Doctrine and Your Walk

[rrobs]

Push and pull seem so common and ordinary in our experience of life that we humans think little of these forces. Most of us assume they are simple opposites. In and out. Back and forth. Force directed in one direction or its opposite. However whether something pushes or pulls something else, there is a difference. A couple of examples will illustrate.

Imagine pushing a ping pong ball on a smooth table with the point of a sharp pencil. The ball would always roll away from the direction of the push, first rolling one way then the other. Now imagine the difference, if you attach a string to the ping pong ball with tape, and pull it toward you. The string would always bring it directly towards you.

Another example from common experience occurs when pulling a trailer with a car. When your car is pulling the trailer uphill, you are pulling against gravity. The trailer can not push the car while going uphill. The trailer falls in line nicely behind your car. Now if you are driving downhill too slow, the trailer may begin to push the car instead of the car pulling the trailer. This produces a strong, unpredictable side to side force. Your trailer will begin to sway from side to side. If not corrected a violent crash will almost certainly result.

Our standing and state are like the car pulling the trailer. The car is your standing, the trailer your state. The same could be said for doctrine and your walk. The doctrine is the car, your walk is the trailer. To maintain order, the doctrine must pull the walk. Your walk will naturally line up with correct doctrine. However, the moment the walk begins to push the doctrine, order gives way to chaos. If left unchecked for some period of time, the doctrine will be forgotten and replaced by man’s reasoning. Walking a Christian walk is simply out of the question when that happens.

The Corinthians were letting their walk push the doctrine. They became so focused on being a “good Christian” that they forgot the things from the book of Romans. They were sincere but they didn’t realize that their walk was, in fact, contrary to that doctrine. It wasn’t long before the doctrine was basically gone. That is where the Galatians were when Paul wrote his epistle to them. Their walk had so warped the doctrine that the doctrine was corrupted to the point that it no longer lined up much at all with God’s word.  Religion and the denominations that thrive on that religion are the end of that path.

 

Bottom line: get the doctrine straight and the walk will naturally be lined up with the doctrine. Without a thorough knowledge of the doctrine, the walk will be nothing but vain attempts at self justification. Instead of trying to be a good Christian, look at what God has already made you. The only place to learn that is in the Bible.

[Twinky]

Y'know, I have NEVER heard any other organization talk about "standing" and "state".  Haven't thought of it for years.  Rarely have I heard talk of one's "walk." 

I attend two very good churches regularly.  I have heard much practical teaching and suggestions as to how to live life with Jesus as the focus.  There is teaching of fellowship with Jesus, God and one another.  There is teaching of relationship with Jesus, God and one another.  There is teaching on repentance, forgiveness, and a good many other things.  There is even, sometimes, confession of our shortcomings, in public prayer (in vague language along the lines of "we have done what we ought not to have done, and not done what we ought to have done."  And then a public act of forgiveness. ("Jesus Christ cleanses you from all unrighteousness.")

I spend time pondering right application of Biblical principle to situations.  This time, such an action might be right.  Next time, some other action might be right, and the first type of action quite wrong.  To think one set of responses is always the right and only set of responses is to think too shallowly, too rigidly, too black and white. 

What, it seems to me, is always right is to consider whether one's actions are the most loving, most considerate, that can be achieved at that time. 

This talk of "standing and state" seems to me to smack of jargon and thus divisiveness.  And thus, not loving.

[T-Bone]

19 hours ago, rrobs said:

Push and pull seem so common and ordinary in our experience of life that we humans think little of these forces. Most of us assume they are simple opposites. In and out. Back and forth. Force directed in one direction or its opposite. However whether something pushes or pulls something else, there is a difference. A couple of examples will illustrate.

Imagine pushing a ping pong ball on a smooth table with the point of a sharp pencil. The ball would always roll away from the direction of the push, first rolling one way then the other. Now imagine the difference, if you attach a string to the ping pong ball with tape, and pull it toward you. The string would always bring it directly towards you.

Another example from common experience occurs when pulling a trailer with a car. When your car is pulling the trailer uphill, you are pulling against gravity. The trailer can not push the car while going uphill. The trailer falls in line nicely behind your car. Now if you are driving downhill too slow, the trailer may begin to push the car instead of the car pulling the trailer. This produces a strong, unpredictable side to side force. Your trailer will begin to sway from side to side. If not corrected a violent crash will almost certainly result.

Our standing and state are like the car pulling the trailer. The car is your standing, the trailer your state. The same could be said for doctrine and your walk. The doctrine is the car, your walk is the trailer. To maintain order, the doctrine must pull the walk. Your walk will naturally line up with correct doctrine. However, the moment the walk begins to push the doctrine, order gives way to chaos. If left unchecked for some period of time, the doctrine will be forgotten and replaced by man’s reasoning. Walking a Christian walk is simply out of the question when that happens.

The Corinthians were letting their walk push the doctrine. They became so focused on being a “good Christian” that they forgot the things from the book of Romans. They were sincere but they didn’t realize that their walk was, in fact, contrary to that doctrine. It wasn’t long before the doctrine was basically gone. That is where the Galatians were when Paul wrote his epistle to them. Their walk had so warped the doctrine that the doctrine was corrupted to the point that it no longer lined up much at all with God’s word.  Religion and the denominations that thrive on that religion are the end of that path.

 

Bottom line: get the doctrine straight and the walk will naturally be lined up with the doctrine. Without a thorough knowledge of the doctrine, the walk will be nothing but vain attempts at self justification. Instead of trying to be a good Christian, look at what God has already made you. The only place to learn that is in the Bible.

So how do you get the doctrine straight? What is your process? Can you prove that your walk will naturally line up with correct doctrine? A lifetime of experience in human nature tells me otherwise; due to our fallen nature we often tend to fight things that may be good for us; old habits are hard to break.

Regarding your analogy of car (doctrine) pulling the trailer (your walk) and the assumption that it’s correct doctrine leading you – presents another issue. What happens when the doctrine is incorrect? And what if you assumed you had the towing order right but you actually had “the cart before the horse”?

So, how do you know if your doctrine is correct?

And how do you know if you are doing the right thing in your walk?

Can you be more specific on what are the religions and denominations that thrive on warped doctrine?

what is warped doctrine?

what is "doctrine" and what is "God's Word"?

 

Edited July 4, 2017 by T-Bone
clarity

[rrobs]

3 hours ago, T-Bone said:

So how do you get the doctrine straight? What is your process? Can you prove that your walk will naturally line up with correct doctrine? A lifetime of experience in human nature tells me otherwise; due to our fallen nature we often tend to fight things that may be good for us; old habits are hard to break.

Regarding your analogy of car (doctrine) pulling the trailer (your walk) and the assumption that it’s correct doctrine leading you – presents another issue. What happens when the doctrine is incorrect? And what if you assumed you had the towing order right but you actually had “the cart before the horse”?

So, how do you know if your doctrine is correct?

And how do you know if you are doing the right thing in your walk?

Can you be more specific on what are the religions and denominations that thrive on warped doctrine?

what is warped doctrine?

what is "doctrine" and what is "God's Word"?

 

You figure it out!

[waysider]

22 hours ago, rrobs said:

The Corinthians were letting their walk push the doctrine. They became so focused on being a “good Christian” that they forgot the things from the book of Romans

Except...There was no book of Romans at the time the epistle to the Corinthians was written. Most scholars feel Romans was one of the last letters written, perhaps even the very last. Would the Corinthians have even had access to it if, indeed, it did exist at that time? There was no canon or consolidated form of the epistles until centuries later. The concept that proposes the epistles follow a "doctrine/reproof/correction" sequence as they appear in modern Bibles is a man made concept. To make matters even more complicated, the gospels were written well AFTER the Pauline epistles. The idea of the new testament being written in a chronological order is completely man made. Much of what we thought we learned during our time spent in The Way was completely dependent on accepting Darby's dispensationalism, which Wierwille relabeled administrations.

 

3 hours ago, T-Bone said:

what is "God's Word"?

 

That seems like an easy question, yet it has no easy answer.

[rrobs]

18 hours ago, Twinky said:

Y'know, I have NEVER heard any other organization talk about "standing" and "state".  Haven't thought of it for years.  Rarely have I heard talk of one's "walk." 

I attend two very good churches regularly.  I have heard much practical teaching and suggestions as to how to live life with Jesus as the focus.  There is teaching of fellowship with Jesus, God and one another.  There is teaching of relationship with Jesus, God and one another.  There is teaching on repentance, forgiveness, and a good many other things.  There is even, sometimes, confession of our shortcomings, in public prayer (in vague language along the lines of "we have done what we ought not to have done, and not done what we ought to have done."  And then a public act of forgiveness. ("Jesus Christ cleanses you from all unrighteousness.")

I spend time pondering right application of Biblical principle to situations.  This time, such an action might be right.  Next time, some other action might be right, and the first type of action quite wrong.  To think one set of responses is always the right and only set of responses is to think too shallowly, too rigidly, too black and white. 

What, it seems to me, is always right is to consider whether one's actions are the most loving, most considerate, that can be achieved at that time. 

This talk of "standing and state" seems to me to smack of jargon and thus divisiveness.  And thus, not loving.

 

You are a son of God. I call that your standing, the doctrine. Call it whatever you want. In any case, the new birth is spiritual. It's what God in Christ did for you. All you did was believe unto it. It did not affect your mind or how you behave. That is your standing or the doctrine.

Now God doesn't pour his word into your head at the new birth so you suddenly know all about him. But it does make it available for you to learn the things of God that you couldn't learn before your new birth. The natural man receives not the things of God, but he has revealed them to us, his spirit filled born again children, by his spirit. That's somewhere in Romans.

The churches and twi focus on your state. You have to do this, you have to do that, you can't do that. The Way says you have to go WOW (whatever it's called now), join the corps, or whatever. They all want you to do something to grow into Christ. That is the walk pushing the doctrine and it seldom works.

I am saying that if you want to walk better, study the doctrine. Learn who you are in Christ, what God has done for you. Learn how big his grace really is. The more you study the doctrine, the more your walk, how you witness Christ, will be in line with God's will. That is the doctrine pulling the walk.

How does that smack of jargon and divisiveness? If you honestly look at it, it could change your life with God. That's up to you, but I'd not blow it off so quickly.

[rrobs]

16 minutes ago, waysider said:

Except...There was no book of Romans at the time the epistle to the Corinthians was written. Most scholars feel Romans was one of the last letters written, perhaps even the very last. Would the Corinthians have even had access to it if, indeed, it did exist at that time? There was no canon or consolidated form of the epistles until centuries later. The concept that proposes the epistles follow a "doctrine/reproof/correction" sequence as they appear in modern Bibles is a man made concept. To make matters even more complicated, the gospels were written well AFTER the Pauline epistles. The idea of the new testament being written in a chronological order is completely man made. Much of what we thought we learned during our time spent in The Way was completely dependent on accepting Darby's dispensationalism, which Wierwille relabeled administrations.

 

That seems like an easy question, yet it has no easy answer.

No book, true, but the doctrine was still there. I think they understood a little bit about the new birth. Don't you?

[waysider]

Who knows what they understood? It's not like they were in a situation where information was readily available.

[rrobs]

21 minutes ago, waysider said:

 The Way was completely dependent on accepting Darby's dispensationalism, which Wierwille relabeled administrations.

 

I asked that we don't bring VP or twi into this discussion. Not that I want to censure anything, just a request. You guys just can't help yourselves I guess. It's OK.

[T-Bone]

24 minutes ago, rrobs said:

You figure it out!

That sure is an odd response!

After all, you started this thread and you were the one who made a bunch of assertions.

Were you expecting some kind of conditioned response? Like maybe when you were in a wierwille-friendly fellowship?

Honestly, I asked you some serious questions – I was not trying to be argumentative.

Hey, tell you what…let’s start over…and what say you work on dropping the way-speak…and instead of jumping to a ready-defense of something you’ve derived from wierwille – let’s truly have an open and honest discussion about it all. This way WE can ALL explore ideas TOGETHER….

…I’ve been coming to Grease Spot for a few years – and over time I can tell you of a truth that my beliefs and viewpoint have changed quite a bit – matter fact, though I am still a Christian there’s so much in my head that remains in a state of flux – and I’m ok with that…and once I got used to that, I’ve found a new freedom and comfort in being myself…better in tune with reality…and in general, not feel duty-bound to keep up a false front of that “know-that-you-know-that-you-know-that-you-know” thing.

Love & peace…and carry on

T-Bone

[waysider]

5 minutes ago, rrobs said:

I asked that we don't bring VP or twi into this discussion. Not that I want to censure anything, just a request. You guys just can't help yourselves I guess. It's OK.

Fine, I'll rephrase my response. 

The organization we aligned ourselves with was completely dependent on John Nelson Darby's dispensationalism, which we knew to be called administrations.

Better?

Edited July 4, 2017 by waysider

[rrobs]

9 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

That sure is an odd response!

After all, you started this thread and you were the one who made a bunch of assertions.

 

 

Were you expecting some kind of conditioned response? Like maybe when you were in a wierwille-friendly fellowship?

 

 

Honestly, I asked you some serious questions – I was not trying to be argumentative.

 

 

Hey, tell you what…let’s start over…and what say you work on dropping the way-speak…and instead of jumping to a ready-defense of something you’ve derived from wierwille – let’s truly have an open and honest discussion about it all. This way WE can ALL explore ideas TOGETHER….

 

 

…I’ve been coming to Grease Spot for a few years – and over time I can tell you of a truth that my beliefs and viewpoint have changed quite a bit – matter fact, though I am still a Christian there’s so much in my head that remains in a state of flux – and I’m ok with that…and once I got used to that, I’ve found a new freedom and comfort in being myself…better in tune with reality…and in general, not feel duty-bound to keep up a false front of that “know-that-you-know-that-you-know-that-you-know” thing.

 

 

Love & peace…and carry on

 

 

T-Bone

 

 

I just think that you wouldn't believe much of what I say because you lock me into VP. Never mind I haven't really stood up for him in any of my posts. Look and see if that's not he case. I'm pro word and that's it. I'm anti nothing. You don't need anything besides the word.

You guys seem to think VP is behind every tree like LCM thought there was a devil spirit behind every tree. If you were hurt so badly, I understand and I'm sorry for you. If you can separate the word from VP I think you would receive a lot of healing. It's the word that sets people free. Don't give up on the word just because of some man or group.

In any case, as far as I can tell you don't give a plug nickel for the things I'm saying. If I'm wrong, so sorry. If you really want help answering those questions I'll be glad to do just that. Let me know.

 

[rrobs]

20 minutes ago, waysider said:

Who knows what they understood? It's not like they were in a situation where information was readily available.

You can ascertain a lot of what they knew by looking at the things Jesus taught them in the Gospels and first chapter of Acts. Pretty sure they understood that his resurrection is what made them whole and not their works.

[Bolshevik]

26 minutes ago, rrobs said:

I asked that we don't bring VP or twi into this discussion. Not that I want to censure anything, just a request. You guys just can't help yourselves I guess. It's OK.

Using Wayspeak I guess you could say, predicates that VP is already in the discussion.

[T-Bone]

20 minutes ago, rrobs said:

I asked that we don't bring VP or twi into this discussion. Not that I want to censure anything, just a request. You guys just can't help yourselves I guess. It's OK.

That is another odd thing to say - since you use a lot of way-speak and spout concepts and doctrinal stuff from wierwille and TWI...maybe it would help if you removed the PFAL-colored glasses...start thinking outside the little box that wierwille / TWI entrapped followers.

1 minute ago, rrobs said:

I just think that you wouldn't believe much of what I say because you lock me into VP. Never mind I haven't really stood up for him in any of my posts. Look and see if that's not he case. I'm pro word and that's it. I'm anti nothing. You don't need anything besides the word.

You guys seem to think VP is behind every tree like LCM thought there was a devil spirit behind every tree. If you were hurt so badly, I understand and I'm sorry for you. If you can separate the word from VP I think you would receive a lot of healing. It's the word that sets people free. Don't give up on the word just because of some man or group.

In any case, as far as I can tell you don't give a plug nickel for the things I'm saying. If I'm wrong, so sorry. If you really want help answering those questions I'll be glad to do just that. Let me know.

 

Perhaps vp still has you locked inside that little box i referred to above...can't speak for the others here but you seem to have that paranoia of the way-mindset - only instead of seeing devil spirits behind every tree - you see us as the enemy trying to hurt you...I'm just trying to show you a way out from all that.

[rrobs]

17 minutes ago, waysider said:

Fine, I'll rephrase my response. 

The organization we aligned ourselves with was completely dependent on John Nelson Darby's dispensationalism, which we knew to be called administrations.

Better?

I think I understand what you are saying. If I'm wrong and my response is out of line, I apologize in advance. Here goes:

Let's just say that the Bible does talk about dispensations or administrations. Let's further assume Darby was the very first man to see that and write about it. Does that mean nobody else every gets to write about it or teach it ever again? Does it somehow invalidate the concept of dispensations because Darby is no longer with us and it would be plagiarism to bring it up?

[waysider]

3 minutes ago, rrobs said:

You can ascertain a lot of what they knew by looking at the things Jesus taught them in the Gospels and first chapter of Acts. Pretty sure they understood that his resurrection is what made them whole and not their works.

That's a huuuuge assumption, especially when you factor in chronology.  Remember...the gospels were written quite a bit AFTER the epistles. At any rate, the audience would have been limited and you can't know what depth of understanding someone might have come away with.

[rrobs]

2 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

That is another odd thing to say - since you use a lot of way-speak and spout concepts and doctrinal stuff from wierwille and TWI...maybe it would help if you removed the PFAL-colored glasses...start thinking outside the little box that wierwille / TWI entrapped followers.

Perhaps vp still has you locked inside that little box i referred to above...can't speak for the others here but you seem to have that paranoia of the way-mindset - only instead of seeing devil spirits behind every tree - you see us as the enemy trying to hurt you...I'm just trying to show you a way out from all that.

Very little discussion on the doctrine I speak of. Just personal attacks. That's GSC culture I guess.

Most of your concepts seem to come from GSC speak. Maybe you should consider getting out of the GSC box.

 

[rrobs]

1 minute ago, waysider said:

That's a huuuuge assumption, especially when you factor in chronology.  Remember...the gospels were written quite a bit AFTER the epistles. At any rate, the audience would have been limited and you can't know what depth of understanding someone might have come away with.

Then you can't know a damn thing about God. OK?

[waysider]

4 minutes ago, rrobs said:

 

Let's just say that the Bible does talk about dispensations or administrations. 

You can say it if you want to. Me? I'll pass because, quite frankly, it doesn't. 

[rrobs]

7 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

That is another odd thing to say - since you use a lot of way-speak and spout concepts and doctrinal stuff from wierwille and TWI...maybe it would help if you removed the PFAL-colored glasses...start thinking outside the little box that wierwille / TWI entrapped followers.

Perhaps vp still has you locked inside that little box i referred to above...can't speak for the others here but you seem to have that paranoia of the way-mindset - only instead of seeing devil spirits behind every tree - you see us as the enemy trying to hurt you...I'm just trying to show you a way out from all that.

You didn't say you wanted me to teach you the answer to your questions. Didn't think you would though.

[rrobs]

Just now, waysider said:

You can say it if you want to. Me? I'll pass because, quite frankly, it doesn't. 

Right on brother. I guess to you nothing changed when Adam and Eve fell. And nothing changed when Jesus died and rose from the dead. It's all just the same. Never mind the book will never make sense if you just lump everything, everybody, and every time into one big ball of s..t.

[waysider]

rrobs

No one is attacking you. Disagree with some of your points? Sure. But, not attacking you. Do you not realize that what you assume to be "the word" is really just someone's private interpretation of it? Sometimes you can spend years, even decades, thinking you understand a verse or section of scripture, only to find you were mistaken about it's meaning. It's just simply not possible to "know that you know that you know". Learning is an adventure. You can never be quite sure where it will lead you.

[Bolshevik]

On 7/3/2017 at 2:06 PM, rrobs said:

Push and pull seem so common and ordinary in our experience of life that we humans think little of these forces. Most of us assume they are simple opposites. In and out. Back and forth. Force directed in one direction or its opposite. However whether something pushes or pulls something else, there is a difference. A couple of examples will illustrate.

Imagine pushing a ping pong ball on a smooth table with the point of a sharp pencil. The ball would always roll away from the direction of the push, first rolling one way then the other. Now imagine the difference, if you attach a string to the ping pong ball with tape, and pull it toward you. The string would always bring it directly towards you.

Another example from common experience occurs when pulling a trailer with a car. When your car is pulling the trailer uphill, you are pulling against gravity. The trailer can not push the car while going uphill. The trailer falls in line nicely behind your car. Now if you are driving downhill too slow, the trailer may begin to push the car instead of the car pulling the trailer. This produces a strong, unpredictable side to side force. Your trailer will begin to sway from side to side. If not corrected a violent crash will almost certainly result.

Our standing and state are like the car pulling the trailer. The car is your standing, the trailer your state. The same could be said for doctrine and your walk. The doctrine is the car, your walk is the trailer. To maintain order, the doctrine must pull the walk. Your walk will naturally line up with correct doctrine. However, the moment the walk begins to push the doctrine, order gives way to chaos. If left unchecked for some period of time, the doctrine will be forgotten and replaced by man’s reasoning. Walking a Christian walk is simply out of the question when that happens.

The Corinthians were letting their walk push the doctrine. They became so focused on being a “good Christian” that they forgot the things from the book of Romans. They were sincere but they didn’t realize that their walk was, in fact, contrary to that doctrine. It wasn’t long before the doctrine was basically gone. That is where the Galatians were when Paul wrote his epistle to them. Their walk had so warped the doctrine that the doctrine was corrupted to the point that it no longer lined up much at all with God’s word.  Religion and the denominations that thrive on that religion are the end of that path.

 

Bottom line: get the doctrine straight and the walk will naturally be lined up with the doctrine. Without a thorough knowledge of the doctrine, the walk will be nothing but vain attempts at self justification. Instead of trying to be a good Christian, look at what God has already made you. The only place to learn that is in the Bible.

I see four paragraphs of long-winded awful analogy to simply say "mind over matter" in an extreme sense.  Complete with encouraging self-doubt.

A fifth paragraph with no citations to back up wild claims.

A sixth paragraph stating a cure to a problem that hasn't been properly demonstrated to exist.

Edited July 4, 2017 by Bolshevik
spelling

[rrobs]

Just now, Bolshevik said:

I see four paragraphs of long-winded awful analogy to simply say "mind over matter" in an extreme sense.  Complete with encouraging self-doubt.

A fifth paragraph with no citations to back up wild claims.

A sixth paragraph stating a cure to a problem that hasn't be properly demonstrated to exist.

Real in depth analysis there my friend. Why in the world are you even reading my stuff?