Thanks for your comments. But I have to disagree with your interpretation of Romans chapter seven. I don't think TWI's teaching on this subject was ever sound. (The idea that Paul was writing about himself and his hopeless struggle against a sinful nature).
In fact, I met with Rev Ken Brown about it during the ROA back in 1987. That's how we met. The context of Romans six is life under the Mosaic covenant. The law is mentioned seven times in the first five verses. This chapter can't be Paul writing about himself. Verse nine says, "I was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died" Paul wasn't born with the Patriarchs and wasn't alive when God spoke the Ten Commandments form the top of Mt Sinai.
Paul is using an allegory to describe the immense frustration of godly people trying to keep the law (which Peter called a yoke of bondage that neither they, nor their fathers were able to bear). The battle of Romans chapter seven was between the godly mind of the old Testament saints who knew that God's commandments were holy and just, and their sinful natures. They saw that God's will was good but were utterly unable to follow it.(David, Solomon, Saul, Balaam, Samson, etc).
The difference between us and them is we have been freed from the bondage of the laws and ordinances of the Old Covenant, and have been given the gift of holy spirit, by which we can know and manifest God's nature and walk in love. We have been relieved of the weight of the hundreds of commandments, ordinances, feasts, and sacrifices and equipped to live according to a higher standard; that of the love of God in Christ. Therefore, although we still make mistakes and sin, we are able to walk by the spirit and so fulfill the righteousness of the law.
Good post Mark. Much food for thought there. I've not spent much time reconsidering the thousand year reign, except some work I did last year on the hope. I changed my mind about the pre-trib rapture and I think I Corinthians 15 and I Thessalonians 3 & 4 are more harmoniouse if interpreted as a post tribulation gathering. Beyond that, I don't know. Maybe what you posted is the missing piece to the works vs grace puzzle.
It would be nice if the Lord came back tomorrow and cleared all this up huh?
Isn't it interesting that Jesus never wrote any of the Bible?
the here and now is where godly things can happen
Yes it is, CM. That's another reason for us not to get so wrapped up in "It is written" that we can't love each other any more. I think He wanted us to follow his example of compassion, humility and love more than getting obsessed over his words.
Paul is using an allegory to describe the immense frustration of godly people trying to keep the law (which Peter called a yoke of bondage that neither they, nor their fathers were able to bear). The battle of Romans chapter seven was between the godly mind of the old Testament saints who knew that God's commandments were holy and just, and their sinful natures. They saw that God's will was good but were utterly unable to follow it.(David, Solomon, Saul, Balaam, Samson, etc).
I recently read a compelling, though rather irritating piece about Romans 7 called “Insights From Postmodernism’s Emphasis On Interpretive Communities In The Interpretation Of Romans 7,” by a guy named Walt Russell.
Russell opposed some traditional interpretations of Romans 7 (e.g. that Paul was referring to a conflict within a Christian; that Paul was referring to a conflict common to unbelievers), and also argued that Romans 7 is referring to a conflict within a religious Jew under the Law.
Yes it is, CM. That's another reason for us not to get so wrapped up in "It is written" that we can't love each other any more. I think He wanted us to follow his example of compassion, humility and love more than getting obsessed over his words.
Really?
Here's his example: (just scroll quickly through the scriptures, unless you want to examine them)
quote:
#1. Matthew 2:5
And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,
Matthew 2:4-6 (in Context) Matthew 2 (Whole Chapter)
#2. Matthew 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Matthew 4:3-5 (in Context) Matthew 4 (Whole Chapter)
#3. Matthew 4:6
And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Matthew 4:5-7 (in Context) Matthew 4 (Whole Chapter)
#4. Matthew 4:7
Jesus said unto him, it is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.
Matthew 4:6-8 (in Context) Matthew 4 (Whole Chapter)
#5. Matthew 4:10
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Matthew 4:9-11 (in Context) Matthew 4 (Whole Chapter)
#6. Matthew 11:10
For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
Matthew 11:9-11 (in Context) Matthew 11 (Whole Chapter)
#7. Matthew 21:13
And said unto them, it is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Matthew 21:12-14 (in Context) Matthew 21 (Whole Chapter)
#8. Matthew 26:24
The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.
Matthew 26:23-25 (in Context) Matthew 26 (Whole Chapter)
#9. Matthew 26:31
Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.
Matthew 26:30-32 (in Context) Matthew 26 (Whole Chapter)
#10. Mark 1:2
As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
Mark 1:1-3 (in Context) Mark 1 (Whole Chapter)
#11. Mark 7:6
He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Mark 7:5-7 (in Context) Mark 7 (Whole Chapter)
#12. Mark 9:12
And he answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought.
Mark 9:11-13 (in Context) Mark 9 (Whole Chapter)
#13. Mark 9:13
But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him.
Mark 9:12-14 (in Context) Mark 9 (Whole Chapter)
#14. Mark 14:21
The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.
Mark 14:20-22 (in Context) Mark 14 (Whole Chapter)
#15. Mark 14:27
And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.
Mark 14:26-28 (in Context) Mark 14 (Whole Chapter)
#16. Luke 2:23
(As it is written in the law of the LORD, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord.
Luke 2:22-24 (in Context) Luke 2 (Whole Chapter)
#17. Luke 3:4
As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
Luke 3:3-5 (in Context) Luke 3 (Whole Chapter)
#18. Luke 4:4
And Jesus answered him, saying, it is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Luke 4:3-5 (in Context) Luke 4 (Whole Chapter)
#19. Luke 4:8
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Luke 4:7-9 (in Context) Luke 4 (Whole Chapter)
#20. Luke 4:10
For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee:
Luke 4:9-11 (in Context) Luke 4 (Whole Chapter)
#22. Luke 7:27
This is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
Luke 7:26-28 (in Context) Luke 7 (Whole Chapter)
#23. Luke 19:46
Saying unto them, it is written, My house is the house of prayer: but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Luke 19:45-47 (in Context) Luke 19 (Whole Chapter)
#24. Luke 24:46
And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
Luke 24:45-47 (in Context) Luke 24 (Whole Chapter)
#25. John 6:31
Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
John 6:30-32 (in Context) John 6 (Whole Chapter)
#26. John 6:45
It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
John 6:44-46 (in Context) John 6 (Whole Chapter)
#27. John 12:14
And Jesus, when he had found a young foot, sat thereon; as it is written,
John 12:13-15 (in Context) John 12 (Whole Chapter)
It seems to me that there are 27 uses of "it is written" that show it WAS his example to be very concerned about... it is written.
Whereas I agree with you that we shouldn't be so concerned about ANYTHING that we can't love each other anymore AND I agree that obsession is a concept that has NO place in Christian thinking or life-style. I firmly believe we should be completely concerned with his (Jesus') words.
AND, I disagree that I...
quote:
Reply to HCW.
It's ironic, HCW, that you reference I John as an attempt to prove that we are saved by grace.
My intent was to show you that 1st John speaks on the subject. I'm not out to PROVE anything.
It is NOT ironic that I would post scriptures that speak to the subject of the discussion. I'M FOLLOWING JESUS' example by not telling you what I think, I'm SHOWING what "is written" on it.
quote:
Ken Brown, a former memeber of TWI's research department (and a loving and honest man, imo), believes that I John 1:9 promotes righteousness by works and is teaching that it's not addressed to born again believers.
I know Ken, pretty well, actually. He & his wife were on staff @ HQ pretty much the whole 9+ years I was there. His wife worked in Way Publications with me on a semi daily basis.
You can add unassuming, humble, fair and well groomed to your list about Ken. He's a good man, no doubt. However, I don't think he'd be OK with you using his name, especially in light of the fact that he disagreed with your postion, to further your position in any discussion. You posted:
quote:
We have discussed this briefly. He doesn't agree with my position, but, in my opinion, is trying to reconcile some of the same apparent Biblical clashes between works and grace.
My interpretation of that is this:
You spoke with him and he shot down your position in a few brief minutes. Then he graciously mentioned that he's studied 1 John in the context of apparent Biblical clashes between works and grace because SOME think and teach that 1 John: 1:9 is used to promote righteousness by works.
I don't see Ken EVER saying that 1 John 1:9 is not addressed to born again believers. John's epistles as CLEARLY addressed to eyewitnesses...
quote:
... which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled...
which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us : and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
Sure, a loving, honest, etc., etc. bazillion year veteran of the research dept. believes:
... these things write we unto you, (who are NOT born again believers) that your joy may be full.
I took many questions to Ken over the years @ HQ. many staffers asked many questions to the whole research dept. ad nauseum, so much so that there was an official announcement to leave those guys alone. I also spent a fair amount of time sitting across Walter Cummins' desk: John Crouch, John Shoenheit, Dan MacConaghy, all of 'em, even LCM and VP himself. I used to have TWIG in Vp's basement and Mrs. and Wanda Wierwille served us cookies & ice cream & bug juice.
My point is not to drop names, but to give a little credience to the fact that I know those guys, well enough to have a decent idea of how they think. Vince Finnegan too.
I thoroughly understand the thinking of going beyond TWI teaching, correcting the errors, etc. I also know, myself as eye witness, that contrary to a prevailing train of thought, VPW, himself TOLD us ALL to go beyond "his" work.
The very CONCEPT of what so many denounce and slam, as Way CORPSE, included the research papers be submitted as partial requirement for graduation. Those papers were to become a part of the greatest library of Biblical research in the world. In theory every WC Grad was to pick a subject that they felt God had inspired them to, do a masters level thesis on it, submit it to the research library then spend the rest of their lives "mastering" that subject, each becoming an "authority" on it.
I wouldn't doubt it if "all" of that work was burned in th transition to "TWI II; Revenge of the Jock."
When it comes to dropping names, the current TWI Vice Pres, Harve Platig, was my research paper advisor, HE praised my thinking process, research capabilities, and gave my paper a superior rating.
(Uh, OH, maybe I shouldn't use Harve, he may not be honest, loving, etc. )
I guess my point, overall, is.... Historically, people have had a very hard time accepting that God wants us with him eternally and GAVE that to us as a gift. Like Santa Clause. Do you think I don't KNOW every year that my kids are gonna break the toys I give them for Christmas (yes, I said CHRISTMAS, grr... :)--> ;)--> )???
This year, TWO remote control trucks didn't last til noon. My boys figured that the big, knobby, off road lookin' tires actually ment they could drive them off road. They ran one right off the top step, reveling in how cool it looked as it tumbled down the steps. I was dismayed when it BROKE along the way.
AFTER I comforted them, after they were upset, after they repented, of breaking it, after I instructed them SPECIFICALLY that it broke BECAUSE of it tumbling down the soft carpeted stairs, after they understood, after I ORDERED them NOT to do it again, after they survived the "wrath of Dad," after they went happily off to play in their room - - upstairs ... AFTER a few minutes later, the OTHER one came bouncing, tumbling down - - BROKE in the SAME place as the other one.
"We're sorry Daddy! I was an axe-inent!" Please don't kill us look in their eyes.
Jerry, great to see you posting here again. I realize Paul is talking about law and bondage in those verses. However, one day years ago I was reading those passages and it struck me like a thunderbolt out of the blue, its also, I guess I'll use the word "spiritually" talking about our inner struggle with the old and the new man - our two natures so to speak.
I can't explain it, I just deeply understood, that Christ's love for us is so big, the old, sin nature is not held against us. Does this mean we rest on our laurels? Of course not, it gives us greater impetus to try and walk as Christ walked and follow the still small voice within.
That last post was getting so long ... I negelected to complete my train of thought.
Regardless as to how anyone feels about VPW, no matter how valid negative pov's, or personal experiences people have had withhim, it is factual that he DID strongly encourage "us" to go beyond him, noting that his " research works," were not the complete be it all end all.
I know that, and am now in some ways a little shocked that, so many were taught otherwise. Regardless I believe people should go "beyond," I agree there were many errors.
I just don't think that "the quest" should not be fueled by an "anti" position. I think I may see some of that in this discussion. God did place "anchor points" in His word. He did make some "blanket statements" that cover a lot of other stuff.
As a father I could NEVER condemn my children to hell AFTER giving them the gift of life. They are alive "because" of me and their Mom. I KNOW for a fact that they deliberately disobeyed me and ran the second truck off that top step as fast as they could get it to go.
I believe that I see the broken truck like God sees the consequence of sin in our lives. I believe that what I felt in my heart when I looked into the eyes of my son and said, "Why did you DO that? Didn't I just tell you and show you that it would break if you did that again?" That was the love of God.
ALL I could see, and feel as I was holding this broken toy in my hands was how sad my son was and how much I wanted him NOT to feel that way. I told him, "You're just not gonna have a remote control truck to play with until I get some super glue, THEN I'll fix BOTH of them."
I think you're right Jbarrax, when you say "its about love."
If I, being evil can have that kind of compassion for my children in the face of their out and out, deliberate, rebellious disobedience, even with a little white lie thrown in at the end, how much MORE our Father which is in heaven. If they asked me for bread would I give them a ROCK? ... a snake?
As the heaven is high above the earth, so are His ways above our ways and His thoughts above our thoughts. Jesus told us we should be like CHILDREN. We "run our trucks down the stairs" on a multi daily basis. We have at LEAST an equal disrespect for the "Christmas" letting of GIFTS that God has wrapped up for us and delivered to us and placed IN us - as my precous little boys do.
How many of us parents "joke" EVERY year that, "I should just get 'em a BOX."??? I know one year not too long ago "santa" brought one of those electric ride'em motorcycle things. It came in a HUGE box with pictures of the cycle on the outside... I'm in the kitchen when I hear a sliding sound then "CRASH" a lamp's fallen, broken glass when the lightbulb pops, then "AWWW... I'm TELL-in'... DAAAADD!"
I pop into the room & two littlest ones are IN the BOX! Big sister is PUSHING them as fast as she could, Big, big sister says, "I TOLD you to STOP!" Nobody's guilty...lamp's twisted, mangled.... Broken glass....
I sent them to their room, not eternal damnation. I made the ones old enough to not hurt themselves, clean up the mess.
Our sin, is temporal, God's love for us, eternal. My salvation is a GIFT. Thank you. I believe God told us, "If you do that, it will break your toys. Don't break your toys or you will lose them. Don't hang out with people who won't be coming with us. They will break your toys and cause you to break your toys.
He also told us, "If you are good, I'll get you some REALLY cool toys you can have when "Christmas" comes. Then you can play with them eternally. AND. All those bad guys? They won't be here to break your toys or cause you to bresk your toys. Besides When I make toys they DON'T break."
quote:
Romans 1:20
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead..."
BeHOLD, what manner of LOVE is THIS that we should be called the CHILDREN of God...
After all the CRAP mankind has put HIM through since HE made US. After we turn from him on a regular basis, after SOME of us worship his ENEMY and give him the middle finger,
spit in His face.
think we're smarter than He,
etc.,
etc.,
etc.
He LOVED us so MUCH that he would sacrifice HIS own SON so that we MIGHT be saved.
I can say that one old teaching tape that could be playing in the back of the head is-
"the word of god says what it means and means what it says....etc..."
Give that one the boot out the door. Take a fresh look at some of this stuff.
Ya know the wrath of God might not be a bad thing for us. If God thinks it's bad then we don't want it hanging around anyway. And it just might not be talking about people, but the bad that is in each of us.
You spoke with him and he shot down your position in a few brief minutes. Then he graciously mentioned that he's studied 1 John in the context of apparent Biblical clashes between works and grace because SOME think and teach that 1 John: 1:9 is used to promote righteousness by works.
Wrong on both points HCW. We visited with Ken and Sue and he spent about a half hour talking about his position on I John. I was more intent on listening than talking so I didn't even bring up my position. I went home, studied what he'd said about I John for a few days and decided it didn't sufficently answer my questions about eternal life. So I sent him an Email and we exchanged a few messages. The end result was, he didn't agree with my point of view and wasn't inclined to invest much time in considering it.
quote:
I don't see Ken EVER saying that 1 John 1:9 is not addressed to born again believers. John's epistles as CLEARLY addressed to eyewitnesses...
Then you should give him a call. Ken does teach that I John is not addressed to born-again belivers; specifically I John 1:9.
Ken believes I John is, in his words, "a witnessing epistle" directed to unsaved people and that I John 1:9 refers not to confession of "broken fellowship" or sin in the life of a believer, but salvation. He says much of I John should be interpreted in this manner, as an appeal from the Apostles and the born again believers to the unsaved.
According to my recollection and understanding he believes the teaching that we're cleansed from unrighteousness by confessing our sin contradicts Paul's doctrine of righteousness by faith alone. He says the Way's interpretation of I John 1:9 as a reference to sin in the life of a believer and being conditionally cleansed from unrighteousness contributes to a works mentality and sin conciousness.
And I agree completely with your asessment of his character. He's a fine man with a good heart. Since I made it clear he didn't agree with my position, I don't see why he'd object to may sharing what he's teaching.
As to the "It is written" statement, it is clear that Jesus taught from the Scriptures. I think, in your zeal, to score a point, you missed the point. Fundamentalist Christians of the Way's mindset get too wrapped up in proving one doctrine or another and that causes division, strife, pride, and carnal thinking in general. All this despite the fact that Our Lord never wrote an epistle. The Bible is not supposed to be our ONLY rule of faith and practice, it's supposed to be a primer, a point of reference for getting started on a walk that leads to an intimate knowledge of God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
Sorry to hear about the RC trucks. But hey, that's what kids do. But if we're going to talk analogies, we need one more appropriate to the subject matter. I'm not saying that if you make a mistake or commit one act of disobedience, God will shut you out of the Kingdom.
But let's look down the hypothetical road a way. Suppose one of your two sons loves and respects you and grows up to be a mature and loving Christian. He blesses people, does much good in the comunity and brings you immense pride and joy. But suppose his brother, after having been raised in your loving care, decided that you were a worthless ex-cult freak, turned his back on you, and spent his life denouncing you and everything you believe. Suppose he started a coven and became a dedicated and effective warlock (God forbid), even causing the deaths of people you know and love. You continue to prosper and amass a 5 million dollar estate. You love both your sons. One has proven himself faithful, wise and loving and you know will use his inheritance wisely. The other not only hates you, but has done great harm and will turn your inheritance into fuel for more of the same. Do you give them an equal inheritance in your estate?
A lot of Way types really rail against confessing of sins, but John Wesley started his small groups with weekly accountability sessions that people did confess their sins. It helps us walk more upright to have told someone our struggles and failures. It helps become stronger in the Lord as He works on us.
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?
Nobody is saying that VF can't honestly look at the scriptures and come to his conclusion....
The biggest difference between Jerry and Vince is that Vince is teaching his conclusions from a pulpit and leading others as a "minister of God." and Jerry is saying to others, not in a capacity as a minister, "This is what I think."
God makes a HUGE distinction between one who would lead GOD'S flock and one who speaks, flock member to flock member.
The distinction is that when "jerry" speaks and says, "this is what I think," that's all that is implicit within his remarks. When "Minister Vince" says "this is what I think" the implication is, "what I think is what YOU SHOULD think."
That makes all the differnce in the world to God. His position is this: "When you lead MY flock, you'd BETTER be right. Woe unto you if you're not."
God doesn't hold Jerry to that standard. I believe that the nature of every official words a minister speaks, makes him "special." When he's wrong, ALL it does is make him "special" in the eyes of his followers. Being right makes him Blessed of God, ALSO in addition to being special to "his" people. God instructs the flock to "esteem them highly in love, for the sake of their work as your leader."
Vince may be sincere, but he's wrong. We won't lose our salvation if we are not faithful til the end. To honestly come to that conclusion one must honestly ignore SOOOO much clear scripture and stand up & say, "No, YOU, and all this stuff is WRONG, I am right."
Pretty damn presumptuous.
ANY, and EVERY wrong thing taught from the pulpit becomes a ruse, all it can accomplish is to get peolpe to follow the minister, because he has ceased from following God on each and every wrong thing he teaches.
VF has taken the very centerpiece of the Christian faith, the new birth, and said,
"Even though God clearly said, 'Ye MUST be born again'.... He wasn't REALLY talking about salvation being BIRTH that IS YOU being BORN, and saved from the wrath to come. Its really some sort of 'condition,' a 'situation' or better yet, a 'trust' that you partake of and 'carry.' You must carry it, being faithful to the trust ALL the way until the end.
If you are not faithful to it, or you drop it, even though God ALSO says you WILL, in fact, drop it; because you don't have the ability to carry it; you will LOSE it. You are NOT saved, you will ONLY become saved, later, that is IF you happen to be holding it until the end. The end being the return of the liar who said you would be BORN, or YOUR end, potentially, being when YOU die.
If you're not holding it at the end, sorry 'bout yer luck pal, love ya, see ya, wouldn't wanna BE ya!"
The new birth is directly tied to the death of Adam. The life God gave Adam was eternal. The life purchased back by the second Adam IS eternal. It really IS that simple.
Hi Sunesis! Thanks. It's good to be back in the active growth mode. These forums and the collective wisdom of posters like you, Raf, Garth, Evan, Ex10, Steve Lortz and others have been in invaluable source of spiritual growth over the years.
HCW
Regarding God's love, I understand where you're coming from. The problem is, the more I read the Bible, the more I see these verses I've been ignoring all these years popping up at me. And I have to decide whether I'm going to continue to ignore them or consider that maybe there's more to the truth than what I've been taught.
And I'm not coming form an "anti VP" mindset. I actually still have fond feelings about him. I don't think of him as a despicable character. Miguided perhaps, flawed, certainly, maybe worse. But this is not about disliking Dr. Weirwille and wanting to get back at him. It's about a deep and nagging hunger for truth. That's all.
So God loves us and gave us eternal life. Hallelujah.
But what then do we do with Romans 2:7
quote:
To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
Paul argued in Galatians that we are justified by faith, not works. We were taught that we are heaven bound and all hell can't stop us from going. Why then did Paul issue this warning to the same Church he had just taught so fervently about righteousness by faith?
quote:
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
We've already discussed the fact that Ephesians 2:8 says we're saved by grace and not of works, but Ephesians 5, in the section about walking in love says,
quote:
3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.
5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
What did Paul really mean when he told the Philippian Church to work out their own salvation?
quote:
12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
14 Do all things without murmurings and disputings:
15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
What happens to those who don't work out their own salvation, who are not found blameless and suffer rebuke. From whom does the rebuke come from? From the world or from the Lord?
We've already looked at Hebrews chapters three and four. There is more of the same in chapter 10.
quote:
23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)
This is not addressed to unbelievers, but to the Church; to a community with a shared experience and heritage in fellowship and outreach.
quote:
24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
Is we sin willfully, there remains judgment. Despite the fact that we are saved by grace, cleansed by the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Christ, the lamb of God, continuing willfully in a life of sin will reap judgment.
quote:
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
You see, it's not disputing the fact that we are in God's family by grace. It is admonishing us to revere that grace highly and dearly, not something cheaply given and to be lightly esteemed.
quote:
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
Not the Devil's people. This verse is not talking about God judging the children of disobedience, but the Lord shall judge HIS people; Us
quote:
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
32 But call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were illuminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions;
33 Partly, whilst ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became companions of them that were so used.
34 For ye had compassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your goods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an enduring substance.
Again, this is addressed to born again believers, as II Peter chapter two is written about Church leaders, not children of Belial
quote:
35 Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward.
If Paul (or whoever wrote Hebrews) exhorts us to cast no away our confidence, it must be available to lose it or throw it away.
quote:
36 For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.
This verse really unhinges me. "After ye have done the will of God????" I thought I'd received it already. I don't wanna be patient, I just wanna be saved. WAAAAAAAA!. Sorry. The point is, this verse seems to stand our "once saved always saved"theology on its head. Like Romans 2:7, it mentions patience. Ye have need of patience.
Patience is a big deal. Charity suffereth long and is kind. Charity beareth all things, believth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. With all lowliness and meekness with longsuffering forbearing one another in love...Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness...For ye have need of patience. It's not optional. That after having done the will of God ye might receive the promise
quote:
37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.
38 Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
39 But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to (eis) the saving of the soul.
Who are they who "draw back" unto perdition. I don't know, but is must be possible to do so. The opposite of drawing back unto perdition (destruction) is believing UNTO the saving of the soul.
According to this passage, the saving of the soul is not a one time act of faith, it's a lifetime of faith.
There's more of course, but this post was too long a couple of paragraphs ago.
Not a brick wall, CM. I just need a little more substance. You're saying that Jesus Christ has already come back, but for one person at a time? Me confused. :-)
I wasn't there, so I'll give you your points on a conversation I wasn't part of, no matter how well I may know Ken & Sue, I can't say what they did or didn't say to you. :)-->
quote:
Ken believes I John is, in his words, "a witnessing epistle" directed to unsaved people and that I John 1:9 refers not to confession of "broken fellowship" or sin in the life of a believer, but salvation. He says much of I John should be interpreted in this manner, as an appeal from the Apostles and the born again believers to the unsaved.
Let's say that's true... and I John is saying, (1:8) "If we, unsaved unbelievers, say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. (v:9) If we unsaved confess our sins, He (God) is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness... once and for all." ...Would be his position, contrary to your's, right?
I'm guessing....because if,
quote:
much of I John should be interpreted in this manner, as an appeal from the Apostles and the born again believers to the unsaved.
... I wonder, How much?
Which much?
Forgive me but I always thought, "you" plus "me" equals "WE." The first sentence of 1 John says
quote:
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
If that is not addressed TO born-again believers, then the writer is not a born-again believer. He refers to THEM as WE. It does switch to YOU and WE in v:4 "And these things write we unto you , that your joy may be full. (v:5) This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you , that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all."
V:6-9 goes back to just WE. If the writer was talking about THEM, the unbelievers, why is he saying WE? The grammatically correct pronoun would have to be YOU... "If YOU confess YOUR sins..." YOU can get saved, like me, THEN you + me = WE.
I can't get with what you relate of Ken's position cause it says WE.
quote:
As to the "It is written" statement, it is clear that Jesus taught from the Scriptures. I think, in your zeal, to score a point, you missed the point.
Zeal to score a point? Not really, my friend. Whereas I DO thoroughly enjoy a healthy discussion of the scriptures, like this one, I have absolutely no desire to "score points." I try to never zoom past stuff, just so I can say what I have to say.
I actually basically agree with your
quote:
Fundamentalist Christians of the Way's mindset get too wrapped up in proving one doctrine or another and that causes division, strife, pride, and carnal thinking in general.
...most especially TWI. They spent way too much time trying way too hard to set and then PROVE their positions.... Definitely self serving.
BUT. Yes, Jesus never wrote an epistle, he WAS the original LIVING epistle, to be known and read of all. Yes, the Bible is not supposed to be our "only rule of faith & practice" (another one of those self-serving ruses) it is simply ALL things that pertain unto life and Godliness which is a l i t t l e bit better than the "only rule of faith" thing. Its a LOT more than a primer, a point of reference to get started...
The Bible is EVERYTHING, the alpha and Omega, ALL things necessary to come to an intimate knowledge of this entire life. Your position indicates to me that you just don't know ENOUGH of the Bible to see it that way.
Thanks about the trucks, they ARE just toys though. I haven't fixed them & the boys don't miss 'em. I chose that analogy I thought it was appropriate to the subject matter. Aren't we talking about losing one's salvation by sinning? It had lots of sin in it. I added the fact that althought THEY didn't see some of what they were doing as sin. I DID.
I think you maight have missed THAT point, which is in relation to losing one's salvation, there are things we do that WE don't RECOGNIZE as SIN but God does. Therefore it would be entirely possible for a person to lose his salvation and NEVER even KNOW it.
God DOES want us to be conscious of sin. He wants us to KNOW sin, HATE sin and FLEE from sin... All the while being conscious of the fact that, "when I sin, it is no longer I that do it but SIN that dwells in me." (Romans 7:)--> He wants us to know that WHEN we sin it is BECAUSE we are drawn away of our own lusts, enticed by them (James 1:14).
He wants us to know that our action of confessing our sins allows God to cleanse our unright living. Our confession is for US, in our minds, it puts us in a place where we can receive from God and He can work with us. He also wants to know that IF we sin we have an advocate, Jesus Christ, the righteous one.
If one understands the Old testament, how they were absolutely cleansed, for a while, by the blood of the passover lamb, which was of the earth, earthy (and therefore IMperfect), you can clearly undertand how Jesus' being the PERFECT sacrifice absolutely cleanses us PERFECTLY.
The problem come with misunderstanding the concept of PERFECTION ... and INCorruptable. You simply can NOT corrupt something that CAN'T be corrupted.
God also told us in John that he who is born of God CANNOT sin - - Our incorruptable spirit can NOT sin. We sin in our bodies, in our minds. Our minds must be renewed (Romans), cleansed, (1 John) cleansed of all unrighteouness (un-right-living) is a continual process, since "if we say we have no sin we lie."
In terms of your analogy, I do not believe children "just turn out that way." I accept if you "train up a child in the way he should go, when he is old, he will NOT depart from it," as absolute truth.
SO, the simplest answer to your question is this: If I had promised to split my estate equally between my two sons, they would get equal portions, PERIOD. Regardless of what they would do with the money; my children know, beyond a shadow of a doubt that IF DAD says something absolutely, it absolutely WILL happen, absolutely as DAD said it would.
I see your point. However the ONLY way the sons would get unequal portions would be if I had told them that their inheritance would be proportionate to their good works. In that case evil son would get NOTHING, and he would expect nothing because I would have informed him at every turn that his evil works were not even in the inheritance ball park. I would have made it crystal clear that:
1. The principle; Inheritance goes to the righteous was in effect.
2. You, son, are in violation of said principle.
3. Should you continue, you get NOTHING.
4. The choice is YOURS. I love you either way.
HOWEVER.
I run my household with the foundation that I NEVER make a promise to my children that I can't keep. I "never" forget my promises to them, beyond what they remember. IF a promise I've made happens to slip my mind and ANY one of them says, "Daddy, you said I could...." The worst they ever get is "Did I say that?" "They say "Yes." and I say. "OK" & it happens, no matter what, where we are or when it is.
This helps my children to trust me. Therefore when I say, "Being a Warlock is WRONG, you shouldn't do it." They say, "Ok Daddy." and don't do it. SO. I'm completely confident that NONE of my children will make a turn down the wrong path like that.
I believe that we parents TEACH our children that they should not believe us. If they turn against us it is because we have turned them. I believe there ARE absolute truths that we CAN hold onto and they WILL set us free.
One is that once God gives you the gift He lets you keep it.
I think the face that Jesus never wrote any of the Bible is irrelevant. Jesus WAS the original Living epistle. HE is the SUBJECT of the Bible and is mentioned in EVERY book of the it, either directly, in terms of prophecy, or as reflected in the ideas, attitudes and situations and character of the focus of each.
In a sense, he IS the Bible. I can't see how him actually writing some of it would make a difference.
I think the face that Jesus never wrote any of the Bible is irrelevant. Jesus WAS the original Living epistle. HE is the SUBJECT of the Bible and is mentioned in EVERY book of the it, either directly, in terms of prophecy, or as reflected in the ideas, attitudes and situations and character of the focus of each.
In a sense, he IS the Bible. I can't see how him actually writing some of it would make a difference.
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
Sunesis:
Thanks for your comments. But I have to disagree with your interpretation of Romans chapter seven. I don't think TWI's teaching on this subject was ever sound. (The idea that Paul was writing about himself and his hopeless struggle against a sinful nature).
In fact, I met with Rev Ken Brown about it during the ROA back in 1987. That's how we met. The context of Romans six is life under the Mosaic covenant. The law is mentioned seven times in the first five verses. This chapter can't be Paul writing about himself. Verse nine says, "I was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died" Paul wasn't born with the Patriarchs and wasn't alive when God spoke the Ten Commandments form the top of Mt Sinai.
Paul is using an allegory to describe the immense frustration of godly people trying to keep the law (which Peter called a yoke of bondage that neither they, nor their fathers were able to bear). The battle of Romans chapter seven was between the godly mind of the old Testament saints who knew that God's commandments were holy and just, and their sinful natures. They saw that God's will was good but were utterly unable to follow it.(David, Solomon, Saul, Balaam, Samson, etc).
The difference between us and them is we have been freed from the bondage of the laws and ordinances of the Old Covenant, and have been given the gift of holy spirit, by which we can know and manifest God's nature and walk in love. We have been relieved of the weight of the hundreds of commandments, ordinances, feasts, and sacrifices and equipped to live according to a higher standard; that of the love of God in Christ. Therefore, although we still make mistakes and sin, we are able to walk by the spirit and so fulfill the righteousness of the law.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Isn't it interesting that Jesus never wrote any of the Bible?
the here and now is where godly things can happen
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Good post Mark. Much food for thought there. I've not spent much time reconsidering the thousand year reign, except some work I did last year on the hope. I changed my mind about the pre-trib rapture and I think I Corinthians 15 and I Thessalonians 3 & 4 are more harmoniouse if interpreted as a post tribulation gathering. Beyond that, I don't know. Maybe what you posted is the missing piece to the works vs grace puzzle.
It would be nice if the Lord came back tomorrow and cleared all this up huh?
For now we see through a glass darkly....
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Yes it is, CM. That's another reason for us not to get so wrapped up in "It is written" that we can't love each other any more. I think He wanted us to follow his example of compassion, humility and love more than getting obsessed over his words.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cynic
I recently read a compelling, though rather irritating piece about Romans 7 called “Insights From Postmodernism’s Emphasis On Interpretive Communities In The Interpretation Of Romans 7,” by a guy named Walt Russell.
Russell opposed some traditional interpretations of Romans 7 (e.g. that Paul was referring to a conflict within a Christian; that Paul was referring to a conflict common to unbelievers), and also argued that Romans 7 is referring to a conflict within a religious Jew under the Law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Those people in the first century didn't have Matthew through Revelations to refer to, debate over or develop doctrines from.
How did they do it? Get the new birth, teach it to others. Must be more to it then we think.
Jb-"It would be nice if the Lord came back tomorrow and cleared all this up huh?"
Jesus came and went then came again as promised.
-this same Jesus, which is taken up from you
into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye
have seen him go into heaven-
The Lord will come in due time to each of us.
Sooner or later.
He has already come to some.
Be ready.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Jbarrax:
Really?
Here's his example: (just scroll quickly through the scriptures, unless you want to examine them)
It seems to me that there are 27 uses of "it is written" that show it WAS his example to be very concerned about... it is written.
Whereas I agree with you that we shouldn't be so concerned about ANYTHING that we can't love each other anymore AND I agree that obsession is a concept that has NO place in Christian thinking or life-style. I firmly believe we should be completely concerned with his (Jesus') words.
AND, I disagree that I...
My intent was to show you that 1st John speaks on the subject. I'm not out to PROVE anything.It is NOT ironic that I would post scriptures that speak to the subject of the discussion. I'M FOLLOWING JESUS' example by not telling you what I think, I'm SHOWING what "is written" on it.
I know Ken, pretty well, actually. He & his wife were on staff @ HQ pretty much the whole 9+ years I was there. His wife worked in Way Publications with me on a semi daily basis.You can add unassuming, humble, fair and well groomed to your list about Ken. He's a good man, no doubt. However, I don't think he'd be OK with you using his name, especially in light of the fact that he disagreed with your postion, to further your position in any discussion. You posted:
My interpretation of that is this:You spoke with him and he shot down your position in a few brief minutes. Then he graciously mentioned that he's studied 1 John in the context of apparent Biblical clashes between works and grace because SOME think and teach that 1 John: 1:9 is used to promote righteousness by works.
I don't see Ken EVER saying that 1 John 1:9 is not addressed to born again believers. John's epistles as CLEARLY addressed to eyewitnesses...
Sure, a loving, honest, etc., etc. bazillion year veteran of the research dept. believes:
... these things write we unto you, (who are NOT born again believers) that your joy may be full.
I took many questions to Ken over the years @ HQ. many staffers asked many questions to the whole research dept. ad nauseum, so much so that there was an official announcement to leave those guys alone. I also spent a fair amount of time sitting across Walter Cummins' desk: John Crouch, John Shoenheit, Dan MacConaghy, all of 'em, even LCM and VP himself. I used to have TWIG in Vp's basement and Mrs. and Wanda Wierwille served us cookies & ice cream & bug juice.
My point is not to drop names, but to give a little credience to the fact that I know those guys, well enough to have a decent idea of how they think. Vince Finnegan too.
I thoroughly understand the thinking of going beyond TWI teaching, correcting the errors, etc. I also know, myself as eye witness, that contrary to a prevailing train of thought, VPW, himself TOLD us ALL to go beyond "his" work.
The very CONCEPT of what so many denounce and slam, as Way CORPSE, included the research papers be submitted as partial requirement for graduation. Those papers were to become a part of the greatest library of Biblical research in the world. In theory every WC Grad was to pick a subject that they felt God had inspired them to, do a masters level thesis on it, submit it to the research library then spend the rest of their lives "mastering" that subject, each becoming an "authority" on it.
I wouldn't doubt it if "all" of that work was burned in th transition to "TWI II; Revenge of the Jock."
When it comes to dropping names, the current TWI Vice Pres, Harve Platig, was my research paper advisor, HE praised my thinking process, research capabilities, and gave my paper a superior rating.
(Uh, OH, maybe I shouldn't use Harve, he may not be honest, loving, etc.
)
I guess my point, overall, is.... Historically, people have had a very hard time accepting that God wants us with him eternally and GAVE that to us as a gift. Like Santa Clause. Do you think I don't KNOW every year that my kids are gonna break the toys I give them for Christmas (yes, I said CHRISTMAS, grr...
:)--> 
;)--> 
)???
This year, TWO remote control trucks didn't last til noon. My boys figured that the big, knobby, off road lookin' tires actually ment they could drive them off road. They ran one right off the top step, reveling in how cool it looked as it tumbled down the steps. I was dismayed when it BROKE along the way.
AFTER I comforted them, after they were upset, after they repented, of breaking it, after I instructed them SPECIFICALLY that it broke BECAUSE of it tumbling down the soft carpeted stairs, after they understood, after I ORDERED them NOT to do it again, after they survived the "wrath of Dad," after they went happily off to play in their room - - upstairs ... AFTER a few minutes later, the OTHER one came bouncing, tumbling down - - BROKE in the SAME place as the other one.
"We're sorry Daddy! I was an axe-inent!" Please don't kill us look in their eyes.
You're going to HELL. I said, lovingly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sunesis
HCW - LOL! TWI II; Revenge of the Jock! good one.
Jerry, great to see you posting here again. I realize Paul is talking about law and bondage in those verses. However, one day years ago I was reading those passages and it struck me like a thunderbolt out of the blue, its also, I guess I'll use the word "spiritually" talking about our inner struggle with the old and the new man - our two natures so to speak.
I can't explain it, I just deeply understood, that Christ's love for us is so big, the old, sin nature is not held against us. Does this mean we rest on our laurels? Of course not, it gives us greater impetus to try and walk as Christ walked and follow the still small voice within.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
That last post was getting so long ... I negelected to complete my train of thought.
Regardless as to how anyone feels about VPW, no matter how valid negative pov's, or personal experiences people have had withhim, it is factual that he DID strongly encourage "us" to go beyond him, noting that his " research works," were not the complete be it all end all.
I know that, and am now in some ways a little shocked that, so many were taught otherwise. Regardless I believe people should go "beyond," I agree there were many errors.
I just don't think that "the quest" should not be fueled by an "anti" position. I think I may see some of that in this discussion. God did place "anchor points" in His word. He did make some "blanket statements" that cover a lot of other stuff.
As a father I could NEVER condemn my children to hell AFTER giving them the gift of life. They are alive "because" of me and their Mom. I KNOW for a fact that they deliberately disobeyed me and ran the second truck off that top step as fast as they could get it to go.
I believe that I see the broken truck like God sees the consequence of sin in our lives. I believe that what I felt in my heart when I looked into the eyes of my son and said, "Why did you DO that? Didn't I just tell you and show you that it would break if you did that again?" That was the love of God.
ALL I could see, and feel as I was holding this broken toy in my hands was how sad my son was and how much I wanted him NOT to feel that way. I told him, "You're just not gonna have a remote control truck to play with until I get some super glue, THEN I'll fix BOTH of them."
I think you're right Jbarrax, when you say "its about love."
If I, being evil can have that kind of compassion for my children in the face of their out and out, deliberate, rebellious disobedience, even with a little white lie thrown in at the end, how much MORE our Father which is in heaven. If they asked me for bread would I give them a ROCK? ... a snake?
As the heaven is high above the earth, so are His ways above our ways and His thoughts above our thoughts. Jesus told us we should be like CHILDREN. We "run our trucks down the stairs" on a multi daily basis. We have at LEAST an equal disrespect for the "Christmas" letting of GIFTS that God has wrapped up for us and delivered to us and placed IN us - as my precous little boys do.
How many of us parents "joke" EVERY year that, "I should just get 'em a BOX."??? I know one year not too long ago "santa" brought one of those electric ride'em motorcycle things. It came in a HUGE box with pictures of the cycle on the outside... I'm in the kitchen when I hear a sliding sound then "CRASH" a lamp's fallen, broken glass when the lightbulb pops, then "AWWW... I'm TELL-in'... DAAAADD!"
I pop into the room & two littlest ones are IN the BOX! Big sister is PUSHING them as fast as she could, Big, big sister says, "I TOLD you to STOP!" Nobody's guilty...lamp's twisted, mangled.... Broken glass....
I sent them to their room, not eternal damnation. I made the ones old enough to not hurt themselves, clean up the mess.
Our sin, is temporal, God's love for us, eternal. My salvation is a GIFT. Thank you. I believe God told us, "If you do that, it will break your toys. Don't break your toys or you will lose them. Don't hang out with people who won't be coming with us. They will break your toys and cause you to break your toys.
He also told us, "If you are good, I'll get you some REALLY cool toys you can have when "Christmas" comes. Then you can play with them eternally. AND. All those bad guys? They won't be here to break your toys or cause you to bresk your toys. Besides When I make toys they DON'T break."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
BeHOLD, what manner of LOVE is THIS that we should be called the CHILDREN of God...
After all the CRAP mankind has put HIM through since HE made US. After we turn from him on a regular basis, after SOME of us worship his ENEMY and give him the middle finger,
spit in His face.
think we're smarter than He,
etc.,
etc.,
etc.
He LOVED us so MUCH that he would sacrifice HIS own SON so that we MIGHT be saved.
What manner of love is this?
One that is too high for me.
I just believe it and accept it, happily.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Amen HCW
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
I can say that one old teaching tape that could be playing in the back of the head is-
"the word of god says what it means and means what it says....etc..."
Give that one the boot out the door. Take a fresh look at some of this stuff.
Ya know the wrath of God might not be a bad thing for us. If God thinks it's bad then we don't want it hanging around anyway. And it just might not be talking about people, but the bad that is in each of us.
Hell let it burn....marshmellows anyone?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
i'm not trying to make too lite of the matter
it is some very serious and powerful stuff
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Wrong on both points HCW. We visited with Ken and Sue and he spent about a half hour talking about his position on I John. I was more intent on listening than talking so I didn't even bring up my position. I went home, studied what he'd said about I John for a few days and decided it didn't sufficently answer my questions about eternal life. So I sent him an Email and we exchanged a few messages. The end result was, he didn't agree with my point of view and wasn't inclined to invest much time in considering it.
Then you should give him a call. Ken does teach that I John is not addressed to born-again belivers; specifically I John 1:9.
Ken believes I John is, in his words, "a witnessing epistle" directed to unsaved people and that I John 1:9 refers not to confession of "broken fellowship" or sin in the life of a believer, but salvation. He says much of I John should be interpreted in this manner, as an appeal from the Apostles and the born again believers to the unsaved.
According to my recollection and understanding he believes the teaching that we're cleansed from unrighteousness by confessing our sin contradicts Paul's doctrine of righteousness by faith alone. He says the Way's interpretation of I John 1:9 as a reference to sin in the life of a believer and being conditionally cleansed from unrighteousness contributes to a works mentality and sin conciousness.
And I agree completely with your asessment of his character. He's a fine man with a good heart. Since I made it clear he didn't agree with my position, I don't see why he'd object to may sharing what he's teaching.
As to the "It is written" statement, it is clear that Jesus taught from the Scriptures. I think, in your zeal, to score a point, you missed the point. Fundamentalist Christians of the Way's mindset get too wrapped up in proving one doctrine or another and that causes division, strife, pride, and carnal thinking in general. All this despite the fact that Our Lord never wrote an epistle. The Bible is not supposed to be our ONLY rule of faith and practice, it's supposed to be a primer, a point of reference for getting started on a walk that leads to an intimate knowledge of God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
Sorry to hear about the RC trucks. But hey, that's what kids do. But if we're going to talk analogies, we need one more appropriate to the subject matter. I'm not saying that if you make a mistake or commit one act of disobedience, God will shut you out of the Kingdom.
But let's look down the hypothetical road a way. Suppose one of your two sons loves and respects you and grows up to be a mature and loving Christian. He blesses people, does much good in the comunity and brings you immense pride and joy. But suppose his brother, after having been raised in your loving care, decided that you were a worthless ex-cult freak, turned his back on you, and spent his life denouncing you and everything you believe. Suppose he started a coven and became a dedicated and effective warlock (God forbid), even causing the deaths of people you know and love. You continue to prosper and amass a 5 million dollar estate. You love both your sons. One has proven himself faithful, wise and loving and you know will use his inheritance wisely. The other not only hates you, but has done great harm and will turn your inheritance into fuel for more of the same. Do you give them an equal inheritance in your estate?
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
A lot of Way types really rail against confessing of sins, but John Wesley started his small groups with weekly accountability sessions that people did confess their sins. It helps us walk more upright to have told someone our struggles and failures. It helps become stronger in the Lord as He works on us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
The biggest difference between Jerry and Vince is that Vince is teaching his conclusions from a pulpit and leading others as a "minister of God." and Jerry is saying to others, not in a capacity as a minister, "This is what I think."
God makes a HUGE distinction between one who would lead GOD'S flock and one who speaks, flock member to flock member.
The distinction is that when "jerry" speaks and says, "this is what I think," that's all that is implicit within his remarks. When "Minister Vince" says "this is what I think" the implication is, "what I think is what YOU SHOULD think."
That makes all the differnce in the world to God. His position is this: "When you lead MY flock, you'd BETTER be right. Woe unto you if you're not."
God doesn't hold Jerry to that standard. I believe that the nature of every official words a minister speaks, makes him "special." When he's wrong, ALL it does is make him "special" in the eyes of his followers. Being right makes him Blessed of God, ALSO in addition to being special to "his" people. God instructs the flock to "esteem them highly in love, for the sake of their work as your leader."
Vince may be sincere, but he's wrong. We won't lose our salvation if we are not faithful til the end. To honestly come to that conclusion one must honestly ignore SOOOO much clear scripture and stand up & say, "No, YOU, and all this stuff is WRONG, I am right."
Pretty damn presumptuous.
ANY, and EVERY wrong thing taught from the pulpit becomes a ruse, all it can accomplish is to get peolpe to follow the minister, because he has ceased from following God on each and every wrong thing he teaches.
VF has taken the very centerpiece of the Christian faith, the new birth, and said,
"Even though God clearly said, 'Ye MUST be born again'.... He wasn't REALLY talking about salvation being BIRTH that IS YOU being BORN, and saved from the wrath to come. Its really some sort of 'condition,' a 'situation' or better yet, a 'trust' that you partake of and 'carry.' You must carry it, being faithful to the trust ALL the way until the end.
If you are not faithful to it, or you drop it, even though God ALSO says you WILL, in fact, drop it; because you don't have the ability to carry it; you will LOSE it. You are NOT saved, you will ONLY become saved, later, that is IF you happen to be holding it until the end. The end being the return of the liar who said you would be BORN, or YOUR end, potentially, being when YOU die.
If you're not holding it at the end, sorry 'bout yer luck pal, love ya, see ya, wouldn't wanna BE ya!"
The new birth is directly tied to the death of Adam. The life God gave Adam was eternal. The life purchased back by the second Adam IS eternal. It really IS that simple.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Hi Sunesis! Thanks. It's good to be back in the active growth mode. These forums and the collective wisdom of posters like you, Raf, Garth, Evan, Ex10, Steve Lortz and others have been in invaluable source of spiritual growth over the years.
HCW
Regarding God's love, I understand where you're coming from. The problem is, the more I read the Bible, the more I see these verses I've been ignoring all these years popping up at me. And I have to decide whether I'm going to continue to ignore them or consider that maybe there's more to the truth than what I've been taught.
And I'm not coming form an "anti VP" mindset. I actually still have fond feelings about him. I don't think of him as a despicable character. Miguided perhaps, flawed, certainly, maybe worse. But this is not about disliking Dr. Weirwille and wanting to get back at him. It's about a deep and nagging hunger for truth. That's all.
So God loves us and gave us eternal life. Hallelujah.
But what then do we do with Romans 2:7
Paul argued in Galatians that we are justified by faith, not works. We were taught that we are heaven bound and all hell can't stop us from going. Why then did Paul issue this warning to the same Church he had just taught so fervently about righteousness by faith?
We've already discussed the fact that Ephesians 2:8 says we're saved by grace and not of works, but Ephesians 5, in the section about walking in love says,
What did Paul really mean when he told the Philippian Church to work out their own salvation?
What happens to those who don't work out their own salvation, who are not found blameless and suffer rebuke. From whom does the rebuke come from? From the world or from the Lord?
We've already looked at Hebrews chapters three and four. There is more of the same in chapter 10.
This is not addressed to unbelievers, but to the Church; to a community with a shared experience and heritage in fellowship and outreach.
Is we sin willfully, there remains judgment. Despite the fact that we are saved by grace, cleansed by the perfect sacrifice of the blood of Christ, the lamb of God, continuing willfully in a life of sin will reap judgment.
You see, it's not disputing the fact that we are in God's family by grace. It is admonishing us to revere that grace highly and dearly, not something cheaply given and to be lightly esteemed.
Not the Devil's people. This verse is not talking about God judging the children of disobedience, but the Lord shall judge HIS people; Us Again, this is addressed to born again believers, as II Peter chapter two is written about Church leaders, not children of Belial If Paul (or whoever wrote Hebrews) exhorts us to cast no away our confidence, it must be available to lose it or throw it away. This verse really unhinges me. "After ye have done the will of God????" I thought I'd received it already. I don't wanna be patient, I just wanna be saved. WAAAAAAAA!. Sorry. The point is, this verse seems to stand our "once saved always saved"theology on its head. Like Romans 2:7, it mentions patience. Ye have need of patience.Patience is a big deal. Charity suffereth long and is kind. Charity beareth all things, believth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. With all lowliness and meekness with longsuffering forbearing one another in love...Strengthened with all might, according to his glorious power unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness...For ye have need of patience. It's not optional. That after having done the will of God ye might receive the promise
Who are they who "draw back" unto perdition. I don't know, but is must be possible to do so. The opposite of drawing back unto perdition (destruction) is believing UNTO the saving of the soul.
According to this passage, the saving of the soul is not a one time act of faith, it's a lifetime of faith.
There's more of course, but this post was too long a couple of paragraphs ago.
Peace
JerryB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Is there a brick wall or something that has stopped consideration of some points I'm bringing up? Perhaps a veil....
Do I go too far off the trail you are on for you to turn and look.
Maybe I'm not using the right words, but are you getting the idea?
Is anyone listening? Just wondering....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jbarrax
Not a brick wall, CM. I just need a little more substance. You're saying that Jesus Christ has already come back, but for one person at a time? Me confused. :-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
It's in the gospels....
Christ coming is mentioned in many places
but each man in his own order in Corinthians
going to bed now, talk more soon I hope
btw i didn't say
"You're saying that Jesus Christ has already come back"
I said he will come to each one of us sooner or later.
His promise to the 12 came true, it will for us too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
I think Paul is letting people know that certain behaviors are unacceptable for Christians and that need to turn away from such practices.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Ok Jerry.
I wasn't there, so I'll give you your points on a conversation I wasn't part of, no matter how well I may know Ken & Sue, I can't say what they did or didn't say to you.
:)-->
Let's say that's true... and I John is saying, (1:8) "If we, unsaved unbelievers, say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. (v:9) If we unsaved confess our sins, He (God) is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness... once and for all." ...Would be his position, contrary to your's, right?
I'm guessing....because if,
... I wonder, How much?Which much?
Forgive me but I always thought, "you" plus "me" equals "WE." The first sentence of 1 John says
If that is not addressed TO born-again believers, then the writer is not a born-again believer. He refers to THEM as WE. It does switch to YOU and WE in v:4 "And these things write we unto you , that your joy may be full. (v:5) This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you , that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all."
V:6-9 goes back to just WE. If the writer was talking about THEM, the unbelievers, why is he saying WE? The grammatically correct pronoun would have to be YOU... "If YOU confess YOUR sins..." YOU can get saved, like me, THEN you + me = WE.
I can't get with what you relate of Ken's position cause it says WE.
Zeal to score a point? Not really, my friend. Whereas I DO thoroughly enjoy a healthy discussion of the scriptures, like this one, I have absolutely no desire to "score points." I try to never zoom past stuff, just so I can say what I have to say.I actually basically agree with your
...most especially TWI. They spent way too much time trying way too hard to set and then PROVE their positions.... Definitely self serving.BUT. Yes, Jesus never wrote an epistle, he WAS the original LIVING epistle, to be known and read of all. Yes, the Bible is not supposed to be our "only rule of faith & practice" (another one of those self-serving ruses) it is simply ALL things that pertain unto life and Godliness which is a l i t t l e bit better than the "only rule of faith" thing. Its a LOT more than a primer, a point of reference to get started...
The Bible is EVERYTHING, the alpha and Omega, ALL things necessary to come to an intimate knowledge of this entire life. Your position indicates to me that you just don't know ENOUGH of the Bible to see it that way.
Thanks about the trucks, they ARE just toys though. I haven't fixed them & the boys don't miss 'em. I chose that analogy I thought it was appropriate to the subject matter. Aren't we talking about losing one's salvation by sinning? It had lots of sin in it. I added the fact that althought THEY didn't see some of what they were doing as sin. I DID.
I think you maight have missed THAT point, which is in relation to losing one's salvation, there are things we do that WE don't RECOGNIZE as SIN but God does. Therefore it would be entirely possible for a person to lose his salvation and NEVER even KNOW it.
God DOES want us to be conscious of sin. He wants us to KNOW sin, HATE sin and FLEE from sin... All the while being conscious of the fact that, "when I sin, it is no longer I that do it but SIN that dwells in me." (Romans 7
:)--> He wants us to know that WHEN we sin it is BECAUSE we are drawn away of our own lusts, enticed by them (James 1:14).
He wants us to know that our action of confessing our sins allows God to cleanse our unright living. Our confession is for US, in our minds, it puts us in a place where we can receive from God and He can work with us. He also wants to know that IF we sin we have an advocate, Jesus Christ, the righteous one.
If one understands the Old testament, how they were absolutely cleansed, for a while, by the blood of the passover lamb, which was of the earth, earthy (and therefore IMperfect), you can clearly undertand how Jesus' being the PERFECT sacrifice absolutely cleanses us PERFECTLY.
The problem come with misunderstanding the concept of PERFECTION ... and INCorruptable. You simply can NOT corrupt something that CAN'T be corrupted.
God also told us in John that he who is born of God CANNOT sin - - Our incorruptable spirit can NOT sin. We sin in our bodies, in our minds. Our minds must be renewed (Romans), cleansed, (1 John) cleansed of all unrighteouness (un-right-living) is a continual process, since "if we say we have no sin we lie."
In terms of your analogy, I do not believe children "just turn out that way." I accept if you "train up a child in the way he should go, when he is old, he will NOT depart from it," as absolute truth.
SO, the simplest answer to your question is this: If I had promised to split my estate equally between my two sons, they would get equal portions, PERIOD. Regardless of what they would do with the money; my children know, beyond a shadow of a doubt that IF DAD says something absolutely, it absolutely WILL happen, absolutely as DAD said it would.
I see your point. However the ONLY way the sons would get unequal portions would be if I had told them that their inheritance would be proportionate to their good works. In that case evil son would get NOTHING, and he would expect nothing because I would have informed him at every turn that his evil works were not even in the inheritance ball park. I would have made it crystal clear that:
1. The principle; Inheritance goes to the righteous was in effect.
2. You, son, are in violation of said principle.
3. Should you continue, you get NOTHING.
4. The choice is YOURS. I love you either way.
HOWEVER.
I run my household with the foundation that I NEVER make a promise to my children that I can't keep. I "never" forget my promises to them, beyond what they remember. IF a promise I've made happens to slip my mind and ANY one of them says, "Daddy, you said I could...." The worst they ever get is "Did I say that?" "They say "Yes." and I say. "OK" & it happens, no matter what, where we are or when it is.
This helps my children to trust me. Therefore when I say, "Being a Warlock is WRONG, you shouldn't do it." They say, "Ok Daddy." and don't do it. SO. I'm completely confident that NONE of my children will make a turn down the wrong path like that.
I believe that we parents TEACH our children that they should not believe us. If they turn against us it is because we have turned them. I believe there ARE absolute truths that we CAN hold onto and they WILL set us free.
One is that once God gives you the gift He lets you keep it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Ok CM. I'm listening, for one.
:)-->
I think the face that Jesus never wrote any of the Bible is irrelevant. Jesus WAS the original Living epistle. HE is the SUBJECT of the Bible and is mentioned in EVERY book of the it, either directly, in terms of prophecy, or as reflected in the ideas, attitudes and situations and character of the focus of each.
In a sense, he IS the Bible. I can't see how him actually writing some of it would make a difference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Most excellent point indeed.
And where is that Christ? Our Lord.
It's Christ in you the hope of glory!
Is he there are not?
Did he COME or not?
And where did he COME from?
From within or from without?
The Coming of the Lord is
being born again-Christ in you.
So many people say they are born-again
yet may not have experienced the new birth.
I'm not the one to judge wether or not
they are, they will see it first hand.
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.