TLC

...what an obvious case of projection: so much for any "discussion" of Bell's position on the issue... sayonara.

He's sure not the first to speak out against hell being some place of eternal torment, which incidentally, I agree with (and quite frankly, have known from a time that was many moons before twi..) Seems to me that doctrinally speaking, even vpw and twi would (have) agree(d) with him on that. (Which gives be pause in pondering why this particular thread was introduced here...) What is questionable, however, is the notion of universalism... that eventually, none can - or will - resist the will (i.e., love) of God, and will (inevitably) be saved. Although Bell appears to lean in that direction in his book, it also appears that (perhaps for questionable reasons) he is (intentionally) rather vague, if not downright elusive, on the matter. It's not that I think any of us can (nor should we think should need to try to) account for everything. But this little matter (or issue, if you prefer) is neither little, nor insignificant, by any means... and to appear to be so wishy washing on it come across to me as being very "questionable." Why skirt the issue? Has he genuinely... -or perhaps, purposefully ... not thought it all the way through to a logical or reasonable conclusion to the matter? If not... why not? Perhaps his "outside the box" thinking simply isn't as original or as "creative" as might be imagined...

In reality, he didn't actually do any "boxing up" (i.e., containment) of dispensations. not only did he not rightly divide them (as plainly instructed to do in 2Tim2:15), seems he took, stole, borrowed or used (however you want to think of it) whatever he could from what was written to and intended specifically for Israel whenever it appeared to be advantageous to do so. so what if anyone talks about or makes some rather broad references to there being different "administrations"... yet in both doctrinal teachings and practice, fails to rightly separate and clearly note various distinctions (and similarities) between the message or purposes of them? for starters: have (live) life more abundantly - written to and for whom ? because that's sure not the kind of life or living that Paul made some great reference to in his epistles... (see Phil.4:11, 1Tim.6:6-8.)

don't frequently read (much less, post) here anymore... but reading that sure stirs the pot a bit. probably because it was an issue that often drew deeper thoughts outta me, even back in early 80's, maybe 'cause it didnt' fit and felt rather "off" to me. whatever our take or perspective on what believing is (or isn't), what I am fully persuaded of is that the only one that ever perfected it is the Lord Jesus Christ. And not only are we not capable of that (whatever "that" is), because he did (perfect it) ...not only do we not have to, neither do I think our day to day attention and efforts should dwell on it (i.e., our own "perfect" believing.) Fact is, far too much attention and effort in twi was focused on precisely that, and not on the simplicity of knowing the Lord, and merely allowing "his perfected ability" to shine and (relatively effortlessly) flow through us. Maybe it's a fine line or distinction that I'm trying to pencil out here... but it was certainly palpable enough, even "back in the day."

Seems to me it'd take a bit of work to make that much more confusing than you did, WW. But, to put it bluntly, guess I'm not buyin' it. For starters, why so nonchalantly entwine the entire notion of believing (anything) with what it might mean to believe God? Granted, the whole "positive or negative" approach to what believing is or means might be (i.e., probably is) misguided, especially if trying to restrict it to its biblical usage. Yet, I do recognize there is something (which I'll leave undefined) to positive (or negative) thinking that can and does have an effect on the reality that we live in. So... it's not that I necessarily agree with what or how vpw taught as "believing," but I certainly don't recall it being as kinky as your above presentation of it. However, it was long enough ago that... perhaps with what's been learned since then, I've parsed certain errors out of it and/or amalgamated certain incongruities in what was taught with what I currently believe to be the truth. That said, seems I recall that "believing" (in a more generic sense) was necessary to live. (Period.) In other words, if (or when) you stop believing, you die. In that sense, and from that perspective, everyone that is alive believes (something.) Perhaps this doesn't exactly fit with a more strict biblical definition (or usage) of believing... but I am inclined to think that there is something to it, even if "believing" isn't the perfect or most appropriate word to use for it. Furthermore, thinking is not believing. Thoughts and thinking occurs in the brain. Believing is an issue of the heart. And lastly, regardless of whatever this more (or most) generic "believing" is, or however (or whether) it is delineated and distinguished from "believing God," it denotes the active present. It does not go forward or backward in time. Yesterday is a record of what was believed. Tomorrow has no believing, because it is not here yet. In light of this, the word "believer" appears to have little or no clear meaning aside from the certain specific "one time" events affixed to it, as all living persons believe (and hence, are believers.) Likewise, seems the word "unbeliever" would only make any sense when related to specific one time events. Consequently, and regardless of how it was or wasn't taught or spoken of in twi, my perspective is rather simply on who or what a believer (or unbeliever) is or isn't. If in their heart (not merely the thoughts in their head), anyone ever truly knows (i.e., believes) that Jesus Christ died (for our sins, according to the scriptures) and rose again from the dead (according to the scriptures), then they are a believer. If they don't (or can't), then they are an unbeliever. Period. Has not one single jot or tittle to do with vpw, twi... or anything else, for that matter.

Since when (and/or where in the Bible) did God ever give preference to or choose any of those characteristics above humility? But, as with most that were ever sprinkled with twi's "special" pixie dust, perhaps such a forgotten and lessor quality probably would never make much of a difference anyways...

When did they stop using (or calling it) "Third Aid"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems I recall there being a "third aid" tent at Rock of Ages festivals. Did no one hear ever hear of it, or the reason why it was called that instead of the First Aid tent? Did no one else here ever ask anyone else in the ministry "did you pray about it"? Please tell me it's not so...

yeah, right. you got me all figured out...

To put it bluntly, unless you're trying to make some strange point about it being or using those exact words, there were so many times that I was asked "Did you pray about it," or that I overheard it being said to others, or that I asked it of someone else, at this stage in life it would be exceedingly difficulty (and pointless) to differentiate between them. Evidently I must have been around an entirely different genre of people back in those days, ..or I'm totally insane, and my memory of those days (and my life) is somehow entirely wrong and perverted. Or maybe it's simply a matter of what one actually heard, and/or might have paid attention to at the time when certain words were spoken.

Having delusions, are you, Rocky? Very plainly, I did no such thing. And speaking of arrogance, seems you're familiar enough with it. Or what is it that you think gives your questioning a post here such righteous preeminence over my questioning of a post?

You weren't in so late that, quite frankly... I find that rather hard to believe of you. You were at HQ. Are you absolutely sure your memory isn't just a wee bit hazy or tainted on that LB? Yeah, TWI had issues. But... not even once?

my, my... such snarkiness. confirms why I don't much visit or post here anymore. fyi (not that I much give a chit), said fellowship didn't even exist in the 70's, and was mentioned only to indicate the broader extent of what I saw and experienced over the years I was involved, from "the living rooms" all the way through to some of the depths of being (corps) on staff at HQ for as many years as I was, but, I guess you speak for everyone else that was involved during those years, and what I saw and experienced must be the anomaly...

sorry... it's not that I don't agree that there was way far too much emphasis and focus put on greek... but I'll have to take exception to your blanket statement. (and yeah... I was a part of the research fellowship there for several years.)

Apparently you are confirming that a change (i.e., any changes) in the gospel would equate to a dispensational distinction.

Anyone who attempts to interpret plain this [Matthew 10:5-10] commission, which forbade the disciples to go to the Gentiles, and the commission that commands the same group to go to the Gentiles (Matt. 28:19-20) either (1) gives up in confusion or (2) resorts to spiritualizing one of the passages or (3) recognizes a dispensational distinction.

You really want to go there, Rocky? Some people will only see or hear what they want to see and hear about something, no matter when or how it's said. Now, you can say and/or pretend that's not true... but it doesn't change the reality of it. Did you ever bother to go back and read the original post that Raf is still insatiably obsessed with spinning into something it never said or meant? Probably not. Here... I'll save you the effort (as it was a bit difficult even for me to find, after realizing he was went back three pages and took it out of the context of a previous discussion.) ___________ Before his death, Jesus Christ was a minister unto the circumcision. As were the 12 apostles. Period. (If anyone can plainly show from scripture where this directive for the 12 ever changed, please do so... because I don't think it exists.) ___________ Now, maybe you interpret words differently, but no where in there is there any mention of any Gentiles. However, the context of that post referred to what authority Paul did or didn't have, and I had (in the paragraphs prior to the above sentences) just finished stating that Paul's message was different from what the 12 had been given. So, if I then go on to talk about what the 12 had (in comparison to Paul's message, logically, as the context of the discussion dictates) and say what they were teaching and doing (for the circumcision) never really changed... what the heck difference does it make whether they do or don't take a message that is designed first and foremost for Israel to the rest of the world? The simple fact remains that "the message itself" that they had (to be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, etc.) didn't change, that I can find, anywhere in scripture. Argue over words if you want, but they're not all that much different from Matt. 28:19, nor verse 20, which says "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you." Not only does Raf misconstrue and then redirect the issue towards what may, in my opinion, only be an issue of timing, he ignores and/or obfuscates any subsequent effort on my part to clarify what should be a "non-issue," and so much as calls me (oh... not me... what I say) dishonest and a liar. Well then, bullpuckey to y'all, if that's your only thought of it. Have at it. Evidently there's no interest or desire to discuss the real issues, so I'm as done with this incessant stupidity as done gets.

you know, after my second or third post addressing this, any dweeb that would have stopped long enough to take the wax out of their ears (or the blinders off their eyes), probably would have realized the point originally intended in that comment was to delineate the initial focus (and directive) for the 12 as being (foremost) to all Israel. Matter of fact, if that were not so, then why oh why is it so plainly written in Acts that it was to go to them first? Or that Paul thought it "necessary"? Acts 3:26 Unto you first... Acts 13:46 ...It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you But, whatever... do or think whatever you want. Anything to continue disrupting or distracting from the real issue(s) at hand...

You are not a bible scholar, nor the hot shot expert, nor the authority, nor whatever other scriptural or "biblical" pundit it is that you purport yourself to be with your blusterous claim "the Bible doesn't support this." The fact (which you rather intentionally omit) is that some number of very real biblical scholars do accept it, and offer plenty of scriptural support for it. It is neither my job nor duty to present, inform, or otherwise try to educate you on what others have or haven't said on the matter. To repeat something just stated in a recent post, think whatever you want to think about it. I am confident that if anyone ever has the heart to really care about and know what the real truth of what dispensations are or mean in scripture, I don't doubt that they can and will (with the help of the Lord) eventually arrive at a better understanding of them, and of the differences (i.e., betterments) inherent within the gospel that was first given to Paul. Furthermore, I don't see (scripturally) that it was the "majority" that were ever right about the things of God, at any time throughout all of history. So, why (or since when) do "the vast majority" of any church or intellectuals ever add any great credence or credibility to what the truth of scripture is? However, for any that are interested in learning more or reading a fairly scholarly approach to this issue of dispensations, I'll offer the following book (not that I necessarily agree 100% with it) and what appears to be a reasonably decent review of it. Dispensationalism, by Dr. Charles C. Ryrie https://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2007/02/27/a-review-of-dispensationalism-by-charles-c-ryrie/

no chit, Sherlock. it wasn't the only thing he was right about... (But because it disagrees with your theology, or lack thereof, you apparently think that branding axiomatically makes them wrong and you right about any and everything you choose to finger.) So is TWI where you picked it up, or was it merely a matter of honing some natural, genetically gifted, talent?

"No intelligent student of the Scriptures believes, or teaches, that there is only one gospel in the Scriptures…” – J.C. O’Hair. Unsearchable Riches of Christ. p 131.

Who cares? I never heard of him before your mention of his name, as I never bothered to pay much attention to who's site it was after spending all of three or four minutes the other day plugging a few phrases into google and stumbling across that particular site. As if you are the authority on what constitutes a fact concerning what a reasonable person would or should conclude about what is or isn't part of the section of scripture in the first chapter of Philippians? phhhtt.... yeah, right. Think this Phil guy invented the idea? Nah... maybe you just think whatever dimwit did is pretty stupid or nuts, as is anyone else that might happen to agree (to any degree or extent) with them. 'Cause you've already researched what any and every scholars had to say about it... right? Really? Did you even bother doing any kind (whatsoever) of word study on it, or are you just pulling that out of your ear because it "sounds" plausible? Actually seems like your rather clueless on what I might know or was doing. Ever lay out, step-by-step, what the instructions were for salvation - according to scripture? No, I don't believe you have. Do "according to Peter" first. Then do "according to Paul." It just might surprise you. I have no idea who this Marine is, or why you so troubled yourself to dig up as much dirt (if that is what it is) to wallow in as you did, but I will say that it certainly seems rather hypocritical of someone that is so concerned about ad hominem attacks on their own self. Not taking sides on anything (as I didn't bother to click the link.) Just calling this for what it looks like, regardless of how "polite" it might sound. Maybe I could, or maybe I can't. But frankly, I'm just too tired of this and worn out here to give it much more thought. Why bother, when even if I did, I don't have the right credentials that would make a spit's worth of difference to you, or maybe not anyone else that would ever read this? Think whatever you want to think about it. Because if anyone ever has the heart to really care about and know what the real truth of it is, I don't doubt that they can and will (with the help of the Lord) find a way to it through what all might be written about it in scripture.

probably isn't that hard to post most of it again, though you obviously didn't like it... wrong. it's not in the who, the where, or the how of whether it was or wasn't done. It's in the changes in the message itself... which appears to be something most here don't have either the stomach, the aptitude, or the interest to discover.

Who made you the absolute authority on what Paul is or isn't discussing in Philippians? What unabashed and foolish arrogance! And because what I (and many others) have chosen to believe it is discussing, you (unwittingly) have the balls to call me dishonest and a liar (yeah, say you didn't... but you did)? And that you won't "put up with [my] $hit anymore"? Truth is, yours are the posts that reek of dishonesty (or ignorance, or arrogance... take your choice.) Not only did I link to another site that has the view that Phil.1:10 is referring to a difference between Paul's gospel and what the 12 taught (which I doubt you read), there are others, and much more (from others) that support such a belief. Furthermore, you don't even have the courtesy to admit you "might" have been mistaken when you claimed I quoted the wrong verse, or that there was anything about a difference, or a gospel there. Yet, I plainly pointed out the discussion was actually sandwiched in between an obvious discussion of Paul's gospel, and specifically asked you what you thought was being compared in verse 10... which you either ignored or refused to answer, other than to brashly assert that it didn't have any relation to what the 12 were teaching. No, you don't have to agree with what I'm inclined to believe is being compared in that verse. I don't expect that. But you have no right, and it is evil (and totally dishonest) to say that what I think about it is "a deliberate untruth." Who in there right mind can (or would) have any respect for such maliciousness?

And I'm calling your comment a manifestation of insanity. You say that's the same as calling you insane. Yet, you also say that you're not calling me a liar. You think and speak with forked tongue.

And just exactly what do you think it's talking about, Raf? And what makes you so dang confident (i.e., arrogant) that there's no possibly way you might have misread or misunderstood the context of what Paul is writing to them about? I happen to believe that Paul called it "my gospel" for a very simple and compelling reason, which is rather explicitly laid out in Galatians 1:6-12 (because the Galatians had plainly failed to see or recognize it.) The letter to the Philippians commends them, not just for seeing and recognizing it, but for: 1) their fellowship in it (verse 5) 2) their defense and confirmation of it (verse 7) - specifically noting that they were all partakers of "my [Paul's] grace. 3) and further to that, it was Paul's prayer that their love might abound more and more in knowledge and in all judgment... to what end? or for what purpose? what was he just talking about? C'mon man... stop and think about it. Where was Paul? In prison. Why was he in prison? Where had he just been? What had he done there? Paul was different. His gospel was different. (Better, mind you.) And the Jews in Jerusalem sure didn't like it, nor him. Yet, here were these Philippians... that Paul saw as partakers with him, in defense and confirmation of the gospel... and with the means to approve those things which were... better. Better than what? Ah, well... it all gets back to that. Let's see... what is it again that's on Paul's mind while writing this? 4) the furtherance of the gospel. (verse 12) 5) to speak the word without fear. (verse 14) 6) to preach Christ. (verse 15) 7) defense of the gospel (verse 17) Yeah, you go right ahead and try to convince everyone that the context here doesn't relate at all to the gospel that Paul taught or our previous discussion...