I'm not posting much because I'm fighting GPA, my Greasespot Posting Addiction. I'm also working to pay my bills, which is a challenge for a window cleaner in the rainy season. I'm also trying to respect the management here by posting far less profusely, and thereby helping to keep the peace.
I do have a tiny bit more to contribute to this topic.
Jesus Christ's only rule for faith and practice was the written scriptures, which were available to him at a very early age, and were in quite good condition, otherwise John the Baptist would have been charged with the job of fixing them.
Jesus quite well mastered those scriptures and he used them to judge the truth of all situations he ran into, both social and religious, and EVEN supernatural. When confronted by the devil in the desert, Jesus compared the words spoken to the written scriptures he had well memorized and he ruled (or judged) the devil's words inaccurate.
Jesus guided his entire life by the OT scriptures, even when it came to him receiving revelation. He knew that his Father would not contradict His own written revelations with a direct revelation, so Jesus' only rule even served him there. He judged (or ruled) everything by the written scriptures. They were his ONLY rule in that he did not bring in his own opinions or feelings.
There are many, many Gospel scriptures that bear this out.
Now, on one occasion he did SUMMARIZE his only rule down to the two most important commandments, but he still retained and used all the other words written in his only rule for each specific situation he encountered.
He had one rule, and only one. It was plain and simple, and didn't require him to research to obtain it; he just read it and walked by it.
I have to jump in here, even though I rarely post. I am constantly amazed by what can only be termed "bible worship"- we talk all day long and show off how much scripture we can quote and how much of the "class we remember, yet very little talk of our worship or love of the Savior who alone is only worthy of such accolades.
Don't get me wrong- I fell for it for many years while in TWI, and it took probably almost as many years of being out before I realized my error of my ways, so please accept this as coming from someone who all too well was living with the same mindset
Point#1- Psalm 138 2 was not God's commnd for us to magnify the Bible above God- like many Psalms, this directly dates to a specific period in David's life- 2Samuel 7 when God promised him an everlasting covenant with a descendant that would perfectly fulfil God's plan- a Redeemer- David in response cried I will magnify your word- your promise- your covenant above everything I have ever known about you.- Finally a Savior for the world- what could be more fantastic.
Point 2- Jn 5:39 Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees for their supposed great knowledge of the Bible and corrects them by saying"You search the Scriptures, yet they are they which testify of ME"- I am right in front of your eyes, and you can't see it- Even though the works I am doing were written where you are supposedly reading and have become such great masters of keys to Biblical interpretation
Point 3- Revelation 3 warns the Church of Ephesus of one specific sin- not that they neglected the word, or weren't walking in love , but thay left their FIRST love- Jesus himself. All the cold theology in the world no matter how "rightly divided" you think it is , does not make up for a rejection of the One who called you and saved you while you were dead in your sins.
Maybe that's why 1Timothy 3:16 says it is such a great mystery- even though He was manifest in the flesh...etc., etc
I just want to sy that I still search the Scriptures daily, but am so thankful that I now see the POINT of it all- not paper and ink, but a Savior who is expressed from cover to cover. Now when I read, I know what I am looking for- not somemore new or additional theology but, the reason why he Bible was penned in the first place--"To know Him- to be found in Him- to be pleasing to Him"
The bible is written for us. . . to keep our worship straight. . . Jesus is the word.
so would you bible folks say that the scriptures are your "only rule of faith and practice" as vpw taught?
Potato,
If there was a rally today outside TWI headquaters. . . you would see my face front and center. . . holding a sign that reads. . . "PFAL is the way to hell"
IMHO VPW did not teach the scriptures, He reworded them and twisted them to justify his own lusts and appetites.
Just look at what he did to people.
So, an emphatic NO is not loud enough to express my disdain for PFAL or for Victor Paul.
If there was a rally today outside TWI headquaters. . . you would see my face front and center. . . holding a sign that reads. . . "PFAL is the way to hell"
. . .
I've wondered for awhile why this has not happened, or at least something like it.
Usually the people that come by are literally off their meds . . .
with vpw it was "the word, the word, and nothing but the word". do you think he was right?
what's different for you? is it the way you approach the bible, the way you think about it, and do you consider ideas from other sources, other points of view on the same subjects?
since starting this thread, I've come to view the maintenance of my moral rule-set differently. rather than just walking away from the bible and trying to assess what I believe, I'm reading a lot and reconsidering my beliefs as I trip over them. that's why I claim to be agnostic, at least for now.
twi was such an intellectual no-man's land. being forced to give up every independent thought didn't make me a better thinker. excluding all influences except the bible didn't make me a better person.
with vpw it was "the word, the word, and nothing but the word". do you think he was right?
what's different for you? is it the way you approach the bible, the way you think about it, and do you consider ideas from other sources, other points of view on the same subjects?
since starting this thread, I've come to view the maintenance of my moral rule-set differently. rather than just walking away from the bible and trying to assess what I believe, I'm reading a lot and reconsidering my beliefs as I trip over them. that's why I claim to be agnostic, at least for now.
twi was such an intellectual no-man's land. being forced to give up every independent thought didn't make me a better thinker. excluding all influences except the bible didn't make me a better person.
First of all, VPW didn't even get right what "the Word" was. We used it as a synonym for the Bible, when in fact the Bible itself doesn't refer to itself as "the Word." In the Bible, the written Scriptures are referred to as "the Scriptures" but "the Word" most often refers to the message that is communicated in the written Scriptures. The Word, in general, is the mind, plan, wisdom of God, and specifically the Gospel of the Kingdom (compare Mark 4:14 and Luke 8:11 with Matthew 13:18-19).
And of course, when the Word was made flesh, God's purpose and plan came into concretion in the person of His Son, Jesus Christ. He always did the Father's will, and was the perfect representation of God. He is also the King that was promised throughout the OT Prophecies who will come and judge the world, and rule it on God's behalf. And he also offered himself as the ultimate sacrifice so that we could have access to that Kingdom.
If you say his only rule of faith and practice was the written Scriptures, then that discounts all the teachings he did that went beyond the written Scriptures. He didn't contradict anything in the Law, but he often went beyond it, teaching about walking by the Spirit rather than the letter of the Law. I think it would be more accurate to say his only rule of faith and practice was the Word of God, which includes the written Scriptures but also so much more in God's mind and heart. He is the Prophet that Moses said God would raise up and put His Words in his mouth, and those words which Jesus spoke are the ultimate communication of "God's Word" which we must take heed to.
Yes, what's different for me is the way I approach it and think about it. I do consider other sources, other points of view, and I compare them with the overall message of the Bible. It is not wise to limit yourself to the views of one man or one group. When I consider someone's view that doesn't line up with the Scriptures, I can usually see the flaw in their logic, which I would not have seen had I not even considered their view. Looking at other opinions tends to strengthen my faith, and sharpen my understanding of the Bible.
your description of only rule of faith and practice is very different from vpw's, and I venture to say that the spiritual life you describe would be nearly impossible to accomplish if you were obedient to twi doctrine.
with vpw it was "the word, the word, and nothing but the word". do you think he was right?
what's different for you? is it the way you approach the bible, the way you think about it, and do you consider ideas from other sources, other points of view on the same subjects?
since starting this thread, I've come to view the maintenance of my moral rule-set differently. rather than just walking away from the bible and trying to assess what I believe, I'm reading a lot and reconsidering my beliefs as I trip over them. that's why I claim to be agnostic, at least for now.
twi was such an intellectual no-man's land. being forced to give up every independent thought didn't make me a better thinker. excluding all influences except the bible didn't make me a better person.
For all of VP's slogans about the word, he in no way was a true "bible believer"- his immoral lifestyle is evidence of that. I think many people claim to be commited to the Bible only, but in far too many cases, they are only commited to a man's theology. Our commitment is to Jesus Christ.
What is different for me, is the reality of what God is saying thru dozens of different writers over a 1500 year period, authors living on different continents, writing in several languages about the promise of what man truly needs- a redeemer. Jesus.
In my opinion if anything other than Jesus Christ being the only rule for faith and practice is taught, it is another gospel or doctrines of demons . Once something such as Administrations or Kingdom theology or Numerology or Purpose Driven whatever is considered the glue that holds it all together, you now have something other than the gospel. You might as well be listening to Coast to Coast. It is just words.
Maybe this is why God had to silence Peter and shout from heaven "THIS is my beloved Son hear ye Him" Going on building more tabernacles or offshoots or supposed ministries is not what He intended.
Christianity is Christ centered. It is a relationship with the living God. Not with the book about Him. That is not to say the scriptures are not authoritative, they are, but our relationship is with the person of Jesus. How He evaluates each believer is what matters. I see no other choice, but depart from me I never knew you, or enter into the joy of the Lord.
It has to be possible to know Him and to be known by Him. That involves something much deeper than reading words on a page or doing a word study. Even working the "Greek." Why would anyone settle for head knowledge or intellectual assent when day to day life can be lived in His presence, guided by Him, and given to Him in service. Fellowship with the living God in a deeply personal way. There is nothing hidden from His eyes, yet we stand before Him in love. Giving ourselves over to Him and His Lordship and transforming work. That is the biblical reality of the abundant life.
Rooted and built up in Him as the truth is in Jesus.
To sum up: What is different for me now is no longer the bible, the bible, the bible, although I love and search it, it is about the word made flesh. Jesus, that is my first love.
In my opinion if anything other than Jesus Christ being the only rule for faith and practice is taught, it is another gospel or doctrines of demons . Once something such as Administrations or Kingdom theology or Numerology or Purpose Driven whatever is considered the glue that holds it all together, you now have something other than the gospel. You might as well be listening to Coast to Coast. It is just words.
I'm not sure what you mean by "kingdom theology," but if by that you mean the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom, then it concerns me that you lump it together with "Administrations ... or Numerology or Purpose Driven whatever" and compare it to what one would hear on Coast to Coast. The message of the kingdom is what Jesus preached, and commanded us to preach. You are correct when you say that something that doesn't focus on Jesus Christ is another gospel. But what was Jesus all about? If we are his followers, we should be proclaiming the same message he did, rather than a different gospel.
Spoudazo,
I will say,
Jesus Christ,
I know nothing about the guy. . .
But can you tell me how many people he died between?
If you say his only rule of faith and practice was the written Scriptures, then that discounts all the teachings he did that went beyond the written Scriptures. He didn't contradict anything in the Law, but he often went beyond it, teaching about walking by the Spirit rather than the letter of the Law. I think it would be more accurate to say his only rule of faith and practice was the Word of God, which includes the written Scriptures but also so much more in God's mind and heart. ...
Yes, what's different for me is the way I approach it and think about it. I do consider other sources, other points of view, and I compare them with the overall message of the Bible. It is not wise to limit yourself to the views of one man or one group. When I consider someone's view that doesn't line up with the Scriptures, I can usually see the flaw in their logic, which I would not have seen had I not even considered their view. Looking at other opinions tends to strengthen my faith, and sharpen my understanding of the Bible.
Let's not forget that the young Jesus, at 12 years old, was found in the temple disputing/discussing with the learned folk there. He listened and learned from them. He engaged his critical thinking and pointed out flaws in their arguments. And probably accepted some of what they knew. He learned from his mother Mary, his foster father Joseph, the rabbis, scribes and whoever at the local synagogue, the people around him; and he studied the scriptures by whatever means was available to him, whether written or oral.
That he engaged people more learned than him in discussion is an example we also should be following. We probe for flaws, fit what they say together with what we already know. That way, we can learn. Iron sharpens iron, yes? Sword of the spirit, yes?
Actually, what sharpens iron? A whetstone. Ironstone. Something harder and more resistant than itself.
VPW discouraged dispute, discussion, another point of view. Our critical thinking abilities were squished and our sensitivities deadened. Instead of looking at other Christian thinkers' points of view, they were treated as if they were stumbling blocks. The scriptures were wrongly used and we were discouraged from other considerations, other theologians, other interpretations. The scriptures themselves can be a whetstone to keep us sharp, but only if we use them correctly. And that means understanding them correctly.
We became blunt instruments, not sharp "on the Word" or spiritually sharp. We were dull and blunt in our thinking and dull and blunt in dealing with other people. Our "spiritual sharpness" was fashioned into another weapon, a blunt instrument more like a cudgel, and we could hit anyone who didn't agree with us with claiming they were devil spirit possessed.
A whetstone is used by stroking a knife gently along the edge of the whetstone, removing molecules of the knife blade little by little until the blade is sharp. By contrast the Rock of the scriptures became something to beat against in a sort of full frontal assault, thereby dulling the edge.
There is sooo much to learn, to be reminded of, by discussing with other Christians. And - dare I say it - with non-Christians, too.
with vpw it was "the word, the word, and nothing but the word". do you think he was right?
what's different for you? is it the way you approach the bible, the way you think about it, and do you consider ideas from other sources, other points of view on the same subjects?
since starting this thread, I've come to view the maintenance of my moral rule-set differently. rather than just walking away from the bible and trying to assess what I believe, I'm reading a lot and reconsidering my beliefs as I trip over them. that's why I claim to be agnostic, at least for now.
twi was such an intellectual no-man's land. being forced to give up every independent thought didn't make me a better thinker. excluding all influences except the bible didn't make me a better person.
I love the scriptures, I love searching them. I do love reading theology, my favorite is reformed theolgy, but I will look at different things. I love reading, Spurgeon, Moody, Edwards, some of the Puritans, Piper, Ravi Zacharias, Chandler, C.S Lewis. . . . the list goes on and on. I don't rely on these men to guide me into all truth. . . that is the work of the Holy Spirit. Who glorifies the Lord.
I don't think all other faiths are without any truth. That is silly, but now I just consider that all real truth belongs to God.
I do approach the bible differently now. I don't like to quote long passages, but in this case it is helpful to explain. . . .
You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, recognized and read by everyone, since it is plain that you are Christ's letter, produced by us, not written with ink but with the Spirit of the living God; not on stone tablets but on tablets that are hearts of flesh.
4 We have this kind of confidence toward God through Christ: 5 not that we are competent in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our competence is from God. 6 He has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit produces life.
13 not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel could not look at the end of what was fading away. 14 But their minds were closed. For to this day, at the reading of the old covenant, the same veil remains; it is not lifted, because it is set aside [only] in Christ. 15 However, to this day, whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their hearts, 16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 We all, with unveiled faces, are reflecting the glory of the Lord and are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory; this is from the Lord who is the Spirit.
In many ways, I believe we were similarly blinded, by a code of religious beliefs. . . it is actually much worse than that. . . but I will spare you :)
It is about Jesus now. It is about a relationship with Him. Personal and in love. . . .only His judgement matters. It is a spiritual communion.
It was when I turned to the Lord and not "the word, the word, and nothing but the word" that the veil was lifted. My life is in subjection to Him. . . the person of Jesus. . . . alive and real. . . . not someone's take on the bible.
How I approach the scripture now, is in light of Him. The Holy Spirit reveals Him. . . guides to Him. . .unfolds Him in the verses.
Jesus does the transforming. . . the work. . . I submit to Him. That is why you often hear Christians say, I gave my life over to the Lord. I can't transform myself alone. . . renew my mind into heaven. . . .I actually did confess Him as Lord in my heart post TWI.
Not just use His name and move on to the "Meat". . . or the hidden knowledge, present truth, or some man's revelation of snow on gas pumps.
If it is not about Him. . . it isn't about anything. If He is not known to us. . . we are not known by Him. That means. . . who He really is.
I didn't know Jesus before TWI and certainly didn't learn the truth about Him there. . . that is how I got tricked. I turned to the "Word" as taught by VP. . . not to the Lord Himself.
For me the difference is Him in the reality of His presence and person. He alone is worthy. . . consider in Revelation 5 when the angel cried out. . . who is worthy to open the scroll and break the seals. . . the answer came back. . . look the Lion of the tribe of Judah The root of David. . . has conquered, so He can open the scroll.
He alone is worthy in God's eyes to open the scrolls of history and unfold the last days. I too have my faith in Him. He is how we know God.
But can you tell me how many people he died between?
Exactly!
I'm not sure what you mean by "kingdom theology," but if by that you mean the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom, then it concerns me that you lump it together with "Administrations ... or Numerology or Purpose Driven whatever" and compare it to what one would hear on Coast to Coast. The message of the kingdom is what Jesus preached, and commanded us to preach. You are correct when you say that something that doesn't focus on Jesus Christ is another gospel. But what was Jesus all about? If we are his followers, we should be proclaiming the same message he did, rather than a different gospel.
Mark Clarke,
I was speaking of Adventist and Sabbatarian churches. A broad brush stroke. I hope this clears it up for you. Thanks for your concern.
I love the scriptures, I love searching them. I do love reading theology, my favorite is reformed theolgy, but I will look at different things. I love reading, Spurgeon, Moody, Edwards, some of the Puritans, Piper, Ravi Zacharias, Chandler, C.S Lewis. . . . the list goes on and on. I don't rely on these men to guide me into all truth. . . that is the work of the Holy Spirit. Who glorifies the Lord.
Why, then do you not consider the writings of any Biblical Unitarian theologians? There are quite a few of them, but we never heard of them in TWI, because TWI had to have the "monopoly" on truth. But they did themselves a disservice (as well as everyone else) because so many ex-TWI came to think that things like the the Trinity being unbiblical, and the dead being unconscious, were TWI ideas and so rejected them. But in fact there have been many great Christian thinkers throughout the years who have questioned orthodox doctrines, and backed up their questioning with Scripture. It would be worth looking at their ideas, if only to see their errors and be strengthened in your faith, and be able to discuss their ideas knowledgeably. I have learned things from Trinitarian scholars, and don't refuse to listen to anything they say just because I disagree with them on some points.
And third...
I was speaking of Adventist and Sabbatarian churches. A broad brush stroke. I hope this clears it up for you. Thanks for your concern.
That's part of the disadvantage of using broad brush strokes. There are a number of Adventist churches with various views, but what most of them have in common is a belief that Jesus is going to return to earth and set up a kingdom. We don't want to lose sight of Jesus' gospel of the kingdom just because some of these churches preach things we disagree with, such as Sabbaterianism.
Why, then do you not consider the writings of any Biblical Unitarian theologians? There are quite a few of them, but we never heard of them in TWI, because TWI had to have the "monopoly" on truth. But they did themselves a disservice (as well as everyone else) because so many ex-TWI came to think that things like the the Trinity being unbiblical, and the dead being unconscious, were TWI ideas and so rejected them. But in fact there have been many great Christian thinkers throughout the years who have questioned orthodox doctrines, and backed up their questioning with Scripture. It would be worth looking at their ideas, if only to see their errors and be strengthened in your faith, and be able to discuss their ideas knowledgeably. I have learned things from Trinitarian scholars, and don't refuse to listen to anything they say just because I disagree with them on some points.
Mark,
Thanks, I appreciate the concern and the critique of my study habits. I don't wish to be offensive in anyway, truly, but I am not interested in biblical unitarian theology. I understand this is your belief. This reflects your understanding of scripture and who you believe Jesus really is. . . .
For me, this is unthinkable to ever consider again or return to. . . I know you don't understand why. . . but trust me when I say. . . I could NEVER deny the deity of Jesus again. You have my permission to pat me on the head. . . .and consider me doing "the best I can." :)
I am glad that you read Christian theologians. . . . that is great. I hope you continue to do so. I hope you find the time to read some Johnathan Edwards. . .
DL Moody is another wonderful minister and was an amazing evangelist. The number of souls saved are countless in part due to this man's understanding of the redeeming work of Christ alone. He had no theological credentials, but He did have an unwavering commitment to Jesus Christ. This is a man whose life bore real fruit. This is the type of Christian I now read.
As an aside we used to care for his grave site. . . it was an honor. My daughter graduated from a school he founded.
That's part of the disadvantage of using broad brush strokes. There are a number of Adventist churches with various views, but what most of them have in common is a belief that Jesus is going to return to earth and set up a kingdom. We don't want to lose sight of Jesus' gospel of the kingdom just because some of these churches preach things we disagree with, such as Sabbaterianism.
Thank you for pointing out the disadvantage of my broad brushstroke answer also thank you for telling me what I should not lose sight of as you know me so well. I have rarely posted here, yet somehow you feel the need to remind me of my Christian duty.
Again, you might as well be listening to Coast to Coast or in an Amway seminar as attending one of these churches.
seriously, I didn't want this to become the evangelical hour or a comparison of who's brand of christianity is most accurate. it was more about vpw's charge to make the scripture your "only rule of faith of practice", something I actually got tired of hearing regurgitated on this board. I'm still interested in how people have moved beyond vpw's teachings, or how you've revised your need for one source, as if your spiritual life were a trip to walmart.
personally, I find I'm no longer afraid to consider other points of view. I'm no longer afraid that if I don't hold fast to the one source and the vpw interpretation thereof, that the devil will get his claws in me and it'll be worse for me than if I was seed of the serpent. I'm just not afraid of those things anymore, and it's opened up huge warehouses of knowledge, a multitude of avenues of inquiry.
For me, it's not about arguing whose brand of Christianity is most accurate. It's about knowing why one believes something. In the Way we were taught that the Word, as taught in PFAL, was "our only rule of faith and practice." To consider anything else was to open our minds to deception and possible possession. I forget whose, but somebody here has a signature line that quotes from Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom: "The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside."
After going through a crisis of faith several years back, I realized that while I believed certain things, I could not articulate why I believed them. After much searching and praying and considering various viewpoints, I can now articulate what I believe and why I believe it. And it's not because of any superior ability to study theology. It's because God made it really simple, and it's only when people inject foreign ideas into the mix that it becomes complicated. Like Potato, I'm no longer afraid to consider other points of view.
That's why I enjoy discussing theology of all kinds. It helps me to articulate my beliefs, and the reasons for them. When other people do the same, I either agree with them or see the reason why I disagree. I hate to say it, Geisha, but if you can't (or choose not to) explain why you believe something, and refuse to even look at another viewpoint (which doesn't mean you have to accept it or agree with it), then how is that any different from Mike? He makes assertions based on his beliefs too, and refuses to address direct, logical questions about apparent contradictions. There is a huge difference in the source of your beliefs and his, but sadly not in your methodology.
And Spoudazo, you're right, I don't know you, and was not suggesting anything about your Christian duty. I meant no offense, but was just making a statement regarding what you posted. Is it fair to categorize all Adventist churches as being like Coast to Coast or Amway, when one of their major tenets is the subject that was the very heart of Jesus Christ's gospel? This gospel has been conspicuously absent from a lot of preaching in other churches, even by their own admission.
But like I said, I enjoy looking at and discussing other viewpoints, which gets me into discussions that are usually more appropriate for the Doctrinal Forum.
I was not afraid to have another viewpoint. What I was afraid to do was say it out loud. One didn't dare say one had a different take on a verse or concept. Once I was out of TWI, talking and arguing about doctrine became like the "endless geneologies" of the bible. I found I was placing far too much value on doctrine and not simply keeping it simple. I don't do that anymore. Recently, I find myself getting annoyed when there's too much focus on how correct the Christian religion is and how superior it is to other religions.
seriously, I didn't want this to become the evangelical hour or a comparison of who's brand of christianity is most accurate. it was more about vpw's charge to make the scripture your "only rule of faith of practice", something I actually got tired of hearing regurgitated on this board. I'm still interested in how people have moved beyond vpw's teachings, or how you've revised your need for one source, as if your spiritual life were a trip to walmart.
personally, I find I'm no longer afraid to consider other points of view. I'm no longer afraid that if I don't hold fast to the one source and the vpw interpretation thereof, that the devil will get his claws in me and it'll be worse for me than if I was seed of the serpent. I'm just not afraid of those things anymore, and it's opened up huge warehouses of knowledge, a multitude of avenues of inquiry.
Potato,
Let me ask you a sincere question. Do you think that holding fast to faith in Jesus is equal to being afraid of looking at other points of view? You didn't say that. . . . so, I assume nothing here, :) I am just curious about the wording.
I went to 3 excellent and diverse colleges. . . . one of them a women's school. . . spent nearly year at Oxford and have met every kind of person imaginable. I have lived with a family from India who were Hindu. I have been lucky to travel a bit. . . . meet some well known figures. Hubby met the former president of South Africa. . . We have met more than one famous politician from both sides of the aisle. CEO's to homeless and prisoners.
While my daughter was growing up, she celebrated most Jewish Holy days at one time or another. My son, before he was homeschooled, went to an independent progressive school, which roots were based in the celebration of spiritual diversity. Meaning, each faith was equally explored and respected. He was surrounded by those of different faiths. . . in turn we were as well. He has been Bar Mitzvah's and Solstice celebrations. Hubby built a "sacred circle" once for a woman who wanted a place in her backyard to celebrate her faith and to display her Godesses. I sat in there with her as she explained to me all she was trying to express. More art than anything spiritual, but still, she believed it. I have been to Temple many times.
We have more than one gay friend. Hubby goes and shovels out our friends in the next town. . . they are older and disabled. . . a married lesbian couple. Friends.
I have shopped at Harrods and the Salvation Army. Had meals with very well known theologians and apologists. Coffee with Rabbis and visited Buddahist Monks. I have been to a monastary outside of Gloucester England. Celebrated Mass there. Heck, we even know a famous 60's icon. My mother practiced witchcraft when I was growing up. My father is an atheist who takes every opportunity to mock religion. We have worked hard on behalf of the persecuted church. Been to the UN.
We were friends with a Muslim family whose daughter was in grade school with my son. Well, until their son killed my other friends rabbit with acid. . . long story.
I was in a cult. :)
The list is long. I wonder if you think that because one holds fast to faith they are closed minded? It isn't a religion. It is not theology. It is not biblical principals. It is faith in a person.
Actual, real, and alive. It is similar to a marriage. It is a love relationship and a monogomous one at that. But, consider being happily wed, deeply in love, fufilled and nurtured, satisfied and complete. Also, assured and supplied for. . . lacking nothing because of this person. Think about being so loved everyday, known completely and still accepted. We all strive to be better people. . . right? Think about this person knowing exactly how to gently teach you to be better, and being able to work these lessons into your life. Think about a someone so close. . . He dwells in you. In your heart. Someone so perfect and shines so gloriously you actually worship this person. This person never grows cold to you or loses that love for you. He is faithful and perfect, and doesn't change. He always loves you and is always there. He brings you joy and comforts you in sorrow. He promises we can spend eternity with Him. That our relationship will never end. He promises to ready us for this.
Then think about how tempting it would be to shop around for something better. Especially if you already have and never found anything so perfect. It wouldn't be tempting. Not in the least. But, that doesn't mean you can't be friends with others, or love them. Who is going to be the ones you are very close to? The ones who also know Him. You are able to share the worship and adoration you have for Him with those who also know Him personally.
H equips us to love others by being so loved. This would mean, others of all backgrounds. Even those who persecute you.
If we have finally found that which satisfies that hunger in us. . . and He has proven Himself worthy of our faithfulness. . . by being faithful. . . . He has shown Himself and He is worthy. . . So worthy God has made Him Master over ALL things. . .such devotion and single-heartedness is not really out of line. . . . all the while I know my attempts to reciprocate pale in comparison to His. . . yet He accepts them. . . .and we commune. . . why would look anywhere else? Moreover, He will never become boring or disappointing or frustrating. . . because there is no greater treasure conceived than the Son of God.
My ability to savor this inexhaustible treasure is not even limited by my human weakness.
So, I am already spoken for. I don't have to look anymore. Just as the Father delights in His Son. . . so do we. We delight with God in His glory. Call me crazy. . . and it wouldn't be the first time :) but I am sticking with Jesus. . . He hasn't let me down yet!
Oh and Mark, this is what they show you in the churches you say the gospel is missing in. . . . sorry, but that is an amazing and misguided statement.
Oh and Mark, this is what they show you in the churches you say the gospel is missing in. . . . sorry, but that is an amazing and misguided statement.
Talking about amazing and misguided statements....
Did I miss something, or did Mark actually post that churches are "missing the gospel"?
Is it possible that you're so determined to keep away Mark's POV that you're not only hiding from anyone
who might teach you something you're not prepared to hear (like the Christians Mark mentioned without
even getting into names, but some are geniuses), but you're not even reading what Mark has written?
He said
Is it fair to categorize all Adventist churches as being like Coast to Coast or Amway, when one of their major tenets is the subject that was the very heart of Jesus Christ's gospel? This gospel has been conspicuously absent from a lot of preaching in other churches, even by their own admission.
Did he say "churches" (that is, churches as a whole) are "missing the gospel" (that is, the entire Good News)?"
If you can say "yes", then I can't help you.
If you can read it and realize the answer is "no", then it helps to know what he DID say.
He said that "a lot of preaching" (doesn't give a number of churches) "in other churches" (still doesn't give a number)
Have "this gospel" as "conspicuously absent", that is, they don't preach it when they preach.
Did he say "THE GOSPEL" was absent? No, not the entire "Gospel."
What then, did he mean was missing?
Scrolling back 1 post of his, we find
There are a number of Adventist churches with various views, but what most of them have in common is a belief that Jesus is going to return to earth and set up a kingdom. We don't want to lose sight of Jesus' gospel of the kingdom just because some of these churches preach things we disagree with, such as Sabbaterianism.
"A belief that Jesus is going to return to earth and set up a kingdom."
Is that Biblical?
Yes. Do you need some verses on it? I can post them on request.
John can read SDA materials and be exposed to them without special safety gloves.
Afterwards, he doesn't run out and embrace their doctrine- he's not a Sabbaterianist.
===============
You, I noticed, are completely unaware of there being non-twi writers who were both Biblical and
Unitarians, but won't even consider they may have something useful among their writings.
Mark:
Why, then do you not consider the writings of any Biblical Unitarian theologians? There are quite a few of them, but we never heard of them in TWI, because TWI had to have the "monopoly" on truth. But they did themselves a disservice (as well as everyone else) because so many ex-TWI came to think that things like the the Trinity being unbiblical, and the dead being unconscious, were TWI ideas and so rejected them. But in fact there have been many great Christian thinkers throughout the years who have questioned orthodox doctrines, and backed up their questioning with Scripture. It would be worth looking at their ideas, if only to see their errors and be strengthened in your faith, and be able to discuss their ideas knowledgeably. I have learned things from Trinitarian scholars, and don't refuse to listen to anything they say just because I disagree with them on some points.
You:
For me, this is unthinkable to ever consider again or return to. . .
So, if you were to read their writings, you would automatically convert to their position?
If that's true, then Mark's doctrine is correct and yours is false!
Mark can be exposed to doctrines he disagrees with, consider them, and go about his merry way.
If you, on the other hand, were exposed to doctrines Mark agrees with, you would find them so compelling
you would change your positions to match his.
Meanwhile, all this time you've been reading
I love reading, Spurgeon, Moody, Edwards, some of the Puritans, Piper, Ravi Zacharias, Chandler, C.S Lewis. . . . the list goes on and on. I don't rely on these men to guide me into all truth. . . that is the work of the Holy Spirit. Who glorifies the Lord.
Sounds like the Holy Spirit, according to you, is on the side of Mark's beliefs, not yours.
Otherwise, hundreds of hours of reading the other authors, plus the Holy Spirit's guidance,
would surely be a sufficient innoculation against reading a page or 2 from someone
who agrees with Mark.
Unless, of course, as soon as you do start reading, the Holy Spirit enlightens the eyes of
your understanding, and shows you that all your tightly-clenched beliefs are wrong, and
what you're reading NOW is correct.
I've been following the discussions, but I've been limiting my posting, because there's often a fine
line between debating, discussing, and harassing, and I'm doing my best not to cross that line.
So glad that is what you took away rom my heart felt and honest post.
Because I reject this doctrine and do not have any interest in reading the theology. . . I am hiding and possibly afraid I will be persuaded?
I was persuaded for over ten years. It holds no value to me. If it does to you. . . fine. . . I am not the judge.
I say we leave it up to the Lord to judge the intents of the heart.
A few posts on an ex-cult site, might not be the best indicator.
I won't judge you. . . you helped me with that. . . I would ask the same of you.
If I said anything that offended you. . . I am sorry. I just don't accept unitarian theology. I never will. If that means to you I am hiding. . . nothing I can do about that.
So glad that is what you took away from my heart felt and honest post.
Unlike some posters, I have never doubted your sincerity nor your honesty.
You type what you think and feel no matter what that is.
On the one hand, I find the candor refreshing.
Because I reject this doctrine and do not have any interest in reading the theology. . . I am hiding and possibly afraid I will be persuaded?
You're keen on reading every OTHER kind of Christian writer (among them some excellent choices),
and credit the Holy Spirit for your understanding.
However, one subject you "splunge" from (however you want to phrase it, it's the diametrically-opposed approach
you do to all the other writers. I used a placeholder word to make the sentence more neutral.)
If the Holy Spirit IS your guide, then the only possible consequence to be concerned about from
reading a page or two would be that the Holy Spirit would guide you TO it.
If you find the Holy Spirit guiding you TO a particular doctrine to be distasteful, I could easily see
why it would be a subject to be avoided at all costs.
Neither Mark nor myself said there was anything wrong with "REJECTING" this doctrine or any
other, BTW. I think we both respect your right to form your own conclusions as to doctrine even
if we disagree with your conclusions. (Not that Mark and I agree on everything, either, but we
seem able to respect our differences without calling down judgement on the other's position.
I was persuaded for over ten years. It holds no value to me. If it does to you. . . fine. . . I am not the judge.
I say we leave it up to the Lord to judge the intents of the heart.
A few posts on an ex-cult site, might not be the best indicator.
I won't judge you. . . you helped me with that. . . I would ask the same of you.
If I said anything that offended you. . . I am sorry. I just don't accept unitarian theology. I never will. If that means to you I am hiding. . . nothing I can do about that.
What doctrines you accept are between you, God, and (probably) whoever is nearest and dearest
in your life. Those of us on the other end of the internet are not likely to be them.
(We're certainly not you or God. :) )
My only disagreement was with your singling out ONE doctrine as "too dangerous to READ" while the others
all got a free pass. However, hey, your approaches to doctrine, Scripture, books about doctrine, and
anything else you read are not subject to my approval. We disagree on approaches just as we disagree
on doctrine. Personally, I'm MORE concerned about your APPROACH than about your DOCTRINE.
However, there's nothing I can do about that other than tell you I think it's unsafe, and that Mark
recommended a more sound approach. What you do with my opinion's up to you.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
74
42
33
32
Popular Days
Feb 2
66
Jan 30
53
Feb 1
50
Feb 3
23
Top Posters In This Topic
Mike 74 posts
waysider 42 posts
potato 33 posts
Bolshevik 32 posts
Popular Days
Feb 2 2009
66 posts
Jan 30 2009
53 posts
Feb 1 2009
50 posts
Feb 3 2009
23 posts
Popular Posts
potato
the snowstorm thread branches yet again... my question is: is it necessary in life to have one sole source for your rule of faith and practice? Mike seems to contend that everyone needs to have on
waysider
Would that include VP Wierwille? Would that include VP Wierwille?
geisha779
Wordwolf, So glad that is what you took away rom my heart felt and honest post. Because I reject this doctrine and do not have any interest in reading the theology. . . I am hiding and possibly afra
Posted Images
Spoudazo
I have to jump in here, even though I rarely post. I am constantly amazed by what can only be termed "bible worship"- we talk all day long and show off how much scripture we can quote and how much of the "class we remember, yet very little talk of our worship or love of the Savior who alone is only worthy of such accolades.
Don't get me wrong- I fell for it for many years while in TWI, and it took probably almost as many years of being out before I realized my error of my ways, so please accept this as coming from someone who all too well was living with the same mindset
Point#1- Psalm 138 2 was not God's commnd for us to magnify the Bible above God- like many Psalms, this directly dates to a specific period in David's life- 2Samuel 7 when God promised him an everlasting covenant with a descendant that would perfectly fulfil God's plan- a Redeemer- David in response cried I will magnify your word- your promise- your covenant above everything I have ever known about you.- Finally a Savior for the world- what could be more fantastic.
Point 2- Jn 5:39 Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees for their supposed great knowledge of the Bible and corrects them by saying"You search the Scriptures, yet they are they which testify of ME"- I am right in front of your eyes, and you can't see it- Even though the works I am doing were written where you are supposedly reading and have become such great masters of keys to Biblical interpretation
Point 3- Revelation 3 warns the Church of Ephesus of one specific sin- not that they neglected the word, or weren't walking in love , but thay left their FIRST love- Jesus himself. All the cold theology in the world no matter how "rightly divided" you think it is , does not make up for a rejection of the One who called you and saved you while you were dead in your sins.
Maybe that's why 1Timothy 3:16 says it is such a great mystery- even though He was manifest in the flesh...etc., etc
I just want to sy that I still search the Scriptures daily, but am so thankful that I now see the POINT of it all- not paper and ink, but a Savior who is expressed from cover to cover. Now when I read, I know what I am looking for- not somemore new or additional theology but, the reason why he Bible was penned in the first place--"To know Him- to be found in Him- to be pleasing to Him"
The bible is written for us. . . to keep our worship straight. . . Jesus is the word.
Edited by SpoudazoLink to comment
Share on other sites
potato
so would you bible folks say that the scriptures are your "only rule of faith and practice" as vpw taught?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Potato,
If there was a rally today outside TWI headquaters. . . you would see my face front and center. . . holding a sign that reads. . . "PFAL is the way to hell"
IMHO VPW did not teach the scriptures, He reworded them and twisted them to justify his own lusts and appetites.
Just look at what he did to people.
So, an emphatic NO is not loud enough to express my disdain for PFAL or for Victor Paul.
If you didn't guess . . . . the answer is no. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I've wondered for awhile why this has not happened, or at least something like it.
Usually the people that come by are literally off their meds . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
Yes.
No.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
with vpw it was "the word, the word, and nothing but the word". do you think he was right?
what's different for you? is it the way you approach the bible, the way you think about it, and do you consider ideas from other sources, other points of view on the same subjects?
since starting this thread, I've come to view the maintenance of my moral rule-set differently. rather than just walking away from the bible and trying to assess what I believe, I'm reading a lot and reconsidering my beliefs as I trip over them. that's why I claim to be agnostic, at least for now.
twi was such an intellectual no-man's land. being forced to give up every independent thought didn't make me a better thinker. excluding all influences except the bible didn't make me a better person.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
First of all, VPW didn't even get right what "the Word" was. We used it as a synonym for the Bible, when in fact the Bible itself doesn't refer to itself as "the Word." In the Bible, the written Scriptures are referred to as "the Scriptures" but "the Word" most often refers to the message that is communicated in the written Scriptures. The Word, in general, is the mind, plan, wisdom of God, and specifically the Gospel of the Kingdom (compare Mark 4:14 and Luke 8:11 with Matthew 13:18-19).
And of course, when the Word was made flesh, God's purpose and plan came into concretion in the person of His Son, Jesus Christ. He always did the Father's will, and was the perfect representation of God. He is also the King that was promised throughout the OT Prophecies who will come and judge the world, and rule it on God's behalf. And he also offered himself as the ultimate sacrifice so that we could have access to that Kingdom.
If you say his only rule of faith and practice was the written Scriptures, then that discounts all the teachings he did that went beyond the written Scriptures. He didn't contradict anything in the Law, but he often went beyond it, teaching about walking by the Spirit rather than the letter of the Law. I think it would be more accurate to say his only rule of faith and practice was the Word of God, which includes the written Scriptures but also so much more in God's mind and heart. He is the Prophet that Moses said God would raise up and put His Words in his mouth, and those words which Jesus spoke are the ultimate communication of "God's Word" which we must take heed to.
Yes, what's different for me is the way I approach it and think about it. I do consider other sources, other points of view, and I compare them with the overall message of the Bible. It is not wise to limit yourself to the views of one man or one group. When I consider someone's view that doesn't line up with the Scriptures, I can usually see the flaw in their logic, which I would not have seen had I not even considered their view. Looking at other opinions tends to strengthen my faith, and sharpen my understanding of the Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
thank you for the thoughtful reply, Mark.
your description of only rule of faith and practice is very different from vpw's, and I venture to say that the spiritual life you describe would be nearly impossible to accomplish if you were obedient to twi doctrine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spoudazo
For all of VP's slogans about the word, he in no way was a true "bible believer"- his immoral lifestyle is evidence of that. I think many people claim to be commited to the Bible only, but in far too many cases, they are only commited to a man's theology. Our commitment is to Jesus Christ.
What is different for me, is the reality of what God is saying thru dozens of different writers over a 1500 year period, authors living on different continents, writing in several languages about the promise of what man truly needs- a redeemer. Jesus.
In my opinion if anything other than Jesus Christ being the only rule for faith and practice is taught, it is another gospel or doctrines of demons . Once something such as Administrations or Kingdom theology or Numerology or Purpose Driven whatever is considered the glue that holds it all together, you now have something other than the gospel. You might as well be listening to Coast to Coast. It is just words.
Maybe this is why God had to silence Peter and shout from heaven "THIS is my beloved Son hear ye Him" Going on building more tabernacles or offshoots or supposed ministries is not what He intended.
Christianity is Christ centered. It is a relationship with the living God. Not with the book about Him. That is not to say the scriptures are not authoritative, they are, but our relationship is with the person of Jesus. How He evaluates each believer is what matters. I see no other choice, but depart from me I never knew you, or enter into the joy of the Lord.
It has to be possible to know Him and to be known by Him. That involves something much deeper than reading words on a page or doing a word study. Even working the "Greek." Why would anyone settle for head knowledge or intellectual assent when day to day life can be lived in His presence, guided by Him, and given to Him in service. Fellowship with the living God in a deeply personal way. There is nothing hidden from His eyes, yet we stand before Him in love. Giving ourselves over to Him and His Lordship and transforming work. That is the biblical reality of the abundant life.
Rooted and built up in Him as the truth is in Jesus.
To sum up: What is different for me now is no longer the bible, the bible, the bible, although I love and search it, it is about the word made flesh. Jesus, that is my first love.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Spoudazo,
I will say,
Jesus Christ,
I know nothing about the guy. . .
But can you tell me how many people he died between?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
I'm not sure what you mean by "kingdom theology," but if by that you mean the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom, then it concerns me that you lump it together with "Administrations ... or Numerology or Purpose Driven whatever" and compare it to what one would hear on Coast to Coast. The message of the kingdom is what Jesus preached, and commanded us to preach. You are correct when you say that something that doesn't focus on Jesus Christ is another gospel. But what was Jesus all about? If we are his followers, we should be proclaiming the same message he did, rather than a different gospel.
All of them!
;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Let's not forget that the young Jesus, at 12 years old, was found in the temple disputing/discussing with the learned folk there. He listened and learned from them. He engaged his critical thinking and pointed out flaws in their arguments. And probably accepted some of what they knew. He learned from his mother Mary, his foster father Joseph, the rabbis, scribes and whoever at the local synagogue, the people around him; and he studied the scriptures by whatever means was available to him, whether written or oral.
That he engaged people more learned than him in discussion is an example we also should be following. We probe for flaws, fit what they say together with what we already know. That way, we can learn. Iron sharpens iron, yes? Sword of the spirit, yes?
Actually, what sharpens iron? A whetstone. Ironstone. Something harder and more resistant than itself.
VPW discouraged dispute, discussion, another point of view. Our critical thinking abilities were squished and our sensitivities deadened. Instead of looking at other Christian thinkers' points of view, they were treated as if they were stumbling blocks. The scriptures were wrongly used and we were discouraged from other considerations, other theologians, other interpretations. The scriptures themselves can be a whetstone to keep us sharp, but only if we use them correctly. And that means understanding them correctly.
We became blunt instruments, not sharp "on the Word" or spiritually sharp. We were dull and blunt in our thinking and dull and blunt in dealing with other people. Our "spiritual sharpness" was fashioned into another weapon, a blunt instrument more like a cudgel, and we could hit anyone who didn't agree with us with claiming they were devil spirit possessed.
A whetstone is used by stroking a knife gently along the edge of the whetstone, removing molecules of the knife blade little by little until the blade is sharp. By contrast the Rock of the scriptures became something to beat against in a sort of full frontal assault, thereby dulling the edge.
There is sooo much to learn, to be reminded of, by discussing with other Christians. And - dare I say it - with non-Christians, too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I love the scriptures, I love searching them. I do love reading theology, my favorite is reformed theolgy, but I will look at different things. I love reading, Spurgeon, Moody, Edwards, some of the Puritans, Piper, Ravi Zacharias, Chandler, C.S Lewis. . . . the list goes on and on. I don't rely on these men to guide me into all truth. . . that is the work of the Holy Spirit. Who glorifies the Lord.
I don't think all other faiths are without any truth. That is silly, but now I just consider that all real truth belongs to God.
I do approach the bible differently now. I don't like to quote long passages, but in this case it is helpful to explain. . . .
You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, recognized and read by everyone, since it is plain that you are Christ's letter, produced by us, not written with ink but with the Spirit of the living God; not on stone tablets but on tablets that are hearts of flesh.
4 We have this kind of confidence toward God through Christ: 5 not that we are competent in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our competence is from God. 6 He has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit produces life.
13 not like Moses, who used to put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel could not look at the end of what was fading away. 14 But their minds were closed. For to this day, at the reading of the old covenant, the same veil remains; it is not lifted, because it is set aside [only] in Christ. 15 However, to this day, whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their hearts, 16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 We all, with unveiled faces, are reflecting the glory of the Lord and are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory; this is from the Lord who is the Spirit.
In many ways, I believe we were similarly blinded, by a code of religious beliefs. . . it is actually much worse than that. . . but I will spare you :)
It is about Jesus now. It is about a relationship with Him. Personal and in love. . . .only His judgement matters. It is a spiritual communion.
It was when I turned to the Lord and not "the word, the word, and nothing but the word" that the veil was lifted. My life is in subjection to Him. . . the person of Jesus. . . . alive and real. . . . not someone's take on the bible.
How I approach the scripture now, is in light of Him. The Holy Spirit reveals Him. . . guides to Him. . .unfolds Him in the verses.
Jesus does the transforming. . . the work. . . I submit to Him. That is why you often hear Christians say, I gave my life over to the Lord. I can't transform myself alone. . . renew my mind into heaven. . . .I actually did confess Him as Lord in my heart post TWI.
Not just use His name and move on to the "Meat". . . or the hidden knowledge, present truth, or some man's revelation of snow on gas pumps.
If it is not about Him. . . it isn't about anything. If He is not known to us. . . we are not known by Him. That means. . . who He really is.
I didn't know Jesus before TWI and certainly didn't learn the truth about Him there. . . that is how I got tricked. I turned to the "Word" as taught by VP. . . not to the Lord Himself.
For me the difference is Him in the reality of His presence and person. He alone is worthy. . . consider in Revelation 5 when the angel cried out. . . who is worthy to open the scroll and break the seals. . . the answer came back. . . look the Lion of the tribe of Judah The root of David. . . has conquered, so He can open the scroll.
He alone is worthy in God's eyes to open the scrolls of history and unfold the last days. I too have my faith in Him. He is how we know God.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spoudazo
Exactly!
Mark Clarke,
I was speaking of Adventist and Sabbatarian churches. A broad brush stroke. I hope this clears it up for you. Thanks for your concern.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
First of all, Right on, Twinky!!!
Second...
Why, then do you not consider the writings of any Biblical Unitarian theologians? There are quite a few of them, but we never heard of them in TWI, because TWI had to have the "monopoly" on truth. But they did themselves a disservice (as well as everyone else) because so many ex-TWI came to think that things like the the Trinity being unbiblical, and the dead being unconscious, were TWI ideas and so rejected them. But in fact there have been many great Christian thinkers throughout the years who have questioned orthodox doctrines, and backed up their questioning with Scripture. It would be worth looking at their ideas, if only to see their errors and be strengthened in your faith, and be able to discuss their ideas knowledgeably. I have learned things from Trinitarian scholars, and don't refuse to listen to anything they say just because I disagree with them on some points.
And third...
That's part of the disadvantage of using broad brush strokes. There are a number of Adventist churches with various views, but what most of them have in common is a belief that Jesus is going to return to earth and set up a kingdom. We don't want to lose sight of Jesus' gospel of the kingdom just because some of these churches preach things we disagree with, such as Sabbaterianism.
Edited by Mark ClarkeLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Mark,
Thanks, I appreciate the concern and the critique of my study habits. I don't wish to be offensive in anyway, truly, but I am not interested in biblical unitarian theology. I understand this is your belief. This reflects your understanding of scripture and who you believe Jesus really is. . . .
For me, this is unthinkable to ever consider again or return to. . . I know you don't understand why. . . but trust me when I say. . . I could NEVER deny the deity of Jesus again. You have my permission to pat me on the head. . . .and consider me doing "the best I can." :)
I am glad that you read Christian theologians. . . . that is great. I hope you continue to do so. I hope you find the time to read some Johnathan Edwards. . .
DL Moody is another wonderful minister and was an amazing evangelist. The number of souls saved are countless in part due to this man's understanding of the redeeming work of Christ alone. He had no theological credentials, but He did have an unwavering commitment to Jesus Christ. This is a man whose life bore real fruit. This is the type of Christian I now read.
As an aside we used to care for his grave site. . . it was an honor. My daughter graduated from a school he founded.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Spoudazo
Thank you for pointing out the disadvantage of my broad brushstroke answer also thank you for telling me what I should not lose sight of as you know me so well. I have rarely posted here, yet somehow you feel the need to remind me of my Christian duty.
Again, you might as well be listening to Coast to Coast or in an Amway seminar as attending one of these churches.
That is my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
seriously, I didn't want this to become the evangelical hour or a comparison of who's brand of christianity is most accurate. it was more about vpw's charge to make the scripture your "only rule of faith of practice", something I actually got tired of hearing regurgitated on this board. I'm still interested in how people have moved beyond vpw's teachings, or how you've revised your need for one source, as if your spiritual life were a trip to walmart.
personally, I find I'm no longer afraid to consider other points of view. I'm no longer afraid that if I don't hold fast to the one source and the vpw interpretation thereof, that the devil will get his claws in me and it'll be worse for me than if I was seed of the serpent. I'm just not afraid of those things anymore, and it's opened up huge warehouses of knowledge, a multitude of avenues of inquiry.
Edited by potatoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Clarke
For me, it's not about arguing whose brand of Christianity is most accurate. It's about knowing why one believes something. In the Way we were taught that the Word, as taught in PFAL, was "our only rule of faith and practice." To consider anything else was to open our minds to deception and possible possession. I forget whose, but somebody here has a signature line that quotes from Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom: "The most successful tyranny is not the one that uses force to assure uniformity but the one that removes the awareness of other possibilities, that makes it seem inconceivable that other ways are viable, that removes the sense that there is an outside."
After going through a crisis of faith several years back, I realized that while I believed certain things, I could not articulate why I believed them. After much searching and praying and considering various viewpoints, I can now articulate what I believe and why I believe it. And it's not because of any superior ability to study theology. It's because God made it really simple, and it's only when people inject foreign ideas into the mix that it becomes complicated. Like Potato, I'm no longer afraid to consider other points of view.
That's why I enjoy discussing theology of all kinds. It helps me to articulate my beliefs, and the reasons for them. When other people do the same, I either agree with them or see the reason why I disagree. I hate to say it, Geisha, but if you can't (or choose not to) explain why you believe something, and refuse to even look at another viewpoint (which doesn't mean you have to accept it or agree with it), then how is that any different from Mike? He makes assertions based on his beliefs too, and refuses to address direct, logical questions about apparent contradictions. There is a huge difference in the source of your beliefs and his, but sadly not in your methodology.
And Spoudazo, you're right, I don't know you, and was not suggesting anything about your Christian duty. I meant no offense, but was just making a statement regarding what you posted. Is it fair to categorize all Adventist churches as being like Coast to Coast or Amway, when one of their major tenets is the subject that was the very heart of Jesus Christ's gospel? This gospel has been conspicuously absent from a lot of preaching in other churches, even by their own admission.
But like I said, I enjoy looking at and discussing other viewpoints, which gets me into discussions that are usually more appropriate for the Doctrinal Forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
I was not afraid to have another viewpoint. What I was afraid to do was say it out loud. One didn't dare say one had a different take on a verse or concept. Once I was out of TWI, talking and arguing about doctrine became like the "endless geneologies" of the bible. I found I was placing far too much value on doctrine and not simply keeping it simple. I don't do that anymore. Recently, I find myself getting annoyed when there's too much focus on how correct the Christian religion is and how superior it is to other religions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Potato,
Let me ask you a sincere question. Do you think that holding fast to faith in Jesus is equal to being afraid of looking at other points of view? You didn't say that. . . . so, I assume nothing here, :) I am just curious about the wording.
I went to 3 excellent and diverse colleges. . . . one of them a women's school. . . spent nearly year at Oxford and have met every kind of person imaginable. I have lived with a family from India who were Hindu. I have been lucky to travel a bit. . . . meet some well known figures. Hubby met the former president of South Africa. . . We have met more than one famous politician from both sides of the aisle. CEO's to homeless and prisoners.
While my daughter was growing up, she celebrated most Jewish Holy days at one time or another. My son, before he was homeschooled, went to an independent progressive school, which roots were based in the celebration of spiritual diversity. Meaning, each faith was equally explored and respected. He was surrounded by those of different faiths. . . in turn we were as well. He has been Bar Mitzvah's and Solstice celebrations. Hubby built a "sacred circle" once for a woman who wanted a place in her backyard to celebrate her faith and to display her Godesses. I sat in there with her as she explained to me all she was trying to express. More art than anything spiritual, but still, she believed it. I have been to Temple many times.
We have more than one gay friend. Hubby goes and shovels out our friends in the next town. . . they are older and disabled. . . a married lesbian couple. Friends.
I have shopped at Harrods and the Salvation Army. Had meals with very well known theologians and apologists. Coffee with Rabbis and visited Buddahist Monks. I have been to a monastary outside of Gloucester England. Celebrated Mass there. Heck, we even know a famous 60's icon. My mother practiced witchcraft when I was growing up. My father is an atheist who takes every opportunity to mock religion. We have worked hard on behalf of the persecuted church. Been to the UN.
We were friends with a Muslim family whose daughter was in grade school with my son. Well, until their son killed my other friends rabbit with acid. . . long story.
I was in a cult. :)
The list is long. I wonder if you think that because one holds fast to faith they are closed minded? It isn't a religion. It is not theology. It is not biblical principals. It is faith in a person.
Actual, real, and alive. It is similar to a marriage. It is a love relationship and a monogomous one at that. But, consider being happily wed, deeply in love, fufilled and nurtured, satisfied and complete. Also, assured and supplied for. . . lacking nothing because of this person. Think about being so loved everyday, known completely and still accepted. We all strive to be better people. . . right? Think about this person knowing exactly how to gently teach you to be better, and being able to work these lessons into your life. Think about a someone so close. . . He dwells in you. In your heart. Someone so perfect and shines so gloriously you actually worship this person. This person never grows cold to you or loses that love for you. He is faithful and perfect, and doesn't change. He always loves you and is always there. He brings you joy and comforts you in sorrow. He promises we can spend eternity with Him. That our relationship will never end. He promises to ready us for this.
Then think about how tempting it would be to shop around for something better. Especially if you already have and never found anything so perfect. It wouldn't be tempting. Not in the least. But, that doesn't mean you can't be friends with others, or love them. Who is going to be the ones you are very close to? The ones who also know Him. You are able to share the worship and adoration you have for Him with those who also know Him personally.
H equips us to love others by being so loved. This would mean, others of all backgrounds. Even those who persecute you.
If we have finally found that which satisfies that hunger in us. . . and He has proven Himself worthy of our faithfulness. . . by being faithful. . . . He has shown Himself and He is worthy. . . So worthy God has made Him Master over ALL things. . .such devotion and single-heartedness is not really out of line. . . . all the while I know my attempts to reciprocate pale in comparison to His. . . yet He accepts them. . . .and we commune. . . why would look anywhere else? Moreover, He will never become boring or disappointing or frustrating. . . because there is no greater treasure conceived than the Son of God.
My ability to savor this inexhaustible treasure is not even limited by my human weakness.
So, I am already spoken for. I don't have to look anymore. Just as the Father delights in His Son. . . so do we. We delight with God in His glory. Call me crazy. . . and it wouldn't be the first time :) but I am sticking with Jesus. . . He hasn't let me down yet!
Oh and Mark, this is what they show you in the churches you say the gospel is missing in. . . . sorry, but that is an amazing and misguided statement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Talking about amazing and misguided statements....
Did I miss something, or did Mark actually post that churches are "missing the gospel"?
Is it possible that you're so determined to keep away Mark's POV that you're not only hiding from anyone
who might teach you something you're not prepared to hear (like the Christians Mark mentioned without
even getting into names, but some are geniuses), but you're not even reading what Mark has written?
He said
Did he say "churches" (that is, churches as a whole) are "missing the gospel" (that is, the entire Good News)?"
If you can say "yes", then I can't help you.
If you can read it and realize the answer is "no", then it helps to know what he DID say.
He said that "a lot of preaching" (doesn't give a number of churches) "in other churches" (still doesn't give a number)
Have "this gospel" as "conspicuously absent", that is, they don't preach it when they preach.
Did he say "THE GOSPEL" was absent? No, not the entire "Gospel."
What then, did he mean was missing?
Scrolling back 1 post of his, we find
"A belief that Jesus is going to return to earth and set up a kingdom."
Is that Biblical?
Yes. Do you need some verses on it? I can post them on request.
John can read SDA materials and be exposed to them without special safety gloves.
Afterwards, he doesn't run out and embrace their doctrine- he's not a Sabbaterianist.
===============
You, I noticed, are completely unaware of there being non-twi writers who were both Biblical and
Unitarians, but won't even consider they may have something useful among their writings.
Mark:
You:
So, if you were to read their writings, you would automatically convert to their position?
If that's true, then Mark's doctrine is correct and yours is false!
Mark can be exposed to doctrines he disagrees with, consider them, and go about his merry way.
If you, on the other hand, were exposed to doctrines Mark agrees with, you would find them so compelling
you would change your positions to match his.
Meanwhile, all this time you've been reading
Sounds like the Holy Spirit, according to you, is on the side of Mark's beliefs, not yours.
Otherwise, hundreds of hours of reading the other authors, plus the Holy Spirit's guidance,
would surely be a sufficient innoculation against reading a page or 2 from someone
who agrees with Mark.
Unless, of course, as soon as you do start reading, the Holy Spirit enlightens the eyes of
your understanding, and shows you that all your tightly-clenched beliefs are wrong, and
what you're reading NOW is correct.
I've been following the discussions, but I've been limiting my posting, because there's often a fine
line between debating, discussing, and harassing, and I'm doing my best not to cross that line.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Wordwolf,
So glad that is what you took away rom my heart felt and honest post.
Because I reject this doctrine and do not have any interest in reading the theology. . . I am hiding and possibly afraid I will be persuaded?
I was persuaded for over ten years. It holds no value to me. If it does to you. . . fine. . . I am not the judge.
I say we leave it up to the Lord to judge the intents of the heart.
A few posts on an ex-cult site, might not be the best indicator.
I won't judge you. . . you helped me with that. . . I would ask the same of you.
If I said anything that offended you. . . I am sorry. I just don't accept unitarian theology. I never will. If that means to you I am hiding. . . nothing I can do about that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Unlike some posters, I have never doubted your sincerity nor your honesty.
You type what you think and feel no matter what that is.
On the one hand, I find the candor refreshing.
You're keen on reading every OTHER kind of Christian writer (among them some excellent choices),
and credit the Holy Spirit for your understanding.
However, one subject you "splunge" from (however you want to phrase it, it's the diametrically-opposed approach
you do to all the other writers. I used a placeholder word to make the sentence more neutral.)
If the Holy Spirit IS your guide, then the only possible consequence to be concerned about from
reading a page or two would be that the Holy Spirit would guide you TO it.
If you find the Holy Spirit guiding you TO a particular doctrine to be distasteful, I could easily see
why it would be a subject to be avoided at all costs.
Neither Mark nor myself said there was anything wrong with "REJECTING" this doctrine or any
other, BTW. I think we both respect your right to form your own conclusions as to doctrine even
if we disagree with your conclusions. (Not that Mark and I agree on everything, either, but we
seem able to respect our differences without calling down judgement on the other's position.
What doctrines you accept are between you, God, and (probably) whoever is nearest and dearest
in your life. Those of us on the other end of the internet are not likely to be them.
(We're certainly not you or God. :) )
My only disagreement was with your singling out ONE doctrine as "too dangerous to READ" while the others
all got a free pass. However, hey, your approaches to doctrine, Scripture, books about doctrine, and
anything else you read are not subject to my approval. We disagree on approaches just as we disagree
on doctrine. Personally, I'm MORE concerned about your APPROACH than about your DOCTRINE.
However, there's nothing I can do about that other than tell you I think it's unsafe, and that Mark
recommended a more sound approach. What you do with my opinion's up to you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.