Jbarrax

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 unsavee 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. I think you maight have missed THAT point, which is in relation to losing one's salvation, there are things we do that WE don't RECOGNIZE as SIN but God does. Therefore it would be entirely possible for a person to lose his salvation and NEVER even KNOW it. 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

Not a brick wall, CM. I just need a little more substance. You're saying that Jesus Christ has already come back, but for one person at a time? Me confused. :-)

Hi Sunesis! Thanks. It's good to be back in the active growth mode. These forums and the collective wisdom of posters like you, Raf, Garth, Evan, Ex10, Steve Lortz and others have been in invaluable source of spiritual growth over the years. HCW Regarding God's love, I understand where you're coming from. The problem is, the more I read the Bible, the more I see these verses I've been ignoring all these years popping up at me. And I have to decide whether I'm going to continue to ignore them or consider that maybe there's more to the truth than what I've been taught. And I'm not coming form an "anti VP" mindset. I actually still have fond feelings about him. I don't think of him as a despicable character. Miguided perhaps, flawed, certainly, maybe worse. But this is not about disliking Dr. Weirwille and wanting to get back at him. It's about a deep and nagging hunger for truth. That's all. So God loves us and gave us eternal life. Hallelujah. But what then do we do with Romans 2:7 Paul argued in Galatians that we are justified by faith, not works. We were taught that we are heaven bound and all hell can't stop us from going. Why then did Paul issue this warning to the same Church he had just taught so fervently about righteousness by faith? We've already discussed the fact that Ephesians 2:8 says we're saved by grace and not of works, but Ephesians 5, in the section about walking in love says, What did Paul really mean when he told the Philippian Church to work out their own salvation? What happens to those who don't work out their own salvation, who are not found blameless and suffer rebuke. From whom does the rebuke come from? From the world or from the Lord? We've already looked at Hebrews chapters three and four. There is more of the same in chapter 10. This is not addressed to unbelievers, but to the Church; to a community with a shared experience and heritage in fellowship and outreach. Is we sin willfully, there remains judgment. Despite the fact that we are saved by grace, cleansed by the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Christ, the lamb of God, continuing willfully in a life of sin will reap judgment. You see, it's not disputing the fact that we are in God's family by grace. It is admonishing us to revere that grace highly and dearly, not something cheaply given and to be lightly esteemed. Not the Devil's people. This verse is not talking about God judging the children of disobedience, but the Lord shall judge HIS people; Us Again, this is addressed to born again believers, as II Peter chapter two is written about Church leaders, not children of Belial If Paul (or whoever wrote Hebrews) exhorts us to cast no away our confidence, it must be available to lose it or throw it away. This verse really unhinges me. "After ye have done the will of God????" I thought I'd received it already. I don't wanna be patient, I just wanna be saved. WAAAAAAAA!. Sorry. The point is, this verse seems to stand our "once saved always saved"theology on its head. Like Romans 2:7, it mentions patience. Ye have need of patience. Patience is a big deal. Charity suffereth long and is kind. Charity beareth all things, believth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. With all lowliness and meekness with longsuffering forbearing one another in love...Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness...For ye have need of patience. It's not optional. That after having done the will of God ye might receive the promise Who are they who "draw back" unto perdition. I don't know, but is must be possible to do so. The opposite of drawing back unto perdition (destruction) is believing UNTO the saving of the soul. According to this passage, the saving of the soul is not a one time act of faith, it's a lifetime of faith. There's more of course, but this post was too long a couple of paragraphs ago. Peace JerryB

Wrong on both points HCW. We visited with Ken and Sue and he spent about a half hour talking about his position on I John. I was more intent on listening than talking so I didn't even bring up my position. I went home, studied what he'd said about I John for a few days and decided it didn't sufficently answer my questions about eternal life. So I sent him an Email and we exchanged a few messages. The end result was, he didn't agree with my point of view and wasn't inclined to invest much time in considering it. Then you should give him a call. Ken does teach that I John is not addressed to born-again belivers; specifically I John 1:9. Ken believes I John is, in his words, "a witnessing epistle" directed to unsaved people and that I John 1:9 refers not to confession of "broken fellowship" or sin in the life of a believer, but salvation. He says much of I John should be interpreted in this manner, as an appeal from the Apostles and the born again believers to the unsaved. According to my recollection and understanding he believes the teaching that we're cleansed from unrighteousness by confessing our sin contradicts Paul's doctrine of righteousness by faith alone. He says the Way's interpretation of I John 1:9 as a reference to sin in the life of a believer and being conditionally cleansed from unrighteousness contributes to a works mentality and sin conciousness. And I agree completely with your asessment of his character. He's a fine man with a good heart. Since I made it clear he didn't agree with my position, I don't see why he'd object to may sharing what he's teaching. As to the "It is written" statement, it is clear that Jesus taught from the Scriptures. I think, in your zeal, to score a point, you missed the point. Fundamentalist Christians of the Way's mindset get too wrapped up in proving one doctrine or another and that causes division, strife, pride, and carnal thinking in general. All this despite the fact that Our Lord never wrote an epistle. The Bible is not supposed to be our ONLY rule of faith and practice, it's supposed to be a primer, a point of reference for getting started on a walk that leads to an intimate knowledge of God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord. Sorry to hear about the RC trucks. But hey, that's what kids do. But if we're going to talk analogies, we need one more appropriate to the subject matter. I'm not saying that if you make a mistake or commit one act of disobedience, God will shut you out of the Kingdom. But let's look down the hypothetical road a way. Suppose one of your two sons loves and respects you and grows up to be a mature and loving Christian. He blesses people, does much good in the comunity and brings you immense pride and joy. But suppose his brother, after having been raised in your loving care, decided that you were a worthless ex-cult freak, turned his back on you, and spent his life denouncing you and everything you believe. Suppose he started a coven and became a dedicated and effective warlock (God forbid), even causing the deaths of people you know and love. You continue to prosper and amass a 5 million dollar estate. You love both your sons. One has proven himself faithful, wise and loving and you know will use his inheritance wisely. The other not only hates you, but has done great harm and will turn your inheritance into fuel for more of the same. Do you give them an equal inheritance in your estate? Peace JerryB

Yes it is, CM. That's another reason for us not to get so wrapped up in "It is written" that we can't love each other any more. I think He wanted us to follow his example of compassion, humility and love more than getting obsessed over his words. Peace JerryB

Good post Mark. Much food for thought there. I've not spent much time reconsidering the thousand year reign, except some work I did last year on the hope. I changed my mind about the pre-trib rapture and I think I Corinthians 15 and I Thessalonians 3 & 4 are more harmoniouse if interpreted as a post tribulation gathering. Beyond that, I don't know. Maybe what you posted is the missing piece to the works vs grace puzzle. It would be nice if the Lord came back tomorrow and cleared all this up huh? For now we see through a glass darkly.... Peace JerryB

Sunesis: Thanks for your comments. But I have to disagree with your interpretation of Romans chapter seven. I don't think TWI's teaching on this subject was ever sound. (The idea that Paul was writing about himself and his hopeless struggle against a sinful nature). In fact, I met with Rev Ken Brown about it during the ROA back in 1987. That's how we met. The context of Romans six is life under the Mosaic covenant. The law is mentioned seven times in the first five verses. This chapter can't be Paul writing about himself. Verse nine says, "I was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died" Paul wasn't born with the Patriarchs and wasn't alive when God spoke the Ten Commandments form the top of Mt Sinai. Paul is using an allegory to describe the immense frustration of godly people trying to keep the law (which Peter called a yoke of bondage that neither they, nor their fathers were able to bear). The battle of Romans chapter seven was between the godly mind of the old Testament saints who knew that God's commandments were holy and just, and their sinful natures. They saw that God's will was good but were utterly unable to follow it.(David, Solomon, Saul, Balaam, Samson, etc). The difference between us and them is we have been freed from the bondage of the laws and ordinances of the Old Covenant, and have been given the gift of holy spirit, by which we can know and manifest God's nature and walk in love. We have been relieved of the weight of the hundreds of commandments, ordinances, feasts, and sacrifices and equipped to live according to a higher standard; that of the love of God in Christ. Therefore, although we still make mistakes and sin, we are able to walk by the spirit and so fulfill the righteousness of the law. Peace JerryB

Apology accepted Oenophile. No offense taken. But I might add that, although I've not worked with him personally as Raf and Sunesis have, my memories of his leadership as the WOW coordinator are all positive. He seemed to have a genuine heart for outreach and people. Much of what I posted last night was from Hebrews, as you correctly point out, but a lot of what I've puzzled over is in Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, and Ephesians--and of course II Peter chapter two. Romans 2:7 for instance, the context of which I think someone else has already alluded to. In other words, God will render eternal life to them who seek for glory and honor and immortality by patiently continuing in good works. There are other ways to interpret this passage of course, but I see it as Paul's repudiation of the Judaean notion that they didn't have to live a godly life in order to enter the Kingdom of God. Being of Israel wasn't going to cut it if they were pagans at heart. Peace JerryB JerryB

Lots of great posts and thoughts here. It's nice to see a reasoned, civil discussion of such a touchy Biblical subject. :-) I just wanted to point out something that crossed my mind as I reviewed some of these verses this morning. Sunesis said, There is a difference between believing in conditional salvation and "living under the law". Living under the law literally means continuing to be bound to the sacrifices of the Mosaic covenant. The keeping of the Sabbath, etc. That's not what I'm advocating, and, as I see it, that's not what Paul advocated. The two extreme camps in Paul's day were the Pharisees, lead by James the Lord's brother, who believed that they still needed to keep the Law of Moses, and the licentious factions on the other who thought nothing of attending pagan feasts and consorting with temple prostitutes. Legalism vs Licentiousness. Paul taught that Christ had fulfilled the Old covenant. But he still warned people that certain practices could get them barred from the kingdom of Christ. You're free from the bondage of the law, but don't get deceived into becoming a slave of sin either. Galatians chapter five summarizes this balance very well. And the balance is achieved by love, not fear. I tried to make this point last night, but did it poorly. Love is the key. But, if you look at the Pauline scriptures about agape, you will see that it's not all about being nice to people. A good portion of Paul's revelation about love deals with the moderating effect of love in a beleiver's walk. It's love that keeps us walking in accordance with God's will. In fact, the passage in Ephesians warning about not inheriting the kingdom of Christ is in the context of the walk in love. Likewise, the definitive passage in I Corinthians 13 about "charity" speaks as much or more about what a loving person doesn't[/] do as it says about what he or she does. In other words, the Love of God is defined almost entirely by "don'ts". Don't be envious, don't be brag, don't be haughty, don't behave disgracefully, don't be selfish, don't be quick tempered, don't harbor evil thoughts, don't rejoice in wickedness. And even the positive aspects of Love are set in contrast to the negatives of our age. Love beareth all things. That means there are burdens to be borne that only agape will enable us to bear. Love believeth all things, hopeth all things. I think that means, love enables us to continue in faith and hope despite anything the world throws at us. And finally, love endureth all things. That leads us back in a sense, to the concept of a lifetime of faithfulness. Love is the key to the kingdom, not only because God wants us to be nice to each other (longsuffering and kind), but because our love for God keeps us away from the Satanic influences in the world and keeps us from stumbling. It enables us to endure a lifetime of ups and downs and hold fast our confession untii the end. Peace JerryB This is a classic case of the truth being in the middle, or, as Evan said, a little bit of both. Paul taught

Brief P.S. It's almost midnight and I have another ten hour work day ahead of me tomorrow. No doubt many responses will be posted before I am able to reply. Please don't misinterpret these long gaps of mine as arrogance or disinterest. I just don't have as much time during the week to post. And I have a lot more verses to offer that I haven't had time to mention yet, and I've probably done a disservice by only lighting skimming the surface on what I have posted. Please take some time and look into this patiently and seriously. Check out the context and usage of the words, fall, offence, stumble, and stumblingstone. Look at all the occurences of the phrase eternal life in the New Testament (or the word aionion) and see how many of them have statements in the immediate context that indicate faithfulness and good works. Look at the Biblical usage of the words "inherit, inheritance" and the parables about the kingdom. Count how many indicate receiving all of this by grace alone and how many indicate receiving by faithfulness. And finally, ask yourself what does the Bible REALLY SAY about being born again?f Not what the audiotape in your head says, not what you've been taught over and over again in twig, but what the Scripture actually says. I think you will find, if you approach this honestly, and methodically, that much of what we believe about salvation is not what's actually written in the Bible, but what we've been taught about what's written. Try to read it without the pre-recorded internal commentary and see what jumps out at you. Peace JerryB

Reply to HCW. It's ironic, HCW, that you reference I John as an attempt to prove that we are saved by grace. Ken Brown, a former memeber of TWI's research department (and a loving and honest man, imo), believes that I John 1:9 promotes righteousness by works and is teaching that it's not addressed to born again believers. We have discussed this briefly. He doesn't agree with my position, but, in my opinion, is trying to reconcile some of the same apparent Biblical clashes between works and grace. Furthermore, there is much in I John that contradicts the Way's once-saved, alway saved position and seems to contradict VP's doctrine of rigteousness by grace alone. Consider I John 2:3-6 But I thought it was all by grace. If you speak in tongues you Know that you Know.What's this "keep his commandments" stuff doing in here? Lot of works-based statements in there, HCW. If we are firmly established in God's kingdom by receiving something once and for all, these statements about keeping his commandments, keeping his word, and walking as he walked shouldn't be in here. John says if you don't keep his commandments, you don't know Christ. We were taught that if you were born again, you know Him and that's that. The emphasis in I John in walking as he walked brings up another aspect of this that I hope to get into more detail on later. What does it mean to stumble? We were taught that stumbling is committing a sin. By that logic, to walk perfectly is impossible for we all sin. But I don't think that's an accurate understanding of what the Bible means when it talks about walking and stumbling. Do a study of the words "stumble, stumblingstone, and offence". You will find that the root word is skandal, and that word means to cause someone to utterly fail. To offend someone biblically is to cause them to fall completely out of God's graces. That's why Jesus said it is necessary that offences may come, but woe to him by whom the offence cometh. When I John 2:10 says "He who loveth his brother walketh in the light and there is no occasion of stumbling in him" it doesn't mean he'll never sin. It means he'll never fall from God's grace and fail to inherit eternal life. In other words, the key to inheriting the kingdom is simply walking in love. II Peter 1:5-11 speaks the same truth Here's a radical thought; If we receive eternal life by grace alone because of a one time confession, why does Peter say, "give diligence to make you calling and election sure"? The phrase "ye shall never fall" in verse 10 means, you shall not fail to receive eternal life. It's explained perfectly in verse 11. Again, if we are heaven bound simply by receiving the gift of holy spirit, these exhortations are meaningless. Peace JerryB

Reply to CM You quoted II Peter 2:20 and posed a few questions. I'll try to address them to the best of my ability. I think this is a very important passage of Scripture. It's actually the one that started me on the path of reconsidering what TWI taught way back in 1998. Back when I was still a die-hard PFAL fan, this was the first thing I saw in the Scripture that indicated that we had missed something. You asked, "What was the beginning?". The beginning was being a natural man without holy spirit and with no personal connection with God or Christ. Just body and soul. They could not be judged harshly by God because they were ignorant of just how good and awesome God is. The latter end is worse than the beginning because, "after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,...", they can't claim ignorance anymore. Those who turn their backs on the goodness of God after having received holy spirit are worthy of a harsher judgment than those who do so out of ignorance. Hebrews 10:29 refers to this. It sounds mean and severe perhaps, but judging an experienced believer by a higher standard than an ignorant unbeliever is not a radical idea. It's in the Old Testament as well, and in the Gospels. Ezekiel 18:20-25. The Way of the Lord is Not Equal I know this is part of the Old Testament law from which Christ redeemed us. I'm just making a point about the different standards of judgment between rank unbelievers and righteous folk Luke 12:43-48: Unto Whomsoever much is given, much is required You also asked, "What's worse that this person has to deal with?" The answer is right there in the context. In the beginning, as a natural man, the worst that could be expected was the second death of Revelation 20:6-15. There's nothing enduring about it. You live, you die, you're raised to judgment, you die again. End of story. The fate worse than death is that described in II Peter 2:17. That's an eternal punishment. That's why, imho, it says that their latter end is worse than the beginning. As I mentioned in my previous post, I cannot speak for Vince Finnegan, so what he understands the new birth to be I cannot say. Finally CM, you referred to the verses in Ephesians 5:5-7 and then, rather flippantly said, "Yep, sorry no good results from this kind of behavior." How does that dismiss the gravity of those verses or attempt to deal with what they teach? It clearly states that there are people in the Church (that's who Ephesians is written to) who will have no inheritance in the Kingdom of Christ. The question is, what does that mean? We've been ignoring this passage for years because it doesn't fit what we were taught and we don't want to deal with what it appears to teach. Paul's tone is one of a serious warning. "Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. And, just in case you think that means it cant' also happen to one of us, 7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them. If Paul warned the Ephesians to be not partakers with the children of disobience in the wrath of God, then, to paraphrase VP, it must be available! This is a possibility we should be aware of and avoid. INHERITANCE The key to approaching this verse is in understanding the Biblical meaninf of the word "inheritance". Biblically speaking, an inheritance is a birthright; something reserved for a son by his father just because he is born into the family. But a son can be disinherited for rebellion against his father, or lose his inheritance because of faithlessness just as Esau did. Hebrews 6:12 encourages us to be followers of those who "through faith and patience inherit the promises." So inheritance is not just a matter of birthright, but a birhright realized through faith and patience. Faith and patience are the keys to realizing our new birthright and receiving the fulness of what God has promised his children; inheritance in the kingdom of Christ. Hebrews three and four use the Children of Israel as an example of losing a promised inheritance by unbelief. The twelve tribes were lead out of Egypt and promised the Land of Canaan. They were given inheritance in the land God had promised to Abraham and, as the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, it was theirs to inherit. But they failed to do so because of unbelief. 3:8-14 But that was the Old Testament, the Law, you say. What has that got to do with us? We have incorruptible seed, don't we? Well, keep reading. Hebrews chapter three clearly states that, just as the children of Israel failed to receive the inheritance in the promised land, we can fail to receive our inheritance in Christ by unbelief. We are made partakers in Christ, fully receiving our share, our inheritance in His kingdom, IF we hold fast our confidence stedfast unto the end. Are we going to continue to ignore these passages, just because we don't like the message? Hebrews chapter four continues this and reinforces this message of conditional inheritance. On the surface it seems contradictory. He that is entered into his rest hath ceased from his own works. Then, isn't salvation by grace alone?. No, because verse 11 exhorts us to "labor therefore, to enter into that rest". The rest spoken of is a future rest in God's Kingdom, not peace of mind. And again, it asserts that it is possible, by failing to continue to labor in Christ, fall after the same example fo unbelief. So there it is, plain and simple. Christianity is not a free ride to eternal life on the back of the Messiah. It's an opportunity to start over with the gift of the righteousness of God, the gift of holy spirit, and access to the throne of God by faith of Jesus Christ. It's a chance to do that which we were utterly unable to do as natural men. To serve God in Christ's stead, in righteousness and holiness. We have oftne rebutted the idea of losing salvation by arguing that it doesn't make sense to teach that you can lose something by your works that you didn't earn my works. The greater truth is, salvation is God's graciously giving us an ability that we didn't have before and calling us to use that ability to live in a manner that we were uncapable of living before. We can't live a lifetime of faitfhulness and godliness by our own works. That's why God gave us His own righteousness, holy spirit, his love, his very nature, and called us to use it accordingly. That's what Ephesians 2:10 really means. That's enough food for thought for now. Peace JerryB

Thanks Raf. Let me say that I have no intention of recruiting followers. My opinion is based on several years of study and wrangling with the Scriptures. I am simply trying to arrive at a doctrine that is based on the entirety of what's actually written in the Bible. It's become clear to me that the simple "Once saved, always saved" doctrine taught in PFAL isn't based on a comprehensive study of the Scriptures. I think most of us will agree that there are large gaps and flaws in what we were taught. As I've looked at the New Testament Scriptures regarding salvation, I've found that there are actually two bodies of Scripture in the New Testament. There are plenty of verses that indicate that salvation is not by works, but by grace, including Ephesians 2:8 and Romans 6:23. But there are other verses, written by the same Apostle, in the same epistles, that indicate that eternal life and inheritance in the Kingdom of God are by works, such as Ephesians 5:5-7, and Romans 2:6 (more on that later). It seems to me most people simply choose sides and embrace one set of verses and ignore the other. The "Once saved, always saved" camp shouts about Ephesians 2:8 and ignores Ephesians 5:5 and the "Backslidden" camp does the opposite. I'd like to think there's a better way to approach this. My belief is that whenever two extreme opinions are debated back and forth with equal vehemence by good people, it's becaause the truth is somewhere in the middle. I believe that salvation is by grace and that inheritance in the Kingdom is by faithfulness. These seem contradictory statements from a TWI mindset, but they're not. I can't explain the whole thing in one post, so I will try to present seperate pieces of the puzzle I've been putting together as time allows. Please keep in mind that I work ten hour days now, so your posts will outnumber mine and my repsonses may be sparce or slow in coming. It's not because I'm arrogrant, I'm just very busy. :-) I can't speak for Rev Finnegan, so I can't address questions about what he teaches, but I can tell you why I am where I am. If it makes sense to you fine. If not, let me know. I'm not opposed to changing my mind when truth is presented. That's how I got here. :-) Oh, and one more thing. My belief that entrance into the Kingdom is based on works and faithfulness is not self serving because I may not get in myself. I make no claims that I'm more deserving than anyone else. I'm just trying to share the truth as I see it. Peace JerryB

Hi Raf. I'm not familiar with Rev Finnegan's teachings since he left TWI, but, judging from what you quoted above, I would have to say that's a biblially sound statement. My own studies over the past two years have lead me to the same conclusion. Salvation is by grace, but inheriting the kingdom seems to be a matter of faithfulness. This is mentioned,not only in the Hebrews passage cited above, but also in Ephesians 5:5-7 I think the new birth is simply a chance to start over. You get a clean slate, you get the gift of holy spirit (which in Ephesians chapter 1:14 is called the earnest--token--of our inheritance), you get fellowship with God and Christ. In short, the new birth, imho, equips you to do that which you could not do as a natural man; live a godly, righteous life. If, having been given all of those enablements, one fails to be faithful to God and Christ, he does not receive eternal life (or, in deference to Steve Lortz and Mark Sanginetti, life in the coming age). II Peter chapter 2 also bears consideration along these lines. It depicts a dark future for Church leaders who corrupt themselves and abuse their ministries. Until now, I had thought I was the only ex-wayfer who had come to this conclusion, so I haven't talked about it much. I must say it's encouraging to see I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Peace JerryB

I just want to add my two pence to the pile in favor of the good-hearted people in the Way Corps. I'm sure there are many on this board who will testify that the Way ministers who had the greatest negative impact on our lives were those who ran the Corps program (VP, LCM, Prez Rivenbark). But I can also say that the people in TWI who had the greatest positive impact on my life were Corps people. Probably people very few of you would know; People like Jacques Kersaint, my WOW family coordinator, a guy with a heart of gold and an unshakable commitment to God and his Word. People like Gary Lee Corns, the WV LC who boldly and honestly told the whole state what was going on after POP, and did his best to lead us out of the corrupt mindset that taken root. People like Dan and Cathy Moore, the twig area coordinators in Huntington, WV, who served with humility and integrity and who continue to lead godly lives doing the best they can with what they learned. People like this went into the Way Corps to get training to enable them to serve God and his people to the best of their ability. It's just unfortunate that these kind of Corps didn't have a greater influence on how the ministry was run. Peace JerryB

So, MD, you are equating criticism of VP's teachings to criticism of Jesus Christ himself. As absurd as this is, it doesn't surprise me. I will however say that, if you take a look at the claims made in PFAL from a broader perspective, rather than blindly following VP's cookie trail, you will begin to see it breakdown. And not in just a few minor discrepancies. There are numerous definitions and "laws" stated in PFAL that are not just not scriptural. Some are even contradicted within the immediate context of the verses Weirwille used as proof texts. If you would like to see some explicit and numerous examples, you can access another of Waydale thread, PFAL REVIEW at my old home page. Peace JerryB

Thanks for not being brief HCW. I've been "lurking" on this thread for a while, not wanting to get dragged back into endless arguments with a confessed madman. You said just about everything that needs to be said to refute the demonic insanity that Mike spews. Well done sir. Maybe we should just copy this post and paste is reply to everything Mike says until he goes away. :-D Also, it's great to hear that other Christians are learning to speak in tongues. I have many issues with the heart and content of PFAL, but I think that learning to speak in tongues was an awesome blessing to all who finished it. Peace JerryB

Good post CM. Lots of food for thought there. By the way, there's nothing in Genesis that supports VP's assertion that there was spirit upon Adam that died when he disobeyed. That's a part of VP's elaborate contstruction of the chasm between man and God. In my opinion, it's an ssumption that is contradicted by Scripture. Genesis simply says that God told them that in the day they ate of the tree they would surely die. They ate, they got reprimnanded and expelled from the garden, and died hundreds of years later. VP's teaching about spirit upon them on a condition was a construction designed--imho--to explain this apparent contradiction. He added it to Genesis chapter one so he could take it away in Genesis chapter three. Peace JerryB

Hmmm. Hmmm I say. Good point.

Ah Mr. Reed. You are not honestly addressing the issues here. You say it's impossible for God to exalt a man to be ruler of the universe. The Bible says with God all things are possible. So to counter a simple statement of God's ability you run around in philosophical circles dropping names and generally avoiding the issue. Shameless behavior, really. If God almighty wants to give authority over His creation to a man, your calling it "impossible" doesn't make it so, no matter what Descartes thinks. Now about your second point. Again, you are distorting both my post and the scripture we're discussing. You said, I did not say God made Jesus His equal. neither does Colossians. Read it again please. It says, (emphasis added) It says all things were CREATED in Christ. Was God created? No. God did the creating. There is not hing here that says God made Christ equal to himself. It simply says God made Jesus (who is, by the way, part of God's creation) the chief of that creation. Furthermore, it says that God made Jesus the head of the body. Again, this does not make Christ equal to God. Furthermore, I didn't say Jesus "had a hand in creating the world." Merely that God creted it with Christ's eventual dominion of it in mind. What hymn are you referring to D.A.? If you're referring to the passage itself as a hymn, we can discuss it. If you wish to dodge the context and talk about an obscure hymn instead, I'm not interested. And finally, let me clarify a point. I don't deny that Christ has both human and divine elements. As the only begotten Son of God, he has a sinless nature. I don't have any problem calling that divine. As a man with a physical body, he has a human nature and was subject to temptation, otherwise the redemptive work he accomplished on our behalf would be meaningless. The origianl point of my post was in reference to Def59' statement that Colossians 1:16 says he (Jesus) created the world. I don't believe an accurate translation and understanding of the context says that Christ was the creator, merely the focus thereof. And finally, I don't see the point in pursuing tomes of "philosophy of religion" in order to obscure the clear witness of the Scriptures. Yes, there is some contradiction in the Scriptures so that no single doctrine is fully unequivocally substantiated therein. That's why I used the term "preponderance of the evidence". I think it's about 80/20 in favor of unitarian theology. That's not the inerrant Word VP preached about, but it's a helluva lot clearer and less convoluted than the philosophy of religion. Peace JerryB

One per customer, manifested according to the will and believing of the individual. Oshanta Malakasita. JerryB :-)

D.A. you said Not according to Jesus Christ and the Bible. According the them, with God all things are possible. Sounds a lot like VP's chasm from PFAL. Not so I say. More to the point; you are inserting a clause that does not exist in my argument. If God created the heavens and the earth with intent to exalt His Son to an exalted position therein, who says Jesus attained that position on his own, or in your words, "from the bottom up"? You see, your objection does not address my statement. God created the universe, God foreknew and foreordained Jesus to rule it. What's so impossible about that?Then you said, You misrepresent my post. It was translation supported by the context. The context of the passage speaks of Christ being the head of the body of Christ, the firsborn from the dead. And, as Mark has already pointed out, I would much rather base my point on the words in the Scripture and the context of those words than to base it on an unsubstantiated claim that the passage is inspired by an unknown hymn. Come now, you can do better than that. The Trinity may be true. And if I were arguing your point, I would allude to the divine attributes of Jesus in th passage; mainly that all things, in heaven and earth, including principalities and powers (arche) were created in and unto Him. That's pretty heady stuff. As I understand it, it means God prepared all of the archangels and powers of heaven to be in subjection to a perfect man born of a humble woman. What I see as mind boggling grace others might see as proof that Jesus is God Himself. But that would still be at odds with the text and the following passages about him being the head of the Church and the firstborn from the dead. The triune God may be the true one. But, if I have to decide based entirely on the witness of the Scripture, the preponderance of the evidence says no. Peace JerryB

Perhaps this is a matter of perspectives Mark, but it seems to me that most of the uses of the term fire in the verses you cited indicate destruction, not purification. The chaff is burned, not purified. The purification occurs before the fire, when the wheat is seperated from (sanctified from; purified from the influence of) the chaff. Then, having been removed from that which is good and worthy, the chaff is destroyed by fire. Likewise, the passage in Corinthians clearly says that if any man's work is found unsorthy "he shall suffer loss". The loss suffered is due to works destroyed by fire. I'm not saying that you are wrong in your statements about the meaning of the word "age". It may well be that 'eternal life' refers only to temporary citizenship in the coming Kingdom of Christ. And part of me is still cynical about the whole concept of the Return of Christ, but that's another thread. I just thought I'd toss my two mites in the ring. Please pardon the disruption and carry on. Peace JerryB

Those might be extra-canonical Mark, but there's a great deal of Holy writ that supports those views. Even Paul wrote to the Ephesians that inheritance in the Kingdom is not a foregone conclusion. I know it contradicts the notion of salvation by grace, and complicates most of what we were taught and would like to believe, but--as VP said, I didn't write the book. Ephesians 5:3-7 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not once be named among you as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking nor jesting, which are not convenient; but rather giving of thanks For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things the wrath of God cometh upon the children of disobedience. Be not ye therefore partakers with them Like I said, it contradicts the doctrine of salvation by grace and all that, but there it is. And it's not the only passage of its kind. Check I Corinthians 6:9 & 10 and Galatians 5:19-21. Even the Apostle Paul, the champion of righteousness by faith, warned that sinful behaviour could result in a believer failing to inherit the kingdom of Heaven. Peace JerryB

oookay. Rock on, Gnostic Brethren. :-) Personally, I have a copy of the Gnostic Gospels and I can't stomach most of it. The majority of it reads like baptized pagan mythology with the names of "virtues" like Faith and Truth being inserted in place of the Zeus, Apollo, Hera, and the rest of the Greco-Roman Pantheon. Peace JerryB