TLC

EW certainly spread a lot of love in places where it was very sorely needed, and certainly didn't deserve such speculative debasement. As much as some here might not like it (and even argue against it), it is true that (real) love does cover certain things over with silence...

Seems to depend on whether you think it has much of anything to do with being born again. Not if you're persuaded that being born again doesn't (or can't) refer to something yet to come.

There's a variance of meanings in the phrase "born again." (for example, see Acts 13:33) And it's not "what" the new man is, but rather, who. New life? Yes, being it's that of the new man. What is it, really, to be born again or to enter the kingdom of God? And does (or how does) your answer to this fit with John 3:8? The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

Seems that's how some thought it was taught in twi, and perhaps in a certain sense (of spiritual awareness) I would be somewhat inclined to agree with such a statement ... but not from the perspective of it being anything more than the (spiritual life of) Christ within them. In other words, I no longer see in Acts 2 the creation (or birth) of new life, but rather, the enjoinment to (and manifestation of) the living Christ.

odd. 'cause I thought it pretty much was... Once again, seems we have a very different way of looking at things.

Frankly, I don't recall actually thinking or caring much about whether he did or didn't demonstrate power back then. What I did think and care more about was how God worked in my own life, and whether I demonstrated power. (And I don't think I was alone in that respect.) But, after long last seeing that for the egotism that sort of thinking breeds, as well as taking a much closer and more honest look at when the church of the body of Christ started (it wasn't Acts 2) and how it operates, I hold a very, very different view on the need, value, and significance of this "demonstrating power."

Odd, how it appears by repeating your entire earlier post you make it look like I was in disagreement with the entirety of it. And then, rather than pick up on the actual point of it, your concern is merely to reinforcing your prescribed solution to what the history of the church was in the first century. Just because the perspective I hold is (evidently) very different than yours doesn't mean that I think TWI any better fits with or fulfills "the 1942 promise." But, seems you were so focused on your own angle on it, that you missed that (and anything else of value.)

Seems I find myself in disagreement with the essence of that. "They" (which from the context of your post, appears to be aimed at the church that was based in Jerusalem), and the Word of God that they knew (be it the Torah/Old Testament, the SPOKEN word, or The Word BY EXPERIENCE AND POWER), didn't get to Saul or get him to do anything - aside from hauling them off to prison and making sure they were sentenced to death. And, as for the Greeks, I don't see that it was anything that they believed as a result of something they saw (or experienced) that turned the world upside down. Instead, I think it was their response to the words that Paul spoke - which they then believed to be the Word of God - which turned the world upside down. For 1500 years, the most incredible signs, miracles and wonders that can possibly be imagined continually failed to keep Israel on track. Sure, maybe they worked temporarily to steer them in the right direction. But, sooner or later, the effect wore off, and Israel was back in the crapper. And when all things prophesied beforehand began to be fulfilled in Jesus Christ, where was Israel? Out to lunch. Couldn't recognize the signs of the times, even when it hit them right between the eyes. Risen from the dead, with MANY infallible proofs, with MANY witnesses, and still - those that KNEW the law would not believe that Jesus Christ was the Messiah that had been promised (by the Word of God) to their fathers. What then... do you suppose that Israel was (and were) simply the wrong choice? So now God simply choses a different people or nation(s) to believe His Word, His promises, because of what THEY (this newly selected group) see with their eyes, or experience with their senses? Well, that's certainly not how I see it going down. Granted, Saul was evidently one of those hard headed Israelites that couldn't believe squat unless... something in the senses realm knocked him on his arse. Which, as you know, happened. Because... God was ready to go a completely different direction. Saul's response? Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? Just say whatever it is... I will do it. So, real or true believing is the response God wants to simply hearing His Word - tout seul. Which, incidentally, shows up in the next chapter of Acts (i.e., with the household of Cornelius. Which Peter evidently forgets until many years later, when he finally recalls it in order to come to Paul's defense in Acts 15.) Sure, it's no secret that the Corinthians were carnally minded. And what better way was there to condition and cement the mind into an extremely senses oriented view of everything in life aside from sex and the endorphins and dopamine it releases in the brain? So, let's not forget to take that into account when reading 1&2 Corinthians. More importantly, consider what's first written to the church in Thessalonica, in 1Thes.2:13. For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. Okay, enough on this already. Not sure what else I could say on it that explains this particular perspective on it any better. But it's a prominent distinction between Paul's gospel, and the gospel of the Kingdom. The church centered at Jerusalem? I'd agree, at least, for a while. I'm just not sure how deep into Acts that really extends. Nor am I sure (or convinced of) how much "staying power" that kind of ministry has, or might ever (really) have. However, that said, I would agree with this: I just don't think anybody has ever known it as it was originally given to the apostle Paul. Parts of it? ...perhaps. Just not as well, or in its entirety. But, maybe that's by design. As neither has anyone since ever needed to. What's written has been written. And perhaps the beauty of all the individual members of the body working together, rather mysteriously, to carry out the ministry of reconciliation exemplifies the goodness and manifold wisdom of God (and in ways that cannot be attributed to anyone in particular, either individually or as a particular sect, aside from Christ alone - being the head of the body. And in ways that will eventually reward genuine believing - which is not predicated by, or reliant on, trusting whatever is known by the senses, or through the wisdom of men.)

It was not, and does not. (Furthermore, I think your image misses way too many crossthreading, and blenderizes stuff that absolutely needs to be kept separated...)

While my perspective might not be considered the opposite of that, it sure doesn't sync well with it. Personally, I find myself astonished at the divineness of scripture - and the venerable coherency of it all. Yes, it does contain within it many practical solutions for living a better life here on earth. But more than that, it inevitably frames the invisible spiritual world around us in ways that speak of realities that cannot be known or understood otherwise. And beyond what Jesus' words, actions and life (that was) might mean for us today, I believe what Paul wrote is what Christ's words and life (that now is) mean for us today.

Not saying they (Doop and Hefner) didn't have a significant impact on TWI's growth... I'm simply not persuaded it's as much as some here seem to want to portray it as being. Probably because I don't think it was (in the mind of many back then, if not the majority) any particular individual's ministry. At least, not at first. Granted, somewhere along the way it transitioned from "the ministry of reconciliation" into "the Way ministry"... evolving as VPW's ministry (TWI), or into Wade's, or Hefner's, or Lynn's, or Finnegan's, or _________ (fill in the blank)'s ministry. Seems to me that 'bout the time anyone "takes the reins" of a particular group or movement (however it's labeled), the head of the body is no longer the head (at least, not in practice.) What tells your little pinky finger to bend in such and such a manner? The hand? Or the arm? Or the mouth? Nope. It's the head, and only the head. Without Christ at the helm, how "spiritual" are the actions of anyone... or any ministry... going to be?

I don't think it was only the "displaced" youth that were attracted to it, or a part of fueling its growth. Granted, it was, in many respects, what the older generations of conservatism (and status quo) here in this country might deem to be rebellious... against capitalism, materialism, and the war. (that may not be all inclusive, but you get the drift.) Times, they were a cha___n__gin'. The future was terribly uncertain, and part of that meant... looking for a better way. We lacked answers. The denominational churches at the time were (by and large) dying. Cults were on the rise. How many of us were searching? Well, easier to ask... which of us weren't? So many things and events (Woodstock, for example) were anomalies. And (for the record), VPW himself said that he was a product of the times. Whatever that meant (or allowed), y'all can figure out or debate. Consider how many were searching for answers... which for some undoubtedly meant, hungering for truth... and ask yourself, Would God allow an entire generation (the baby boomers) die of starvation? Well, people typically don't die of starvation; they die of malnutrition.

it's backwards, but the intended meaning is clear enough. And which of us hasn't had those thoughts from time to time? Given that they're probably the normal result of reflecting back on something in order to learn more of how or why it went down the way it did (and pausing to wonder what life might be like now had different choices or actions been taken)... perhaps such things only become "self-defeating" when there's a failure to adjust our thinking and perception - not just of what happened, but just as important - of life going forward. Live and learn (another old adage...) Can't say that I wholly agree with that. But, perhaps your intent in capitalizing it was to tie it only to Christ. Seems there's just too many times I've seen (and experienced) it where the truth not only hurts... it hurts a lot. To the point of many, many tears. Speaking of old adages, another is "Times heals all wounds." Though we might agree that it's actually God (not time) that heals, there is something to be said for the soothing effect of time on the wounds that seem to result from hearing or learning the truth. And there are certain wounds (of a different nature) that time may do little or nothing for. Fortunately, pain (actual pain) is not the same in our thoughts or memory as it is when experienced.

thanks.

If anyone has heard or knows anything more on this, I'd be interested to hear it.

To avoid (or lessen) any confusion that might have arisen as a result of my mention of genetics, perhaps I should say something else. Regardless of any reasons how or why we find ourselves where we are at in this life (and no, I don't think that we all came into this life equally equipped, nor is this life necessarily fair when viewed only in comparison to others), our life in the flesh now appears to me to be a proving (or, proofing, in baking terms) time of sorts that is somehow or in someway preparing us for the next (eternal) life (presuming one qualifies for it.) Therefore, I think God can and will have the means to make sense of it all, in spite of what we all might think things look like now. Consequently, any reasons for what (or why) we are who we are need to be relegated to the back of the bus, because it's how we deal with it (whatever "it" is) going forward that is going to make a difference for all eternity.

Thanks for the kind words, T-bone. They were unexpected, but appreciated. I'm quite aware that my approach to things sometimes (unintentionally) comes off rather abrasively, and once that happens the most prudent (or at least, pragmatic) choice usually seems to be to simply shut down. I suspect that my odd methods of reasoning and speaking are largely genetic (perhaps as much as 85%), and most of time that 15% or so that isn't has to work exceedingly hard at bridging the gap between that and what is more common or normal for most people. Though, I can't say that I've ever thought or heard of it described as being "destructive in that it breaks everything down so as to expose all parts for closer examination." Frankly, I don't see it as breaking. Rather, it's a matter of very carefully taking things apart (dismantling, if you prefer) so as to be able to see and understand how, or in what other possible ways, things can, might, or should be put together to make better (or at least, some) sense of it. Although, through the process, things can and do get tested, rejected, tossed out, and/or broke. (BUT, the person themselves should be doing that within themselves, and not in or for somebody else... where it only lasts until they remember that it's not what they like or believe!) Regardless... and as unsettling and uncomfortable as it might be to admit it... the way that God has fashioned intelligence, it just doesn't automatically translate into goodness, kindness, meekness, and a whole host of other attributes directly related to and associated with believing and loving God, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or any of the rest of the brethren, mankind, or the world. In fact, it more often than not finds itself in opposition to genuine godliness or spirituality, being inextricably bound to the senses and in desperate need of understanding something before being able to believe it... whereas the person that knows love, simply believes as a result of it, and bypasses the long and arduous work of "taking apart and putting together" in order to understand and believe. The "wood, hay and stubble" of lots of very smart people just ain't going to make it through the fire... So, there's a lot of "debatable" issues that don't inspire me to do much debating (like it once did.) I'd rather more selectively pick my way around the edge of something to see whether or not a few "issues of the heart" might surface. And if not, well... nothing ventured, nothing gained.

What is the differentiation (or definition) an extreme dispensationalist compared to one that isn't? And what was VPW, who evidently used (or borrowed, if you prefer) scripture from previous administrations when it fit better with his own thoughts and ideas?

Giving no concern to nomenclature, it's the differences propounded in where or how (or even whether) administrations actually change that (at least in part) has lead me to believe that this is precisely what the "rightly dividing" of 2Tim. 2:15 is directed towards. Not whether some pie is cut apart into even sections or bite sized chunks, and not whether the words, phrases or figures of speech of an ancient languages are correctly parsed or translated. There is no "Christ Administration." He lived in a time after the giving of the law to Israel. If there is a change in God's instructions to Israel while Christ was here on earth, I just don't see it. Sure, there was some added clarification to what the law meant... or where and when it was or wasn't applicable. But where or how do you see a change? When did he ever tell any of the 12 to abandon or end the law? It sure didn't end on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 (when they were in the temple at an hour of prayer.) Well, I'd continue, but it's undoubtedly off the topic of this thread a bit and would be better off elsewhere (where it can get ignored and, as before, buried in another dead thread. May it rest in peace...)

start off on crooked handlebars, and you'll think crooked is straight and straight is crooked... so best be carefully fleshing out a doctrine focused (or based) on one verse alone.

well, I'm inclined to think so...

hmmm... although I'm actually not in disagreement with the lead in part, I'm concerned with where you might be headed with that. (Galatians 4:30 comes to mind.) The Torah (as you call it) was given to Israel. Considering that it wasn't given nor intended for the Gentile nations, how much need or use of it might the apostle to the Gentiles actually have (aside from fending off other zealous adherents to it)? Why suppose that for something to be written by revelation it was something "dictated" to him? I suppose it's just not how I see or think revelation works. Perhaps this isn't the best way to say it, but from my perspective... revelation is so sharp and specific (in the mind's eye) that one's view of reality is altered to such an extent that there is no other reality. Perhaps another way to say it is that his thoughts become our thoughts... and it happens so seamlessly that it* can easily be missed. *i.e., the alteration (or extension, if you prefer) of what is known to be "real." How or why did so many get into this thinking that everything that is of God, or is the "word of God," has to be some stinkin' rule or law or "commandment" of some sort? How else would you have or expect the Lord Jesus Christ (or God Himself) to communicate something to you, so that it wouldn't come across as such?

for me, the inherent difficulty (or problem, if you prefer) with that is where or what it leads to. namely: If it came forth like that for Paul, then why should what he wrote be all that much more credible or important than what I believe God inspires within me? (And if that doesn't strike a chord within you, perhaps it will when your own understanding of the Word is more... how shall I say it... lifted up?) Besides, exactly how does that fit with Proverbs 3:5? Being somewhat familiar with what some number of things are said and taught to be Paul's thorn in the flesh... I've found myself wondering at times why it might have been so painful for Paul. If you suppose it to be something outside of himself (i.e., other people), then I'd imagine the very most painful for Paul would be beloved Israelite brethren, who's zealousness for the law was continually perverting his gospel of grace. But, if you suppose it to be more subjective - something wrong or at odds within himself - then it's hard to imagine anything much more troublesome or painful than his being driven to break away from so many years of his own fanaticism for the law. Think it was hard for some of you to... what's the word used here at GSC... "decompress" after your years in TWI? Well, multiply the worst you can imagine by 1000 fold... and I'm still inclined to think it doesn't come close to being comparable to what Paul probably had to deal with in his mind. Trained at the feet of Gamaliel. Profited above many of his equals. But counted as dung. Rely on his own understanding of the Word? Nah. Don't think so. Galatians 1:12 says it about as plainly and as clearly as it can get. Revelation is not inspiration. (And there's a whale of a difference.) There is no mistake, no guesswork whatsoever involved. It hits the mark so cleanly and so spot on, it's... well, it's perfect!

Well, I'm not convinced of that "mostly trained" part of your statement. But, apply it to the WC's greatly oversized "how great thou art" ego development program, and yeah - I'm all in. (Been there, done that. Damaged right along with the rest of y'alls...)

After the events of Pentecost (Acts 2), I think so. Socialism works great until you run out of other people's monies. Which is also why they ended up so broke. No joke. (Rom.15:26.) So why did they do it? Simply because they were convinced that once all of Israel recognized the error of their ways and accepted Christ as their Messiah, he would return from the heavens (to Jerusalem) and restore the kingdom after a relatively short period of tribulation. (The time of Jacob's trouble.) So, they prepared... by selling their homes and pooling their resources. Worked just fine... until the money ran out. The attempt to "replicate" the first century church (i.e., Acts 2:4ff) was one helluva mistake, and a gross misunderstanding of when the church of the body of Christ actually first began. (take a closer look at the meaning of that word "chief" in 1 Tim.1:15.)