Charity

[Raf]

Sometimes topics get so serious, I can't tell a joke anymore.

Oopsie. :)

[dmiller]

And for goodness sake! Does noone realize Mars is not a planet? It's a candy bar!

(Reads --- then walks away with Baby Ruth, and snickers!)

Edited September 19, 2006 by dmiller

[johniam]

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.

[templelady]

Starting immediately all sentences in the ensuing posts to this topic must be diagrammed

[lindyhopper]

Damn__

.............\___IT!

Edited September 20, 2006 by lindyhopper

[Oakspear]

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.

Edited September 20, 2006 by Oakspear

[greg123]

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.

You are splitting hairs, there are really 14 Epistles written by Paul including I&II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews. So there are 5 more epistles than you previously stated. We will never know how much the churches took out when they made the Bible but we have 14 Epistles in the bible. So while there might be 20 epistles does that really matter.

Romans 15:4 All scripture written aforetime is written for our learning

II Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by Implantation of God.

II Tim 2:15 Study to show ourselves approved.

The part we must know is the scripture is given by inspiration of God.

We must learn it to the best of our ability.

Greg

[johniam]

quote: Starting immediately all sentences in the ensuing posts to this topic must be diagrammed

Hey, Templelady, I suspect you were being facetious, but when I was in 5th grade we worked a lot on diagramming sentences, and I hear they don't require most elementary students to do this any more. I credit having learned to diagram sentences with the ease I had learning retemories. Cause if they teach you what parts of speech every word is, then they have to teach you about prepositional phrases and noun and adjective clauses and that's how I did retemories; if I broke the verses down into smaller portions like prepositional phrases and such, it was easier to memorize the whole verse. Slight derail, proceed.

[johniam]

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]

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.

[WordWolf]

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.

If you put enough effort into it, it is possible to come up with permutations that fit ANY sort

of pattern. Don't believe me? Review all the people who have been identified as "666".

(My personal favourite was that Ronald Wilson Reagan's names all have 6 letters in them.

It meant nothing, because slapping a label on something and imposing a grid on it means

nothing in and of itself.)

The grid that was imposed here by Bullinger was:

A) 'all Epistles' was reduced to only the church Epistles

B) all 9 Church Epistles were reduced to 7 Church Epistles

C) 4 things Scripture is profitable for was reduced to 3

If the numbers weren't squeezed,

only counting the Church Epistles, we would have the grid composed of the following:

Romans=Doctrine

I Corinthians=Reproof

II Corinthians=Correction

Galatians=Instruction in Righteousness

Ephesians=Doctrine

Phillipians=Reproof

Colossians=Corrections

I Thessalonians=Instruction in Righteousness

II Thessalonians=Doctrine

As to the order of the Church Epistles in Scripture, if there's a place in Scripture

stating that the order of the Church Epistles in Scripture means something,

then maybe it matters. Otherwise, it is a man's opinion that it does.

That means it is "private interpretation" (as vpw called such things.)

Just for fun, what would the order of the Pastoral Epistles and General Epistles

look like?

I Timothy=Reproof

II Timothy=Correction

Titus=Instruction in Righteousness

Philemon=Doctrine

Hebrews=Reproof

James=Correction

I Peter=Instruction in Righteousness

II Peter=Doctrine

I John=Reproof

II John=Correction

III John=Instruction in Righteousness

Jude=Doctrine

Seems sillier when you carry the pattern all the way through.

But of course, vpw said we can't carry the pattern all the way through,

and we HAVE to count 4 categories as 3,

and 9 Church Epistles as 7.

[WordWolf]

While I was on the subject,

what's with the "limiting Scripture to EXACTLY SEVEN" business?

2 Timothy 3:16

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

If we're supposed to classify all Scripture arbitrarily into 4 categories,

why only do the Church Epistles?

Are the other books not "Scripture?"

Or are the Epistles just EASIER TO SLAP A LABEL ON?

And if you want to downgrade the other books, remember all the references

to the rest of the Bible as "Scripture" before you do....

[Oakspear]

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.

I've seen this in other sources as well. There is one text that inserts Hebrews in the midst somewhere, and there maybe some others, but at the very least the overwhelming majority of texts keep what we know as the "church epistles" in the same order.

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.

I think you just did!

[Oakspear]

You are splitting hairs,

Mmmmm...no. Just stating facts that can easily be seen rather than the contortions that Wierwille went through to make it "fit".

there are really 14 Epistles written by Paul including I&II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews. So there are 5 more epistles than you previously stated.

I was specifically referring to what are known as the "church epistles" that, as johniam stated, consistantly are unvarying in order in most texts. Bullinger and Wierwille took these epistles:

• Romans
  
• I Corinthians
  
• II Corinthians
  
• Galatians
  
• Ephesians
  
• Phillippians
  
• Colossians
  
• IThessalonians
  
• II Thessalonians
  

and said that they were seven, not nine. Just count 'em!

[greg123]

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

Romans- Doctrine

I COR Reproof before a problem

II Cor Reproof after hand

Gal Correction

Eph Doctrine

Phil Reproof

Col Correction

I Thess Doctrine of the hope of Christ

II Thess a continuing of doctrine in I Thess

I Tim Instruction for Timothy to save the Church before the fall

II Tim to save the church after all he!! breaks loose

Therefore if we are to look at each II for example IITim, IICor, and IIThess these epistles show the failure of the first one. So IITim is to fix ITim, and so on.

Greg

[greg123]

This thread at GS has been great I really appreciate how the people here are so honest with there opinions on the definition of Charity. Now I must be honest with you I did not create the quote. My mentor on the Myspace site told me to put it in here to see what everyone thought. He is someone you know well but at this time wants to remain private. Thank you so much for your help and I hope the discussion goes on.

Greg

[Bramble]

... Sharing manifestations

for the profit of the believers and non- believers.

Greg

I'm skeptical that there is any real interest in profiting nonbelievers--I think that is just stuck in there to sound 'nice.' TWI isn't known for showing unconditional love even in its tight little household of like minders, who know they have to hop to it or else.

Nonbelievers? Those possessed scum who we look down our godly noses at?

I suspect this means something like 'Sharing manifestations so the unbelievers will obey our words and take the class yadayada.'

I know there are Christians with the service to others attitude truly going on, but I would be surprised to find it in a Way group.

Giving just to bless--not where TWI is, I don't think.

[greg123]

I don't think.

Exactly my thoughts, you were very interestingly late, you decided to write your opinion after I told you the message came from another source. Therefore your opinion is blurred at best. This message was a combination of verses put together to make more sense out of the Love of god. Therefore it is not wrong nor hazy. The quote or message is a directly from the bible. The whole point of putting non-believers in there is so we focus more on them to get them saved. The non believers will chose between being saved and going to hell. That is called free will, you seem to not be able to grasp the big picture of the message. So I am sorry you can't get it .

[T-Bone]

Well I was working on the subject of defining Charity- Now everyone knows that Dr would say The love of God in the renewed mind in manifestation. Well I came up with a definition of that

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.

That really captured my attention when I wrote that out, I believe this is the true meaning of Charity.

Greg

This thread at GS has been great I really appreciate how the people here are so honest with there opinions on the definition of Charity. Now I must be honest with you I did not create the quote. My mentor on the Myspace site told me to put it in here to see what everyone thought. He is someone you know well but at this time wants to remain private. Thank you so much for your help and I hope the discussion goes on.

Greg

...Well, Greg - I must admit I'm a little put off by your initial dishonesty - and kind of odd - your topic being about defining Charity - putting on the mind of Christ, etc....Don't you think that's a real thread-killer?... I dunno - maybe it's just me -

Edited September 21, 2006 by T-Bone

[waysider]

Greg--------"The unbelievers will choose between being saved and going to hell."

1.) Are there only two choices?

2.) Does the Bible talk about people going to hell?

This discussion might fare well in the doctrinal thread where people are quite interested in the "big picture".I invite you to visit but only if it's of your free will. Please feel free to bring your own questions and concerns.

[greg123]

...Well, Greg - I must admit I'm a little put off by your initial dishonesty - and kind of odd - your topic being about defining Charity - putting on the mind of Christ, etc....Don't you think that's a real thread-killer?... I dunno - maybe it's just me -

When I first put this on here my mentor made sure I took the credit for the quote because he knew that if the people of GS knew who really wrote it they would just refuse it. The statement if to master the object of charity, I never said I mastered it. So I am truly sorry for the deceit so far. So from now on when a quote comes to me from my mentor I will just leave the signature blank. Once again I am sorry and I hope you guys can forgive me.

Greg

[Bramble]

Gosh, greg, I didn't know GSC was putting time limits on replies. Is it wrong to come late to a discussion?

Because you made your big reveal, I'm supposed to shaddup?

Since this definition isn't really yours, you can't answer?

When did way doctrine ever teach hell? Hmmm.

But, yeah, it's pretty much what I thought. There is no charity outside the true believer group.

Maybe your mentor should answer. Maybe your mentor should have sucked it up and posted himself. Maybe you should have told him 'do it yourself.'

Oh, wait. Can't talk like that to a mentor, probably.

[greg123]

Gosh, greg, I didn't know GSC was putting time limits on replies. Is it wrong to come late to a discussion?

Because you made your big reveal, I'm supposed to shaddup?

Since this definition isn't really yours, you can't answer?

When did way doctrine ever teach hell? Hmmm.

But, yeah, it's pretty much what I thought. There is no charity outside the true believer group.

Maybe your mentor should answer. Maybe your mentor should have sucked it up and posted himself. Maybe you should have told him 'do it yourself.'

Oh, wait. Can't talk like that to a mentor, probably.

The problem here isn't that you replied, the real problem is that you can't understand the message being sent. There is no way for us to tell if your post was some what altered to the statements already written. We can just hope that you had a clear mind when you were witting your comments. In the whole example, the non believers must be able to see the love we have within, the manifestation is a example of our believing. There is in no way that when I manifest that I look down at non believers. The only thing I hope to gain is for someone to see the glory of perfect prayer.

[WordWolf]

Give ck a hug for us, and remind him that he can do his own posting here the same

as everyone else. It made little difference whether he, I, or a brand-new person

made the same claims, they tend to get weighed on their own merits.

(Or lack thereof, depending on the post.)

[T-Bone]

When I first put this on here my mentor made sure I took the credit for the quote because he knew that if the people of GS knew who really wrote it they would just refuse it. The statement if to master the object of charity, I never said I mastered it. So I am truly sorry for the deceit so far. So from now on when a quote comes to me from my mentor I will just leave the signature blank. Once again I am sorry and I hope you guys can forgive me.

Greg

Okay - well now there's another issue you might consider... Your mentor thinks it's okay to deceive people. Are you sure you want a person like that as a mentor?....Were you ever in the Corps?

Edited September 22, 2006 by T-Bone