Jbarrax

I recently enjoyed "Gospel" by William Barnhardt. It was a Christmas present from my Dad, who is a friend of the author. It's a historical novel about a lost gospel written by one of the Apostles. Excellent read, chock fulll of Church history. JerryB

Haven't found the article I originally read, but I've found some related information. The noncoded information is in introns and extrons, which, until recently scientists declared had no known function. As has been the case for too long, when scientists find something in the human body that they don't understand, they arrogantly declare that it's useless. There is now a growing consensus among biochemists that these aspects of DNA are not useless, but critical in understanding human health and pathology. Here's a link to one such article. Here's a snippet; emphasis added. Enjoy. Introns and Extrons

Actually George, what you get is a more accurate understanding of the universe God created; in short, better science. If the theory of evolution is incorrect, holding to it will lead to false assumptions that impede scientific progress. To someone with your mindset this sounds like a far-fetched notion, but it is not. I read an article in Science magazine that offered one example. I tried to find it online last night, but Science Magazine's archives are not available for public view. If I can find it at the library this weekend, I'll post the exact month, author, etc. The gist of the article is that gene therapy has been a disappointment and that part of the reason is the human genome project is based on a false assumption. The people who worked on trying to decode human DNA assumed that there must be "junk DNA" in the human genetic code leftover from man's evolution from lower primates. Based on that assumption, they automatically discounted vast amounts of information. If any of you are familiar with how polymers work, you know that the bonds between molecules are only one layer of the chemical information. The way the polymer twists and bends is another layer of information that affects how that polymer bonds with other polymers. According to the article, DNA is an extraordinarily complex polymer that has three different levels of encoded information. (Again this is from memory so forgive me if I miss a detail or two). The two lower levels of information were discounted as "junk DNA" and ignored. The remaining information was never actually decoded in detail, but supercomputers were used to analyze massive sections of DNA looking for certain groups of chromosomes. The information is still too complex to sort out one gene at a time. But one researcher questioned the wisdome of that junk DNA assumption and began looking at the other levels of information that might be encoded in the ways the DNA molecule folds back upon itself. She found through testing that there is genetically coded information hidden in these secondary and tertiary structures that relates to human sicknesses and birth defects. Gene therapy has not lived up to its promise because the doctors and researchers were not looking at all the relevent information... because they assumed it was worthless info left over from evolution. Finally, the author said that these other levels of encoded genetic information are so complex that not even our best computers can begin to unravel all of it. So, from the perspective of a believer, I'd say that's an example of the value of a Creationist mindset and the cost of basing scientific research on an invalid theory. I'll try to find the article and see if there's a link to it Peace JerryB

...and remember that one of the world's most prominent atheists just renounced Atheism based on scientific evidence. He said his thorough investigation of the facts that are now known and accepted about our world and universe make it illogical to continue to deny the existence of an intelligent Creator. I know this thread isn't about atheism, but I think that's relevant. Peace JerryB

If you want a detailed deconstruction of the theory of evolution, read "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" by Michael J. Behe. Behe is a biochemist who methodically points out how the complexities of biochemistry make the Darwinian theory impluasible if not impossible. As for the idea that scientists will readily discard a theory that doesn't fit the facts; I think that's true unless such action gives credence to the Bible. I have seen documentaries that touch on this, and of course, the Answers in Genesis people can give you quotes by Harvard professors that state it plainly. There is an antiCreationist camp deeply entrenched in the fields of science and education that supresses the objective reevaluation of Darwinian thinking. imho Peace JerryB

Thanks Engine.

Well said Raf. WTH, you are missing the point sir. Not only have we demonstrably showed that Weirwille got his research wrong, but the allos and heteros issue is not the only problem with VP's four crucified teaching. As I've already posted once, he also ignored a very simple fact. Luke's account is not given in chronological order. This can be seen simply by comparing Luke's account of the rending of the temple veil with the one in Matthew. So either Luke's account is simply not written in chronological order, or, by VP's logic, the veil was rent just before Jesus died, then God miraculously fixed it, then He rent it again right after Jesus died. "silly it becomes." And we can't assume Weirwille didn't consider the fact that some gospels aren't written chronologically, because, in his presentation of the information from the gospel of John, he plainly stated the John's gospel isn't concerned with time, but rather place. (Then he goes into the whole argument about breaking the legs of the first, then the other.) So if he knew John's account wasn't written chronologically, why didn't he notice that Luke wasn't either? Peace JerryB

Now as I was saying, HCW and Chatty Kathy made some good points about God's love being too big for him to save us and then deny us eternal life. I would say that is a common sentiment. But I think we have two issues to consider here. On one hand we have good people arguing that God loves us too much to let us fail to receive the fulness of his promise. On the other we have people--or person--arguing that God is too righteous to accept people into his kingdom who have chosen a life of sin. The question is, what's God's primary criteria in judgment; love or righteousness? I dont' intend to try to answer that question here. Partly because I think it would just start another endless debate. But it reminded me of something rather startling that I saw a few years ago as I read the book of Job. We are all familiar with the story of Job, who, in the words of VP went "victim to victor". Job was a righteous man who loved God and eschewed evil. And to prove that point, God allowed the Devil to afflict Job with instant poverty, heartache, sickness and persecution. I submit that the entire point of the sufferings of Job was so that God could shut the mouth of Job's accuser. God allowed all of this to transpire just to prove in the court of heaven that Job was a genuinely righteous man whose love for God was not based on blessings, but on the integrity of his heart. Satan told God that Job loved him only because he was blessed and said..."But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face." But Job didn't yield to that temptation and was, in the end, proven to be genuinely righteous. The story has a happy ending because all that the Devil took away, God restored. But waitaminute. The story has a happy ending...for Job. Widen the scope for a minute and look at the rest of the people involved in this morality play. All but one of Job's servants who were tending the oxen and asses were brutally murdered. Their lives were cut short. Why? All but one of Job's shepherds were consumed by fire from heaven. God allowed that. Why? All of Job's sons were killed in an instant. Now, we look at the book of Job as the trials that befell Job and we rejoice at the happy ending. But for the shepherds murdered by the Sabeans and for the shepherds burned alive by fire from heaven, and for his children crushed to death in the collapsed housee, there was no happy ending. Their lives were sacrificed on the altar of Job's righteousness. God allowed them to be killed to prove that Job was a just man. Think about that for a minute. Did he love those people? Of course He did. God is love. But you'll say, "that was under the Law, under the Old Testament, God doesn't do that anymore!" Malachi says, "I am the Lord, I change not." God was just a loving then as he is now. Consider also the penalty for the sin of King David's census.(II Samuel chapter 24) For brevity's sake I'll summarize rather than quote it. King David sinned by taking a census of Israel and Judah. He repented and Gad the prophet came in the name of the Lord and offered him three punishements--seven years of famine, three months being pursued by his enemies, or three days of pestilence in Israel. David opted not to be turned over to man and threw himself on the mercy of the Lord. The result was...the angel of death being let loose in Israel. Seventy thousand men died before God "repented of the evil" and stopped it. I hesitate to even mention this because it just blows my mind that seventy thousand people who had nothing to do with King David's sin died for it. But God is love. And I don't say that sarastically, I believe it with all my heart. But He is also holy and He is a righteous judge and when love and judgment clash, apparently, judgment wins. CM says we're not to live in fear of judgment. The Apostle Peter thought otherwise. And I think that's all I'll say about this for a while. Peace JerryB

Hello all. I thought of something en route to work this morning in response to HCW & Chatty Kathy's comments about the love of God. But before I go one step further, let me offer a disclaimer of sorts. This thread began with someone asking about exWay clergy teaching that salvation isn't necessarily permanent. Raf responded by quoting Vince Finnegan's website and giving us a very brief synopsis of what CBC now teaches. I replied by saying that I can understand why they've gone that way, and, in the ensuing week or so, it seems that I have been the only poster on this side of the fence. I just want to say that I myself have not yet read or heard what Rev Finnegan is teaching about this. What I'm posting is merely based on what I've had the opportunity to study and ponder over the last couple of years. So it is entirely possible that there are serious and noteworthy issues, points, and aspects to this that I haven't even thought about. And, unfortunately, no one here seems to be wiling and able to represent CBC's teaching on this thread. So, if you really want to fully consider both sides of this question, don't stop with me. Get Vince Finnegan's tapes and give them a listen. That's what I'm going to do...

Great post, HCW. And, Evan & Def, about the mainstream chruch not knowing about The Way; I'm not so sure. The pastor of the small church we attended briefly in Huntington WV knew about it and he was only a part-time minister. He came to visit with Deb and I and, when I told him about our background, he said he was familiar with The Way and had a copy of PFAL and Receiving the Holy Spirit Today. It was a nondenominational pentecostal praise & worship style church, so maybe that's a factor. It may be that VP's teaching on speaking in tonuges sent a stronger spasm through the evangelical Pentecostal arm than it did in the main body of the Church. As far as the independent thinking argument goes, I think it was a matter of who you dealt with. I had some WC leadership that encouraged us to work the Word and ask questions and others who didn't. I suspect the ones who felt least prepared to deal with questions from grads tended to squelch them while those who loved research and study themselves welcomed them. Peace JerryB

Personalentertainer, let me be the first to offer this mild correction. Belle is not the author of the articles we're discussing. She saw them online and posted them in order to get feedback from the Doctrinal geeks here at the Cafe. I think we've agreed that the author is Rev John Juedes (with an associate), a famous critic of all things Weirwillian. And, although I agree with the basic doctrine taught in PFAL about death, I have found that, as Rev Juedes states, if you thoroughly examine Weirwille's teaching, it is quite full of holes. So I would say the class' truth to error ratio is at best 50/50. Peace JerryB

Couldn't agree more HCW. Kids love adults who tell them what's okay and what's not. It makes them more peaceful. Peace JerryB

That's not a bad yardstick Def. But not all of VP's fruit is rotten. Lots of people got delivered from drug addiction and worse to lead productive Christian lives because of VP's ministry. There's a lot of bad fruit on his record, but a lot of good as well. So tossing the whole basket is, in my opinion, too extreme a judgment. I know I'm mangling this analogy, but I think we should pick through the Weirwille Fruit Basket one piece at a time. :-) Peace JerryB

Okay, I'm all caught up now. Back to playing Freelancer :-) Peace JerryB

Actually, I think both aspects of VP's definitions of allos and heteros are used in PFAL. He starts with the distinction between same kind and different kind when he's discussing the malefactors and robbers in Matthew and Luke, but adds the other of two vs other of two or more when referring to John 19:18. I'll have to check my PFAL book and syallabus, aka THE WORD OF GOD (Happy, Mikey?) but that's how I remember it. Peace JerryB

Hogwash. This is just as invalid a conclusion as "there is no faith in the Old Testament". Why can't we sort out the good from the bad, accept the fact that VP didn't handle the Scriptures honestly, and weigh the evidence for ourselves, one doctrine at at time? It seems to me this is a plea for us to completely abandon everything VP taught that upset the mainstream Church without applying the principles of honest workmanship the author espouses. Although PFAL can accurately be described as "error upon error", there are large, valuable truths hidden in there like diamonds in the rough. Speaking in tongues. The practical value of positive believing. Jesus Chrsit is Not God. The Dead are Not Alive. All of those, although cobbled together with some suspect definitions and contrived logic, are, in my humble opinion basically sound Biblical teachings. There is a lot of nonsense in VP's teaching, but there is a lot of truth in there too. To abandon all of it without a thorough sorting out would be just as foolish as accepting all of it at face value. And that's my two cents worth. Peace JerryB

I would have to agree with this assessment. I alluded to this earlier in my reference to VP's teaching about formed, made, and created. He based that whole teaching from Genesis on an assumption that the words formed, made, and created in Isaiah 43:7 can't possibly be synonyms. Then he jumped to I Thessalonians 5:23 and made the same unsubstantiated assumption about body, soul, and spirit. This double assumption leads to several biblically unsound conclusions including; 1)The false conclusion that the word "image" in Genesis 1:27 refers to the spirit of man which was created, rather than the soul, which was made. This is an amazing contradition of Genesis 1:26 which says God made (asah, not barah)man in his own IMAGE and likeness. 2)The erroneous definition that "create" means to bring into being form nothing and that only God can do it. It's a nice platitude, but doesn't explain Joshua 17:15 and 17:18, in which the word barah is translated "cut down" and refers to making a new path in the wilderness. 3)The conclusion that God put holy spirit on Adam and Eve. There is no biblical evidence to support this. That whole "Battle of the Senses vs Revelation Faith" mantra is built on false assumptions and leads to... 4)The false conclusion that God cannot communicate to anyone who doesn't have holy spirit in or upon them. This is contradicted by Genesis 4:9, 20:3, 31:24 among others. 5)The erroneous conclusion that there is no faith in the Old Testament. This teaching is an extension of the "Battle of the Senses" teaching and its resultant "chasm between the natural man and God" doctrine. Both arise from the double assumption in how VP related the words formed, made, created, and body, soul, and spirit. According to the PFAL book, natural men are limited to their five senses and therefore cannot have faith. Nonsense. Anyway, this is a major problem with PFAL. These kinds of assumptions and invalid relationships between Biblical terms mushroom into interwoven doctrines that just aren't supported by the Scritpure. And it's not that hard to prove them wrong, which makes it that much more irritating that we believed it so fervently for so long. Peace JerryB

Re: Disposing of Death Although I believe that most of what VP taught about death is Biblically sound, the section about Enoch is not. Genesis does indicate that Enoch was translated in such a manner that he did not die. VP said in PFAL that if you study the Old Testament you will find that Enoch had never seen anyone die. There is no such record of Enoch in the Old Testament. What you will find if you read about Enoch in the Old Testament--Genesis 5:5-24 specifically-- is that he is one of a long list of men whose lives are summarized. In each of the other eulogies, the last phrase is "and he died". This is said of Noah, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, and Jared. But of Enoch it says, " The was is absent in the original text. I think it should read, "...and he died not; for God took him." Again, I have found that the vast majority of Bible verses support VP's belief that death is not an immediate transport to heaven. But he did have a bad habit of padding the evidence to eliminate ANY apparent contradition. And this is the heart of the matter. On a such as broad as death, it is impossible, imho, to frame a doctrine that makes all of the Bible verses agree. There are some verses and passages that do seem to indidate that death is a one-way ticket to heavenly bliss or that human souls survive in heaven. These ideas contradict the Way's teaching, but they also contradict most of the Old Testament. So although he twisted some Scriptures to strengthen his case, I think that in this case it's not VP, but the mainstream Church that has the "errant view of death." Peace JerryB

I hate to be a "Johnny-come-lately" but I just found this thread and wanted to add my two cents worth. As to the criticism about the Deceptive Distinctions, I think the article is right on the money. If you do a thorough study of the Biblical usage of allos and heteros, VP's definitions are not supported. This is true not only of allos and heteros, but of VP's definitions of pros (in John 1:1), and his handling of the words yatsar, asah, and barah in Genesis (formed, made, created). My conclusion when I worked through all of these while examining the PFAL class was much the same as that of the article. VP seemed to make these assertions based on a desire to support a certain doctrine without thoroughly studying the word to see if it was true throughout the Bible. The four crucified doctrine is further undermined if you compare not just the number of people crucified, but the entire list of events in Matthew and Luke. Weirwille's logic holds that since the order of the events differs in Matthew and Luke, there must be different people involved. By that logic, the veil of the temple was torn twice. According to Matthew 27:50 & 51, the veil of the temple was rent immediately after Jesus died. According to Luke 23:45 & 46, the veil of the Temple was torn just before Jesus gave up the ghost. The basis for most of VP's four crucified teaching is a similar chronological contradictin between Matthew and Luke. The simple truth is Luke's account of the crucifixion is not presented in chronological order. Peace JerryB

By the way, I have two kids and I've tried to raise them the same way. (I know this is only marginally on topic, but I can't resist) :-) My daughter is a freshman at OWU and, like yours, HCW, she hasn't put much emphasis on dating and boyfriends. She's a National Merit Scholar and on the Dean's List and was just nominated to an honor society for Freshmen. My son is a very silly but bright and caring high school freshmen who would rather listen to country music and watch SpongeBob than get involved with the crap that is hip hop culture. I have certainly fallen short from time to time in being able to give them what I wanted to, but they know that my love is unconditional. And they know that there are consequences for bad decisions, which helps to make them wise youngsters. There's definitely a balance between giving kids unconditional love and teaching them that they have to live with the consequences of bad decisions as well as enjoy the benefits of good ones. As Dr Phil says, permissive parenting is the most insidious form of child abuse. My wife runs a Day Care business and we see it everyday. Most parents these days complain that they "can't get their kids" to do what they should. So they comee in tired and malnourished because they stay up too late and eat junk food. The kids have more respect and affection for my wife than they do for their own parents. When they're here, they're happy and well behaved. At home, they're monsters. And the parents still can't seem to figure out why. Okay, that's enough derailing and soapboxing from me. Peace JerryB

Hi HCW. Yes it looks like we're going to have to work in finding something else to argue about lol Glad to hear you're still hearing from God. Fun stuff isn't it? I think I've heard of Josh McDowell. If he's the gent I'm thinking of, he's a famous apologist. Back when the Way was getting the cult rap, he wrote the only anti-Way book I read that wasn't full of rumors and innuendo. His was based strictly on what TWI taught, not what was rumored. And about the rewards thing; that may be key. For years I just intepreted all of these verses about lost inheritance as lost rewards, and even noted it as such in my Bible. But it always kind of bothered me because I felt that it was somewhat arbitrary to read "inheritance" and think "rewards". But, one can certainly think of an inheritance partly as a reward for good behavior. So maybe that's the way we should look at it. If that's so, one would have to build a case for interpreting the phrase "eternal life" as eternal rewards. Peace JerryB

Okay CM. Sorry about the long silence, I was out running around with my wife and son. I've looked again at I Corinthians 15 and I Thessalonians 4 and I can't say that I understand where you're coming from. As I see it, you're saying the prophecies about the return of Christ should be interpreted as the coming of Christ and that He has already come to you if you are truly born again. This would make the coming of Christ and our experience of it a spiritual, not a physical reality. The first problem I see with that is I Thessalonians. Paul speaks of the coming of Lord and our gathering together unto him as 1) a future event to be anticipated by those who have already been saved or born again 2) He clearly wrote of it as Christ coming from heaven and taking people from the earth to heaven with him. This is not a subjective experience. So, unless I'm still misunderstanding your position, I don't see how it agrees with what Paul taught and believed about the hope of Christ's return and our gathering together unto him. The second problem is I Corinthians. In an earlier post, you referred to I Corinthians 15:21-23. You're referring to I Corinthians 15:22 & 23 The problem is, the context of this passage is a physical resurrection in a new body. I may be "seated in the heavenlies", but my physical body is still seated (with a little too much paunch on it I might add) in Lexington, KY. So the coming of Christ in the form of holy spirit in a born again person can't, imho, be interpreted as the fulfilment of this promise. So when I Corinthians 15:22 says that all shall be made alive, it's talking about being made alive in a new, spiritual, immortal/incorruptible body. But while I was looking at this, I did find another verse I had underlined and forgotten that indicates a conditional salvation dependent upon faithfulness. The whole chapter begins with an almost casual reference to salvation as a work in progress. The people to whom Paul wrote were established Christians who had received the Word and believed it and were saved. But he implied that their salvation would only be fulfilled if they continued to believe what they had originally accepted. This reaffirms the message of Hebrews 3, 4, and 10 that a believer can fail to receive the promise because of failing to continue in the truth, or by casting away his confidence in God. It's not the focus of this espistle, so it's tossed in casually as if they already understood that and just needed a quick reminder. Compared to the deeper explanation in Hebrews, it's presented in different language, but the message, although brief, is the same. So I thank you for making me go back and look at some other aspects of this that I had forgotten about. Peace JerryB

Okay, now I get it. You're saying that the promised return of Christ is fulfilled for each individual as he receives the gift of holy spirit which is Christ in you the hope of Glory. Hmmm. That's going to take a while to digest. If you have any articles written up that explain this more fully and tie it to the various passages about the return, I'd like to read them. You can find my current Email address on my profile. Peace JerryB

Basically HCW, I agree with you. The spirit lusteth agains the flesh and the flesh against the spirit. We have to choose which set of desires we're going to act on. Agreed sir. Again, I agree. But that incorruptible seed we are given is called in Ephesians 1:14, the "earnest of our inheritance. We were taught that the word "earnest" means a token, like a subway token. It's not the real thing, just a downpayment of sorts. Which means that when the time for the token is over, we exchange it for the real thing, (the spiritual body perhaps?). Since it's the earnest of our inheritance and not the full inheritance itself, we can choose not to redeem it. We can get off the train and change destinations. I would like to agree with you, but there are many Christian parents who would testify that they did that and their kids rebelled anyway. And I don't believe they "just turn out that way" either, but we are told that our adversary, as a roaring lion, walks about looking for whom he may devour. Lions and other predators often prey on the young, the weak and unprotected. Likewise the adversary sets traps for children in our culture and well intentioned parents sometimes fail to recognize them. Entertainment aimed at our children and adolescents promotes homosexuality, withcraft, and glamorizes paganism and spirit power. Christian children may not "just turn out that way", but they can be lured away by a malicious and crafty enemy. On this too, I expect we agree, but that's a whole other thread. Well that's my point exactly HCW. I think that's precisely what the Bible says. That's what Romans 2:7-11, Galatians 5:16-21, Ephesians 5:1-7, II Peter 1:10 and 2:1-22, Hebrews 3:8-4:11, 10:23-39 and others are talking about. They make it clear that certain practices are not in the inheritance ballpark, and God, by revelation, makes it crystal clear to us when we're about to get off the train so to speak. God is a loving father and there's nothing in the Bible that says that he doesn't love those who will receive wrath just as much as he loves those who receive rewards. He is love and He is no respecter of persons. He is just and righteous as well as loving. We have to accept and revere all aspects of God's person in order to grow to become mature Christians and faithful ambassadors of His will. Peace JerryB

Our positions are contrary because I don't think I John is addressed to the unsaved. ... I wonder, How much?Which much? Excellent question. I don't know. All I can tell you is, at first, he told us I John was addressed to the unsaved and that it was a witnessing eqpistle. As I read it, I found several passages that seem to contradict that idea (including I John 2:13-18) and wrote him about them. He then said that not all of it is addressed to unbelievers and that some parts are addressed to the Church. I didn't press him for a complete breakdown of what parts are addressed to whom. If that is not addressed TO born-again believers, then the writer is not a born-again believer. He refers to THEM as WE. It does switch to YOU and WE in v:4 "And these things write we unto you , that your joy may be full. (v:5) This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you , that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." V:6-9 goes back to just WE. If the writer was talking about THEM, the unbelievers, why is he saying WE? The grammatically correct pronoun would have to be YOU... "If YOU confess YOUR sins..." YOU can get saved, like me, THEN you + me = WE. I can't get with what you relate of Ken's position cause it says WE. Sorry but that is precisely what Ken told us. He says the WE is the Apostles and the Church. The YOU is the unsaved population. He said chapter one is an appeal from the WE of the Church to the YOU of the unsaved people to accept the cleansing of salvation. I don't want to try to get into a detailed expalanation of what he taught because I am sure I would fail miserably in presenting it in the depth that he can. He's been working this for over 15 years. Please contact him with any further questions about this. Zeal to score a point? Not really, my friend. Whereas I DO thoroughly enjoy a healthy discussion of the scriptures, like this one, I have absolutely no desire to "score points." I try to never zoom past stuff, just so I can say what I have to say.I actually basically agree with your ...most especially TWI. They spent way too much time trying way too hard to set and then PROVE their positions.... Definitely self serving.BUT. Yes, Jesus never wrote an epistle, he WAS the original LIVING epistle, to be known and read of all. Yes, the Bible is not supposed to be our "only rule of faith & practice" (another one of those self-serving ruses) it is simply ALL things that pertain unto life and Godliness which is a l i t t l e bit better than the "only rule of faith" thing. Its a LOT more than a primer, a point of reference to get started... The Bible is EVERYTHING, the alpha and Omega, ALL things necessary to come to an intimate knowledge of this entire life. Your position indicates to me that you just don't know ENOUGH of the Bible to see it that way. So we agree on a lot. But I disagree with your last position. The Bible, in my opinion, is not EVERYTHING. Our relationship with God and Christ is EVERYTHING. I hate to be redundant, but, if the Bible is "all things necessary to come to an intimate knowledge of this entire life", why do we still need revelation? Does the Bible tell you where to live, what job to take, how to bless your wife? No, it simply gives you guidelines. Taking a job in a company that makes money by lying would violate general biblical guidelines. The Bible says husbands are to dwell with them (wives) according to knowledge. Do you do a word search to find the knowledge of your wife or do you spend time with her and find out what she needs? Do you ask the Lord how to bless her or do you memorize Song of Solomon and leave it at that? We're talking about not receiving salvation by giving up on God. Not quite the same thing as two preschoolers breaking toys. Not according to the criteria of Hebrews 10. It speaks of casting away your confidence, of failing to continue to believe God. Paul's exhortations in Galatians and Ephesians are pretty specific. The practice of fornication, idolatry, covetousness, withcraft, etc are not the kind of things someone can live with and not know it. But you bring up an excellent point, one that I have so far nedglected to point out. The word "do" in Galatians 5:21 is a mistranslation of the word prasso meaning to practice. I am not saying that I believe the Bible teaches that a son of God can fail to inherit the Kingdom because of ONE sin. But he can do so by practicing certain things, or by just giving up on God entirely, which some have done. And, if you are in this situation, God will tell you. And how does God do this? By the Scripture? No, by REVELATION. He talks to his kids and says, Stop that! Or,if you're of a trinitarian mindset, the Holy Spirit convicts of sin. The point is, God, by revelation, will tell you if you're going astray and you don't lose eternal life because of one offence, or even two. I'm losing track of my quote brackets here, so I'm going to address the rest of your thought-provoking and well thought out post in a seperate response. :-) Peace JerryB