Taxidev

Okay, understood. I was just trying to differentiate between the "seed" being incorruptible and the "born again" being incorruptible. Both were in that sentence. Sorry.

Wow. You're equating yourself with Jesus Christ? That is seriously arrogant.

Yes, but TLC and I were looking at Paul's writings, which didn't have it. Only 1 Peter 1:23. I know, that's not Paul.

My viewpoint is that now I've seen someone else question whether salvation is permanent, as well as myself, and I want to be able to determine, for myself, which is correct. That's why I am not at all curious about what you think is the underlying issue, or the social ramification, of either line of thought. My wanting to understand which view on salvation is the correct one has little to do with the points you have presented to me. Like I said, they may be valid points, but they aren't the point I'm focusing on. What I don't understand is why you keep insisting that I consider them. I won't.

THAT, is quite a statement!

I had never even considered this before. You are correct. That expression is only in 1 Peter 1:23.

Seriously? How is that pretending? "To me, it only means the seed is incorruptible. It may mean more than that, but I don't actually know that for sure." That's a pretty straight forward response - what I understand, and what I don't. How would you have phrased it?

Wow. What a contradiction to their response to the email of issues that was sent to them on April 27, 2018, from this thread. I would have thought, based on what she said and they, almost all, were nodding in agreement - only the 2 on the far right were not - that their response would have been better. Actions really do speak louder than words, and their actions are belying their words. My confidence in them is weakening.

Agreed. And it led to some mighty manipulation.

Thank you. This is exactly why, right now, I am at arm's length with everyone regarding God and His Word.

Thank you, T, this is in line with something I was questioning - the seed is incorruptible, but does that mean the salvation is?

No, that's what you are responding to now. My saying it is off topic is what you just quoted me as saying. I was under the impression that your sarcasm was because I said that article was "interesting", obviously not taken well by you. So I looked at that verse in my bible and, along with the "exegetical commentary", I don't see anything conclusive that would indicate salvation absolutely cannot be lost. If I'm missing it, please point it out. I am not trying to play games with anyone here - I have too much respect for people to do that. But I was following my own line of thought which you, apparently, were unaware of and/or didn't care about. Which brings me to the question I have regarding salvation: is it absolutely permanent, or is there something I can do to lose it? The paper from Dan proposes it is not permanent, but as it is a very long winded paper, I haven't read all of it yet. In this thread, "Picking up threads", Raf poses an interesting point: ""Jesus" said one thing about salvation, Paul implied quite another and the writer of Hebrews a third." For me, the confusion arose when I took a careful look at this: Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; Rom 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Rom 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: Rom 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Rom 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. To me, "cut off" means a lot more than losing rewards.

Okay, I see your point. So if we aren't doing the right things, our works, then we will lose rewards, possibly now, possibly later, possibly both. That's a sobering thought, even though it isn't losing salvation.

Excellent point. Now I have something else to delve into. I like how you think, TLC!

As I have already stated, I believe they weren't legit, but whether they are now remains to be seen. I won't need a personal assault, I am keeping them at arm's length. Close enough to watch.

Yes, that's true. Several of them have made that clear. But I know quite a few people who have never been in any leadership position at all in TWI that feel the same way. While I had no insight into any of those things that took place in the past, I did find early on some flaws in what VPW propounded, actual contradictions. When I raised those points they were dismissed with just a repetition of what was in his books. That should have been the red flag for me to walk away, but having never experienced a cult, and still appreciative of the teachings in my local twig, I kept on. But it was already obvious to me that I did NOT want to go in the corps. My grandmother used to call me thickheaded. I cannot refute that. I still have high hopes for them. What may seem to be coming to their defense is only my expression of those high hopes. I am more willing than most to give people time and space to change. But I am convinced of everything you all have shared with me about these folks, and have personally seen only an inkling of it in action - the response to an email to them. And that response was disappointing. So, no, I have no dog in the fight, I will walk away from them when I am convinced they are false.

Well, I just don't see the existence of that social structure. I've been discussing a paper that compares the two views on salvation, and you've been talking about social injustice. We just aren't on the same page, we aren't even on two sides of the same coin. I don't dispute what you have been proposing, but I just don't see the point of discussing it. Social structure, injustice, manipulation, all have NOTHING to do with salvation. So, be disappointed all you want - that, too, has nothing to do with salvation.

If he did do that, I would be impressed. His ego jumped out of a video class, and danced on my table!

Huh?

This thread was spawned from another based on a discussion of Dan's paper, which brings up his point that salvation isn't an absolute guarantee. So, that's really what this topic is about. No one has called Dan's paper a standard of anything. Actually, I find this "exegetical commentary" very interesting, and obviously you have high regard for it. But for me it didn't clarify anything. And I'm guessing by the highlighted words from you that you have not actually read Dan's paper. You don't have to yell. To me, it only means the seed is incorruptible. It may mean more than that, but I don't actually know that for sure. And I have no idea why God would choose that analogy. Do you? And I don't appreciate your sarcasm.

Actually, I'm not looking for a problem. I am only looking to understand more fully about the possibility that salvation, as a permanent thing, isn't actually guaranteed. This isn't because I live, or want to live, like some lost soul, rejecting God and Christ. I just want to understand it, completely.

Really? You're so generous. How long did it take many people to recover from what VPW or LCM did to them? Could they have needed more than a year?

Sorry, that's NOT an underlying issue, it's a potential ramification. But can't anything be twisted to ultimately and exclusively result in oppressive cults? I don't think there's a way to prevent that from happening.

Do you know why? I have completely lost touch with anyone that may have known about it.

Agreed. But I'm still enjoying the teachings. And if that's all I ever get from them, then that's no different than many other sources I have found over the years.