Taxidev

This could very well be true about them. But, weren't we all broken wineskins at one time? I am also interested to see their progress, and I will. Consider me naive, I understand, but I am willing to give them a chance. Naive, maybe, but I'm not a fool - I have none of them on a pedestal, especially after all that DWBH shared about his personal experiences with them, for which I am incredibly grateful. He understandably doesn't trust them one bit, and I believe his assessment of them is correct, but I also believe they have the ability to turn around completely. It's been about a year already that I have been watching them. Based on all the crap they have lived, I am willing to give them more time.

Interesting article, but it doesn't actually address what's in Dan's paper, at least not from what I have seen of it already.

This is a very interesting point, though disjointed. I agree that our fellowship with others mustn't be oppressive nor authoritarian. We have one authority, God, and one head of the body to which we all - presumably - belong, Jesus Christ. No other authority is needed. I see that in the first Christian church in Acts, which had apostles, prophets, evengelists, pastors and teachers. That list very plainly doesn't include rulers. But I don't see what that has to do with Dan's paper. Can you explain that connection?

Yes, waysider already started one for us there, "Can salvation be lost?"

I didn't, and that's why I am still looking at this topic, why it is still a question in my mind. It may have been settled for you, but it isn't settled for me.

An underlying issue can't be a ramification, but it could be the cause. So, no, I guess I really don't understand what you are trying to say. Now, whether the underlying issue is relevant or not, is there any way of actually knowing what that issue is, when all we have is a long-winded document on the two sides of thought regarding salvation? We could speculate, but what good is that, really? So, then, on what are you basing your stance on salvation?

Yes, and these are those that haven't been saved yet.

OldSkool, thanks for the compliment. I have read the bible from cover to cover only once. Since that time, I have read sections and, I'm sorry to say, haven't read the entire thing again. So, it's very possible the "loss of reward at the gathering together" is in there, but I don't know where. Do you? And Dan might be wrong, but I just don't know for sure at the moment. I'm currently leaning in his direction based on things I had been seeing for the past few years, most of which I posted above.

Yes, your point is in regards to a ministry setting, a social setting, an environment that will enable someone to manipulate others, the social dynamics. You may very well be correct about that, but that is speculation. My point is that this paper from Dan has nothing in it regarding any of that, but you keep trying to make it so. His paper is solely an analysis of "once saved always saved" as compared with "continuance in faith". And Dan is of the opinion that the latter is the correct one. So the reason I haven't asked you any questions regarding your point is that it isn't what Dan's paper is about. Now, from the other thread, you make this statement: First, the passage you quoted from Romans is OBVIOUSLY allegorical or metaphorical. How is that OBVIOUSLY? I don't see any allegory or metaphor. On the contrary, it seems pretty straight forward to me. Then you ask: Second, how do you come to make your inferences as to what you suggest the referenced verses in Ephesians 5 mean? Are you referring to me stating that continuing in God's goodness is walking in Love? If that's not what it is, then what is? And if it is works, as you seem to agree, it is after the fact of being saved. So it isn't a condition of being saved, only a condition of remaining saved. "Fourth, believe all you want that if you give up your agency (free will) you'll lose your salvation." This statement I just don't understand in the context of the discussion. Where did free will come into this? Besides, we have the free will to build our lives up or tear our lives down. All through the bible we see action/consequence, sometimes on the positive side and sometimes on the negative side. "But don't think that selling that behavioral construct as a foundational principle for behavior in allegedly Christian churches will do anything other than propagate dysfunctional social mores by which those with designs to squeeze out of their followers a lucrative living." Rocky, I don't doubt you have some great understanding of the Word, and are probably much more experienced than I with how easy it is to manipulate people in a religious setting. But Dan's paper and my own research have nothing to do with functioning in a church. Why you insist on making it about that is beyond me, and is the reason I asked if you would like to read the paper yourself. You are criticizing a document that you haven't even looked at, and I find that pretty arrogant. "It would be great if you wanted to actually discuss the issue. But I haven't yet seen where you have tried to do so." I have tried to discuss the issue, but you keep making it about something else. And I can only guess that it's because of some terrible ordeal you experienced. But Dan's paper has nothing to do with that, and that's why my responses to you aren't satisfying you. I have been trying to discuss his findings, and that's it. But you keep inferring some form of manipulation and social injustice. So, please, let me know what I am not seeing clearly, or even completely missing.

For the benefit of everyone that wasn't in the original discussion but wants to join this one, I will mention here the basic idea that brought this about. Someone wrote a paper, 114 pages worth, with the premise that "once saved always saved" isn't correct. Dan's paper has this near the front: Before beginning the body of the paper, we thought it would be helpful to briefly summarize the conclusions of our study. 1. Every person receives the promise of salvation at the moment they confess the Lordship of Jesus and believe in their heart he has been raised from the dead. At that moment they receive the gift of holy spirit, a “seal” indicating they belong to God. God will keep His promise of salvation provided that they continue in faith. 2. Salvation is solely by God’s grace through faith. It cannot be earned by good works nor can it be lost by bad works (sin). Since the promise of salvation comes through faith, it can be rejected if one develops a “heart of unbelief,” the conscious and deliberate rejection of Christ and God. Those who have received the spirit and then subsequently reject Christ and God with a wicked heart of unbelief will themselves be rejected. Even though I only glossed over the entire paper, and read short sections throughout, these two points are what the entire paper is about. There is no "conflating" of other points. If you think he is conflating regarding these two points, fine. But that's all the paper is concerned with. But you continue to project a menacing motive into his paper. Rocky responded with this: Who is responsible for the believer's attitude? If it's the believer, that's in the category of works. A decision is an act of one's mind. If it's not the believer, who would it be? In the context of any religious/church organization, are you not able to foresee relationships such that a given generic believer would be subject to rules, written or unwritten, made and/or enforced by anyone in that group (church) setting? Have I made it not clear yet that the paper, IMO, is convoluted and conflates fundamental relationships and responsibilities among those in whatever organization might choose to adopt that paper as a governing document? So no, I am not interested in reading the paper. Clearly, I have not gotten my point effectively communicated such that you understand the social dynamics that are inevitable. But if you'd like to pose questions to me that would clarify and help you understand the point(s) I'm trying to make (accepting them and believing them is a different issue, that's up to you). But making clear what my objections are is my responsibility and I'd be happy to oblige if you can frame some questions to help me see what is keeping you from understanding what I'm trying to say. To which I replied: I understand your point. I think you don't understand mine, or Dan's. I was looking into this very principle from a few years ago, and my questioning the concept of salvation as "once saved always saved" began when I carefully read this section: 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. What prompted me to carefully read it was, what I consider, and erroneous teaching by VPW that Paul shifted gears in Romans from speaking to the believers to speaking to the unbelievers. That, in my mind, was ridiculous. Continuing in His goodness, obviously to me, means walking in Love, as we are told in Eph 5:1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; Eph 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us... Do you consider that works? Because that is definitely a modus operandi, the one we are supposed to be adhering to. This brought about a different understanding for me of this section: Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. That phrase, "any other creature" is indicative of any other creature than myself. Well, I can't find anywhere that states that I can't screw it up for myself. While I am not 100% convinced, I was quite interested to see what Dan had found when looking into this very topic. And I am still looking into it, and speaking with those who I respect with regard to their understanding of the Word. Now you are all pretty much caught up. If you want to see more details, it is posted in "Another STFI split...an offshoot of an offshoot." I think it begins on page 2.

Perfect, thank you!

You are projecting your own interpretation when you add WANT TO. The verse doesn't say that, it just tells us to. This is why we have research tools, like Bullinger, and Brown Driver Briggs, and Thayer, and the like. I happen to like the KJV, and yes, I did enjoy Shakespeare. I was able to understand this old English within the first chapter of Genesis. But I don't just look at one version, I have several versions available. As for the "ANY OTHER THING IN CREATION", Bullinger defines this Greek word for other as meaning the other of two. Well, there are many more than two in that list, so what is the two? I say it is me and anyone else. What do you say? And what about this? Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Gal 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. Do you not think God would be mocked if we could have any attitude we want after being born again, and still be guaranteed a place in heaven?

Romans 11 is clearly speaking to the believers. There are two Greek words translated gentiles, one, which is used here, refers to the gentile believers. The other refers to the non-judean gentiles, as a generic group. This is differentiated by Bullinger in his Greek lexicon.

Interesting perspective. I see Paul addressing the born again throughout this book, and discussing the Gentiles, and discussing the Jews. Nowhere in there do I see him addressing anyone other than the believers. If you see otherwise, please point it out to me. I am always open to greater understanding.

I understand your point. I think you don't understand mine, or Dan's. I was looking into this very principle from a few years ago, and my questioning the concept of salvation as "once saved always saved" began when I carefully read this section: 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. What prompted me to carefully read it was, what I consider, and erroneous teaching by VPW that Paul shifted gears in Romans from speaking to the believers to speaking to the unbelievers. That, in my mind, was ridiculous. Continuing in His goodness, obviously to me, means walking in Love, as we are told in Eph 5:1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; Eph 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us... Do you consider that works? Because that is definitely a modus operandi, the one we are supposed to be adhering to. This brought about a different understanding for me of this section: Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. That phrase, "any other creature" is indicative of any other creature than myself. Well, I can't find anywhere that states that I can't screw it up for myself. While I am not 100% convinced, I was quite interested to see what Dan had found when looking into this very topic. And I am still looking into it, and speaking with those who I respect with regard to their understanding of the Word.

He doesn't mention works. He doesn't mention anyone has to actually "do" anything. He discusses an attitude. Would you like to read the paper for yourself?

Dan's paper has this near the front: Before beginning the body of the paper, we thought it would be helpful to briefly summarize the conclusions of our study. 1. Every person receives the promise of salvation at the moment they confess the Lordship of Jesus and believe in their heart he has been raised from the dead. At that moment they receive the gift of holy spirit, a “seal” indicating they belong to God. God will keep His promise of salvation provided that they continue in faith. 2. Salvation is solely by God’s grace through faith. It cannot be earned by good works nor can it be lost by bad works (sin). Since the promise of salvation comes through faith, it can be rejected if one develops a “heart of unbelief,” the conscious and deliberate rejection of Christ and God. Those who have received the spirit and then subsequently reject Christ and God with a wicked heart of unbelief will themselves be rejected. Even though I only glossed over the entire paper, and read short sections throughout, these two points are what the entire paper is about. There is no "conflating" of other points. If you think he is conflating regarding these two points, fine. But that's all the paper is concerned with. But you continue to project a menacing motive into his paper. So, maybe it is you that isn't getting the point. And that point is, he's discussing two viewpoints of salvation. Period.

Yeah, that wasn't the point. But thanks for the clarification.

Because he doesn't say any such thing, not even a hint of it. It's just between us and God. Everything I've read, the verses he quotes, have nothing to do with obeying any people. Just God.

Absolutely. I felt the same when Craig announced his stepping down. I walked away from the phone hookup and thought, "Oh, well". That was it. He's just a guy, and I certainly didn't have him on a pedestal. Some folks around me were devastated because they DID have him on a pedestal. But what it showed me was how easy it is to get off track, just like Eve did.

In all that I've read so far, he hasn't mentioned it. If I see anything about it through the remainder I will certainly update you.

That's probably the saddest commentary anyone could make.

I agree, but what would be the major category it would go under?

Everything I've seen in his paper shows that after being saved we can lose that by turning our backs on God. He doesn't imply that sinning, our own mistaken actions, has anything to do with it. It is a rejection of God that messes things up for us, and he shows quite a few scriptures to back up his claim. This is a topic I started looking at about 3 years ago, and keep going back to it from time to time. That's why I was interested in what Dan had found, but his paper is so incredibly long-winded that it is a real challenge to read every detail.

So far, I have heard or seen no one in R&R give this recommendation. Granted, it is slightly possible I may have missed it.