-
Posts
1,862 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Everything posted by Goey
-
Wierwille's Wacky Dispensationalism
Goey replied to TheEvan's topic in Doctrinal: Exploring the Bible
George Posted George,Then why do you bother at all with these doctrinal threads? I mean you don't give a hoot about the Bible - so what's the point? Don't you think you have rubbed our noses in your disdain for the Bible enough times by now? -
Wierwille's Wacky Dispensationalism
Goey replied to TheEvan's topic in Doctrinal: Exploring the Bible
I would like to see someone here actually make a case for TWI's version of dispensationalsm. Why not start with the so-called grace administration/dispensation. Use the scriptures and do an exegesis/expostion to show that there is in fact a biblical "grace administration", what it is precisely, and how it affects us. Saying so-and-so got it right and I believe it -or grandstanding and claiming by fiat that the opposing view is "illogical" - just won't cust the mustard. Make a solid case for it. I posted a little on Ephesians 3 but Dave and the others that support dispensatinalism chose not to address my commentary. Hmmm ???? I suppose that I am ready to do a real discussion on this topic of dispensationalism. But bring your bible and your brain your willingness to do some critical thinking because Logical fallacies, like strawman arguments, circular reasoning, word salads and ad hominen attacks will be quickly disposed of. Goey -
Wierwille's Wacky Dispensationalism
Goey replied to TheEvan's topic in Doctrinal: Exploring the Bible
"For our learning" is the same Greek word translated "doctrine" almost everywhere else in the NT. Wierwille failed to mention that when he selective negated the things he didn't like in the OT and the Gospels. I see Biblefan Dave still seems buys in to that Wierwillian theological twist. Too bad. Dave writes concerning Diepensationalism: And where would that be? Which Epsitle and what Bible mentions an "administration of grace". Not the King James. Not the NIV. Not the ASV. The words "administration of grace" do not appear in any Bible that I am aware of. Paul does however write in Epehsians 3:2: Eph 3:2 2If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: Is this talking about an "Administration" as defined by Wierwille/Bullinger/et al - as in a period of time? No. In the context read verses 7 & 8: Eph 3:7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. Eph 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; Paul is simpy saying that he was given grace by God by allowing him to preach and minister to the Ephesians (Gentiles). To pull a time framed "administration of grace" out of these verses is absurd and sloppy interpretation and is not reading it in the context. Dave said elsewhere: Huh? What "actual words" are you taking about. After posting a diatribe of TWI Doctrine and Wierwillian theology, Dave then writes: LOL! Hey Dave have you ever closed your PFAL Book and your TWI materials are actually read anything else? I kinda doubt it. Maybe you should unclutter your mind of strict adherance to Wierwille's teachings and study the works of some true Christian scholars. You are making a false presumption that folks who disagree with TWI doctrines do so becasue of resentment and anger. Not so. You see some of us have actually studied outside of PFAL and TWI materials and have through objective study found them seriously flawed and wanting - broken cisters that can hold little water. So get off of the anger and resentmet horsepucky - ok ? It doesn't cut it around here, Oh, and welcome to Greasespot! -
Roy mostly bases his interpretations on his "long talks with God" and can very seldom tie things together scripturally. So I wouldn't expect too much in the way of a scriptural explanation. To question and doubt Roy is to question and doubt God. In other words, "God" told Roy this, so a good scriptural/logical explanation is not really necessary (or very likely).
-
Constantly ? Does anyone talk about TWI constantly ?
-
Incorruptible Seed - What is is really ?
Goey replied to Goey's topic in Doctrinal: Exploring the Bible
Who says they couldn't be born again before Pentecost? My take is that he preached the parable about the seed and being born again because they COULD be born again. Some presume the seed to be the holy spirit and then conclude, based upon that presumption, that being "born again" was not available until Pentecost. However, if the Word of God is the seed as it states in Luke then it would not be the case. Folks then could be born again before Pentecost. It would then make sense as to why Jesus would preach about being born again then. Pentecost opens the door for receiving the holy spirit. Wierwille equated being born again with receiving the gift of the holy spirit, which seems in error to me now. -
Incorruptible Seed - What is is really ?
Goey replied to Goey's topic in Doctrinal: Exploring the Bible
Why then is the Word of God the seed itself in the parable in Luke 8 and not the seed itself 1 Peter 1:23? Why is the word of God not as "channel" in Luke 8? What is this parable in Luke 8 refering to if not the new birth? Mat 13:19 (KJV) When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth [it] not, then cometh the wicked [one], and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side. The seed is "that which was sown" which is the Word of God" - not the result of the sowing. 1Cr 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. If we equate born again with salvation then it seems to me that "preaching" is the means of for sowing the seed (Word of God). The Greek pulrals are fine and dandy but at best with that - all you can get is an inferrence. However, The Word is clearly called seed in several verses. The Word is also obvioulsly incorruptible (endureth for ever) Are we maybe getting a bit to heady and not looking at what is clear? -
Incorruptable seed. What is it? TWI teaches that it is the holy spirit. However as I was studying the scriptures recently I found some stuff that got me thinking that this may not be the case. It seems to me that the "seed" is the Word of God instead of the spirit itself. 1 Peter 1:23-25 (KJV) 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 1:24 For all flesh [is] as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. In the context and by a natural reading it seems that it is the Word of God that is the incurruptable seed in verse 23. Verses 24 and 25 support that, saying that the "word of the Lord endureth for ever" (incorruptable) The Word of God is called "seed" by Jesus in Luke 8. Luke 8:11 (KJV) 8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. When a seed is planted and grows it brings forth new life. The Word of God falls into the category of "spirit" as opposed to flesh. It is from God. So I am thinking that "born after the spirit" refers us back to the parable of the sower. God plants the seed which is the incorruptable Word of God. As it grows in us we have faith and are reborn or born again becoming a new creature. I have always assumed Wierwille to be correct on "incorruptable seed", but as I read and study, I can't really see anywhere in the scriptures that say that the holy spirit - the "gift", is the actual incorruptable seed referred to in 1 Peter. But instead, it now seems to me that holy spirit is, well, a gift and not the actual seed. Obviously, the implications here are fairly substantial. Feedback? (Oh, this is not "Just for Fun". Serious discussion amd debate are encouraged.)
-
The only "seed" the devil has are his "children". John Ch 8 and 1 John Ch 3 answer the question as to who the devil's children are. They are those who follow his lying and murderous ways.
-
Song, Those sawbenches are in use today as I am completing the construction of a new cafe/restaurant which we hope to open sometime next week.
-
Someone brought up logic on this ........ Luke 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. Original Statement: If he repents, then [you] forgive The INVERSE is: If he does not repent then do not forgive. The CONVERSE is: If you forgive then he repents The inverse and the converse are logically equivalent. So if the converse is true then the inverse will also be true and vice versa. Common sense tells us that our forgiveness will not necesarily cause someone to repent. So then the converse is not true - therefore the inverse is also not true. What is true then is the original statement. If someone truly repents then we should forgive them. However this does not logically imply that we are not to forgive if a person does not repent. In others words, we are not told to withhold forgiveness for lack of repentance, neither are we told to forgive those that don't repent. These choices seem to have been left up to us. Personally, I think that forgiving those that repeatedly do serious harm and who do not repent (change) - is pretty foolish - especially if they are "leaders" with some kind of authority. Do not mistake "repentance" with a forced or insincere apology for getting caught. They are not the same thing. Also, IMO it is eroneous, wrong and unthinking to label folks as "bitter" who chose to withhold forgiveness because someone refuses to repent.
-
Oak, I agree that some of the keys Wierwille taught were just common sense, like keeping things in context and stuff like that, but these simple things are many times ignored by those claming to know and understand the scriptures. However, some of Wierwille's/Bullinger's "keys", if strictly adhered to, just simply don't work out. "Previous usage" is is one and so is "scripture build-up". For example, strictly adhering to scripture build-up makes a mess of harmonizing the Gospels and leads to interpreting the same event as two different but similar events. As you pointed out with agape, previous usage is another than can get you in the soup. Context and usage/meaning at the time something was written should always take priority over previous or first usage. All in all the Bullinger's keys were not too bad, but if considered infallible and if used dogmatically, they can lead to substantial errors in interpretation.
-
The "biblical accuracy" approach to Christian living
Goey replied to skyrider's topic in About The Way
Overemphasis upon "biblical accuracy" results mostly in anal retentiveness, dogmatism and assholism. -
Posted by Oldies: Irrelevant. The context is of Romans 5:8 is not forgiveness, much less human to human forgiveness AFTER salvation. Otherwise you can just tear 1 John out of your Bible. Irrelevant. Again the context is not human to human forgiveness after salvation. . Read what is actually written. Jesus did not say "I forgive you". Instead he prayed for the father to forgive them. He put the ball in God's court. Nowhere is forgiveness mentioned here. You are presuming it. Like Jesus did in the previous example, Stephen asked God to "lay not this sin to their charge." Whether or not God honored Stephen's request is up to God - not Stephen. Again you do not read what is writtem, but instead make assumptions and ignore the rest of the scriptures. First consider that Paul is talking about a "quarrel" not rape, sexual abuse in the name of God, intentional foisting of the Word, etc. Next the word here for forgive is [charizomai] in the Greek as opposed to "aphiemi". You may do well to learn the difference between the two. Hint: 1 John uses apheimi instead of charizomai. So does Luke 17:3. And I am equally sure that my replies to you above will go in one ear and out the other.
-
Posted By Research Geek Hmm? Why wonder about that? I think you are doing more that simply floating an idea. It seems much more likely that you are promoting a YOUR particular version of "forgiveness" and implying that some folks here need to jump on that. While the Bible clearly tells us to forgive, I am not so sure that what you are suggesting is what I understand the biblical version of forgiveness to actually be. Like Satori, I don't necesarily see forgiveness as lofty or necessarily difficult - at least not forgiveness as I understand it. ( Satori's definition works pretty good for the most part). But I would like something more clear from you. Also, it is interesting that you started your list of those we possibly need to forgive with "LCM and his henchmen" instead of VPW and his henchmen, but I will not make any assumptions there. However, in the spirit of your post (forgiveness as it relates to folks in TWI), it seems to me that VPW should have been at the beginning of the list instead of being unnamed - since much of the harm actually began with him. Letting folks "off the hook" implies absolution and non accountablilty. I don't believe that this is necessarlily a part of human forgiveness in a biblical context. While we were indeed "let off the hook" by God in our salvation by grace, we are not talking about God's forgiveness and grace unto salvation, but instead human forgiveness as taught by Jesus which is directed to those who were allegedly already saved and who abused and ran roughshod over others - in the name of God. I recall something about millstones. I also see in Luke where forgivenss is conditional upon repentance - you seem to have glossed this over. Where in the scriptures is it suggested that folks should "forgive" the "impentinent"? Where does God himself "forgive" the impentinnent? I think you have confused what we are to do when the offender is not repentant with actual forgiveness. True forgiveness does not happen without repentance. God requires it. Why should the standard be set even higher for human beings? I agree that continued negative feelings (anger, rage, revenge, etc )hurt the one harboring them more than the one they are directed against. However, I am not so sure that what you are suggesting is actually the biblical forgiveness that Jesus exhorted us to do. Does praying for your friends equate to forgiveness? - I don't think so. Is praying for your enemies the same as forgiveness? Again, I don't necessarily think so. While these things are good and encouraged, they are not "forgiveness". Research Geek, as a research guy (I take that to mean biblical research), why not lay out a clear and concise biblical research paper on what you think biblical forgiveness actually is. Tie it in to what happend to folks at the hands of VPW, LCM and other so called "leaders". Explain why (according to the bible) these men & women ought to be "forgiven" without their repentance. (An apology so often demanded by some here is not actually repentance.) And explain just what it is they are to be forgiven for. Goey
-
The minor and relatively insignificant doctrines of four crucified and the six denials of Peter stem from the "dictation theory" of how we got scripture - in this case the Gospels. When it is presumed that God gave Matthew, Mark, Luke and John every sentence word by word, letter by letter with absolutely no forethought (dictation theory) then the Gospels must harmonize perfectly, since there is presumend to be no humnan input or human recollections involved. This then directs the approach to how the gospels and the rest of the scriptures are interpreted. But IMO, the dictation theory is untennable particulary in regards to the NT. It leads to much error in interpretaion and especially in the harmony of the Gospels. I rather think that the writers of the Gospels drew from each other, from personal experience, from eyewitnesses, and possibly from oral tradition. Right or wrong, (I think they are wrong), stuff like four crucified and the six denials are only significant to demonstrating the dictation theory and are really irrelevant to the Gospel of Christ and the Christian walk anyway. A natural reading of the Gospels does not support the dictation theory of inspiration. I also question why God would have to have 4 books, with no one book complete enough to show four crucified or six denials. It seems much more likely to me that these men of God wrote as honestly and as accurately as they could - the events in the Gospels according to their own knowledge and prospective (and in their own words). This approach alleviates the necessity of forcing things to fit "like a hand in a glove" , by conjuring up big differences in synonyms where none exist, and making the same event into a "similar but different event" It also allows for "errors" to exist while the big picture shines through brightly. As John sums it up: John 20:31-32 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. So my answer is: 1. no 2. no 3. No 4. No Never heard that in TWI
-
You really spanked them Pat! Actually, you did better than I expected you would. Deciding not to go to trial and forgoing on trying to get TWI's trademarks canceled was a wise choice IMO. Someone else can spank TWI another time.
-
Goey, yes, this is how I read what some folks are saying when they talk about the Leaven Principle as it relates to twi. I think you're misstating what the Leaven Principle means and what folks think about it. Stop the spin Oldies. I was not referring to the intprepretaion of the "Leaven Princple". I said you are dishonest/lying when you represent others as saying that "everything" that VPW taught was bad because of his sins. Address what I actually say Oldies and not what you twist it to imply. I don't think you ever answered me previously about what your baby is. Are you afraid or ashamed to answer. One thing I doubt, is I doubt that your baby is God's Word. I also doubt that is it the Gospel of Jesus Christ. My best guess is that your "baby" is PFAL, the teachings of VPW, and glorification of him as your teacher. This would certainly explain why you whitewash VPW's errors and behavior with all of your "yes buts". Another thing is prettly clear to me, that is that you have very little knowledge or feel for the scriptures themeselves. You almost never use the Bible/scripture to make a point. Interesting for someone who is concerned about people abandoning "The Word". -- For example, you say I missapplied the "Leaven Principle" yet you offer no Biblical exposition as to why. Why not? If VPW had lead a devout life, he would not have plagairized Bullinger, Stiles and others. Therefore there would have been no PFAL and therefore no TWI. So the answer is is no. I see you have now changed "everything in TWI was bad because if VPW sins" to just "everything was bad" - omitting the "because of his sins part". You know that changes the argument don't you - of course you do. It was intentional on your part or very sloppy. So which one is it Oldies? 1. Are "some" folks are saying that "everything" in TWI was bad. or 2. Are "some" folks are saying that "everything" in TWI was bad because of VPW sins. Which one is it Oldies, and who are these "some folks"? Lets have some names and some exmples. Quote what they said and then show how it means either of the above? You can't do it can you? That's why you probably won't even try. Your conscience has been seared. Oldies, it is dispicable how you intentionally misrepresent people, whitewash sin and evil, and defend the indefensible. If you were actually trying to bring some balance to the discussion it wouldn't be a problem. But it seems pretty clear your agenda to simply to whitewash the truth and glorify TWI-1 and VPW. IMO, you are spirtually caustic, intellectually dishonest, generally uncaring, and only here to defend VPW and your precious TWI-1. That is why folks engage in sarcasm, and put-downs Oldies. Oh, I doubt that Oldies. You think in black and white most of the time. You probably think like that because of your extreme bias and adoration of VPW/TWI-1 as viewed through your rose colored glasses. If someone mentions the bad - you presume that they deny the good and feel compelled to point it out. You project your own B & W thinking upon others. You deny the evil for the most part and only really admit the good stuff. So you project the opposite upon others. It does not make for good discussion. Of course you don't. - I am sure you have it all justified in your mind. If I were you, I would think about that statment - it's really pretty ignorant and not even close to the real reason "some" folks react to you the way they do.
-
Oldies, And neither does anyone else. Why don't you stop the intentional misrepresentation of what people are saying. FEW IF ANYONE HERE HAS EVER SAID THAT "EVERYTHING" ABOUT HIS LIFE AND TEACHINGS ARE BAD. Yes I am yelling, cause you have a real problem hearing - either that are you one dispicably dishonest human being. Get it through your thick head - and stop lying to yourself and to others about what folks are really saying. Not "EVERYTHING", but rather "SOME". SOME of his teachings were bad. SOME parts of his life were bad. As far as the Leaven Principle goes - first the "some" of his sins scripturally disqualified him for true leadership within the Church. The minimum standards are clear and concise. No one sins all the time. So let's say that VPW only commited adultery once per month and only got drunk once a week. Of all of his time that probably amounted to less than what - 5 -10 percent? Yet it was still enough to disqualify him as a leader according to the scriptures. So here is a case of a little leaven leavening the whole lump as far as being a true leader. It is similar for teachings (doctrine). For argument sake, let's say that 95 percent of what VPW taught was doctrinally correct. That leaves 5 percent being doctrinally incorrect. Now, let's look at what the 5 percent was. First in my mind is problems with the law of believing. Next is his teaching on tithing. Then there is the one where the king owns all the women in the kingdom. And then consider the backroom teachings where adultery is not even really adultery - especially if it blesses the Man of God. Now stir this stuff all up and we have the sum of all the individual parts - All of VPW's behavior - good and bad and his all his teachings - good and bad. - We now have "the lump" which is basically TWI-1 based upon VPW's teachings and leadership. The point folks are making is NOT that "everything" individually that VPW did was bad, or that "everything" individually he taught was bad. So for Pete's sake get honest for once and stop saying that. The point is that the bad (the leaven) was enough to spoil the whole lump (TWI as it was lead by VPW). Oldies, I simply don't know how I could make it any clearer for you. But just remember this - Whenever you represent folks as saying that "everything" that VPW taught was bad/wrong because of his sins - know for a fact that you are misrepresenting and lying about the truth of what is really being said.
-
Who expects "perfection"? Anyone here ever say that they expected perfection? - Another strawman. Let's cut to the chase. This is about Wierwille and those of us that point out and expose his "sins". We are being falsely portrayed as expecting perfection, when we do no such thing. Wierwille was supposed to be a Christian leader, a pastor, a teacher, an evangelist and to some an apostle. The Bible establishes clear and concise minimum standards for those who are to lead within the church. What is expected is nit perfection, but rather for those who seek to lead to meet those minimum standards - no more - no less. Wierwille (and quite a few others in TWI and in Christianity in general) did/do not meet those minimum standards and were/are therefore unfit to be leaders within the body of Christ.
-
So far, so good. What "basic truths?" And who are these "some folks" that say it's wrong to believe them? ... Same old stuff Oldies. Folks say one thing and you hear another. So far as I can tell, no one here has ever stated that TWI's evil deeds are cause for renouncing any of the "basic truths" of Christianity. Can you give one clear example where anyone has suggested that?As you stated, "truth is truth". So "truth" from the mouth of an evildoer would still be "truth" - like in the case of many of the teachings of Wierewille/PFAL or Martindale/WAP. The moral character of the person speaking/teaching the truth is irrelevant to the truth itself. Wierwille's sex perversion has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead. Oldies, I think your argument amounts to little more than a strawman - either intentional (since you have been told this numerous times), or because you suffer from a case of chronic and possibly incurable selective hearing. You are arguing and complaing againt something that I think few if any at all have ever said. No one has ever said that you should renounce your Christianity (basic truths) because of the evils of TWI/Wierwille/Martindale. Not even the atheists and agnostics here promote that kind of logic. Now, some folks have said that because of Wierwille's "sins", (Adultery, plagairism, etc) that certain doctrines he taught may be suspect and need to be re-examined. Others have suggested that it may be helpful to throw it all out and start over - not in the sense of renouncing Christianity or "basic truths", (the baby) but in the sense of temporarily setting aside those things that were taught that are mostly specific or unique to our TWI experience, and then beginning anew - without bias and with the understanding that some things may end up being retained and others may end up being discarded. Oldies, what is your "baby?" Mine is is God, Jesus Christ, the Gospel of salvation through Christ, love (and maybe a few others "basic truths".) Now if one's "baby" (basic truths) amount to blindly espousing the teachings of one man/group - doctrines like the law of believing, four crucified, the six denials of Peter, mastubation is the original sin, or any other such doctrines/dogmas specific to VPW or TWI - then I just don't know what to tell them - except that as Christians I think they are missing the boat. It's not that these things are necessarily wrong, it's just that they hardly constitute "the baby" and some of these (along with a few others) could possibly be bathwater. Again Oldies, what is your "baby"?
-
TWI-1 and TWI-2 were both rotten at the core. They may have manifested themselves differently (depending upon where/who you were), but both were still rotten. The rot in TWI-2 just came to the surface more. Ah yes, the good old days of TWI-1, where most of us glassy-eyed followers were loving God and living "the Word" while the top leader was raking in millions, buying airplanes, boinking/raping whoever he could and was accountable to no one. Who cares what VPW, CG and Howard were doing with the money and the babes? - we got "the Word" didn't we? -->
-
Kerry seemed more like a "candidate" than Bush. Articulate, polished, and a with a great tan and perfect hair. Bush on the other hand, seemed more like an average Joe. I tend to like average Joes - the tan and hair did not impress me. One thing Kerry said that really bothered me - that is the thing about passing the "global test" before he would take premptive action. Kerry seems just as concerned with global opinion than with the best interest of the safety of this country. Also at the beginning of the debate Kerry said that Sadaam was not a threat and then later on he said that Sadaam was a threat. (???) I think this guy is just saying what he thinks folks want to hear in order to get elected. Kerry did better than I thought he would - but not good enough to declare a debate victory - which I am sure the democrats and Bush-haters will claim. I would say this one was a draw as Bush didn't "win" either. he could have done better.
-
I remember when I would meet someone from another area... As part of the meeting ritual - invariable the question would be posed: - "How many times have you taken the class?" This of course was to establish the spiritual pecking order - especially if you were non- Corps.
-
Linda, I found a doccument at Symantec's Web Site that should take you through the problem and get it fixed. Here is is. To get started, click on the link above. When the page opens click on the little yellow "+" where it says, "The icon DOES appear in the system tray" Then go down to where it says "Can access the Internet with NIS disabled" and proceed by following each yellow "+" below that till the problem is solved. BTW, It is not likely that anyone will know exactly what the problem is without first doing some troubleshooting - there are too many variables involved.