quote:He tried to take a shortcut to the "more abundant life."
Personally I wouldn't call it a shortcut but rather, focusing more on identification with the risen, living Christ:
quote:When Jesus was crucified, He took my place as a sinner.
He bore my sins in his body on the tree: He bore my shame that came through my union with Satan; He bore my diseases that Satan had put upon me; He bore my judgment which was mine, because of my union with God's enemy.
When He died, He carried all this off into the land of Forgetfulness and He rose because He had put all this away.
He not only put my sin away, my shame and my diseases, but He put me away -- the old me -- me, the sinner.
He put my sin nature away.
He put my infirmities away along with my sin, sicknesses, and diseases, so that now I stand with Him and in Him as free from them as He was free when He rose.
His justification is my justification; His righteousness is my righteousness; His health is my health; His freedom from Satan's dominion is my freedom; His freedom from condemnation, is my freedom from condemnation; His freedom from infirmities, is my freedom from infirmities; for in Him I enjoy all that He did and all that He now is.
All that He did, He did for me.
Let me state it again:
If He bore my sins, I do not need to bear them; If He bore my sin nature, I do not need to bear it; If He bore my infirmities, I do not need to carry them; -- If I DO bear them, then He died for naught.
So when I accept Him as my Saviour, confessed Him as my Lord, and was baptized into His Name, I was baptized into His standing before the Father.
I was baptized into His righteousness that He wrought; I was baptized into His justification; baptized into His health for the body, soul and spirit; I was baptized into the victory that He had won over Satan; I was baptized into all He means to the Father, for He died representatively for me; and now, He reigns up there, representatively for me.
As He is my representative up there, now, I am His representative here in the earth.
He has put me, and mine, and all the sin, that was in me, away, and He has given me all that was His; all that He did, all that He was, so that "as He is now, so am I in this world."
Cool discussion. Oldiesman, that's a great quote from Kenyon, thanks. Ex, if I'm reading all this right, it really does illustrate exactly what you're saying, which is rippling out across my brain cells in SUCH a nice way.
I can see it as two sides of the same coin, one side being what Christ actually did for us and the other side our growth and maturity in appreciating and understanding it. The more we are able to dwell upon, embrace and realize what He did and who He was, the more we are able to be what God intended us to be through Christ. The way the story goes, our redemption wasn't something *snapped* in to existence by a willful god with idle time on his hands. It was crafted by our creator, with purpose and meaning.
Redemption by definition came at a cost. We can't skip over the cost to focus on the "blessings" that result from it or we risk losing the lessons of life it expresses - like ultimate total giving that is expressed regardless of the return to oneself.
I tried to describe this to my son once by telling him, someday years and years from now, you're going to have a son or daughter and you're going to have to do something for them that's going to be hard and that may even hurt you personally to do. But you're going to do it anyway because you love them and you know they need you to do it for them. When you do, remember me and remember that anything I ever did for you was nothing compared to knowing that someday you'd have a son or daughter and when you looked in their eyes you'd remember me and see me and our life in them. And you'll know that our love will be forever.
Its' so very far away, takes about a half a day to get there,
Honey, honey, I wanna say something!!! I just thought I'd mention that IMO the reason TWI abhorred crosses so much, as with other things, is because TWI believes that crosses attract devil spirits. Isn't that special?
TWI acting like authorities on devil spirits is like the three stooges acting like electricians or plumbers. They connect water pipes to electrical pipes and water comes out of the stove, the clock, the TV, etc. prompting that cook to say, "Need water? Turn on anything; you'll get it." TWI has been like that with devil spirits.
Imagine if you will a break room in hell. Devil spirits are sitting in chairs talking and telling jokes. All of a sudden the mood is disrupted by a blaring horn. One of the devil spirits says, "Aw, dammit, this trinitarian just put on a cross around his neck! I gotta go, guys. Bye." TWI believed that all human action either attracted or repelled devil spirits.
I believe that devil spirits exist, but either they're there or they're not. Just because somebody wears a cross doesn't mean they're automatically there, or coming. Sheesh! TWI acted like nonverbal behavior was discerning of spirits. False. Nonverbal behavior is the sum of what people do non verbally that can be detected by the 5 senses. For instance, facial expression, tone, volume or inflection of voice, hand gestures, choice of clothing, grooming or lack of it,eye contact, posture, space bubble, response time, etc. all of those things communicate something to others without the use of words.
We were taught that certain nonverbal behavior automatically indicated devil spirits. That's absurd! You need holy spirit to discern spirits. It would be just as absurd to see someone wearing a cross and assume they were Christian. TWI made five senses discerning of spirits an art form.
That was so beautifully put! The "way of the cross" is the way of humility, obedience, submission, and yes, suffering. (Insert I Peter here.)
Not arrogance and disdain, and "continuing in sin." Instead of looking at the message of the cross as the one of power to overcome sin, (by repentance) it became the reason why we could sin and get away with it. "Christ suffered so I don't have to" was a kind of mantra to many of us. WRONG. I'm afraid many of us (myself included) missed the whole point entirely. And then became "stunted in our growth" as Christians, always looking for the blessings of the "more abundant life."
As I said before, VP's theology was full of holes, and glaring inconsistencies. Man's basic spiritual problem is not "the intergrity of the Word," but sin. VP didn't want to admit that, and I think it's fairly obvious why. The message of the cross deals with the sin problem, but then it's up to us to live according to it. But we were offered "shortcuts," ie. "just believe," "just renew your mind to your righteousness," etc.
This stuff gets deep. But in untangling the web of what's true and what's false, ie. "discerning truth from error," I think we can't be afraid to look at all these things.
I still think, more than ever that TWI's disdain for the cross as a symbol was indicative of disdain for its message, and the preaching of that message. And contempt was the "fruit."
quote:Not arrogance and disdain, and "continuing in sin." Instead of looking at the message of the cross as the one of power to overcome sin, (by repentance) it became the reason why we could sin and get away with it. "Christ suffered so I don't have to" was a kind of mantra to many of us. WRONG. I'm afraid many of us (myself included) missed the whole point entirely. And then became "stunted in our growth" as Christians, always looking for the blessings of the "more abundant life."
I think the arrogant position here is the one that automatically assumes that if one believes "because Christ suffered for us, I don't have to", that that means that person says to themselves "its ok for me to continue in sin and get away with it." Where did you get that one from? Who taught that? And why is there so much disdain, disrespect and disparagement for your brothers and sisters in Christ who think that its ok to be identified with the risen Christ and not wanting to tolerate suffering?
If E.W. Kenyon is wrong then I'd like to see a better solution than the "sorry you must suffer" mantra of the RC church.
quote: This stuff gets deep. But in untangling the web of what's true and what's false, ie. "discerning truth from error," I think we can't be afraid to look at all these things.
Have you looked at John 10:10 lately?
How about Romans 8: 30-37 (KJV):
quote:Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
As it is written, "For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
quote:Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
Can Christians, and Christian ministers in particular, sin with impunity? Are they above accountability before men? What are these verse trying to communicate?
Speaking of missing points, what is yours exactly? other than I'm "arrogant", "disparaging," "disdainful," "disrespectful?"
Are you saying that because Christ suffered, we don't ever have to suffer? Is that what you think the message of the cross is? I don't want to assume anything here. Please elucidate.
Okay, we're having having thread creep, but who am I to be the creep that steers it back on track, just when we're having fun?
That there is suffering is not a point of argument. Not even that Christians suffer. The difference comes in your philosophy about the suffering. Mainstream theology (to which I subscribe, in the main) says that we suffer because of the sinful fallen condition of man and the world he lives in. Also, those who live godly in Christ are promised to suffer persecution. We also know that God tests us. And corrects us. Reading examples of how he corrected people in the Bible may prove instructive. Note also that tribulation is positive in producing patience. Jesus called us to take up our cross and follow him. Aside from the inevitable suffering this life brings, there is a cost to truly following Jesus. If there is no cost, perhaps that person isn't following Him, hmmn?
On the other hand you have Wierwillism, or 'believism', which says that suffering is 'of the dayvil' and is not part of a Christian's life. Its presence in a believers' life is simply a 'lack of believing' or 'operating principles' incorrectly. The perfecting that God does in us through our suffering is lost entirely because it is 'negative'.
quote:Instead of looking at the message of the cross as the one of power to overcome sin, (by repentance) it became the reason why we could sin and get away with it.
To Rafael and Ex10,
My comments above were directed at what I perceived to be a false accusation, or conclusion, from the above comment, among others.
The message of the cross, in TWI, became the reason why we could sin and get away with it?
I see that statement as morbid.
How can you accuse your brothers and sisters in Christ of being that shallow?
Yes, I am accusing carnal Christians of being shallow. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. If you can't do that, then you've abdicated a part of your Christian responsibility.
All Scripture is profitable for doctrine, REPROOF!!!! and CORRECTION!!!!
You've accused people of advancing devilish theories, oldiesman. What's a little shallowness by comparison?
Other than that, I agree with ex10: you didn't answer my question. What do those verses in Romans mean? Do they give us the right to sin without being held accountable? If not, what do they mean?
I dunno, Raf. I haven't read the whole thread, but those verses Oldiesman quote in Romans mean to me that ultimate acquittal or ultimate condemnation are from God. Not man's decision on who gets into heaven and who doesn't. Not that it's a license to do whatever you want to do.
Even Paul told people to avoid those who were bad people (remember the verse twi twists to justify m&a). I think we're to decide whether to have evil associations that corrupt our good morals, but the ultimate end of those evil doers is not up to me.
Then again a believing spouse is told to stay with an unbelieving one if they are "pleased to dwell" with them.
I dunno, I just dunno. Paul also says it's a small thing that he should be judged of people and that he judges no man.
He also says in there somewhere that we don't use grace as an occasion to sin in the flesh. but if we do use it that way, is it okay?
Seems to me there are inconsistencies all the way across the board. What is the right answer?
OK, dudes and dudettes, I gotta say here that there is suffering in life with or without being a follower of Jesus. Christianity is simply a belief system that tells one there is purpose to the suffering...which may make suffering more tolerable.
But in becoming more tolerable, suffering may also become expected...or, worse, be held up as "proof" of a special level of favor with divinity...as with the martyrs and the saints glorified throughout history.
That's not a good place to be in life, imo.
Was God's love and Jesus' sacrifice more than the love and sacrifice of a mother who saves the life of a child at the cost of her own?
Even the bible says that God can raise up children out of rocks. The idea that God could never, ever again have the opportunity of having a son like Jesus is not very well thought out...and is even a little ridiculous, imo.
So what does that say to me about the Cross of Christ?
It tells me that the act was symbolic more than fundamental...that this act, this sacrifice, should be taken as a symbol of what a parent will do to help a child...even if it means choosing one child over others...and this is how much the god of the bible loved his children.
Jesus was not, is not, and will not be the only person to be crucified or otherwise put to a horrible death for a calling, a purpose. He was not, is not and will not be the only innocent person to go to death in the place of the guilty.
Which is the point where this question becomes even more defined.
Must one first believe in the "stain of sin" upon all mankind before one can understand the Cross of Christ?
I no longer believe in the "stain of sin". But I do appreciate and understand the symbolism of the Cross of Christ. I am a mother...of course I understand dying for the life of my children!
Sometimes one can get too close to the "facts" and not see the whole purpose.
quote:I think the arrogant position here is the one that automatically assumes that if one believes "because Christ suffered for us, I don't have to", that that means that person says to themselves "its ok for me to continue in sin and get away with it."
Where did you get that one from? (Question #1)
Who taught that? (Question #2)
And why is there so much disdain, disrespect and disparagement for your brothers and sisters in Christ who think that its ok to be identified with the risen Christ and not wanting to tolerate suffering? (Question #3)
quote:The cross of Christ is awesome, but I think some people do have an unhealthy focus on death and a judgmental attitude toward sin in the name of the cross of Christ. God IS so loving that he gave, and to throw stones at sinners in the name of the cross of the only one who had the right to throw stones and endured the cross instead is the ultimate irony of the religious. I know we all got burned by those who used grace for an excuse to sin, but don't kid yourself; we all still sin. Jesus didn't die so that we could all go about in a state of hatred about what each other does that is not right on.
Thank you, insurgent, for answering my question rather than resorting to Wierwillian namecalling or simply declaring it "obvious" and ignoring it. I think you touched on the exact issue I was trying to explore: the complexity of the scripture on these subjects.
Oldiesman is correct in pointing out that in its doctrine, The Way never taught "it's okay for me to continue in my sin and get away with it." However, I think it's safe to say that "grace" was treated as a license to sin by many, from the top down. Wierwille was fond of quoting the poem, "I'd rather see a sermon than hear one any day." I agree. I think the sermons we heard NEVER taught licentiousness. But the sermons we SAW, did.
That's the answer to your question, Oldiesman. It was in the sermons we saw, not the books, not the sermons we heard.
There is NO condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. Yet there is a great responsibility on us to "walk worthy of the calling with which we are called." Self-condemnation is BAD. Godly sorrow, on the other hand, is GOOD. Judging is BAD. Distinguishing a true brother from a wolf in sheep's clothing is GOOD.
Contradictions? No, complexity, a subtlety lost on the mathematically exact and scientifically precise world of TWI.
P.S. Stop the namecalling, already, Oldiesman! You rake me over the coals for daring to imply that my fellow Christians are "shallow," yet you show no restraint in accusing her of "spiritual halitosis" and calling her theory "morbid, devilishly accusative," "arrogantly judgmental" and "overly condescending." Why don't you do a little practicing of what you preach there? There's a word for that, you know.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
18
6
22
23
Popular Days
Dec 1
24
Nov 27
16
Nov 22
14
Nov 28
11
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 18 posts
TheInvisibleDan 6 posts
oldiesman 22 posts
ex10 23 posts
Popular Days
Dec 1 2003
24 posts
Nov 27 2003
16 posts
Nov 22 2003
14 posts
Nov 28 2003
11 posts
oldiesman
Personally I wouldn't call it a shortcut but rather, focusing more on identification with the risen, living Christ:
The Wonderful Name of Jesus
E.W. Kenyon
pp. 62-63
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Thank you, Oldies, for so wonderfully illustrating my point.
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Cool discussion.
Oldiesman, that's a great quote from Kenyon, thanks. Ex, if I'm reading all this right, it really does illustrate exactly what you're saying, which is rippling out across my brain cells in SUCH a nice way.
I can see it as two sides of the same coin, one side being what Christ actually did for us and the other side our growth and maturity in appreciating and understanding it. The more we are able to dwell upon, embrace and realize what He did and who He was, the more we are able to be what God intended us to be through Christ. The way the story goes, our redemption wasn't something *snapped* in to existence by a willful god with idle time on his hands. It was crafted by our creator, with purpose and meaning.
Redemption by definition came at a cost. We can't skip over the cost to focus on the "blessings" that result from it or we risk losing the lessons of life it expresses - like ultimate total giving that is expressed regardless of the return to oneself.
I tried to describe this to my son once by telling him, someday years and years from now, you're going to have a son or daughter and you're going to have to do something for them that's going to be hard and that may even hurt you personally to do. But you're going to do it anyway because you love them and you know they need you to do it for them. When you do, remember me and remember that anything I ever did for you was nothing compared to knowing that someday you'd have a son or daughter and when you looked in their eyes you'd remember me and see me and our life in them. And you'll know that our love will be forever.
Its' so very far away, takes about a half a day to get there,
If we travel by my dragonfly....
(Jimi)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Honey, honey, I wanna say something!!! I just thought I'd mention that IMO the reason TWI abhorred crosses so much, as with other things, is because TWI believes that crosses attract devil spirits. Isn't that special?
TWI acting like authorities on devil spirits is like the three stooges acting like electricians or plumbers. They connect water pipes to electrical pipes and water comes out of the stove, the clock, the TV, etc. prompting that cook to say, "Need water? Turn on anything; you'll get it." TWI has been like that with devil spirits.
Imagine if you will a break room in hell. Devil spirits are sitting in chairs talking and telling jokes. All of a sudden the mood is disrupted by a blaring horn. One of the devil spirits says, "Aw, dammit, this trinitarian just put on a cross around his neck! I gotta go, guys. Bye." TWI believed that all human action either attracted or repelled devil spirits.
I believe that devil spirits exist, but either they're there or they're not. Just because somebody wears a cross doesn't mean they're automatically there, or coming. Sheesh! TWI acted like nonverbal behavior was discerning of spirits. False. Nonverbal behavior is the sum of what people do non verbally that can be detected by the 5 senses. For instance, facial expression, tone, volume or inflection of voice, hand gestures, choice of clothing, grooming or lack of it,eye contact, posture, space bubble, response time, etc. all of those things communicate something to others without the use of words.
We were taught that certain nonverbal behavior automatically indicated devil spirits. That's absurd! You need holy spirit to discern spirits. It would be just as absurd to see someone wearing a cross and assume they were Christian. TWI made five senses discerning of spirits an art form.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Socks
That was so beautifully put! The "way of the cross" is the way of humility, obedience, submission, and yes, suffering. (Insert I Peter here.)
Not arrogance and disdain, and "continuing in sin." Instead of looking at the message of the cross as the one of power to overcome sin, (by repentance) it became the reason why we could sin and get away with it. "Christ suffered so I don't have to" was a kind of mantra to many of us. WRONG. I'm afraid many of us (myself included) missed the whole point entirely. And then became "stunted in our growth" as Christians, always looking for the blessings of the "more abundant life."
As I said before, VP's theology was full of holes, and glaring inconsistencies. Man's basic spiritual problem is not "the intergrity of the Word," but sin. VP didn't want to admit that, and I think it's fairly obvious why. The message of the cross deals with the sin problem, but then it's up to us to live according to it. But we were offered "shortcuts," ie. "just believe," "just renew your mind to your righteousness," etc.
This stuff gets deep. But in untangling the web of what's true and what's false, ie. "discerning truth from error," I think we can't be afraid to look at all these things.
I still think, more than ever that TWI's disdain for the cross as a symbol was indicative of disdain for its message, and the preaching of that message. And contempt was the "fruit."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I think the arrogant position here is the one that automatically assumes that if one believes "because Christ suffered for us, I don't have to", that that means that person says to themselves "its ok for me to continue in sin and get away with it." Where did you get that one from? Who taught that? And why is there so much disdain, disrespect and disparagement for your brothers and sisters in Christ who think that its ok to be identified with the risen Christ and not wanting to tolerate suffering?
If E.W. Kenyon is wrong then I'd like to see a better solution than the "sorry you must suffer" mantra of the RC church.
"Well, it's just God's will", etc. etc...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
P.S.
Have you looked at John 10:10 lately?
How about Romans 8: 30-37 (KJV):
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oldiesman,
What do these verses mean?
Can Christians, and Christian ministers in particular, sin with impunity? Are they above accountability before men? What are these verse trying to communicate?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Oldies
I think you have missed my point entirely.
Speaking of missing points, what is yours exactly? other than I'm "arrogant", "disparaging," "disdainful," "disrespectful?"
Are you saying that because Christ suffered, we don't ever have to suffer? Is that what you think the message of the cross is? I don't want to assume anything here. Please elucidate.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Okay, we're having having thread creep, but who am I to be the creep that steers it back on track, just when we're having fun?
That there is suffering is not a point of argument. Not even that Christians suffer. The difference comes in your philosophy about the suffering. Mainstream theology (to which I subscribe, in the main) says that we suffer because of the sinful fallen condition of man and the world he lives in. Also, those who live godly in Christ are promised to suffer persecution. We also know that God tests us. And corrects us. Reading examples of how he corrected people in the Bible may prove instructive. Note also that tribulation is positive in producing patience. Jesus called us to take up our cross and follow him. Aside from the inevitable suffering this life brings, there is a cost to truly following Jesus. If there is no cost, perhaps that person isn't following Him, hmmn?
On the other hand you have Wierwillism, or 'believism', which says that suffering is 'of the dayvil' and is not part of a Christian's life. Its presence in a believers' life is simply a 'lack of believing' or 'operating principles' incorrectly. The perfecting that God does in us through our suffering is lost entirely because it is 'negative'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
To Rafael and Ex10,
My comments above were directed at what I perceived to be a false accusation, or conclusion, from the above comment, among others.
The message of the cross, in TWI, became the reason why we could sin and get away with it?
I see that statement as morbid.
How can you accuse your brothers and sisters in Christ of being that shallow?
I cannot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Thank you, Evan.
Ok Oldies, I got the point that you're offended. When you're all through being offended, do you mind answering the questions?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Yes, I am accusing carnal Christians of being shallow. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. If you can't do that, then you've abdicated a part of your Christian responsibility.
All Scripture is profitable for doctrine, REPROOF!!!! and CORRECTION!!!!
You've accused people of advancing devilish theories, oldiesman. What's a little shallowness by comparison?
Other than that, I agree with ex10: you didn't answer my question. What do those verses in Romans mean? Do they give us the right to sin without being held accountable? If not, what do they mean?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
insurgent
I dunno, Raf. I haven't read the whole thread, but those verses Oldiesman quote in Romans mean to me that ultimate acquittal or ultimate condemnation are from God. Not man's decision on who gets into heaven and who doesn't. Not that it's a license to do whatever you want to do.
Even Paul told people to avoid those who were bad people (remember the verse twi twists to justify m&a). I think we're to decide whether to have evil associations that corrupt our good morals, but the ultimate end of those evil doers is not up to me.
Then again a believing spouse is told to stay with an unbelieving one if they are "pleased to dwell" with them.
I dunno, I just dunno. Paul also says it's a small thing that he should be judged of people and that he judges no man.
He also says in there somewhere that we don't use grace as an occasion to sin in the flesh. but if we do use it that way, is it okay?
Seems to me there are inconsistencies all the way across the board. What is the right answer?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
OK, dudes and dudettes, I gotta say here that there is suffering in life with or without being a follower of Jesus. Christianity is simply a belief system that tells one there is purpose to the suffering...which may make suffering more tolerable.
But in becoming more tolerable, suffering may also become expected...or, worse, be held up as "proof" of a special level of favor with divinity...as with the martyrs and the saints glorified throughout history.
That's not a good place to be in life, imo.
Was God's love and Jesus' sacrifice more than the love and sacrifice of a mother who saves the life of a child at the cost of her own?
Even the bible says that God can raise up children out of rocks. The idea that God could never, ever again have the opportunity of having a son like Jesus is not very well thought out...and is even a little ridiculous, imo.
So what does that say to me about the Cross of Christ?
It tells me that the act was symbolic more than fundamental...that this act, this sacrifice, should be taken as a symbol of what a parent will do to help a child...even if it means choosing one child over others...and this is how much the god of the bible loved his children.
Jesus was not, is not, and will not be the only person to be crucified or otherwise put to a horrible death for a calling, a purpose. He was not, is not and will not be the only innocent person to go to death in the place of the guilty.
Which is the point where this question becomes even more defined.
Must one first believe in the "stain of sin" upon all mankind before one can understand the Cross of Christ?
I no longer believe in the "stain of sin". But I do appreciate and understand the symbolism of the Cross of Christ. I am a mother...of course I understand dying for the life of my children!
Sometimes one can get too close to the "facts" and not see the whole purpose.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Rafael and Ex10,
The answers to your questions are obvious.
Do you care to answer mine:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
P.S.
We were taught in TWI about remission and forgiveness of sins. Remission is for the unsaved sinner, forgiveness is for the saved sinner.:
I John 1:9
WE WERE NOT TAUGHT "its ok for me to continue in sin and get away with it."
That's your morbid, devilishly accusative theory that is arrogantly judgmental and overly condescending.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Geeze, Oldies, I struck a nerve, huh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Your accusations do make me cringe.
My Spiritual Halitosis counter is jumping off the scale.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Wow, I think I'm having flashbacks of the cult.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
well... I just want to point out that the Jehovah's Witlesses don't believe in Halloween!
I never thought much about it except that it meant more candy for the rest of us... but now... after reading this...
... I've been here and I've been there and I've been in between...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Thomas Heller said:
I wholeheartedly agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Thank you, insurgent, for answering my question rather than resorting to Wierwillian namecalling or simply declaring it "obvious" and ignoring it. I think you touched on the exact issue I was trying to explore: the complexity of the scripture on these subjects.
Oldiesman is correct in pointing out that in its doctrine, The Way never taught "it's okay for me to continue in my sin and get away with it." However, I think it's safe to say that "grace" was treated as a license to sin by many, from the top down. Wierwille was fond of quoting the poem, "I'd rather see a sermon than hear one any day." I agree. I think the sermons we heard NEVER taught licentiousness. But the sermons we SAW, did.
That's the answer to your question, Oldiesman. It was in the sermons we saw, not the books, not the sermons we heard.
There is NO condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. Yet there is a great responsibility on us to "walk worthy of the calling with which we are called." Self-condemnation is BAD. Godly sorrow, on the other hand, is GOOD. Judging is BAD. Distinguishing a true brother from a wolf in sheep's clothing is GOOD.
Contradictions? No, complexity, a subtlety lost on the mathematically exact and scientifically precise world of TWI.
P.S. Stop the namecalling, already, Oldiesman! You rake me over the coals for daring to imply that my fellow Christians are "shallow," yet you show no restraint in accusing her of "spiritual halitosis" and calling her theory "morbid, devilishly accusative," "arrogantly judgmental" and "overly condescending." Why don't you do a little practicing of what you preach there? There's a word for that, you know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Rafael,
Come on, I didn't think I was namecalling but merely describing what I believe to be a devilish theory.
For the record, I think Ex10 who is my sister in Christ is a fine human being, exceptionally bright and of the highest moral standards.
You too.
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.