TLC

Look the word up, if need be. If the shoe fits, wear it. Seems you probably missed the context that I posted within. Or maybe you didn't use the words "rape culture" as commonly defined, or that I took it to mean.

One might be inclined to think the opposite would be true of communal living (and that it would be hard to keep secrets.) But from another perspective, perhaps the intensity of living so close to others actually contributed to the aura of reticence. Maybe there's more effort (because of the closeness) to tread lightly, and part of shielding yourself spills over onto shielding others. (Don't look too closely at me, because I'm not looking too closely at you.) Furthermore, putting many young (full of hormones) people together in such close quarters in that day and time all too easily lent itself towards occasional sexual... exploitations. In short, the opportunities for it were made easier than they would be otherwise. Though I'm not speaking from personal involvement in such (consensual, or so it was thought at the time) escapades, as far as I know incidents of such were never taken kindly to, nor spoken of, nor referred to in any way as being acceptable behavior, condoned or sanctioned by God, the scriptures, or TWI. Mixed into the known, unknown, and/or unreported consensual affairs (however many or few of these there were is nearly a mute point), were those souls trying to gain "an advantage" (for lack of a more universally applicable word) over some that were (or that might someday be) in "positions of power," as well as the egregious acts of certain "leaders" using their esteemed positions to take advantage of some that they supposed themselves to have some authority or control over. Motive can be a difficult and tricky thing to prove in a court of law. But had certain of these last to be mentioned come to light much sooner than they did, some might well have been convicted and jailed for such crimes.

Yeah, I'd agree that it stunned a great majority. And I dare say that even those that knew (or strongly suspected) that something was awry couldn't put their finger on it and, for the most part, were oblivious to the depth or extent of errors and corruption that lay at the root of it. There are/were many layers to the onion once you start peeling things back.

I was there, dimwit. And I wasn't refuting that certain things evidently happened (unbeknownst to the vast majority of staff and corps.) But, think or believe whatever you want.

Who made you such an expert on the environment (or "culture," if you prefer) that existed at Way HQ back then?

To put it bluntly, It wasn't all "so many" that knew. Which might cause one to ponder what sort of number or percentage the "very many" of those directly involved actually was. (Not that any should be thought insignificant or in some perverted way, acceptable.) It just might not be "as many," nor as universally condoned by those that were enthusiastically involved in the earlier days (say, the 1970's) of TWI as certain testimonies here at GSC might lead you to believe.

It took me far, far too long to acknowledge and see just how many of "the promises" that are written in scriptures aren't actually written to us (and therefore, don't necessarily apply.) Living by or under the terms of law is, without a doubt, different then living by or under the terms of grace. Throughout the scriptures, Israel continually depicts a nation of men that are inextricably bound to their five senses... and God deals with them on that level, over and over and over and over (up to, and through the life of Jesus Christ), even as He will, once again, in the (very near) future. Understanding that just might set a person free from the onus of certain shortfalls or deficiencies in "receiving" certain things said to be "available" (if you would only believe the scriptures.) It's not that God can't, won't or doesn't (from time to time) go above and beyond for us in the physical wants or needs in this life... but, if that's our primary desire or focus, there are far greater truths and spiritual realities in life that will remain hidden.

Seems you've made reference to Mike's departure a couple of times in various threads. But I suspect there was much more of a push (or kick) behind that jump than you realize. Things just weren't always as they appeared to be.

Reading (and learning) is all good and well, but do you suppose they have a superior application or meaning to us than what is written in the Pauline epistles? If so, what do you make of what is written in Matthew 10:5? When do you suppose this was rescinded or changed? And if you think it's Acts 1:8, why did the 12 apostles evidently disobey and stay in Jerusalem when others were forced out, and why does Acts 11:19 confirm that the outreach up to that point (many, many years after Pentecost in Acts 2) had been unto the Jews only? But if that's not plain enough, there's always Romans 15:8.

who is the "they all" that you're asking about?

A sad report, for sure, outandabout. But unfortunately, probably not all that uncommon. It was far too easy to think what we were doing "for the ministry" was doing something for God. Which naturally led to thinking that if you weren't doing something good or profitable for the ministry, what use are you to God? (No matter what distance there did or didn't happen to be between you and "the ministry.")

Granted, your confab is the same. But my elucidation of "the gospel" as it is presented and spoken of in scripture is not.

No problem. It should be one of the benefits of it being a discussion rather than an argument. Sure, if it were the same point. But, as noted below, it's not. Hebrews 4:1-2 makes a valid summation of events recorded in scriptures written by Moses. Whether or not the people of Moses' time knew there would be a review of their situation given hundreds of years later is a mute point and doesn't in any way change what was written by Moses. If you choose to disagree with Hebrews summation of it, then feel free to offer an alternate. Exactly the point. I think that was and is the purpose (and probably the extent) of the gospel that was preached to Israel. But Israel (for the most part) did not (in Moses day), nor would they (in Paul's day) believe it. Hence, they did not enter into said rest. I do think there is a parallel that exists (which I also suppose that the people of Moses time were oblivious to), but it may not be the same as you think. The parallel, as I see it, stems from Genesis 2:2, when God rested from all His work. There's a completeness involved, indicating there was no work left undone. The children of Israel were at the gates of the promised land. All that remained was for them to enter in. And the good news that was delivered to them there was to do only one thing... to walk right in. Did they? Nope. They first wanted to have a look see and spy out the land. Refused to believe that God would drive out the inhabitants of the land before them with hornets. In short, they (as a nation) couldn't believe jack squat unless they first saw it with their own eyes (and then struggle with that.) So what if they did or didn't have any awareness or knowledge of eternal life? That's not the issue. The issue is their failure to believe the gospel that was delivered to them. Hebrews addresses much the same issue, regardless of whether it's paralleled (for Israel as a nation) to the (physical) kingdom of heaven on earth, or (for any individual) to the finished work of (eternal) salvation. Individually, we can look at it and see/understand the alignment (or parallel, if you prefer) with eternal salvation. There is nothing left for us to do, except accept (i.e., believe) it. And when we do, there is rest. It is done, done, and done. But if we don't understand or believe it's done, there's no rest from it.

Actually, I was (from the start of this thread) aware that this has always been at least a part of (if not primarily) Israel's take on salvation... so no, I wouldn't (and don't) regard it as being off topic. And, believe it or not, it is very relevant to the point that Israel was, always has been... and rather likely will be associated with the physical (or sensual) side of salvation. Call it the "gospel of the Kingdom," if you will. Pertinent to Israel? Absolutely. Pertinent to the body of Christ (and the gospel of grace)? Not so much. But these things venture well beyond where the discussion has been up to this point. Going back to the issue of what a "gospel" is or should refer to, there is a rather clear reference in Hebrews 4:1 and 2 to good news that was likewise presented to the nation of Israel after they came out of Egypt. [1] Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. [2] For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. Keeping in mind that "gospel" in and of itself simply presents itself as good news, the question that seems relatively easy to answer is what that good news was. Israel had already been brought out of the bondage of Egypt. So, did they think themselves "saved"? Most certainly not, in any full or complete sense of the word. They were out of Egypt, yes, but... life was no cake walk in the wilderness they sojourned in. In fact, at Kadesh-barnea things looks so bad to them they desired to make themselves a captain and return to Egypt. So, what was "the gospel" that was preached unto them, which they failed to believe? Hebrews sums it up... but is it not plain enough in what Moses wrote?

As I ponder some of these things more carefully, I become more and more convinced that the lack of articulation before it was "time" to spell it out in a particular or certain way (for the senses mind to more easily grasp) was not only very intentional, it serves a specific purpose of drawing the confidence of man away from his own strength and intellect. So, in that sense, I would agree with you, Raf. Short of a greater understanding what God's overall game plan and strategy is, we just aren't going to find much in the way of specifics as to what some of these men of olden days believed, much less a "gospel" for it. Still, I think there's much that can be learned and known about changes/differences in the gospel of the Kingdom (that Jesus Christ and his 12 apostles preached), and the gospel of Christ (aka, the gospel of grace) which Paul preached.

Well, it was my way of looking for more than a yes or no response, which also might account for (or at least take into consideration) the remarkably different way that salvation was presented to or viewed as by the nation of Israel. Evidently what is written isn't always understood or perceived the same way. What was the reason for the law that was given, and what effect did it have? Clearly not everyone saw or thought of it the same way, as noted in John 5:39. There's some number of scriptures (after Genesis) that refer to a resurrection, involving righteousness and judgment. And it certainly wasn't something new to Martha in John 11:24. Even though there is no clear or definitive indication that righteousness in and of itself equated to living forever (as even Abraham died, of whom it is said that God imputed righteousness to), it does appear to be essential in the judgment that is yet to come (not the only reference by any stretch, but Hebrews 9:27 is simple enough.) Yeah, I know I've moved out of Genesis with some of this, but if the righteousness that is of the law was only seen or thought of in that day and time as something that would simply keep them alive and "status quo" (I.e., breathing) for as long (or as abundantly) as possible on this earth... do you honestly think it would have had as much effect as it did? (Sure, there were undoubtedly those that took the law as being nothing more than that. And they died in the wilderness. But that's beside the point.) So, none was articulated. Take this as hypothetical (if you can), but why think that the means or path to eternal life would or should be articulated (for our senses mind), if among the first clear (to Adam, but not so much for us) instructions that were given to Adam was, Don't put your trust and belief in your senses? Oh... so you prefer to believe what you can do or know by your senses. Then here's the deal. One will come that will show the way, and overcome death. Some would say it's been a long and tedious way, God trying to overcome man's trust in and reliance upon his senses. Most will not make the jump. Most will not believe that the one that God promised would come did, but then died... and was then raised from the dead, to live forevermore. Actually, I was (from the start of this thread) aware that this has always been at least a part of (if not primarily) Israel's take on salvation... so no, I wouldn't (and don't) regard it as being off topic. And, believe it or not, it is very relevant to the point that Israel was, always has been... and rather likely will be associated with the physical (or sensual) side of salvation. Call it the "gospel of the Kingdom," if you will. Pertinent to Israel? Absolutely. Pertinent to the body of Christ (and the gospel of grace)? Not so much. But these things venture well beyond where the discussion has been up to this point. Sorry, but I disagree. The mere fact of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice the life of Isaac is indicative of his belief in life after death. (And I think there's scriptures that put this together better and more beautifully than my simple statement of it, which I haven't the time right now for.) It's not in the slightest something I've been fixated on. But if you're done, so be it. Personally, I think the surface here was barely scratched. (Thanks for at least that much, anyways.)

The phrasing of the first question seems to lock onto "progressive revelation" and doesn't appear to allow any room for whatever is perceived as salvation to change, aside from timing and what was (or is) revealed about it. (However, the second question might, if the meaning of salvation were allowed free course.)

Although in this day and time "salvation" and "eternal life" are commonly regarded as being somewhat one and the same, it appears to me that previously there may be more of a distinction involved. Perhaps this is what is producing some of the confusion that you find so irritating. Looks to me like two different questions (with two different answers.)

Well, I guess maybe I don't get why at times you seem to have the inconsistencies that you do. If you believe what you just said, then why would you possibly be concerned with or bother to refer to what anyone living at the time of Genesis (i.e., anyone before Moses, excepting the Book of Job) might have known or thought? Wouldn't you likewise see whatever Moses wrote as retconning whatever (probably oral) stories or traditions existed before his time? Or is it that since we plainly have and know nothing prior to what Moses wrote, do you suppose his words should be excluded from any similar labeling? Then how different is relying on Moses to tell what the believers before him knew and believed any less "intellectually dishonest." (Your words, not mine.) Would it matter if there was, Raf? Because I think that the "good news of salvation" that Moses delivered to the nation of Israel was perceived at the time (and perhaps is still viewed similarly today for many that call themselves Jews) primarily (if not entirely) as the deliverance from the hand of their enemies. And to view it in any other fashion - regardless of whether it were true or not of anything greater or more "spiritual" - might be deemed as being "intellectually dishonest" (ala retconning). Though, by the same token, the gospel that Moses delivered could likewise be deemed a retconning of what others before him may have thought or believed about salvation. Why bother to value or trust what Moses said about Abraham any more than what Jesus or Paul might have said about him, if you don't believe the source of what is written as being revelation from God?

Don't you have that question backwards, sky? Shouldn't it be, "When does a cult become a religion?"

It's not, from my perspective. But we're (obviously) looking at it from different angles, and aren't even close to being on the same wavelength. Though I've tried adjusting the dial, it seems you take that as me only complicating the matter, rather than tuning in to it. If your dead set on ONLY looking at it from one direction (wherein exists little or no traction), perhaps it'll remain stuck in the mud. I guess I've always been a bit more tenacious than to leave it at that.

Well, I'm wondering whether the main reason (at least a big part of it) for your aversion to "working backwards" is evident in the very narrow and limited choice you just presented. Sure, I'm quite aware that the door was left open to think as you did when I spoke of it (i.e., trusting in the Lord) as "evolving" into what we have today. I'm also reasonably familiar with certain things commonly taught or associated with progressive revelation. But, to put it bluntly, I didn't say what is in place today is a "progression" of all that happened or was in effect before it. Furthermore, I took intentional and specific care when I spoke of questioning "what the situation was or might have been prior" (to that which is in effect now.) Things changed. And at times, radically so. As I see it, perhaps the biggest and most universal mistake (if it isn't too politically incorrect to call it that) made in the church of the body is not wedging knowledge (of what is known in the present) into the past, but rather, is of wedging what is known of the past into the belief and practices of the present. Maybe I don't see or think of certain things the way most folk do, but neither do I think my manner and perspectives are super special or totally unique. They just aren't as common or as typical as most of what you find around nowadays.

Likewise, and I appreciate, understand, and (mostly) agree with your clarification. There should be (and has been) a natural progression to the questions and the discussion, but it seems that I was taken back somewhat when it appeared that you were going to revert to wanting or finding "something unambiguous." Fair questions, and I certainly see and can easily agree with your comfort level of saying that salvation in the Old Testament came about by trusting in the Lord (Yahweh.) As for the specifics of exactly what that meant... well, that's where we all run into difficulty. Especially so when allowing for the evidence in scripture (or probability, if you prefer) that it was evolving into what we have today. Quite frankly, I'm inclined to think that it would make more sense to approach it from the other direction and try working our way backwards. In other words, start with the gospel of salvation that is in effect now and look back to when some of the specifics of it were revealed or made known, and then question what the situation was or might have been prior to that. But, it seems (for reasons I don't quite understand) that you are (or would be) opposed to that path, Granted, it might not account for everything in effect at previous junctures in time (such as what "salvation" itself meant or will be for them, if - as I suspect - it's somewhat different from what it is or means for us), but from a more definitive point, it would, at the very least, undoubtedly show that there were/are differences. (Perhaps surprisingly so, to some.) While I more or less agree with you that the gospel whereby a man is saved has changed (in its specifics, but not in its generality... and that trusting God seems to have had a different answer at different points in time), I suspect there are more differences in what is meant (or at least in how was described) by salvation than what meets the eye.

Maybe not. Consider Zacharias view of salvation in Luke 1:68ff.

This hits upon what appears may be the most important consistency to what an evolving/changing "gospel" entails. Believing, taking God at His Word, trusting in the Lord (how much difference is there between these, really?)