"Biblefan Dave, do you believe that Jesus' words in the gospels are directly applicable to your christian walk in the manner the epistles are?"
May I jump in?
I dont think that the Gospels should ever be totally dis-regarded. PFAL certainly did not teach any such thing.
Within the Gospel we see many wonderful things.
But what they do present is set within a given context. Jesus and His ministry was set completely before Grace. Those he spoke to and ministered to were over-whelmingly Jews. [granted there was in fact a few Gentiles that he had access to, but they were not the focus of his ministry]. Those Jews that Jesus spoke to were trying to live by The Law of Moses.
Today we have Grace, or if not then the torture, death and riseing of Our Lord and Savior would be for naught.
We have Righteousness, Santification, Redemption, Justification, and we have been given the Ministry of Reconciliation. These are not found in the Gospel.
I do not in any way imply that the Gospel are of any lesser 'quality', nor is Genesis. It is The Word of God. It is set like a gem stone, like a diamond.
It might be asked and wondered what Paul meant by "Gospel". Some scholars have wondered if Paul in Galatians 1:6 and other places had actually referred to a written Gospel that he personally promoted and circulated along with his epistles, comprising of the sayings of Christ.
Prior to the settling of the Christian canon(s) not all "gospels" followed the narrative format of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, containing an outline of the life of Christ wherein His sayings were scattered throughout.
Some gospels were quite simply a listing of the sayings of Christ, without any narrative reference to the events of His life."The Gospel of Thomas" is one well-known example, as is the "Q" or "Source" gospel thought by many scholars to have served as the source material behind the sayings of Jesus in our canonical forms.
Not every ancient church or Christian community shared the same "Gospel" or even the same "Apostle"- let alone the same ideas and interpretations.
But one notion that was shared - by others outside the earliest known Paulinist movement, the Marcionites - was that the sayings of Christ comprised and were designated "The New Law" - "the Law of Christ" - "the decrees" or "commandments" (notice many such refs in John) -which both did away with
and replaced the Old Testament.
If anything in the New Testament ought to be carved onto stone tablets and hung on walls if only to graphically convey the weight of one of the earliest, widespread Christian conceptions (even if ultimately in terms of the fleshly tablets of the heart) -it is the "Commandments" of Christ.
And yet this most fundamental idea escaped Bullinger's notice. And it tragically escaped
Wierwille's after him. With the result of many things going horribly wrong.
Who says one can't have "Grace" and the "Commandments of Christ" in the same room?
Why obey this bizarre inclination to segregate Christ's Law and Grace?
"Grace" without the centrality of the Sayings or commandments of Christ feels pretty empty -
even pointless.
Beides -did we really understand "Grace" from the Way International?
One thing that has really changed and affected my idea and attitude on "grace" is that I stopped thinking of "grace" as some "condition" generated by God - and have replaced it with the synonyms "goodness" and/or "kindness" - shifting the emphasis entirely to understanding "grace" as an attribute of God, or -God's very character - "by His Kindness have you been rescued" - not - "Here's the keys to the Unmerited Favor Administration - which btw you don't deserve but I'm giving it to ya anyway- don't smash up it too much."
"Here's another one for those who see merit in Wierwille's unique brand of dispensationalism:
How were people "saved" during the time of the law of Moses? WWierwille said they were "saved" by keeping the law. Wwhat do you say?"
If that were true, then no one from the OT was "saved" because no one in the OT ever kept the laws perfectly. Instead, there was a ritual (with the two goats) which symbolized the release of and forgiveness of sins - God's grace and mercy bestowed upon imperfect mankind.
The death and resurrection of Jesus symbolize the same thing, God's grace, mercy, forgivness to imperfect mankind.
It's always been there, it has just been represented to us in different ways over time.
The cluster of concepts Wierwille taught as "administrations" is not only unbiblical, in the sense that it is a foreign meaning READ INTO the texts, it also obliterates a scriptural understanding of what salvation is really going to be.
Dispensationalism works by stripping the meanings from "oikonomia", "aion" and "diatheke"; and then playing a deceptive mix-and-match shell game with the words and their definitions.
Wierwille defined "administrations" as periods of time distinguished by changes in the rules of life.
The New Testament word that denotes a period of time is "aion". Though there may be more than two, the Bible provides sufficient information to distinguish two, and two only, "this present evil age" and "the age to come".
Salvation is resurrection life in the age to come. The gift of holy spirit that was first poured out on the Day of Pentecost is the earnest of the resurrection spirit that will raise the dead to life when this present evil age ends, and the age to come begins.
Changes in the rules of life are not brought about by changes in time period, but by changes in covenant, "diatheke". We find many qualifiers to the word "diatheke" in the New Testament (the New Diatheke); old, new, second, better, etc. We don't find a single qualifier associated with the word "oikonomia" (stewardship or management). The Bible has many things to tell us about differences of covenants. It tells us NOTHING about differences of "oikonomia". The word "oikonomia" is never even used in the plural... not even once.
In Ephesians 3:6 Paul states the mystery that was first revealed to himself, "That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:"
NOT a period of time. But that God had extended grace to believing Gentiles: that under the new testament ("diatheke") they, as believing Gentiles, could be grafted into the covenant community along with the believing remnant of Israel; on the same basis, by grace through faith.
It was Paul's job to make this grace known. It was Paul's responsibility to make this grace known. It was Paul's "oikonomia" to make this grace known. That's why Paul said the "oikonomia" of the grace of God had been given to him.
Flushing the errors of Wierwille's dispensationalism from our minds is one of the chief tasks we have in recovering a scriptural understanding of the Bible.
An interesting sidelight: in Eph. 3:2, the word endings (in Greek) make it clear that it was GRACE that was given to Paul, not a DISPENSATION. (See also vv. 7,8.)
On the other hand, in Col. 1:25, "given" agrees with "dispensation."
Yes, Colossians 1:25 indicates that God gave Paul the responsibility of fulfilling His Word toward the Gentiles. The riches of the glory of this mystery toward the believing Gentiles was that Christ could be among THEM, as Gentiles, as well as among the believing remnant of Israel.
quote:If one were to search the scriptures and study biblical history one would see covenants throughout between God and man thus bringing about a changing relationship. For example, Moses going up to Mt. Sinai and bringing back the 10 commandments. This was a covenant between God and Moses and then the children of Israel. It demanded that these commandments be followed with consequences if they weren't, yet blessing if they were.
I dig the Moses gig. What I'd like to know is what did Moses see before he exhibited the first Ten Commandments?
I'm not normally given to theological study (it not being my model or interest in Christianity), but on the recommendation of a friend I've been reading a theological tome called "Isrealology: The Missing Link In Dispensational Theology".
I've been learning a great deal about the disctinctions between Covenant (Reformed) vs. Dispensational theologies and it has caused be to reflect back on some of the teachings of the Coach Elvis, our own MOGFODOT.
Remember, Hose MOG said he didn't like the term "dispensation" and preferred instead "administration". Curious that. "Administration" is a distinctly and exclusively Covenant term used to describe the two or three different administrations of one overarching covenant. Whereas "dispensation" describes the different periods held to by Dispensationalists. Yet Wierwille's theology was beyond dispensational...it has been described by Ryrie as 'Ultra-dispensationalist" and quite rightly. It strips the Gospels and Jesus' teachings of their power for Christian living. Curious that he insisted on using Covenant terminology for quite an extremely opposite belief.
So, what was it?
1. He unwittingly used terminology from his background (the very Calvinist Evangelical & Reformed) and applied it to Bullinger's mess.
2. He was sharp enough to include terminology from both theologies in an attempt to appeal to both backgrounds...
John said "these things were written so that u might know him that is true."
Weirwelle's plan as evan rightly pointed out was to disregard the teachings of Jesus or put them in a non-applicable status. This was the error. you cannot omit them and come up with the grace administration. Furthermore, the point of all the writings is to "know him that is true."
There is no other point. I think Evan has made an excellent point.
There were, most certainly, distinct differences in the rules that applied to Adam & Eve when they were in the garden of Eden then after they got kicked out. There were definite differences in the rules that applied to Moses than to Abraham. There were a great deal of differences in the rules or conditions that apply to the administration of grace than those who lived under the law. Call them what you will, whether you call them administrations or dispensations or eras or eggnog graphites, the rules and conditions still changed from one time period to another.
As far as the 4 Gospels. The Gospels are a horse of a different color. Sometimes, Jesus is directing his comments directly to those of Jewish heritage and deal strictly with the law. Other times, he is hinting to people about the things to come, when the rules and conditions will change. No, I do not believe that everything in the gospels only applied to the law administration. Whenever Jesus was talking about future conditions or rules, it can directly apply to people in the administration of grace.
Jesus marked the transition from the law to grace administrations or eggnog graphites (if you prefer).
why don't you delineate all these great differences, as you see them.
Just because you say they are does not make it so, eh, Dave??? or does it??? I would suggest you open your mind, Dave -- you might learn something that contradicts your way theology...
The first mistake a lot of ex-Wayers make is to hold so much animosity and resentment that they go out of their way to try and find poke holes in all of the Way's doctrines and practices.
Just because TWI taught something does not in any way make it completely right or completely wrong. It is obvious by the term "way theology" that you still harbor a lot of hatred, bitterness, resentment, and animosity toward TWI.
TWI is a legal entity composed of people. Within any organization, one can find good people and not so good people. TWI never did anything to me or against me. It was only certain people who did things.
I left TWI in '87, over 18 years ago. I do not have "way theology" nor do I have "anti-way theology".
If you can't see the difference between the law and the grace administration, you really don't understand the Bible at all.
TWI teachers did teach a lot of correct doctrines. If one goes out of his or her way to try and find fault with what was true, then one ends up in error, but can let their anger and bitterness justify their error.
Maybe, you are the one that really needs to open your mind. Obsessively being anti-Way will not lead one to truth. The Word of God is our source of truth. It is not TWI, nor mainstream denominationalism. You really need to deal with the anger issues that you have.
The first mistake a lot of ex-Wayers make is to hold so much animosity and resentment that they go out of their way to try and find poke holes in all of the Way's doctrines and practices.
Or sometimes the holes are there and we just point them out. Most of the ex-Way people I encounter (here and elsewhere) do very well at separating any animosity and resentment from examination of the Way's doctrines and practices.
quote:Just because TWI taught something does not in any way make it completely right or completely wrong.
Who said that? No one here...got a quote Biblefan?
quote:It is obvious by the term "way theology" that you still harbor a lot of hatred, bitterness, resentment, and animosity toward TWI.
Gee, I don't see the connection. Why would a reference to TWI theology necessarily indicate bitterness, etc.?
quote:TWI is a legal entity composed of people. Within any organization, one can find good people and not so good people. TWI never did anything to me or against me. It was only certain people who did things.
Yet there was a TWI "corporate culture" that drove how many people acted.
quote:I left TWI in '87, over 18 years ago. I do not have "way theology" nor do I have "anti-way theology".
I want to be like you when I grow up ;)-->
quote:If you can't see the difference between the law and the grace administration, you really don't understand the Bible at all.
If you think that there is complete argreement about what the bible says about various subjects, or that it's as clear as you make it, you are incredibly naive.
quote:TWI teachers did teach a lot of correct doctrines. If one goes out of his or her way to try and find fault with what was true, then one ends up in error, but can let their anger and bitterness justify their error.
Ah, there's the rub...determining what and what was not true.
quote:Maybe, you are the one that really needs to open your mind. Obsessively being anti-Way will not lead one to truth. The Word of God is our source of truth. It is not TWI, nor mainstream denominationalism. You really need to deal with the anger issues that you have.
Dave --- why kick up all the sand??? Just answer the question, plain and simple.
THIS is EXACTLY what I said:
"well, Dave..........we await you.....
why don't you delineate all these great differences, as you see them.
Just because you say they are does not make it so, eh, Dave??? or does it??? I would suggest you open your mind, Dave -- you might learn something that contradicts your way theology..."
sounds like I touched YOUR nerve, not vice-versa.......
I have no bitterness at all, but I am not your or anyone elses' fool -- capiche?
So instead of this typical way bull.... put-down,.. "If you can't see the difference between the law and the grace administration, you really don't understand the Bible at all." --
how about steppin up to the plate like a big fella and answering my honest question?? can you handle that, Dave?? I have much more of a 'tude about your dissimulating than I ever would about your honest answer....
Again, operating under an agenda to disapprove way theology is not a logical approach. Anyone can twist or distort or misquote or take things out of context. The objective should be a quest for truth, not to disapprove way theology. In an obsessive effort to disapprove, you fall into the trap of deciding to no longer believe things that are true.
From a Christian point of view, not from a Way point of view, an anti-Way point of view, or solely from a denominational point of view, forgiveness is a big key to Christian living.
Yes, VPW did things I did not like. I did not like the plagarism. I did not like the sexual coercion. He neglected a lot of scriptures regarding the so-called "law of believing". In teaching about getting "to whom correct", there were distinct differences between tithing under the law in Malachi, dictating one-tenth and the verses in Corinthians to the church simply encouraging people to give of their abudance. Yet, VPW applied tithing to the church, contradicting this very own teaching. I wish he had paid more attention to the scriptures in that area. Yet, I hold no bad thoughts whatsoever about VPW.
LCM did a lot of bad things to people. Adultery, unscriptural authoritarian rules and regulations, lacking pastoral skills, lacking research skills, poor financial management, being quick to judge, and on and on. But, you know what, LCM is still a brother in Christ. LCM will be a part of the gathering together, like it or not. Why not just forgive and bury this hatred and animosity?
Who said one had to be a psychiatrist to recognize anger? Anger still all over the place, and no one needs a license to recognize its existence. Bad logic used there.
What's the difference between law and grace. Law is a set of rules which have a punishment if not following. Admittance to paradise was conditional under the law to the adherence to the law. Under the "administration of grace" (notice the actual words used in the Bible), salvation is given immediately upon the acceptance of Jesus Christ as our lord and savior. Under grace, the acceptance of Christ as our lord is the only condition that one must meet. Rewards in paradise, under the grace administration, are determined by obedience to God's Word, not admittance.
Ok, stop me if I am going too fast for you. There was a time before the law was given. WOW, what a fascinating concept. I am not breaking a law if I fail to stop at an intersection that has no stop sign. If someone puts up a stop sign, and then I fail to stop, I have broken a law. Conditions changed. I guess it's just that "way theology" that makes me decide to stop after they put up that stop sign, because I have the common sense to recognize that there was a reason things changed.
Abraham had to obey God but he didn't have to tithe one-tenth of his firstfruits. He wasn't under the law. God can't determine obedience unless there is something to obey. Thus, the law was given. Jesus Christ fulfilled the law. Thus, the law ended. Thus, a change in the conditions or rules. If they take the stop sign away, there is no longer a legal penalty for failure to stop.
At one point, no law. Then later there was law. WOW, a difference. No law, then law. Then Christ fulfilled the law. So again, no law. Another difference. Under law, salvation by obedience to the law. Under grace, salvation by obedience to Romans 10:9,10. Another difference. Christ upon vs. Christ in. Another difference. Stoning as punishment for adultery vs. he who is without sin, cast the first stone. Another difference.
You see, if you unclutter your mind from this resentment and get rid of that "anti-way theology", you can simply ascertain what the Bible says. It's not that difficult.
NO "thanks" to your useless chatter in paragraphs #1-5 and #10. How you think you know one thing about me says a lot more about your ego, vanity and willingness to learn(and to unlearn) than your answer does. You still smack of the condescending, know-it-all attitude that earmarks the classic wayfer. Your answers in paragraphs #6-9 is straight Wierwille. Thanks for confirming that. I would say that you are trying to shove the Gospel message through a mighty small lens with your "rules" theology. Hebrews 11 makes it quite plain that faith(in and upon Christ) unites *all* "believers" from Abel all the way through Jesus' first appearance and ministry and all the way up to today. NO ONE was ever or could ever be "saved" by keeping the law!! -- you did not know that, Dave???
And please don't trot out "The Mystery" --- what was secret was the Judean and gentile being EQUAL under Christ as the head, NOT some "new" way of being saved. It was Christ, Jesus the LORD in Gen.3:15, it is Jesus LORD and Christ in Rev.22:21 and ALL the way in between. If you can't see THAT, than maybe YOU need to let go of your preconceptions and prejudices...AKA broken cisterns, ya know, pfal and all......
Hey song, try to adjust your tuner, I can't get the rthymn.
I am back in the rhythm again~~~ Yepper d9 sometimes I see a many a possible thread and seem to go off on a tangent. You are right! Thank you. Years ago i used to have a habit of commenting outloud in a movie theatre. Whoops :D-->
TheEvan,
Excellent thread. Delightfull to the palate of the mind. And that is fer sure.
You're a lost case. You are lost in this hatred of Wierwille, Martindale, and The Way. Wierwille was right on a lot of things so if I am quoting Wierwille on those matters, then I am right. For me to ever admit that Wierwille was right on things would shatter your huge ego.
Forgiveness is a big key to overcoming adversity. People who had family members murdered have been more forgiving than many people have just because Martindale betrayed people's trust.
Until you learn forgiveness, you'll be trapped in this endless loop of anguish and hatred.
The fact that you talk about the "classic wayfarer" shows just how clouded and jaded your thinking is. I never saw any "classic wayfarers" when I was in TWI. I saw a lot of people that loved God and wanted to do His will. That's what I saw, and what most people saw. That just proves your shortsightedness. This overgeneralization of matters prevents you from knowing truth.
Again, Alfa, you are the one coming up with these vague generalities. You are the one full of contempt. Why don't you just learn to forgive and seek an honest course through life.
Re:"I never saw any 'classic wayfarers' when I was in TWI."
Well you must not have been looking. That's the only possible explanation I can come up with. I saw thousands of them during my tenure. Huge crowds of glassy-eyed, fawning, servile lackies waiting upon the MOG with bated breath, hoping - beyond hope - that maybe, possibly, they could be called upon to offer him a dinner-mint or an ashtray to buttout his cigarette.
TWI, as cults go, was hardly unique. Certainly no more so than Amway or The Mormons. The fact that you still revere it's founding principles as anything other than bait says more about you than any of your posts.
And yes, I'm filled to overflowing with anger and bitterness, so you can spare me your diagnosis...
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
23
34
19
37
Popular Days
Dec 10
26
Dec 9
20
Dec 21
13
Dec 22
12
Top Posters In This Topic
Biblefan Dave 23 posts
Vertical Limit 34 posts
Oakspear 19 posts
Steve Lortz 37 posts
Popular Days
Dec 10 2004
26 posts
Dec 9 2004
20 posts
Dec 21 2004
13 posts
Dec 22 2004
12 posts
TheEvan
Biblefan Dave, do you believe that Jesus' words in the gospels are directly applicable to your christian walk in the manner the epistles are?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
TheEvan:
"Biblefan Dave, do you believe that Jesus' words in the gospels are directly applicable to your christian walk in the manner the epistles are?"
May I jump in?
I dont think that the Gospels should ever be totally dis-regarded. PFAL certainly did not teach any such thing.
Within the Gospel we see many wonderful things.
But what they do present is set within a given context. Jesus and His ministry was set completely before Grace. Those he spoke to and ministered to were over-whelmingly Jews. [granted there was in fact a few Gentiles that he had access to, but they were not the focus of his ministry]. Those Jews that Jesus spoke to were trying to live by The Law of Moses.
Today we have Grace, or if not then the torture, death and riseing of Our Lord and Savior would be for naught.
We have Righteousness, Santification, Redemption, Justification, and we have been given the Ministry of Reconciliation. These are not found in the Gospel.
I do not in any way imply that the Gospel are of any lesser 'quality', nor is Genesis. It is The Word of God. It is set like a gem stone, like a diamond.
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Okay, makes sense. so then, what of Jesus' teachings in the gospels are we NOT to apply? And how do we decide to disregard them?
Here's another one for those who see merit in Wierwille's unique brand of dispensationalism:
How were people "saved" during the time of the law of Moses? WWierwille said they were "saved" by keeping the law. Wwhat do you say?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
It might be asked and wondered what Paul meant by "Gospel". Some scholars have wondered if Paul in Galatians 1:6 and other places had actually referred to a written Gospel that he personally promoted and circulated along with his epistles, comprising of the sayings of Christ.
Prior to the settling of the Christian canon(s) not all "gospels" followed the narrative format of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, containing an outline of the life of Christ wherein His sayings were scattered throughout.
Some gospels were quite simply a listing of the sayings of Christ, without any narrative reference to the events of His life."The Gospel of Thomas" is one well-known example, as is the "Q" or "Source" gospel thought by many scholars to have served as the source material behind the sayings of Jesus in our canonical forms.
Not every ancient church or Christian community shared the same "Gospel" or even the same "Apostle"- let alone the same ideas and interpretations.
But one notion that was shared - by others outside the earliest known Paulinist movement, the Marcionites - was that the sayings of Christ comprised and were designated "The New Law" - "the Law of Christ" - "the decrees" or "commandments" (notice many such refs in John) -which both did away with
and replaced the Old Testament.
If anything in the New Testament ought to be carved onto stone tablets and hung on walls if only to graphically convey the weight of one of the earliest, widespread Christian conceptions (even if ultimately in terms of the fleshly tablets of the heart) -it is the "Commandments" of Christ.
And yet this most fundamental idea escaped Bullinger's notice. And it tragically escaped
Wierwille's after him. With the result of many things going horribly wrong.
Who says one can't have "Grace" and the "Commandments of Christ" in the same room?
Why obey this bizarre inclination to segregate Christ's Law and Grace?
"Grace" without the centrality of the Sayings or commandments of Christ feels pretty empty -
even pointless.
Beides -did we really understand "Grace" from the Way International?
One thing that has really changed and affected my idea and attitude on "grace" is that I stopped thinking of "grace" as some "condition" generated by God - and have replaced it with the synonyms "goodness" and/or "kindness" - shifting the emphasis entirely to understanding "grace" as an attribute of God, or -God's very character - "by His Kindness have you been rescued" - not - "Here's the keys to the Unmerited Favor Administration - which btw you don't deserve but I'm giving it to ya anyway- don't smash up it too much."
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
"Here's another one for those who see merit in Wierwille's unique brand of dispensationalism:
How were people "saved" during the time of the law of Moses? WWierwille said they were "saved" by keeping the law. Wwhat do you say?"
If that were true, then no one from the OT was "saved" because no one in the OT ever kept the laws perfectly. Instead, there was a ritual (with the two goats) which symbolized the release of and forgiveness of sins - God's grace and mercy bestowed upon imperfect mankind.
The death and resurrection of Jesus symbolize the same thing, God's grace, mercy, forgivness to imperfect mankind.
It's always been there, it has just been represented to us in different ways over time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
BRILLIANT POST DANNY!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
The cluster of concepts Wierwille taught as "administrations" is not only unbiblical, in the sense that it is a foreign meaning READ INTO the texts, it also obliterates a scriptural understanding of what salvation is really going to be.
Dispensationalism works by stripping the meanings from "oikonomia", "aion" and "diatheke"; and then playing a deceptive mix-and-match shell game with the words and their definitions.
Wierwille defined "administrations" as periods of time distinguished by changes in the rules of life.
The New Testament word that denotes a period of time is "aion". Though there may be more than two, the Bible provides sufficient information to distinguish two, and two only, "this present evil age" and "the age to come".
Salvation is resurrection life in the age to come. The gift of holy spirit that was first poured out on the Day of Pentecost is the earnest of the resurrection spirit that will raise the dead to life when this present evil age ends, and the age to come begins.
Changes in the rules of life are not brought about by changes in time period, but by changes in covenant, "diatheke". We find many qualifiers to the word "diatheke" in the New Testament (the New Diatheke); old, new, second, better, etc. We don't find a single qualifier associated with the word "oikonomia" (stewardship or management). The Bible has many things to tell us about differences of covenants. It tells us NOTHING about differences of "oikonomia". The word "oikonomia" is never even used in the plural... not even once.
In Ephesians 3:6 Paul states the mystery that was first revealed to himself, "That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:"
NOT a period of time. But that God had extended grace to believing Gentiles: that under the new testament ("diatheke") they, as believing Gentiles, could be grafted into the covenant community along with the believing remnant of Israel; on the same basis, by grace through faith.
It was Paul's job to make this grace known. It was Paul's responsibility to make this grace known. It was Paul's "oikonomia" to make this grace known. That's why Paul said the "oikonomia" of the grace of God had been given to him.
Flushing the errors of Wierwille's dispensationalism from our minds is one of the chief tasks we have in recovering a scriptural understanding of the Bible.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
An interesting sidelight: in Eph. 3:2, the word endings (in Greek) make it clear that it was GRACE that was given to Paul, not a DISPENSATION. (See also vv. 7,8.)
On the other hand, in Col. 1:25, "given" agrees with "dispensation."
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Yes, Colossians 1:25 indicates that God gave Paul the responsibility of fulfilling His Word toward the Gentiles. The riches of the glory of this mystery toward the believing Gentiles was that Christ could be among THEM, as Gentiles, as well as among the believing remnant of Israel.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
I dig the Moses gig. What I'd like to know is what did Moses see before he exhibited the first Ten Commandments?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
TheEvan
Guitars. Did someone say Guitars
posted August 15, 2004 18:02
I'm not normally given to theological study (it not being my model or interest in Christianity), but on the recommendation of a friend I've been reading a theological tome called "Isrealology: The Missing Link In Dispensational Theology".
I've been learning a great deal about the disctinctions between Covenant (Reformed) vs. Dispensational theologies and it has caused be to reflect back on some of the teachings of the Coach Elvis, our own MOGFODOT.
Remember, Hose MOG said he didn't like the term "dispensation" and preferred instead "administration". Curious that. "Administration" is a distinctly and exclusively Covenant term used to describe the two or three different administrations of one overarching covenant. Whereas "dispensation" describes the different periods held to by Dispensationalists. Yet Wierwille's theology was beyond dispensational...it has been described by Ryrie as 'Ultra-dispensationalist" and quite rightly. It strips the Gospels and Jesus' teachings of their power for Christian living. Curious that he insisted on using Covenant terminology for quite an extremely opposite belief.
So, what was it?
1. He unwittingly used terminology from his background (the very Calvinist Evangelical & Reformed) and applied it to Bullinger's mess.
2. He was sharp enough to include terminology from both theologies in an attempt to appeal to both backgrounds...
it's called Cult 2 da Bone Marrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Ahhh a group of a bunch of questions that have absolute answers to what they question~~~
whew
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Hey song, try to adjust your tuner, I can't get the rthymn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
John said "these things were written so that u might know him that is true."
Weirwelle's plan as evan rightly pointed out was to disregard the teachings of Jesus or put them in a non-applicable status. This was the error. you cannot omit them and come up with the grace administration. Furthermore, the point of all the writings is to "know him that is true."
There is no other point. I think Evan has made an excellent point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biblefan Dave
There were, most certainly, distinct differences in the rules that applied to Adam & Eve when they were in the garden of Eden then after they got kicked out. There were definite differences in the rules that applied to Moses than to Abraham. There were a great deal of differences in the rules or conditions that apply to the administration of grace than those who lived under the law. Call them what you will, whether you call them administrations or dispensations or eras or eggnog graphites, the rules and conditions still changed from one time period to another.
As far as the 4 Gospels. The Gospels are a horse of a different color. Sometimes, Jesus is directing his comments directly to those of Jewish heritage and deal strictly with the law. Other times, he is hinting to people about the things to come, when the rules and conditions will change. No, I do not believe that everything in the gospels only applied to the law administration. Whenever Jesus was talking about future conditions or rules, it can directly apply to people in the administration of grace.
Jesus marked the transition from the law to grace administrations or eggnog graphites (if you prefer).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
well, Dave..........we await you.....
why don't you delineate all these great differences, as you see them.
Just because you say they are does not make it so, eh, Dave??? or does it??? I would suggest you open your mind, Dave -- you might learn something that contradicts your way theology...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biblefan Dave
Alfa,
The first mistake a lot of ex-Wayers make is to hold so much animosity and resentment that they go out of their way to try and find poke holes in all of the Way's doctrines and practices.
Just because TWI taught something does not in any way make it completely right or completely wrong. It is obvious by the term "way theology" that you still harbor a lot of hatred, bitterness, resentment, and animosity toward TWI.
TWI is a legal entity composed of people. Within any organization, one can find good people and not so good people. TWI never did anything to me or against me. It was only certain people who did things.
I left TWI in '87, over 18 years ago. I do not have "way theology" nor do I have "anti-way theology".
If you can't see the difference between the law and the grace administration, you really don't understand the Bible at all.
TWI teachers did teach a lot of correct doctrines. If one goes out of his or her way to try and find fault with what was true, then one ends up in error, but can let their anger and bitterness justify their error.
Maybe, you are the one that really needs to open your mind. Obsessively being anti-Way will not lead one to truth. The Word of God is our source of truth. It is not TWI, nor mainstream denominationalism. You really need to deal with the anger issues that you have.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
Many thanks, Oak. I could not say it better.
Dave --- why kick up all the sand??? Just answer the question, plain and simple.
THIS is EXACTLY what I said:
"well, Dave..........we await you.....
why don't you delineate all these great differences, as you see them.
Just because you say they are does not make it so, eh, Dave??? or does it??? I would suggest you open your mind, Dave -- you might learn something that contradicts your way theology..."
sounds like I touched YOUR nerve, not vice-versa.......
I have no bitterness at all, but I am not your or anyone elses' fool -- capiche?
So instead of this typical way bull.... put-down,.. "If you can't see the difference between the law and the grace administration, you really don't understand the Bible at all." --
how about steppin up to the plate like a big fella and answering my honest question?? can you handle that, Dave?? I have much more of a 'tude about your dissimulating than I ever would about your honest answer....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biblefan Dave
Alfa,
Again, operating under an agenda to disapprove way theology is not a logical approach. Anyone can twist or distort or misquote or take things out of context. The objective should be a quest for truth, not to disapprove way theology. In an obsessive effort to disapprove, you fall into the trap of deciding to no longer believe things that are true.
From a Christian point of view, not from a Way point of view, an anti-Way point of view, or solely from a denominational point of view, forgiveness is a big key to Christian living.
Yes, VPW did things I did not like. I did not like the plagarism. I did not like the sexual coercion. He neglected a lot of scriptures regarding the so-called "law of believing". In teaching about getting "to whom correct", there were distinct differences between tithing under the law in Malachi, dictating one-tenth and the verses in Corinthians to the church simply encouraging people to give of their abudance. Yet, VPW applied tithing to the church, contradicting this very own teaching. I wish he had paid more attention to the scriptures in that area. Yet, I hold no bad thoughts whatsoever about VPW.
LCM did a lot of bad things to people. Adultery, unscriptural authoritarian rules and regulations, lacking pastoral skills, lacking research skills, poor financial management, being quick to judge, and on and on. But, you know what, LCM is still a brother in Christ. LCM will be a part of the gathering together, like it or not. Why not just forgive and bury this hatred and animosity?
Who said one had to be a psychiatrist to recognize anger? Anger still all over the place, and no one needs a license to recognize its existence. Bad logic used there.
What's the difference between law and grace. Law is a set of rules which have a punishment if not following. Admittance to paradise was conditional under the law to the adherence to the law. Under the "administration of grace" (notice the actual words used in the Bible), salvation is given immediately upon the acceptance of Jesus Christ as our lord and savior. Under grace, the acceptance of Christ as our lord is the only condition that one must meet. Rewards in paradise, under the grace administration, are determined by obedience to God's Word, not admittance.
Ok, stop me if I am going too fast for you. There was a time before the law was given. WOW, what a fascinating concept. I am not breaking a law if I fail to stop at an intersection that has no stop sign. If someone puts up a stop sign, and then I fail to stop, I have broken a law. Conditions changed. I guess it's just that "way theology" that makes me decide to stop after they put up that stop sign, because I have the common sense to recognize that there was a reason things changed.
Abraham had to obey God but he didn't have to tithe one-tenth of his firstfruits. He wasn't under the law. God can't determine obedience unless there is something to obey. Thus, the law was given. Jesus Christ fulfilled the law. Thus, the law ended. Thus, a change in the conditions or rules. If they take the stop sign away, there is no longer a legal penalty for failure to stop.
At one point, no law. Then later there was law. WOW, a difference. No law, then law. Then Christ fulfilled the law. So again, no law. Another difference. Under law, salvation by obedience to the law. Under grace, salvation by obedience to Romans 10:9,10. Another difference. Christ upon vs. Christ in. Another difference. Stoning as punishment for adultery vs. he who is without sin, cast the first stone. Another difference.
You see, if you unclutter your mind from this resentment and get rid of that "anti-way theology", you can simply ascertain what the Bible says. It's not that difficult.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
alfakat
Thanks for your answer, Dave.
NO "thanks" to your useless chatter in paragraphs #1-5 and #10. How you think you know one thing about me says a lot more about your ego, vanity and willingness to learn(and to unlearn) than your answer does. You still smack of the condescending, know-it-all attitude that earmarks the classic wayfer. Your answers in paragraphs #6-9 is straight Wierwille. Thanks for confirming that. I would say that you are trying to shove the Gospel message through a mighty small lens with your "rules" theology. Hebrews 11 makes it quite plain that faith(in and upon Christ) unites *all* "believers" from Abel all the way through Jesus' first appearance and ministry and all the way up to today. NO ONE was ever or could ever be "saved" by keeping the law!! -- you did not know that, Dave???
And please don't trot out "The Mystery" --- what was secret was the Judean and gentile being EQUAL under Christ as the head, NOT some "new" way of being saved. It was Christ, Jesus the LORD in Gen.3:15, it is Jesus LORD and Christ in Rev.22:21 and ALL the way in between. If you can't see THAT, than maybe YOU need to let go of your preconceptions and prejudices...AKA broken cisterns, ya know, pfal and all......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
I am back in the rhythm again~~~ Yepper d9 sometimes I see a many a possible thread and seem to go off on a tangent. You are right! Thank you. Years ago i used to have a habit of commenting outloud in a movie theatre. Whoops
:D-->
TheEvan,
Excellent thread. Delightfull to the palate of the mind. And that is fer sure.
Song
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biblefan Dave
Alfa,
You're a lost case. You are lost in this hatred of Wierwille, Martindale, and The Way. Wierwille was right on a lot of things so if I am quoting Wierwille on those matters, then I am right. For me to ever admit that Wierwille was right on things would shatter your huge ego.
Forgiveness is a big key to overcoming adversity. People who had family members murdered have been more forgiving than many people have just because Martindale betrayed people's trust.
Until you learn forgiveness, you'll be trapped in this endless loop of anguish and hatred.
The fact that you talk about the "classic wayfarer" shows just how clouded and jaded your thinking is. I never saw any "classic wayfarers" when I was in TWI. I saw a lot of people that loved God and wanted to do His will. That's what I saw, and what most people saw. That just proves your shortsightedness. This overgeneralization of matters prevents you from knowing truth.
Again, Alfa, you are the one coming up with these vague generalities. You are the one full of contempt. Why don't you just learn to forgive and seek an honest course through life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Biblefan Dave,
Re:"I never saw any 'classic wayfarers' when I was in TWI."
Well you must not have been looking. That's the only possible explanation I can come up with. I saw thousands of them during my tenure. Huge crowds of glassy-eyed, fawning, servile lackies waiting upon the MOG with bated breath, hoping - beyond hope - that maybe, possibly, they could be called upon to offer him a dinner-mint or an ashtray to buttout his cigarette.
TWI, as cults go, was hardly unique. Certainly no more so than Amway or The Mormons. The fact that you still revere it's founding principles as anything other than bait says more about you than any of your posts.
And yes, I'm filled to overflowing with anger and bitterness, so you can spare me your diagnosis...
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.