God is conditional. Furthermore, neither do I think that you personally honestly know what VPW actually did or didn’t say or teach about love of God. Perhaps you’re simply regurgitating something you’ve only read or heard from someone else. In any event, it’s not something that I have any desire or interest in debating further with you. Just thought I’d correct your boldly stated misinformation about what I think or believe. TC

Maybe it’s virtually impossible to believe in the resurrection if a soul doesn’t first recognize or in some way acknowledge that all men are sinners and fall short of the glory of God, and concede to the need to be saved. That provides an understandable reason for the resurrection, which continues on to makes sense out of a whole lot of other things written in the scriptures. At least, know that it did for me. There’s a tremendous difference between reading or hearing someone else’s opinion or “logical reasoning” (even if or when any of it is more honestly deemed debatable) and then agreeing that something (the context here being things that are written in scripture) doesn’t make sense, when compared to thinking or asking yourself “how might it make sense.” And evidently there are some people (some of them being very intelligent and clever people) that either don’t think like that, or at least, won’t or don’t present anything on that side of the picture. Personally, if I didn’t already know this to be true, I would find it rather perplexing why someone wouldn’t just think that the 3 women who went to the tomb with spices simply hadn’t been told and didn’t know that it had already been done. And as for the other point that no one would go to the tomb after 3 days… well then, how stupid was Rome for posting guards at the tomb if no one was going to go there? Which makes that entire statement of no one going there make absolutely no sense. TLC

Is it so difficult to believe that the life that Jesus first had was laid down at Calgary, and the life that he was raised with is something brand new and different than anything that ever existed before? If so, then you have plainly never really understood nor believed Acts 13:33

It’s not unique or unusual for quite a number of things written in scripture to be more fully revealed or explained some hundreds of years later. But, seems you have a better understanding and grasp on what happened some 4000 years ago and why it was written in scripture than the apostle Paul did, even though he was noted as being. a Pharisee of the Pharisees…

I disagree. I think it’s intended to show that Abraham believed God could and would raise his son from the dead, which is the crux of Christianity. Matter of fact, I think he was the first to ever really believe that… which is a large part (if not the sum and substance) of why Abraham is called the father of all them that believe. Seems there are probably a lot of people who think (and call) themselves Christian (either currently, or perhaps in times past), but aren’t really “in Christ” nor are the actually a member in the body of Christ… because in their heart they never did truly and honestly believe that God really did raise Christ from the dead. Furthermore, I don’t think speaking in tongues (or what some pass off as that) is “proof” that someone believes God raised Chiat from the dead.

You do know that the entire last half of that verse is omitted in all critical Greek texts don't you?

You either missed or hi-jacked the entire point of the post, Mark. What does or doesn’t someone that says they believe in the “young earth” theory think about the devil (if they even think there is one)? Where do they think or say the devil came from?

Why bother? Evidently what i said flew so far and so fast over your head, you never heard the sonic boom of it passing by...

Doubt you could make a more presidential-like gaffe than that...

There's actually a rather simple, but very logical, answer for that if really you want to hear it. Of course, whether anyone choses to believe it is another matter altogether, as there's never going to be an sort of empirical proof for it. So, I'll merely preface it with some "if's." If in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth... and, as noted elsewhere in scripture, he is the Father of all (Eph. 4:6).. and even more specifically, the Father of spirits... then with that is it not clear that He also the Father of Lucifer? Furthermore, without going too deep into the weeds here... perhaps you'll allow me to continue with some "what if's." What if God needed (or perhaps wanted) a replacement for Lucifer (in reference to the devil, prior to the aspiration to "be like the most High"), who was second (only to God) over all of creation. He could just create another replacement to fill the position Lucifer once held... yes? But, why suppose that there was some imperfection in God's initial creation of Lucifer, that God was going to somehow "do better" the next time around? Do you see the problem with that? If so, then perhaps it will make more sense why God came up with a two step replacement plan that wouldn't ever have the same issue that Lucifer had. The first step involved the creation of man, and a proving period (an appointed time, so to speak.) But the first Adam failed. The second did not. We, as the progeny of the first man Adam, were all subjected to the failures of the first. The law, given many hundreds of years after that first failure, was not given to save anyone. It was given that "every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." Was the law harsh? Very harsh. It is called the law of "sin and death" for a reason. Yes, the first Adam made a horrendously bad choice. Yet, the second man made a far greater good choice... that we can likewise freely participate in, should we choose to believe it.

Do you likewise think that serpent is perfect? Or when and how is it that fallen creature excluded? And if everything is perfect... why do you suppose God gave instructions to the man to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Did evil already exist at the time of this instruction... or didn't it? Can this be explained?

I see and have no reason to think that anything written in 1John is intended for the body of Christ, which no one aside from Paul ever speaks of, or refers to. Of course God is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us... but that is no clear or certain promise that there there is anything that we can think or say that will bring it to pass. Well, I strongly disagree. I believe that it's an integral part of understanding the difference between what was given and promised to Israel, and what was been done for us in Christ. The gospel of the Kingdom was given to Israel. The gospel of grace was given to us. And there are differences between the two. Even with many signs, miracles and wonders, Israel (as a nation) failed to believe and accept that Jesus was the Christ, the son of the Living God. We, on the other hand, believe that God raised Christ from the dead... in complete and total contradiction to anything and everything that can be known by our five senses. How or why did we do that? Perhaps only because of a recognition and acceptance of the fact that all men (or most notably, our own selves) have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God... and that we needed a savior. So we, in our heart, knew and understood that it was the only way... and believed the impossible. There's a simplicity in Christ that should never be lost or complicated in or with any of the great many things that have been said or written to or for Israel...

Unfortunately, there is a lot of confusion (especially for many of us that were so deeply indoctrinated into the "what you can believe you will receive" teachings of PFAL) as to what - or perhaps I should say, which - of God's promises are specifically given and intended for us, rather that merely being "for our learning." Frankly, it's took far too long a long time for this to have ever begun getting straightened out in my... but after finally hearing it (and seeing it pointed out in scripture) from someone older, much wiser (and far more humble) than myself, it explained and made much more sense of a whole lot of things. Honestly, there might be no really good or easy place to start, aside from ripping off the band-aid (which will probably take some hair and skin with it.) So, here goes... What if a lot (i.e., most nearly all) of the promises of God that you have heard and think or suppose are given and meant to be applied and work for you... really aren't addressed to you? I said "what if"... because I know how hard that might be to even consider being a possibility. So let's leave it at that. What if they aren't? Then... what is? And how does it differ from what we might have thought "was"? Well, that's what we have to find and look at from scripture. But, if you need or will want to have a possible reason why all the other promises aren't, then rather than chase that down some never seeming to end rabbit hole, perhaps you allow me to simply cut to the chase and summarize it in a word or two, and then move on. There are a lot of promises that are written and given specifically to Israel, most of them pertaining to life here on earth, and a great many of them being conditional. Jesus Christ was a minister to the circumcision. (Rom.15:8) Would not then all of what he said and did while he was here on earth be specifically addressed to and intended for those that he ministered to? So to, was all the law and the prophets of old. The Gentiles had neither God, nor the law. (Eph.2:12; Rom.2:14.) So... when did any of this change? Well, I suppose one might say that it started with the resurrection. However, there appears to be no proof or evidence of it on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, or in much of what transpires for quite some time after that. It really isn't unit after Stephen's testimony before the council and high priest of Israel (Acts 7), their rejection of it, and the subsequent conversion of Saul that anything or anyone outside of Israel enters the picture. This is why some (myself included) believe that the church of today (aka, the body of Christ) first began with the apostle Paul, and not on the day of Pentecost. (For whatever it's worth, I don't see 1Tim.1:15-16 as intending to make Paul as the worst sinner that ever was. Rather I think being "chief" simply names him as being the first in line.) Perhaps it's time to take a much closer look at the prayers or promises that are written in the church epistles, and compare them to what might have been written and intended only for Israel. Philippians 4: [6] Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. [7] And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. If you can find anything else specifically written to "the body of Christ" (which we are part of) that tells us what God has promised or will or will not do for us in this day and time... well, maybe I haven't seen it. But these verses alone leave little to no doubt that after we take things to God.... and then LEAVE IT WITH HIM.... regardless of whatever does or doesn't subsequently come to pass in this life here on earth, we are told that the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep our hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. That's it. Pretty much everything I've come to know and believe about what is and/or isn't promised to us in this day and time. Give it to God, and let it go. That's what Paul did. So that's the example we are given to follow. Paul had no easy life, that's for sure. But... as for what is to come in all of eternity? That's another matter altogether. And whatever happens in this life... I believe God has been, and continues to, prepare us for whatever it is or will be doing for all of eternity. Eternity... Have you thought about it? Israel was (and will always be...?) an earthly people and nation. Recipients of a lot of earthly promises. How many of the promises that Paul has written of speak of things that are heavenly in nature (and perhaps is yet to come), rather than things which are earthly?

Can't say that I'd agree "there's no way" to do that. The problem with trying to use some "scientific" theory or formula (verified with certain empirical evidence) to reach a definitive conclusion resides in the failure to accept the premise it's based on. However, I question whether or not there might be a way to look at the issue starting with a more definitive, yet... what shall I call it... "biblically sound," premise than merely launching anything and everything from a "God can do anything" premise. I have yet to hear or make any sense out of what any proponent of this "young earth" theory actually thinks or believes about why God created the devil. Or maybe they don't believe there is a devil. Who knows? But whatever it is, I can't see where or how it would make any sense or fit with some of the rest of the Bible. I'll leave it at that... TC

While it might not always be that obvious or apparent or easy to identify, all logic and reason starts with and builds on a premise that is simply accepted and presumed to be true, regardless of whether it is properly identified, or how common and universally accepted that premise is (or isn't.) I don't think this is missing from Paul's writings... but, perhaps it is not all that obvious. I think parts of it show up in places like Romans 3:23. Unless or until someone relates to that, there probably isn't going to be much sense in (or need for) a personal savior, much less any change in the already common and universally accepted basis for reality in their heart. Where or how does any change start? Well, regardless of whatever words are spoken, even by the apostle Paul himself, it appears they are only attended to when the Lord opens someone's heart. see Acts 16:14.

So, now you're going to attack me for merely posting my opinion on the piece? No wonder so few post here anymore...

Well, I listened to (all of) on my morning walk, and I don’t think you missed a thing. Not a single word or mention of the resurrection (which is the crux of Christianity) in her entire diatribe. So frankly, that tends to make me wonder if she even is a Christian. Maybe she is, or maybe she isn’t… I don’t know (and don’t much care), but as a professed teacher (or critic… however one might refer to her), she should certainly know better. Whether you believe that Jesus is or isn’t God (which she seems to think matters, but it wasn't very clear to me what her position on that is), or profess that God loves you, or that Jesus is Lord, or claim to walk in his name or power… or anything else, for that matter… matters not one single whit without (truly) believing in your heart that God raised Christ from the dead. And honestly, I view everyone in that same light, including those that were at anytime involved with the Way Ministry (or S.I.T.). There is one criteria for being a Christian, and one criteria alone.

Agreed on both points, although I think that the book also served to effectively open a new perspective for a lot of people on how to think of and see Christ. But (as so often happens), knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifeth.

Apparently our time (and definitely our experiences) at HQ and with research dept members didn't overlap. Do you mind if I ask if you think anyone's belief regarding the Trinity has anything at all to do with salvation?

Well, that sure doesn't fit with my experience while at HQ and some number of discussions I had with others in the research dept. (But, perhaps it did with others involved in the ministry, that I was unaware of.)

Well, I do recall him saying (probably in a staff meeting somewhere) that whenever a building was named after someone, they usually end up dying shortly thereafter... Furthermore, it seems that sometime around the time the auditorium finished being built, there was something like $25 million cash sitting in the cofffers of TWi... (something which Geer brought to light a year or so after VP's death...)

Agreed. And for supposedly being "experts in the holy spirit" field, the biggest achievement of going through TWI was a great puffing up of what anyone thought they knew about spirit and "how it works." But, seems to me there's an incredible amount of pride that needs (or needed, if any insist on a benefit of doubt) to be flushed out before the door leading to any real answers (aka, truth) in this field even begins to crack open. It was, is, and most likely will remain a "hit or miss" struggle that is never able to paint a clear enough picture to make much (much less "good") sense, especially for anyone deeply indoctrinated in certain religious beliefs... Seriously, Mike? You appear to be saying that people had no spirit whatsoever. How in the world then might you explain what is written in Luke 9:55? If you're some expert on spirit, exactly what "pneuma" do you suppose Jesus is referring to in this verse? And yes, I'm not stupid... I am aware that spirit (or pneuma, if you prefer) can and might refer to different "things" (for lack of any better word.) But my question (again) is simply this... What spirit do you suppose is being referred to in Luke 9:55? And why might Jesus refer to it being a "manner of spirit"? Or, if there's someone else in this forum that supposes themselves to be an expert on spirit... please feel free to answer the question.