Taxidev

That doesn't directly address and answer the question. You're merely skating around it with a different question. Your question: Once you honestly believe in your heart that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, how can anyone honestly "undo" that belief that is in their heart? I believe it's possible. Plus, the entire verse is: Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. I was not skirting anything, I was emphasizing that it's a two-fold belief, and I also believe going against either of them will cause problems. I restricted a change to one specific issue. You redirected it with a supposition and are now refuting your own supposition. I don't see how you see that, but, okay. So, which supposition is that?

I suppose you infer "in your heart" to be more emphatic than "in your mind". I can see where this could be the case, as in I am considering in my mind something that in my heart, which is what I am currently completely convinced of, is the opposite. Until what my mind is considering becomes my new full belief, then it is merely in my mind. True? If so, then I agree.

First, you are only paraphrasing half of the verse in Romans: Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. So, if one no longer accepts Jesus as Lord, why would that person continue to have salvation? Plus, it seems you are supposing someone can't have a change of belief. I find that to be starkly untrue. When a person takes in an abundance of worldly (sorry for the TWI term, but it fits) information, culminating in a complete adoption of that into their belief system, then the truth of God and Jesus are pushed aside in PREFERENCE of the world. Colossians has something to say about that: Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Col 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: So, if one rejects Christ, how can they be complete? Yes, I completely agree with the statement you reference.

That's awesome!

Pretty much. Initially saved because we believe and confess Jesus as our lord, the Rom 10:9 part, and continually saved as long as we genuinely want to be righteous. That second part implies some serious attitude, but yes, I think you've summarized my view very well.

That's clever! Also, this: "The teaching of The Way is based on 2 Peter 1:20 that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" (KJV interpretation). Its founder's and subsequent Way interpretations of the Bible are taught in ministry classes and publications.[6]" That's really funny! No private interpretation, except the Way's private interpretation! HAHAHA!!!!

Yes, you are missing something, but I think it's due to my weak explanation. I'll try to clarify. By believing, as it states in Rom 10:9, we are saved and attain a state of righteousness, because we are given a clean slate. To continue in righteousness takes a conscious decision, and keeping our mind set on how God would have us live. Yes, we may not be righteous at any given point, but that doesn't mean we have lost our salvation. God knows we are just humans, and He gives us a way out of the stupidness we may put ourselves in. As long as we genuinely want to be righteous - and God knows our heart - then even when we fall short we are good with God, even if we are lacking in our spiritual power due to our own ineptness. Is that a better explanation?

Yes, absolutely. My understanding is when we believe Rom 10:9 we are then righteous, as an instant state of being. However, to maintain righteousness going forward takes effort on our part. I certainly can't live like I used to and think God will look at me as being righteous, that would be ridiculous. But by the same token, as I had noted, He knows we are just humans, far from perfect. So righteousness MUST pertain to our attitude toward life, striving, albeit imperfectly, to live as God would have us live.

It says in the bible that God knows our frame, that we are not perfect, and that's why He gives us a way out of the messes we get ourselves into. I'm paraphrasing, of course. So I don't see how righteousness could mean moral perfection of any sort. Rather, I see it as our feeble attempt to live as God would have us to live, even though we fall short of it, so that we can end up in heaven. I definitely don't see it as a requirement for being saved (rescued, set free, given a clean slate, bought back) because in Rom 10:9 it says for that we only have to believe, whereas righteousness implies how we live.

It seems, here on the field in my area, after the fall of LCM, these gifts to the church were only glossed over. There was no real emphasis on them, only checking with "spiritual leadership" when making big decisions. Like, all of a sudden, when we are born again we become imbeciles that can't plan our lives. But it didn't take long for even that to fade, so much so that the branch and fellowship coordinators all but ignored people and just focused on the business of the ministry, outreach, and teaching the dictated (from HQ) themes.

There are a couple problems with this approach. 1. I may be remembering incorrectly, but, in PFAL, Wierwille says (I'm paraphrasing.) "All means all, from Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21." So, you say you agree with me that just because VPW says it doesn't make it so. Yet, here you say this approach has problems. I don't understand - it can't be both, they are in conflict with each other.

Yes, I did. Just because VPW says it means Genesis to Revelation, doesn't make it so. I see that as his opinion. When that verse was written, it was in a letter that wasn't part of any official document compilation. So, the 4 gospels, Acts, and Romans through Revelation didn't actually exist yet except as letters to specific churches.

This means nothing to me, so this argument is moot.

Thank you. I didn't remember him saying that in there!

Where does he declare that?

When they were written, naturally. Think Peter would have had any different answer? NOT! Someone, many years later, compiled his letters, and others, to form the new testament. When Paul wrote to those various churches, they were just letters. Or do you think Paul was making copies for himself to compile into, say, a collateral. And, personally, I seriously doubt Peter even knew about those letters.

I wasn't relying on only the old testament. I had the benefit of Paul's writings. He didn't. And, the entire nation of Israel missed it also.

No, that can't be the least common denominator of scripture. If it was, then everything written would be scripture. When Paul wrote that, do you think he already knew that there would be a Christian bible that would include the old testament, and writings from apostles and others, including himself, in a new testament? I don't. That's why I don't believe he was referring to his own letters when he wrote that statement. I have no doubt that Paul was who he said he was. He was extremely knowledgeable in the scriptures, what was already written, and his letters testify to that deep understanding. He was only missing the truth of Jesus Christ, but then he was on fire. Just as Jesus Christ spoke with authority (do you think every time Jesus spoke God was inspiring him? or was it based on his own depth of understanding?), Paul also taught, and wrote, with authority, because of his own depth of understanding. I see Paul as an amazing teacher, and because he was actually living the Love of God, he kept in communication with those he had taught and spent time with. He cared. And at times he responded to information he learned about errors in peoples' actions. Does that automatically mean that his letters were inspired of God? I say it was just a loving response, something that is sorely lacking in our day.

Why, that would be none other than Paul, himself. (See II Tim. 3:16 for further elaboration.) I just looked at that verse, and Paul says "all scripture". He doesn't say his letters which, at that time, weren't scripture. Only the Torah was scripture.

I read the first few comments, and here is my take on the matter of Paul: It says in the bible that what was written aforetime is for our learning. So, while Paul's letters are all to a specific group of people - other than Colossians - we can all learn from them all. And, while I have tried to find evidence that Paul was inspired of God in these writings, I have been unable to find any such thing. So, knowing Paul's background with the Torah, I would say that these responses to these specific groups' actions, and basic instruction like in Romans, are from his understanding of God's Truth. And, because I believe Paul had a thorough and deep understanding of the Torah as it relates to Jesus Christ, I take his writings very seriously, but not to the exclusion of the rest of the bible.

My heart aches for you. That "spontaneous, joyful, sexual, angry, free, artistic, childlike, grieving" portion of you, along with the "being disciplined, keeping things clean, being a high achiever, serving others" portion of you, IS perfect. It's exactly how God made man, with all the strengths and weaknesses of being a human. That's why in the bible we are called earthen vessels. Thanks for sharing, and being so open about it.

I believe this group got its name because of LCM claiming if you walk away from TWI you'd be a grease spot by midnight. So, not much different.

I can relate. Sometimes it's difficult to overcome the effect of a particular action or speech or whatever, because it is so entrenched in some nauseating thing from the past. I've had that many times, and a failed marriage because of it also. It can take many years to hammer that down to where it doesn't poke you anymore. That response you received reminds me of the Mormons when I visited their HQ in Utah. Ugh.

Understood. I guess I just assumed, since she was with TWI. But I do see how that could change as easily as stepping away from TWI.

Welcome, and enjoy the eye opening discussions here. One of the most relevant insights that helped me is the understanding that the body of Christ isn't exclusive to any one religious group. In fact, it may not even include everyone from a particular group. Rather, I'm finding it includes some people from every group, and some who have no group at all. Whereas the perspective of TWI was "Us vs. Them", it actually is "Us AND Them". When I realized - fortunately before becoming completely entrenched with them - that they didn't have all the answers, I began speaking with other Christians, reading works from other Christians, and listening to teachings from other Christians. And then I found GSC. It was exciting to combine what the folks here have to share with what those other folks have to share. I'm sure you'll find some really interesting topics here, if you haven't already. Please don't hesitate to share your views, and your questions. T