As I understand it.........which in of itself is questionable.....
The 4 Gospels were included in the New Testament simply because they were written after the events of Jesus Christ life, death and ressurrection, just as you said "Most of the Gospels and epistles were all written around the same time, often by some of the same men." Chronologically, they are still in the right place in the order of the cannon. IMHO the people who cannonized the Bible, simply put the term, "NEW TESTAMENT" in the wrong place.
As a unit, they close out the Old Testament and include prophecies to be fulfilled in the time period coverd by the book of Revelation. The time period between Acts and Revelation is an insertion of the age of Grace.
Romans is addressed, " To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." (Romans 1:7) The "beloved of God" would contexturally be considered the believers "born again". Since it wasn't possible to be born again until Acts chapter 2, the Gospels would naturally be for our learning.
I should know better than to embark on any doctrinal discussions here. Seems I always step on toes in this topic.
I take all written word whether in the bible or not as aforetime or for my personal learning
to get me to the point I talk one on one with God about each thing
I am living that which I receive spiritually on a dayly basic all other helps me have a common subject to talk to God about to help me grow here and now
Ok all. This has probably been asked before, but I figure most of us are constantly re-thinking some of our beliefs. I know Romans says the things that were written aforetime were for our learning. I have some questions about that.
Romans 15:4 (King James Version)
4For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
learning: Greek word "didaskalion", from "didaskalia", "teaching, instruction".
ln the KJV, "didaskalia" is rendered "teaching" one time, "learning" one time (Romans 15:4)
and "doctrine" NINETEEN TIMES.
One of those is II Timothy 3:16.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
So, Romans says the things that were written aforetime were for our DOCTRINE, for our
TEACHING, for our INSTRUCTION.
(Raf and others pointed this out some time ago.)
Now, as to aforetime, there's a gap of some 400-500 years between the "Old Testament"s last book
and the beginning of the New Testament.
At the time of the writing of Romans, there being no printing presses, copies of ANY books of the New
Testament were either UNWRITTEN YET, or nearly impossible to find due to initial scarcity and inability
to mass-produce.
The things that were written aforetime- unless Paul was using a modern meaning of "accessible right now",
are the books of Genesis to Malachi.
The Gospels were NOT circulated at the time Romans was written-in fact, Paul may have been unaware
of most of them.
If we go chronologically and not by the cannon/order of our current Bibles, it changes everything. It doesn't actually say in the verse or context what the time period "aforetime" is--we were taught it was before Pentecost. Where did that come from for real? Do you now consider the Gospels pertinent and applicable to you? Most of the Gospels and epistles were all written around the same time, often by some of the same men.
A strict view towards dispensationalism, an an urge to pigeonhole everything neatly into little packages-
plus a desire to be new and different-
produces sharp cutoffs like the one that shoves the unwritten and uncirculated Gospels
into the Old Testament.
The Gospels- at least anything instructional- are as applicable to us as the Epistles- at least the
instructional parts.
Do you still emphasize mostly the Epistles in your life or do you now refer more often to Jesus Christ's ministry and teachings? If we are supposed to follow Jesus Christ and if we are to make him our Lord, then shouldn't we know what He taught and did? I know I pretty much ignored a lot of the Gospels in twi-we were always teaching about epistles-except when it was December or near Resurrection Sunday
Sometimes twi doesn't even teach on the Gospels THEN.
I think that's the part I have been trying to figure out--how much the gospels apply to me now--some of Jesus' parables really can get one to thinking. (Like the one where he sends people away who claim he is their Lord and they had even done works and prophesied in his name.) I have read a book called Rescued by John Bevere and it has brought a lot more questions up for me.
Jesus was the first to walk in liberty but the world was unable to until Pentecost.
Jesus Christ himself walked under the law of liberty for he was granted God's grace. He fulfilled the law by waking in liberty. Yet he also did the will of the father. The will of the father was that he walk in this liberty... Though Jesus Christ walked in liberty he could not teach liberty as the way until the spirit had come in as seed.
He was able to guide them as the shepherd as a spirit upon them but could not guide them not from within them yet. In order for liberty to rule the body and soul the spirit must be created and born from within.
He could forgive and cover their sins but not remit their sins. Not until his sacrifice, was sin remitted.
So there is a transition period where the first man of liberty walked upon the earth to the time when all people could do the same and even greater "works" of love.
In the Gospels Jesus walked the law of liberty where the people still walked the law. In the Epistles the believers first began to look to liberty and the spirit, love and eternal life in heaven.
One thing to keep in mind when considering the Gospels is that VeePee inculcated a particular style of exegesis called "dispensationalism" into us through the PFAL series of classes. This comes from the influence of Bullinger on VeePee, although, from what I recall, VeePee didn't go fully into the Acts 28 variety of ultradispensationalism that characterized Bullinger.
Dispensationalism is the view that God divided times up into different epochs based upon the various covenants He had with man. It originated with Darby back about the middle of the 19th Century. It is opposed to the other major fundamentalist theory: covenant theology.
The key thing to consider, though, is that this view will, until the point that you realize that it is not the only view out there, color how you view the gospels and the old testament.
A couple of threads to consider where this has been discussed previously:
I will tell you that there is considerable contention on this site regarding the subject of dispensationalism. I really don't want to get into those debates again; I am just letting you know about these old threads and providing you some information so that you can consider alternative methods for interpreting scripture...and consider that the dispensationlist method is not the only one.
So John the baptist would be the "fulcrum" from the old to the new in regard to the coming of liberty to the earth in Jesus. The book of acts would be the fulcrum of the coming of the spirit to the world.
Jesus was the first to walk in this liberty (image of God).
But the new testament was not delivered "to the world" until the day of Pentecost. So the law of liberty only applied to Jesus.
But the world was still under the law...
The perfect holy spirit is what changed who we are addressed as.
So even the disciples could not get born again until the sacrifice had been made.
But they were granted righteousness upon them when they remained yoked to the master and had faith in his presence.
By waling in his liberty they walked in the spirit which was yet to come.
Jesus could walk in liberty because he was not bound by the law of sin and death in the blood.
Because this sin and death was not in his blood the holy spirit could be created and abide within him.
It would guide him in righteousness and he would obey it.
I think that's the part I have been trying to figure out--how much the gospels apply to me now--some of Jesus' parables really can get one to thinking. (Like the one where he sends people away who claim he is their Lord and they had even done works and prophesied in his name.) I have read a book called Rescued by John Bevere and it has brought a lot more questions up for me.
That part isn't applicable to you.
Not because it CAN'T be, but because you don't fit the description.
That addressed people who CLAIMED they did a bunch of things and CLAIMED Jesus
is Lord, but Jesus knew better.
As Raf pointed out before, there's a difference between PROfessing something and CONfessing something.
Your CONfession comes from the heart, and its last stop is your mouth.
Your PROfession starts at the mouth and ends there.
Those people PROfessed Christ but never CONfessed Christ.
That's why Jesus didn't know them-they were "all talk."
That's not you, so you have nothing in that dept, at least not being one of them.
One thing to keep in mind when considering the Gospels is that VeePee inculcated a particular style of exegesis called "dispensationalism" into us through the PFAL series of classes. This comes from the influence of Bullinger on VeePee, although, from what I recall, VeePee didn't go fully into the Acts 28 variety of ultradispensationalism that characterized Bullinger.
Dispensationalism is the view that God divided times up into different epochs based upon the various covenants He had with man. It originated with Darby back about the middle of the 19th Century. It is opposed to the other major fundamentalist theory: covenant theology.
The key thing to consider, though, is that this view will, until the point that you realize that it is not the only view out there, color how you view the gospels and the old testament.
A couple of threads to consider where this has been discussed previously:
I will tell you that there is considerable contention on this site regarding the subject of dispensationalism. I really don't want to get into those debates again; I am just letting you know about these old threads and providing you some information so that you can consider alternative methods for interpreting scripture...and consider that the dispensationlist method is not the only one.
Dr. Wierwille was great in that he collected these kernels of truth where the other men died without seeing the full glory that we are capable of sharing due to Wierwille's vision.
I will never have a bad word to say about the man in any way...
For his greatness surely made up for his own feeling of unworthinesses.
I sure miss him so much.
I think about him nearly daily with the word and God.
I may disagree and try to expand his own vision but I will never criticize him ever.
Even for the things that he said that I still find distasteful and simply out of fellowship I will never be able to criticize such a man.
When he would look into that crowd and say, "sir, and point his finger" he was talking to us... And he knew he had three fingers pointing back at himself. Yet he loved us beyond his own fears to find the kernels of truth and give them to us when we were unworthy of such a gift of liberty ourselves.
As for God, God never changes God has always been a God of liberty.
Even when there was law.
For only God knows supreme justice.
And God knows the heart.
So these dispensations were like training wheels as man slowly stopped creating god in his own image and began to understand that we are created in the image of God and not god created in our image.
So the law was man's wisdom which admonished also the god of this world for the law took more than it gave back.
Now the law owes the guilty back the ransom of infinite love and grace due to the law's slaughter of the innocent lamb of God..
We are sanctified by God so we forgive others.
All this demon spirit stuff is fear and an excuse to not simply just love people and look to the goodness instead of the evil.
For does God spend every hour counting our sins or counting our blessings?
It was Adam and Eve that when they lost the image of God they could no longer shine in his image so they shone in their own wisdom.
This was where the blood sacrifices, firstfruits of man's wisdom and the offerings of Cain and Abel came from.
This same sacrifice made it to Melchisidek and became the covenant that brought the spirit [liberty] back into the being of Christ instead of the antichrist [law].
God never changed God was never behind the law... God would have preferred that men walked by his spirit all along... But it was man who could not perceive the spirit within and thus they could not claim it's liberty. In the old testament God judged men by faith not law.
This may be why Wierwille called them administrations which sound more man made where dispensations sounds like God was actually changing his rules...
We find as the new testament that God was never in man's wisdom for it is foolishness to God. Is God a fool?
All we know that once we have tasted the sweet liberty of the spirit we never again will intentionally resort to the law of sin and death to convict a "person".
For you may be likewise convicting an innocent man (holy spirit/Jesus Christ).
As the new testament approaches we find that God's will was never in the sacrifices and the blood offerings but it was in the faith that men displayed in the liberty of their own hearts and good nature trust in God. The fruits they obtained through faith and not law.
This was why "The Way" fell apart after Wierwille.
Because they lost sight of the liberty and went back and extinguished the light of the new testament.
I didn't obviously... I knew what Dr. had taught.
He said the word was the way (not the ministry).
I never left the word just the the ministry.
For the word is the ministry.
The image of God in us not our own word and judgments but God's law of liberty.
While you are entitled to your beliefs, I think you will find yourself in the distinct minority around these parts.
Since you addressed my post, if you'd actually like to deal with the issues that I brought up in that post or the issues that were brought up the threads that were referenced, then all well and good. If not, please don't expect me to engage in an argument about VeePee. I don't see it as being worthy of discussion.
Again, not that I do not believe that you're entitled to believe as you will...
Each time you see the word "God" in the old testament you have to ask yourself... (even though someone says "God" said something.) which God is being referred to? (just like the word "spirit") which can mean different persons. Can we trust the old testament? Yes.. It is an accurate account at how blinded people had become by the law and how far they had drifted from the truth of God's true heart and the walk of the spirit.
But can we trust every time is says "and God said" this and God told that? NO! We have to scrutinize not only which God but understand it in light of not only their perspective in the past but also our own perspective today. Because the spirit has been under the control of the god of this world, the angels were imprisoned by the flood and other events... This is why in Job the devil seems like he is in heaven with God... Because he WAS the "god" of this world.
Thus he emulated God in the old testament in the form of the law. And man's wisdom blinded men/women from seeing the true way of God's heart.
For one way [law] led to death and the other way [liberty/faith] led to holiness.
It was not those who obeyed the law that are judged righteous in the old testament.. It will be those who had faith in God.
You have to use the discerning spirit of the new testament and ask yourself which God is doing this.
Just as the spirit has changed in the power that has been ruling from on high. So also has the the image of God.
The image of God has changed from the image conjured by man/woman to the true image of God in his son Christ Jesus. For without God we resort to self worship, the worship of other and relics.
Yet it is not the image of God but lucifer that was masquerading as the angel of light [counterfeit holiness] when he led us astray into the darkness and death of the law..
Yet it is Christ who holds the candlestick and has led us into the glorious liberty of the one and only true God.
Pr 16:25 - Show Context
There is a way [law] that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
While you are entitled to your beliefs, I think you will find yourself in the distinct minority around these parts.
Since you addressed my post, if you'd actually like to deal with the issues that I brought up in that post or the issues that were brought up the threads that were referenced, then all well and good. If not, please don't expect me to engage in an argument about VeePee. I don't see it as being worthy of discussion.
Again, not that I do not believe that you're entitled to believe as you will...
I am not only entitled to believe it as I will I am also entitled to express it. I plan to do so...
If you have an argument with anything I say or all that I say, speak your peace. I am all ears.
For I am not here to barrel over people, I have my own space and I prefer that people know exactly where I am coming from.
So there is no doubt whatsoever in their mind.
And then if they disagree they can lay out their position. I am willing to "reason" these things out.. I have plenty of time to dedicate to the truth.
If you feel I have missed a particular thing that you feel you have addressed to me then maybe I missed it or I am in the process of trying to figure it out.
Sometimes I just makes stuff up as I go along...
Then I realize I have talked myself into a circle.. I am human "also" but I a willing to make a fool of myself for the sake of pleasing God instead. :)
I may single anyone out...
No one has to be intimidated by me...
My replies are not meant to belittle they are meant to show open discourse.
INteresting input as always I-Dan. Homologeo - I think Craig taught that as "homolegeo" due to a typo in his notes, which didn't stop him from rendering a True and Spiritual 15 minutes on that one word alone which he explained was first uttered by a Roman bath attendant in a towel snapping contest who, about to win the competition, was pulled off balance by his opponents second, at which time he yelled "Hey homo! Leggo my leg-oh!"
I am not only entitled to believe it as I will I am also entitled to express it. I plan to do so...
If you have an argument with anything I say or all that I say, speak your peace. I am all ears.
For I am not here to barrel over people, I have my own space and I prefer that people know exactly where I am coming from.
So there is no doubt whatsoever in their mind.
And then if they disagree they can lay out their position. I am willing to "reason" these things out.. I have plenty of time to dedicate to the truth.
If you feel I have missed a particular thing that you feel you have addressed to me then maybe I missed it or I am in the process of trying to figure it out.
Sometimes I just makes stuff up as I go along...
Then I realize I have talked myself into a circle.. I am human "also" but I a willing to make a fool of myself for the sake of pleasing God instead. :)
I may single anyone out...
No one has to be intimidated by me...
My replies are not meant to belittle they are meant to show open discourse.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
9
11
29
Popular Days
Jun 6
44
Jun 7
13
Jun 4
11
Jun 11
6
Top Posters In This Topic
markomalley 9 posts
Jeaniam 9 posts
T-Bone 11 posts
DrWearWord 29 posts
Popular Days
Jun 6 2007
44 posts
Jun 7 2007
13 posts
Jun 4 2007
11 posts
Jun 11 2007
6 posts
YIdon'tgotochurch
As I understand it.........which in of itself is questionable.....
The 4 Gospels were included in the New Testament simply because they were written after the events of Jesus Christ life, death and ressurrection, just as you said "Most of the Gospels and epistles were all written around the same time, often by some of the same men." Chronologically, they are still in the right place in the order of the cannon. IMHO the people who cannonized the Bible, simply put the term, "NEW TESTAMENT" in the wrong place.
As a unit, they close out the Old Testament and include prophecies to be fulfilled in the time period coverd by the book of Revelation. The time period between Acts and Revelation is an insertion of the age of Grace.
Romans is addressed, " To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ." (Romans 1:7) The "beloved of God" would contexturally be considered the believers "born again". Since it wasn't possible to be born again until Acts chapter 2, the Gospels would naturally be for our learning.
I should know better than to embark on any doctrinal discussions here. Seems I always step on toes in this topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved penguin
God loves you my dear friend
I take all written word whether in the bible or not as aforetime or for my personal learning
to get me to the point I talk one on one with God about each thing
I am living that which I receive spiritually on a dayly basic all other helps me have a common subject to talk to God about to help me grow here and now
but this is me and not all will agree with me
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Romans 15:4 (King James Version)
4For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
learning: Greek word "didaskalion", from "didaskalia", "teaching, instruction".
ln the KJV, "didaskalia" is rendered "teaching" one time, "learning" one time (Romans 15:4)
and "doctrine" NINETEEN TIMES.
One of those is II Timothy 3:16.
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
So, Romans says the things that were written aforetime were for our DOCTRINE, for our
TEACHING, for our INSTRUCTION.
(Raf and others pointed this out some time ago.)
Now, as to aforetime, there's a gap of some 400-500 years between the "Old Testament"s last book
and the beginning of the New Testament.
At the time of the writing of Romans, there being no printing presses, copies of ANY books of the New
Testament were either UNWRITTEN YET, or nearly impossible to find due to initial scarcity and inability
to mass-produce.
The things that were written aforetime- unless Paul was using a modern meaning of "accessible right now",
are the books of Genesis to Malachi.
The Gospels were NOT circulated at the time Romans was written-in fact, Paul may have been unaware
of most of them.
A strict view towards dispensationalism, an an urge to pigeonhole everything neatly into little packages-plus a desire to be new and different-
produces sharp cutoffs like the one that shoves the unwritten and uncirculated Gospels
into the Old Testament.
The Gospels- at least anything instructional- are as applicable to us as the Epistles- at least the
instructional parts.
Sometimes twi doesn't even teach on the Gospels THEN.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penguin
Thanks WW,
I think that's the part I have been trying to figure out--how much the gospels apply to me now--some of Jesus' parables really can get one to thinking. (Like the one where he sends people away who claim he is their Lord and they had even done works and prophesied in his name.) I have read a book called Rescued by John Bevere and it has brought a lot more questions up for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Jesus was the first to walk in liberty but the world was unable to until Pentecost.
Jesus Christ himself walked under the law of liberty for he was granted God's grace. He fulfilled the law by waking in liberty. Yet he also did the will of the father. The will of the father was that he walk in this liberty... Though Jesus Christ walked in liberty he could not teach liberty as the way until the spirit had come in as seed.
He was able to guide them as the shepherd as a spirit upon them but could not guide them not from within them yet. In order for liberty to rule the body and soul the spirit must be created and born from within.
He could forgive and cover their sins but not remit their sins. Not until his sacrifice, was sin remitted.
So there is a transition period where the first man of liberty walked upon the earth to the time when all people could do the same and even greater "works" of love.
In the Gospels Jesus walked the law of liberty where the people still walked the law. In the Epistles the believers first began to look to liberty and the spirit, love and eternal life in heaven.
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Something to consider is whether "for our learning" necessarily excludes being written "to us" as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
This holy spirit guides us also to discern the fullness of God's love and grace...
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
The spirit arrived in two different manners...
First in the person of Jesus Christ and the other with the person within the Christian.
Liberty first comes to the earth (Jews/Judeans) then it comes to the world (Jews/Gentiles)
So there must be some distinctions drawn between both arrivals of the spirit.
And actually John the baptist has a part to play in the first coming of the spirit.
For John the baptist certainly lived under the law also.
Yet it was the body, soul and spirit of Christ that paid for our sins...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
One thing to keep in mind when considering the Gospels is that VeePee inculcated a particular style of exegesis called "dispensationalism" into us through the PFAL series of classes. This comes from the influence of Bullinger on VeePee, although, from what I recall, VeePee didn't go fully into the Acts 28 variety of ultradispensationalism that characterized Bullinger.
Dispensationalism is the view that God divided times up into different epochs based upon the various covenants He had with man. It originated with Darby back about the middle of the 19th Century. It is opposed to the other major fundamentalist theory: covenant theology.
The key thing to consider, though, is that this view will, until the point that you realize that it is not the only view out there, color how you view the gospels and the old testament.
A couple of threads to consider where this has been discussed previously:
Did VP Study Scofield's Work?
"...like it hasn't been seen since the 1st century church...", is this the original fallacy?
I will tell you that there is considerable contention on this site regarding the subject of dispensationalism. I really don't want to get into those debates again; I am just letting you know about these old threads and providing you some information so that you can consider alternative methods for interpreting scripture...and consider that the dispensationlist method is not the only one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
So John the baptist would be the "fulcrum" from the old to the new in regard to the coming of liberty to the earth in Jesus. The book of acts would be the fulcrum of the coming of the spirit to the world.
Jesus was the first to walk in this liberty (image of God).
But the new testament was not delivered "to the world" until the day of Pentecost. So the law of liberty only applied to Jesus.
But the world was still under the law...
The perfect holy spirit is what changed who we are addressed as.
So even the disciples could not get born again until the sacrifice had been made.
But they were granted righteousness upon them when they remained yoked to the master and had faith in his presence.
By waling in his liberty they walked in the spirit which was yet to come.
Jesus could walk in liberty because he was not bound by the law of sin and death in the blood.
Because this sin and death was not in his blood the holy spirit could be created and abide within him.
It would guide him in righteousness and he would obey it.
This would make him "the way"...
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
That part isn't applicable to you.
Not because it CAN'T be, but because you don't fit the description.
That addressed people who CLAIMED they did a bunch of things and CLAIMED Jesus
is Lord, but Jesus knew better.
As Raf pointed out before, there's a difference between PROfessing something and CONfessing something.
Your CONfession comes from the heart, and its last stop is your mouth.
Your PROfession starts at the mouth and ends there.
Those people PROfessed Christ but never CONfessed Christ.
That's why Jesus didn't know them-they were "all talk."
That's not you, so you have nothing in that dept, at least not being one of them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Yes, highly recommended.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
While I don't disagree that a distinction of meaning between "confess" and profess" can be made with English, the same Greek
word seems to present us an interesting consideration, in that homologeo ( Strongs # 3670; cf.3671) has been
translated quite often throughout the NT (the KJV) as either "confess" or "profess".
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Dr. Wierwille was great in that he collected these kernels of truth where the other men died without seeing the full glory that we are capable of sharing due to Wierwille's vision.
I will never have a bad word to say about the man in any way...
For his greatness surely made up for his own feeling of unworthinesses.
I sure miss him so much.
I think about him nearly daily with the word and God.
I may disagree and try to expand his own vision but I will never criticize him ever.
Even for the things that he said that I still find distasteful and simply out of fellowship I will never be able to criticize such a man.
When he would look into that crowd and say, "sir, and point his finger" he was talking to us... And he knew he had three fingers pointing back at himself. Yet he loved us beyond his own fears to find the kernels of truth and give them to us when we were unworthy of such a gift of liberty ourselves.
As for God, God never changes God has always been a God of liberty.
Even when there was law.
For only God knows supreme justice.
And God knows the heart.
So these dispensations were like training wheels as man slowly stopped creating god in his own image and began to understand that we are created in the image of God and not god created in our image.
So the law was man's wisdom which admonished also the god of this world for the law took more than it gave back.
Now the law owes the guilty back the ransom of infinite love and grace due to the law's slaughter of the innocent lamb of God..
We are sanctified by God so we forgive others.
All this demon spirit stuff is fear and an excuse to not simply just love people and look to the goodness instead of the evil.
For does God spend every hour counting our sins or counting our blessings?
It was Adam and Eve that when they lost the image of God they could no longer shine in his image so they shone in their own wisdom.
This was where the blood sacrifices, firstfruits of man's wisdom and the offerings of Cain and Abel came from.
This same sacrifice made it to Melchisidek and became the covenant that brought the spirit [liberty] back into the being of Christ instead of the antichrist [law].
God never changed God was never behind the law... God would have preferred that men walked by his spirit all along... But it was man who could not perceive the spirit within and thus they could not claim it's liberty. In the old testament God judged men by faith not law.
This may be why Wierwille called them administrations which sound more man made where dispensations sounds like God was actually changing his rules...
We find as the new testament that God was never in man's wisdom for it is foolishness to God. Is God a fool?
All we know that once we have tasted the sweet liberty of the spirit we never again will intentionally resort to the law of sin and death to convict a "person".
For you may be likewise convicting an innocent man (holy spirit/Jesus Christ).
As the new testament approaches we find that God's will was never in the sacrifices and the blood offerings but it was in the faith that men displayed in the liberty of their own hearts and good nature trust in God. The fruits they obtained through faith and not law.
This was why "The Way" fell apart after Wierwille.
Because they lost sight of the liberty and went back and extinguished the light of the new testament.
I didn't obviously... I knew what Dr. had taught.
He said the word was the way (not the ministry).
I never left the word just the the ministry.
For the word is the ministry.
The image of God in us not our own word and judgments but God's law of liberty.
Peace with God
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Wearword,
While you are entitled to your beliefs, I think you will find yourself in the distinct minority around these parts.
Since you addressed my post, if you'd actually like to deal with the issues that I brought up in that post or the issues that were brought up the threads that were referenced, then all well and good. If not, please don't expect me to engage in an argument about VeePee. I don't see it as being worthy of discussion.
Again, not that I do not believe that you're entitled to believe as you will...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
Each time you see the word "God" in the old testament you have to ask yourself... (even though someone says "God" said something.) which God is being referred to? (just like the word "spirit") which can mean different persons. Can we trust the old testament? Yes.. It is an accurate account at how blinded people had become by the law and how far they had drifted from the truth of God's true heart and the walk of the spirit.
But can we trust every time is says "and God said" this and God told that? NO! We have to scrutinize not only which God but understand it in light of not only their perspective in the past but also our own perspective today. Because the spirit has been under the control of the god of this world, the angels were imprisoned by the flood and other events... This is why in Job the devil seems like he is in heaven with God... Because he WAS the "god" of this world.
Thus he emulated God in the old testament in the form of the law. And man's wisdom blinded men/women from seeing the true way of God's heart.
For one way [law] led to death and the other way [liberty/faith] led to holiness.
It was not those who obeyed the law that are judged righteous in the old testament.. It will be those who had faith in God.
You have to use the discerning spirit of the new testament and ask yourself which God is doing this.
Just as the spirit has changed in the power that has been ruling from on high. So also has the the image of God.
The image of God has changed from the image conjured by man/woman to the true image of God in his son Christ Jesus. For without God we resort to self worship, the worship of other and relics.
Yet it is not the image of God but lucifer that was masquerading as the angel of light [counterfeit holiness] when he led us astray into the darkness and death of the law..
Yet it is Christ who holds the candlestick and has led us into the glorious liberty of the one and only true God.
Pr 16:25 - Show Context
There is a way [law] that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
I am not only entitled to believe it as I will I am also entitled to express it. I plan to do so...
If you have an argument with anything I say or all that I say, speak your peace. I am all ears.
For I am not here to barrel over people, I have my own space and I prefer that people know exactly where I am coming from.
So there is no doubt whatsoever in their mind.
And then if they disagree they can lay out their position. I am willing to "reason" these things out.. I have plenty of time to dedicate to the truth.
If you feel I have missed a particular thing that you feel you have addressed to me then maybe I missed it or I am in the process of trying to figure it out.
Sometimes I just makes stuff up as I go along...
Then I realize I have talked myself into a circle.. I am human "also" but I a willing to make a fool of myself for the sake of pleasing God instead. :)
I may single anyone out...
No one has to be intimidated by me...
My replies are not meant to belittle they are meant to show open discourse.
Maybe I am just too sharp?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Joosta fer da heck of it, eh??? ----
(that's the Norwegian influence I've been exposed to for the past 30 years) --
I'll add my two cents wort here --- Uff-da!)
Seriously --
While I believe in administrations (giving the *nod* to Mark and others who believe differently),
I'm not as adamant about them as docvic or Bullinger was.
I see different ways that God dealt with man throughout the ages.
Garden of Eden/ then none. One set of rules gone, and others to be adhered to.
Somewhere after that you get the 10 commandments (etc.)/ and NEXT ---
A new set of rules to follow.
The *Church* definitely got it's start on Pentecost, and a new *structure* entered.
While I'm not a strict *disciple* (if you will) of 7 administrations (like docvic taught),
I do see differences in the bible, as to how God expects folks to act.
Like you all -- at one time -- I thought one way was better than the other.
I was a firm believer that *what was written for our learning*,
was just that, and nothing more.
Fast forward to the time I attended a Messianic Jewish Bible Study -- a couple of 3 years ago.
I talked to the Rabbi/ Pastor (he preferred to be called Pastor),
a bit about this, and he gave me a puzzled look.
He shook his head, and said --- "It's all one book", 'It's all one book".
That simple phrase, spoken so unpretentiously, freed me from years of bondage.
Suddenly I saw that while there may have been differences over God's ages,
somehow they all have to mesh into one. And I'm not the judge of it.
Don't ask me what I think about this -- cause I couldn't tell you (definitively).
All I know is that before I thought I KNEW, and now I can consider other possibilities.
After all -- It's All One Book,
including the Gospels.
What was it docvic always said?? -- Oh yeah -- I think I remember ---
"Learning Is An Exciting Adventure".
(he got at least one thing right!)
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
INteresting input as always I-Dan. Homologeo - I think Craig taught that as "homolegeo" due to a typo in his notes, which didn't stop him from rendering a True and Spiritual 15 minutes on that one word alone which he explained was first uttered by a Roman bath attendant in a towel snapping contest who, about to win the competition, was pulled off balance by his opponents second, at which time he yelled "Hey homo! Leggo my leg-oh!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
I have been writing in blogs for over ten years on the internet.
I have had many unkind things said to me...
I do not let them bother me in the least...
I just go on and speak the word deeper and even more and eventually they get the message.
That I am not one of those wimpy Christians that lives by the law but I live by the law of liberty.
I have long ago grown into the full measure of the stature of Christ.
This FULL measure is the law of liberty
The more than abundant life hinges on the law of liberty
Our salvation hinges on this liberty
Did God change or did man change?
I hope this has helped in your understanding of how to view the Gospels.
We see the change from man's wisdom to God's wisdom.
Along with this change comes first the practice of liberty [in Christ] and then the doctrine of liberty [in Paul].
THIS IS "THE WAY"...
Edited by DrWearWordLink to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Hey there. :)
I don't live by the law either (if the above was addressed to me).
I relish liberty as much as you, or the next guy/ gal does.
Given OT references, man changed what God said to do.
Also -- (if I recollect correct) ----- LIFE MORE ABUNDANTLY
was promised by Jesus, in John 10:10 (the gospels). And if ---
Why isn't it mentioned in John 10:10, next to more abundant life??
Didn't docvic *change a word* by saying the *More Abundant Life*?
I'm confused about your premise -- but you must have an answer for this, eh?
(Remember --- It's All One Book!!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Say all you want. Whatever. Have a nice day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrWearWord
The more than abundant life is life spiritually abundant and not only abundant in the flesh. Abundant in liberty and grace.
It is abundant in the flesh because it is more than abundant in the spirit.
Filled to overflowing...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.