Mark Clarke

My Uncle, Bob Clarke, was one of the "usual gang of idiots" who drew for Mad magazine for many years, before he retired. Does that count?

Celebratory cheese steaks for everyone! :P

On the contrary, to believe and say otherwise is to agree with what Jesus himself said. Read the parable of the sower and the seed again. The good seed is the word, but when it's planted, the type of soil determines whether it grows and produces fruit or not. Some don't take root at all, and gets eaten by the birds, but others do start to grow. Some sprout but don't have enough roots and end up withering. Some start growing but get choked by thorns. Notice it doesn't say that it was never really growing (as in "those who turn away were never really saved"). Neither Jesus nor any other NT writer said anything about "permanent seed" that you can't lose even if you turn away and quit believing. This doesn't make our works greater than the works of Jesus. It just makes our acceptance of his words and works the key to eternal life, which is what he said.

Sunesis, With all due respect, I notice your post has no Scripture references. I am familiar with all of your arguments, as I embraced them at one time myself. But upon really looking into it I found there was really no Scriptural foundation to the idea that the Church represents a new plan of salvation and that the Kingdom Gospel which Jesus preached is held in abeyance for now. Jesus said the Gospel of the Kingdom would be preached throughout all the world and then the end would come (Matt. 24:14). A couple of comments/questions: "10 gentiles will hold the hem of a jewish person and say, let us go up with you, we have heard God is with you" - Where is the reference to this and what is the context? "They will be grafted into the blessings for Israel" - The reference to Gentiles being "grafted in" is from Romans 9 - 11, which is not limited to future blessings, but speaks of their relationship and identity both now and in the future. "Christ came to Israel announcing the Kingdom at hand" - Where is the instruction that his disciples were no longer to preach the Kingdom? "Christ gave the 12 apostles their great comissioning - to Israel." - It doesn't say to Israel; it says "to all nations" (Matt. 28:19) and they were to teach "all things whatsoever I have commanded you" which includes the message of the Kingdom. "...that's why Peter continually told Israel to 'repent.'" - Paul declared to the men of Athens in Acts 17:30-31, "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead." This coming day of judgment is a big part of the Kingdom Gospel. "In order for Christ to return for Israel - ALL of Israel must repent. But, that did not happen." - There is no Scripture that says this. As the above verse (as well as many others) shows, Christ's return does not depend on their repentance. He is going to return when the time is right, but whether they enter the Kingdom at that time depends on their repentance, and that is true for Jews and Gentiles alike. "The Church, the one body, are not told that we all must repent in order for Christ to gather us." - The Church is not told to repent, because to be in the church, one must have already repented. And no one is told to repent in order for Christ to return. "...thus, in Acts 28 he says I now go to the Gentiles. Once the temple was torn down in 70 ad, the Kingdom was in abeyance." - Actually, "I go now to the Gentiles" is from Acts 18, when the Jews in Corinth rejected Christ. As was his manner, he went to the Jews first in each city, and when they didn't listen he went to the Gentiles. This has nothing to do with changing to a different message. In Acts 28, Paul is still preaching the Kingdom of God (vs. 23 & 31). There is no Scripture anywhere that says it would be held in abeyance and replaced by another gospel. In fact, not only did Jesus say the Gospel would be preached until the end came, but Paul warned the Corinthians and the Galatians not to follow after any other gospel (II Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1:6). On what authority, then, can we say that it was held in abeyance after 70AD? "The age of Grace is now ushered in." - You may also be surprised to know that there is no such phrase, "age of grace" in the Bible. God's grace permeates all ages. The Kingdom of God, a coming reign of the Messiah on a renewed earth in perfect righteousness, was prophesied throughout the whole OT. And there were even references to the Gentiles being blessed in some way. But what was not known was that they would be fellow heirs and of the same body. That was the mystery. It was not that there was some better plan separate from the Kingdom of God on earth, reserved for the Church. "We are one body. We will have a "celestial" body - not an earthly, eternal body that Israel will have. Our inheritence is in heaven, not on earth. We are never promised land or a city Jerusalem." - There is no Scripture that says this. The reference to "celestial" bodies is in I Cor. 15 and is talking about the source and origin of the bodies, not that they will be some kind of non-corporeal body. And no where in the Bible is heaven the destination of believers, nor is the hope of Israel an "earthly, eternal body." There is no such thing. The point of an "earthly" body, according to I Cor. 15, is that it is not eternal; it dies, in contrast to the heavenly one which does not. We have the same hope as Israel had, resurrection with new bodies in God's Kingdom on a renewed earth. "It is the Bride that looks for a new city, Jerusalem and dwells therein. It is the Body, that is God's inheritence in the Heavenlies and dwells therein." - Once again, can you quote Scriptures that say this? The church being "seated in the heavenlies" (Eph. 2:6) is not referring to our permanent dwelling place, but rather our identification with Christ. I understand where you are coming from, since I held these same opinions for many years. I could quote all the same arguments and it all seemed to make sense. But when I began trying to back up my views from the Scripture, I realized I couldn't. In order to avoid being deceived, we must always weigh our views and beliefs from the Scriptures. I exhort you to at least consider what I am saying, and weigh both views against the Scriptures. I think you'll be surprised.

Israel had the risen Christ too, after he arose. The revelation that Paul received added to, but did not change, the original message that Jesus preached. This is a common misconception among dispensationalists. There is no indication from the Bible that Paul's gospel was different from that which Jesus and the other apostles preached. The twelve were sent to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom (Matthew 10:7) and later the seventy were sent with the same mission (Luke 10:1,9). After his resurrection, Jesus continued to speak concerning the Kingdom of God (Acts 1:1-3). Philip went to Samaria preaching the Kingdom of God (Acts 8:12). Paul preached the Kingdom of God as well (Acts 14:22; 19:8; 20:25). The book of Acts ends with Paul continuing to preach the kingdom of God (Acts 28:30,31). There is nothing to indicate that there was a change in the gospel message that the followers of Jesus were to preach. It has been said that the gospel that Paul preached was not the same gospel that Jesus preached. We were taught that Paul's gospel was different, because Jesus spoke of the kingdom, but Paul preached "the gospel of grace." Acts 20: 24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God. However, the very next verse defines what the gospel of grace is. Acts 20: 25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more. And in verse 27 he equates that Gospel of the Kingdom of God with the whole purpose, or counsel, of God. Acts 20: 27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. This is one of the great dangers of dispensationalism - it separates Jesus from his words. If the teachings of Jesus Christ were only addressed to his Israelite followers at the time, and would shortly be replaced by a whole new administration with a whole new plan, why were his words so carefully and diligently preserved in the four Gospels, which were written after the epistles and the revelation of the Mystery? Furthermore, if his words were to be replaced by a new revelation and become obsolete, why would he have made the following statement? John 14: 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. If the holy spirit would bring to remembrance whatsoever Jesus had said, surely his words are important to the Christian Church, and not just to Israel. Contrary to what many dispensationalists teach, the New Testament tells us that it is the words of Jesus Christ, as much as his deeds, which are to be the focus of Christianity. His words are the key to eternal life (Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33; John 3:34; John 6:63; John 12:47-48; John 14:23; John 15:7; I Timothy 6:3-4). He preached the gospel of the Kingdom and declared that it would continue to be preached until he returns (Matt. 24:14 "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.") In Matt. 28:20, he commission his disciples to make disciples of all nations, "teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." The gospel which Jesus preached is not "held in abeyance" as we were taught. The same gospel is to be preached till his return. The details Paul adds to the Gospel message do not change it, but add to it. It adds the idea of Gentiles partaking of the same Kingdom promises that were made to Israel, and being grafted onto the same tree of faith that Israel was on. There is therefore no separation between Jews and Gentiles as there had been. All may receive the promises originally made to Abraham. The old distinction in TWI between "spirit in" and "spirit upon" is not Biblical. Joseph was called "a man in whom the spirit of God is" in Genesis 41:38, and Joshua was called that in Numbers 27:18. God's ministers were said to be filled with God's spirit in Exodus 28:3; 31:3; and 35:31. Isaiah 63:11 reads, "Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him?" On the other hand, the outpouring of the holy spirit on Pentecost was associated with God's promise to "pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh" (Acts 2:17). And Peter specifically states in I Peter 4:14 that, "the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you." There is no such distinction between "spirit in" and "spirit upon" in the Bible. They are interchangeable. There is nothing in the NT that indicates that his coming for us is different from his coming for Israel. The dead in Christ shall rise (Jew and Gentile) and we who are alive shall be caught up to meet him. This is called the day of the Lord in I Thess. 5:2, and happens at the last trumpet, according to I Thess. 4:16 (cp. Matt. 24:31; I Cor. 15:52; Rev. 10:7; 11:15). The whole idea of a pre-tribulation rapture is not found in the Bible. The signs in the heavens, the gathering of his elect, the sound of the last trumpet, and the appearing of the Lord, all happen after the tribulation, according to Matt. 24:29-31. We are told to look for Christ's return, and the signs leading up to it are part of looking for it. Matthew 24 fits with all the references to the return in the epistles, when we don't approach them with preconceived dispensational views.

That's what the ultra-dispensational doctrine of TWI taught, but does the Bible really say that? Where are the Scriptures that say that the promises for the Body of Christ are different from those for Israel? On the contrary, Paul said that he preached the same hope of Israel. Acts 24: 14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets... Acts 26: 6 And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: 7 Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope’s sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. The message first preached to Abraham is the same message Paul wrote about in his epistles, with the extra revelation that Gentiles could also partake of the promises God made to Israel. Galatians 3: 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. Galatians 3: 29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Ephesians 3: 3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, 4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) 5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; 6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

I just stumbled upon this. Apparently John Schlitt of the Christian band Petra recorded a new version of Joe Fair's song, "One By One." It's got different lyrics in most of the verses but the chorus is the same. It's actually not bad. (It was one of the better songs Joe Fair did.) It also lists Rich Gootee (formerly of Good Seed) as one of the co-writers. I don't know exactly what his contribution was. As I remember, the song was originally done by Joe Fair and Ralph Graham. ONE BY ONE Joe Fair, John Schlitt, Rich Gootee Lord, Your love turned my world around Your words lifted me up as I was going down But even now, as I stand tall and strong There are so many more searching for where they belong (Chorus) If I can reach just one If I can touch just one If I can help just one One by one One man could do so much Sharing the life that he lives through God's loving touch That light that shines from the mountain top It is a beacon of strength and of hope That no one can rob He has given so much Freely given so much Don't hide you light in the dark Just let it shine

What is the difference between a pigeon and a stockbroker? A pigeon can still make a deposit on a Ferrari.

By that logic no believers could ever get married, since they are brother and sister in Christ. I think you may be taking the symbolism too literally. There are a number of symbolic pictures of the Church, as JohnJ pointed out.

I am not sure I completely agree. If we go back to the "geek" analogy referred to several times earlier: Geeks are proud to have their own esoteric language. It "proves" who has the "inside track" on the technology which translates into being cool, knowing, hence having a modicum of power and authority. (This coming from a quasi-geek).I suspect that the Argot served more along those lines. The AC grad tells someone new to "renew their mind" - and since the new person doesn't know what that means but admires the AC grad is motivated to the TRM class and dig themselves in deeper in order to also be cool and authoritative...etc etc I'd say it's both. When we were "in" it was a unity thing, to help us be like-minded and make outsiders want to be involved (if they weren't scared off). But if we thought about leaving, it did heighten the sense of isolation from the world, and made us think twice about leaving. It also kept us from really understanding things from any other point of view, because our understanding was tainted by having different meanings for words that the rest of the world understands. But like I said, this is not unique to TWI. Even mainstream religion has its own language, as do other eastern religions and even non-religious groups.

Every group, religious or otherwise, has their own language or terminology that binds them together and separates them to some extent from those outside the group. This is true from the technical language of the medical profession to the sci-fi jargon of Star Trek fans, to the slang expressions in the sports world. Religious cults take it much farther than non-religious groups, though.

A few have stated here that the guidelines for not being a cult weren't meant to be applied to a group 2000 years ago. But it seems to me that they can be applied, and the first century Christians, as Jeff pointed out, would "pass the test". Under "advocating freedom" I would also add that Mike had a particular problem with allowing "open questioning of the leader's beliefs & practices," and "creating a mechanism for modifying beliefs & practices." But when there were questions about certain points which weren't spelled out by Jesus, they met and discussed it, such as when they began to realize that Gentiles could be included, and the question of circumcision, dealt with in the council of Acts 15. For that matter, there wasn't just ONE leader who was unquestionable. There were the twelve, there was Paul who focused on reaching the Gentiles, there was James who was an administrative leader in Jerusalem but not a top "head" that could not be challenged. These guidelines fit the early church as well as anything today.

Listen to the Band introductions.....

Worst Lyrics... not a single phrase in the whole song that wasn't a Way cliche.

I agree this is the case with many, perhaps even most, of the TWI offshoots. But It's been my experience that it is not true of ALL of them.

I had one last week, it sounds almost as weird to describe. I dreamed my wife was praying for me because something was wrong with me. She finished, and then added one more point, as if by revelation. In all seriousness, she rebuked the spirit of Monty Python! I remember feeling disappointed that Monty Python was a "devil spirit" too - it seemed like everything fun was "devilish"!

Thus saith Wierwille. What saith the Scriptures? So are you saying that what you were taught in TWI might not be right?

That's the English word, eternal. It's not the best translation for the Greek word aionios. The word "eternal" in KJV doesn't, because that's not what the Greek word means. That's what the best resources say, including Young and Bullinger. God promises us life in the age to come, if we accept the Gospel message. We are told elsewhere that we will be given immortality. From that we can conclude there is no end, but not from the word aionios. That word refers to the fact that it is in the age to come. Here are a couple of articles to consider, if you are so inclined: http://focusonthekingdom.org/37.htm#2 http://focusonthekingdom.org/510.htm#1 So the verses that refer to "eternal life" are not saying that we are NOW in a state of unconditional everlasting life, no matter what we do in the meantime.

This is the crux of the debate. What does it mean to be "saved" now? As I pointed out, the Bible indicates that there are past, present, and future aspects to being saved. We have a lot right now, and stand to inherit even more in the future. I just don't see anything in the Scripture that says it's a permanent seed that remains in you even if you turn away from God. As I mentioned to Oldiesman, the word for "eternal" is the Greek word aionios, which means "belonging to the age to come." Even in Young's and Bullinger! It does not mean that once you have it you can't lose it. Notice that John 6:40 says "SHALL have" and they will be raised up the last day. These are all referring to those who continue to believe. What do you make of those verses I quoted which warn Christians against turning away, and use conditional "if" statements? I understand that. But you have continued to seek God and continued in the faith to the best of your understanding. What I'm talking about is someone who rejects God after having believed. The verses above don't contradict the warning. They are, as I said, referring to those who keep the faith and don't turn away. And also, as I mentioned before, the Bible doesn't refer to those who turn away as "losing their salvation" because they don't fully have it yet. Several of the verses I have quoted refer to some who will "depart from the faith," not just ones who seemed to be believers but weren't. The parable of the sower refers to those who received the seed and began to grow, but then got distracted or deceived. There is no indication that they didn't "really" have the seed. Those who have abandoned the faith did not do so because of a faith in "another" Jesus. They abandoned a faith in ANY Jesus. Besides, there have been former Christians who have abandoned their faith in the main-stream view of Jesus as God, as well. Which version of Jesus someone believed in is not the point with regard to this discussion. Some people have rejected God and Jesus regardless of which version they believed in. Of course he wouldn't be lost, as long as he continues in the faith that he has. The warnings in the Bible are not about just stumbling or being confused. They are about completely departing from the faith and rejecting God and Jesus. BTW, Geisha, I don't consider you an idolater. I think you are sincere in your belief, but perhaps haven't looked into the history of the Trinity. But that would be way off topic.

What are "butt socks"? That gives me an interesting mind picture!

I would agree, with the addition of one or two words. I believe it would be arrogant for any person or group to claim they have "all" the truth, or that they are the "only ones" with the truth. But I don't think it's impossible to have a good handle on the truth, as Jesus proclaimed it.

Geisha, I agree it makes a difference who one is confessing when they confess Jesus as Lord. And I know that we disagree on who Jesus is. But the point of this particular thread is not whether someone is really saved in the first place based on their belief about the Trinity. The point that this thread is discussing is this: Assume a person confesses Jesus Christ as Lord. In your view that means accepting him as God the Son, which we'll just say for the sake of argument. If that person then later decides he does not believe in Jesus and rejects God, do you think he still will be saved? This question can be considered whether you're a Trinitarian, Unitarian, or Binitarian. Regardless of what your faith is, it's still a matter of asking, "is a MOMENT of faith sufficient, even if you later reject that faith?" There are even Trinitarians who do not believe in "once saved always saved," BTW. Pleasant dreams. I hope you have a better day tomorrow!

Geisha, I don't see how my different view of who Jesus is affects the point we're discussing. Even if Jesus were God, there are still those verses that warn us to continue in the faith, and the clear statement that some will depart. Note it doesn't say they didn't really believe, or believed the wrong thing. It says they would "depart from the faith" because they get seduced. This is what Jesus spoke of in the parable of the sower and the seed as well. When I said "what more can God do?" I was referring to the fact that God has done everything for us in His Son, but sadly, there are some people who simply reject His offer. The Bible tells us this. And it tells us there will be some who accept it at first but get tricked into turning away and rejecting it. I don't see any Biblical basis for thinking that some people will be saved just because they had a "moment of faith" once but turned away and rejected Christ afterward. If that were the case, then why the warnings in those verses? How do you understand those warnings?

I recommend doing a study of the word "eternal." The Greek word aionion means "belonging to the age to come."

I agree that there's more to it than what we were taught in TWI. But there is also more to it than what liberal scholars say about it. I would consider them alongside other more conservative scholarship that validates the Bible, even if they also adhere to the traditional doctrines. Both sides should be given consideration. Sean Finnegan wrote an excellent paper about this for a theological conference, which you can read here. BTW, I don't claim that anyone has put the Bible together 100% perfectly, but this Gospel of the Kingdom is a way of seeing the whole picture, putting it together better than anything I've ever seen.