TLC

Perhaps it comes down to whether or not one believes that enough of the truth that was revealed and written down is preserved in what has been canonized as "the Bible" to communicate what God intended for it to communicate. There are always going to be fundamental premises that one either accepts or rejects for what may be no other reason that it is what they believe. It doesn't mean that premises can't ever be called into question or revisited, because if they don't or can't satisfy the reason for their acceptance, they're going to eventually prove to be worthless. However, if they continue, time and time again, to show or explain how or why things are as they are, there's no reason to ever change the premise. In other words, the deeper one's understanding of a matter (i.e., the more perfectly all of it flows together), the less likely it is that they are ever going to change what they believe about it. Given the amount of "makes perfectly good sense with all other" scripture that's currently stored in various places in my memory banks (some much more difficult to locate than others... lol), certain premises underlying it all have a lot of cement holding them in place.

It's hard to know when it might have first started (or who first asked), as it may have only come into vogue with VPW's letter (which I seem to recall being prior to the sic corps graduation, but that might be wrong.) All were invited 3rd & earlier. Perhaps DWBH knows what the flavor of the day was with the fourth or fifth.

So, when it's written that the love of money is the root of all evil, do you think and suppose that it's only referring to any money that already was or had been? The point being, if it says "scripture," why think or suppose that it refers only to scripture that had already been written? Or, perhaps your position is that neither the gospels, Acts, the Epistles or Revelation qualify as "scripture." But if so, then why does Peter speak of Paul's epistles in relationship to "other scriptures" in 2Pet.3:16? (Obviously, I don't yet get where your at or what your thinking is on some of these things...)

Not even close to a fair representation, Raf. (but good job on the straw man argument.) Yes, Paul and James plainly had differences. No question about it. But the question that needs to be asked and reasoned is WHY? And that question can be approached from either perspective (errancy or inerrancy.) Now, I can't speak much of what it might look like from the side of errancy. But, from the side of inerrancy, it makes perfectly good sense to me once you see that that were following two very different paths.

Well, seems I disagree. Division certainly can be because of a wrong dividing of the Word, and I don't know why you think it wouldn't. Neither do I see why you might think that an acceptance of some doctrine of errancy (if there be such a thing) would eliminate (or even alleviate) any division. (Not that you said that, but it's alluded to.) While inerrancy may indeed breed an attitude of inflexibility, neither should it (nor does it always) demand an immediate answer or solution to every apparent discrepancy... meaning that certain things might be subject to ongoing evaluation and possible change. If that's not flexible, then perhaps I don't understand your use of the word "inflexibility."

Then I suppose you might take John 10:35 to mean something else when it says "scripture cannot be broken." An interpretation of Duet. 18:22 might also be needed. But, perhaps you want (or are making) a distinction between "the Bible" and scripture. Okay, so the Bible (as we have it) is what has been canonized (or, endorsed as being scripture.) Perhaps the real thing being discussed here is whether "all scripture" is inspired (or "God-breathed"), and not whether all scripture is or isn't included in the Bible. Care to clarify and/or explain? What part of living in this world doesn't involve a premise of some sort? Somebody here will likely take a position against man having (or making) a choice (I'll steer clear of referring to it as "free will"), but that's another issue. But I see no problem in acknowledging that there were no errors in the original inspired writings, and considering/studying/working (whatever you prefer) the scriptures from that vantage point. Logic can serve to build tremendous theological systems. But if the premise is faulty (or incorrect), then... well, you know the rest. Whether one accepts that premise that all scripture in inspired of God (and without error) significantly changes what is results in his (or her) mind. Personally, I chose which premise to adhere to a long time ago (well before VPW and TWI). Sure doesn't mean that I have always built right, or that I haven't had to (a number of times) dig deep and rip out significant chunks of ideological error. However, it has always been the bedrock that I've been tethered to. And (surprisingly enough) more answers have come to light for me in recent years, not from the Greek (or Hebrew or Aramaic or any other "in depth" research into the early manuscripts), but simply by changing certain perspectives on what (and why) things are written where and as they are in the Bible, primarily using the KJV. The difference such a relatively small change can make is, well... for lack of a better word, astounding.

Much to interesting a topic not to comment on. After reading DWBH’s drab take on it, Steve’s was somewhat refreshing. It’s true, VPW disagreed with Bullinger on when the church started. Bullinger reasoned it to have begun after Acts 28, essentially submarining SIT and the manifestations of holy spirit. VPW (and others, such as Scofield) taught that in began on the day of Pentecost in Act 2. Personally, I’m persuaded that the failure to “rightly divide” these things has resulted (and continues to result) in errors, the magnitude of which is stunning. Speaking of rightly dividing, I’m also of the opinion that this matter fits directly in the crosshairs of 2Tim.2:15. Furthermore, I’ve come to the realization that some number of the practices of TWI were incorrectly based on the things in Acts 2, many years prior to the start of the age of grace, which (as alluded to in here in Steve’s post) was ushered in by Paul. Les Feldick does a fine job on the different administrations of time (as well as quite a fair number of other things.) Saul (Paul) was so tightly wound, evidently it took some isolation time in Arabia (mount Sinai?) to set him straight, and there was a lot to learned from the ascended Christ.

Well, as I haven't read it elsewhere here (perhaps I missed it), it should probably be noted that though it might have started one way (where it was offered to anyone graduating the corps,) ordination relatively soon became something which, if desired, was to be requested. There were exceptions, of course, but that was usually how it began. The request was reviewed, and if approved, apparently the requester was then "invited" to be ordained. Perhaps it was a little less mysterious or glamorous route than some may have imagined.

New, yes. But not a neophyte by any means... (nor am I easy to offend, not that I prefer any try.) Thanks for the advice, but I'm really not into some big or splashy intro or starting a thread. (I really didn't expect to post as much as is out there already.) Perhaps it will suffice to say that we (being married) were around in the heyday of TWI, and rather hoped that anonymity would allow for more credence being given to what is actually said, rather than associating with some hierarchy of what was. (Needless to say, I think the nametags, the "Rev's", and the Corps program itself did sufficient damage on their own. They all did a swell job of inflating ego's and puffing heads... and I'm unaware of any exceptions, if there were any.) A rather hasty assessment, don't ya think?

Quite okay, I'd surmised that some time ago... But to be fair, I personally believe there are two (inextricably woven) realities that are spoken of in scripture. At times, it may be necessary to clarify "which" of these realities we're talking about, and unless someone has a better way to do it, I'm accustomed to thinking of them in terms of "physical" (or tangible) and "spiritual." Given that our language and ability to communicate is typically framed by a similar mental conditioning to the physical, it's not always easy to make the distinction (especially on the first try.) Undoubtedly, not everyone here will agree with any of this. Nevertheless, it's how I see it.

Then please note that if I don't understand your question or see how it relates to something I've said, then I'm probably not going to post a reply. Well, I'm certainly not a mind reader, if it's something rolling around in your head. That's not how I wrote it, but if that's the way you care to see it, so be it. What one thinks is real may or may not be real. But if it's not real, does it make a hoot of a difference whether or not it's "new"? However, if it truly is "real", it'd be rather egotistical to think that it's "new," don't ya think? I replied to that once already. Lordy Pete. Is that your only view of God?

Given that I'm not sure how you parsed that from what I said, why ask me? Is there something specific that you had in mind, or are you just fooling around with words in general? In other words, are you trying to understand something that I said, something in your own mind, or something to twist around? Understanding a matter does seem to cement one's believing of it. But understanding is not necessarily a prerequisite nor a mandatory ingredient to believing. And as I see it, there's a far closer relationship between trust and believing than there is between trust and understanding. (Why else do you suppose it is written to trust in the Lord with all thine heart and lean not unto thine own understanding?)

Considering that "spiritual understanding" comes only from the Lord, need there be any doubt where it comes from (2Tim.2:7) or who to trust on such matters?

Would it make any more sense to you to say that it's knowing things of the spirit, or things which are spiritual? Of course, that still probably makes little or no sense for anyone that lacks either the concern or the ability to discern where certain knowledge originates. If, for example, one thinks (or "knows") that there is no real knowledge that extends beyond what can be scientifically known or analyzed, then any and all "spiritual knowledge" is axiomatically relegated to foolishness, or mysticism, or whatever other fantasy branding happens to be in vogue. Capeesh?

>> Bolshevik >> A modern cult or analogous group could make use of the internet. Probably my fault, but it seems you entirely missed the satire of it. For many (perhaps most) nowadays, the Internet has replaced any need for God. >> I don't know about "way back then", if you wouldn't mind elaborating some. Don't know what you're looking for. That sort of generalized question puzzles me. >> Rocky >> No. There are more young people now than there were then. You sure 'bout that? We were the baby boomers. >> And since it's linked to developmental processes (i.e. growing into adulthood), That's only part of it. It was a different world forty-fifty years ago. >> it follows that there are more young people searching today for the same answers we sought when we were young. The same answers? Really? Seems I find that rather hard to believe. (And I don't think I'm that out of touch with reality...) >> But there's FAR more tangible knowledge of every subject available today, and it's more readily at people's fingertips with the WWW, Precisely. Unfortunately, tangible knowledge just doesn't equate to spiritual knowledge, >> so we would not necessarily be perceiving the trends the same as they occurred in earlier generations. No bull, Sherlock. (do any of you ever laugh at anything 'round here...?)

>> Those responses are not mutually exclusive. Agreed, as evidenced by the many cults that sprang up in those days. The point was that great hunger for truth doesn't necessarily dull one's intelligence, sensibility, or ability to reason (any of which might make one more gullible.) Perhaps the real issue is whether or not one believes that God exists, and that He both can and will answer prayers. Do you think there were there more young people that believed that way back then? If so, is that what some are equating to being "unusually gullible"? >> And one other thing: WELCOME TO THE GSC, TLC. Thank you for the welcome (take nothing for granted...)

>> I remember reading somewhere that the hippies in different areas were >> good targets in their time because they were unusually gullible and >> easy to draw into sects and cults and stuff. No, we were merely a generation in search of the truth, anywhere it could be found. Today's generation has the Internet, and no need to look anywhere else for answers...