TLC

I think we all repackage ideas in our own ways, and categorically declaring what some one else's motive is behind it far more dangerous and difficult than perceiving where the idea might have originated from. Apart from the plagiarism, if "many of Wierwille's words" stopped people from thinking, it might as also be said that many of his words started people thinking. What remains unanswered in either of those statements, is what kind of thinking stopped (in some?) and what kind started (in some?), and what evidence there is of his intent for either. The ideas of Martin Luther and John Wesley have weathered a storm or two, don't you think? edit change: "our ways" should read "our own ways"

But it's not a gun or bullet that Steve said was intended to stop people from thinking. It was words. If they come to us from a repeator tower, is the repeator tower responsible for them? If there's a gun to fit in here, it's shoot the messenger, not the message. Sure it does. But it's looking at it from a different perspective than you're willing to accept or think possible. Therefore, it means nothing to you.

The book was recommended reading, and sold in the bookstore. Hasn't it been discussed already that most of what he taught on this came predominately from Bullinger's work on it?

Considering it was taught at TWI that it would be one or the other that would result in the downfall of the ministry, yes.

If he's as much a plagiarist as has been revealed that he was, why credit him as the source of the toxicity? I'd say that it's certainly not as fragile from the inside looking out as it is from the outside looking in. Consider, for example, the lives of men like Martin Luther or John Wesley.

Between legalism and liberalism, which do most here see as the main (or more prominent) reason for it's failure?

Regardless of the whether it is translated to denote more of a reason why, it's still indicative of some kind of change, which occurs at a point in time. So, I don't believe the complete disconnect with time that you're suggesting is valid.

You are certainly entitled to an opinion, Steve. However, you're putting yourself in a precarious position if you declare it to be much more than that. When Paul wrote that he was the apostle of the Gentiles (verse 13), do you suppose that he was the apostle to only the Gentiles that were in Rome? Of course not. Then why suppose that when he says "I speak to you Gentiles" immediately prior to that, that he was addressing this to only those Gentiles that were in Rome? It appears to me that "the root" here stems back to Abraham, in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed (Gen.18:18.) The Gentiles (all of them) being grafted in had nothing to do with anything they did to be grafted in, it was a result of the work of the seed of Abraham, the Lord Jesus Christ. And, just as all of Israel (didn't matter whether they did or didn't believe) were considered to be partakers of His goodness (in spite of any of them not being deserving of it), now all Gentiles were positioned to benefit from the goodness of God. (Because they really weren't, prior to this.) An absurd saying on their part, if they said it. (And I have no reason to think they didn't.) Say on. Actually, there are notable differences, especially in context of the present discussion, dispensationalism. So your critique is not only shallow, it's very misleading. Ever read or investigate Feldick's teachings relating to this passage in Roman 11, which Scofield has few notes or comments on? Perhaps you (and Feldick) know more of Scofield's notes than are found here A blithe reference to Feldick's teachings didn't improve your credibility.

That looks like opinion, not fact. As does that, especially considering it doesn't show how or why you think it makes the cross of no effect to the Church. How does that account for or include the statement in 1John 2:2 that he died for the sins of the whole world? I don't see the logical connection between the two statements. It appears non sequitur.

After looking into this further, my view of oikonomia appears to align itself more with that of an "economy." And as you probably already know, when economic conditions change (especially if there is a radicle change), you end up in the poor house if you don't adjust your thinking to the rules or operating environment of the new economy... Here's a rather interesting read should you care to consider this further: http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2014/10/oikonomia-revisited.html

I'd agree that certainly happened at TWI. The other thing is, why ordain so many? Were there really that many people dying or getting married? Anyone can correct me if you think I'm wrong, but VPW himself said (in essence, these are not exact words) that those were the two things that ordination allowed you to do. In other words, if you didn't want to marry or burry people, you might not want to be ordained. Yet, how many were? Seems skewed a bit out of proportion for the numbers that were in it. Aye, but it was "the ticket" to advance in stature among the rank and file. The "public recognition" that you were... well, enough of that. It's made me wonder how it really was in the first century, outside the hierarchy and those "who seemed to be somewhat" at Jerusalem. Yes, I see that Titus was to "ordain elders" in every city (as is also mentioned in Acts 14). But, where is it written in scripture that elders have gift ministries, or visa versa? Has anybody that has given some honest thought to this care to comment on it? I'm inclined to think that 2Cor.12 probably aligns with that period of time he was being dragged out of Lystra, which is why he couldn't say whether he was "in the body or out of the body" (which had just been beaten to a pulp.) Couldn't say, 'cause he probably didn't know if he was alive or dead at the time. Amen.

"I wanted and needed answers from God" I don't know how to measure that either. I knew/believed He was real, but invisible. Enter the invisible side of that equation, and you'll arrive at my usage and meaning of the word "spiritual."

Evidently there was much more to be known (or had started to surfaced) in those years. Backing up 10 years left much more in the dark. If there were a lot of people that knew this or that, even the bits and pieces were smaller. And if love covers a multitude of sins, well... maybe more was just covered over.

It was probably far less known than you seem to think, even among corps and staff.

It's probably isn't possible to properly discuss what oikonomia might mean without a certain degree of speculation or reflecting on the effect it may have on the meaning of various passages of scripture. However, even before arriving at that point, the alternate meanings of it appears that it might, could, would or should (take you pick) alter the resulting segmentations of time, administrations, scriptures, or stewards (again, take your pick.) And for that, the underlying authority of scripture needs to remain in place.

There's undoubtedly very diverse opinions on this, but our position on this does have a very significant impact on how each of us view and interpret scripture. My thought to initiate this topic, stems from this post in the "STF'S REV" thread, as it seems that it may introduce a third possibility that might be worth exploring further. (And it's been plainly stated by others here that there are only two possibilities, Dispensational or Covenantal.) At present, I lean towards Dispensational, but not in the traditional form presented in PFAL or by TWI (or by STF.) What are other thoughts on this?

Actually, at the time I wrote that, I was probably thinking more about why it might have grown the way in did in the 70's. I recall it being a time of turmoil, of questioning the status quo and the materialism of the day. Viet Nam was a disaster. Alternatives were expanding. I can't put my finger on it, really. But, speaking for myself, I wanted and needed answers from God that I couldn't find in the church (or much of anywhere else.) It was, for lack of any better or more appropriate description, a spiritual hunger that began to steer my course. So, I suppose I'm more inclined to think there is significantly less spiritual hunger today (which I would probably attribute to a more affluent, less "needy" society, as well as significantly more "tangible" answers being propounded and available on the Internet.) Sure, it's not the only reason. Maybe not even the major one. But I think it's a significant one.

Familiar with the LCM expression, of course. But I honestly don't (and never did, as best I can recall) associate that (what you say above) being taught in session#7. Maybe I was just too thickheaded or stubborn to hear it mean that, I don't know. I've (previously) read a number of pages there (beginning and ending), and nothing either surprised me or perked my interest to read more than what I did. Maybe that defies logic and doesn't make any sense to you, but that's my candid take on it. Aside from seeing where some number of folks here thoughts on it are, the thread doesn't interest me and nothing stirred within me caring to discuss it further. And by the way, I said nothing about falling down (indicative of fear) rabbit holes.

It's doubtful anyone has "heard it all," so no need to pin that baloney on anybody. Furthermore, I voiced my opinion already as to why I thought TWI isn't as big as it was in the 70's when I first posted here. But, it was probably easy to miss with all the excitement over fresh meat showing up at the table. Here 'tis, then I'll step away (as it, or something I said early on, seemed to light a fire the last time):

The original sin was taught wrong, so I don't give a flip about your alluding to it. And as far as considering or entertaining thoughts that are contrary to anything I've learned, it's not verboten in my mind, and probably never has been. But, once a matter has been tested and proven (to myself) long enough, it really doesn't take long to weigh any "new" (if it even is) evidence against it. So, if you suppose there is something new that I haven't already heard or considered, and can condense it to a hundred or so words or less, I'd be more than happy to read and consider it. But if you think I'm going to spend hours and hours looking down some rabbit hole looking for some, as of yet unknown or new (to me), thing... well, you're not a very good salesperson, and I'm not buyin' it.

Ugh. What a controversial issue to bring up in a forum of such divers "ex-twi" beliefs. Given the level it was elevated to and the issues that that resulted in, there's undoubtedly far more said about it here at GSC than I have time for or have enough interest in to find or read. (I've read some things, somewhere on GSC previously.) It probably falls into a category of acceptance (yes, I believe its true) that defies reason or logic, and after so many years of benefiting from personal use of it, there simply isn't a lot of reason (or room) left for me to change how or what I think of it. So, I'd rather pass on that one.

Maybe so. Might find out if I stick around long enough. Maybe I wouldn't have to have a defensive posture if a few here weren't tryin' so hard to put a horn in my arse.

Objection to the "more" valuable aside (seriously... did you have to pile anything higher or deeper on that?), if you have something specific in mind related to this topic, you're always free to ask, but there's always the risk that I might not answer at all, or in as straightforward a manner as you (or somebody else here) would appreciate. I'm not trying to be mean, illusive, or aloof. (But who's kidding who? Those things can certainly be egged on and drawn out of me at times, 'cause I ain't as perfect as I'd like to be.) If I don't want to discuss something (for any number of reasons, including the right to preserve anonymity), then please allow me to pass on it. And, should it even need to be said, using various forms of coercion, goading, flank straps, or electric prods usually don't work well.

Likewise, I also have ended up changing my position of a number of things, some number of them due in part to things that were discussed on some of these boards showing (as you said) "too many things on the other side." Not so much doctrine, per se (as more of that change came from personal study of the scripture, my spouse, and from listening to a layman farmer's teachings), but of the practical error that was in place throughout TWI in the 70's and mid-80's. But, since you made the invitation, what might some of the examples of your doctrinal adjustments or changes be? (Or, were you thinking not so much about doctrinal position changes?) Perhaps I've already taken a gander at them, or made (similar?) adjustments in my position for other reasons. Unwinding certain misperceptions and illusions of TWI has been no small or easy feat, and was not painless. Nevertheless, it is past, and there is yet time to grow and improve before the return, for those that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. (Which seems to be a bit of a rarity anymore in our society. Maybe it's where I live. I don't know.) You'd think somebody that read much of anything here before posting would have had more of a clue. But, they probably just thought they were here to save y'all. Static? Is that all? Not cross-shredded into itsy bitsy pieces?

Yeah, I was trying to be a funny guy. But chiding accepted. It wasn't warranted, so, my apologies. Given that I view scripture from the vantage point of inerrancy (which I realize is a premise that others here are opposed to), I simply don't see the merit of involving myself in much discussion over authorship. Being a theology major some 40+ years ago before my involvement with TWI, I was exposed to more JEPD theory than I care to remember, and need few reminders of how easily the arguments for and against it can go 'round and 'round. So, it's just hard to draw me much further or deeper into a more detailed discussion of it. I don't see there being any pretense about it, I simply prefer to move on to other more interesting or pertinent discussion. I think we all make choices at times to ignore certain things posted on these board (probably not often enough), and it may be more a matter of seeing or learning about the intent of the what is posted rather than getting stuck on or squabbling over every little detail or innuendo. After seeing that Paul and the apostles at Jerusalem never really arrived on common ground (and yes, I understand that they shook hands and agreed in essence to let each other have their own gospel and go there separate ways), I really don't hold any confidence or hope that they were all correct, or that they all found common ground. However, that said, I do find Steve's take (though not yet clarified or well defined) on this thread to be somewhat interesting, and am curious to see what might come of it. Fair enough?