TLC

Perhaps I should have footnoted to this list to clarify that in the context of this conversation, I don't regard the Trinitarian position as being pluralistic, any more than I would consider God and Jesus Christ to be representative of anything more than one position or one Lord (though I plainly don't think of them as being exactly the same.) Neither do I view the devil (and his minions) as more than one enemy.

Regardless of whether the root of their belief system stems from Abraham or from Nimrod, I'm inclined to think (somewhat along the lines of what Raf may have alluded to) that it's the worship that identifies which God is followed/served/believed (however you want to say it.) Of course, this also allows for a Christian (by name, at least) to worship amiss, and - as noted in the 3rd point below - might indeed make it very easy for both a Muslim and a Christian to worship the same God, albeit the wrong God! Now, if it is viewed or thought that there is no God, then the question of this thread makes absolutely no sense. But neither does it make much more sense if there is thought to be only one God (as no other God would exist that could be worshipped.) The next viewpoint would be that there are two gods (which I suppose is how most here probably see this.) If this is correct, then everyone that worships will worship one or the other, and if done incorrectly and/or in ignorance, might lump untold numbers of "doctrinal enemies" together in a boat, unwittingly worshipping (in remarkably different ways) the same god. Last on the list, is the very popular "multiples of gods" theory, which merits no further comment. Yes, I've likewise heard/read this before, and think that best explains it.

Maybe. But if so, then were those at Ephesus (which worshipped Diana) simply (or primarily) in disagreement about the attributes of God? Is there anywhere to draw the line and say it's possible to worship a different god, even if only from a position of ignorance? If so, where is it? Or, should any and all worship (of anything) that somehow "misses the mark" be lumped into this same category of ignorance? Or, can and do some deliberately (i.e., not ignorantly) choose to worship something that is not God? Perhaps Acts 17:23 needs a closer look. Is Paul's statement simply viewed as an opener to his presentation at Mars' hill, and not something that paints any and all worship (of anything) anywhere in the world?

Okay, but I seem to recall it being voiced (on some other doctrinal thread) that doctrinal threads were intended to discuss what might be the biblical position on a particular matter, and not a matter of whether or not scripture itself is fact or fiction.

As long as you're commenting on the matter, what place or value does that have here in a doctrinal forum?

don't know how anyone can be so sure and definitively say they are the same when Jesus Christ himself so explicitly told the Samaritan (woman) that they don't know what they worship...

who can read that and not (nearly) barf...? (surely not me.) nearly time for an update on John Walsh's show...

Wasn't by his request, as I recall it. But, maybe somebody knows something I don't.

Well, I suppose it wouldn't be right to think this is (or will be) any easier (or less painful) for you then it's probably been (and still is) for many. Perhaps the truth can be compared to water, which is hard to live very long without. But if too much comes at you too fast, it usually picks up and carries tons of dirt and debris, and it can sweep you off your feet and drown you before you even realize its at flood stage. (And truth poured out without much love can be so cold, it not only takes your breath away, large frozen blocks of it can crush the life out of you.) I would recommend praying for the gently rains of truth to assist you in "growing away from" wherever you are now in your mind. Given the egotistical patterns of thinking "I have and know more truth than you" (which twi became quite adept at breeding into people), perhaps you will find yourself struggling just as much with your personal relationships with those around you as you are with the errors of teachers past. Learning to let God and the Lord Jesus Christ be your teacher(s), and not just the Internet (or anything/anyone else), is one of the more vital lessons in humility. Perhaps the most sensible way to "sort out" the truth of the past, is really to learn the truth of the present. Can't tell much by the name or nametag, that's for sure. (What good ever came from those dang things, anyways...?) But, it usually doesn't take only reading a post or two to see where somebody is coming from. (Especially if you ask.) Plenty of opinions here on all of that. Personally, I enjoy listening to Les Feldick. (except when he's wrong... lol.)

No, I said it. And yes, I also said it seems harder, namely because walking by the spirit entails something that is contrary to what we are naturally accustomed to and comfortable with. If I can't "see it, hear it, taste it, touch it, or smell it," how sure am I of it, and/or just how "real" is it?

So it 'tis. Evidently not a great deal of interest in certain things... (While other things that stir the pot too much get spiked.)

Because it's far easier (or so it seems) to follow the law (and if/when you don't, then confess your sins and ask for forgiveness) than to learn to walk by the spirit.

Is it necessary to confess sins for forgiveness or to be cleansed from all unrighteousness... or not? Is it possible to be saved by faith alone... or not? Is there any difference whatsoever between obedience and trust? And if so, is obedience a prerequisite for salvation... or not? If there was some change in circumstances that precipitated something new, should (or does) one replace the other, or are both still thought to be on the table?

PFAL had its own unique appeal, so even had you walked in my shoes, it may not have. (However, it probably would have changed your perspectives on things while in, and after... as there's just no getting around the fact that how we see and process life is affected by what we've done and/or experienced!) I actually read your story some time back (I forget exactly when.) However, the majority of memories I have with the research dept. at HQ seem to have preceded your return to HQ in the summer of '84. If I recall correctly, I think Bruce M. and Joe W. had already left by or about that time (a significant loss to both the quality and integrity of the department... something which didn't make sense at the time, and I didn't "get" the reasons for. Both were tight lipped about it.) Dates and times of change blur a bit over the years, but perhaps it was an indication of where things were headed, but my loss of interest probably accounts for either not noticing or paying any attention to your arrival there. (Obviously, John S was still there, but I think Barb D. - who edited the GMIR thing after it started - also left around then. Funny, but I can't even think who else was there in '85. But then, I moved that same year...) Publish or Perish. Remember that line? Well, perish it was... (especially if you published something as controversial as JS's paper on adultery... lol.) Still, amid the misdirected and/or unpublished efforts, I seem to recall a few things (some are forgotten) that were never understood sufficiently (...I suppose that's the best way to say it) that didn't exactly "fit" with what was then being taught in the ministry. Matter of fact, my personal recollection of what "could and couldn't" be questioned, examined, or re-researched can be summed up in this: "Nothing is sacred or off limits." Maybe that had changed by the time you returned to HQ in '84. But, if so, it wasn't always so.

Rather than further delay any interest there might be for more on this issue, here's a little material off the Internet for your reading/entertainment pleasure: http://graceambassadors.com/midacts/list-petervspaul https://forwhatsaiththescriptures.wordpress.com/2014/10/13/compare-contrast-peter-paul/ http://lesfeldick.org/lesqa-b.html#2b http://www.agbsf.com/the-ministries-of-peter-and-paul/ http://letsrollforums.com//peter-paul-did-not-t20337.html?amp; Anyways, there's all kinds of stuff out there related to this if anyone cares to google it.

Sorry, but I just don't see it the same way, Penworks. The "sales pitch" (if you want to call it that), or attraction, went beyond something only emanating from vpw or pfal. Neither do I think the problem was not being able to check out what was taught because of some lack of consideration for the Bible as some sort of anthology written by different people. Then again, I was a religion/theology major at the time, in my third year of college, so perhaps it's not surprising that I'd see things differently. I'd already studied the JEPD theories of authorship and such. Humanities, Western Civilization, Eastern Religions, Philosophy... not counting any earlier looks into various church groups or experimenting with some of the occult or spiritualism (TM even had "group sessions" you could attend on campus.) So, by the time I crossed paths with twi and pfal, perhaps I was a little more focused on certain things than some. And yeah, by that point in time, I suppose you could (probably would) even say (have said) I was already a fundamentalist. Not a highly structured one, mind you, but there were some things I was already fully persuaded of (of which there is "no going back on.") As for my belief in God, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the truth of the Word of God, I had crossed the Rubicon. What remained "unsettled" in my mind and life (before twi), was only to see and understand how it worked and fit together. It's not clear whether you intended to say that the research department only delved into the scriptures to prove what VPW thought or said it said. Though I heard it pretty much became like that with LCM after LCM took over the presidency, I don't recall it being like that prior. There were some number of "known issues" with what was being taught, while some other things weren't taught at all because of a lack of visibility (and/or viability.) Agreed.

While you're referencing scripture, here's a couple more verses to consider. (Not that anyone in twi ever mentioned that they might be even remotely relevant to anything written in Romans...) John.19 [10] Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? [11] Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

It will take more time than I have at the moment to do it any sort of justice. (But I'll return to it at some point in the near future.) While I did indeed reference Pentecost (Acts 2), keep in mind that I don't currently believe that the current "oikonomia" was introduced there. (I'd probably be branded a "mid-Acts" dispensationalist, though after twi's proclivity towards labeling, I guess I don't care for being associated with much of any kind of branding or titles or labels and such...) I see "the break" (or, the change, or however else we might care to refer to it) happening after Stephen's testimony before the council (Acts 7) and Israel's (as a nation) final rejection of Jesus as the Christ (even after he was raised from the dead.) It was after this, that I believe a "new direction" was taken, starting with Saul, on the road to Damascus (Acts 9.) As far as "which gospel" was preached in Acts, I think it depends on who was doing the preaching. (As I don't see much, if any, change in what the 12 apostles and the church at Jerusalem from beginning to end.) Certain conflicts between them, though "smoothed over" in Acts 15, were never actually eliminated (arising again in Acts 21 and following.)

You're quite the comedian. (I never said or implied that I have ALL the answers, and I'm not in the least bit paranoid or fearful.) As stated once already, my time is currently in short supply, and I don't care much for leading questions that have a blatant appearance of insincerity about them (such as yours.) Especially in a doctrinal thread, which (if I understand it correctly) is designed or intended to leave aside subversive challenges to the authority (and veracity) of scripture.

Haven't the time for much right now, Twinky, but it's probably a thread who's time has come. Might as well point out a scripture or two to start it off. Looks like there's a difference mentioned here: Gal.2 [7] But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; It should go without saying that there's a multitude of similarities, but nevertheless, let that be clear. It's the differences and/or incongruities that are the focus here. That nature of either message being somewhat larger than our senses oriented minds can quickly (or easily) grasp and/or communicate, any discussion of them will probably be akin to "blindly feeling our way around the elephant" and comparing small bits and pieces of it, in an effort to put together a larger spiritual picture. (In a certain sense or manner of speaking, this is probably how I'm inclined to envision how our mind puts together and/or paints a picture of most spiritual realities. I'm not sure if there's a better way to say it, but I trust it communicates the point sufficiently.) Perhaps an analogy that will illustrate the problem of blending two similar, but different, spiritual "puzzles" would be to compare it to trying to put a jigsaw puzzle together that has a bunch of similarly shaped pieces from another puzzle thrown into the pile. You can't help but be frustrated or confused when certain aspects (pieces) either look like they clash with other pieces, and/or they just don't look right or fit where you'd normally think they ought to go. And, if and when you "force it together," you end up with some mishmash that has holes (i.e., errors) in it. Here's a couple of more verses worth pointing out: Rom.2 [16] In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. Rom.16 [25] 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, 2Tim.2 [8] Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: Though it is referred to in various ways (a part of "feeling our way around it"), three times Paul specifically refers to what was preached as "my gospel." And certainly not the one or only thing unique to that which Paul preached is how he set forth that we are "the body of Christ, and members in particular." You'll not find that in what Jesus Christ preached during his ministry, or in what his 12 apostles preached on and after the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. (But please speak up if you think you have or can.) Or, if you want to back it up to salvation itself, he even brings forward a "different criteria" for salvation than what Jesus and the 12 had preached previously.

Not that I have the time (or energy) right now to say much, but I will say this. I'm almost surprised at times at the failure of some to more carefully consider exactly what's written. Rather than either: Mistakenly project what you think I said or meant, or Mistakenly accept as gospel what someone else thinks I said or meant, Why not simply ask for a little clarification if you're really not sure what I said or meant? The truth is, I said exactly what I meant when I spoke of tossing out certain verses of the Pauline epistles, as though they (i.e., those certain verses) should never have been written (much less ever have been canonized and be a part of the Bible.) I said nothing to the effect that "the Pauline letters should never have been written". Yes, some of those words are my words. But not all of them are. Three of them were intentionally (and maliciously, mind you) added to my words by DWBH. Furthermore, I have no more interest in taking "assignments" from him, than I did from twi after the spring of 1985. How about you (or someone) first giving a good and sensible explanation of 2Peter 3:16? And lastly, I'm acutely aware of many differences between Paul's gospel and the gospel preached by Jesus Christ when he walked and talked with the 12. (It's not as unexplainable as you might think.)

Well, you're obviously going to get a variety of very opinionated responses to this, Tom. And I can't say that I'm surprised that the first batch of these want you to toss out these verses, as though they should never have been written (much less ever have been canonized and be a part of the Bible.) Still, I think it's a fair question that's merits a lot more than that kind of brush off and tossing aside. As you probably already know or are aware, twi teaches that this section of Romans refers only to the authorities (or the authoritative structure) with the church. (Namely, or more specifically, thought and said to be "the gift ministries.") Having been indoctrinated into that same manner of thinking for many years, it wasn't that easy to more objectively (i.e., more honestly) consider other possibilities might exist for it. However, I'm more recently of the opinion that there's another way to look at it these verse that make much more sense than how twi interprets them. (I just don't have the time right now to go much further into it. The main point is, just don't be so quick to toss them aside as if they shouldn't be in the Bible, or mistakenly think that they mean whatever somebody else wants you to think they mean.)

Of course it didn't. The infection was at every level and ran far too deep. But in hindsight... so what that it was broken up and scattered? Isn't that always what seems to happen when man gets on his high horse? (Which, we surely were. Submissive or not. It was inbred into the whole culture of twi.) And in spite of any that may have put away a good conscious concerning the right way of believing, there's only One that can and will (in the near future) gather together in one all things in Christ.

Being at Way World (HQ) sheltered us from many things that were evidently "happening" in parts of the ministry all over the country. Of course, being at the epicenter had (and manifest) other issues. Within a year of being away from HQ and realizing how screwy things were where we were on the field, we made a tough decision and committed to moving again (this time, with no assistance from the ministry), all the way west... to try and figure out whether it was the whole ministry that was screwed up, or only where we were there. Well, that decision was only days (maybe a week or two, its hard to remember exactly) before the POP was first read at HQ. I know some of you here have no regard whatsoever for it, but it sure took the lid off what was happening and made plenty of sense at the time. Silly us, thinking at the time that things might then get healed up and better. (Little did we know the big can of worms that it opened... and my gosh. We were plenty ignorant of and/or naïve to SO many things back then!) Like him or not, the purulency of twi sorely needed to be lanced...

Submit... or you'll be a geasespot by midnight.