TLC

What you're referring to (and declaring to be yours) is a different premise. And by mere definition, a premise presumes that if "thus and thus" is true, then "this and this" is also true. The reasoning behind why each (or any) of us choose a particular premise varies, but it doesn't preclude the fact that each make or have them. Certain premises (especially in the context you're speaking of) simply cannot be proved or disproved. Consequently, it's really not much more than the logic that is built upon a premise that can be tested or "proofed". Just because something doesn't pass your sniff test doesn't automatically mean that it can't (and/or doesn't) pass someone else's. Sure, but what is the actual meaning of "considering oneself to be a Christian"? It's undoubtedly possible to "think" of oneself as being a Christian, when in fact (or in reality) they aren't. Likewise, it's undoubtedly possible to "think" of oneself as not being a Christian, when in fact (or in reality) they are. If you're intending to steer clear of what it means to be Christian, or of any possible benefits of being a Christian, and are only concerned with addressing whether or not one is Christ's, then I suppose regardless of what one might think or suppose themselves to be, there isn't a guaranteed correlation between what a man considers himself to be, and what he really is. And whether or not anyone in this day and time is Christ's ultimately boils down to whether or not one believed (not merely thought, or guessed, or supposed, or said the words ...or anything else less than what it means to believe) in the death and resurrection of Christ.

Well, it was another thread that drew this out of me (which I though would probably me appropriately posted in the doctrinal forum.) Any takers, for any of these questions?

A fair enough question. But, it's also one that would first requires a correct definition or understanding of what an apostle is or does. (Which I'm not convinced we yet have.) Granted, Paul was the apostle to us Gentiles. Were there others? What about Barnabus? Much clearer is the reality that we can have (or at least, it seems that we possibly could have) ten thousand instructors in Christ. But how many fathers (in Christ) can you have? Yeah... that's right. Just one. (And it ain't vpw.) How is any of us fathered in Christ? Through the gospel. What gospel? The one that Peter preached on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2? Nope. Seems you have to first figure out exactly which (and/or who's) gospel your fathered by before understanding who it is that "fathered" you in it.

Looks to me like there's more in your post that could be expounded upon. Furthermore, I suspect that what you're talking about here is one of the biggest failures of "rightly dividing the word of truth" that TWI, its offshoots, as well as many others continue to make. (Though, I'm not sure why you posted it in this thread, or exactly how you're specifically relating it to defining the gift ministries.

Who or what are you talking about?

Arrgg... Given what has been (perhaps still is) discussed elsewhere concerning the "gift ministries," and that it's surfaced again here, seems I can't resist myself commenting a little further on the matter. (But maybe this should get moved to a different or new thread over in doctrinal...) Who do we primarily think of benefiting from any gift ministry? Plainly there can be (and undoubtedly are) multiple benefits and/or multiple beneficiaries. But who all is (or isn't) in the list, and who (or what) do we envision being the top or foremost of it? ...And why might (or does) any of us or think of these in the order that we do? I'm not advocating that there is one and only one "right" answer to the question. Rather, I think how anyone chooses to answer that will likely speak volumes as to what their perspective is on more than just this one issue, and where they are in their spiritual attitude or development. (That being said, probably no one will care (or dare) to answer, but these are the kind of questions that I have pondered myself for many years... especially when crossing paths with certain things that appear to be so out of joint, or whacked out, with what I suppose to be more in alignment and harmony with what I've surmised thus far to be right and/or true.)

Yeah, I was merely bringing (perhaps some of the less obvious) stuff up to the surface that I sorta recalled being buried there somewhere. And as for the copycat aspect of it... maybe he thinks that it's "new light," eh? Or, maybe he thinks that he's really old, and it's new to this generation. Or, maybe he simply came up with some new definition or understanding of what an apostle is. (Hey... maybe that's the "new" part.)

btw, the name is MacIver (with an "i"). Scottish, me thinks. heard the name, but didn't know 'im. edit: funny... when typed the capital looks right. But when posted, it looks like a lower case "l". I guess you had it right to start with.

Seriously? (cough, cough...) Okay then, I guess I'll have to speak up on this one. A while back (year or two ago... don't recall exactly when, and its too easy to track of time anymore) I stumbled across his website (seems his "class" was about 2/3's or so done at the time) and read just enough to nearly shed a tear, then moved on. But humble and unassuming? Still scratching my head over that one. Maybe somebody else here cares to comment on a line or two from one of his "chapters" (<-- click link) and address any perceived motives: "So why did God give such a gift to me? Well, it wasn't for my benefit, I can assure you. It wasn't a special little gift or favour to me because I was so wonderful. It wasn't because I was the best, or the most intelligent, or the most disciplined, or the most educated, or the most sociable, or the most personable person on earth, God knows I'm none of those things. Do you know why he gave me the gift ministry of an apostle? It was for you."

Well, can't say that I'm surprised. I liked him and was sad to see him leave.

I suspect he was fired.

If that were so, I never made (or saw) that sort of connection or association with it. But then, perhaps I was simply a bit more sheltered from it, having mostly been at root locations. It seems there were widely differing opinions or experiences at to what was even done or expected there. In fact, when asked, Howard specifically told me that ABS was not expected of staff (because it didn't make any sense to pay tax to the IRS on the additional wage, given that we were being paid on a "need" basis.) So, by and large, we didn't (or at least, never thought of it those terms.) However, as I seem to recall it, gifts (which I'd agree, many or most times did have a certain degree "social expectation" associated with them) were more associated with positions of authority (or perhaps "social importance"), and weren't necessarily related to "gift ministries" per se. But, this might be only my perspective of it. Yeah, but that's quite different from what the Internet evidently might have (and seems to have) spawned. I've certainly thought about how the practice of it differed from the doctrinal side of it, even if I haven't said it...

As I see it, there are different perspectives that some number of things that are written in scripture might be viewed or considered from: Is it simply communicating what occurred and could have been observed using the five senses? Or, Is it trying to explain the spiritual reason or cause for what occurred or was observed? Or, Is it attempting to communicate a spiritual truth or reality, written in the language and terms of what is or might be either experienced, or understood, by our carnal (five physical senses oriented and conditioned) mind? Or, Is it attempting to communicate additional information about the same spiritual truth or reality which is written using different words or in a different way that it is elsewhere in scripture.? Or, Is it attempting to communicate something about the relationship between similar (or different) spiritual realities (all of which are expressed in the language and terms that our carnal minds might comprehend)? While this probably isn't a complete or comprehensive list, perhaps it's sufficient to illustrate how (or why) whatever is written can be interpreted to mean different things, depending on "which perspective" it's viewed from or on what light it appears in. For the record, while I do believe that the serpent speaking to Eve is something that really happened (some might refer to this as taking it to be "literal", though that probably is neither the best nor the most accurate way to express it), I do not believe that the serpent speaking to Eve is a record of something that can be understood from either perspective #1 or #2. Therefore, I see the reality of their communication outweighing how or by what means (or "language") they did (or didn't) use. When it comes to understanding how spiritual things fit or work in relationship to each other, as difficult or as impossible as it might sound, it seems to me that they may need to be "tracked" independent from the way we have all been conditioned to think - utilizing only the information that is known to us by, or through use of, our five senses. Perhaps this helps explain why the "intelligent" mind doesn't generally equate to (and rarely relates) to things intended or designed to be insync with that which is "spiritual." My apologies if this is long, confusing, or about as clear as mud, as it is not easy for me to express myself in a better or more concise way on difficult to understand issues such as this. But any effort to shorten it would seem to oversimplify what is, from any angle, a hard to understand point.

of course. Given my obvious deficiencies there, it seems you must not think that highly of your own. (I'd never make it as a politician.) Well, the questions really weren't rhetorical in nature, they were Socratic (even as I warned elsewhere was part of my genetic nature.) As such, neither was it my earlier intention to answer them. If there was (or is) no interest or curiosity in discussing them, then I didn't presume or suppose that there was any point in belaboring the issue.

Replaced by AJ. Mike never did tell me why he was leaving, but it sure didn't give me a warm and fuzzy.

Agreed. Perhaps, but I'm actually more inclined to think it makes carries more impact in 1Cor 13 as an hyperbole. Doesn't matter much to me either. And I've not said as much, unless you're equating the spirit within a man with an angel (which, I suppose might think, or there might be some basis for. I can't say that I've thought it through all that carefully from that particular angle. It'd probably become entangled with a definition of spirit, and more specifically, what exactly it does or doesn't refer to in the context of "my spirit" prayeth.) Oh, we disagree on plenty alright. But maybe not in ways presumed. And I'm inclined to think there's some pretty sound reasoning for not producing the kind of proof you seem to want or need or prefer prior to believing. Proof (of every kind and variety) never seemed to do Israel very much good for hundreds of years, including on (and shortly after) the day of Pentecost. But that train don't run on some folks tracks. (Wrong side of the mirror, I guess.) If angels spoke in a language that was not a human language, do you really think that it could be identified or defined as a language? And even if it could at one particular time or instance, does that guarantee that it could or should be every time or instance? How different is a "shout" from the voice of the archangel or the trump of God? As mentioned previously, it seems there are many kinds of voices in the world, none of which are insignificant. Rev.4:1. Was it the voice of a human language, or the noise like that of a trumpet speaking that he understood? Besides, no one ever did care to discuss (or address) the (at the time seemingly irrelevant) question of how the serpent spoke to Eve in the garden.

Sure. But why accept anything of what TWI taught on that as being right? Not that I'm saying everything taught was wrong. I'm only suggesting not to be bound by it. I'm not disregarding the probability that what (or how) it was taught didn't always have the best (i.e., genuine) results. But, I'm also not inclined to think that all of what resulted was disingenuous or counterfeit. Not by much, if it is. That's an opinion, of course, which I'd agree to disagree on. Even if there were no appearance of errors (...which I'm not saying is possible, but IF it were...), there still would be (and are), because of its spiritual nature, multiple possible interpretations that would need to be sorted out.

What sort of assumptions as to what "spirit" is (or isn't) are you making? (After all, didn't TWI teach that anything that had life in and of itself was spirit?) Regardless of whether there is any uncertainty as to what the truth and reality is or isn't (concerning SIT, for instance), it appears that one of the vestiges of TWI's impingement upon thinking are the suppositions being made (or that remain) as to what is (and/or isn't) the right way to do "biblical research." Consequently, it becomes very easy to think or say that something is "plainly written," or presumed to be true, when in fact, it really isn't. It merely "fits" nicely with an accepted (and relatively common) way to analyze and promote the validity of one's "research" or basis for reality. For instance, consider the word "tongue." Remove it from the context of any sentence, and what comes to mind? The thing that runs about inside your mouth. (This isn't rocket science.) Now, consider what happens when this same word is used in a sentence. If it now means ANYTHING other that what came to mind when thought of by itself, then there must be an interpretation of meaning involved, and axiomatically, should no longer be referred to as something that is "plainly written," even if no other interpretation is thought possible. In other words, if I write that Kilroy had a "running off at the mouth" at the party last night, what I mean is not plainly written, even if we all generally know or understand what is meant by it. Furthermore, a translation into another language just might have a bit of trouble with it. Can spirits speak? It's been suggested elsewhere that angels can't, so there is only a hyperbolic meaning to "tongues of angels." Yet, it appears elsewhere that angels have a voice of some kind, else there would be no "voice of the archangel," nor any words that they spake. There are many kinds of voices in the world, none of which are without significance. History and science may not be able to demonstrate it, nor understand the significance of many... but this is a doctrinal thread, and all of these things are written in the Bible.

So, given that this touches on doctrinal, do you view the resurrection as something that literally occurred, or only as something metaphorical? Or do you see it as something else? Or, if this is a matter of questioning faith, do you believe the resurrection was a real, historical event?

The post isn't about TWI's dirty secrets, past or present, and the context of it refers to "biblical research." My apologies if the context of it's meaning wasn't clear enough to be seen. Thus, it isn't saying (or meaning) that having "the truth" is necessary to help people. (But thank you for pointing this out.) What it means, in essence, is: IF you think you have (arrived at) or hold "the truth" (aka, "the one and only true interpretation") of scripture, but have lost the perspective on what genuinely helps people, THEN you no longer have the truth. I trust this will make more sense, in a much less noticeably "offensive" way, to you.

Given that some of you here appear to have or know the truth, here's one (perhaps much less commonly known or circulated) to hash around: (paraphrased from one of the "biblical research" teachings.) If you lose the perspective of what genuinely helps people, you no longer have the truth.

And my interpretation is what, exactly? No, you're myopic for not seeing that what you think and believe the Bible "plainly says" is actually an interpretation of scripture. If you genuinely understood hermeneutics as fully or as completely as you portray yourself as knowing, then I'd suppose you get that. Agreed, we are indeed on different sides of the mirror. sayonara.

The issue at hand here is one of hermeneutics. First mention here: Pointed to again here: And now in this post, for the third (and probably last) time. But Raf & co. don't want to acknowledge this, as they are convinced that a certain interpretive meaning of the scriptures is beyond reproach. Given that my previous effort evidently failed to make it clear, I'll defer to a more complicated, perhaps more intellectualized, restatement of it, before shaving it with Occam's razor. If interpretation consists of deciphering the message of the text, then there is a certain interplay between the text and the interpreter that begins the study with certain questions and prejudices resulting from their own life experiences (a "preunderstanding," so to speak.) If the mind and life of the author can't be reconstructed or perceived, then the narrative of the text simply takes on a life of its own. The hermeneutical question that must be considered before the meaning is explained, is where the meaning is located. Does it reside behind the text, in the text, in some broad universal consciousness, in the reader of it, or somewhere in the interaction of all of these points? Previously held theological and philosophical positions determine how anyone approaches the text. Is God real? How does he speak or reveal Himself to man? Does the text "contain" revelation? How did He inspire the writer? Is the text itself revelation? Is the truth in the text, behind the text, or in front of the text? Does God inspire or work within the reader? And if so, is the meaning of the text somehow vested in the response of its reader? How we choose to answer these sort of questions form the basis for one's method of hermeneutics. To suppose that such a basis shouldn't (or doesn't) exist, or that anyone doesn't have or use hermeneutics, is ridiculous. It does exist, and any failure to properly take this into consideration leads to a very myopic view of certain things (along with the mindset of having already seen and thought about it from any other pertinent or "relevant" point of view.) I'm not quite sure how to best characterize the hermeneutical methods most often taught or employed by TWI (and many ex-TWI's), but it might be a subset of what it typically categorized as canonical, being that it was so intensely focused on etymology and languages (predominantly Greek.) Certain methods might overlap or be blended (maybe even homogenized beyond any sort of easy recognition), but I won't bother trying to articulate or speculate on what methods certain others might ascribe to (aside from what I had already stated in a previous post.) People can be lead or taught to see and think of themselves as the interpreter of scripture. This and that is what it means. This and that is what I should do or be. People can also be lead or taught to see and think of scripture as interpreting themselves and their life. This and that explains who I am and what my life is. This and that is what God and Jesus Christ did for me. If the approach to understanding SIT is one that demands objectivity and objective proof, which appears to me to run contrary to its very design and divine intent, then any effort to interpret the scripture referencing it will inevitably lead one away from its truth. However, if God had reason and use for it [sIT] in the early first century, why would He not also have reason and use for it now? Unless, or until, someone can offer a sincere, sensible and honest answer to at least that one question, I think all of this "language" stuff is going to continue spinning in circles. ______________ for improved clarity in the last question, edit added: [sIT]

Still no advanced class? (maybe too few have taken the WIGP class enough times yet...)

Looks like a trick question, to draw vpw apologists out of the closet... lol. (But that sure is a lot of wasted years if nothing more than that can be found or remembered.) Besides, what was (or is) learned doesn't always equate to what's taught. Most "lessons" that are seen or heard can be thought of as either coming from man, or from God. So, a lot of things might depend on which source an individual perspective views them as being from. (edited for grammar)