Brief P.S. It's almost midnight and I have another ten hour work day ahead of me tomorrow. No doubt many responses will be posted before I am able to reply. Please don't misinterpret these long gaps of mine as arrogance or disinterest. I just don't have as much time during the week to post.
And I have a lot more verses to offer that I haven't had time to mention yet, and I've probably done a disservice by only lighting skimming the surface on what I have posted. Please take some time and look into this patiently and seriously.
Check out the context and usage of the words, fall, offence, stumble, and stumblingstone.
Look at all the occurences of the phrase eternal life in the New Testament (or the word aionion) and see how many of them have statements in the immediate context that indicate faithfulness and good works.
Look at the Biblical usage of the words "inherit, inheritance" and the parables about the kingdom. Count how many indicate receiving all of this by grace alone and how many indicate receiving by faithfulness.
And finally, ask yourself what does the Bible REALLY SAY about being born again?f Not what the audiotape in your head says, not what you've been taught over and over again in twig, but what the Scripture actually says. I think you will find, if you approach this honestly, and methodically, that much of what we believe about salvation is not what's actually written in the Bible, but what we've been taught about what's written. Try to read it without the pre-recorded internal commentary and see what jumps out at you.
Please accept my apology for lumping you into the same category as Vince Finnegan. It is evident that you have arrived at the position you hold now through much painstaking study.
With that said, I still disagree with your conclusion. You mentioned that Christianity is not a free ride to eternal life on the back on the Messiah. The first scripture that I recalled after reading that was the one that says that Jesus is the Author andFinisher
of our faith.
I also see many of the verses that you use in support of your thesis are taken from Hebrews and other epistles that were not written specifically to the church of grace.
I guess the biggest problem that I have with the grace plus works formula for salvation is that God desires that we walk in His ways from a heart filled with love rather than fear. Inherent in the notion of a state of Grace that is subject to recall is fear.
Another verse that comes to mind is that the gifts and callings of God are without repentance.
This is a debate that can go on ad nauseaum much like the trinitarian / unitarian debate. The point I tried to engage readers on in another thread that I started is...are these theological chess matches something that God wants us to major in...or would it be experiencing His supreme love and ministering it to a perishing world for which He so loved that He gave His only begotten Son?
From my doctrinal weirdo perspective...my thoughts at the moment at least.
new wine/old skins -
perhaps where Christians are at in the present?
we can only patch up these old bodies of ours so much. There will come a time in the future for each of us when new wine must be poured into new skins.
I find it interesting that Paul in 1 Cor.5, where he suggests surrendering the flesh of a fornicator over to destruction, "that the spirit might be saved (or "enlivened") in the day of the Lord Jesus." It is a very peculiar section.
I doubt we can harmonize all the material in the Bible on this topic. I agree, Jerry, that the truth might very well lie somewhere in the middle.
My belief is that whenever two extreme opinions are debated back and forth with equal vehemence by good people, it's becaause the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Ain't that the truth Jerry!
Not to put too fine a point on it, but not so much in the middle as the truth lies in both positions.
Reminds me of the conundrum (and fight) between the doctrine of election/predestination Calvinists & the staunch freewill Arminians. I've come to the conclusion that their conradictory positions are both right, in a way, but each is only looking at the picture from one angle.
This thread is a perfect microcosm of biblical doctrinal wrangling. Everybody pulls out their dueling Bibles and starts firing scriptures at each other. "See (dummy) that's what BieBull says." I love it when people start saying "MY Bible says...".
As an aside, HCW, the author of I John was the Lord's brother? I always thought it was John, the brother of James the Elder (the one Herod killed), aka, St. John the Divine.
Ya know, I always have to go back to the simple things. God is Love. The uneducated can get to know the way as well as those who have studied for long periods of time.
Jerry, your questions are valid, and your studies have produced many more questions.
Man's little ole brain will never be able to make it all fit together. It takes the Lord himself to show the way.
You have to be a little flexible for Him to work.
You say this means that or this means this and have come to conclude certain things. It could have a little bit of a different message when seen in a new light.
Many are Strong in the knowledge of the scriptures but have not seen it. Not that I've seen it all but I've seen enough to know that what is on the surface of certain scriptures is not what the truth of the matter is. While on the surface of it, there is no lie, within it, with God opening our eyes to it, lies a greater true meaning.
This is why the word of life is so well protected. The Lord has to be the one to open our eyes of understanding.
I hope you find the answers you are looking for. Go beyond that which you can see in scriptures. Meaning where did these people, including Jesus, get these words in the first place.
One of the biggest points I was trying to make is that this debate is NOT new, Its been raging on since the first century. The debate continues, and like someone above stated, people basically settle into camps.
In my view, the self-serving aspect of VF's current view would be in using "uneathed truths" to gain followers. To pull people into "his camp" is, in my view, self serving.
There are several ex-way groups that have now gone back and put themselves under O.T. law - including VF's group. I think it is a logical extension of legalism.
Under CG, VF became extremely legalistic for years. If you have repudiated God's grace and Christ's redemption in the here and now, the only place left is to go back to the law.
Mankind is a fallen race. Its that simple. Mankind needed a Savior. We will not lose our new birth if we sin.
Paul explained this when in Romans he talks about - who shall deliver me from this dead body? He then sums it up by saying, there is therefore now NO condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus. If you read the context, he is contrasting our old "natural man" with the spiritual man.
Paul is saying that even though we have a sin nature and it continues to sin, that because of God's grace and Christ's sacrifice - there is therefore now no condemnation to us because we are fallen and have a sin nature. I.e., we are not condemned because we have this sin nature. Why? because it is our nature. It cannot be changed until Christ changes us.
Its like, my cat. He is the essence of Cat. His nature is cat. For me to train him and try and get him to become more like me, human, is an exercise in futility. His NATURE is cat. Our nature is human - not just human, but fallen human. We can no more become like Christ by following law, renewing our minds, or whatever else you would like to do to ensure your salvation.
Salvation is a gift - it is by grace - period. We were washed by Christ's sacrified blood when nothing - absolutely nothing - could cleanse us.
For those who have tasted the grace of God, to turn back leads to bondage. As Paul so eloquently wrote, the veil is over their eyes again. They cannot see.
To negate Christ's sacrifice, which is what they are doing, to cause people doubt about their salvation, and teach this to others is, well, I don't know what word to use - it is tragic.
I think its cool how we've at least had it "mentioned" here the THREE basic camps. For ease of communication and civility, can we term them?
A. Saved by grace = once saved, always saved = OSAS.
B. Saved, but work to keep it = SBWK.
And. Those who just live & don't worry about it. The Bible does speak of those who, though they were with out the law, did the things contained in the law and therefore became a law unto themselves. I don't have a catchy acronymn for that one :)--> maybe we could say DWBH or; "Don't worry (about it) BE happy. (???)
If anyone has a better acronym, by all means, feel free to throw it out, we can come to a consensus.
At any rate, I brought the epistle of John stuff (not really sure which John ;)-->) in because most of it is equally ignored by the Christian church in its entirety. Sure they pull out the part about "If we confess our sins..." and at least the word, "antichrist." Its pretty much ignored.
I put a LOT of study into the epistle of John, following rabbit trails, word studies on "beginning" & stuff life that. It was really cool, helped me settle on positions of lots of things, actually.
I don't have a whole lot of energy to debate this but a good Bible discussion topic is always on my radar, as I DON'T (as in strongly) believe I know it all, or even very much of it when it come to the Bible.
Personally, I've been reviewing EVERYTHING, absolutely everything we were taught in TWI since I was fired from TWI staff in August of '88. I just didn't trust ANYTHING they had taught us, because of how they TREATED me. My study of John helped me SO much to reconcile how they could BE Christians when they ACTed so much like evil people.
I've expanded my viewpoint from TWI teachings to the contemporary Chistian Church to the entire Judeo Christian ethic to worldwide Chirstian views to a global perspective on God in general. In so doing, its been interesting to discover where & when idologies began and who began them.
I'm not an expert, by any means and I haven't done it to be able to stand & give symposiums type speeches on this stuff, but I have formulated what I feel are scripturally educated opinions. I try to base them on a global view of both the scriptures and what I think I see as God's intent on this subject.
That's a beautiful explanation, Sunesis, and I come down solidly on your position.
That said, some groups who do the "saved by grace/kept by works thing" solidly affirm, abetted by voluminous spriptural backup (of course) that the only way for Christ's nature to manifest in a person is by the inworking of the Holy Spirit bringing out the new & different nature of Christ, not by changing the person. So, they've come to a place of harmonizing their beliefs with grace.
Now, to me, if there are works involved, grace is no longer grace. But it is a big book, and the honestly I look at it, the less I realize I know. But I will say that, practically, for me, dying to the old self & yielding to Christ (and having Him live through me) has been the most satisfactory & reliable path for me to walk the way I hope to.
In other words, I've tried to study this stuff from a clean perspective, not just rehash TWI doctrines, or fall into the doctrines of other religious groups because I was ignorant to them.
Like Sunesis said, its simple.
God originally wanted mankind to have life, so He gave it to Adam, mankind (he was the only guy around :)--> .
Satan, as the father of lies and author of death "killed" mankind ( he was mad at God .
Jesus, the second Adam, mankind, paid the price, to both regain the life the first Adam lost, and redeem him from the penalty of sin, which is to spend eternity in eternal torment.
God redeemed us cause he wanted us to LIVE with Him.
I've come to discover, simply by reading the Bible, that ALL human soul-life is eternal. At this point in history we will either spend eternity (NOT floating around in heaven) living in our new bodies in the "third" heaven & Earth OR in the fiery pit of eternal torment, with the weeping and gnashing of teeth thing - like eternally; with lucifer & his angels.
We have known, all of Christendom has ALWAYS known that ALL life is eternal. Perhaps its where the concept came from that has spawned the "purgetory concepts" of Roman Catholicism, as well as reincarnation concepts. It is CLEAR that the Bible teaches our soul is eternal. The dead in Christ do rise, right?
It just isn't that complicated. God is light, in Him is NO darkness at all. HE wanted to give us life, HE redeemed us from death & eternal torment AND gives US the opportunity to earn rewards. THEN he warns us to stay away from people who WON'T be going where we are going, because if we do what THEY do WE will lose our rewards.
Under CG, VF became extremely legalistic for years. If you have repudiated God's grace and Christ's redemption in the here and now, the only place left is to go back to the law.
I didn't have this experience at all. I thought it was quite the opposite: one CG was out of the picture, and only when CG was out of the picture, VF began dropping TWI doctrines like hot potatoes: pre-trib rapture, dispensationalism, and "once saved always saved," for lack of a better term.
Sorry Raf - I should have clarified. I was with him when I was in NYC for 9 years. I watched him get quite hard and almost illogical. I am speaking '80s and '90s here. I can't speak for recent years. From people who know people who follow him now, he's gotten very into the O.T., law, etc. I guess Ga*y G**lin leads the way with VF in this type of teaching.
There are other groups who for some reason think we now need to be living under the law. To me, its a repudiation of everything Christ came to do and did for us.
Under CG, VF became extremely legalistic for years. If you have repudiated God's grace and Christ's redemption in the here and now, the only place left is to go back to the law.
I didn't have this experience at all. I thought it was quite the opposite: one CG was out of the picture, and only when CG was out of the picture, VF began dropping TWI doctrines like hot potatoes: pre-trib rapture, dispensationalism, and "once saved always saved," for lack of a better term.
Both of these positions sound similar to me. I can see how you both would say what you did.
I'm wondering, what did VF replace "pre-trib rapture, dispensationalism" with?
The "gathering together" is indistinguishable from the first resurrection, aka the resurrection of the just.
quote:
When Jesus returns, the resurrection of the just will take place in which all the believers who have died will be raised again. The believers who are alive at his coming will be transformed simultaneously with the resurrected ones (Matthew 24:31; I Corinthians 15:23; I Thessalonians 4:16 and 17). At this time all the believers, both living and dead, will receive new immortal bodies. He will establish the millennial Kingdom on earth (Revelations 20:1-6) and bring about the restoration of the earth which was promised by the prophets and apostles (Acts 1:6; 3:21; 26:6 and 7).
Dispensational theology was replaced with, apparently, covenant theology (Steve Lortz can correct me if I'm misusing either term):
quote:
Jesus fulfilled the old covenant (given at Mount Sinai) and thereby brought it to a close (Matthew 5:17-20; Romans 10:4). He began a new covenant which will be fulfilled when he returns. Man's responsibility to the covenant is to obey the words of our Lord recorded in the New Testament Scriptures (Hebrews 8:7-13; 10:15-39).
Actually Raf, covenant theology connects the old and new testaments so that the promise to Abraham is still in effect.
That promise motivates a lot of Christians to the mission field.
As others have said, this issue is not new, so VF's claims, like all of the minor sects of unearthing hidden knowledge is really a ruse to make them look special. VPW did it, so it is no real surprise that VF does it.
Where do you want the power and praise to go? To God or yourself?
And I think it's a bit presumptuous to say he wants the glory to go to himself. That's all.
If Jerry Barrax can honestly look at the scriptures and honestly come to this conclusion, why can't VF? Why do his motives have to be questioned, or worse, automatically impugned? It's a ruse? Why? Was it a ruse when he decided there was no "law" of believing? Would it be a "ruse" if he adopted the trinity? Why is it a ruse, rather than coming to a different conclusion from what he previously believed? If Jerry Barrax can do it, why can't VF?
What I see here is a lot of people who have problems with the VF they knew in TWI and imposing those perceptions on decisions he made years after they lost contact with him (with the apparent exception of sunesis).
I'm obviously biased, because I've seen the tears that have come out of that man's eyes when he talks about some of the things he did in the past. To see people who have not heard a word from him since the 1980s declare with certainty that his change of doctrine is self-serving strikes me as unfair. If you want to challenge the doctrine, go ahead. But to read into his motives when you haven't seen anything about the man for more than 15 years...?
I'm not saying "I'm right and you're wrong." I am saying that there's no way you can, with certainty, say some of the things that have been said here. It's not right, IMO.
If Jerry Barrax can honestly look at the scriptures and honestly come to this conclusion, why can't VF? Why do his motives have to be questioned, or worse, automatically impugned? It's a ruse? Why? Was it a ruse when he decided there was no "law" of believing? Would it be a "ruse" if he adopted the trinity? Why is it a ruse, rather than coming to a different conclusion from what he previously believed? If Jerry Barrax can do it, why can't VF?
That's one of the standard practices of folks who want to automatically dismiss any opposing viewpoints, Raf. And that's no matter which 'side'.
Question the motivation or morality of the dissenter, and any validity of his views, whatever they may be, are diminished (or the accuser would hope so) in the eyes of those hearing him.
Where in the heck is Garth's rational logic when you need it :)-->
Why even a thesaurus could help you figure out some scriptures. Take "children of disobedience" for instance. "children" could be or mean "offspring". Sheesh, stop being so literal and use your imagination a little bit, God gave it to you.
There are a few differing beliefs that I know of on when things like the gathering and resurrections happen and what they actually are.
And like you said JBarrax, some scriptures have been ignored. I can think of one whole book of the bible that was put on the "does not apply today" list, besides the gospels even.
Lots of great posts and thoughts here. It's nice to see a reasoned, civil discussion of such a touchy Biblical subject. :-)
I just wanted to point out something that crossed my mind as I reviewed some of these verses this morning. Sunesis said,
quote:
There are other groups who for some reason think we now need to be living under the law. To me, its a repudiation of everything Christ came to do and did for us.
There is a difference between believing in conditional salvation and "living under the law". Living under the law literally means continuing to be bound to the sacrifices of the Mosaic covenant. The keeping of the Sabbath, etc. That's not what I'm advocating, and, as I see it, that's not what Paul advocated. The two extreme camps in Paul's day were the Pharisees, lead by James the Lord's brother, who believed that they still needed to keep the Law of Moses, and the licentious factions on the other who thought nothing of attending pagan feasts and consorting with temple prostitutes. Legalism vs Licentiousness. Paul taught that Christ had fulfilled the Old covenant. But he still warned people that certain practices could get them barred from the kingdom of Christ. You're free from the bondage of the law, but don't get deceived into becoming a slave of sin either. Galatians chapter five summarizes this balance very well.
And the balance is achieved by love, not fear. I tried to make this point last night, but did it poorly. Love is the key. But, if you look at the Pauline scriptures about agape, you will see that it's not all about being nice to people. A good portion of Paul's revelation about love deals with the moderating effect of love in a beleiver's walk. It's love that keeps us walking in accordance with God's will. In fact, the passage in Ephesians warning about not inheriting the kingdom of Christ is in the context of the walk in love. Likewise, the definitive passage in I Corinthians 13 about "charity" speaks as much or more about what a loving person doesn't[/] do as it says about what he or she does.
quote:
4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
In other words, the Love of God is defined almost entirely by "don'ts". Don't be envious, don't be brag, don't be haughty, don't behave disgracefully, don't be selfish, don't be quick tempered, don't harbor evil thoughts, don't rejoice in wickedness.
quote:
7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
And even the positive aspects of Love are set in contrast to the negatives of our age. Love beareth all things. That means there are burdens to be borne that only agape will enable us to bear. Love believeth all things, hopeth all things. I think that means, love enables us to continue in faith and hope despite anything the world throws at us. And finally, love endureth all things. That leads us back in a sense, to the concept of a lifetime of faithfulness. Love is the key to the kingdom, not only because God wants us to be nice to each other (longsuffering and kind), but because our love for God keeps us away from the Satanic influences in the world and keeps us from stumbling. It enables us to endure a lifetime of ups and downs and hold fast our confession untii the end.
Peace
JerryB
This is a classic case of the truth being in the middle, or, as Evan said, a little bit of both. Paul taught
I wish I had more time to give my views on this, but I am going to have to make this real short because I am way behind in my work. In a nutshell, what I have been seeing lately is that Jesus may have come to save all mankind and not just those who have been directly exposed to his grace and love. Actually, when you think about it even people that don't call themselves Christian often respect what he stands for so this may be an inroad to reach all of mankind. Jesus' life and ministry is without reproach and without sin and I think this is the key. He has truly taken on the sins of the whole world and all of mankind. He is also the first fruits from the dead. The bible says that God will raise all mankind to face a judgement of some kind. What all is involved in this is somewhat cloudy. However, think of it this way. You have just been raised from the dead. You are facing God all mighty and his Son Jesus. You see Jesus' stirling example. You see that he is without reproach. A face to face encounter. How can anyone turn their backs on this completely? The bible says that all men who have ever lived shall bow their knees and confess Jesus as Lord.
Phil 2:10-11
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
NIV
I think that all of mankind even those who will not be part of the resurrection of the just will do this either because they are inspired or because they are compelled. I think they will do this at the general resurrection and judgement. This is ultimately what God requires that all men should confess and worship him and I think all men will ultimately be reconciled to Him who created all things.
With regard to Jesus' 1000 year millenial kingdom however, this is another matter. To be raised from the dead to be part of this and literally rule with Jesus as a priest of God requires commitment and sacrifice during their lifetime. Jesus taught that only the meek shall inherit the kingdom of God. To be part of this millenial kingdom and be raised from the dead to be with Jesus means you have to be ready to serve at this time. For this reason many will be excluded and will have to wait for the general resurrection. Jesus said in Matthew 7:21-23.
21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
NIV
All of mankind may ultimately receive reconciliation with God and ultimately salvation, but to be part of his 1000 year kingdom is only for those who are ready to serve and be an example of Christ's love.
Please accept my apology for lumping you into the same category as Vince Finnegan. It is evident that you have arrived at the position you hold now through much painstaking study.
Apology accepted Oenophile. No offense taken. But I might add that, although I've not worked with him personally as Raf and Sunesis have, my memories of his leadership as the WOW coordinator are all positive. He seemed to have a genuine heart for outreach and people.
Much of what I posted last night was from Hebrews, as you correctly point out, but a lot of what I've puzzled over is in Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, and Ephesians--and of course II Peter chapter two.
Romans 2:7 for instance, the context of which I think someone else has already alluded to.
quote:
6 (God) Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
In other words, God will render eternal life to them who seek for glory and honor and immortality by patiently continuing in good works.
quote:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
There are other ways to interpret this passage of course, but I see it as Paul's repudiation of the Judaean notion that they didn't have to live a godly life in order to enter the Kingdom of God. Being of Israel wasn't going to cut it if they were pagans at heart.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
12
23
47
21
Popular Days
Mar 17
28
Mar 16
20
Mar 18
16
Mar 19
16
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 12 posts
Jbarrax 23 posts
CM 47 posts
HCW 21 posts
Popular Days
Mar 17 2005
28 posts
Mar 16 2005
20 posts
Mar 18 2005
16 posts
Mar 19 2005
16 posts
Jbarrax
Brief P.S. It's almost midnight and I have another ten hour work day ahead of me tomorrow. No doubt many responses will be posted before I am able to reply. Please don't misinterpret these long gaps of mine as arrogance or disinterest. I just don't have as much time during the week to post.
And I have a lot more verses to offer that I haven't had time to mention yet, and I've probably done a disservice by only lighting skimming the surface on what I have posted. Please take some time and look into this patiently and seriously.
Check out the context and usage of the words, fall, offence, stumble, and stumblingstone.
Look at all the occurences of the phrase eternal life in the New Testament (or the word aionion) and see how many of them have statements in the immediate context that indicate faithfulness and good works.
Look at the Biblical usage of the words "inherit, inheritance" and the parables about the kingdom. Count how many indicate receiving all of this by grace alone and how many indicate receiving by faithfulness.
And finally, ask yourself what does the Bible REALLY SAY about being born again?f Not what the audiotape in your head says, not what you've been taught over and over again in twig, but what the Scripture actually says. I think you will find, if you approach this honestly, and methodically, that much of what we believe about salvation is not what's actually written in the Bible, but what we've been taught about what's written. Try to read it without the pre-recorded internal commentary and see what jumps out at you.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oenophile
Jerry,
Please accept my apology for lumping you into the same category as Vince Finnegan. It is evident that you have arrived at the position you hold now through much painstaking study.
With that said, I still disagree with your conclusion. You mentioned that Christianity is not a free ride to eternal life on the back on the Messiah. The first scripture that I recalled after reading that was the one that says that Jesus is the Author andFinisher
of our faith.
I also see many of the verses that you use in support of your thesis are taken from Hebrews and other epistles that were not written specifically to the church of grace.
I guess the biggest problem that I have with the grace plus works formula for salvation is that God desires that we walk in His ways from a heart filled with love rather than fear. Inherent in the notion of a state of Grace that is subject to recall is fear.
Another verse that comes to mind is that the gifts and callings of God are without repentance.
This is a debate that can go on ad nauseaum much like the trinitarian / unitarian debate. The point I tried to engage readers on in another thread that I started is...are these theological chess matches something that God wants us to major in...or would it be experiencing His supreme love and ministering it to a perishing world for which He so loved that He gave His only begotten Son?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
From my doctrinal weirdo perspective...my thoughts at the moment at least.
new wine/old skins -
perhaps where Christians are at in the present?
we can only patch up these old bodies of ours so much. There will come a time in the future for each of us when new wine must be poured into new skins.
I find it interesting that Paul in 1 Cor.5, where he suggests surrendering the flesh of a fornicator over to destruction, "that the spirit might be saved (or "enlivened") in the day of the Lord Jesus." It is a very peculiar section.
I doubt we can harmonize all the material in the Bible on this topic. I agree, Jerry, that the truth might very well lie somewhere in the middle.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Yeah that's my response as well, danny.
Ain't that the truth Jerry!
Not to put too fine a point on it, but not so much in the middle as the truth lies in both positions.
Reminds me of the conundrum (and fight) between the doctrine of election/predestination Calvinists & the staunch freewill Arminians. I've come to the conclusion that their conradictory positions are both right, in a way, but each is only looking at the picture from one angle.
This thread is a perfect microcosm of biblical doctrinal wrangling. Everybody pulls out their dueling Bibles and starts firing scriptures at each other. "See (dummy) that's what BieBull says." I love it when people start saying "MY Bible says...".
As an aside, HCW, the author of I John was the Lord's brother? I always thought it was John, the brother of James the Elder (the one Herod killed), aka, St. John the Divine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Yeah...somewhere in the middle...
Ya know, I always have to go back to the simple things. God is Love. The uneducated can get to know the way as well as those who have studied for long periods of time.
Jerry, your questions are valid, and your studies have produced many more questions.
Man's little ole brain will never be able to make it all fit together. It takes the Lord himself to show the way.
You have to be a little flexible for Him to work.
You say this means that or this means this and have come to conclude certain things. It could have a little bit of a different message when seen in a new light.
Many are Strong in the knowledge of the scriptures but have not seen it. Not that I've seen it all but I've seen enough to know that what is on the surface of certain scriptures is not what the truth of the matter is. While on the surface of it, there is no lie, within it, with God opening our eyes to it, lies a greater true meaning.
This is why the word of life is so well protected. The Lord has to be the one to open our eyes of understanding.
I hope you find the answers you are looking for. Go beyond that which you can see in scriptures. Meaning where did these people, including Jesus, get these words in the first place.
What God has promised He is able to perform.
Therefore be ready, as the scriptures say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
One of the biggest points I was trying to make is that this debate is NOT new, Its been raging on since the first century. The debate continues, and like someone above stated, people basically settle into camps.
In my view, the self-serving aspect of VF's current view would be in using "uneathed truths" to gain followers. To pull people into "his camp" is, in my view, self serving.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
There are several ex-way groups that have now gone back and put themselves under O.T. law - including VF's group. I think it is a logical extension of legalism.
Under CG, VF became extremely legalistic for years. If you have repudiated God's grace and Christ's redemption in the here and now, the only place left is to go back to the law.
Mankind is a fallen race. Its that simple. Mankind needed a Savior. We will not lose our new birth if we sin.
Paul explained this when in Romans he talks about - who shall deliver me from this dead body? He then sums it up by saying, there is therefore now NO condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus. If you read the context, he is contrasting our old "natural man" with the spiritual man.
Paul is saying that even though we have a sin nature and it continues to sin, that because of God's grace and Christ's sacrifice - there is therefore now no condemnation to us because we are fallen and have a sin nature. I.e., we are not condemned because we have this sin nature. Why? because it is our nature. It cannot be changed until Christ changes us.
Its like, my cat. He is the essence of Cat. His nature is cat. For me to train him and try and get him to become more like me, human, is an exercise in futility. His NATURE is cat. Our nature is human - not just human, but fallen human. We can no more become like Christ by following law, renewing our minds, or whatever else you would like to do to ensure your salvation.
Salvation is a gift - it is by grace - period. We were washed by Christ's sacrified blood when nothing - absolutely nothing - could cleanse us.
For those who have tasted the grace of God, to turn back leads to bondage. As Paul so eloquently wrote, the veil is over their eyes again. They cannot see.
To negate Christ's sacrifice, which is what they are doing, to cause people doubt about their salvation, and teach this to others is, well, I don't know what word to use - it is tragic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
I think its cool how we've at least had it "mentioned" here the THREE basic camps. For ease of communication and civility, can we term them?
A. Saved by grace = once saved, always saved = OSAS.
B. Saved, but work to keep it = SBWK.
And. Those who just live & don't worry about it. The Bible does speak of those who, though they were with out the law, did the things contained in the law and therefore became a law unto themselves. I don't have a catchy acronymn for that one
:)--> maybe we could say DWBH or; "Don't worry (about it) BE happy. (???)
If anyone has a better acronym, by all means, feel free to throw it out, we can come to a consensus.
At any rate, I brought the epistle of John stuff (not really sure which John
;)-->) in because most of it is equally ignored by the Christian church in its entirety. Sure they pull out the part about "If we confess our sins..." and at least the word, "antichrist." Its pretty much ignored.
I put a LOT of study into the epistle of John, following rabbit trails, word studies on "beginning" & stuff life that. It was really cool, helped me settle on positions of lots of things, actually.
I don't have a whole lot of energy to debate this but a good Bible discussion topic is always on my radar, as I DON'T (as in strongly) believe I know it all, or even very much of it when it come to the Bible.
Personally, I've been reviewing EVERYTHING, absolutely everything we were taught in TWI since I was fired from TWI staff in August of '88. I just didn't trust ANYTHING they had taught us, because of how they TREATED me. My study of John helped me SO much to reconcile how they could BE Christians when they ACTed so much like evil people.
I've expanded my viewpoint from TWI teachings to the contemporary Chistian Church to the entire Judeo Christian ethic to worldwide Chirstian views to a global perspective on God in general. In so doing, its been interesting to discover where & when idologies began and who began them.
I'm not an expert, by any means and I haven't done it to be able to stand & give symposiums type speeches on this stuff, but I have formulated what I feel are scripturally educated opinions. I try to base them on a global view of both the scriptures and what I think I see as God's intent on this subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
That's a beautiful explanation, Sunesis, and I come down solidly on your position.
That said, some groups who do the "saved by grace/kept by works thing" solidly affirm, abetted by voluminous spriptural backup (of course) that the only way for Christ's nature to manifest in a person is by the inworking of the Holy Spirit bringing out the new & different nature of Christ, not by changing the person. So, they've come to a place of harmonizing their beliefs with grace.
Now, to me, if there are works involved, grace is no longer grace. But it is a big book, and the honestly I look at it, the less I realize I know. But I will say that, practically, for me, dying to the old self & yielding to Christ (and having Him live through me) has been the most satisfactory & reliable path for me to walk the way I hope to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
In other words, I've tried to study this stuff from a clean perspective, not just rehash TWI doctrines, or fall into the doctrines of other religious groups because I was ignorant to them.
Like Sunesis said, its simple.
God originally wanted mankind to have life, so He gave it to Adam, mankind (he was the only guy around
:)--> .
Satan, as the father of lies and author of death "killed" mankind ( he was mad at God
.
Jesus, the second Adam, mankind, paid the price, to both regain the life the first Adam lost, and redeem him from the penalty of sin, which is to spend eternity in eternal torment.
God redeemed us cause he wanted us to LIVE with Him.
That's it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
I've come to discover, simply by reading the Bible, that ALL human soul-life is eternal. At this point in history we will either spend eternity (NOT floating around in heaven) living in our new bodies in the "third" heaven & Earth OR in the fiery pit of eternal torment, with the weeping and gnashing of teeth thing - like eternally; with lucifer & his angels.
We have known, all of Christendom has ALWAYS known that ALL life is eternal. Perhaps its where the concept came from that has spawned the "purgetory concepts" of Roman Catholicism, as well as reincarnation concepts. It is CLEAR that the Bible teaches our soul is eternal. The dead in Christ do rise, right?
It just isn't that complicated. God is light, in Him is NO darkness at all. HE wanted to give us life, HE redeemed us from death & eternal torment AND gives US the opportunity to earn rewards. THEN he warns us to stay away from people who WON'T be going where we are going, because if we do what THEY do WE will lose our rewards.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I didn't have this experience at all. I thought it was quite the opposite: one CG was out of the picture, and only when CG was out of the picture, VF began dropping TWI doctrines like hot potatoes: pre-trib rapture, dispensationalism, and "once saved always saved," for lack of a better term.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
Sorry Raf - I should have clarified. I was with him when I was in NYC for 9 years. I watched him get quite hard and almost illogical. I am speaking '80s and '90s here. I can't speak for recent years. From people who know people who follow him now, he's gotten very into the O.T., law, etc. I guess Ga*y G**lin leads the way with VF in this type of teaching.
There are other groups who for some reason think we now need to be living under the law. To me, its a repudiation of everything Christ came to do and did for us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Both of these positions sound similar to me. I can see how you both would say what you did.
I'm wondering, what did VF replace "pre-trib rapture, dispensationalism" with?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The "gathering together" is indistinguishable from the first resurrection, aka the resurrection of the just.
Dispensational theology was replaced with, apparently, covenant theology (Steve Lortz can correct me if I'm misusing either term):
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Actually Raf, covenant theology connects the old and new testaments so that the promise to Abraham is still in effect.
That promise motivates a lot of Christians to the mission field.
As others have said, this issue is not new, so VF's claims, like all of the minor sects of unearthing hidden knowledge is really a ruse to make them look special. VPW did it, so it is no real surprise that VF does it.
Where do you want the power and praise to go? To God or yourself?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
And I think it's a bit presumptuous to say he wants the glory to go to himself. That's all.
If Jerry Barrax can honestly look at the scriptures and honestly come to this conclusion, why can't VF? Why do his motives have to be questioned, or worse, automatically impugned? It's a ruse? Why? Was it a ruse when he decided there was no "law" of believing? Would it be a "ruse" if he adopted the trinity? Why is it a ruse, rather than coming to a different conclusion from what he previously believed? If Jerry Barrax can do it, why can't VF?
What I see here is a lot of people who have problems with the VF they knew in TWI and imposing those perceptions on decisions he made years after they lost contact with him (with the apparent exception of sunesis).
I'm obviously biased, because I've seen the tears that have come out of that man's eyes when he talks about some of the things he did in the past. To see people who have not heard a word from him since the 1980s declare with certainty that his change of doctrine is self-serving strikes me as unfair. If you want to challenge the doctrine, go ahead. But to read into his motives when you haven't seen anything about the man for more than 15 years...?
I'm not saying "I'm right and you're wrong." I am saying that there's no way you can, with certainty, say some of the things that have been said here. It's not right, IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
That's one of the standard practices of folks who want to automatically dismiss any opposing viewpoints, Raf. And that's no matter which 'side'.
Question the motivation or morality of the dissenter, and any validity of his views, whatever they may be, are diminished (or the accuser would hope so) in the eyes of those hearing him.
Intellectually dishonest at best.
:(-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Ok, forget about motives.
Where in the heck is Garth's rational logic when you need it
:)-->
Why even a thesaurus could help you figure out some scriptures. Take "children of disobedience" for instance. "children" could be or mean "offspring". Sheesh, stop being so literal and use your imagination a little bit, God gave it to you.
There are a few differing beliefs that I know of on when things like the gathering and resurrections happen and what they actually are.
And like you said JBarrax, some scriptures have been ignored. I can think of one whole book of the bible that was put on the "does not apply today" list, besides the gospels even.
Go to the source of the writings.
At least consider other ways of thinking even.
Do anything but don't tell me that God
will take back what he Gave as a Gift.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
O there you are garth, sorry i was typing when you posted.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Thanks for taking my comments in their intended spirit, CM.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Lots of great posts and thoughts here. It's nice to see a reasoned, civil discussion of such a touchy Biblical subject. :-)
I just wanted to point out something that crossed my mind as I reviewed some of these verses this morning. Sunesis said,
There is a difference between believing in conditional salvation and "living under the law". Living under the law literally means continuing to be bound to the sacrifices of the Mosaic covenant. The keeping of the Sabbath, etc. That's not what I'm advocating, and, as I see it, that's not what Paul advocated. The two extreme camps in Paul's day were the Pharisees, lead by James the Lord's brother, who believed that they still needed to keep the Law of Moses, and the licentious factions on the other who thought nothing of attending pagan feasts and consorting with temple prostitutes. Legalism vs Licentiousness. Paul taught that Christ had fulfilled the Old covenant. But he still warned people that certain practices could get them barred from the kingdom of Christ. You're free from the bondage of the law, but don't get deceived into becoming a slave of sin either. Galatians chapter five summarizes this balance very well.
And the balance is achieved by love, not fear. I tried to make this point last night, but did it poorly. Love is the key. But, if you look at the Pauline scriptures about agape, you will see that it's not all about being nice to people. A good portion of Paul's revelation about love deals with the moderating effect of love in a beleiver's walk. It's love that keeps us walking in accordance with God's will. In fact, the passage in Ephesians warning about not inheriting the kingdom of Christ is in the context of the walk in love. Likewise, the definitive passage in I Corinthians 13 about "charity" speaks as much or more about what a loving person doesn't[/] do as it says about what he or she does.
In other words, the Love of God is defined almost entirely by "don'ts". Don't be envious, don't be brag, don't be haughty, don't behave disgracefully, don't be selfish, don't be quick tempered, don't harbor evil thoughts, don't rejoice in wickedness.
And even the positive aspects of Love are set in contrast to the negatives of our age. Love beareth all things. That means there are burdens to be borne that only agape will enable us to bear. Love believeth all things, hopeth all things. I think that means, love enables us to continue in faith and hope despite anything the world throws at us. And finally, love endureth all things. That leads us back in a sense, to the concept of a lifetime of faithfulness. Love is the key to the kingdom, not only because God wants us to be nice to each other (longsuffering and kind), but because our love for God keeps us away from the Satanic influences in the world and keeps us from stumbling. It enables us to endure a lifetime of ups and downs and hold fast our confession untii the end.
Peace
JerryB
This is a classic case of the truth being in the middle, or, as Evan said, a little bit of both. Paul taught
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
I wish I had more time to give my views on this, but I am going to have to make this real short because I am way behind in my work. In a nutshell, what I have been seeing lately is that Jesus may have come to save all mankind and not just those who have been directly exposed to his grace and love. Actually, when you think about it even people that don't call themselves Christian often respect what he stands for so this may be an inroad to reach all of mankind. Jesus' life and ministry is without reproach and without sin and I think this is the key. He has truly taken on the sins of the whole world and all of mankind. He is also the first fruits from the dead. The bible says that God will raise all mankind to face a judgement of some kind. What all is involved in this is somewhat cloudy. However, think of it this way. You have just been raised from the dead. You are facing God all mighty and his Son Jesus. You see Jesus' stirling example. You see that he is without reproach. A face to face encounter. How can anyone turn their backs on this completely? The bible says that all men who have ever lived shall bow their knees and confess Jesus as Lord.
Phil 2:10-11
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
NIV
I think that all of mankind even those who will not be part of the resurrection of the just will do this either because they are inspired or because they are compelled. I think they will do this at the general resurrection and judgement. This is ultimately what God requires that all men should confess and worship him and I think all men will ultimately be reconciled to Him who created all things.
With regard to Jesus' 1000 year millenial kingdom however, this is another matter. To be raised from the dead to be part of this and literally rule with Jesus as a priest of God requires commitment and sacrifice during their lifetime. Jesus taught that only the meek shall inherit the kingdom of God. To be part of this millenial kingdom and be raised from the dead to be with Jesus means you have to be ready to serve at this time. For this reason many will be excluded and will have to wait for the general resurrection. Jesus said in Matthew 7:21-23.
21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
NIV
All of mankind may ultimately receive reconciliation with God and ultimately salvation, but to be part of his 1000 year kingdom is only for those who are ready to serve and be an example of Christ's love.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Apology accepted Oenophile. No offense taken. But I might add that, although I've not worked with him personally as Raf and Sunesis have, my memories of his leadership as the WOW coordinator are all positive. He seemed to have a genuine heart for outreach and people.
Much of what I posted last night was from Hebrews, as you correctly point out, but a lot of what I've puzzled over is in Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, and Ephesians--and of course II Peter chapter two.
Romans 2:7 for instance, the context of which I think someone else has already alluded to.
In other words, God will render eternal life to them who seek for glory and honor and immortality by patiently continuing in good works.
There are other ways to interpret this passage of course, but I see it as Paul's repudiation of the Judaean notion that they didn't have to live a godly life in order to enter the Kingdom of God. Being of Israel wasn't going to cut it if they were pagans at heart.
Peace
JerryB
JerryB
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.