TheEvan

Hey folks. Just returned from an incredible journey to Africa where I stayed in a remote Masai village with the most amazing people I've ever met. I'm just as pleased as punch with this thread. I've particularly enjoyed Steve Lortz's insightful posts. I think the most cogent challenge to the notion of a "grace administration" is Goey's concise comments about Eph. 3. If there is a way to clearly establish such an animal from within the scriptures I'm unaware of it. The meaning of Paul's statement is so clear, how can it be missed? It's speaking of his ministry to the Gentiles, to whom he is to "dispense" the gospel. Now, I think I might be something of a dispensationalist, but only in the mainstream sense: the particulars of God's dealings with man have varied over history. However, the means of salvation (by faith alone, by grace alone) has never changed. Yeah, I'd like to see Dave or VL present a convincing, even believeable, case.

I knew of a number of adoptions that happened while on staff. The two that I knew of personally were definitely "in-house", ie a Way person doing a private placement with another Way couple. As the details were understandably confidential I have no idea if there was a tinge of "trafficking" on any of those placements... At one time it was known that if you wanted a baby, talk to Mrs. W

Not enough info, SRTS. Tell us you thing & I'll something to go on.

Who says Rom 10:9 is the formula for salvation? Why in all other places it leaves out the confession part? Does that make the 'confess with your mouth' part incorrect? I bring this up, because there are very nearly as many assumptions read into the WaySystem™ of salvation as there is to that curious doctrine of being "born of Satan's seed©". It requires some real assumptions to come up with most any developed doctrinal stance. The reason we fail to see eye to eye, in all probability, is our approach to the Bible is so different. I reject the hand in a glove, mathematical exactness, jigsaw puzzle, work it till it fits model. I rely instead on a reading it prayerfully while acknowledging the inadequacy of my intellect in apprehending eternal truth model. I ask the Holy spirit to reveal to me what I need to understand about a passage at any given time. I've been down the 'you can't trust any translation, gimme more greek, use the magic decoder ring (keys)' avenue till it came out my ears. I reject it whole cloth...for myself. This will do nothing but widen our gulf, but Satan cannot rebirth people with his seed because the idea is repugnant to the Holy Spirit. Or, in orther words, because I said so.

I do agree, VL, but dm was in essence equating the two, making them the same thing...

What evidence? Where does it say in the Bible that the Devil can't have children? George Now George, you know I can't prove a negative. That's Logic 101. But you can't prove that he births children in the literal sense you propose. And brings us to a Mexican standoff...

dmiller, you're making an unwarranted connection there: having the seed, ie salvation, is not necessarily connected to having the Holy Spirit.

George, very simply by the preponderance of the sense of the Bible. In WayRules™ if it cannot be true to fact, it is a figure of speech, right? But then, I don't subscribe to WayRules™ and we therefore have no consistent basis for conversation. My 'rules for interpretation' take no notice of the Mathematical Exactness© approach. My rule is to read prayerfully & reverently, seeking Who the Lord is and how I should be. Using that breathtaking approach­­­° I determined that Satan cannot "birth" people by his spirit. A ridiculous proposition if ever there was one. Posited on the slimmest biblical evidence against the strongest evidence to the contrary. So there.

Is it running off topic to say that Wierwille's born again=baptized in the Holy spirit=filled with the Holy spirit=baptized in the name of Jesus Christ doesn't wash and is shot though with contradictions? Like most of Wierwille's Greek, he didn't know what he was talking about with pletho & pleroo. He gave the words specialized meanings to suit his proposed theology. Ack. Leaving aside the Greek clears many misconceptions

Goey, vertical, that's my take as well. Now we're getting somewhere...this is good stuff.

Greek is fine & dandy, ckeer, but you'll do better just reading for scope & context. I see it lead astray far more often than clarify. Maybe jerry, but a simple reading of the context in peter points to the seed being the word of God. Oh, and your point about Jesus being the Word Himself is excellent...

Goey, what can I say? We are on a long inexorable slide to orthodoxy. Feels good to me.

BRILLIANT POST DANNY!!!

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?

Biblefan Dave, do you believe that Jesus' words in the gospels are directly applicable to your christian walk in the manner the epistles are?

Garth, I didn't say there is no free will, or even that it is limited to some degree, just that it is a subject not really addressed in the Bible. Why, do you suppose? I'm guessing it's because it was unneccessary, irrelevant. Of course we always have choice. Jesus clearly had the power of choice. He always made a choice to not merely follow the "right" and "the Word" (which is what the Pharisees did), but to walk out his God-ordained path step-by-step. We have the same choice. What the Bible dwells on more is that God-ordained path. Choice is inherent & self-explanatory. God's plan for your life isn't.

Greek2me could confirm or deny this, but it's my ubderstanding that Greek people speak, read & write Greek quite fluently. Funny, it hasn't made them a bit more spiritual.

I hadn't quite thought of it that way, mj, but yes, I'd agree. Interesting way of putting it. In WierwilleORama™ "free will" (a concept wholly absent from the Bible, incidentally) was elevated to such a holy status, the very idea that God would choose people, predestine them to salvation, was anathema. So, they fail to balance God's will with man's will. They think it was entirely our choice. Reading some basic Luther would help them to understand that without being enlightened by the Holy Spirit we'd never see our need for Christ. Romans & Galatians are shot through with this truth. So, yes, to be enlightened and then wilfully choose against Christ, that's it. Until a person dies, however, there is always the opportunity to repent.

Which statement, wolf?

Rather than torture ourselves with reinventing the wheel here, we might well have done what raf just did: go back to the orthodox interpretation and start there. Turns out it is quite correct: the unforgiveable sin is to reject Christ. Specifically, to be enlightened to your fallen state by the Holy spirit and be given an opportunity to repent and, by faith, to receive Christ...and then wilfully rejecting Him. If you die in that state, you have committed the unforgiveable sin.

GeoSt.Geo, okay I went back and read pg. 11 (the only page I posted on, incidentally). Honestly, I lack the inclination to read the rest. I'll repeat a point that was made on pg. 11. The Bible says a number of quite different things about forgiveness. I think a lot of grief could be avoided if people would just quit trying to treat the Bible like some cosmic jigsaw puzzle that must be pieced together just so. (Using the magic decoder ring, of course). Never mind that God made the way simple so a fool need not err. The reason the Bible says different things is because there are different people and different situations. Apply whicher fits the situation at hand. If one asks "what does love require", the answer will likely not be too far off course. This discussion gives ample evidence of the pointlessness of the whole "biblical accuracy" approach to Christian living.

Forgive me if this has been covered earlier. Jesus made forgiveness conditional, at least in this case: KJV Luk 17:3 Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. KJV Luk 17:4 And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him. Hmmm

And Jesus spoke in parables so that in hearing they would not hear and seeing they would not see. God I love this.

Which agrees with God has given them the spirit of slumber lest they see with their eyes and are converted. Hmmmmmmm Yo Calvin...

so, johniam, Bibleguy, etc, WHAT is the so-called unforgiveable sin? Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, right? So far, so good. What, then, is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost? I await your answer.