Charity

[Bramble]

Hit a nerve, hmmm?

So, greg, why did you jump on my timing if it wasn't really a problem? Why is my answer blurred because others have answered before?

Or are you just lashing out at someone who -gasp- had something unflattering to say about your definition(uh, you mentor's definition)

If you'll notice the quote I started my post with, it was from the very first post--you mentor's definition. That's what I posted about.

How do you know what I can and can't understand?

And tell me again about HELL? Because in my twenty years in TWI, hell was not a way doctrine.That's a pretty big doctrinal goof for a wafer.

Maybe you are not way or way like at all? Or maybe you are someone's new babe in the Word--and they threw you in here to take the heat for them? Niiiice

Ahhhh, charity. Hand in hand with deception. Hmmm, I guess you really are in the Way.

[Goey]

Now don't that take the cake .......

A spiritual "mentor" having his apprentice tell a bald face lie to deceive us about the source of an attempted definition of "love" ...

As I undertand the scriptures, lying and deception are not a part of "charity" . Your deception is a mockery of the very thing you attempted define. You mock God Himself.

Gregg, you and your mentor understand nothing of real charity.

You should both consider a different vocation where dishonesty and deception are the norm. --- Like politics or used car sales.

[greg123]

Now don't that take the cake .......

A spiritual "mentor" having his apprentice tell a bald face lie to deceive us about the source of an attempted definition of "love" ...

As I undertand the scriptures, lying and deception are not a part of "charity" . Your deception is a mockery of the very thing you attempted define. You mock God Himself.

Gregg, you and your mentor understand nothing of real charity.

You should both consider a different vocation where dishonesty and deception are the norm. --- Like politics or used car sales.

Gooey let's say I know nothing and my mentor knows nothing. Then explain the meaning right now and maybe we can learn something today. Since you are so knowledgeable tell us oh wise one the meaning of charity. What is the true definition. You come up with something better than the original post and I will say you are right. You say we don't understand anything about "real" charity what is "real" charity. Let us in on the secret, show me some scripture to back your opinions.

Greg

[greg123]

Hit a nerve, hmmm?

So, greg, why did you jump on my timing if it wasn't really a problem? Why is my answer blurred because others have answered before?

Or are you just lashing out at someone who -gasp- had something unflattering to say about your definition(uh, you mentor's definition)

If you'll notice the quote I started my post with, it was from the very first post--you mentor's definition. That's what I posted about.

How do you know what I can and can't understand?

And tell me again about HELL? Because in my twenty years in TWI, hell was not a way doctrine.That's a pretty big doctrinal goof for a wafer.

Maybe you are not way or way like at all? Or maybe you are someone's new babe in the Word--and they threw you in here to take the heat for them? Niiiice

Ahhhh, charity. Hand in hand with deception. Hmmm, I guess you really are in the Way.

Bramble

Let's start with John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

In order to perish it would have to be a unusual circumstance. You are not just going to blow away so if we look at it everyone who dies will come to the judgement seat of Christ and whoever is not written in the book of life will be thrown in the Lake of Fire(hell). So I hope that explains it for you.

Greg

[Oakspear]

Well it seems as though the people can't understand the epistles. So let me explain each chapter

Being unable to understand and being unwilling to accept a possibly wrong outlook are two different things. Most of us remember (and understand) what Wierwille taught on the subject, which mostly agrees with Bullinger. Poking holes in the inconsistancies is a result of thinking. Try it.

[Oakspear]

You are not just going to blow away so if we look at it everyone who dies will come to the judgement seat of Christ and whoever is not written in the book of life will be thrown in the Lake of Fire(hell). So I hope that explains it for you.

Greg

happy Mabon/Autumn Equinox Bramble!

[Bramble]

Greg--unbelievers thrown into the lake of fire is not Way doctrine on afterlive. Haven't you read Dr. W's book on Are the Dead Alive Now? Over and Over?

I still say that is a pretty big doctrinal goof for a wafer to make.

Oakspear--there will be apple goodness at my house this weekend!

[sprawled out]

greg123--

i didn't respond to your initial post because i didn't want to be nasty to someone who seemed well-meaning and not-that-bright. but now that i know the words weren't yours, i can tell you the truth: it's an idiotic "definition." could you make it a little longer? shove some more into it?

tell your "mentor" that words mean ONE THING--not dozens of things that you feel you want them to mean. that "literal translation according to usage" stuff the way used was just another way to make the bible mean what they wanted it to mean.

and honestly, do we really need some absurd, cobbled-together "definition" to tell us what love is?

[T-Bone]

Here’s a definition I found at http://biblebrowser.com/ in the Bible in Basic English version of Romans 12:9

Let love be without deceit. Be haters of what is evil; keep your minds fixed on what is good. (BBE)

Greg, you might want to pass that reference on to your mentor. It’s amazing how easy it is to find a good simple definition of a Christian virtue like love – in of all places – the Bible!

[SafariVista]

Sometimes it's easier to see what something is by being clear in what it is NOT...

From what I've seen, there was very little Charity in TWI, and Charity IS ALIVE AND WELL in many local Churches here... that I know for sure~

[johniam]

quote: Oakspear: I'm sure there are sections of each epistle which contain elements of all 4. Remember they always said there is no reproof and correction for Thessalonians because God is going to pull off the hope and there can be no possibility of error? Well, twice it says to comfort one another with these words, so if people didn't do that they could be reproved, right?

But VP kept saying that the order of the church epistles did not vary in all greek texts, which wasn't true of the gospels or the other NT stuff and he (VP) treated them as a curriculum. Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians as doctrine reproof and correction to the individual believer, Ephesians Phillipians and Collosians as doctrine reproof and correction to the church as a whole, and Thessalonians as doctrine of the hope, the great equalizer.

Like I said, there can be elements of doctrine reproof correction and instruction in righteousness anywhere, but I see no evidence to refute VPs take on that.

BRAVO!

You just made my case FOR me!

All the Church Epistles are for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness.

Period.

You YOURSELF have seen as much, and SAID as much.

Therefore, to limit any one of them to 1/4 of that is to rob it of up to 3/4 of its purpose.

No, I did not say that "all the church epistles are for doctrine reproof correction instruction in righteousness period". YOU said that.

I said that while all the church epistles contain ELEMENTS of those things, the THEME of the church epistles is Romans, Ephesians, and Thessalonians - doctrine, Corinthians and Phillipians - reproof, and Galatians and Collosians - correction.

Lasagna, spaghetti, and macaroni all have a common element, pasta, yet they are 3 different menu items. You would have a lot more credibility if 1) you weren't weighted down by your broken record VP hating agenda, and 2) the fact that you have to write a short novel every time you express said agenda.

[WordWolf]

Other than "vpw and Bullinger say those are the themes for the Church Epistles,

AND we have to count them as 7, not 9,

AND we can ONLY apply this definition to the Church Epistles,

AND we have to count all 4 as only 3,

and can't apply it to 'ALL SCRIPTURE' like it ACTUALLY SAYS",

there seems to be no case for "this is the true meaning of that verse."

II Timothy 3:16-17.

"All scripture

is given by inspiration of God, and

is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

My credibility's just fine, thank you.

Neither you, vpw, OR Bullinger actually MADE A SIGNIFICANT CASE for this

interpretation you hold in common.

[Oakspear]

Johniam:

I can't tell which section of your last post where you are supposedly quoting me, and which part you are commenting, but none of it was said by me.

I think that you and I are actually agreeing, if you can imagine that.

In post #11you said

Keep in mind Corinthians is a reproof epistle. Chapter 13 lists 16 characteristics about charity, 9 of which say what charity is NOT.

Wordwolf questions that in post #13

That's what vpw said, because that's what Bullinger said.

It looks neat on a chart, and sounds learned.

However, I question whether there's sufficient evidence to say that with

authority.

One could just as easily argue it's the doctrinal epistle of the manifestation

of the spirit, or declares the doctrine of the "Gathering Together".

You respond in post #28- the bold looks to me to be your response to WordWolf

quote:Keep in mind Corinthians is a reproof epistle.

That's what vpw said, because that's what Bullinger said.

It looks neat on a chart, and sounds learned.

However, I question whether there's sufficient evidence to say that with

authority.

One could just as easily argue it's the doctrinal epistle of the manifestation

of the spirit, or declares the doctrine of the "Gathering Together".

The doctrine is in Romans 12 (let love be without dissimulation [hypocrisy]), 1 Cor. 13 shows ways that hypocrisy can sneak into your love walk.

I further commented in post #31

Johniam:

One of the things I noticed about Bullinger was that everything had to fit into his charts and diagrams, which sometimes had no basis other than it fit his view of "decent & in order".

If I remember correctly, his assignation of epistles of doctrine, reprof & correction was based on 2 Timothy 3:16-17...given for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness...leaving out the instruction (possibly claiming that the last "for" was "which is" - I can't recall if that was his or Wierwille's) - A case can easily be made that doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction...all four (or all three if you prefer to leave out instruction) are present in all nine epistles. That's another thing, there are nine Pauline epistles to the various cities, not seven (two to Corintha and two to Thessalonica), but seven fit better into Bullinger's ouitline

Then you post this in #34 - it looks like you're quoting me, but it does not correspond to anything that I can find that I posted.

Oakspear: I'm sure there are sections of each epistle which contain elements of all 4. Remember they always said there is no reproof and correction for Thessalonians because God is going to pull off the hope and there can be no possibility of error? Well, twice it says to comfort one another with these words, so if people didn't do that they could be reproved, right?

But VP kept saying that the order of the church epistles did not vary in all greek texts, which wasn't true of the gospels or the other NT stuff and he (VP) treated them as a curriculum. Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians as doctrine reproof and correction to the individual believer, Ephesians Phillipians and Collosians as doctrine reproof and correction to the church as a whole, and Thessalonians as doctrine of the hope, the great equalizer.

Like I said, there can be elements of doctrine reproof correction and instruction in righteousness anywhere, but I see no evidence to refute VPs take on that.

Wordwolf in #35 quotes your post #34 and adds this

BRAVO!

You just made my case FOR me!

All the Church Epistles are for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness.

Period.

You YOURSELF have seen as much, and SAID as much.

Therefore, to limit any one of them to 1/4 of that is to rob it of up to 3/4 of its purpose.

Wordwolf and I make further comments in posts #'s 36-39

I make no further comments on the subject, other than a few posts directed at Greg

It appears that you are actually quoting WordWolf.

I said that while all the church epistles contain ELEMENTS of those things, the THEME of the church epistles is Romans, Ephesians, and Thessalonians - doctrine, Corinthians and Phillipians - reproof, and Galatians and Collosians - correction.

Maybe. I know of no studies done to determine if that is true or not. All I have is Bullinger's declaration that it is so, and Wierwille's acceptance of it. If you have gone through the nine "church" epistles and have seen this to be so, fine, but I don't see it myself.

[excathedra]

charity begins at home

-- mom chap. 1 verse 1

[skyybugg]

Test 123 "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me."

[greg123]

You guys are really going to love the next quote.

Greg

[Goey]

Gooey let's say I know nothing and my mentor knows nothing.

Groggy, you've demonstrated that already. No need for hypotheticals.

Then explain the meaning right now and maybe we can learn something today. Since you are so knowledgeable tell us oh wise one the meaning of charity. What is the true definition. You come up with something better than the original post and I will say you are right.

Read my intital post in this thread. Was there something unclear?

You say we don't understand anything about "real" charity what is "real" charity. Let us in on the secret, show me some scripture to back your opinions.

Typical TWI mentality. Grab some verses from the Bible, intelectualize them, then condense them into a super duper magical formula. -- Ever learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

The "opinion" that I clearly stated, does not require scripture to back it up any more than scripture back up is needed to tell someone that their car is has a flat tire.

Why don't you back up your deception and hypocrisy with scripture? -- How do you and your "mentor" fit deception and hypocrisy into to your magical, super duper definition of charity?

Edited September 23, 2006 by Goey

[greg123]

Groggy, you've demonstrated that already. No need for hypotheticals.

Read my intital post in this thread. Was there something unclear?

Typical TWI mentality. Grab some verses from the Bible, intelectualize them, then condense them into a super duper magical formula. -- Ever learning, but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

The "opinion" that I clearly stated, does not require scripture to back it up any more than scripture back up is needed to tell someone that their car is has a flat tire.

Why don't you back up your deception and hypocrisy with scripture? -- How do you and your "mentor" fit deception and hypocrisy into to your magical, super duper definition of charity?

Slick,

This is funnier the Jay Leno last night, if you knew verses to back up your opinion you would be right. For you to say something written is wrong it must disagree with the Bible first. The writings that were put in these threads were in full compliance with the Bible. Charity is of the bible therefore the bible must be used to define it. The only thing you have shown me is that you can give me a paragraph with useless words. Slick you must be able to back up your opinions against the word with the word, and since you can't say that I am wrong straight out, the definition stands.

[waysider]

Greg123---------------"We should reflect the love we have with one another."

Is this an opinion or is there specific scripture that will substantiate that as it is worded?

Mind you, I'm not suggesting it is necessarily bad advise, but there are some elements of the way in which it is stated that might not hold up under strict scrutiny, such as reflecting with one another.

Even the old childrens fellowship song suggested we should let it SHINE not reflect and suggested in doing so that ALL might see that "Little Light".

Should we now dissect the heart out of a simple childrens song too? Or should we just accept the fact that GOD's love is beyond our definitions?(yours, mine and vpw's)

[WordWolf]

Slick,

This is funnier the Jay Leno last night, if you knew verses to back up your opinion you would be right.

[You've completely misunderstood how things work here.

See,

you just walked in and declared something true.

Goey pointed out you did that.

Then you decided he didn't make his case.

But you have it backwards.

See,

when you come in and make bald claims like that,

YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT THEM.

So,

as you yourself pointed out, YOUR posts were flawed,

"If you knew verses to back up your opinion you would be right."

When challenged to do so, you've pretended you already DID,

which is dishonest and incorrect.]

For you to say something written is wrong it must disagree with the Bible first. The writings that were put in these threads were in full compliance with the Bible. Charity is of the bible therefore the bible must be used to define it.

[Actually,

for you to say something written is RIGHT it must agree with the Bible FIRST.

Your claims in these threads were CLAIMED to be in full compliance with the Bible,

but we are not going to just take your word, or anyone else's word,

that they do so.

You did NOT use the Bible to define "charity".

You made up a definition and announced it matched the Bible.

You completely failed to SUPPORT YOUR BALD CLAIM.]

The only thing you have shown me is that you can give me a paragraph with useless words. Slick you must be able to back up your opinions against the word with the word, and since you can't say that I am wrong straight out, the definition stands.

[The thing you've shown US is that you can post words, and when challenged, you can spew insults.

When making an assertion-which is how this thread started-

you must be able to back up your opinion WITH The Word.

Your definition NEVER stood, since it was never SUPPORTED.]

[dmiller]

Word to the Wise ---

Don't mess with WordWolf -- You'll get yer foot handed back to ya in a sling! ;)

[greg123]

This is for Wordwolf and Slick

We should reflect the love we have

with one another, putting off the old man,

putting on the mind of Christ. Sharing manifestations

for the profit of the believers and non- believers.

The Love:

1. John 3:16 For God Loved us

2. Deu 6:5 We should love God

3. John 13:34 Love one another this is where the reflection must come in

Renewal:

1. Eph 4:22-24 putting on the new man and putting off the old man

2. Rom 13:14 Put ye on the mind of Christ

Manifestation:

1. ICor 12:7 Manifestation is for the profit of Believers

All in all

ICor 13 is how Charity is to be performed

Therefore I have biblical evidence for the quote.

Greg

[DrtyDzn]

Sharing manifestations

for the profit of the believers and non- believers.

The inclusion of this in your definition implies that those who do not practice manifestations are unable to truly act out of charity. That would leave out a whole lot of good church going folk. Or is this just an added phrase to stick a little more theology in the definition?

Jerry

[johniam]

quote: Don't mess with WordWolf -- You'll get yer foot handed back to ya in a sling!

That's only if you buy into his self appointed "righteousness".

[greg123]

The inclusion of this in your definition implies that those who do not practice manifestations are unable to truly act out of charity. That would leave out a whole lot of good church going folk. Or is this just an added phrase to stick a little more theology in the definition?

Jerry

Which "good" going church folk are we talking about?? The same ones who believe that God is three people. The bible states as a matter of truth. Manifestations are profitable for our learning, it doesn't matter what "good" folk do. ICOR 12:7 clearly states that no matter what anybody says.

The bible is of truth there is no way around that. Good church folk believe charity is to give all the money they have ICOR 13:3 And though I bestow all my good to feed the poor and have not charity it profiteth me nothing.

More good church folk I know don't believe Manifestations are real. This is just my personal experience, but as ICOR clearly states Manifestations are profitable for believers

Greg

quote: Don't mess with WordWolf -- You'll get yer foot handed back to ya in a sling!

That's only if you buy into his self appointed "righteousness".

This is right I am shaking in my boots.

Greg