I think it's important to remember there is salvation by grace, not of works of any kind...and there is salvation by works. The mere fact that there are two distinct types of salvation appears to say that they are mutually exclusive of each other..or are they ? :)
I know this is kind of a dormant topic, but it addresses a question I've grappled with for quite a while. It came up back in 2001 during our discussions around the PFAL Review. The linear discussion ran aground in I Peter 1:23 and I spent many years struggling with this very topic.
Some of the work I did mirrors the topics that have been presented here. I started with the versed in Matthew 19:16 - 25 * that are the first occurrences in the NT of the terms "eternal life", "saved", and "Kingdom of Heaven". This of course, was the method we all learned in the Way. You "work the Word' by doing 'word studies' and looking at the first usage as the definition of terms and continue throughout. Based on this beginning, I made the assumption that the terms presented in this passage are synonymous. I still think that's a valid assumption based on the context, but that's beside the point.
* An account of this exchange between the Lord and his disciples is included in all three synoptic Gospels (Mark 10:17 - 30, Luke18:18 - 30)
Proceeding in to the Church epistles with the assumption that all references to salvation and eternal life and inheritance in the kingdom of heaven are analogous causes all kinds of problems, most notably the one that started this tread. Some of Paul's statements seem to clearly indicate that we are saved by grace independently of works (Ephesians 2:8), and some of Paul's writings indicate that inheritance in the Kingdom is based on works - specifically on one's faithful continuance in good conduct and continued adherence to one's original faith in Jesus (Eph 5:5, Hebrews 3:6, etc).
Paul isn't the only Apostle whose words seem to stand in contradiction to the Once Saved Always Saved doctrine. As the OSAS PDF offered last year demonstrates, some verses in John's epistles also land on the 'conditional' column. The verse that sparked this question for me (back around 1999) is the passage in II Peter chapter 2, wherein people referred to as 'false prophets" are described as having " escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ". From this, I believe these are Christians, not 'men of Belial, as LCM taught. Of these christian leaders, it is said that they will "utterly perish". And, specifically they are referred to as people " to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever."
This phrase has stuck with me and presented a sobering possibility that the once saved always saved debate seems to gloss over. It may be that all who accept Jesus receive eternal life, but not inheritance in the Kingdom of heaven. Eternal life and condemnation are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The problem with this position is, as noted above, the synonymous use of the terms eternal life, kingdom of heaven, and 'saved' in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
I think the assumption that we can start in the Gospels and carry the understanding of those terms used in Matthew and apply them to the Church epistles, is flawed. The reason for this flaw touches on the discussion you've been having about dispensationalism and the 'to whom the Word is addressed' question. How do we weigh contradictions between the Gospels and the Church epistles?
Since Jesus spoke in parables. In short, much of his public ministry was truth delivered in its most basic form. Even when he addressed his Chosen, there were things he couldn't teach them because they were still natural men. There were aspects of truth they could not receive without the aid of holy spirit (John 16:12 & 13). Yes, the Gospels were written TO the Church, but they are records of what Jesus said TO people who were still just body & soul.
Conversely, the epistles of Paul, Peter, and John were written specifically to people born from above, filled with the spirit and capable of receiving more nuanced truths.
All of these points are debatable depending on your position, but this is just the preamble. Please forgive the lengthy prologue, I've been stewing on this for over 15 years.
This very morning, an idea struck me that I hadn't considered before. I'd like to present it here to get the opinions of this august group of learned scholars.
The question I wish to pose is this: Is is possible that the meaning of the terms used in the Gospels is simplified because of their original audience, and that these same terms are used with more nuance in the Church epistles because they were presented therein to people more capable of understanding them? Can we allow Paul, Peter and John to refer to eternal life and the Kingdom of heaven in terms that contradict Jesus, based on the assumption that they had grown into a deeper understanding of these truths? I don't mean that they had a deeper understanding than Jesus himself, but a deeper understanding than the people to whom Jesus spoke during his earthly ministry.
That's a very long question. I will sit back and humbly await answers, and follow up with clarifying remarks as they're posed. Thanks in advance your help.
I'd like to present it here to get the opinions of this august group of learned scholars.
YIKES!
Really?
Okay, I can see that this might be an interesting place to engage a bunch of amateurs in what might become a lively discussion, but really? Hidden in the word amateur, a close (mis)spelling would be, amature or a-mature, which on its face would seem to indicate the opposite of scholarly maturity. I don't mean to imply that the discussion would immediately turn into a flame war. Rather, I wonder how serious you might be in describing this "august group of learned scholars."
Just some thoughts.
I will not pretend to be qualified to present anything approaching a scholarly inquiry into the subject. Rather, I wonder how meaningful such an inquiry could be given the likelihood that Jesus the Christ did not even exist in the form described in the Gospel books, synoptic or not.
I'm all for humanity having powerful stories (myths). The Christian myth (story) has been dominant in Western Civilization for hundreds of years. But I still wonder if it is the bottom-line of all Godly truth. I recognize that my viewpoint as expressed is quite heretical.
I wonder how meaningful such an inquiry could be given the likelihood that Jesus the Christ did not even exist in the form described in the Gospel books, synoptic or not
I'll admit my memory isn't as sharp as it once was, but I seem to recall a discussion addressing that very topic, some time ago. I have no idea how to find it again or where it all led.
I seem to recall, though, when the dust all settled, we found ourselves down the block inside at 23 Skidoo.
I'll admit my memory isn't as sharp as it once was, but I seem to recall a discussion addressing that very topic, some time ago. I have no idea how to find it again or where it all led.
I seem to recall, though, when the dust all settled, we found ourselves down the block inside of 23 Skidoo.
I make no claim to being any real "scholar,", but I've learned some things, some of them by study. I also appreciate good manners. What I know on this subject, I don't mind passing along.
Okay, I can see that this might be an interesting place to engage a bunch of amateurs in what might become a lively discussion, but really? Hidden in the word amateur, a close (mis)spelling would be, amature or a-mature, which on its face would seem to indicate the opposite of scholarly maturity. I don't mean to imply that the discussion would immediately turn into a flame war. Rather, I wonder how serious you might be in describing this "august group of learned scholars."
Just some thoughts.
I will not pretend to be qualified to present anything approaching a scholarly inquiry into the subject. Rather, I wonder how meaningful such an inquiry could be given the likelihood that Jesus the Christ did not even exist in the form described in the Gospel books, synoptic or not.
I'm all for humanity having powerful stories (myths). The Christian myth (story) has been dominant in Western Civilization for hundreds of years. But I still wonder if it is the bottom-line of all Godly truth. I recognize that my viewpoint as expressed is quite heretical.
Rocky, what I meant was, I respect the wisdom and the many years of disciplined study represented by those who have been contributing to this thread. Sorry if that wasn't clearly communicated.
As for the nature of Jesus Christ, although I fully acknowledge the possibility that the Scripture contains flaws and contradictions, I believe that the core truths remain intact. I believe Jesus or Yeshua Messiah was and is the only begotten Son of God and that through him we have access to holy spirit, grace, mercy, and spiritual authority. So I see the Gospels as a collection of writing designed to summarize Jesus' person and ministry. The passages that record what he did and said form the core and foundation of the Christian faith. If you don't accept that, then there is little we can agree on when it comes to parsing the differences between what Jesus taught his Apostles and what the Apostles later taught the first century church.
I'll admit my memory isn't as sharp as it once was, but I seem to recall a discussion addressing that very topic, some time ago. I have no idea how to find it again or where it all led.
I seem to recall, though, when the dust all settled, we found ourselves down the block inside at 23 Skidoo.
Hey cool song, Waysider…my wife turned me on to John Prine years ago.
I think the assumption that we can start in the Gospels and carry the understanding of those terms used in Matthew and apply them to the Church epistles, is flawed. The reason for this flaw touches on the discussion you've been having about dispensationalism and the 'to whom the Word is addressed' question. How do we weigh contradictions between the Gospels and the Church epistles?
Since Jesus spoke in parables. In short, much of his public ministry was truth delivered in its most basic form. Even when he addressed his Chosen, there were things he couldn't teach them because they were still natural men. There were aspects of truth they could not receive without the aid of holy spirit (John 16:12 & 13). Yes, the Gospels were written TO the Church, but they are records of what Jesus said TO people who were still just body & soul.
Conversely, the epistles of Paul, Peter, and John were written specifically to people born from above, filled with the spirit and capable of receiving more nuanced truths.
All of these points are debatable depending on your position, but this is just the preamble. Please forgive the lengthy prologue, I've been stewing on this for over 15 years.
This very morning, an idea struck me that I hadn't considered before. I'd like to present it here to get the opinions of this august group of learned scholars.
The question I wish to pose is this: Is is possible that the meaning of the terms used in the Gospels is simplified because of their original audience, and that these same terms are used with more nuance in the Church epistles because they were presented therein to people more capable of understanding them?
Can we allow Paul, Peter and John to refer to eternal life and the Kingdom of heaven in terms that contradict Jesus, based on the assumption that they had grown into a deeper understanding of these truths?
I don't mean that they had a deeper understanding than Jesus himself, but a deeper understanding than the people to whom Jesus spoke during his earthly ministry.
That's a very long question. I will sit back and humbly await answers, and follow up with clarifying remarks as they're posed. Thanks in advance your help.
9 hours ago, JerryBX said:
(snip)
As for the nature of Jesus Christ, although I fully acknowledge the possibility that the Scripture contains flaws and contradictions, I believe that the core truths remain intact. I believe Jesus or Yeshua Messiah was and is the only begotten Son of God and that through him we have access to holy spirit, grace, mercy, and spiritual authority. So I see the Gospels as a collection of writing designed to summarize Jesus' person and ministry. The passages that record what he did and said form the core and foundation of the Christian faith.
If you don't accept that, then there is little we can agree on when it comes to parsing the differences between what Jesus taught his Apostles and what the Apostles later taught the first century church.
Hi, JerryBX,
You have some interesting thoughts – and here’s my two cents on what you said...
The message - not the official translation by Eugene Peterson but the sense of the New Testament
With any book, culture, religion, system of thought, etc. that present a set of beliefs there is going to be a learning curve - which simply means that acquiring a new or better or deeper understanding comes from experiencing or practicing those set of beliefs…So, I think the nuts and bolts of the Christian faith are the same in the Gospels as well as in the epistles – but more than likely there will be some variations how folks understood those “nuts and bolts” simply due to the individuality of people and where they are on the learning curve. So one answer to your questions – it’s the same message but there’s a broad spectrum in the make-up of the audience. I will address something about the authors of that message further down below.
It would be interesting if we could make a quantum leap back to the days when Jesus and the apostles walked the earth – and provided we also packed a universal translator. I wonder how many stark differences of practice would hit us in the face; or if we got involved in a topical discussion - would there be big differences in our concept of key elements of the faith? I guess that’s what we try to accomplish in studying the Bible…trying to bridge the gap in our understanding of a book that was compiled over a wide stretch of time long ago from different languages, cultures and worldviews.
Today I re-read this entire thread and I was amused by my very first post:
On 6/2/2018 at 5:03 PM, T-Bone said:
I’m disqualifying myself from contributing to this thread on 2 counts: I’ve never really looked into this and also not sure if I am even saved...but in keen interest I do look forward to the input of others.
I still feel the same way now – but I actually mulled this over last night and may have managed to figure out why this doubt about my salvation doesn’t seem to bother me – I think I’ve been in the process of deconstructing my belief system ever since I left TWI. I am a study-bug but when I boil it down to what is essential to me I keep coming back to something Jesus said:
18 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, 3 and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
7 “Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!
8 “If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. 9 If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.
10 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven…Matthew 18:1-10 NASB
== == ==
Even though I am getting older – in the last five or so years, I feel like I’m circling back to some of the bare-bones faith I had as a kid growing up in a decent and kind Roman Catholic family. With Jesus talking about becoming like children – to me he’s characterizing the simplicity of salvation and the complete dependence I should have on him since - like a young child -I have no resources of my own to pull off this salvation. Back when I was a kid, there wasn’t much focus on the Bible and I never felt encouraged toward any intellectual pursuits like systematic theology. From family life and my trusty catechism I also remember the seriousness of sin and its consequences – how it impacts me and others - and to nip it in the bud before it grows into a cancer of the soul. Well…that’s my little re-interpretation of Matthew 18 anyway …my takeaway: don’t sweat about some future salvation – see what good you can accomplish in the here and now. Let the Golden Rule rule.
== == ==
== == ==
The authors of the message
Since dispensationalism has been brought up a few times on this thread – I would like to address that in light of what I said above about the learning curve – since that process of growth would apply to the apostles too…In my opinion dispensationalist-thinking obscures the actual process of how the New Testament documents came into existence. ***spoiler alert for those who hold to the mathematical-exactness-and-scientific-precision-Word-of-God-idea- as-taught-in-PFAL – it’s a contradiction, based on the inconsistent elements that were presented in the class. I do believe that God inspired people to write the Bible and that the authors used their own vocabulary, style and such – yes I agree with that. But one thing wierwille did not really address – and herein lies the flaw of the mathematical-exactness-and-scientific-precision-Word-of-God-idea- as-taught-in-PFAL - - - - - - the authors wrote from their worldview. A worldview is “the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual's or society's knowledge and point of view.” (from Wikipedia worldview ) ...and guess what? no one has a perfect and comprehensive worldview...we are human beings with flaws and limitations.
Furthermore, one’s worldview is not necessarily set in stone – since it’s possible that one’s knowledge, understanding, attitudes, opinions, etc. can change from additional input of information, experiences, etc. – all of which basically describes growth. I think one of the most remarkable Bible stories of change and growth is of the apostle Paul as revealed in some references to his former worldview ( Acts 22: 1-21; Gal. 1:11 – 2:21; Phil. 3: 1- 16) …Folks might enjoy reading Changing Minds by Howard Gardner - Harvard psychologist Gardner explains the process of changing one’s mind – and even gets into the conversion of the apostle Paul.
Another thing about dispensationalist-thinking is that it is artificial - for I believe it is something produced by human beings rather than occurring “naturally” in the scriptures…it is more or less a theologian’s “template” – pattern to serve as a guide – an overlay if you will – a mental construct to be superimposed on the Bible as one attempts to understand its content. It seems to me that dispensationalism and fundamentalism for that matter, are cut from the same cloth – in that they hold to a very literal interpretation of the Bible and they both have the assumption of its inerrancy – in other words it does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact ( see biblical inerrancy ).
I no longer follow a dispensationalism or fundamentalism viewpoint – but rather I think of the Bible as a magnificent record of development or evolution in Judeo-Christian thought. In my humble opinion, that is an honest way to explain the obvious errors and inconsistencies. I don’t mean to rain on anyone’s parade over this – just wanted to let you all know where I’m coming from.
Another interesting thing about the development of the Christian faith is to consider when the Gospels were written. The range of dates most widely accepted by scholars is 65 to 110 AD ( see dating the Bible ). Jesus’ resurrection and ascension happened about 30 AD ( see Bible Hub timeline of events ). That’s at least - on the earlier side if you want to go with 65 AD - some 35 years difference historical-proximity-wise from when actual events took place to when they were “officially” documented.
I’m sure the apostles didn’t just sit back on their sandals for 35 years and then suddenly in a flash of revelatory lightning pen a Gospel or two. I assume they were applying what they knew and continued growing in knowledge and experience - and probably wrote some things down - like journaling . What I think one could infer from all this is that you have the same message in the Gospels and the epistles written by seasoned believers of that message. Folks might enjoy reading Making Sense of the Bible by Adam Hamilton . I think it’s a good book to help one get a handle on the nature of scripture and how we should interpret it. Also I think the book gives you a clearer idea of the writing style (which I mentioned above) in the Gospels – which is an historical narrative and nothing like what you would expect to see in a modern textbook on history or even in a lot of modern journalism.
It also gives some details on how the Gospels were compiled – which means assembled from various sources - which may account for the discrepancies in the Gospels - having different versions and details of the same account; perhaps similar to the minor discrepancies and erroneous facts in the narratives of ten people who witnessed the same really bad traffic accident - six witnesses describe the vehicle that caused the accident and then sped off as a white Dodge SUV, two others said it was either a tan Toyota or Lexus SUV, and two said it was a Ford SUV either silver or gold but it was hard to tell the color because it was 11:30 at night. Fortunately one person caught the license plate number and when the police ran the tag they were able to identify the suspect’s vehicle as a light grey 2016 Dodge Durango; ...anyway, this compiling process was even mentioned in the beginning of Luke:
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught…Luke 1: 1-4 NASB
And as well as the gospels, don't forget the Didache, one of the earliest documents written to benefit new Christians. Even that has accrued a considerable amount of what my former church leader (an acknowledged expert in this area of study) called "rust" - the overlays and reinterpretations people put on it.
TBone, thank you for that thoughtful response. I'll need to mull it over for a while, but here are a few comments.
I agree about the authors' worldviews affecting their writing. I think it even affected their behavior, as is clearly evidenced by Peter's response to the revelation of the great sheet (Acts chapter 10) "Not so Lord" So, the chronicle of the Gospels and the book of Acts shows us a set of people whose worldview was upended by the introduction of the Divine. They couldn't possibly grasp all the ramifications of that disruption at once. I think this is partly what I meant by my comments about Jesus' audience.
As for dispensationalism and fundamentalism, I think there is a certain amount of changing of the rules Scriptural students have to address. Galatians encapsulates the most obvious one, the fulfilling of the Mosaic Law regarding righteousness. Perhaps dispensationalism is simply taking this clear, simple example of a change in the expression of God's will to mankind and taking it to extremes.
Twinky, I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with the Didache, I'll have to do some homework on that point.
TBone, thank you for that thoughtful response. I'll need to mull it over for a while, but here are a few comments.
I agree about the authors' worldviews affecting their writing. I think it even affected their behavior, as is clearly evidenced by Peter's response to the revelation of the great sheet (Acts chapter 10) "Not so Lord" So, the chronicle of the Gospels and the book of Acts shows us a set of people whose worldview was upended by the introduction of the Divine. They couldn't possibly grasp all the ramifications of that disruption at once. I think this is partly what I meant by my comments about Jesus' audience.
As for dispensationalism and fundamentalism, I think there is a certain amount of changing of the rules Scriptural students have to address.
Galatians encapsulates the most obvious one, the fulfilling of the Mosaic Law regarding righteousness. Perhaps dispensationalism is simply taking this clear, simple example of a change in the expression of God's will to mankind and taking it to extremes.
(snip)
I agree…I didn’t mean to harshly condemn fundamentalism or dispensationalism…every viewpoint worth its salt has some merit – but for me, It’s like you said – anything can be taken to extremes. To be honest, I still find myself almost unconsciously using dispensationalist labels as sort of a kiosk-directory-you-are-here kind of thing when I’m reading some parts of the Old Testament (such as Innocence, Conscience, Human Government, Promise and Law) – but my use of them is more like a developmental historical marker rather than a change up in the rules.
So I don’t see it as progressive revelation - but rather as I said before - a development or evolution in Judeo-Christian thought – there is a difference – the latter puts the focus on the human factor of faith. Also for me, the jury is still out on definite distinctions between Israel and the Church and pre-trib, mid-trib, and post-trib.
I look forward to your input – and after thinking about your comment on Galatians, I’ll leave you with this from Paul the Apostle and Jewish Christianity “A central concern for Paul was the inclusion of Gentiles into God's New Covenant, and the role of faith and commandments in the inclusion of Gentile converts. Paul did not deem circumcision necessary, as witnessed throughout his writings, but thought that God included Gentiles into his New Covenant through faith in Christ. This brought him into conflict with some Jewish Christians, who requested strict observances of the Jewish law by Gentile Christians. Eventually the less strict view prevailed, and led to the separation of Gentile Christianity from Judaism.”
In other words. You claim it can be lost. How do you think that you gained it to begin with? I read a passage in Ezekiel last night.. Ezekiel 21:3,4. In a sense.. the righteous enable the wicked here.. and both are to be cut off. Well.. just saying. What do you think?
Here’s a brief description from Amazon: “in Love Wins, bestselling author, international teacher, and speaker Rob Bell addresses one of the most controversial issues of faith—hell and the afterlife—arguing, would a loving God send people to eternal torment forever? With searing insight, Bell puts hell on trial with a hopeful message—eternal life doesn’t start when we die; it starts right now. And ultimately, Love Wins.”
Here’s a brief description from Amazon: “in Love Wins, bestselling author, international teacher, and speaker Rob Bell addresses one of the most controversial issues of faith—hell and the afterlife—arguing, would a loving God send people to eternal torment forever? With searing insight, Bell puts hell on trial with a hopeful message—eternal life doesn’t start when we die; it starts right now. And ultimately, Love Wins.”
A book that has been the subject of discussion here on GSC. I love the book. It also reframes discussion about whether salvation can be lost.
So um... Hi. As the millennials say, it's been a minute. I've been mulling over some of this for a while now (couple of years I guess) and I'd like to continue the conversation.
What follows is about 11 pages as I have it written up, so I thought it might be a TLDR situation. I considered attaching it as a separate file, but that would interfere with any resulting discussion. So, with apologies for the length, I'd like to just post it here. Apologies in advance for the uber long post.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This little essay is a bit of a turn for me. Recently, I've embraced a different mindset that has lead me to see the Bible in a different light. Since most of the spiritual growth I've experienced since leaving TWI has been sparked by online discussions, I felt it would be appropriate to share it here and see if it benefits anyone else, and perhaps clarify and refine it through discourse.
For years, I've held on to the basic tenet of PFAL that the Bible, as God's Word, cannot contradict itself. That premise lead to major issues with certain concepts, including judgment and justification. As I wrestled with these doctrinal issues, I started noticing more and more apparent contradictions in the canon. The ones that I fixated on most were the examples that defied the rules of Weirwille's “keys to the Word's interpretation'.
Those keys don't resolve contradictions where the same writer discussing the identical event wrote different things at different times. Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus is one such example. Luke, who claimed to have perfect understanding of all things, wrote in Acts 9:7 that, when Jesus appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus, his companions heard the Lord's voice, but did not see him. Then in Acts 22:9, he wrote that Paul said “they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice...”. None of the 'keys' in PFAL address this discrepancy.
The other one that stuck in my mind is in I Corinthians chapter 14. Here we have another instance where one writer, speaking about the same topic, essentially contradicts himself. But instead of it happening over the space of years of narrative, it happens within one chapter. So it intrigued and bugged me for many years. Until last September.
God works with people as individuals. There are probably more logical ways to start this conversation and more relatable threads to pull on to unravel this doctrine. But for me, it started here in I Corinthians 14. I have always loved this chapter and I continue to be an ardent believer in the genuine experience of the manifestations. I understand from past comments on this thread that many of you have dropped the belief that 'SIT' is indicative of salvation. I haven't. I speak in tongues daily and still value this part of my life as a Christian. So maybe that's why it started here for me. Those of you who have different opinions about whether tongues are a genuine proof of holy spirit or not will be asked to set that argument aside for a moment and follow the logic as it unfolds and flows into more consequential topics. How you receive it and whether you accept the same conclusion I did is of course, up to you. This was my avenue to a bigger realization. As I said God works with different people on different terms. Your mileage may vary.
Preamble and disclaimer aside, let's look at I Corinthians 14 and see how two seemingly contradictory statements are both true.
14:22 wherefore tongues are for a sign not for them that believe, but for them that believe not
This verse is one of the statements in the NT that presents the experience of speaking in tongues as genuine proof of conversion, of salvation, of the presence of pneuma hagion. It was enough to convince Peter and the Judaean believers that gentiles at the household of Cornelius had received the same gift they had (Acts 10:47). Even today, speaking in tongues gets people's attention. I've experienced this in my life on both the giving and receiving end. Seeing the worship manifestations in a twig fellowship meeting was one of the reasons I took PFAL in the first place.
The verses that precede vs 22 put this in context by asserting, in verses 5 – 17 that speaking in tongues is good for personal edification, but in fellowship meetings, speaking in tongues should always be accompanied by interpretation of tongues so that the entire congregation can be edified by the message in their known language.
I Corinthians 14: 17 - 22
14:17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
14:18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than ye all.
14:19 Yet in the Church, I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that, by my voice, I might teach others also, than five thousand words in an unknown tongue .
14:21 In the law it is written, “With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that, they will not hear Me saith the Lord.
14:22 Wherefore, tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
The use of the word 'wherefore' sets verse 22 as the logical conclusion of Paul's entire treatise that begins in verse one. It sums up the proper distinction of the different profit of these manifestations of holy spirit. Speaking in tongues is part of the witness referenced in (I John) and is intended to reinforce the gospel and convince unbelievers of the genuine presence and power of the holy spirit. This is what happened at the household of Cornelius.
But the very next verse turns around and sets this conclusion on its head.
14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
Granted, the key phrase here is “all speak with tongues”. This scenario contradicts the guidance Paul has just given that, if anyone speaks in tongues in fellowship, let it be by two or at the most by three. So the logical guidance to follow this scenario should be, 'remember, don't let everyone speak in tongues in church'. But then he adds the following.
14:24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
14:25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
So, right after stating that prophesying serveth not them that believe not, but for them which believe, just two verses later Paul says that prophesy is to be desired when unbelievers visit a church.
The analytical Waybrain child in me wants to stand up and say, “But sir! You just said, tongues are a sign to unbelievers!” Paul spends most of the chapter laying out his case for the proper use of the worship manifestations in fellowships and two verses later, directly contradicts it.
My Waybrain wants to grab one of Weirwille's keys to the Word's interpretation and decide that one of these passages must be a mistranslation or something. What does the Estrangelo Aramaic say?
It says the same thing. This about face also exists in the Lamsa Bible. Before we dig deeper into the fundamentalist toolbox to try to resolve this contradiction, let's go back to the book of Acts to get some more context. Acts chapter two records the first time anyone ever spoke in tongues.
Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the
Spirit gave them utterance.
On the Day of Pentecost, the apostles all spoke in tongues. Since no on prophesied, one might think that this passage doesn't shed much light on the contradiction in I Corinthians, chapter 14. But there's more to the story. As we know from I Corinthians 14:2, when someone speaks in tongues, they're speaking mysteries because the utterance given by the holy spirit is in a language unknown to the speaker. The 'miracle of Pentecost' was that the languages spoken by the Apostles were unknown to them, but known to the myriads of worshipers present at the Temple.
Acts 2: 5 - 11
2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that
every man heard them speak in his own language.
2:7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which
speak Galilaeans?
2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
2:9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and
Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
2:10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome,
Jews and proselytes,
2:11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
As we know from the rest of the passage, after the outpouring of the holy spirit got the crowd's attention, Peter took the opportunity to preach the first public sermon after the ascension of Christ. So in this passage, we can see both of the truths reflected in I Corinthians 14:22 and 24.
When the crowd heard the apostles speak in tongues, they were all amazed and marvelled. This reinforces the truth that 'tongues are for a sign' to unbelievers. At this point everyone was an unbeliever simply because the gospel of the Resurrection had not yet been declared. And, because the crowd heard what was spoken in their languages, we see a reflection of verse 24. They heard the wonderful works of God and their hearts were opened to receive the gospel and salvation.
So I assert that the statements in I Corinthians 14 are indeed contradictory, but they're both true. And the reason both statements can be true is also encapsulated in the context of Acts chapter two. What happened was an example of what God does to reach the disparate and various souls of His children. The world is full of different kinds of people, with different mind sets, backgrounds, perspectives, and personalities: Parthians, Medes, Elamites, strangers, Jews, and Proselytes. One message in one language – even a mystical language that brings the divine into focus – cannot reach everyone. Truth is communicated to people on multiple channels.
The bottom line here, the lesson we need to carry into other Biblical inquiries is that apparently contradictory statements can both be true. As long as we cling to the VPW mindset of trying to screen out all apparent contradictions in the scripture, we will miss some of the complexities of how God works with mankind. We may miss some truths because they seem to conflict with others.
There are other examples of this dynamic where God may be communicating on multiple channels to reach different kinds of people. Paul's epistles are chock full of apparently contradictory statements.
The one that comes readily to mind is the passage in Romans chapter eight about the carnal mind.
Romans 8:3 - 10
8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.
8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Everything in this passage emphasizes the Christian's focus and conduct. Verse three uses the word walk, which indicates a lifestyle, a behavior pattern,a series of deeds. The righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us who habitually act in accordance with the spirit, as opposed to living according to the flesh, the old carnal desires.
Verse five takes it a little deeper and focuses on the root of deeds. The mind is mentioned here as a verb. Those who live according to the flesh mind the flesh. The word mind is translated from the word phroneo, which means to consider, to focus on. Conversely they who dwell on spiritual matters live according to the spirit. Verse six continues the thought and presents the fruits and consequences of these dual focuses. The emphasis is still on the consequences of a believer's mental habits.
The carnal mind puts someone at enmity, hostility towards God and produces disobedience. And verse eight clearly and logically sums up the passage.
So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. Who are these people? We are. The context can be clearly traced back to verse four, which is written in first person plural. The righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh.
But then, just as the humble reader is examining himself or herself to determine whether we are carnally minded or not, just as we are challenging ourselves to think and walk according to the spirit so that we may please God, verse nine takes a tone that completely contradicts those conclusions.
8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
8:10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Wait, what? This is such a jarring juxtaposition that it boggles the mind. If they who have the spirit of God are not in the flesh, why were just told that they who are in the flesh cannot please God?
Suddenly Paul shifts focus from walking, from minding, from our deeds and their consequences, to something we received by grace and which abides as a constant presence.
The language of verses 3 – 9 is conditional. The language of verse 10 is absolute.
If Christ be in you, the body is dead. The Spirit is life.
The cumulative statement of verses 3 through 8 clearly teaches that our mind can disconnect us from life and peace and set us in a state of being at enmity with God. Then verses nine and ten seem to flatly contradict that conclusion.
Both are true. There are two levels of truth being simultaneously communicated. Verses three through eight direct our attention to our mental habits and the importance of striving to manage them. Verses nine and ten present a parallel truth that if you have received holy spirit, you are still God's child and still sanctified by his gift. The holy spirit remains despite our fleshly weaknesses and distractions. So we are simultaneously encouraged to set our minds on spiritual matters, cautioned against the consequences of failing to do so, and comforted that the overarching grace of the new birth means that, even when we are walking carnally and failing to please God, we are still His children.
We see the same bifocal exhortation in I Corinthians chapter six. The shift in tone and the apparently contradictory language is introduced by the phrase “but ye”, just as it is in Romans 8:9. The shift is made more emphatic here by the figure of speech repetitio.
I Corinthians 6:9 – 11
6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
6:11 And such were some of you: butye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Again, we might wonder, if we were such people, but are now washed, sanctified, and justified by the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God, why did Paul just tell us “Be not deceived: neither fornicators, not idolaters, nor covetous...shall inherit the kingdom of God. The language of verses 9 and 10 clearly indicate judgment for ungodly behavior. The immediate context leaves no doubt that this behavior was occurring in the Church. Paul wasn't railing against the evils of the secular world. He was reproving the Corinthian congregation. The language of this reproof couldn't be more stark. If those in the church who are covetous, idolatrous, thieves, drunks or extortioners shall not inherit the kingdom of God, that's a truth that must be understood and heeded.
And just as we're beginning the self examination that follows such a warning, Paul sweeps it aside by implying that all of that is behind us because we were sanctified by the gift of holy spirit.
What gives? What are we to believe? How can we be saved by grace, sanctified by the Spirit of God, and yet be in danger of not inheriting the kingdom of God?
Perhaps the answer lies back in Acts Chapter two and I Corinthians 14. On the day of Pentecost, God used the introduction of a new manifestation of holy spirit, to reach out to thousands of disparate believers gathered from all over Asia. He spoke to them simultaneously in different languages, broadcasting pure truth on different channels. Why did He choose to do that?
Simply put, because people are different. Some are Medes, some are Parthians. Some hear the manifestation of speaking in tongues and respond with awe and believe the gospel. Some people are freaked out by speaking in tongues, yet will receive a word of prophecy and repent. Some hear “they who are in the flesh cannot please God” and fall on their knees, resolving to do better. Others reading those words alone might be crushed by despair and give up.
Since the entire goal and purpose of the gospel is to reach people, to connect human beings to God and Christ, why wouldn't the presentation thereof be varied and rich and complex enough to reach different kinds of people with different kinds of messages? A monolithic, simple, absolute truth might be easier for everyone to understand, but it would not be easier for everyone to receive.
Admittedly there aren't 4, 5 or ten different gospels presented. There are only two apparent channels in the epistles; the grace channel and the works channel. Goodness and severity. Salvation by grace focused on what God did in us by the work of Christ, and inheritance by works focused on what we do with that gracious gift. So, despite the fact that I am convinced that there are contradictory truths in the Bible, there may be something else going on here.
Saved Unto Good Works.
Perhaps these dual tracks in Paul's epistles aren't really showing us contradictory messages. Perhaps they're showing us two different aspects of one truth that involves both grace and works, sanctification and inheritance.
The answer to this puzzle may be found in II Peter chapter two. This chapter is a prophecy similar to the messages delivered by Paul to the leaders of the church at Ephesus and to Timothy (Acts 20:29 & 30, II Timothy 3:1 – 8). They all warn of dark times ahead for Christ's church, brought on by corrupt ministers. Rather than quote the entire chapter, let's look at a few select verses to get the gist of the message.
II Peter 2:1 - 21
2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
...2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;
...2:17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.
...2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
There are ample references in this passage to indicate that the false teachers referenced are not – as Craig Martindale taught – men of Belial. They are Christians who were saved but have abandoned truth – or will abandon truth, or will have abandoned truth, depending on your position in the timeline – for the pleasures of power and deceit.
The fact that these are not 'men of belial' is pretty clearly indicated by verses 20 and 21. They have escaped the pollution of the world through the knowledge of the Lord. Verse 21 says they had known the way of righteousness. These are not men born of the seed of the serpent. We're not talking about the kindred of the high priest. These are ordained ministers.
The severe judgment awaiting these born-again Christian leaders is also quite starkly portrayed. Verse 12 says they are made to be taken and destroyed and that they shall utterly perish in their own corruption. These judgments are hard to accept for those of us who have been taught that once a person receives Christ, he or she is heaven bound and all hell can't stop them from going. But God's message of impending judgment for these saved sinners is hard to understate. How can both things be true?
There is a clue in verse 17, which refers to them as “ to whom the mist of darkness is reserved forever”.
This may mean that they will retain the benefit of everlasting life, but will spend it banished from the Lord's Kingdom. I am reluctant to quote the Book of Revelation, because I agree with Martin Luther's assertion and can in no way detect that it was authored by The Holy Spirit. But there is a passage near the end that might shed light on this conundrum.
If Revelation is indeed inspired Scripture, and if the events described in the last chapters of Revelation are presented in chronological order, Revelation 22:15 asserts that – after the white throne judgment and the second death (Rev 20:11 – 15), and after the second death (Rev 12:8), and after the coming of the new heavens and new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness (Rev 21:1 - 4) – that, even in this final paradise - there will still be people excluded from the presence of the Lord. The context here is New Jerusalem, the dwelling place of God and the Lamb.
22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
How can there still be dogs and sorcerers, whoremongers and liars in the New Heavens and New Earth wherein dwelleth righteousness? Where will these evil folks come from, and how will they escape the judgments that precede the restoration of paradise?
Perhaps this state of being in the new heavens and new earth, having survived the judgments of the second death and the lake of fire, only to be banished from the New Jerusalem, is the final fate of the false teachers warned about by Peter and Paul. If this is the fate reserved for 'grievous wolves' of whom Paul and Peter prophesied, it actually gives the rest of us struggling laypersons a little comfort.
This judgment is not associated with simply struggling to live righteously. It seems to be reserved for those in positions of leadership. For to whom much is given, much is expected (Luke 12:48). II Peter chapter two serves as the most serious warning for those to aspire to minister the Gospel that they do so with a pure heart.
Of course, we should also remember Paul's apparently contradictory exhortation in I Corinthians chapter six. Fornicators, idolators, extortioners, thieves, drunkards, etc, shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But we have been washed, sanctified, and justified. We received that cleansing by grace. We who accept Christ are saved by grace. But we are also repeatedly warned that our works may deprive us of inheritance in God's kingdom.
So how does this relate back to the original topic of apparently contradictory truths? Simply that, just as it is true that tongues serves for unbelievers, but an unbeliever may be converted through prophesy, it is also true that people who accept Christ are saved by grace, but may fail to inherit eternal life by ungodly works.
Again, I know I Corinthians 14 may not be the most salient connection for those who dismiss the validity of speaking in tongues, but it's how God got me over the 'God's Word cannot contradict itself" hurdle.
There is a very helpful summary of these contradictory truths that TrustandObey posted earlier on this thread (June 11, 2018). It lines up verses that communicate salvation by grace in one column and those that communicate salvation by works in another. All of these verses are from the New Testament. It's one of the most succinct summaries of this dichotomy I've seen yet. Once Saved Always Saved
So, does the Bible teach that we are saved by grace through faith? Yes. Does the Bible teach that Christians can lose their inheritance in heaven by ungodly works? Yes! Aren't those contradictory messages? Yes! But they're both true. Because contradictory truths are still true.
God works with people as individuals. There are probably more logical ways to start this conversation and more relatable threads to pull on to unravel this doctrine. But for me, it started here in I Corinthians 14. I have always loved this chapter and I continue to be an ardent believer in the genuine experience of the manifestations. I understand from past comments on this thread that many of you have dropped the belief that 'SIT' is indicative of salvation. I haven't. I speak in tongues daily and still value this part of my life as a Christian. So maybe that's why it started here for me. Those of you who have different opinions about whether tongues are a genuine proof of holy spirit or not will be asked to set that argument aside for a moment and follow the logic as it unfolds and flows into more consequential topics. How you receive it and whether you accept the same conclusion I did is of course, up to you. This was my avenue to a bigger realization. As I said God works with different people on different terms. Your mileage may vary.
4 hours ago, JerryBX said:
Perhaps these dual tracks in Paul's epistles aren't really showing us contradictory messages. Perhaps they're showing us two different aspects of one truth that involves both grace and works, sanctification and inheritance.
Overall great post, Jerry!
I intend to reread it a few more times – lots of stuff to mull over…I’ll just chime in now with a things that came to mind.
Bravo on the move to start with I Cor.14 and SIT…over the years after I left TWI, I’ve done a lot of rethinking on the manifestations. Your statements “God works with different people on different terms. Your mileage may vary” – touched on something I shared recently on another thread. I was reading The Moody Bible Commentary on I Cor. 12:7 where it talks about each believer is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good – and the MBC said a manifestation is a detailed disclosure of the Spirit - one of the ways the Holy Spirit makes Himself known is through believers using their spiritual gifts. For me, this was very different than what PFAL taught – and especially so, since there’s a lot more gifts than what’s mentioned in Corinthians…Anyway I think your statements go along the same lines of how we grow. All I remember from PFAL was there’s 9 manif. and 5 gift ministries – and there you are a nice neat little theological box…But I get the idea real growth is open-ended… having no determined limit or boundary.
4 hours ago, JerryBX said:
The bottom line here, the lesson we need to carry into other Biblical inquiries is that apparently contradictory statements can both be true. As long as we cling to the VPW mindset of trying to screen out all apparent contradictions in the scripture, we will miss some of the complexities of how God works with mankind. We may miss some truths because they seem to conflict with others.
There are other examples of this dynamic where God may be communicating on multiple channels to reach different kinds of people. Paul's epistles are chock full of apparently contradictory statements.
Some really heavy stuff here Jerry! I love being challenged…I love exploring the Christian faith…as time goes by, I find myself less troubled by contradictory messages and paradoxes…maybe it has something to do with the two different aspects stuff you mentioned . One aspect is from my finite human point of view. The other aspect is from God’s infinite divine point of view. I’ve been a technician for most of my life. That’s probably what was some of the appeal of PFAL – it seemed to shove aside the mysterious – flattening transcendence into measurable data. In the class wierwille said “you tell me what you think of Jesus and I’ll tell you how far you’re going to go spiritually.” In place of transcendence…the mysterious…God…we now have explanation and control…but I’m becoming a big fan of the mysterious again.
I was a little hesitant to post this because I figured there's be more opposition and criticism. Maybe all of us are growing together. Of course there aren't many of 'us' left here, so that's a factor.
Anyway, it's good to know there are other ex-wayfers thinking about biblical paradoxes.
Speaking of paradoxes, this is off topic, but I think another one relating to the realm of mystery is the paradox of Jesus' existence in heaven prior to his birth on earth. I think this is a temporal paradox. Jesus' existence in the linear timeline began when he was born in Bethlehem, but once he ascended into heaven after the Resurrection, he passed into heaven and into a realm beyond linear time. Because (IMHO) time is invented by and controlled by God and is an element of the physical realm. This is my interpretation of Romans 11:36.
For of Him, andthrough Him, and to Him, are all things: to Whom be glory for ever. Amen.
These are prepositions that have geometric meanings. "Of Him" is translated from ek, meaning out from within.
"Through him" is translated from dia meaning a line bisecting a circle, hence the term diameter. All of our existence, all of human history, is through him, or enveloped by the presence of God.
And "to him" is translated from eis, meaning progress unto an end point. I see this illustrated by a line enveloped by three consecutive overlapping circles. The line begins inside the first circle, passes through the second, and ends in side the third. That line is linear time.
So once Jesus ascended into the heavenly realm, he left the universe in which time is linear and became eternal. So we have verses like Colossians 1:16, which says all things were created by and for him (a better translation is in him and unto him, but that still preserves the idea of his pre-existence in some form) and of course, John 6:62
What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up wherehewasbefore?
Anyway, I think embracing the paradoxes in Scripture is a much better approach than Weirwille's disecting of verses. And I think we all agree that some of that was done, not so much to separate truth from error, but to separate us from other fellowships so we would follow VP Weirwille.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
32
26
72
50
Popular Days
Jun 4
31
Jun 3
17
Jun 8
13
Jun 7
12
Top Posters In This Topic
TrustAndObey 32 posts
chockfull 26 posts
TLC 72 posts
Taxidev 50 posts
Popular Days
Jun 4 2018
31 posts
Jun 3 2018
17 posts
Jun 8 2018
13 posts
Jun 7 2018
12 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
yeah in PFAL – didn’t wierwille say something along the lines of if you could do that it meant you’re going to heaven and all hell can’t stop you from going...well, he lived like the devil so he cert
waysider
Most modern scholars believe the first gospel written was Mark and that it was written in about 70 CE. Paul's death is placed at 64 CE. Obviously, he would have written the epistles before the date of
OldSkool
Ok. My initial point here is salvation cannot be lost. If a man sows to the flesh, the old man nature, that man will reap the consequences of his actions - both now and loss of reward at the gathering
TLC
Given that's where I thought you were coming from, it's somewhat surprising it didn't ring-a ling a bell or two for you. (Hey... I tried.)
If and when you decide to actually read (and honestly think about) exactly what I said, maybe you'll "get it."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Waxit
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Salvation is generally nowadays considered to be a process, rather than some one-time event like suddenly having a can of white paint tipped over you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
I think it's important to remember there is salvation by grace, not of works of any kind...and there is salvation by works. The mere fact that there are two distinct types of salvation appears to say that they are mutually exclusive of each other..or are they ? :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JerryBX
Uh, Hi.
I know this is kind of a dormant topic, but it addresses a question I've grappled with for quite a while. It came up back in 2001 during our discussions around the PFAL Review. The linear discussion ran aground in I Peter 1:23 and I spent many years struggling with this very topic.
Some of the work I did mirrors the topics that have been presented here. I started with the versed in Matthew 19:16 - 25 * that are the first occurrences in the NT of the terms "eternal life", "saved", and "Kingdom of Heaven". This of course, was the method we all learned in the Way. You "work the Word' by doing 'word studies' and looking at the first usage as the definition of terms and continue throughout. Based on this beginning, I made the assumption that the terms presented in this passage are synonymous. I still think that's a valid assumption based on the context, but that's beside the point.
* An account of this exchange between the Lord and his disciples is included in all three synoptic Gospels (Mark 10:17 - 30, Luke18:18 - 30)
Proceeding in to the Church epistles with the assumption that all references to salvation and eternal life and inheritance in the kingdom of heaven are analogous causes all kinds of problems, most notably the one that started this tread. Some of Paul's statements seem to clearly indicate that we are saved by grace independently of works (Ephesians 2:8), and some of Paul's writings indicate that inheritance in the Kingdom is based on works - specifically on one's faithful continuance in good conduct and continued adherence to one's original faith in Jesus (Eph 5:5, Hebrews 3:6, etc).
Paul isn't the only Apostle whose words seem to stand in contradiction to the Once Saved Always Saved doctrine. As the OSAS PDF offered last year demonstrates, some verses in John's epistles also land on the 'conditional' column. The verse that sparked this question for me (back around 1999) is the passage in II Peter chapter 2, wherein people referred to as 'false prophets" are described as having " escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ". From this, I believe these are Christians, not 'men of Belial, as LCM taught. Of these christian leaders, it is said that they will "utterly perish". And, specifically they are referred to as people " to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever."
This phrase has stuck with me and presented a sobering possibility that the once saved always saved debate seems to gloss over. It may be that all who accept Jesus receive eternal life, but not inheritance in the Kingdom of heaven. Eternal life and condemnation are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The problem with this position is, as noted above, the synonymous use of the terms eternal life, kingdom of heaven, and 'saved' in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
I think the assumption that we can start in the Gospels and carry the understanding of those terms used in Matthew and apply them to the Church epistles, is flawed. The reason for this flaw touches on the discussion you've been having about dispensationalism and the 'to whom the Word is addressed' question. How do we weigh contradictions between the Gospels and the Church epistles?
Since Jesus spoke in parables. In short, much of his public ministry was truth delivered in its most basic form. Even when he addressed his Chosen, there were things he couldn't teach them because they were still natural men. There were aspects of truth they could not receive without the aid of holy spirit (John 16:12 & 13). Yes, the Gospels were written TO the Church, but they are records of what Jesus said TO people who were still just body & soul.
Conversely, the epistles of Paul, Peter, and John were written specifically to people born from above, filled with the spirit and capable of receiving more nuanced truths.
All of these points are debatable depending on your position, but this is just the preamble. Please forgive the lengthy prologue, I've been stewing on this for over 15 years.
This very morning, an idea struck me that I hadn't considered before. I'd like to present it here to get the opinions of this august group of learned scholars.
The question I wish to pose is this: Is is possible that the meaning of the terms used in the Gospels is simplified because of their original audience, and that these same terms are used with more nuance in the Church epistles because they were presented therein to people more capable of understanding them? Can we allow Paul, Peter and John to refer to eternal life and the Kingdom of heaven in terms that contradict Jesus, based on the assumption that they had grown into a deeper understanding of these truths? I don't mean that they had a deeper understanding than Jesus himself, but a deeper understanding than the people to whom Jesus spoke during his earthly ministry.
That's a very long question. I will sit back and humbly await answers, and follow up with clarifying remarks as they're posed. Thanks in advance your help.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
YIKES!
Really?
Okay, I can see that this might be an interesting place to engage a bunch of amateurs in what might become a lively discussion, but really? Hidden in the word amateur, a close (mis)spelling would be, amature or a-mature, which on its face would seem to indicate the opposite of scholarly maturity. I don't mean to imply that the discussion would immediately turn into a flame war. Rather, I wonder how serious you might be in describing this "august group of learned scholars."
Just some thoughts.
I will not pretend to be qualified to present anything approaching a scholarly inquiry into the subject. Rather, I wonder how meaningful such an inquiry could be given the likelihood that Jesus the Christ did not even exist in the form described in the Gospel books, synoptic or not.
I'm all for humanity having powerful stories (myths). The Christian myth (story) has been dominant in Western Civilization for hundreds of years. But I still wonder if it is the bottom-line of all Godly truth. I recognize that my viewpoint as expressed is quite heretical.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I'll admit my memory isn't as sharp as it once was, but I seem to recall a discussion addressing that very topic, some time ago. I have no idea how to find it again or where it all led.
I seem to recall, though, when the dust all settled, we found ourselves down the block inside at 23 Skidoo.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Cool song.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I make no claim to being any real "scholar,", but I've learned some things, some of them by study. I also appreciate good manners. What I know on this subject, I don't mind passing along.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JerryBX
Rocky, what I meant was, I respect the wisdom and the many years of disciplined study represented by those who have been contributing to this thread. Sorry if that wasn't clearly communicated.
As for the nature of Jesus Christ, although I fully acknowledge the possibility that the Scripture contains flaws and contradictions, I believe that the core truths remain intact. I believe Jesus or Yeshua Messiah was and is the only begotten Son of God and that through him we have access to holy spirit, grace, mercy, and spiritual authority. So I see the Gospels as a collection of writing designed to summarize Jesus' person and ministry. The passages that record what he did and said form the core and foundation of the Christian faith. If you don't accept that, then there is little we can agree on when it comes to parsing the differences between what Jesus taught his Apostles and what the Apostles later taught the first century church.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Hey cool song, Waysider…my wife turned me on to John Prine years ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Hi, JerryBX,
You have some interesting thoughts – and here’s my two cents on what you said...
The message - not the official translation by Eugene Peterson
but the sense of the New Testament
With any book, culture, religion, system of thought, etc. that present a set of beliefs there is going to be a learning curve - which simply means that acquiring a new or better or deeper understanding comes from experiencing or practicing those set of beliefs…So, I think the nuts and bolts of the Christian faith are the same in the Gospels as well as in the epistles – but more than likely there will be some variations how folks understood those “nuts and bolts” simply due to the individuality of people and where they are on the learning curve. So one answer to your questions – it’s the same message but there’s a broad spectrum in the make-up of the audience. I will address something about the authors of that message further down below.
It would be interesting if we could make a quantum leap back to the days when Jesus and the apostles walked the earth – and provided we also packed a universal translator. I wonder how many stark differences of practice would hit us in the face; or if we got involved in a topical discussion - would there be big differences in our concept of key elements of the faith? I guess that’s what we try to accomplish in studying the Bible…trying to bridge the gap in our understanding of a book that was compiled over a wide stretch of time long ago from different languages, cultures and worldviews.
Today I re-read this entire thread and I was amused by my very first post:
I still feel the same way now – but I actually mulled this over last night and may have managed to figure out why this doubt about my salvation doesn’t seem to bother me – I think I’ve been in the process of deconstructing my belief system ever since I left TWI. I am a study-bug but when I boil it down to what is essential to me I keep coming back to something Jesus said:
18 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” 2 And He called a child to Himself and set him before them, 3 and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
7 “Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!
8 “If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. 9 If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.
10 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of My Father who is in heaven…Matthew 18:1-10 NASB
== == ==
Even though I am getting older – in the last five or so years, I feel like I’m circling back to some of the bare-bones faith I had as a kid growing up in a decent and kind Roman Catholic family. With Jesus talking about becoming like children – to me he’s characterizing the simplicity of salvation and the complete dependence I should have on him since - like a young child -I have no resources of my own to pull off this salvation. Back when I was a kid, there wasn’t much focus on the Bible and I never felt encouraged toward any intellectual pursuits like systematic theology. From family life and my trusty catechism I also remember the seriousness of sin and its consequences – how it impacts me and others - and to nip it in the bud before it grows into a cancer of the soul. Well…that’s my little re-interpretation of Matthew 18 anyway
…my takeaway: don’t sweat about some future salvation – see what good you can accomplish in the here and now. Let the Golden Rule rule.
== == ==
== == ==
The authors of the message
Since dispensationalism has been brought up a few times on this thread – I would like to address that in light of what I said above about the learning curve – since that process of growth would apply to the apostles too…In my opinion dispensationalist-thinking obscures the actual process of how the New Testament documents came into existence. ***spoiler alert for those who hold to the mathematical-exactness-and-scientific-precision-Word-of-God-idea- as-taught-in-PFAL – it’s a contradiction, based on the inconsistent elements that were presented in the class. I do believe that God inspired people to write the Bible and that the authors used their own vocabulary, style and such – yes I agree with that. But one thing wierwille did not really address – and herein lies the flaw of the mathematical-exactness-and-scientific-precision-Word-of-God-idea- as-taught-in-PFAL - - - - - - the authors wrote from their worldview. A worldview is “the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual's or society's knowledge and point of view.” (from Wikipedia worldview ) ...and guess what? no one has a perfect and comprehensive worldview...we are human beings with flaws and limitations.
Furthermore, one’s worldview is not necessarily set in stone – since it’s possible that one’s knowledge, understanding, attitudes, opinions, etc. can change from additional input of information, experiences, etc. – all of which basically describes growth. I think one of the most remarkable Bible stories of change and growth is of the apostle Paul as revealed in some references to his former worldview ( Acts 22: 1-21; Gal. 1:11 – 2:21; Phil. 3: 1- 16) …Folks might enjoy reading Changing Minds by Howard Gardner - Harvard psychologist Gardner explains the process of changing one’s mind – and even gets into the conversion of the apostle Paul.
Another thing about dispensationalist-thinking is that it is artificial - for I believe it is something produced by human beings rather than occurring “naturally” in the scriptures…it is more or less a theologian’s “template” – pattern to serve as a guide – an overlay if you will – a mental construct to be superimposed on the Bible as one attempts to understand its content. It seems to me that dispensationalism and fundamentalism for that matter, are cut from the same cloth – in that they hold to a very literal interpretation of the Bible and they both have the assumption of its inerrancy – in other words it does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact ( see biblical inerrancy ).
I no longer follow a dispensationalism or fundamentalism viewpoint – but rather I think of the Bible as a magnificent record of development or evolution in Judeo-Christian thought. In my humble opinion, that is an honest way to explain the obvious errors and inconsistencies. I don’t mean to rain on anyone’s parade over this – just wanted to let you all know where I’m coming from.
Another interesting thing about the development of the Christian faith is to consider when the Gospels were written. The range of dates most widely accepted by scholars is 65 to 110 AD ( see dating the Bible ). Jesus’ resurrection and ascension happened about 30 AD ( see Bible Hub timeline of events ). That’s at least - on the earlier side if you want to go with 65 AD - some 35 years difference historical-proximity-wise from when actual events took place to when they were “officially” documented.
I’m sure the apostles didn’t just sit back on their sandals for 35 years and then suddenly in a flash of revelatory lightning pen a Gospel or two. I assume they were applying what they knew and continued growing in knowledge and experience - and probably wrote some things down - like journaling
. What I think one could infer from all this is that you have the same message in the Gospels and the epistles written by seasoned believers of that message. Folks might enjoy reading Making Sense of the Bible by Adam Hamilton . I think it’s a good book to help one get a handle on the nature of scripture and how we should interpret it. Also I think the book gives you a clearer idea of the writing style (which I mentioned above) in the Gospels – which is an historical narrative and nothing like what you would expect to see in a modern textbook on history or even in a lot of modern journalism.
It also gives some details on how the Gospels were compiled – which means assembled from various sources - which may account for the discrepancies in the Gospels - having different versions and details of the same account; perhaps similar to the minor discrepancies and erroneous facts in the narratives of ten people who witnessed the same really bad traffic accident - six witnesses describe the vehicle that caused the accident and then sped off as a white Dodge SUV, two others said it was either a tan Toyota or Lexus SUV, and two said it was a Ford SUV either silver or gold but it was hard to tell the color because it was 11:30 at night. Fortunately one person caught the license plate number and when the police ran the tag they were able to identify the suspect’s vehicle as a light grey 2016 Dodge Durango; ...anyway, this compiling process was even mentioned in the beginning of Luke:
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught…Luke 1: 1-4 NASB
Edited by T-Boneformatting and bunch of editing
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
And as well as the gospels, don't forget the Didache, one of the earliest documents written to benefit new Christians. Even that has accrued a considerable amount of what my former church leader (an acknowledged expert in this area of study) called "rust" - the overlays and reinterpretations people put on it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JerryBX
TBone, thank you for that thoughtful response. I'll need to mull it over for a while, but here are a few comments.
I agree about the authors' worldviews affecting their writing. I think it even affected their behavior, as is clearly evidenced by Peter's response to the revelation of the great sheet (Acts chapter 10) "Not so Lord" So, the chronicle of the Gospels and the book of Acts shows us a set of people whose worldview was upended by the introduction of the Divine. They couldn't possibly grasp all the ramifications of that disruption at once. I think this is partly what I meant by my comments about Jesus' audience.
As for dispensationalism and fundamentalism, I think there is a certain amount of changing of the rules Scriptural students have to address. Galatians encapsulates the most obvious one, the fulfilling of the Mosaic Law regarding righteousness. Perhaps dispensationalism is simply taking this clear, simple example of a change in the expression of God's will to mankind and taking it to extremes.
Twinky, I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with the Didache, I'll have to do some homework on that point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
I agree…I didn’t mean to harshly condemn fundamentalism or dispensationalism…every viewpoint worth its salt has some merit – but for me, It’s like you said – anything can be taken to extremes. To be honest, I still find myself almost unconsciously using dispensationalist labels as sort of a kiosk-directory-you-are-here kind of thing when I’m reading some parts of the Old Testament (such as Innocence, Conscience, Human Government, Promise and Law) – but my use of them is more like a developmental historical marker rather than a change up in the rules.
So I don’t see it as progressive revelation - but rather as I said before - a development or evolution in Judeo-Christian thought – there is a difference – the latter puts the focus on the human factor of faith. Also for me, the jury is still out on definite distinctions between Israel and the Church and pre-trib, mid-trib, and post-trib.
I look forward to your input – and after thinking about your comment on Galatians, I’ll leave you with this from Paul the Apostle and Jewish Christianity “A central concern for Paul was the inclusion of Gentiles into God's New Covenant, and the role of faith and commandments in the inclusion of Gentile converts. Paul did not deem circumcision necessary, as witnessed throughout his writings, but thought that God included Gentiles into his New Covenant through faith in Christ. This brought him into conflict with some Jewish Christians, who requested strict observances of the Jewish law by Gentile Christians. Eventually the less strict view prevailed, and led to the separation of Gentile Christianity from Judaism.”
Edited by T-Boneformatting and typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
A simpler (yet related to the current question) might be, can Salvation be Gained.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
In other words. You claim it can be lost. How do you think that you gained it to begin with? I read a passage in Ezekiel last night.. Ezekiel 21:3,4. In a sense.. the righteous enable the wicked here.. and both are to be cut off. Well.. just saying. What do you think?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
I personally believe one of THE best informed teachings on this topic is Wayne Clapps "Is hell a place of eternal torment".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
There’s a fascinating and thought-provoking book on this subject - appropriately titled
Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived by Rob Bell
Here’s a brief description from Amazon:
“in Love Wins, bestselling author, international teacher, and speaker Rob Bell addresses one of the most controversial issues of faith—hell and the afterlife—arguing, would a loving God send people to eternal torment forever? With searing insight, Bell puts hell on trial with a hopeful message—eternal life doesn’t start when we die; it starts right now. And ultimately, Love Wins.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
A book that has been the subject of discussion here on GSC. I love the book. It also reframes discussion about whether salvation can be lost.
Edited by RockyLink to comment
Share on other sites
JerryBX
So um... Hi. As the millennials say, it's been a minute. I've been mulling over some of this for a while now (couple of years I guess) and I'd like to continue the conversation.
What follows is about 11 pages as I have it written up, so I thought it might be a TLDR situation. I considered attaching it as a separate file, but that would interfere with any resulting discussion. So, with apologies for the length, I'd like to just post it here. Apologies in advance for the uber long post.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This little essay is a bit of a turn for me. Recently, I've embraced a different mindset that has lead me to see the Bible in a different light. Since most of the spiritual growth I've experienced since leaving TWI has been sparked by online discussions, I felt it would be appropriate to share it here and see if it benefits anyone else, and perhaps clarify and refine it through discourse.
For years, I've held on to the basic tenet of PFAL that the Bible, as God's Word, cannot contradict itself. That premise lead to major issues with certain concepts, including judgment and justification. As I wrestled with these doctrinal issues, I started noticing more and more apparent contradictions in the canon. The ones that I fixated on most were the examples that defied the rules of Weirwille's “keys to the Word's interpretation'.
Those keys don't resolve contradictions where the same writer discussing the identical event wrote different things at different times. Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus is one such example. Luke, who claimed to have perfect understanding of all things, wrote in Acts 9:7 that, when Jesus appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus, his companions heard the Lord's voice, but did not see him. Then in Acts 22:9, he wrote that Paul said “they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice...”. None of the 'keys' in PFAL address this discrepancy.
The other one that stuck in my mind is in I Corinthians chapter 14. Here we have another instance where one writer, speaking about the same topic, essentially contradicts himself. But instead of it happening over the space of years of narrative, it happens within one chapter. So it intrigued and bugged me for many years. Until last September.
God works with people as individuals. There are probably more logical ways to start this conversation and more relatable threads to pull on to unravel this doctrine. But for me, it started here in I Corinthians 14. I have always loved this chapter and I continue to be an ardent believer in the genuine experience of the manifestations. I understand from past comments on this thread that many of you have dropped the belief that 'SIT' is indicative of salvation. I haven't. I speak in tongues daily and still value this part of my life as a Christian. So maybe that's why it started here for me. Those of you who have different opinions about whether tongues are a genuine proof of holy spirit or not will be asked to set that argument aside for a moment and follow the logic as it unfolds and flows into more consequential topics. How you receive it and whether you accept the same conclusion I did is of course, up to you. This was my avenue to a bigger realization. As I said God works with different people on different terms. Your mileage may vary.
Preamble and disclaimer aside, let's look at I Corinthians 14 and see how two seemingly contradictory statements are both true.
14:22 wherefore tongues are for a sign not for them that believe, but for them that believe not
This verse is one of the statements in the NT that presents the experience of speaking in tongues as genuine proof of conversion, of salvation, of the presence of pneuma hagion. It was enough to convince Peter and the Judaean believers that gentiles at the household of Cornelius had received the same gift they had (Acts 10:47). Even today, speaking in tongues gets people's attention. I've experienced this in my life on both the giving and receiving end. Seeing the worship manifestations in a twig fellowship meeting was one of the reasons I took PFAL in the first place.
The verses that precede vs 22 put this in context by asserting, in verses 5 – 17 that speaking in tongues is good for personal edification, but in fellowship meetings, speaking in tongues should always be accompanied by interpretation of tongues so that the entire congregation can be edified by the message in their known language.
I Corinthians 14: 17 - 22
14:17 For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is not edified.
14:18 I thank my God I speak with tongues more than ye all.
14:19 Yet in the Church, I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that, by my voice, I might teach others also, than five thousand words in an unknown tongue .
14:21 In the law it is written, “With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that, they will not hear Me saith the Lord.
14:22 Wherefore, tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
The use of the word 'wherefore' sets verse 22 as the logical conclusion of Paul's entire treatise that begins in verse one. It sums up the proper distinction of the different profit of these manifestations of holy spirit. Speaking in tongues is part of the witness referenced in (I John) and is intended to reinforce the gospel and convince unbelievers of the genuine presence and power of the holy spirit. This is what happened at the household of Cornelius.
But the very next verse turns around and sets this conclusion on its head.
14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
Granted, the key phrase here is “all speak with tongues”. This scenario contradicts the guidance Paul has just given that, if anyone speaks in tongues in fellowship, let it be by two or at the most by three. So the logical guidance to follow this scenario should be, 'remember, don't let everyone speak in tongues in church'. But then he adds the following.
14:24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
14:25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
So, right after stating that prophesying serveth not them that believe not, but for them which believe, just two verses later Paul says that prophesy is to be desired when unbelievers visit a church.
The analytical Waybrain child in me wants to stand up and say, “But sir! You just said, tongues are a sign to unbelievers!” Paul spends most of the chapter laying out his case for the proper use of the worship manifestations in fellowships and two verses later, directly contradicts it.
My Waybrain wants to grab one of Weirwille's keys to the Word's interpretation and decide that one of these passages must be a mistranslation or something. What does the Estrangelo Aramaic say?
It says the same thing. This about face also exists in the Lamsa Bible. Before we dig deeper into the fundamentalist toolbox to try to resolve this contradiction, let's go back to the book of Acts to get some more context. Acts chapter two records the first time anyone ever spoke in tongues.
Acts 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the
Spirit gave them utterance.
On the Day of Pentecost, the apostles all spoke in tongues. Since no on prophesied, one might think that this passage doesn't shed much light on the contradiction in I Corinthians, chapter 14. But there's more to the story. As we know from I Corinthians 14:2, when someone speaks in tongues, they're speaking mysteries because the utterance given by the holy spirit is in a language unknown to the speaker. The 'miracle of Pentecost' was that the languages spoken by the Apostles were unknown to them, but known to the myriads of worshipers present at the Temple.
Acts 2: 5 - 11
2:5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
2:6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that
every man heard them speak in his own language.
2:7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which
speak Galilaeans?
2:8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
2:9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and
Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
2:10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome,
Jews and proselytes,
2:11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
As we know from the rest of the passage, after the outpouring of the holy spirit got the crowd's attention, Peter took the opportunity to preach the first public sermon after the ascension of Christ. So in this passage, we can see both of the truths reflected in I Corinthians 14:22 and 24.
When the crowd heard the apostles speak in tongues, they were all amazed and marvelled. This reinforces the truth that 'tongues are for a sign' to unbelievers. At this point everyone was an unbeliever simply because the gospel of the Resurrection had not yet been declared. And, because the crowd heard what was spoken in their languages, we see a reflection of verse 24. They heard the wonderful works of God and their hearts were opened to receive the gospel and salvation.
So I assert that the statements in I Corinthians 14 are indeed contradictory, but they're both true. And the reason both statements can be true is also encapsulated in the context of Acts chapter two. What happened was an example of what God does to reach the disparate and various souls of His children. The world is full of different kinds of people, with different mind sets, backgrounds, perspectives, and personalities: Parthians, Medes, Elamites, strangers, Jews, and Proselytes. One message in one language – even a mystical language that brings the divine into focus – cannot reach everyone. Truth is communicated to people on multiple channels.
The bottom line here, the lesson we need to carry into other Biblical inquiries is that apparently contradictory statements can both be true. As long as we cling to the VPW mindset of trying to screen out all apparent contradictions in the scripture, we will miss some of the complexities of how God works with mankind. We may miss some truths because they seem to conflict with others.
There are other examples of this dynamic where God may be communicating on multiple channels to reach different kinds of people. Paul's epistles are chock full of apparently contradictory statements.
The one that comes readily to mind is the passage in Romans chapter eight about the carnal mind.
Romans 8:3 - 10
8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.
8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Everything in this passage emphasizes the Christian's focus and conduct. Verse three uses the word walk, which indicates a lifestyle, a behavior pattern,a series of deeds. The righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us who habitually act in accordance with the spirit, as opposed to living according to the flesh, the old carnal desires.
Verse five takes it a little deeper and focuses on the root of deeds. The mind is mentioned here as a verb. Those who live according to the flesh mind the flesh. The word mind is translated from the word phroneo, which means to consider, to focus on. Conversely they who dwell on spiritual matters live according to the spirit. Verse six continues the thought and presents the fruits and consequences of these dual focuses. The emphasis is still on the consequences of a believer's mental habits.
The carnal mind puts someone at enmity, hostility towards God and produces disobedience. And verse eight clearly and logically sums up the passage.
So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. Who are these people? We are. The context can be clearly traced back to verse four, which is written in first person plural. The righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh.
But then, just as the humble reader is examining himself or herself to determine whether we are carnally minded or not, just as we are challenging ourselves to think and walk according to the spirit so that we may please God, verse nine takes a tone that completely contradicts those conclusions.
8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
8:10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Wait, what? This is such a jarring juxtaposition that it boggles the mind. If they who have the spirit of God are not in the flesh, why were just told that they who are in the flesh cannot please God?
Suddenly Paul shifts focus from walking, from minding, from our deeds and their consequences, to something we received by grace and which abides as a constant presence.
The language of verses 3 – 9 is conditional. The language of verse 10 is absolute.
If Christ be in you, the body is dead. The Spirit is life.
The cumulative statement of verses 3 through 8 clearly teaches that our mind can disconnect us from life and peace and set us in a state of being at enmity with God. Then verses nine and ten seem to flatly contradict that conclusion.
Both are true. There are two levels of truth being simultaneously communicated. Verses three through eight direct our attention to our mental habits and the importance of striving to manage them. Verses nine and ten present a parallel truth that if you have received holy spirit, you are still God's child and still sanctified by his gift. The holy spirit remains despite our fleshly weaknesses and distractions. So we are simultaneously encouraged to set our minds on spiritual matters, cautioned against the consequences of failing to do so, and comforted that the overarching grace of the new birth means that, even when we are walking carnally and failing to please God, we are still His children.
We see the same bifocal exhortation in I Corinthians chapter six. The shift in tone and the apparently contradictory language is introduced by the phrase “but ye”, just as it is in Romans 8:9. The shift is made more emphatic here by the figure of speech repetitio.
I Corinthians 6:9 – 11
6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
Again, we might wonder, if we were such people, but are now washed, sanctified, and justified by the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God, why did Paul just tell us “Be not deceived: neither fornicators, not idolaters, nor covetous...shall inherit the kingdom of God. The language of verses 9 and 10 clearly indicate judgment for ungodly behavior. The immediate context leaves no doubt that this behavior was occurring in the Church. Paul wasn't railing against the evils of the secular world. He was reproving the Corinthian congregation. The language of this reproof couldn't be more stark. If those in the church who are covetous, idolatrous, thieves, drunks or extortioners shall not inherit the kingdom of God, that's a truth that must be understood and heeded.
And just as we're beginning the self examination that follows such a warning, Paul sweeps it aside by implying that all of that is behind us because we were sanctified by the gift of holy spirit.
What gives? What are we to believe? How can we be saved by grace, sanctified by the Spirit of God, and yet be in danger of not inheriting the kingdom of God?
Perhaps the answer lies back in Acts Chapter two and I Corinthians 14. On the day of Pentecost, God used the introduction of a new manifestation of holy spirit, to reach out to thousands of disparate believers gathered from all over Asia. He spoke to them simultaneously in different languages, broadcasting pure truth on different channels. Why did He choose to do that?
Simply put, because people are different. Some are Medes, some are Parthians. Some hear the manifestation of speaking in tongues and respond with awe and believe the gospel. Some people are freaked out by speaking in tongues, yet will receive a word of prophecy and repent. Some hear “they who are in the flesh cannot please God” and fall on their knees, resolving to do better. Others reading those words alone might be crushed by despair and give up.
Since the entire goal and purpose of the gospel is to reach people, to connect human beings to God and Christ, why wouldn't the presentation thereof be varied and rich and complex enough to reach different kinds of people with different kinds of messages? A monolithic, simple, absolute truth might be easier for everyone to understand, but it would not be easier for everyone to receive.
Admittedly there aren't 4, 5 or ten different gospels presented. There are only two apparent channels in the epistles; the grace channel and the works channel. Goodness and severity. Salvation by grace focused on what God did in us by the work of Christ, and inheritance by works focused on what we do with that gracious gift. So, despite the fact that I am convinced that there are contradictory truths in the Bible, there may be something else going on here.
Saved Unto Good Works.
Perhaps these dual tracks in Paul's epistles aren't really showing us contradictory messages. Perhaps they're showing us two different aspects of one truth that involves both grace and works, sanctification and inheritance.
The answer to this puzzle may be found in II Peter chapter two. This chapter is a prophecy similar to the messages delivered by Paul to the leaders of the church at Ephesus and to Timothy (Acts 20:29 & 30, II Timothy 3:1 – 8). They all warn of dark times ahead for Christ's church, brought on by corrupt ministers. Rather than quote the entire chapter, let's look at a few select verses to get the gist of the message.
II Peter 2:1 - 21
2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
...2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;
...2:17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.
...2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
There are ample references in this passage to indicate that the false teachers referenced are not – as Craig Martindale taught – men of Belial. They are Christians who were saved but have abandoned truth – or will abandon truth, or will have abandoned truth, depending on your position in the timeline – for the pleasures of power and deceit.
The fact that these are not 'men of belial' is pretty clearly indicated by verses 20 and 21. They have escaped the pollution of the world through the knowledge of the Lord. Verse 21 says they had known the way of righteousness. These are not men born of the seed of the serpent. We're not talking about the kindred of the high priest. These are ordained ministers.
The severe judgment awaiting these born-again Christian leaders is also quite starkly portrayed. Verse 12 says they are made to be taken and destroyed and that they shall utterly perish in their own corruption. These judgments are hard to accept for those of us who have been taught that once a person receives Christ, he or she is heaven bound and all hell can't stop them from going. But God's message of impending judgment for these saved sinners is hard to understate. How can both things be true?
There is a clue in verse 17, which refers to them as “ to whom the mist of darkness is reserved forever”.
This may mean that they will retain the benefit of everlasting life, but will spend it banished from the Lord's Kingdom. I am reluctant to quote the Book of Revelation, because I agree with Martin Luther's assertion and can in no way detect that it was authored by The Holy Spirit. But there is a passage near the end that might shed light on this conundrum.
If Revelation is indeed inspired Scripture, and if the events described in the last chapters of Revelation are presented in chronological order, Revelation 22:15 asserts that – after the white throne judgment and the second death (Rev 20:11 – 15), and after the second death (Rev 12:8), and after the coming of the new heavens and new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness (Rev 21:1 - 4) – that, even in this final paradise - there will still be people excluded from the presence of the Lord. The context here is New Jerusalem, the dwelling place of God and the Lamb.
22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
How can there still be dogs and sorcerers, whoremongers and liars in the New Heavens and New Earth wherein dwelleth righteousness? Where will these evil folks come from, and how will they escape the judgments that precede the restoration of paradise?
Perhaps this state of being in the new heavens and new earth, having survived the judgments of the second death and the lake of fire, only to be banished from the New Jerusalem, is the final fate of the false teachers warned about by Peter and Paul. If this is the fate reserved for 'grievous wolves' of whom Paul and Peter prophesied, it actually gives the rest of us struggling laypersons a little comfort.
This judgment is not associated with simply struggling to live righteously. It seems to be reserved for those in positions of leadership. For to whom much is given, much is expected (Luke 12:48). II Peter chapter two serves as the most serious warning for those to aspire to minister the Gospel that they do so with a pure heart.
Of course, we should also remember Paul's apparently contradictory exhortation in I Corinthians chapter six. Fornicators, idolators, extortioners, thieves, drunkards, etc, shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But we have been washed, sanctified, and justified. We received that cleansing by grace. We who accept Christ are saved by grace. But we are also repeatedly warned that our works may deprive us of inheritance in God's kingdom.
So how does this relate back to the original topic of apparently contradictory truths? Simply that, just as it is true that tongues serves for unbelievers, but an unbeliever may be converted through prophesy, it is also true that people who accept Christ are saved by grace, but may fail to inherit eternal life by ungodly works.
Again, I know I Corinthians 14 may not be the most salient connection for those who dismiss the validity of speaking in tongues, but it's how God got me over the 'God's Word cannot contradict itself" hurdle.
There is a very helpful summary of these contradictory truths that TrustandObey posted earlier on this thread (June 11, 2018). It lines up verses that communicate salvation by grace in one column and those that communicate salvation by works in another. All of these verses are from the New Testament. It's one of the most succinct summaries of this dichotomy I've seen yet. Once Saved Always Saved
So, does the Bible teach that we are saved by grace through faith? Yes. Does the Bible teach that Christians can lose their inheritance in heaven by ungodly works? Yes! Aren't those contradictory messages? Yes! But they're both true. Because contradictory truths are still true.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I'm a believer in paradox, which is what I understand you're referring to in general.
But I also believe that there's far more to these issues than humans have been able to grasp.
Btw, it was still TL;DR, but I did skim through and picked up some of what you were getting at.
More power to you in trying to reconcile paradoxical issues in the Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Overall great post, Jerry!
I intend to reread it a few more times – lots of stuff to mull over…I’ll just chime in now with a things that came to mind.
Bravo on the move to start with I Cor.14 and SIT…over the years after I left TWI, I’ve done a lot of rethinking on the manifestations. Your statements “God works with different people on different terms. Your mileage may vary” – touched on something I shared recently on another thread. I was reading The Moody Bible Commentary on I Cor. 12:7 where it talks about each believer is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good – and the MBC said a manifestation is a detailed disclosure of the Spirit - one of the ways the Holy Spirit makes Himself known is through believers using their spiritual gifts. For me, this was very different than what PFAL taught – and especially so, since there’s a lot more gifts than what’s mentioned in Corinthians…Anyway I think your statements go along the same lines of how we grow. All I remember from PFAL was there’s 9 manif. and 5 gift ministries – and there you are a nice neat little theological box…But I get the idea real growth is open-ended… having no determined limit or boundary.
Some really heavy stuff here Jerry! I love being challenged…I love exploring the Christian faith…as time goes by, I find myself less troubled by contradictory messages and paradoxes…maybe it has something to do with the two different aspects stuff you mentioned . One aspect is from my finite human point of view. The other aspect is from God’s infinite divine point of view. I’ve been a technician for most of my life. That’s probably what was some of the appeal of PFAL – it seemed to shove aside the mysterious – flattening transcendence into measurable data. In the class wierwille said “you tell me what you think of Jesus and I’ll tell you how far you’re going to go spiritually.” In place of transcendence…the mysterious…God…we now have explanation and control…but I’m becoming a big fan of the mysterious again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JerryBX
Thanks fellas.
I was a little hesitant to post this because I figured there's be more opposition and criticism. Maybe all of us are growing together. Of course there aren't many of 'us' left here, so that's a factor.
Anyway, it's good to know there are other ex-wayfers thinking about biblical paradoxes.
Speaking of paradoxes, this is off topic, but I think another one relating to the realm of mystery is the paradox of Jesus' existence in heaven prior to his birth on earth. I think this is a temporal paradox. Jesus' existence in the linear timeline began when he was born in Bethlehem, but once he ascended into heaven after the Resurrection, he passed into heaven and into a realm beyond linear time. Because (IMHO) time is invented by and controlled by God and is an element of the physical realm. This is my interpretation of Romans 11:36.
For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things: to Whom be glory for ever. Amen.
These are prepositions that have geometric meanings. "Of Him" is translated from ek, meaning out from within.
"Through him" is translated from dia meaning a line bisecting a circle, hence the term diameter. All of our existence, all of human history, is through him, or enveloped by the presence of God.
And "to him" is translated from eis, meaning progress unto an end point. I see this illustrated by a line enveloped by three consecutive overlapping circles. The line begins inside the first circle, passes through the second, and ends in side the third. That line is linear time.
So once Jesus ascended into the heavenly realm, he left the universe in which time is linear and became eternal. So we have verses like Colossians 1:16, which says all things were created by and for him (a better translation is in him and unto him, but that still preserves the idea of his pre-existence in some form) and of course, John 6:62
What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Anyway, I think embracing the paradoxes in Scripture is a much better approach than Weirwille's disecting of verses. And I think we all agree that some of that was done, not so much to separate truth from error, but to separate us from other fellowships so we would follow VP Weirwille.
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.