I understand your point. I think you don't understand mine, or Dan's.
I was looking into this very principle from a few years ago, and my questioning the concept of salvation as "once saved always saved" began when I carefully read this section:
Rom 11:17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
Rom 11:18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Rom 11:19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
Rom 11:21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Rom 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
What prompted me to carefully read it was, what I consider, and erroneous teaching by VPW that Paul shifted gears in Romans from speaking to the believers to speaking to the unbelievers. That, in my mind, was ridiculous.
Continuing in His goodness, obviously to me, means walking in Love, as we are told in Eph 5:1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;
Eph 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us...
Do you consider that works? Because that is definitely a modus operandi, the one we are supposed to be adhering to. This brought about a different understanding for me of this section:
Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
That phrase, "any other creature" is indicative of any other creature than myself. Well, I can't find anywhere that states that I can't screw it up for myself.
While I am not 100% convinced, I was quite interested to see what Dan had found when looking into this very topic. And I am still looking into it, and speaking with those who I respect with regard to their understanding of the Word.
First, the passage you quoted from Romans is OBVIOUSLY allegorical or metaphorical. It's NOT anything else than that. Does it spell out anywhere with specificity what causes "branches to be broken off" or what causes the "severity of God" to come down on whoever it was that fell?
Second, how do you come to make your inferences as to what you suggest the referenced verses in Ephesians 5 mean?
Third, do I consider "walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us..." and "Be ye followers of God..." to be works? Well, are those things that a believer is responsible to do?
Fourth, believe all you want that if you give up your agency (free will) you'll lose your salvation.
But don't think that selling that behavioral construct as a foundational principle for behavior in allegedly Christian churches will do anything other than propagate dysfunctional social mores by which those with designs to squeeze out of their followers a lucrative living.
By the way, you haven't demonstrated at all that you get my point. Just saying "I understand what you are getting at" is not demonstrating that you do. It's just a shortcut to avoid having to explain whether or not you do.
What you have demonstrated is that you're trying (fruitlessly) to get me to believe that somehow decisions, attitudes and actions for which individual believers must take or make on their own somehow do not constitute "works."
While I am not 100% convinced, I was quite interested to see what Dan had found when looking into this very topic. And I am still looking into it, and speaking with those who I respect with regard to their understanding of the Word.
While you are hypothetically not 100% convinced, you are arguing Dan's thesis as if you are indeed 100% convinced.
If you were not already convinced, you would be acknowledging and giving actual feedback on what I have counter argued. All you've done is claim you get my point without actually acknowledging what you think my point is.
Because he doesn't say any such thing, not even a hint of it. It's just between us and God.
Everything I've read, the verses he quotes, have nothing to do with obeying any people. Just God.
It really doesn't even matter whether Gallegher quotes any verses having to do with obeying any people. Churches, including TWI and STFI are social groups. Social groups sometimes have written rules but always have unwritten rules (mores). It is ALL about obeying people whether you're willing to recognize it or not.
Here's a not so far-fetched hypothetical for you. A charismatic, but privately tyrannical malignant narcissist starts a ministry that grows as people take classes that indoctrinate them into believing that obeying God requires subservience to the Teacher (PO Box 328, New Knoxville, OH 45871). As one or more of those believers develop "spiritual maturity" and skills at "researching" scripture, they come to believe the Teacher is wrong on something he taught. The Teacher marks and avoids them, banishing them forever from interaction with what the Teacher claimed was the Household of God.
One or more of those who are banished suffer emotional injury and ultimately blame God. They turn away.
-----
I'm not asking you to explain away or rationalize anything. That hypothetical is highly credible and has, no doubt, happened hundreds, if not thousands of times.
I'm only asking you to acknowledge that not all of the answers can be found by listing scripture verses in some convoluted order and comparing the meaning of Greek or Hebrew words.
It would be great if you wanted to actually discuss the issue. But I haven't yet seen where you have tried to do so.
You are projecting your own interpretation when you add WANT TO. The verse doesn't say that, it just tells us to.
This is why we have research tools, like Bullinger, and Brown Driver Briggs, and Thayer, and the like. I happen to like the KJV, and yes, I did enjoy Shakespeare. I was able to understand this old English within the first chapter of Genesis. But I don't just look at one version, I have several versions available.
As for the "ANY OTHER THING IN CREATION", Bullinger defines this Greek word for other as meaning the other of two. Well, there are many more than two in that list, so what is the two? I say it is me and anyone else. What do you say?
And what about this? Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Gal 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
Do you not think God would be mocked if we could have any attitude we want after being born again, and still be guaranteed a place in heaven?
I am adding my own OPINION when I say "we should WANT TO walk in love." I explained WHY we should want to. (It pleases God, and it's the right thing to do-which is why is pleases God.) I thought this was actually beyond dispute and that Christians would stipulate to that without an argument. (No, we shouldn't, no it does not please God, no, it's not the right thing to do...) I made that clear by not putting my OPINION in quotation marks. Really, junior high school English rules should make that clear.
==============================
As for Bullinger and definitions of "other" and "another", he's defined "heteros" and "allos" completely differently in 2 ways. A) "Heteros" means "another of a different kind" and "allos" means "another of the same kind." This is consistent through the Bible. (One usage is in Galatians 1, the warning against being drawn to "another gospel which is not another". "Another/heteros gospel which is not another/allo", or "a different gospel with is not of the same kind", which sounds redundant when rendered plainly. Then again, if you accept "pleonasm" as a legitimate figure of speech as Bullinger did, that's just fine.) The other usage was to say one was "another when there are exactly two" and the other was "another where there are more than two." That actually is not used consistently in Scripture, and that was pointed out here, long ago. (Someone said that the mention of cheeks should obviously refer to two since a person has exactly two, but the Greek word used was the other, and so on.) I haven't looked into that one for something like 20 years because that definition seemed both INCORRECT and SUPERFLUOUS. The usage of "same kind" and "different kind" was consistent, sensible, and easy to demonstrate.
So, in other words, I say Bullinger was correct in his OTHER (heteros, different) definition, and not in this one. Since the definitions contradicted each other, it seems evident at as many as one could be correct (both could have been wrong, or one could have been wrong, but since they contradict, they couldn't both be right.)
==================================
There's this thing that's actually pretty common among ex-twi splinter leaders. It's a false bifurcation that's based on over-compensation. They take one extreme position on something, see that there's problems with that extreme position, so they conclude that the polar opposite position must be true, and skip over the problems with that extreme position.
We saw that when Geer attempted to reconcile God's Love and God's Omnipotence with the continued existence of evil. (This is a very old question, and smarter men than him have hit the reefs on it.) Time Magazine addressed this same problem once as their cover story. They claimed that any TWO of those could operate together, but that all 3 could not. If God was Omnipotent and evil existed, He wouldn't be Love because He'd be fine with evil existing. And so on. Geer decided that the issue could be decided by rejecting God's Omnipotence. Specifically, he rejected God's Omniscience, His "All-Knowingness", if you please. He imposed that explanation on Scripture, and mangled Genesis 3 to claim it supported his assertion when it actually did the opposite.
In this case, the problem was looking at vpw's proclaimed grotesque position that- once one is saved, one can sin with impunity without any significant consequences and God would just let it go because you have Eternal life and Incorruptible seed. Well, the seed won't corrupt, the life won't end, but that's hardly the same as saying there will be no consequences. I'm confident there will be severe consequences but that they won't end eternal life or rot incorruptible seed. If you like, we can get into this in a Doctrinal thread. Personally, I think it doesn't matter because of the results. If I'm planning on backstabbing God, the actual consequences won't scare me into a turnaround. And if I don't, then it doesn't matter what the penalty would be for doing so. (I don't care about the legal penalty for counterfeiting because I have no plans to ever counterfeit.)
In other words, no, I don't think that we have "a guaranteed place in Heaven." I think we have "eternal life" and "incorruptible seed". None of that guarantees "Heaven." That was what vpw referred to (incorrectly) as "private interpretation" no matter how many people taught that in twi.
I am adding my own OPINION when I say "we should WANT TO walk in love." I explained WHY we should want to. (It pleases God, and it's the right thing to do-which is why is pleases God.) I thought this was actually beyond dispute and that Christians would stipulate to that without an argument. (No, we shouldn't, no it does not please God, no, it's not the right thing to do...) I made that clear by not putting my OPINION in quotation marks. Really, junior high school English rules should make that clear.
==============================
As for Bullinger and definitions of "other" and "another", he's defined "heteros" and "allos" completely differently in 2 ways. A) "Heteros" means "another of a different kind" and "allos" means "another of the same kind." This is consistent through the Bible. (One usage is in Galatians 1, the warning against being drawn to "another gospel which is not another". "Another/heteros gospel which is not another/allo", or "a different gospel with is not of the same kind", which sounds redundant when rendered plainly. Then again, if you accept "pleonasm" as a legitimate figure of speech as Bullinger did, that's just fine.) The other usage was to say one was "another when there are exactly two" and the other was "another where there are more than two." That actually is not used consistently in Scripture, and that was pointed out here, long ago. (Someone said that the mention of cheeks should obviously refer to two since a person has exactly two, but the Greek word used was the other, and so on.) I haven't looked into that one for something like 20 years because that definition seemed both INCORRECT and SUPERFLUOUS. The usage of "same kind" and "different kind" was consistent, sensible, and easy to demonstrate.
So, in other words, I say Bullinger was correct in his OTHER (heteros, different) definition, and not in this one. Since the definitions contradicted each other, it seems evident at as many as one could be correct (both could have been wrong, or one could have been wrong, but since they contradict, they couldn't both be right.)
==================================
There's this thing that's actually pretty common among ex-twi splinter leaders. It's a false bifurcation that's based on over-compensation. They take one extreme position on something, see that there's problems with that extreme position, so they conclude that the polar opposite position must be true, and skip over the problems with that extreme position.
We saw that when Geer attempted to reconcile God's Love and God's Omnipotence with the continued existence of evil. (This is a very old question, and smarter men than him have hit the reefs on it.) Time Magazine addressed this same problem once as their cover story. They claimed that any TWO of those could operate together, but that all 3 could not. If God was Omnipotent and evil existed, He wouldn't be Love because He'd be fine with evil existing. And so on. Geer decided that the issue could be decided by rejecting God's Omnipotence. Specifically, he rejected God's Omniscience, His "All-Knowingness", if you please. He imposed that explanation on Scripture, and mangled Genesis 3 to claim it supported his assertion when it actually did the opposite.
In this case, the problem was looking at vpw's proclaimed grotesque position that- once one is saved, one can sin with impunity without any significant consequences and God would just let it go because you have Eternal life and Incorruptible seed. Well, the seed won't corrupt, the life won't end, but that's hardly the same as saying there will be no consequences. I'm confident there will be severe consequences but that they won't end eternal life or rot incorruptible seed. If you like, we can get into this in a Doctrinal thread. Personally, I think it doesn't matter because of the results. If I'm planning on backstabbing God, the actual consequences won't scare me into a turnaround. And if I don't, then it doesn't matter what the penalty would be for doing so. (I don't care about the legal penalty for counterfeiting because I have no plans to ever counterfeit.)
In other words, no, I don't think that we have "a guaranteed place in Heaven." I think we have "eternal life" and "incorruptible seed". None of that guarantees "Heaven." That was what vpw referred to (incorrectly) as "private interpretation" no matter how many people taught that in twi.
I think it’s also possible that the incorruptible seed mentioned in I Peter 1:23 refers to the word of God - similar to usage in Luke 8:5 a farmer went out to sow his seed...I believe the Greek for “seed” in I Peter 1:23 is “sporas” a sowing - so it could be interpreted as being born again by an act of sowing incorruptible seed - i.e. the word of God.
Thank you, T, this is in line with something I was questioning - the seed is incorruptible, but does that mean the salvation is?
My point was that “incorruptible” is referring to the word of God and not to salvation...as perhaps a tangent of this idea - you might want to consider the context of I Peter - being born again to a living hope and called to a holy life...and you might want to consider some alternate interpretations of Genesis 3 people created in God’s image and what died in the Fall...Hebrew thought on death was that of a separation - physical death = life force separated from the body and then there is spiritual death = our spiritual nature being separated from God...in other words I believe the soul is immortal - when one speaks of going to heaven I understand that to refer to the soul’s eternal state...the 2nd death referred to in the Bible would then mean one’s soul is eternally separated from God...
So to be born again - could mean to have the connection restored - one who was spiritually dead ( separated from God) - is now alive to pursue a holy calling.
This is all just my opinion, of course
Sorry for straying off topic and getting into some tangents - but I think in trying to understand a passage - we may have to back up and see how things fit in the bigger picture.
I think it’s also possible that the incorruptible seed mentioned in I Peter 1:23 refers to the word of God - similar to usage in Luke 8:5 a farmer went out to sow his seed...I believe the Greek for “seed” in I Peter 1:23 is “sporas” a sowing - so it could be interpreted as being born again by an act of sowing incorruptible seed - i.e. the word of God.
Interesting angle - the metaphor or comparison figure would be the new born-again believer to plant life. A sprout. Does it grow? Does it die? How tall does it get?
It shouldn't grow into a wolf in sheep's clothing, for example. But modern day experiences show differently. I guess the figure has limits.
Before beginning the body of the paper, we thought it would be helpful to briefly
summarize the conclusions of our study.
1. Every person receives the promise of salvation at the moment they confess the Lordship of Jesus and believe in their heart he has been raised from the dead. At that moment they receive the gift of holy spirit, a “seal” indicating they belong to God. God will keep His promise of salvation provided that they continue in faith.
2. Salvation is solely by God’s grace through faith. It cannot be earned by good works nor can it be lost by bad works (sin). Since the promise of salvation comes through faith, it can be rejected if one develops a “heart of unbelief,” the conscious and deliberate rejection of Christ and God. Those who have received the spirit and then subsequently reject Christ and God with a wicked heart of unbelief will themselves be rejected.
Even though I only glossed over the entire paper, and read short sections throughout, these two points are what the entire paper is about. There is no "conflating" of other points. If you think he is conflating regarding these two points, fine. But that's all the paper is concerned with. But you continue to project a menacing motive into his paper.
So, maybe it is you that isn't getting the point. And that point is, he's discussing two viewpoints of salvation. Period.
True Christianity rejects the latter sections of Dan's assertions on points 1 and 2.
My point was that “incorruptible” is referring to the word of God and not to salvation...
I think this is important to note, and am inclined to agree with it. Furthermore, I don't see the usage of it in 1Pet.1:23 being a simple one time event in the past (as would be indicated if in the aorist tense,) which doesn't exactly fit with its typically Christian "born again" usage or reference to it here in verse 23. However, it does fit with the living word of God (that is required for the purification of "your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren" that is written in verse 22...)
On 6/4/2018 at 10:00 AM, T-Bone said:
.in other words I believe the soul is immortal - when one speaks of going to heaven I understand that to refer to the soul’s eternal state...the 2nd death referred to in the Bible would then mean one’s soul is eternally separated from God...
yeah, well... I don't believe that, seeing he giveth to all life (and as noted in Acts 17:28, "For in him we live, and move, and have our being...") And even were it feasible for the soul to have any sort of consciousness or awareness apart from (or eternally distanced from) God - the crux of it being the awareness of their separation from God - there would be absolutely no will (nor reason) to remain alive. If there is no conscious in the grave (i.e., the first death), why suppose it would be any different in the second (forever) death?
So to be born again - could mean to have the connection restored - one who was spiritually dead ( separated from God) - is now alive to pursue a holy calling.
If that were so, why is it that none of the prophets of old (who obviously had a connection of some sort restored) are ever thought of as being "born again"?
True Christianity rejects the latter sections of Dan's assertions on points 1 and 2.
Dan manufactured a problem and then manufactured its solution. Dan was unable to think of any apt penalty other than "lose salvation", so he concluded that God Almighty can't come up with one, either, and so he added that opinion to the relevant verses. God promised eternal life and incorruptible seed- but He didn't promise that those who prey on others (for example) won't face an appropriate penalty that doesn't involve revoking the above. I think it's actually kinda scary that God Almighty can come up with a punishment that fits all of that at the same time. Then again, in science fiction, that could have dramatic consequences (like eternal life without adding agelessness, so 500 years later, one looks 500 years old and so on. ) I don't think that's what they'll face- but they might prefer that to what's actually prepared and kept hidden for now.
I think this is important to note, and am inclined to agree with it. Furthermore, I don't see the usage of it in 1Pet.1:23 being a simple one time event in the past (as would be indicated if in the aorist tense,) which doesn't exactly fit with its typically Christian "born again" usage or reference to it here in verse 23. However, it does fit with the living word of God (that is required for the purification of "your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren" that is written in verse 22...)
yeah, well... I don't believe that, seeing he giveth to all life (and as noted in Acts 17:28, "For in him we live, and move, and have our being...") And even were it feasible for the soul to have any sort of consciousness or awareness apart from (or eternally distanced from) God - the crux of it being the awareness of their separation from God - there would be absolutely no will (nor reason) to remain alive. If there is no conscious in the grave (i.e., the first death), why suppose it would be any different in the second (forever) death?
You might be right - but that’s thinking of consciousness as typically defined - a function of a physical body (i.e. brain) - however what capabilities are intrinsic to the soul we might speculate about - for example in Revelation 6: 9 - 11, there seems to be some consciousness and reaction by souls after the 5th seal was broken:
When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; 10 and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also.
If that were so, why is it that none of the prophets of old (who obviously had a connection of some sort restored) are ever thought of as being "born again"?
However I am inclined to think “born again” may simply be a writer’s choice of wording referring to the same thing - along the lines of regeneration - and if you consider Jesus’ words to Nicodemus in John 3: 1 - 16...Jesus seems to be saying to Nicodemus “you should have known about this from the Old Testament “ :
Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”
3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”
4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”
5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.
10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Just a thought here: OT references to people having the spirit enable them for a special task or assignment though perhaps on a temporary basis seems to me to be along the same lines - as it shows in Deuteronomy 30:6, this “new heart” or “circumcised heart” will enable the Israelite to love God wholeheartedly:
The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.
It appears this “connection “ - this “new heart” - this “regeneration “ was not limited to just OT prophets but to Israelites believing the promises of God.
When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; 10 and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also.
It's almost as if they already had LSD back in those days.
It's almost as if they already had LSD back in those days.
Rocky, that reminds me of a stow-ry...
back in my real college days - I bought a little pin-on button at a head shop - it had a little drawing of Jesus in the middle and around the circumference it read
"take a trip with Jesus Christ"
...now if you've ever read my deliverance story of a bad acid trip and Jesus answering my cry for help (I've shared a couple of times on Grease Spot) - you might think that little button was a prophecy or something...
well anyway...it was the best part of the trip, man
back in my real college days - I bought a little pin-on button at a head shop - it had a little drawing of Jesus in the middle and around the circumference it read
"take a trip with Jesus Christ"
...now if you've ever read my deliverance story of a bad acid trip and Jesus answering my cry for help (I've shared a couple of times on Grease Spot) - you might think that little button was a prophecy or something...
well anyway...it was the best part of the trip, man
It's almost as if they already had LSD back in those days.
8 hours ago, T-Bone said:
Rocky, that reminds me of a stow-ry...
back in my real college days - I bought a little pin-on button at a head shop - it had a little drawing of Jesus in the middle and around the circumference it read
"take a trip with Jesus Christ"
And now for something totally outta sight, man...HERE
Hey... at least you didn't think you'd gotten born of the wrong seed.
Ha !
back then the only seeds I knew about was what I found in my bag of weed…now if those were not marijuana plant seeds then, yeah there’s cause for concern – they would be the wrong seeds.
Edited by T-Bone geez what the hell was I smoking in them good ol' daze ?!?!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
16
10
14
23
Popular Days
Jun 2
19
Jun 1
14
May 25
10
May 20
7
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 16 posts
T-Bone 10 posts
OldSkool 14 posts
Taxidev 23 posts
Popular Days
Jun 2 2018
19 posts
Jun 1 2018
14 posts
May 25 2018
10 posts
May 20 2018
7 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
In the spirit of truthful envy – I’ve been thinking about starting an offshoot myself…actually, it’s an offshoot OF myself…well, technically it’s an offshoot of an offshoot of an offshoot of myself…a
WordWolf
No it didn't. Nor did he put something up and THEN ask for donations to keep it running. He put together a (free) Facebook page. Before spending $20 on all the costs of a webpage and domain, he wants
WordWolf
I am adding my own OPINION when I say "we should WANT TO walk in love." I explained WHY we should want to. (It pleases God, and it's the right thing to do-which is why is pleases God.) I thought th
Rocky
First, the passage you quoted from Romans is OBVIOUSLY allegorical or metaphorical. It's NOT anything else than that. Does it spell out anywhere with specificity what causes "branches to be broken off" or what causes the "severity of God" to come down on whoever it was that fell?
Second, how do you come to make your inferences as to what you suggest the referenced verses in Ephesians 5 mean?
Third, do I consider "walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us..." and "Be ye followers of God..." to be works? Well, are those things that a believer is responsible to do?
Fourth, believe all you want that if you give up your agency (free will) you'll lose your salvation.
But don't think that selling that behavioral construct as a foundational principle for behavior in allegedly Christian churches will do anything other than propagate dysfunctional social mores by which those with designs to squeeze out of their followers a lucrative living.
By the way, you haven't demonstrated at all that you get my point. Just saying "I understand what you are getting at" is not demonstrating that you do. It's just a shortcut to avoid having to explain whether or not you do.
What you have demonstrated is that you're trying (fruitlessly) to get me to believe that somehow decisions, attitudes and actions for which individual believers must take or make on their own somehow do not constitute "works."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
While you are hypothetically not 100% convinced, you are arguing Dan's thesis as if you are indeed 100% convinced.
If you were not already convinced, you would be acknowledging and giving actual feedback on what I have counter argued. All you've done is claim you get my point without actually acknowledging what you think my point is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
It really doesn't even matter whether Gallegher quotes any verses having to do with obeying any people. Churches, including TWI and STFI are social groups. Social groups sometimes have written rules but always have unwritten rules (mores). It is ALL about obeying people whether you're willing to recognize it or not.
Here's a not so far-fetched hypothetical for you. A charismatic, but privately tyrannical malignant narcissist starts a ministry that grows as people take classes that indoctrinate them into believing that obeying God requires subservience to the Teacher (PO Box 328, New Knoxville, OH 45871). As one or more of those believers develop "spiritual maturity" and skills at "researching" scripture, they come to believe the Teacher is wrong on something he taught. The Teacher marks and avoids them, banishing them forever from interaction with what the Teacher claimed was the Household of God.
One or more of those who are banished suffer emotional injury and ultimately blame God. They turn away.
-----
I'm not asking you to explain away or rationalize anything. That hypothetical is highly credible and has, no doubt, happened hundreds, if not thousands of times.
I'm only asking you to acknowledge that not all of the answers can be found by listing scripture verses in some convoluted order and comparing the meaning of Greek or Hebrew words.
It would be great if you wanted to actually discuss the issue. But I haven't yet seen where you have tried to do so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Edited by waysiderVisit us in the doctrinal forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I am adding my own OPINION when I say "we should WANT TO walk in love." I explained WHY we should want to. (It pleases God, and it's the right thing to do-which is why is pleases God.) I thought this was actually beyond dispute and that Christians would stipulate to that without an argument. (No, we shouldn't, no it does not please God, no, it's not the right thing to do...) I made that clear by not putting my OPINION in quotation marks. Really, junior high school English rules should make that clear.
==============================
As for Bullinger and definitions of "other" and "another", he's defined "heteros" and "allos" completely differently in 2 ways. A) "Heteros" means "another of a different kind" and "allos" means "another of the same kind." This is consistent through the Bible. (One usage is in Galatians 1, the warning against being drawn to "another gospel which is not another". "Another/heteros gospel which is not another/allo", or "a different gospel with is not of the same kind", which sounds redundant when rendered plainly. Then again, if you accept "pleonasm" as a legitimate figure of speech as Bullinger did, that's just fine.) The other usage was to say one was "another when there are exactly two" and the other was "another where there are more than two." That actually is not used consistently in Scripture, and that was pointed out here, long ago. (Someone said that the mention of cheeks should obviously refer to two since a person has exactly two, but the Greek word used was the other, and so on.) I haven't looked into that one for something like 20 years because that definition seemed both INCORRECT and SUPERFLUOUS. The usage of "same kind" and "different kind" was consistent, sensible, and easy to demonstrate.
So, in other words, I say Bullinger was correct in his OTHER (heteros, different) definition, and not in this one. Since the definitions contradicted each other, it seems evident at as many as one could be correct (both could have been wrong, or one could have been wrong, but since they contradict, they couldn't both be right.)
==================================
There's this thing that's actually pretty common among ex-twi splinter leaders. It's a false bifurcation that's based on over-compensation. They take one extreme position on something, see that there's problems with that extreme position, so they conclude that the polar opposite position must be true, and skip over the problems with that extreme position.
We saw that when Geer attempted to reconcile God's Love and God's Omnipotence with the continued existence of evil. (This is a very old question, and smarter men than him have hit the reefs on it.) Time Magazine addressed this same problem once as their cover story. They claimed that any TWO of those could operate together, but that all 3 could not. If God was Omnipotent and evil existed, He wouldn't be Love because He'd be fine with evil existing. And so on. Geer decided that the issue could be decided by rejecting God's Omnipotence. Specifically, he rejected God's Omniscience, His "All-Knowingness", if you please. He imposed that explanation on Scripture, and mangled Genesis 3 to claim it supported his assertion when it actually did the opposite.
In this case, the problem was looking at vpw's proclaimed grotesque position that- once one is saved, one can sin with impunity without any significant consequences and God would just let it go because you have Eternal life and Incorruptible seed. Well, the seed won't corrupt, the life won't end, but that's hardly the same as saying there will be no consequences. I'm confident there will be severe consequences but that they won't end eternal life or rot incorruptible seed. If you like, we can get into this in a Doctrinal thread. Personally, I think it doesn't matter because of the results. If I'm planning on backstabbing God, the actual consequences won't scare me into a turnaround. And if I don't, then it doesn't matter what the penalty would be for doing so. (I don't care about the legal penalty for counterfeiting because I have no plans to ever counterfeit.)
In other words, no, I don't think that we have "a guaranteed place in Heaven." I think we have "eternal life" and "incorruptible seed". None of that guarantees "Heaven." That was what vpw referred to (incorrectly) as "private interpretation" no matter how many people taught that in twi.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Yes, waysider already started one for us there, "Can salvation be lost?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I think it’s also possible that the incorruptible seed mentioned in I Peter 1:23 refers to the word of God - similar to usage in Luke 8:5 a farmer went out to sow his seed...I believe the Greek for “seed” in I Peter 1:23 is “sporas” a sowing - so it could be interpreted as being born again by an act of sowing incorruptible seed - i.e. the word of God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Thank you, T, this is in line with something I was questioning - the seed is incorruptible, but does that mean the salvation is?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
My point was that “incorruptible” is referring to the word of God and not to salvation...as perhaps a tangent of this idea - you might want to consider the context of I Peter - being born again to a living hope and called to a holy life...and you might want to consider some alternate interpretations of Genesis 3 people created in God’s image and what died in the Fall...Hebrew thought on death was that of a separation - physical death = life force separated from the body and then there is spiritual death = our spiritual nature being separated from God...in other words I believe the soul is immortal - when one speaks of going to heaven I understand that to refer to the soul’s eternal state...the 2nd death referred to in the Bible would then mean one’s soul is eternally separated from God...
So to be born again - could mean to have the connection restored - one who was spiritually dead ( separated from God) - is now alive to pursue a holy calling.
This is all just my opinion, of course
Sorry for straying off topic and getting into some tangents - but I think in trying to understand a passage - we may have to back up and see how things fit in the bigger picture.
Edited by T-BoneClarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Interesting angle - the metaphor or comparison figure would be the new born-again believer to plant life. A sprout. Does it grow? Does it die? How tall does it get?
It shouldn't grow into a wolf in sheep's clothing, for example. But modern day experiences show differently. I guess the figure has limits.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
True Christianity rejects the latter sections of Dan's assertions on points 1 and 2.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I think this is important to note, and am inclined to agree with it. Furthermore, I don't see the usage of it in 1Pet.1:23 being a simple one time event in the past (as would be indicated if in the aorist tense,) which doesn't exactly fit with its typically Christian "born again" usage or reference to it here in verse 23. However, it does fit with the living word of God (that is required for the purification of "your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren" that is written in verse 22...)
yeah, well... I don't believe that, seeing he giveth to all life (and as noted in Acts 17:28, "For in him we live, and move, and have our being...") And even were it feasible for the soul to have any sort of consciousness or awareness apart from (or eternally distanced from) God - the crux of it being the awareness of their separation from God - there would be absolutely no will (nor reason) to remain alive. If there is no conscious in the grave (i.e., the first death), why suppose it would be any different in the second (forever) death?
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
If that were so, why is it that none of the prophets of old (who obviously had a connection of some sort restored) are ever thought of as being "born again"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Dan manufactured a problem and then manufactured its solution. Dan was unable to think of any apt penalty other than "lose salvation", so he concluded that God Almighty can't come up with one, either, and so he added that opinion to the relevant verses. God promised eternal life and incorruptible seed- but He didn't promise that those who prey on others (for example) won't face an appropriate penalty that doesn't involve revoking the above. I think it's actually kinda scary that God Almighty can come up with a punishment that fits all of that at the same time. Then again, in science fiction, that could have dramatic consequences (like eternal life without adding agelessness, so 500 years later, one looks 500 years old and so on. ) I don't think that's what they'll face- but they might prefer that to what's actually prepared and kept hidden for now.
Edited by WordWolfCharles Luxury Yacht
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
You might be right - but that’s thinking of consciousness as typically defined - a function of a physical body (i.e. brain) - however what capabilities are intrinsic to the soul we might speculate about - for example in Revelation 6: 9 - 11, there seems to be some consciousness and reaction by souls after the 5th seal was broken:
When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained; 10 and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, “How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” 11 And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, would be completed also.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
However I am inclined to think “born again” may simply be a writer’s choice of wording referring to the same thing - along the lines of regeneration - and if you consider Jesus’ words to Nicodemus in John 3: 1 - 16...Jesus seems to be saying to Nicodemus “you should have known about this from the Old Testament “ :
Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”
3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”
4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”
5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.
10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man. 14 Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him.”
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Just a thought here: OT references to people having the spirit enable them for a special task or assignment though perhaps on a temporary basis seems to me to be along the same lines - as it shows in Deuteronomy 30:6, this “new heart” or “circumcised heart” will enable the Israelite to love God wholeheartedly:
The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.
It appears this “connection “ - this “new heart” - this “regeneration “ was not limited to just OT prophets but to Israelites believing the promises of God.
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
It's almost as if they already had LSD back in those days.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Rocky, that reminds me of a stow-ry...
back in my real college days - I bought a little pin-on button at a head shop - it had a little drawing of Jesus in the middle and around the circumference it read
"take a trip with Jesus Christ"
...now if you've ever read my deliverance story of a bad acid trip and Jesus answering my cry for help (I've shared a couple of times on Grease Spot) - you might think that little button was a prophecy or something...
well anyway...it was the best part of the trip, man
Edited by T-Bonehonesty
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
And now for something totally outta sight, man...HERE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Hey... at least you didn't think you'd gotten born of the wrong seed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Ha !
back then the only seeds I knew about was what I found in my bag of weed…now if those were not marijuana plant seeds then, yeah there’s cause for concern – they would be the wrong seeds.
Edited by T-Bonegeez what the hell was I smoking in them good ol' daze ?!?!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
ha! lucky you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.