[greenbear]

Brother Chette and Brother George,

Thank you both for your kindness in supporting me against false accusations, scripture wresting and unreasonable arguments. It's encouraging to see a "friendly face" sometimes. If we have occasion to differ on this forum I'd probably find it refreshing to argue with you.

Jennifer

[chette777]

also a common trait in H A Ironside's commentaries I have is that he says things like, this word would be better translated or the Hebrew or Greek word can be translated differently than what it is in the KJV.

Ironside was not a KJV is a perfect complete without errors kind of guy. where he could he would change the KJV Bible. not only that his commentaries are full of just comments about things more than "what Sayeth the Lord".

he blended every thing into one gospel from Adam to today. He failed to rightly divide. He is a nice guy and famous person but he was not a very good at rightly dividing.

[JOHN G]

Hey Bro. Chette,

You said,

We are not commanded to rightly divide the posts of Winman or any man. the command is to rightly divide the word of truth.

I am not 100% doctrinally pure by any means. I have a lot to learn and am thankful for you and others here for the insight I have gained here or varying issues. However, if Greenbear slips up on Winman's post, then I am not going to be too eager to buy her commentary on the Book of Acts. It was a simple oversight, but happened nonetheless. Further, by her (1 Tim. 2:11-14) own admission, her postion is weakened by statements such as these.
GB said,

I have never really attended a church and have just gotten back into the scriptures recently after a decade of barely being in them at all

I don't mean any offence at all. I hope we can all work together as brothers and sisters in Christ in growing closer to the image of Him (Rom. 8:29).

[Diligent]

I figure this is a good place to suggest a book that helps clarify what right dividing is.

One Book Rightly Divided

Every objection to Dispensationalism I have read in this thread is answered by Brother Stauffer in this book.

I've started and stopped several replies to posts by Winman because it gets so tiring to constantly answer objections that have already been dealt with in other threads, but perhaps reading a book by an author not on the forum, where no personal animosity exists, would be helpful.

Winman, if you're willing to consider the writings of Ironside to help you define your understanding, perhaps you should give a few hours to someone else to hear the other side of the matter.

[greenbear]

Originally Posted by JOHN G

Hey Bro. Chette,

You said,



I am not 100% doctrinally pure by any means. I have a lot to learn and am thankful for you and others here for the insight I have gained here or varying issues. However, if Greenbear slips up on Winman's post, then I am not going to be too eager to buy her commentary on the Book of Acts. It was a simple oversight, but happened nonetheless. Further, by her (1 Tim. 2:11-14) own admission, her postion is weakened by statements such as these.
GB said,

I don't mean any offence at all. I hope we can all work together as brothers and sisters in Christ in growing closer to the image of Him (Rom. 8:29).

JOHN G Quote

Further, by her (1 Tim. 2:11-14) own admission, her postion is weakened by statements such as these.
Quote: greenbear
I have never really attended a church and have just gotten back into the scriptures recently after a decade of barely being in them at all

1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Yes, it is a shame to you that a woman back to reading her bible for six short weeks after a ten year lapse is obedient to the Lord in rightly dividing His word of truth and you aren't.

[George]

Originally Posted by greenbear

George,

"I have a great deal of respect for your knowledge of the scriptures. As I've made clear on various posts, I have never really attended a church and have just gotten back into the scriptures recently after a decade of barely being in them at all. It would be surprising if I was right on everything. I've written what I believe from what I've read and understood. If you think I'm wrong on anything I would be happy to see you respond if you wanted to. I'm just so tired of hearing brother's arguments that aren't even arguments from scripture rightly divided."

Aloha sister Jennifer,

You are doing JUST FINE (without any "guidance" from me). Your husband (johnlf) should be proud. The only thing that I will I recommend is that you continue to follow his headship.

I believe, that in your heart, you sincerely want to know the truth - and that's what counts (NOT how much "knowledge" we have!). It''s the HEART - it's always "where the heart is" that really and truly matters. [Proverbs 4:23 Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life.]

I have read most of your Posts and am in agreement with most of what you have said. There are always going to be some differences between genuine Bible believers, but so far I haven't read anything that you have written that is worth "fightin over" (at least not on my part).

I also agree with your assessment of Harry Ironside in your Post #50:

Winman,
"Thanks for your concern in recommending Ironside's article. I read chapter 7, then 1-3. Unfortunately, I feel it's a waste of my time to continue so I won't. In my opinion, Ironside resorts to character assassination, name-calling, fear-mongering, straw-man arguments, faulty reasoning, wrong interpretation of scriptures and he doesn't seem very strong in eschatology, either. Attempting to influence opinion by labeling those who disagree as a heretic by the "orthodox" consensus is the oldest trick in the book. I think the correct perspective is that the refomation didn't go very far toward literal interpretation of all scripture unless it is apparent from the text that it should be read otherwise. Men like Ironside were greatly used of God but they didn't go far enough in literal interpretation. It is impossible to literally interpret the scriptures without a dispensational framework. If people want to label me as something or other because I may agree on some points, oh well."

Ironside, like so many commentators of his day, would not hesitate to "CORRECT" the King James Bible, wherever it ran afoul of his "personal beliefs". WHY do so many people on the Forum keep recommending other men? - other men's books, tapes, cd's, video's, articles, etc., etc., instead of encouraging people to "search the Scriptures"?

I also agree with your "assessment" (your Post #18) of "Pastor" Lee Spencer's essay on Dispensationalism

"His argument about dividing the body of Christ, starving ego, recognition as a teacher, one-upmanship doesn't hold water for me. That is the argument of the status quo. It has no bearing on the truth; it's irrelevant."

His points are mostly the "parroting" & "regurgitation" of numerous "commentators" who came before him - and most of whom did a much better job of defending their beliefs than he has done. But the most damaging part of his article is where he CHANGES the Holy words of God in order to prove his point! {Whenever a man does this to my Bible I write him off as just one more proud, vain, and egotistical man who believes that he has the "right" to "CORRECT" God's Holy word whenever he "DISAGREES" with it; and who "THINKS" he knows better than God!}

I find it interesting that Winman posts another man's article (on Dispensationalism), rather than posting his own words. and upon reading "Pastor" Lee Spencer's essay, it becomes crystal clear that Winman not only let's other people "speak" for him, but they also do his "thinking" for him also! {Check my Link: http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...4&postcount=49 to see where "Pastor" Lee Spencer runs to "THE UNHAMPERED HEBREW TEXT" (his "words" - NOT mine!) and ADDS to the Holy Bible and CHANGES God's Holy word to prove a "theological point"!} Oh well - WHAT'S NEW? Winman does it all the time! And Winman "recommends" this man?

It never cease to amaze me how enthusiastic people can get over the "words" of mere men, but show so little love and devotion for the Holy "words" of God!

I guess for today's Christians (steeped in Humanism) "A little leaven" doesn't really "leaven the whole lump"! [Galatians 5:9] WHY does a child of God "NEED" to "sift" through a garbage dump (leaven = corruption) in order to find some gold or silver - when we have the GOLD MINE at our finger tips? WHY does a genuine Bible believer "NEED" to check out these oh so wise Bible correcting commentators for precious "gems", when we have the DIAMOND MINE sitting at home on a coffee table? Hmmm?

Let's take a look at Harry Ironside's quotes (Chapter 7) and see where he would place me on his neat little "Dispensational Scale".

Harry Ironsides’ quotes:
Ironsides’

“Briefly, then, what are the outstanding tenets of Bullingerism and its kindred systems? For one needs to remember that a number are teaching these ultra-dispensational things who declare that they are not familiar with the writings of Dr. Bullinger, and repudiate with indignation the name of "Bullingerism." There are perhaps six outstanding positions taken by these teachers:

First, inasmuch as our Lord Jesus was "a minister of the circumcision to confirm the promises made to the fathers," it is insisted that the four Gospels are entirely Jewish and have no real message for the Church, the Body of Christ. All might not put it quite as boldly as this, but certainly their disciples go to the limit in repudiating the authority of the Gospels.

I do not agree with “Bullingerism” on this first point. As a Bible believer I do not “consign” the Four Gospels as being only for the Jews (“entirely Jewish”) without any “real message for the church”; but what I try to do is obey God’s commandment concerning the study of His word: [2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.] That means I do NOT “divide” the “BOOKS” of the Bible as being either for the Jews or for the church. I am told to rightly divide the “WORDS” – NOT the “BOOKS”!

The Bible clearly says:

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The Lord Jesus Christ emphatically stated:

Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

And Paul reaffirmed that statement:

Romans 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

So, although most of the Four Gospels are about The Lord Jesus Christ’s earthly ministry to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel”; any part of the Four Gospels that is not contrary to Paul’s teaching for the churches can be applied to a Christian, and all Four Gospels are there for “our learning” [Romans 15:4] – however we must be extremely careful NOT to “apply” those “words" which are directed specifically to the Jews (at the time of Christ) to the church or to a Christian .
{It’s called: “rightly dividing the word of truth.”}

Ironsides’

Secondly, it is maintained that the book of Acts covers a transition period between the dispensation of the law and the dispensation of the mystery; that is, that in the book of Acts we do not have the Church, the Body of Christ, but that the word "ekklesia" (church, or assembly), as used in that book, refers to a different Church altogether to that of Paul's prison epistles. This earlier Church is simply an aspect of the kingdom and is not the same as the Body of Christ!

I do not agree with “Bullingerism” on this second point. I believe that the “church” started soon after the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ; and that it was present at Pentecost (something can “exist” without anyone being aware of it). I believe that the early church consisted of entirely Jews (and Jewish Proselytes) and that the “message” that was being preached at that time {Between Acts 2 through Acts 7} was NOT “the Gospel of the Grace of God” (i.e. Paul’s “Gospel”), but a continuation of “the gospel of the kingdom” – with a special emphasis on the nation of Israel REPENTING of killing their Messiah & King.

I believe that upon the final REJECTION (by the nation of Israel’s leaders) of the Holy Spirit (living in the Lord’s disciples) and His “message” to Israel (i.e. with the stoning of Stephen) that Lord began to turn to the Gentiles - beginning in Samaria and then with the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts Chapter 8; the conversion of Saul (later called Paul - the Apostle to the Gentiles) in Acts Chapter 9; and with the conversion of Cornelius and his household in Acts Chapter 10.

I believe that the “center” of “Christianity” SHIFTED from Jerusalem to Antioch during the ministry of the Apostle Paul, due to the fact that the Jews in Jerusalem and throughout the Mediterranean area hardened their hearts to the “Gospel”, while the Gentiles gladly received it. [Acts 28:23-28]

I do NOT “divide” Paul into “Early Paul”; “Mid Paul”; and “Late Paul”, simply because I am supposed to be “rightly dividing the word of truth” – NOT rightly dividing Paul.

Ironsides’

Third, it is contended that Paul did not receive his special revelation of the mystery of the Body until his imprisonment in Rome, and that his prison epistles alone reveal this truth and are, strictly speaking, the only portion of the Holy Scriptures given to members of the Body. All of the other epistles of Paul, save those written during his imprisonment and the general epistles, are relegated to the earlier dispensation of the book of Acts, and have no permanent value for us, but were for the instruction of the so-called Jewish church of that time.

I do not agree with “Bullingerism” on this third point. I believe that Paul received most of the “revelation” that he received directly from the Lord Jesus Christ early on (in Damascus and in Arabia). [Galatians 1: 10-18 (especially verses 15 - 18); Galatians 2:1-2;Ephesians 3:1-7 (especially verses 2 & 3)]

Ironsides’

Fourth, the entire book of Revelation has to do with the coming age and has no reference to the Church today. Even the letters to the seven churches in Asia, which are distinctly said to be "the things which are," are, according to this system, to be considered as "the things which are not," and will not be until the Church, the Body of Christ, is removed from this world. Then, it is contended, these seven churches will appear on the earth as Jewish churches in the Great Tribulation.

Since future “prophecy” entails so much “speculation”, “surmising”, “conjecture”, and “supposition” on the part of the reader - this is an area that I have not studied in depth, and so I cannot speak directly to it - except to say that most “Dispensationalists” that I know (or have read) basically “parrot” each other (with a few “minor” differences). However, there are a couple of verses in the Book of Revelation that have “PUZZLED” me for well over 20 years:

Revelation 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Revelation 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.
10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,

Most commentators interpret “the Lord’s day” as being “Sunday” (the first day of the week), but I do not believe that that is the correct interpretation. Sunday is never referred to as “the Lord’s day” in the Bible (No, not once); but there are plenty of references to “the day of the Lord” in the Bible:

Isaiah 2:12 For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low:
Isaiah 13:6 Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.
Isaiah 13:9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.
Jeremiah 46:10 For this is the day of the Lord GOD of hosts, a day of vengeance, that he may avenge him of his adversaries: and the sword shall devour, and it shall be satiate and made drunk with their blood: for the Lord GOD of hosts hath a sacrifice in the north country by the river Euphrates.
Ezekiel 13:5 Ye have not gone up into the gaps, neither made up the hedge for the house of Israel to stand in the battle in the day of the LORD.
Ezekiel 30:3 For the day is near, even the day of the LORD is near, a cloudy day; it shall be the time of the heathen.
Joel 1:15 Alas for the day! for the day of the LORD is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come.
Joel 2:1 Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand;
Joel 2:11 And the LORD shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word: for the day of the LORD is great and very terrible; and who can abide it?
Joel 2:31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.
Joel 3:14 Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision.
Amos 5:18 Woe unto you that desire the day of the LORD! to what end is it for you? the day of the LORD is darkness, and not light.
Amos 5:20 Shall not the day of the LORD be darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it?
Obadiah 1:15 For the day of the LORD is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.
Zephaniah 1:7 Hold thy peace at the presence of the Lord GOD: for the day of the LORD is at hand: for the LORD hath prepared a sacrifice, he hath bid his guests.
Zephaniah 1:14 The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day
Zechariah 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.
Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
Acts 2:20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:
1 Thessalonians 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.
2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

John states that he “was IN the Spirit ON The Lord’s Day”. IF “the Lord’s day” = “the day of the Lord”, then everything that “follows” Revelation 1:10 takes place IN (or during) “the day of the Lord”, and cannot be applied to the church age at all. I have never done the study, so I cannot be sure of exactly where, when, or how all of these things are rightly divided (and so I can make no determination as to – what the truth of this matter is) – except for this one observation: Revelation 1:1 is talking about “things which must shortly come to pass” - 1,900 plus years seems like a long time for “things which must shortly come to pass”!

Ironsides’

Fifth, the Body of Christ is altogether a different company, according to these teachers, from the Bride of the Lamb, the latter being supposed to be Jewish.

Since 1968 I have believed that the body of the Lord Jesus Christ is the Bride of the Lamb. To be honest, this is another issue which I have not delved into in depth, and I know some of the brethren on the Forum believe otherwise. I only have so much time to study (and “much study is a weariness of the flesh”) and again, since this issue has to do with the future (“prophecy”) and involves some “speculation” and “supposition” on my part – it has not been very high on my list of “priorities” when it comes to the study of spiritual issues. {I try to concentrate on those things that the Apostle Paul concentrated on – “sound doctrine” and Scriptural "Christian conduct”.}

Ironsides’

Sixth, the Christian ordinances, having been given before Paul is supposed to have received his revelation of the mystery in prison, have no real connection with the present economy, and therefore, are relegated to the past, and may again have a place in the future Great Tribulation.”

I do not agree with “Bullingerism” on this sixth point. Although brother Tonybones is like Apollos (“mighty in the Scriptures”), he has not persuaded me that water baptism was done away with by the end of Paul’s ministry. Absent a clear prohibition (by Paul) in the Scriptures against water baptism, I will continue to believe it to be one of two ordinances (the Lord’s Supper being the second) for the New Testament church. {Just because there have been vile and atrocious ABUSES of these ordinances, doesn’t necessarily mean that they are unscriptural.}

Now I wonder where Harry Ironside would place me on his Dispensational "Scale"? Would I be considered HALF a "Hyper-Dispensationalist"? Or possibly MOSTLY a "Moderate Dispensationalist"? As for me - I'm really not worried about being labeled by those Christians who seek to HARMONIZE God's words rather than DIVIDE them. You will notice that the moment any of them start to lose a discussion that they will revert to personal attacks rather than stick with the issue being discussed.

In nearly fifty one years of being a Christian there is one thing that I have learned in dealing with the "brethren", (sadly it took me far too long to learn) that "Christians" are going to "DISAPPOINT" you - get used to it, and whatever you do, don't get so offended by them that you "backslide" (like I did on at least three occasions in my Christian life). Do what brother Forrest Wychopen does - "Keep your eyes on the Lord Jesus Christ" and NOT on the brethren!

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

George, I have to give you credit there.
I notice you agree with Greenbear's "assessment" of Ironside, yet you ALSO pretty much agree with Ironside's negative view of Hyperdispensationalism, something that Greenbear has indicated she may be leaning toward. That's pretty good diplomacy, brother.

Brothers and Sisters:

I haven't made a lot of posts on this thread, but in reflecting on some of these comments, it has occurred to me that I have seen good Christians beaten up and spurned because they do not agree with one view of dispensationalism over another. I have seen KJV believers have their very SALVATION questioned because they do not subscribe to some "construct" of division. I have seen good people on this forum become bitter and wage vicious attacks about details that even they THEMSELVES do not all agree on, even in their own little "camps." At times I have seen a pompous spirit rise up, which seems to suggest there is only ONE WAY of "rightly dividing" and no other could possibly be correct. I am convinced that much of this has more to do with personal friendships and alliances than it does with scriptural ABSOLUTES. Still, we put up our banners of interpretation and stake out territories, as though any of us could possibly come to a different conclusion in the end that ALL MEN are saved THROUGH THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.

This is all very sad, because even the men who have promoted various forms of Hyperdispensationalism, Ultra-dispensationalism, etc. do not all agree on some of these doctrines, and some have even changed their doctrines over the years to better suit their own constructs!

There are Ultras and Hypers on one end, there are non-dispensationalists on the other. A lot of us are somewhere in the middle. As you all know by now, I consider myself to be a moderate dispensationalist. Yes, I feel that Hyperdispensationalism is a chain of errors and an unworthy distraction, yes I get concerned when I see attacks on Biblical doctrines of believer's baptism and the Lord's supper, but that does not mean we should become hateful or angry at one another.

I have come to a conclusion over these last few weeks.
Whether you choose to base your views on the confusion of Cornelius Stam or proudly cherry-pick the heresies of Bullingerism, I think we can all agree on one thing: CONDEMNING OTHERS about DIVIDING can DIVIDE THIS FORUM. Folks, let's pray for each other, and lift up Christ.

[George]

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

George, I have to give you credit there.
I notice you agree with Greenbear's "assessment" of Ironside, yet you ALSO pretty much agree with Ironside's negative view of Hyperdispensationalism, something that Greenbear has indicated she may be leaning toward. That's pretty good diplomacy, brother.

Brothers and Sisters:

I haven't made a lot of posts on this thread, but in reflecting on some of these comments, it has occurred to me that I have seen good Christians beaten up and spurned because they do not agree with one view of dispensationalism over another. I have seen KJV believers have their very SALVATION questioned because they do not subscribe to some "construct" of division. I have seen good people on this forum become bitter and wage vicious attacks about details that even they THEMSELVES do not all agree on, even in their own little "camps." At times I have seen a pompous spirit rise up, which seems to suggest there is only ONE WAY of "rightly dividing" and no other could possibly be correct. I am convinced that much of this has more to do with personal friendships and alliances than it does with scriptural ABSOLUTES. Still, we put up our banners of interpretation and stake out territories, as though any of us could possibly come to a different conclusion in the end that ALL MEN are saved THROUGH THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.

This is all very sad, because even the men who have promoted various forms of Hyperdispensationalism, Ultra-dispensationalism, etc. do not all agree on some of these doctrines, and some have even changed their doctrines over the years to better suit their own constructs!

There are Ultras and Hypers on one end, there are non-dispensationalists on the other. A lot of us are somewhere in the middle. As you all know by now, I consider myself to be a moderate dispensationalist. Yes, I feel that Hyperdispensationalism is a chain of errors and an unworthy distraction, yes I get concerned when I see attacks on Biblical doctrines of believer's baptism and the Lord's supper, but that does not mean we should become hateful or angry at one another.

I have come to a conclusion over these last few weeks.
Whether you choose to base your views on the confusion of Cornelius Stam or proudly cherry-pick the heresies of Bullingerism, I think we can all agree on one thing: CONDEMNING OTHERS about DIVIDING can DIVIDE THIS FORUM. Folks, let's pray for each other, and lift up Christ.

Aloha brother Parish,

I appreciate the compliment - but WHY do I have to be "agreeing" with Harry Ironside (or anybody else for that matter)? I have stated what I believe about some "dispensational" issues from my personal studies from the Bible - NOT from my studies of some MEN. WHY do "men" have to enter into the "equation" at all? I have been honest and forthright about my beliefs, WHY must you place me in "One Camp" or "Another", or on "One Side" or the "Other"? And WHY are you attempting to put words in my mouth concerning Hyper-Dispensationalism? My beliefs did NOT come from studying some man (Ironside), they came from studying the Holy words of God - Harry Ironside had absolutely NOTHING to do with what I believe.

If the way that you have presented the "problem" that exists on this Forum were true - it would be quite easy to “FIX”! The "problem" is NOT just over "rightly dividing the word of truth"! The problem goes much "deeper", and has to do with people (Winman in this case) NOT "owning up" to making "FALSE CLAIMS" and failing to admit to those "FALSE CLAIMS" when they are PROVEN TO BE "FALSE"!

The "problem" is NOT just the brethren agreeing to "disagree" - it has to do with people (Winman) making "FALSE ACCUSATIONS" and when those "accusations" are PROVEN to be "FALSE", failing to admit his offense.

The "problem" is NOT just a disagreement over Dispensational teaching - it has to do with people (Winman again) attributing statements (i.e. "words") to me (and others) that we NEVER SAID!

The "problem" is NOT just a disagreement over some minor doctrinal issues - it has to do with people (Winman again) taking my "words" (and other people's "words" and "wresting" them out of their "context" and then "twisting" them to MAKE them "MEAN" something other than what was really SAID!

The "problem" is NOT over a "difference" of opinion between brethren; NOT when Winman makes ad hominem (personal) attacks against my character, and personally slanders me by accusing me of being a “Pharisee”; of being “pompous”; of being “self-righteous”; of being “arrogant”; and NOT practicing “Christian behavior”. I have pointed all of these things out to you before, and you have completely IGNORED every single offense that Winman has personally made against me. Check my Posts on this issue and see if I ever made such personal attacks on Winman’s character. If I have criticized him or reproved or rebuked him, it has been about his “habit” of “twisting” and “wresting” words; it’s been about how he handles the word of God, but I NEVER engaged in “personal attacks” on his character or called into question - his "Christian behavior" – and yet NONE OF THESE THINGS “MEANS” ANYTHING TO YOU!

The "problem" is NOT just a minor difference with another brother in Christ. Winman has been continually (ad nauseum) NAYSAYING and DISAGREEING with practically every single person who has started a Thread or made Posts in relation to the subject of Dispensationalism or "rightly dividing the word of truth". He even started his own "Thread" on the subject {"Dispensational Truth and Error"> which was actually written by someone else: "Pastor" Lee Spencer - who ADDED to, and CHANGED the word of God to "prove" a theological point; which doesn't seem to "bother" Winman one little bit! But does it "bother" you?}

HOW do you "FIX" these "PROBLEMS"? The "problem" is NOT as simple as you have portrayed it; and it is not going to go away.

Now, for your information, Over the past year and a half, I have had some pretty sharp differences with Brother Tim (over some of these same issues); I have had some differences with brother Sammy Tabuena (Biblestudent - a pastor from Iloilo, in the Philippines); and I do not always agree with brother Chette (a missionary on the Island of Palawan, in the Philippines). And what of brother tonybones? He and I both know that there are some doctrinal "differences" between us.

Can you satisfactorily explain WHY it is that we have never engaged in this kind of contentious strife? WHY is it that I still get along with them? Could it be that they do NOT make "FALSE CLAIMS" or make "FALSE ACCUSATIONS"? Could it possibly be that even though we have our differences, that they have NEVER "wrested" my words out of "context"? Could it be that they have NEVER "twisted" my words to MAKE them say something other than what I actually said? Could it be because they have NEVER called me POMPUS, ARROGANT, SELF-RIGHTEOUS or a PHARISEE? WHY is it that you CANNOT (or will not) “judge righteous judgment” in this matter?

Instead of “generalizing” with: “CONDEMNING OTHERS about DIVIDING can DIVIDE THIS FORUM.” WHY don’t you check out my Posts to see IF I ever “CONDEMED” Winman (or anyone else for that matter) “about DIVIDING”! And if you cannot find a Thread or a Post where I truly “CONDEMNED” (NOT “criticized”, “admonished”, “reproved”, or “rebuked”) someone over NOT “rightly dividing the word of truth” – BUT where I actually “CONDEMNED” them, I will gladly apologize. But if you cannot find where I ever “CONDEMNED” someone over this issue – WHY do you “generalize” and include any or all of us in an ACCUSATION that is UNFOUNDED?

This is what comes from NOT being “specific” about a matter. When you are specific about issues they can be dealt with (one thing at a time - if necessary). When you deal in “BROAD GENERALITIES” nothing can be solved because no one knows for sure WHO or WHAT you are referring to!

“Papering over” the individual issues involved in this contentious dispute will NOT solve the “problem”. I have NOT made “CLAIMS” that can be PROVEN FALSE! I have NOT made FALSE ACCUSATIONS against Winman! I have NOT “twisted” or “wrested” Winman’s words! I have NOT taken his words out of “context” and MADE them say something other than what he SAID! I have NOT attributed to Winman statements that he NEVER MADE! I have NOT engaged in a personal attack on Winman’s character or called into question his “Christian behavior”. He HAS DONE all of the above, and until (or unless) he “makes things right”, I will avoid having anything to do with him.

Now, you will notice that I haven’t even mentioned Winman’s mis-use and abuse of the Holy Scriptures. I thought that , since he has chosen to make this “personal”, that I would keep our disagreements confined to his conduct concerning myself and keep my comments about his handling of the word of God out of the discussion.

Judging righteous judgment is not that difficult – IF a person knows what the Scriptures say about judgment, and IF they believe the Scriptures enough to follow and obey them.

[greenbear]

Originally Posted by JOHN G

Hey Bro. Chette,

You said,



I am not 100% doctrinally pure by any means. I have a lot to learn and am thankful for you and others here for the insight I have gained here or varying issues. However, if Greenbear slips up on Winman's post, then I am not going to be too eager to buy her commentary on the Book of Acts. It was a simple oversight, but happened nonetheless. Further, by her (1 Tim. 2:11-14) own admission, her postion is weakened by statements such as these.
GB said,

I don't mean any offence at all. I hope we can all work together as brothers and sisters in Christ in growing closer to the image of Him (Rom. 8:29).

JOHN G:

However, if Greenbear slips up on Winman's post, then I am not going to be too eager to buy her commentary on the Book of Acts. It was a simple oversight, but happened nonetheless.

You sure hold me to a high standard, John. Let's see how you hold up to your own high standard of "rightly dividing" posts. My "commentary on the Book of Acts"? I could only find one reference I used from Acts in this entire thread:

From post #37
Were the apostleship to the circumcism in error regarding the temple practices and the ordinances they continued in ? I think not. Paul even continued in them until God showed him he was to preach only to the gentiles at a certain point.

Acts 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.

The offer of the Kingdom of God was still open for a time. If national Israel would have accepted their Messiah He would have come back at that time and national Israel would once again have become the source of blessing to the gentiles. The change in emphasis from the gospel of the circumcism to Paul's gospel to the uncircumcism is transitional. The more fully we understand this the fewer difficult and seemily contradictory verses we encounter.

You have also "slipped up" and wrongly divided my posts.

I've wondered when someone would finally break down and use the "woman should be silent " card because they disagree with me or are at a loss. It's obvious from the first three verses of 1 Timothy that Timothy is the bishop of the church at Ephesus, the pastor of the local church there. Paul therefore is giving Timothy instructions for behavior in the church assembly. In my understanding and that of my husband, anything outside of that is adding to the word of God.

[chette777]

Just to be clear.

I did not say Winman was unsaved, nor does lack of a testimony prove he is unsaved.

the only reason I asked him to check himself was because of his own words and actions in his posts and threads.

1)He constantly argues which sometimes (notice the words "which sometimes") would indicate there is lack of the Holy Ghost activity in his life,
2)He can not see simple truths shown with the Scriptures which sometimes is a indication there is a lack of the Holy Ghost activity in his life,
3)He misunderstands others statement about scriptures which sometimes could indicate a lack of the Holy Ghost activity);
4)He falsely accuses (a satanic activity) brethren which sometimes is a indication of the lack of the Holy Ghost activity in his life,
5)he twists the word of God as well as the words of George, Geenbear, myself and others which sometimes could be an indication of the lack of the Holy Ghost in his life.
6)And there is the fact that you and I know that if an incorrect Gospel is believed that is a direct indication that the Holy Ghost in not in a persons life.

Now analyze, use righteous judgement and do the math 5 out of 6 indicators are active in Winman's AV1611 forum life. if there are that many areas where it seems (I said it SEEMS not that there is) the Holy Ghost is not active in Winman's life, why is that? When I added it up I suggested that he might check and see if he is truly saved. If he did and believes he is truly saved then the next step is to see if he is in disobedience to God's word, or if there is something else that is grieving or quenching the Holy Ghost in his life. that is all I meant to communicate.

I never said he was unsaved. And if that was what everyone thought I said then I apologize because I never was trying to say that.