TLC

Simple obedience to the teachings of Jesus can be (and probably is) taken by some to mean "making him Lord" in your life. However, while that may be a nice way to live life, there is nothing in that that involves believing anything more or beyond what can be known by your senses.

Doubts about why or how a person thinks they "make him Lord." If that requires a living Lord, which has a prerequisite of a resurrection, no problem. Yes, it's one event, but it's the key issue.

Perhaps it has more to do with the approach to biblical research. I suspect I was "as well" trained and indoctrinated into twi's methodology as anyone else here, probably more so than most. So, yeah... given sufficient time (and motivation), I have the both the materials and the means to dig into the etymology of pretty much anything appearing in scripture. And there was a time in life when that was pretty much the touchstone used for testing or "measuring" (so much softer a word than "judging") how much truth was in something. And you know... it did wonders for my ego. Like, wonders how it got so big? Oddly enough, after some number of rather significant "turn of events" over the last, oh, maybe 8 or 10 or 15 years or so (I won't bore you with any details), I've developed a new perspective on quite a number of things, including both how to do (and evaluate) biblical research. It's probably more of a "top down" approach, based of how it might fit within the overall framework of scripture, rather than a "bottom up" approach that seeks to define or establish basic building blocks prior to seeing what sort of construct can be built from them. Hence, when I see you talk about "Biblical definitions," in my mind I'm instead thinking about "Biblical usages." Not sure if that makes sense to you, or not...

scripture. (same as what Peter aligns it with.)

I have no doubt that worked just fine for an Israelite (back then.) But honestly speaking, I have plenty of reason to doubt that it works the same for anybody and everybody today. Because separated and apart from the resurrection, I see nothing that requires anyone to believe anything beyond or more than what they can know and believe by their senses. And as I see it, Israel is the proof (after hundreds and hundreds of years of repeated signs, miracles, and wonders) that "going by your senses alone" never had any long lasting effects, and is actually rather incapable of genuinely pleasing God. p.s. He was no longer dead, after the resurrection.

You don't need those exact words do you? If not, maybe one of the following will work for you: For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office: For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing. ...whereof I Paul am made a minister; Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church: Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God; Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion. Or, maybe it is best left to be said in the words of another (like Peter): And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Seems I may not be as informed or aware of exactly what (or how) Geer may have taught this, but I (personally) am not sure that necessarily see or take Omniscience to mean the same as (or be the equivalent of) Omnipotence (or visa versa.) Furthermore, I don't have any real difficulty thinking of His Omnipotence (His unbound and unrestricted ability to create, change, conceal - or in short, "do" - whatever He wants) as something specifically reliant upon Omniscience. Now, as far as thinking about what Omniscience itself might means, it gets a bit more complex, as it appears (to me) to be bifurcated. From nearly all perspectives, it appears to be unrestricted and limitless. The one exception (of course) being that of "free will" - any further discussion of which wouldn't have much of any place here in this forum. However, I'll conclude this by stating the reason why this works, is because "love never faileth" - which God, in His infinite wisdom, surely knows.

ha! lucky you.

Denounced by most here at GSC, for sure. But there are caveats I am inclined to make here, as there is something that is true to "the law of believing" (although not taught right in twi), and my understanding of how he taught "Christ in you" seems to be different than others here, and dispensationalism (like the rest of these things) is definitely not something new or original with vpw (nor was it taught right.) Not to say that this (or any other splinter group that I've heard of) has (or ever will have) it sorted out correctly, given the mistakes and misunderstandings that are so deeply imbedded in twi culture.

Hey... at least you didn't think you'd gotten born of the wrong seed.

Are you a fatalist?

Well, evidently I think it's possible to know (from what's written) a lot more of what they knew than you seem to think possible. (And, I also think it's just as important to consider what they probably didn't know.) Think it's still cursed? Exactly. That's the question that needs a better answer. If we can't work forward, then how about working backwards. Let's start with how anyone can be (or is) saved today, and never mind whether it applies anywhere else.

Does "accepting Christ" always necessarily make Christ Lord (viz., in your life)? Frankly, I'm not persuaded it does. Which raises a question of what you (or anyone else) thinks either of those statements mean. So, let me cut to the chase here. What is the relationship between either statement, and believing that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead? Is either one possible without the other? Because it appears to me that there have been deliberate efforts by some in positions of prominence (not by you, per se) to diminish and/or eliminate any need to believe in his resurrection.

Probably far, far more than He is ever given credit or thanks for! (Obviously, that's not in the sense of judgments.) However, speaking of judgment, it appears to me that God (being longsuffering as He is) tends to wait until iniquity has run its course in a nation and is "full" before judgment is unleashed (see Gen. 15:16; Rom. 11:25.) Perhaps it's akin to allowing someone to stick their foot so far down their own throat there's absolutely no way to retract or correct what's been done. Of course, where that is or what that means isn't exactly clear... and we never tend to have the sort of patience and longsuffering that we could ever relate much to it anyways. Yikes! Who in their right mind would?

Nor am I. But it's "the twi way." Agreed. Pretty well said. Seems I agree.

Never "pretended" they were the same. You asked how I got to home plate, and evidently weren't expecting or open to anything except answers in a format that you're accustomed to and conditioned in, and you have zero interest in first or second base because they're "the wrong direction" in your mind. Maybe you figure it out yourself someday (but I doubt it.) I'm done with it.

I'm nearly dumbfounded that you won't, can't, or don't care to consider any of the directly quoted from scripture phrases I plainly gave in my last post as being some "Scriptural rational" for a certain "dispensing" (of the Word of God) that markedly set or changed or altered the relationship between God and man. What, did you need chapter and verse quoted with each phrase before acknowledging that they were indeed "scriptural"? Furthermore, lest anyone forget, this thread didn't exactly start in a doctrinal forum - else I might never have gone there. But, since you asked (and since its not something fabricated on a whim), I steered into it by illustrating the basic fact that there was indeed a "dispensing" of something at various times which coincided with a significant change in the relationship between God and man. However, that part of it evidently either went over your head, or went clean clear through. (Which is probably why I might have avoided this aspect of it had it started some other way.) You want to drop it because its too hard for you to see any scriptural rational for it? Fine. Kindly lay off the unjust critique that it doesn't exist just because you can't (or don't care to ) follow it. Have at it. I can hardly wait to see your detailed Scriptural rationale and in-depth explanation of it. Who knows, maybe I'll like it.

If that were so, why is it that none of the prophets of old (who obviously had a connection of some sort restored) are ever thought of as being "born again"?

I think this is important to note, and am inclined to agree with it. Furthermore, I don't see the usage of it in 1Pet.1:23 being a simple one time event in the past (as would be indicated if in the aorist tense,) which doesn't exactly fit with its typically Christian "born again" usage or reference to it here in verse 23. However, it does fit with the living word of God (that is required for the purification of "your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren" that is written in verse 22...) yeah, well... I don't believe that, seeing he giveth to all life (and as noted in Acts 17:28, "For in him we live, and move, and have our being...") And even were it feasible for the soul to have any sort of consciousness or awareness apart from (or eternally distanced from) God - the crux of it being the awareness of their separation from God - there would be absolutely no will (nor reason) to remain alive. If there is no conscious in the grave (i.e., the first death), why suppose it would be any different in the second (forever) death?

Giving some consideration to the manifold wisdom of God, I don't know why you would insist on saying that God always had it planned by one way (unless you start with Genesis 1:2 and jump straight to Rev. 21.) Sure, I wouldn't have questioned it had you said that He knew which way it would play out. (Maybe He did, maybe He didn't. Frankly, I'm not sure. Either way, I believe He has the means to, and knows exactly how to keep it on track.) I'm just not so quick to think or say it was only planned by "one way." Perhaps you need to fill in a lot more details of what you see in "by way of His son."

No, it's an issue of the heart.

Yes, but it merely shifts the issue to knowing what it is to believe, or what is to be believed. Okay, "Believe God." Are you going to leave it at that with no other parameters? Then how does that fit with and what do you make of James 2:19?

My view of it sees these as two very different events. The wrath to come points to the tribulations written in Revelations (and referred to in Jeremiah as the time of Jacob's trouble.) The final judgement sounds like something after death, such as the great white throne. Of course, the question arises as to when anyone might have first known of either of these events, and why anyone that didn't know about them would need (or would think they needed) salvation from them. Really? And exactly what sort of evidence or scriptures might you be basing that statement on? Who or where do you see that anyone is saved by that?

So, you think what saves one person is no different that what saves anybody else?

Why suppose that everyone seeks rescue or deliverance from the same things? Furthermore, are you supposing that the conditions for salvation are the same for all?