TLC

If you truly know what you believe and why you believe it (which is certainly possible, I'm not saying it isn't), then I think that's far more than many (most, in my opinion) other people. Back in the day, PFAL was promoted as a "how to" class. And, it certainly did teach "how to" do some number of things, supposedly "how to believe" being among them. Needless to say, efforts to isolate or elevate "how to believe" from what can (or should) be believed can result in... other issues. However, that said, I also think there is some rationale behind why we believe what we believe that actually does help reveal how to believe. The real difficulty here is keeping this focused on one belief in particular, and the reason for it, and not the how's or why' or wherefore's for anything and everything else.

Do you actually understand how it got there? Given how easy you seem to think it is to "undue," surely believing whatever you want to believe never poses much of a challenge for you. Very impressive. (If true.) Although, I'm curious where you learned it or how you mastered such a feat. (I suspect it wasn't from twi's blue book. 'cause that hold a picture in your mind until you believe it thingy ain't that good.) Personally, I think there are reasons things do (and don't) enter the heart of a man... which, if someone's never thought much about, would probably go a long ways towards explaining why they might not see any difference between merely thinking (and/or saying) that they believe something, and actually believing it. But who knows? Maybe you're right and there's no difference whatsoever between what's in the heart or the brain of a man, and his "believing" anything is probably just a figment of his imagination. Then all these "assumptions" are just a bunch of fairy tales that don't even matter.

yes

you asked 5 questions, without so much as trying to answer my one question. why accuse me of something you yourself appear to be guilty of? but, as an effort appease your (rather irrational, from my perspective) indignation: I don't know. Perhaps you can ask the person that first stated it (and that I was only quoting from.) Opinions on this vary. I thought it plain enough in my previous post that I see believing being an issue of the heart, not the mind. What difference might you think or see there is between them? Maybe not. Might depend on whether you (or the person saying it) meant something different with each. I suppose you would need to ask them. Personally, I don't think I've ever used the phrase "I've had a change of heart on the matter." However, if I were to use it, I would be intending to tell you that I changed what I believe about something. (Although, whether I actually did or not might be another matter.) Do you think there's a difference between them? Probably not very well. How do you think it works? (Which ties back into my initial question, which you avoided.) Or, have you never thought about this before? I don't think that, nor did I ever say that. Now... care to try answering the one question from my earlier post?

agreed. haven't actually veered much (if at all) from it (as evidenced in the effort to keep it focused on what thoughts and presumptions specifically relating to believing in his resurrection might be.)

Intentionally so, mind you, so as not to complicate the issue. (as does other scripture, such as 1Cor.15:1-4 or 2Tim.2:8.) That doesn't directly address and answer the question. You're merely skating around it with a different question. I restricted a change to one specific issue. You redirected it with a supposition and are now refuting your own supposition.

Most of what you're asking for was intentionally left vague, so as not to inadvertently skew or otherwise taint a genuine and heartfelt answer to my question.

Perhaps you can answer a question concerning this statement (which, I presume you agree with.) Since the promise of salvation comes through faith, it can be rejected if one develops a "heart of unbelief," the conscious and deliberate rejection of Christ and God. Once you honestly believe in your heart that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, how can anyone honestly "undo" that belief that is in their heart? And I trust that you realize merely thinking it in your mind doesn't "make is so" in your heart. (Which is just as true for any change of heart.)

Then it appears to me that the difference between thinking one can, or can't, lose their salvation, probably resides in how we view righteousness. Is it uncommon, or a surprise, to see most people going about to establish their own righteousness? I think not. We can "genuinely want to be righteous" a lifetime. But where does that lead to? Well, according to Romans 3 (and elsewhere), there is none righteous, all have sinned, and all come short of the glory of God. The genuine recognition and acceptance of that (i.e., one's own shortcoming and failure) seems to be a prerequisite for recognizing and accepting the need for a savior. And once past that hurdle, it's a short distance to realizing and believing that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. It suddenly makes sense. It's not my own righteousness that even matters anymore. Not right then (at the time of salvation)... nor ever after. Why? Because the righteousness of God is a gift. And as such, simply put, it is not our own righteousness. It's a gift. Of course, that doesn't automatically mean that we will never again go about trying to establish our own righteousness. Perhaps it's just something bred into man, to "genuinely want to be righteous." And, like as always happens, that path is a dead end. So, I find myself somewhat in disagreement with the statement that we are "continually saved as long as we genuinely want to be righteous." Because I no longer cared to find or think of myself measuring up to it. Maybe that's not a great thing - I don't know. But, never again did I ever doubt my own salvation - not even for a second - in the last 45+ years.

Then, according to this, anyone: 1) is saved, as long they genuinely want to be righteous... and (or) 2) won't lose their salvation as long as they genuinely want to be righteous. Is this your position? Or... not?

LOL... that link won't last long there.

What difference does it make to the topic of dispensationalism? (None whatsoever, as far as I can tell.) In fact, it doesn't appear to me to make much difference most anywhere else either. However, this: ...is another matter altogether. What criteria do you suppose anyone is going to use to think or say what is "profitable writings"? Although, the wealth gospel teachers (and there's a bunch of them nowadays) would surely love that particular translation, and would undoubtedly have a field day with it.

Okay, let's see if I have this right. You don't think that salvation is the result of righteousness, you think that righteousness is the result of salvation. And, if salvation can be (or is) is a state of flux (i.e., if salvation can be lost), then righteousness comes or goes right along with it. So, if you think (as you said) that righteousness implies how we live... hmmm.... (thinking...) Well, shoot. Who ever sees themselves righteous all the time? And when that "not righteous" view strikes... better get myself saved (again.) Am I missing something from your perspective on this?

What does "it" refer to in your sentence? Righteousness ? (The sentence doesn't actually make much sense to me, so I'm trying to read into it what I think it might mean.) If you're saying that you see righteousness as "our feeble attempt to live as God would have us to live," perhaps it helps illustrate that this is the crux of issue. How (or what) we define (and attain to, or acquire) righteousness casts the basis for our soteriology.

My "position" (so to speak) is far from weak, and I think you just proved my point. https://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj20d.pdf However, I have no further interest in arguing the issue, nor will I contend with your belief in (and promotion of) preterism (or partial preterism, or whatever else you might care to call it.)

I recently read (on the Internet, naturally) where righteousness is said to be the "state of moral perfection" that is required by God to enter heaven. And while that might not be the most complete or best definition for it, it doesn't appear to me to be far off. Perhaps if it said that righteousness is the state of moral perfection required for salvation, it'd be right on target. Anybody think otherwise?

curiosity getting the better of me, I checked out the website (just to see who they are or what they do.) and, won't you know, there's video teachings there (many over an hour long...) started and skipped through a couple. 'bout 15-20 minutes was all I could suffer through. and in a nutshell... to me they looked as dead as the twi's ever were. (I.e., not a spit's worth of difference, from what I recall. same old, same old...)

It probably is, because it espouses replacement theology (which is very popular.) Can't say as I agree much with some of the other stuff in that link, though. "New age" stuff has grown so much that it probably ranks well ahead of a couple of "the four major" he mentions (one of which he says is already "dead."). And claiming there was "only one view of end times that existed during the first 300 years of the Church"? Good grief... do they not even read the Bible? Or maybe they've cut the Pauline epistles out entirely. Know what I'm referring to? Well, maybe not. Okay... 2Tim.2:17,18. What resurrection do these folks think Hymenaeus and Philetus were talking about if not related to the end times? And evidently they haven't given much (if any) credence to the idea that Tyndale (or some number of other scholars) may have a better translation of 2Thess.2:3. http://bibleone.net/print_tbs118.html

Well, if it could be read, fine. (I can skim crap - if it is, not saying it is or isn't - pretty quickly.) But to have to listen to it (or watch it on a video) is a real turn off to me unless I know a whole lot more about what it is they're talking about. So, if you can't explain it any better in your own words, I'll have to take a pass. (Besides, I'm just not a big fan of - or believer in - hell anyways.) Furthermore, I don't even know what the heck the "CFFM" website is, or who they are.

Maybe, maybe not. However if (or when) thinking in terms of its general biblical usage, does it matter? After all, it was Peter that put his "epistles" on par with "other scripture" Technically, yes, that is what the word in and of itself means. However, I'm inclined to disagree that fits with its "biblical usage" (unless there's some uniqueness when used with the participle, "the scripture.") I think WW's posting (and position?) on what Scripture is makes pretty good sense to me. (...hey... kind of like holy spirit and Holy Spirit. Make a distinction with the Capital letter. Big - for biblical usage - and a small letter - for the common vernacular usage of it) https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24710-dispensationalism/?do=findComment&comment=593649

I'm inclined to agree, but only because it doesn't exactly fit with my own experience or (limited) understanding of how revelation works. It's a difficult (if not outright impossible) thing get into any kind of sensible discussion on how Paul (or anyone else, for that matter) might have (much less, did) received revelation (say nothing of there being an abundance of it given to him.) If there were a reasonable basis for comparison (and quite frankly, I'm not sure that there is), I probably would lean towards the thinking that he just wrote what he clearly knew was right thing to write. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean he didn't get a poke in the arm (or some other flash of reality) to get him on task. How it went down is all very speculative. Does it even matter at this point how aware of it he was at that exact moment in time, if it was God at work within him? If anything, I suspect that revelation is much more recognizable in hindsight (if it is at all) then it is when it is actually happening.

Unfair or not, I'd still be interested in reading it. If I had to (or for some reason needed to) go listen to what he said about the issue on a Gartmore tape (if it exists there) as a result, maybe I could rummage around for it in some dusty corner of storage (if I even had a ballpark idea where to start looking for it.) Namely because I think there's some truth to the matter, but not necessarily in how it was presented.

What's that suppose to be? A "teaser" line of some sort? Care to explain?

You kept a copy, yes? Something you can share?

too bad. perhaps WW does.