TLC

Bumping up another of these never happen to have read or paid attention to before threads, eh? Okay, I'll read through...

Okay, but I don't get why that was difficult to write. If it's true that the individual uses or operates "it" (i.e., a gift), then do you see or think of it as something that is probably added to (or given in addition to) the spirit that is received when we first believed that God raised Christ from the dead? (I'm presuming that you see this as the event whereby we were adjoined to him.) Or, if you do not think of it as being anything "extra" that is added or given at some (or any) later point in time to the individual, then how do you account for it being something so different or special from what any other believer receives? How do (or might) you see or think of it being given or received?

It seems that one of the biggest shortcomings or failures in how most of us have tried to think about these gifts is in seeing them primarily as gifts to the individual rather than as gifts to the church. If or when thought of as something given to an individual, along with other issues, it begs the question of "when or how" does one get such a thing. However, if and when thought of as something given to the church, then your answer of when "it's needed" is reasonably simple and would seem to make the most sense - unless there's more involved than "need." As for the individual, well... at this point I'm inclined to think they are the gift, so it actually doesn't make much sense to me that something else is added or needs to be given to them - unless we're talking about the gift of righteousness (there is only one kind), which is given to all who are Christ's. (I suppose there's more behind why I think this way, but I don't have the time to go further into it right now. And yeah, I'm aware that Paul writes to Timothy about stirring up the gift. It's just not clear to me yet exactly what "gift" he might be referring to, and I can't say that I'm convinced that it specifically refers to a gift ministry... probably because I don't believe there's something else that "gets added" to the Christ within once he's living on the inside.)

Right you are. Else, when it comes to the Garden of Eden, how else would Adam have known how to dress it and keep it? But afterwards, how much is man like God? Evidently, not much... Isa.55 [8] For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. [9] For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

So, the predominate thought and focus is whether a particular individual does or doesn't receive a certain gift? When do you suppose it is (or would be) received?

Well, it's a discussion. So it's not just "answers" that are sought or add value. There's plenty of room for any related or pertinent questions, comments, or thoughts (should they get stirred up), as they're often what lead to a better (even if less than complete) understanding. Jump in whenever and where ever you want, the water's fine. (But if it's too hot in the kitchen for you, well... no need to get cooked.)

Seeing there's no takers on my previous question, can't be there's much interest there. (But not much surprises me at this point.) Nothing ventured nothing gained, I suppose. Speaking of which, I may as well toss another casual thought or two into the ring. From what is surmised at this point in time (being the kind of dispensationalist that I am), I'm somewhat inclined to think that apostleship is associated with the introduction of a specific gospel to a particular people of that day and time, and moreover (in a sense), perhaps their life is set forth as a compendium of the message they're to deliver. In other words, I don't necessarily see every apostle mentioned in scripture as being the same or equal to one another, especially if they are representative of different administrations and "good news" messages. (Not sure if these words communicate exactly what I think, but I'm not sure how else to say it any better or clearer. As mentioned, these are rather "casual" thoughts on the matter...)

Well, that may well be how it was presented and/or what it grew into. However, from a personal perspective, it's just not how I saw it. Maybe I'm an odd duck, and didn't think or look at a lot of things the way many or most others did. (It's probable, but I can't say for sure.) But my perspective on this, like (most) other stuff in residence, I thought of and approached as experiential training... not some specific or particular kind of testing, or proving. In a certain sense, the outcome of it didn't even matter all that much to me. (Oh, I surely did like to "win"... but it was as much or more a "for fun" competition against myself than it was anyone else.) And, as stated somewhere already on GSC, I've long held to the belief that my real teacher wasn't merely the people around me. Yes, there's no denying that terrible things happened, and in hindsight, certain programs were so inherently dangerous they probably never should have been initiated. The Rodeo program in Gunnison? (was scary just to watch, I'll say that...) And I won't even bother to mention the entire WC program itself. Just look around here at GSC.

Sure, move it where ever you'd like.

Well, I don't buy that either. We were kids that hitched because we were asked to and it was part of the program we had signed on for. And quite frankly, in those days hitching just wasn't recognized as being as perilous as it is nowadays, so not as much thought or care was given to it. I'm not saying it was right, or that more care and thought shouldn't have been given to it. It obviously should have. When young (and somewhat foolish) you tend to do a lot of things without giving it as much thought or attention as you (realize later in hindsight) probably should have. So, it appears very artificial to attribute all of it to counting on the "law of believing" (or however else you want to say it), when it was really little more than participating in some new (for many) and challenging (but inadvertently dangerous) activity.

What's not addressed (and seems to be easily missed) in this, is what can and can't be believed. If you think you can just makes chit up, focus your mind on it, and all of a sudden "believe it"... well, good luck with that. (because you'll need it.)

No, that's Ken you're alluding to. He evidently was distracted and simply didn't see or think about the truck, but honestly speaking we really don't know what he was or wasn't thinking... and it makes no sense whatsoever for you to say what Ken (who you don't know beans about) did or didn't believe. So thoughtful of you to bring up such painful memories.

But whatever reality we perceive (regardless of its cause, or its deficiencies) is what shapes our thoughts and actions, and that reality can be altered by what is believed. Hence, the effect of believing is real.

What credible assurance or authority do you hold on to that the reality you perceive is correct, or complete?

So what? I already said it wasn't taught right. Okay, so that's what you think today. But how far down the rabbit hole do you care to go? (I'm not endorsing the following, I'm merely pointing out the fact that rabbit holes for this exist.) http://cosmology.com/ConsciousTime107.html

Well, I'm not the expert on it. Perhaps Norman Vincent Peale's "The Power of Positive Thinking" or David J. Schwartz's "the Magic of Thinking Big" are a place to start. (But there's plenty of similar stuff out there nowadays.) It's probably bigger (or better explained, scientifically) than what either of the above write about, but I'd have to dig around and find or recall other things I've read on how the mind works (which, I don't really have time for right now.)

Seems that having the right or proper title, authority, intellect or stature never guaranteed or entitled anyone participation in God's program (whatever it's been), not even Moses. (Tending sheep was one of lowliest occupations for a proper Egyptian, and evidently it took Moses about 40 years of doing just that after he thought he was ready to lead God's people out of Egypt before he was humble enough for God to work with him.) So yeah, there's plenty to be learned from scripture about how God has worked with man in times past. Perhaps certain things don't change much. But, God is sovereign, and other things (not without good reason) do.

lol... that appears to make perfect sense, except I don't see the result as positively as you seem to. This too, makes sense. What "private misinterpretation" of any scripture ever results in anything but misunderstanding? However, this doesn't expose any problem with what's written in the Pauline Epistles - only problems in the interpretation, application and/or understanding of them.

From I & II Peter and the Epistles of John and James (as well as from how Judaism in general may have been structured when the Temple was operating) I would agree with. However, I question how much (if much of any) is really derived from the Pauline Epistles. At this point in my thinking, I've actually starting to look more carefully (and honestly) at the possibility that there is far, far less structure implied (or intended) in Paul's writings than I've ever thought (or been taught) before. In fact, not only have I've surmised that "the Way Tree" is not based on Pauline doctrine, I see it more prone to be in opposition to it. How does one equate the structure of a tree, deriving its life from the roots, to that of the human body, wherein each member in particular derives its vitality from the head? It doesn't make sense, honestly speaking. Consequently, I started wondering how or where this whole concept of "centralized control" really stemmed from, and how far back in time in could be traced. The priesthood of Aaron? Yeah, I think so. How familiar or knowledgeable was Paul of how the priesthood worked? Well, VERY, to say the least. A Pharisee of the Pharisees. So, to think that what's written in the Pauline epistles might have moved very far away from this, is probably far too radicle a proposition for most to even consider. (But yeah, that's primarily how I've been pondering it lately.) Perhaps not for the same reasons, but my opinion that Paul wrote it agrees with you. (I'm not aware of anything else Paul might have written to the Jewish community, which Peter makes reference to in 2Pet.3:15.) Perhaps some of mine as well. What else is new? Especially from a dispensational point of view.

Ah, but I think there is an effect of believing that is real, regardless of whether thought of as or called a "law," or principle, or act, or however else it can be labeled. It just wasn't identified or necessarily taught in a way that is the best or makes the most sense biblically.

I'm inclined to somewhat agree with this, but would also point towards understanding Eph.4 as essential for validation. And perhaps it's not so much first knowing from who, to whom, what, why, or when any of these gifts are given that matters as much as seeing how it all fits or works together.

But burn the bones of a prophet? Verboten.

Cremation.

Not that some here haven't, don't or won't... but given that it's (mostly) an anonymous message board that we're discussing this on, DWBH, I'm actually not inclined or prone to take much of anything personally. Neither you nor anyone else here knows who I am, so as I see it, there's really no reason to. Hence, there's no sense or reason for me to be (as you say) "....ed" or irked about what somebody else writes. Moreover, I'm inclined to see what is posted mostly as a reflection of someone's attitude (be it good or bad) and their ability (or lack of ability) to communicate. That said, be it known that I have no animosity issue towards you. Though, I do think that (like many ex-twits, myself not excluded) you have a long ways to go towards softening a well developed tendency towards egotism and expressing yourself in a condescending manner. If you need or want specific example of that in what you've posted previously, you might be in worse shape that particular area than some, and possibly do need (as I have at times) to have it pointed out. Speak up, if so.

How much more civil, sane, or reasonable do you think I could have said what I did so as to bring and keep it on topic, Twinky?