Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Grace Revealed - From Grace Ambassadors Ministry Update -

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
    That's what TOL is for.


    Do you know how hard that is? To impact a pastor, or an entire church..?


    Acts 9 isn't the issue. I'm fully with them on that. And I am fully aware of my position and understanding of the open view.


    The last time this issue came up with an A9D fellowship it was a small Bible study and they were very confrontational when the issue arose. They did not like discussing it at all. They were the antithesis of receptive.


    Maybe I should just start my own church.
    To your points...

    Point 1 - not really. Not on the part of most of the Mads on TOL. They are more about telling non Mads how wrong they are. They take issue with another Mad wanting to compare notes where said others Mads do not hold their view.

    That is not grace; and it certainly does lend itself to any kind of a true further refinement of one's understanding of core Mad based principles.

    Point 2 - no one was talking about a revolution, lol.

    And this differs with each Pastor and or assembly.

    I recall one assembly where most held to the Lord's supper, and some did not. On that day, the ones who did not would simply go out to the lobby and wait til it was over. Some all huffy and puffy about that their belief against it was not the majority; others of their same persuasion against it were rather graceful about it.

    Speaking to some from both groups, I found that some were able to compare notes; some were not.

    Some were to into how they alone were right; as they actually looked down their noses at the others.

    The older saints were simply philosophical in their outlook that grace was not allowed to be the deciding factor by all.

    These issues test one's true beliefs about how grace works during such potentially sticky moments.

    It is a principle the ever stuck in "not for us!!!" crowd has never been able to grasp.

    Point 3 - You'd surprised how often Acts 9 actually turns out to be the issue. As not all Mads who assert they hold to Acts 9 turn out actually holding to Acts 9 in practice.

    Where too much rationalizing about a thing (human viewpoint) begins to prevail over core Mid-Acts practices for studying a thing out.

    Point 4 - true, SOME Mads are very closed to any "Mad" understanding but their own.

    MANY are not.

    I've plenty of both - Pastors and assembly members.

    It's best to simply remain curious about how things work from where each individual is looking at a thing from.

    This alone begins to allow one see where another is truly coming from - what principles about how a thing works they are coming from.

    By the way, thank you for your comparing notes

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Danoh View Post
      To your points...

      Point 1 - not really. Not on the part of most of the Mads on TOL. They are more about telling non Mads how wrong they are. They take issue with another Mad wanting to compare notes where said others Mads do not hold their view.

      That is not grace; and it certainly does lend itself to any kind of a true further refinement of one's understanding of core Mad based principles.

      Point 2 - no one was talking about a revolution, lol.

      And this differs with each Pastor and or assembly.

      I recall one assembly where most held to the Lord's supper, and some did not. On that day, the ones who did not would simply go out to the lobby and wait til it was over. Some all huffy and puffy about that their belief against it was not the majority; others of their same persuasion against it were rather graceful about it.

      Speaking to some from both groups, I found that some were able to compare notes; some were not.

      Some were to into how they alone were right; as they actually looked down their noses at the others.

      The older saints were simply philosophical in their outlook that grace was not allowed to be the deciding factor by all.

      These issues test one's true beliefs about how grace works during such potentially sticky moments.

      It is a principle the ever stuck in "not for us!!!" crowd has never been able to grasp.

      Point 3 - You'd surprised how often Acts 9 actually turns out to be the issue. As not all Mads who assert they hold to Acts 9 turn out actually holding to Acts 9 in practice.

      Where too much rationalizing about a thing (human viewpoint) begins to prevail over core Mid-Acts practices for studying a thing out.

      Point 4 - true, SOME Mads are very closed to any "Mad" understanding but their own.

      MANY are not.

      I've plenty of both - Pastors and assembly members.

      It's best to simply remain curious about how things work from where each individual is looking at a thing from.

      This alone begins to allow one see where another is truly coming from - what principles about how a thing works they are coming from.

      By the way, thank you for your comparing notes
      Again, the issue is the open view, not MAD.

      But, you're welcome.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
        Again, the issue is the open view, not MAD.

        But, you're welcome.
        Consider that all issues are Mad related issues.

        Either in light of, or contrary to, how Mad studies any issue out.

        Either one is consistent in their application of how Mad studies a thing out, or one is not.

        In which case, the natural man's wisdom of this world is the approach influencing one's conclusions - man's rationalism; empiricism, and all the rest.

        Different understandings between Mads have always revolved around the difference between spiritual, and the natural man's perspective.

        Likewise where personal differences arise on the part of one; if not on the part of both sides.

        Where such is the case, either one Mad, or both, find it impossible to speak unto the other as unto spiritual.

        Can you prove your OV to them not only through the Scripture alone; but in light of the revelation of the Mystery's impact on the understanding of God's will?

        Are you sure you have those right?

        Are they?

        You will not know you have either a friend or a foe in them as to any issue, or whether you truly are one or the other yourself until you put your cards on the table with them, or any other Mad, for that matter...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Danoh View Post
          Can you prove your OV to them not only through the Scripture alone; but in light of the revelation of the Mystery's impact on the understanding of God's will?
          Yes.

          Are you sure you have those right?
          Yes.

          Are they?
          They're wrong.

          You will not know you have either a friend or a foe in them as to any issue, or whether you truly are one or the other yourself until you put your cards on the table with them, or any other Mad, for that matter...
          I suppose.

          Comment


          • I'll tell ya what, Lighthouse; lay out in a sentence or two how you would explain to someone both Israel's fall and the Mystery that then began to unfold.

            I ask because I have often found that many a Mad words that in a way that ends up looking like God was not only somehow caught off guard, but came up with some sort of a last minute plan B (that is supposedly a plan B).

            Neither of those three of which is correct.

            At least not correct, neither in my understanding, nor in what I have read of Justin's understanding.

            Perhaps not in yours either...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Danoh View Post
              I'll tell ya what, Lighthouse; lay out in a sentence or two how you would explain to someone both Israel's fall and the Mystery that then began to unfold.

              I ask because I have often found that many a Mad words that in a way that ends up looking like God was not only somehow caught off guard, but came up with some sort of a last minute plan B (that is supposedly a plan B).

              Neither of those three of which is correct.

              At least not correct, neither in my understanding, nor in what I have read of Justin's understanding.

              Perhaps not in yours either...
              Of course He wasn't caught off guard. The parable of the fig tree shows that. But it also wasn't what God wanted primarily. This is why I can't understand how anyone can be MAD without also being OV.

              Israel [the fig tree] didn't produce the fruit God wanted in the three years Jesus was on Earth, in the flesh He gave them an extra year. Still nothing, so they were cut off. God wanted the Gentiles, and since Israel wasn't delivering He went to someone else. With a different plan.

              This was not last minute. He planned for this eventuality from the beginning of His plan for Israel and the Gentiles. He knew i was a possibility, a strong one, that Israel would fail. He knew their track record, and the hearts and minds, etc. of the people. Especially the leaders.

              I know that's more than a couple of sentences, but I tend to be wordy. It's a byproduct of my ASD.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
                Of course He wasn't caught off guard. The parable of the fig tree shows that. But it also wasn't what God wanted primarily. This is why I can't understand how anyone can be MAD without also being OV.

                Israel [the fig tree] didn't produce the fruit God wanted in the three years Jesus was on Earth, in the flesh He gave them an extra year. Still nothing, so they were cut off. God wanted the Gentiles, and since Israel wasn't delivering He went to someone else. With a different plan.

                This was not last minute. He planned for this eventuality from the beginning of His plan for Israel and the Gentiles. He knew i was a possibility, a strong one, that Israel would fail. He knew their track record, and the hearts and minds, etc. of the people. Especially the leaders.

                I know that's more than a couple of sentences, but I tend to be wordy. It's a byproduct of my ASD.
                No problem on the ASD.

                Actually, such "infirmities" often end up a strength in some other area as a result of a spillover into said other areas; the result of the brain's attempt to overcompensate in response to said "weakness."

                As for the balance of your post - well, here goes another TOL Mad I perhaps end up being cut off from fellowship with

                If so, then so be it...my apology for the following, nonetheless, bro.

                Your above is off.

                Neither Paul nor his Mystery were a response (planned or otherwise) to Israel's fall.

                Nor were they a replacement of God's plan for the Earth and its' Gentiles through a redeemed Israel.

                But more important is where you appear to be looking at things from; as that tends to impact what one sees - in many areas.

                It appears you reasoned your above and then reasoned your OV into it.

                As for the OV itself, at this point I continue to find it also the result of the following.

                Where ever any Believer, including any Mad, relies on one aspect or another of the two basic systems of human viewpoint that all other systems of the wisdom of this world are not only based on, but that Paul knocks, say, in 1 Corinthians 1&2 - empiricism and rationalism - said Believer is said by Paul, to be looking at things through how and where the natural man looks at things from.

                If you can wrap your head around the above, you will have gone a long way in beginning to free yourself from the mis-fire I often see some Mads on TOL and elsewhere look at things from.

                Which is how Mads end up not only at different understandings from those of other Mads, but at understandings that are actually not a product of a consistent application of where Mad studies any issue out.

                Which is how the Mad Perspective or Paradigm began to reemerge into a much more public awareness once more as far as Martin Luther; to begin with...

                Only to be lost sight of by the Reformers due to their never having really let go of the above systems of human viewpoint.

                Likewise with Darby's followers. They too failed to let go of the above.

                As a result, what he had only begun to see, remained at what little he had been able to see, given both the habit the above systems can be, and the time that robs all men of just one more day in the needed work at hand.

                If my post is perplexing, this is because I both look at, and talk or write in, operative principles - because looking at things from operative principles allows one to see far much more than one is able to without them.

                Like that old tv sitcom Gilligan's Island.

                Its Professor had not only been able to see things his fellow castaways could not, but he had been able to come up with all sorts of valid solutions to the many problems they faced given that things were "as primitive as can be" - problems he alone had been able to see the solutions to, due to the operating principles he looked at things from, as a Science Professor.

                I don't say this in an attempt to impress you about me, rather; in hopes of impressing upon you to consider attempting to strive to look at things through operating principles.

                Things like 'ok, what principle do I appear to be looking at this here, or that there, from? Is it consistent? Can I really rely on it? What might its' potential holes be? How might I identify those?'

                After awhile, that becomes automatic and you begin to find yourself not only seeing more than you might be able to without such operating principles based kinds of questions, but to unavoidably see more than others do; at which point you find yourself in trouble with them

                At which point, you can take heart in the following - for all the support you will ever need...

                "...the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man" 1 Cor. 2.

                Of the two systems one is the natural man's wisdom of this world (human viewpoint) or where the natural man looks at things from - from a combination of empiricism, and rationalism.

                As in Genesis 3's account of Eve's words just before the fall, or where Paul asserts the Corinthians were looking at things from.

                The other system is "spiritual" or looking at things through Scripture; itself no easy task, given our "natural" tendency to bring the other system in unawares.

                "Profesorrrrr!!!"

                "Gilligan; little buddy!" lol
                Last edited by Danoh; September 2, 2016, 03:53 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Danoh View Post
                  As for the balance of your post - well, here goes another TOL Mad I perhaps end up being cut off from fellowship with

                  If so, then so be it...my apology for the following, nonetheless, bro.

                  Your above is off.

                  Neither Paul nor his Mystery were a response (planned or otherwise) to Israel's fall.

                  Nor were they a replacement of God's plan for the Earth and its' Gentiles through a redeemed Israel.
                  I'm going to wait to see where you're going with this.

                  But more important is where you appear to be looking at things from; as that tends to impact what one sees - in many areas.

                  It appears you reasoned your above and then reasoned your OV into it.
                  I became MAD and OV at approximately the same time. And I couldn't tell you which came first. Those archives have been deleted.

                  As for the OV itself, at this point I continue to find it also the result of the following.

                  Where ever any Believer, including any Mad, relies on one aspect or another of the two basic systems of human viewpoint that all other systems of the wisdom of this world are not only based on, but that Paul knocks, say, in 1 Corinthians 1&2 - empiricism and rationalism - said Believer is said by Paul, to be looking at things through how and where the natural man looks at things from.

                  If you can wrap your head around the above, you will have gone a long way in beginning to free yourself from the mis-fire I often see some Mads on TOL and elsewhere look at things from.

                  Which is how Mads end up not only at different understandings from those of other Mads, but at understandings that are actually not a product of a consistent application of where Mad studies any issue out.

                  Which is how the Mad Perspective or Paradigm began to reemerge into a much more public awareness once more as far as Martin Luther; to begin with...

                  Only to be lost sight of by the Reformers due to their never having really let go of the above systems of human viewpoint.

                  Likewise with Darby's followers. They too failed to let go of the above.

                  As a result, what he had only begun to see, remained at what little he had been able to see, given both the habit the above systems can be, and the time that robs all men of just one more day in the needed work at hand.

                  If my post is perplexing, this is because I both look at, and talk or write in, operative principles - because looking at things from operative principles allows one to see far much more than one is able to without them.

                  Like that old tv sitcom Gilligan's Island.

                  Its Professor had not only been able to see things his fellow castaways could not, but he had been able to come up with all sorts of valid solutions to the many problems they faced given that things were "as primitive as can be" - problems he alone had been able to see the solutions to, due to the operating principles he looked at things from, as a Science Professor.

                  I don't say this in an attempt to impress you about me, rather; in hopes of impressing upon you to consider attempting to strive to look at things through operating principles.

                  Things like 'ok, what principle do I appear to be looking at this here, or that there, from? Is it consistent? Can I really rely on it? What might its' potential holes be? How might I identify those?'

                  After awhile, that becomes automatic and you begin to find yourself not only seeing more than you might be able to without such operating principles based kinds of questions, but to unavoidably see more than others do; at which point you find yourself in trouble with them

                  At which point, you can take heart in the following - for all the support you will ever need...

                  "...the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man" 1 Cor. 2.

                  Of the two systems one is the natural man's wisdom of this world (human viewpoint) or where the natural man looks at things from - from a combination of empiricism, and rationalism.

                  As in Genesis 3's account of Eve's words just before the fall, or where Paul asserts the Corinthians were looking at things from.

                  The other system is "spiritual" or looking at things through Scripture; itself no easy task, given our "natural" tendency to bring the other system in unawares.

                  "Profesorrrrr!!!"

                  "Gilligan; little buddy!" lol
                  Well, you didn't go anywhere with the initial thought of this post. Would you care to elaborate on that point?

                  Comment


                  • Lol, right now I have that look on my face the Professor would get whenever he would explain the basis of his assertions and or solution, and the castaways would look at him like he was from Mars or something

                    Comment


                    • Jesus Never Prayed the Lord's Prayer

                      Jesus prayed many times, but the so-called Lord's prayer was not one of them. Jesus could never pray these words, and neither should you if you trust the preaching of the cross.

                      Read More

                      God Knows the Future

                      The past few months have presented a more uncertain prospect of the future than there has been in a long time. We have witnessed the confusion of political leaders and money maestros worldwide while facing the current economic crisis. What hope of the future can we have? Our hope is in the Lord Jesus Christ who knows the end from the beginning.

                      Read More

                      5 Necessary Words for Eternal Life

                      Words themselves do not save you; they transfer information and meaning. If the information is the good news from God unto salvation as in the gospel, then they are most definitely required for your salvation.

                      Read More

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Danoh View Post
                        Lol, right now I have that look on my face the Professor would get whenever he would explain the basis of his assertions and or solution, and the castaways would look at him like he was from Mars or something
                        You shouldn't. Your explanations are not that highbrow.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
                          You shouldn't. Your explanations are not that highbrow.
                          And yet you missed the point they emphasize - the need to not only look at things through operating principles, but aware one is doing so, what they are, and where one is off, or not, in their application.

                          That was how Mad reemerged; is how Mad further refines, and is where a Madist ends up sound or not in any area.

                          Case in point of various that I have often witnessed...

                          I've met too many a Mad who's obvious idea of a sound operating principle when attempting to understand a passage or passages is the idea of first read it this way, then from this other angle, and then from another one, and another, until...one of them fits...

                          The more experienced Mad learns the unsoundness of that approach.

                          Learns that the moment one even begins to go down that path; what it really means is that more time in Scripture is needed.

                          Until the greater, overall familiarity with Scripture as a whole that results only from more time in Scripture...allows seeing the passage in question through all that...to what it is actually talking about.

                          I am sure you have had moments like that...where you find at some later point down the road, that you now understand a passage you had not been able to understand the actually intended sense of, say, some six months, or even years...earlier.

                          When you have a moment like that, pause and ask yourself questions about what dynamic is now allowing you to see that passage so clearly - what parts of the whole.

                          You can then apply that as a principle the next time you are attempting to get at the intended sense of one passage or another...a bit more consciously...a bit more consistently.

                          Of course, if my words to you on this smack too much of a know it all, then so be it; remain in your ignorance that that is all I was up to.

                          Me; I try to learn from anyone. I'm after the learning.

                          As a result; I could care less whether I rightly think they think they are all that, or whether they actually think that about themselves.

                          I...have no time for such ignorant insecurities... I am after..the learning.

                          Do with this what you will...I could care less...I well know its...continuing benefit...

                          Sheesh - Mads can be so ignorant in their misperceptions...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Danoh View Post
                            And yet you missed the point they emphasize - the need to not only look at things through operating principles, but aware one is doing so, what they are, and where one is off, or not, in their application.

                            That was how Mad reemerged; is how Mad further refines, and is where a Madist ends up sound or not in any area.

                            Case in point of various that I have often witnessed...

                            I've met too many a Mad who's obvious idea of a sound operating principle when attempting to understand a passage or passages is the idea of first read it this way, then from this other angle, and then from another one, and another, until...one of them fits...

                            The more experienced Mad learns the unsoundness of that approach.

                            Learns that the moment one even begins to go down that path; what it really means is that more time in Scripture is needed.

                            Until the greater, overall familiarity with Scripture as a whole that results only from more time in Scripture...allows seeing the passage in question through all that...to what it is actually talking about.

                            I am sure you have had moments like that...where you find at some later point down the road, that you now understand a passage you had not been able to understand the actually intended sense of, say, some six months, or even years...earlier.

                            When you have a moment like that, pause and ask yourself questions about what dynamic is now allowing you to see that passage so clearly - what parts of the whole.

                            You can then apply that as a principle the next time you are attempting to get at the intended sense of one passage or another...a bit more consciously...a bit more consistently.

                            Of course, if my words to you on this smack too much of a know it all, then so be it; remain in your ignorance that that is all I was up to.

                            Me; I try to learn from anyone. I'm after the learning.

                            As a result; I could care less whether I rightly think they think they are all that, or whether they actually think that about themselves.

                            I...have no time for such ignorant insecurities... I am after..the learning.

                            Do with this what you will...I could care less...I well know its...continuing benefit...

                            Sheesh - Mads can be so ignorant in their misperceptions...
                            Translaton;

                            You really need to learn to communicate succinctly.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
                              Translaton;

                              You really need to learn to communicate succinctly.
                              True.

                              Very true.

                              Better that than the off-base conclusions of oversimplification, though.

                              Comment


                              • GRACE AMBASSADORS
                                MINISTRY UPDATE


                                September 10th, 2016
                                7 Important Doctrines About the Bible

                                The Bible is the most important book in history, and is what defines our faith. The way to destroy Christianity would be to destroy the Bible. Here are seven important doctrines about the Bible that will strengthen your faith in Gods word and make you a Bible believer.

                                Read More

                                In the Original Greek

                                Few things have caused more damage in churches than when pastors say things like: "In the originals, the word here really means..." This is a real problem. So, whats the problem? Heres a few.

                                Read More

                                Paul Last of All

                                It is significant that Jesus was seen of Paul last of all. Unlike the twelve who had promised positions in the coming kingdom Paul, known then as Saul, was a blasphemer and chief persecutor of the followers of Christ.

                                Read More

                                Dispensational Evangelism

                                The evangelism message has changed with the dispensations. At one time evangelism was at a national level. During the earthly ministry of Jesus evangelism included the gospel of kingdom blessings. Paul describes evangelism as something entirely different still. Listen to this past lesson about how evangelism has changed dispensationally.

                                Read More

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X