TLC

It appears there is something in the semantics, and the difference between how we see or use certain vocabulary that we don't seem to agree on. If there is a distinction that can be made between speaking by permission or by command, I would be more inclined to take that to mean speaking by inspiration or speaking by revelation. If you were to tell me that you wrote a book, I would probably hear that and think... okay, so you wrote a book. But, if you were to say that you were inspired to write a book, my first thought is probably going to be....okay, what inspired you to write it? Maybe it's that association in my own head between "inspired" and "in spirit action" that I'm too hung up on, but I suppose that a great many things are said and done and accomplished by "inspiration." In a certain sense, one might even say (or claim) that everything that is said or done is the result of inspiration. However, that seems to significantly lessen the worth even having or ever using it in our vocabulary. And for the record, I just don't think it is very common to equate someone being "inspired" to say or write something with them being "commanded" to do so. But then, perhaps the "not by commandment" spoken of by Paul relates more to the message itself rather than the messenger.

Why is this issue so important to you, or why does it bother you so much, chockfull? I don't get it. Why try to make it mean something more than it does? I think we have it really easy in many respects compared to what Paul evidently had to contend with in his day and time. On one hand were the religious zealots of Judaic law (more than a few of them stemming directly out of the church in Jerusalem, led by James.) On the other hand were pagan idolaters that were, in so many words, the extreme opposite. Just imagine how impossible it must have seemed to bring either out of the muck and mire of "the senses world" that they were bred into. In so many words, it required change. And my, oh my... how people in general do hate change. Fast forward to our world today, and what is (or isn't) required for us to fit into the culture around us. Very little, if anything, really. At least, not in the USA. You can pretty much do what you want, go where you want, think what you want, say what you want, whenever you want. The culture today is so diverse, what common molds or casings for it stand out as binding us or holding us back from what God might desire for us? Seems I see what is written here (and certain things written elsewhere) as being meant to free believers from certain cultural practices, norms or ensnarement's, some number of which simply don't exist in our culture today, and direct their (non-spiritual) thinking more towards Christ.

Frankly, I'm not so convinced (at least, not as convinced like I might have been years ago) that these gift ministries "once given" equates to and/or necessarily means "always there." They're given to... whom? The individual, or the church? Okay, I get that they refer the function of an individual within the body. But, exactly what does that mean? That individuals can never function differently if the situation in (or needs of) the church change? Well, I'm not sure. Maybe somebody else here can enlighten me on what the truth really is. However, what I am sure of, is that twi made far, Far, FAR too big a deal and much "to do" over these "5 gift ministries" and who supposedly did or didn't have them.

'Cause it wasn't just in Corinth, and I never said it was or wasn't happening in their fellowships. You injected that. I spoke of it being "in the culture" of that day and time.

Makes no diff to me. (But I blame waysider for posting the link that brought me here... lol.)

I did answer it, in nearly as direct a way as you asked. What was far more obvious was (your) bringing twi's interpretation of it into the picture (which I subsequently called "crap.") That bothers you? Trust me, I've had more than my share of trouble understanding certain verses because of what twi taught. What did you expect, or would have liked me to say? Not so much on those particular verses. Does that mean I have a full or complete understanding of them? No, I never said or claimed that, nor will I. And yeah, I could be wrong... but I think I understand them well enough that they don't jump off the page and scream at me, "Something's wrong here." It was nothing of the sort, and I'm sorry you feel that way. Maybe it's a generational thing (as in, I don't think peers in my generation would have ever taken it as such.) But, maybe it's me, and my thinking is so different than most here, I ought to just quit. We don't have (at least, not in this country - that I've ever heard of) open practices where the worship involved sex with the temple harlots that had shaved heads. So, if you or anyone else wants to rip that verse of context and the culture of its day and time to make some dumbass law out of it, so what? Think that changes the truth of why it was written and what it means?

Hey, you were referring to "Way jargon" and how they interpret those verses, so the crap I spoke of should be plenty obvious enough, and it doesn't need for any more clarification from me. If you have an issue understanding a couple of verses because of some BS that was taught in twi, and are going to throw out or otherwise use that to denigrate the Pauline epistles as a result, well... that's some serious damage that twi has put in your head.

Disgraceful? Never heard of such ridiculousness. (And btw, our girls wore 'em. ...loved'em, as a matter of fact.) Well then, evidently they were full of chit. Sounds like a prime example of how to use the scripture deceitfully. Wrong. Not that crap.

Seems most want a law to live by, to appear (or feel) more righteous... Do you know that the harlots in the pagan temples in Corinth shaved their heads? Made it easy to identify them. And by the way, hair is the covering Paul speaks of. (Not the hijab... unless maybe you have a shaved head, and don't care to be mistaken for a harlot.)

It only started there, because of the (strange, and unexpected) linking of the "overthrow" to Genesis 3:15. Strange and unexpected, as I don't recall ever hearing anything like that from vpw or twi. Yeah, I got that. No problem. I simply had more interest in the concept itself. So, if you still have your refutation of his position, I would be interested in reading it (to see how directly it might - or might not - address the general concept.)

The following does not appear (to me) to merely be a man "inspired" to preach what he did, write what he did, and suffer so much as a result of it. 1Cor.9 [17] For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.

In Paul's situation, it made the difference between him writing what he did because "he felt like it," or because the ascended Christ [and God] instructed (and authorized) him to do so.

Personal experience. Of course, from your (or anyone else's) perspective, that would appear to be personal opinion. The same. (same as I said before.) Whatever purpose or effect the spirit that inspired (or revealed) intended. The difference is not always visible to the brain of the individual experiencing it. (italicized word was added in a correction to my previous post.) I suspect that it rarely does make any difference. God's prerogative, I suppose. Those in which there is absolutely no doubt about it's reality, yet ordinarily impossible to experience or know by your senses. If you can relate to it through any of your own personal experiences, yes. But if you can't, then, no... of course not. I did not, nor do I, make such presumptions. Fact is, I think you're projecting something of your own character. Are you?

So are a great many (other) things in this life, wayside. Most of which are such a big circle, we simply tend not to see where ends meet.

Of course. But, stop and think about what the question was. IF you really think and believe that what Paul wrote is scripture (and some do not, obviously), then the only possible right answer is "when it was written." It only becomes a piece or part of "the Bible" if or when canonized. The task of canonization was merely trying to determine what did or didn't qualified as scripture, not to suddenly "transform" ordinary writings into scripture.

I don't disagree. However, just because something is "self validating" doesn't automatically make it (or mean that it's) impossible for anyone to validate it unto or for themselves. What any of us might accept as validation can vary. Personally, I find this rather hard to dispute or argue against:

Neither was Paul.

Seriously? Then evidently you don't think or believe that Peter wrote 2Peter.

Seems I have a bit of a different perspective, given I believe there's a bit of difference between inspiration and revelation. It's not necessarily in what they look like, or in the effect either may have. In fact, on the outside, it's probably impossible to see any difference whatsoever. And making it even more difficult, I don't know that it's always possible (nor necessary) to make any distinction from the inside (i.e., inside the mind of the person acting on it.) However, there can be - and are, at times - situations where there is "no guesswork" or mistake about which is which from the inside. In other words, I am fully persuaded that there are times when there is absolutely no uncertainty about something being known only by revelation. It is "as real" and "as sure as"... well, as much as the chin on your own face... or anything else that you'd never think to give so much as a second thought to the "reality" of it. That said, when I read what Paul wrote in Galatians 1, it's clear to me that Paul was acting on far more than "inspired action." He knew beyond any and all doubt who and where it was from.

Evidently you entirely missed (or have chosen to ignore) the context of that statement, chockful. It related specifically to (and entirely stemming from) "there is no evidence to suggest that he ever had any real authority other than what he bestowed upon himself."

When they were written, naturally. Think Peter would have had any different answer?

Okay, you're focused on what Geer might have taught. (I say "might," because I don't actually know. Seems like I may have heard some of what he taught years ago, but if so, I'm just not sure when it was or what he said about it, or what his reasons were for it.) However... I have read and given some thought (again, some number of years ago) to what others have said on this matter. As a matter of fact, I think most of it (if not all) falls under a category called "open theism" (which appears to be quite alive and well among some number of bible scholars.) So, I have serious doubts that Geer was "original" with the concept, and if (as you've alluded to previously) he had ulterior reasons to use it to endorse or promote something else... well, he may have either taught it wrong or not understood it well enough. Otherwise, I suspect a couple of teenagers would not have had as easy a time with the rebuttal of it as you say they did. 'Cause the concept appears to be much more than merely "defensible"... (and when presented correctly and cast in the right light, I'm inclined towards believing it.) If anyone is interested in pursuing this a bit further, there's a number of books out there (I don't recall the titles.) A quick search brought the following site up, maybe it will help: https://probe.org/god-and-the-future-examining-the-open-view-of-god/

"only missing the truth of Jesus Christ"? Care to explain what he missed and you (or someone else) didn't?

Is anything ever said (or thought) to be lost if you have never had it (or have never thought you had it)? How can or do you loose something that you may have never had? Maybe this thread is premature in asking whether something can be lost, when there appears to be such a struggle knowing (much less understanding) what it is that's supposedly "found."

Okay, maybe it became lost in the woodwork here (because it was quoted from some other 'non-doctrinal' thread), so I'll say it again. Paul very openly declared himself to be "the apostle" (not "an apostle") to the Gentiles. Perhaps one of the best reasons to take Paul's epistles as "the word of God" is rather succinctly stated in 1Thess.2:13. Because it "effectually worketh also in you that believe." In other words, it just plain works. Is that not proof enough that he was who he said he was, and that the authority for his epistles came from above? Well, it won't be for some (probably not for most), which is not unlike how the many signs given to Israel was not enough that they would believe in the authority that Jesus Christ had. However, the evidence (or proof, if you prefer) is something that each of us can (if so drawn) garner for ourselves. What I have and hold won't suffice for you, nor anyone else. Just like no one else's would for me. Seems we each must "prove it" for ourselves, even as we can (and should) prove for ourselves what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God. (see Rom. 12:2; Eph.5:10; 1Thes.5:21.)