TLC

IF you are supposing that much silence portrays some sort of great ignorance of that particular subject matter, perhaps you'd allow me to suggest otherwise. I don't doubt there are a few others that occasionally read here that know as much or more than I, and I'm no neophyte on the issue. What is it, exactly, that you would like to bring up or point out about it?

"how to use their authority and inherent ability to defeat the adversary in the spiritual competition of life and win!" Holy schmolly... here I am, stuck at thinking that the whole armour of God enables us to "stand against the wiles of the devil"... or that it's God that can "bruise Satan"... but they have (or say that each person has) the authority and "inherent ability" to defeat the adversary? Isn't that what Christ (and Christ alone, according to Isaiah 63:3) does when he returns? (oh... but that's not the extreme defeat they're talking about. check. this is only little "baby steps" towards it...) Geesschh... if anyone thought the egotism in TWI couldn't get any more blatant or worse, well.. maybe time to guess again.

This IS in a doctrinal discussion forum, even were it in the "questioning faith" subset of it, and all doctrines (religious or not, questioned or not) are inherently built on certain premises that are recognizable presumptions, regardless of whether or not they are true. We ALL have premises that are presumed to be true, regardless of whether they are branded as being Christian or religious. The differences between what I believe and what you (or DWBH, or anyone else) believe(s), relates to: (1) what premises we are (or have been) willing to accept, and (2) whatever we have "mentally constructed" based on said premises. If you care to honestly think about it, my initial post to DWBH did not question, attack, or level any charge (however you want to say it) against what he (rather bluntly) stated as his premises. What difference does it make if you disagree with someone's premises? They accept it as being true, and you don't. Good luck going anywhere with that. However, I was probing for what sort of logic was (or might be) involved in his dissing of Paul's writings based on what he said he did accept as his personal "Canon" of the New Testament. Of course, he skirted the issue, by accusing me of needing excuses for believing something which he plainly doesn't, and never directly engaging with the question that was raised. In other words, he responded by attacking whatever he could presume to be my premises. Why is it that you remain silent when DHBH openly (and for no reason) falsely accused me of "needing excuses," yet when I call him out on it, you are quick to come to his defense? Are you afraid of him, or are that impressed with his rhetoric? Or, maybe you simply agree with his premises, and are likewise quick to imagine fault with mine. Yeah, similar (perhaps) to how CNN promotes freedom of thought. lol... (No doubt they're convinced they do a good job of it.)

Then why have them? Of course you don't. Yet, you are evidently compelled to denigrate anyone else that doesn't believe as you do, in a forum where such things are presumed to be true. A reference to scripture in a doctrinal forum (as this purports itself to be) is not an excuse. Furthermore, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that "dispensation" is a reasonably good English translation of the Greek work oikonomia, which (in one form or another) is used some number of times in the Bible. Though, given your propensity to pick and chose whatever you want to represent truth, it's comes as no surprise that anything and everything that you personally don't or can't believe must absolutely be, "man made." Alive and well, thank you for asking. (But quite frankly, I actually think you don't give a rat's arse about my personal relationship with him.)

So, what good reason might you have for Jesus Christ's refusal to even speak to the Gentiles that sought to meet with him in John 12:20-22, and why did his apostles never conduct any outreach to the Gentiles after the day of Pentecost (as evidenced by Acts 11:19, and further attested to in Galatians 2:9)?

So... was "having too much fun" as a region guy around that same time was something significantly more than that? (a rhetorical question, no answer expected)

Might I suggest that perhaps a more patriarchal view is worth deeper consideration? Rom.8 [15] For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. 1Cor.8 [6] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Gal.4 [6] And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Eph.4 [6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. Jas.1 [17] Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

To be fair, as of yet I haven't read (or even browsed through) your book (which you so kindly provided a link to yesterday.) At some point in the near future I will, and undoubtedly have a better sense of your perspective on it. In the interim, I'll simply make a few general (and a few more specific) comments on the "outline" (presuming it's fair to call it that) that you've given. Generally speaking, it seems to me that your separation of the law into "parts A & B" as well as the greatly extended (or distended) "period of transition" between dispensations significantly complicate the matter (much more than might make any kind of sense to me.) Furthermore, there's no mention (perhaps there is in your book, I haven't looked yet) of what sort of differences (or changes) there might be in the relationship between God and man for various times. More specifically, I see the "times of ignorance" spoken of in Acts 17:30 as referring to the entire period of time right up to and including the time in Acts 17:23, where they built an altar "TO THE UNKNOWN GOD." I also see a very notable change in God's prescription for man after the flood, after Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord, and new (or revised, however you want to think of it) guidelines and instructions (and a covenant) were given to Noah and his sons and all flesh upon the earth. (see Gen. 8:21-9:17.) Jesus Christ (and his followers) all lived by and under the law of Moses. Furthermore, I see no notable differences between how anyone can or would be saved during that time, and the times going all the way back to Moses and the giving of the law. (see Luke 10:25-26.) Consequently, I see no real indications, reason or purpose for a separate or distinct "Christ Administration."

Seems I probably agree with that (and the eighth.) But not that. If Eden (as you've referred to it) is counted as the first, after the fall would be the second, after the flood (c. Noah) the third, the law (i.e., Moses) was the fourth, the gospel of grace (i.e., Paul - not Pentecost) the fifth, after the gathering the sixth, the return of Christ the seventh, and the new heavens and earth the eighth. At least, that's currently how I see it ...and as you might have already surmised, that wasn't whipped up on some last minute effort.

Care to explain? (There's been a few attempts here to discuss administrations, but it seems they end before they ever start...

To a certain degree, sure, but not "all." For if he was some great (spiritual) one, God would cover for him, right? ('til He didn't.)

yeah, right. not one red cent... ever. phffftttt..... isn't it fairly common knowledge that (in vpw's own words) TWI "bought Donnie his doctorate"?

What hogwash. Doctrinal forums are predicated on the acceptance of scripture as truth. So, if you don't accept scripture as truth, your running off at the mouth don't mean squat in a discussion about what the truth is inside a doctrinal forum. (But feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong.)

Throw stones at me if you must, but I'm going to say it anyways.... All the penitence in the world isn't actually what saves any of us. Matter of fact, I'm not persuaded it's even a necessary prerequisite for salvation. Granted, it can (and perhaps often does) precede it. But, not always. Where does it say that Cornelius did? Or for that matter, Paul? And why is it not evident in Acts 16:30,31? Or Acts 17? Sure, it was part of Peter(and the 12)'s gospel. But not so much, Paul's, when the real "change of heart" (i.e., repentance) came after salvation (not before it.)

To clarify a point... it was late Friday, and perhaps I didn't take enough time to note that it was the rejection of Stephen's testimony (in Acts 7) that established Israel's (as a nation) failure to accept Christ as the Messiah. With Acts 9 being the record of Saul on the road to Damascus (which was foremost in my mind as I hastened to it), it was all too easy to think of it coming so quickly after Stephen's death (and skipping Acts 8.)

While I somewhat agree with the kingdoms link, I don't think it likely that the 12 apostles ever thought that they were commissioned (or that it was their task, however you want to say it) to "preach Jesus" to the Gentiles. Fact is, they were specifically commanded not to by Jesus himself. Well... perhaps you suppose Acts 1:8 nullified or changed that. But, take a real honest to goodness look at it, and think... did it, really? Who said or told you that this means (or meant) anything about being a witness to the Gentile (aka, dogs) of the world? Were not some of their own brethren already scattered unto the uttermost part of the earth? And, if they thought it meant (what most Christians nowadays seem to think it means) that they were to evangelize to all throughout the earth... then how does that fit or get reconciled to the plain fact that the 12 refused to leave Jerusalem in spite of the intense persecution there, that Peter had to be so strongly coerced to even darken the doorway to the house of Cornelius, or that by the time of Acts 11:19 (which some think a good 8 or 9 years after Pentecost) they had not so much as blinked in that direction (much less thought about it)? Maybe the difficulty is in our inability to relate much to or comprehend the Jewish (or Israelite, if you prefer) mindset. They were the chosen people, AND... they knew it ! What they also knew and were well aware of was the promise of a coming Messiah, the restoration of the kingdom to Israel (where they - the 12 apostles - would oversee 12 tribes), after which Israel would fulfill its role as a kingdom of priests, to go out as evangelists and priests unto the rest of the world. This was, after all, that which was said and spoken to Israel by Moses, Isaiah, and other prophets of old. So... what was their efforts directed towards? Simply to persuade the whole of Israel to accept Jesus as the promised Messiah. After which, he would stand, and return to earth... to finish bringing to pass all that was promised aforetime. BUT... it was not to be. Because, even with the plain and clear sign of Jonah put before them (i.e., resurrection from the dead), the rulers of Israel (speaking for the nation, as a whole) would NOT have this man (Jesus, the Christ) to rule over them. When was this established? Acts 8, folks. Acts 8. When and where do you see the story change and God changing direction? Acts 9. What changed, exactly? Well, it started with Saul... who, after a brief spat with some not so friendly Jews in Damascus, escapes to Arabia. Mt. Sinai, perhaps. Pretty much disappears off the scene for a few years, with God telling him to get away from and stay the heck out of Jerusalem. Why...? Maybe it just took a few years to "unwind" from all the years of intense religious indoctrination that he endured as a Pharisee of the Pharisees. Whatever the reason(s), he remains separated from the 12 and the church at Jerusalem. So, when does the church of the body of Christ and "Paul's gospel" (aka, the gospel of grace) start? With Paul. (Period.) He even says it (bluntly), in 1Tim.1:15. (Look up the real meaning of "chief" if you doubt it. The verse doesn't say he was the worst sinner. He was first in line to be saved by grace, and by grace alone - and he knew it. There was simply no other way, nor any other reason whatsoever for him to be saved, when the risen Lord and Savior knocked him off his high horse.) THAT is when the real administration of grace began (not Acts 28.) Neither VPW (and TWI), nor Bullinger, nor a lot of others ever had or got this right, and it makes one heck of a difference in understanding what is written Acts, the Pauline epistles, as well as other scripture. For all the "rightly dividing" that was talked about, we actually couldn't even get that this verse makes the point that you have to know which piece of the pie goes where and to whom it is addressed (and NOT that all the pieces are the perfectly right size or shape and evenly divided.)

For sure it was part of LCM's belief... which undoubtedly (perhaps, unfortunately) had an effect (or played into) what motivated him.

Actually, given the magnitude of "the prison epistles," I'm rather undecided on it.

It's actually not that your view on the matter that's unclear to me. You see the millennial kingdom as "in progress now," and I don't. And at this point, evidently there isn't much that's going to ever change your mind about that. So, we'll end up (at best) agreeing to disagree.

Nothing much. Only your failure to see (much less understand) what sin, or the purpose and effect of the law, is.

What part of the law was not in play with (and had no effect on) Saul? It was very much specifically real and applicable to him at the time.

This is a convenient fiction on your part. Following the law is by definition not sin. Breaking the law is. To argue that following the law would be sin is to argue that the law itself is sinful, which is my point, not yours. Fiction? Defined your way, then do tell... which law did Saul (aka, Paul) not keep, and what was his sin?

Didn't want to offer links, the omission was intentional. Which allows you to remain safely within what you already know. And my comment at the end of the post was more of a general observation than it was personal... but perhaps the closer to the truth something is the more it tends to sting. Evidently you, Raf, have yet to even see (much less understand) what sin is - else you would never have said that. Which is further proof that you absolutely do not see the purpose and effect of the law. You rag on Bolshevik for changing the definition of god you want to stick to here, yet, you have no compunction about doing the same when it fits with your agenda. Seriously, Raf? Even from your very sense knowledge conditioned brain you can't see that nowhere here in any of my posts did I ever (as you so blatantly claim) "excuse temporal atrocity"? The "end game" (so to speak) is directed towards spirituality, not some dumb little "cookie" that you've reduced it to. The law (given to a very limited group of people, for a very limited period of time) merely proved that no one (no matter how special, no matter how favored, no matter how many "signs, miracles, and wonders" were done for) was going to gain or add one lick of "spirituality" to their stature (and inherent nature, as a result of Adam's choice.) To "live by the law," even if perfect in every way, was to live by your senses. Hence, if Jesus would have cast a stone... the sin of it didn't reside in breaking the law, but in breaking the spirit (i.e., living by the spirit, rather than the senses.) The law was not a path to achieve spirituality or overcome death. Yet, that is precisely how Israel (and the senses oriented mind) view it. Rather, it was a pointer (or testimony) to the Messiah, who would redeem man from his corrupted (senses only) way of thinking. To use or think of the law as anything other than that (such as the only basis for morality), is a trap, resulting in defeat and death.

Point being, the moral basis for any act is always relative to something, regardless of whether or not it involves or affects anyone other than the one acting. At best, you only have the ability (or intellect, if you prefer) to relate it to that which is, without a doubt, temporal (i.e., in your own life and/or the whole of society.) Don't be ridiculous, raf. To do that, one would need to put themselves above, or in the place of, God Himself. And you've entirely missed any consideration for how significant something might eternally benefit the whole in lieu of what it cost a particular individual. In other words, might not be "a cookie" (to use your own crass and demeaning vocabulary) later for them, if the motive relates elsewhere. Nice try to make the straw man switch, but I never said it was proof. However, there is empirical evidence for it. Neither is it real hidden or all that difficult to find on the Internet. But, seems you're not only ignorant of it (yet pretending to be real smart about it), you're too skeptical (or too lazy, I'm not sure which) to do even a single search for it (or it would pop you in the face.) Think I didn't already know what some large number of them are at on it? Doesn't make you or them right, even if they outnumbered (though they don't) other Bible scholars on the matter. All you did with that is skirt the question I asked. Yeah, you and so many others here are so f'n smart, there ought to be a badge or nametag for it. What color would you like? Green? Brown? Oh wait... I have a few of those too from TWI.

So, you can justify the ending of one physical life for the protection of... what, exactly? Another's privacy and peace of mind (i.e.,within their own home or bedroom)? Another's physical property (i.e., don't break into my house and steal my TV)? Another's life? ...just where do you draw the line? Yet, you won't (or can't) extend or correlate any these temporal issues to eternal realities? What is 10, 50, or even 100 years in comparison of importance to that? Any chance that you're not as smart or clever as you think, raf? Evidently you're either not aware of, or have chosen to ignore, the (relatively recent) empirical evidence for it. Nonsense. Why did Jesus Christ (of whom it is declared, never sinned) not cast that first stone when it was plainly written in the law that the penalty for the woman caught in the act was death by stoning? I suppose your proclivity is to either say, It didn't really happen, or, It's just proof of one more contradiction and error in the scriptures. More utter nonsense. I think you've simply talked (or "reasoned") yourself out of any real belief and genuine understanding of scripture.