Third Part

[Traveler]

Interesting.

or as my father would say - 3 kinds of willing:

Those willing to do good works

those willing to do evil works

and those willing to let somebody else do all the work.

The Traveler

[Blackmarch]

or as my father would say - 3 kinds of willing:

Those willing to do good works

those willing to do evil works

and those willing to let somebody else do all the work.

The Traveler

Indeed.

[volgadon]

It is, to me, a matter of understanding a perspective. I happen to have the perspective of 3 which I believe also overshadows the spirit world as well - that some see only as spirit prison and spirit paradise.

I have come to see this same grouping in all matters of social structure - but I do understand that most see things as black and white, pro and con or as often pointed out in scripture that everything has it opposite or opposition in all things. But rather than argue the point I believe it better to encourage others to find the pattern of the infidel (which has meaning in parallel with infidelity. The gentile and the covenant children or heir (also first born). All applied to the concept of a nation, kingdom or society.

The Traveler

What I meant is that I suffer from severe dyscalculia.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Yes it is a "third part". The 1828 definition of the word 'part' does not really bring any clarity to the discussion... I bet you that I can divide an orange into 5 unequal parts.

I have never seen any mention of 2/3 part in the scripture.

I think it is talked about all the time. It is discussed in terms of separating the wheat from the tares. Volgadon's definition of "part" included the word 'separation'. Looking at the plan of happiness there are certain forks in the road that cannot be redone. Those divisions cannot be done in any other way. In other words, God would not allow for any "lukewarm" or "fence-sitting" passage of that fork in the road. Either the person is going to the right or the left in the fork in the road, there is no middle ground.

Those forks in the road could easily be the first estate and the second estate. If we assume there is no "middle ground" in those forks then there is a division into three parts from the whole. Those that did not keep the first estate is one 'separation'. Those that kept the first estate and not the second, is another 'separation' or part. And those that kept the first estate and the second estate would create the third part. The reason it isn't talked about is because the separation of the wheat from the tares or the final judgement has not yet taken place. Right now the wheat and the tares are together, i.e. - 2/3 part. But God knows of his own plan, of course, realizing the result of the plan is to divide His children into 3 parts or separate parts that cannot be re-divided.

If a person did not keep their first estate they cannot pass that fork in the road again. If a person does not keep their second estate they cannot pass that fork in the road again. If there is still some chance of coming back to that fork in the road then it wouldn't be called a "part" or a "separation". So, whatever the dividing issue is has to be one in which there is no "fence-sitting" or 'maybe this will change later' type of division. God does not like flip floppers or fence sitting, either we are for Him or we are not, either we are hot or cold, not lukewarm, in the end. This is a probationary time where the second cut has not yet taken place. But once the cut has been made there is no lukewarm division that is arbitrary. The cut will be one in which God makes no mistake or is unsure about where He draws the line. At the final judgement we will either be found on the right hand or the left hand of God, not somewhere in the middle.

[Traveler]

I think it is talked about all the time. It is discussed in terms of separating the wheat from the tares. Volgadon's definition of "part" included the word 'separation'. Looking at the plan of happiness there are certain forks in the road that cannot be redone. Those divisions cannot be done in any other way. In other words, God would not allow for any "lukewarm" or "fence-sitting" passage of that fork in the road. Either the person is going to the right or the left in the fork in the road, there is no middle ground.

Those forks in the road could easily be the first estate and the second estate. If we assume there is no "middle ground" in those forks then there is a division into three parts from the whole. Those that did not keep the first estate is one 'separation'. Those that kept the first estate and not the second, is another 'separation' or part. And those that kept the first estate and the second estate would create the third part. The reason it isn't talked about is because the separation of the wheat from the tares or the final judgement has not yet taken place. Right now the wheat and the tares are together, i.e. - 2/3 part. But God knows of his own plan, of course, realizing the result of the plan is to divide His children into 3 parts or separate parts that cannot be re-divided.

If a person did not keep their first estate they cannot pass that fork in the road again. If a person does not keep their second estate they cannot pass that fork in the road again. If there is still some chance of coming back to that fork in the road then it wouldn't be called a "part" or a "separation". So, whatever the dividing issue is has to be one in which there is no "fence-sitting" or 'maybe this will change later' type of division. God does not like flip floppers or fence sitting, either we are for Him or we are not, either we are hot or cold, not lukewarm, in the end. This is a probationary time where the second cut has not yet taken place. But once the cut has been made there is no lukewarm division that is arbitrary. The cut will be one in which God makes no mistake or is unsure about where He draws the line. At the final judgement we will either be found on the right hand or the left hand of God, not somewhere in the middle.

There is a saying that a grand journey to disaster and failure begins with the first step. What do you think of agency as nothing more than being allowed to manifest that which was from the beginning?

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

There is a saying that a grand journey to disaster and failure begins with the first step. What do you think of agency as nothing more than being allowed to manifest that which was from the beginning?

The Traveler

Continuing in that metaphor then as it pertains to the plan of Salvation, I would say there are two grand journeys. That would be the only way to make that metaphor work because there are certainly those that passed the first estate, even in a noble way, who will not pass the second estate test.