The concept of being born again.... as they say; the crux of Christianity. The links posted above are some interesting reading for sure.
BUT. I've seen it argued from both sides. Well meaning trinitarians who fear that "pseudo christians" who do not believe the trinity CAN'T be born again without it and equally well meaning Non trinitarians who believe that trinitarians cannot be born again BECAUSE they believe the trinity.
Personally, I defer to the power piece of the equation. A scripture that says, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the POWER of God."
What about the POWER?
What about the lack of ability to understand the scrptures without being born again?
If both sides of the debate are powerless, then the debate is endless and reasoning like "they crucified a body double for Jesus" deserves equal footing with any other "theory" concerning him.
IMO if Jesus, went along with having another person DIE that HORRIBLE death in his place, then claim that it was in fact HE who died. THEN told people he was ressurrected from the dead. IF that is my Jesus, then he is NOT a good man, he is a liar, a hypocrite, a fraud, and an accessory before and after the fact to murder. Certianly the body double was innocent of the "crimes" they crucified "Jesus" for.
Certainly he is NOT God, nor is he the savior of anyone. A lack of power in your life from your salvation would allow one to consider that Jesus could be complicit with such a fraudulent, dare I say, criminal deception.
Therefore the ENTIRE Christian church, the entire faith built on Jesus, is nothing but a hypocritical purpetration of fraud. ANY good done in the name of Jesus by the church would be tainted; stained by the blood of the murdered body double.
Would not following Jesus, the purpetrator - the central figure of this faith and even claiming to be "born again" having his spirit alive inside you and living by "his ways" make us all Christians as guilty of the murder that day on the cross - - as guilty as he, Jesus?
If that Jesus/body double story IS true, and we have founded our nation on "christian principles," we are a nation of liars, murderers and deceivers.
No wonder people of those faiths have no trouble with driving a car-bomb into a croud of our people and blowing it up; OR Crashing an airplane into our buildings that stood as a symbol of the strength of our country.
No wonder they resist when we try to "americanize" their cultures.
HOWEVER. It is the power that the name of Jesus Christ brings that is the BIG and ONLY major thing that separates Jesus from everyone else.
If you have that power in your life it ends the dabate for you. If people on both sides have the power, it ends the debate for me. One thing, I think, is certain; you can have NO power of God to manifest in your life without being born again.
"Church Fathers" is merely an expression that it was these people who originally documented the theology of Christianity.
If one wants to consider them elder brothers, teachers, or whatever, it doesn't matter.
The bottom-line thrust of what I'm saying here is that if somebody wants to take you through a bunch of mental gymnastics to come up with some hidden knowledge of what the scriptures are really saying and what was done in the first century Church, it would be very wise to study these writings from the early Church in order to see what they saw about the subject.
Frankly, I'd find this to be just as valid as consulting with somebody from modern India, if not more valid (keeping in mind that Indian culture is not Palestinian culture).
I'd also find this to be just as valid as consulting a book on "orientalisms." Both are very handy, but both are valid.
But I wouldn't get hung up on the terms used to identify this group of writings.
Good luck with your continuing efforts on reconstructing a Marconite Bible. Of course you and I have our differences on that subject, but I wish you well in you endeavors, anyway.
And you are absolutely right about the traditions of men. It is well documented in scripture, as well as elsewhere, the evils of overemphasis on that "little 't'" tradition, especially when that takes a front seat to everything else. Little "t" tradition can provide severe impediments to peoples' salvation, IMHO. If one understands what is contained in "Big 'T' tradition," it helps one understand what is generally important and what is just practice.
Examples:
- What does one wear to church services. Other than to dress modestly, there really isn't much that is part of Tradition (big 'T'). But if you talk to a lot of old-timers, they will get HIGHLY upset when they see somebody not wearing a suit/dress.
- In the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church (I say this because this controversy does not exist in the Eastern Rites), there is a controversy about the Tridentine Mass (from the middle ages) vice the Novus Ordo Mass (from the 1960s). Both liturgies contain the essential elements of the Mass, but they have a different look and feel. So much so that many of the country's bishops will not allow the Tridentine Mass to be said in their dioceses, believing that the Vatican has decreed thusly (it hasn't). And so much so that there is a group of people who believe that the Novus Ordo is not a valid Mass (it is). The fact that certain things have to be said for it to be a valid Mass is a Big "T" Tradition. Over-attachment to a specific liturgy to the exclusion of others is a Little "t" tradition. (Frankly, if we were to be literalists on the subject, we'd all be saying the Liturgy of James, Mark, or whatever...in other words, we'd all be Byzantines)
- And if you think the above is unique to the Catholics, its not. My Father-in-Law (a massive KJV Sola Scriptura guy) told me about one time when they hired a new preacher. This guy had the audacity of wanting to make the services a bit more modern and youth-oriented. The deacons and elders had a fit. He told me, "We fired that SOB for trying to change our church." And his church is definitely not Catholic in any fashion.
The bottom-line thrust of what I'm saying here is that if somebody wants to take you through a bunch of mental gymnastics to come up with some hidden knowledge of what the scriptures are really saying and what was done in the first century Church, it would be very wise to study these writings from the early Church in order to see what they saw about the subject.
The issue here is whether baptism is a sacrament or not.
A sacrament is defined as an outward sign of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification. In other words, a mechanism instituted by Christ to impart God's grace.
(Whether you agree or not, that is the definition)
Is baptism a sacrament? According to most denominations, it is. There are some denominations who do not believe that baptism does anything in of itself, but they practice it out of obedience, a public confession of faith (in those cases, I am not sure that it would be considered a sacrament).
Is trinitarian baptism a necessity? According to Matthew 28:19 it is. According to the Didache (written somewhere between 55 AD and 110 AD), that's how it was done in the "first century church." According to the remainder of the documents written by the Church Fathers, that's how it was done (see, for example, works of Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, etc.)
Is it essential? First of all, if you don't subscribe to a sacramental nature of baptism, then it really doesn't matter (so you can stop reading if you'd like). But if you do subscribe to the concept of baptism being a sacrament, then I would submit that it needs to be done in the way in which it was instituted. So is a non-Trinitarian baptism valid? I don't think it is. Having said that, though, if somebody did so out of ignorance with the intent being to do the right thing, I would certainly hope that God's grace would be big enough to cover an error in form with the proper attitude in heart. (Now if a person is baptized in a non-trinitarian fashion with full knowledge that a trinitarian baptism is prescribed, intentionally rejecting that prescription, that would be a different case IMO)
Thank you for your well wishes on my reconstruction project, as I wish you all the best in your spiritual endeavors as well.
You raised a lot of very good questions on the subject of baptism.
Over these past couple years, I've been contemplating the idea of undergoing baptism. Outside the illustrious thought of wanting to be baptized in a river, there are certainly other implications to consider...of course, the content of the baptismal formula and its authenticity; finding a good Christian willing to baptize me -though would there be a "catch" of having to pledge membership to their particular denomination, whatever it be?
Would a Catholic, for example, be willing to baptize a neo-Marcionite?
I'm aware through the writings of the Church Fathers that the Catholics seemingly acknowledged the validity of Marcionite baptisms, and did not require former Marcionites to "re-baptize" for admittance into their church. Would a modern Catholic minister or priest be willing to baptize anew a brother neo-Marcionite (despite his choice of differing ideas)?
Thank you for your well wishes on my reconstruction project, as I wish you all the best in your spiritual endeavors as well.
You raised a lot of very good questions on the subject of baptism.
Over these past couple years, I've been contemplating the idea of undergoing baptism. Outside the illustrious thought of wanting to be baptized in a river, there are certainly other implications to consider...of course, the content of the baptismal formula and its authenticity; finding a good Christian willing to baptize me -though would there be a "catch" of having to pledge membership to their particular denomination, whatever it be?
Would a Catholic, for example, be willing to baptize a neo-Marcionite?
That is an interesting question, as always, Danny.
Could a Catholic administer a valid baptism to a neo Marcionite? Yes, absolutely.
Could a Catholic administer a licit baptism to a neo-Marcionite? Not as long as the person continues to remain a neo-Marcionite.
Would a Catholic administer baptism to a neo-Marcionite? Doubtful.
Part of the baptism rite is an acceptance of the Apostle's Creed by the adult to be baptized (preceeded by instruction so that the person understands what he's being asked). Could a Marcionite, with the belief in the creator God and the Good God, be able to, in clear conscience, be able to affirm the Apostle's Creed?
quote:
I'm aware through the writings of the Church Fathers that the Catholics seemingly acknowledged the validity of Marcionite baptisms, and did not require former Marcionites to "re-baptize" for admittance into their church. Would a modern Catholic minister or priest be willing to baptize anew a brother neo-Marcionite (despite his choice of differing ideas)?
A valid baptism simply requires the person to be baptized to be baptized using the Trinitarian formula. If Marcionites baptized using the Trinitarian formula, then they are valid. Re-baptism cannot occur, because of what baptism does:
- It washes away all vestiges of sin, including Original Sin
- It imparts an indelible character on the person being baptized.
Anabaptists (those who re-baptize) deny that baptism imparts that indelible character. That's the reason why, if a valid baptism (whether licit or not) was administered, there would be no reason to rebaptize.
In your case, if you've been validly baptized in the past, there is no need to be baptized again.
Now I'm not sure about the practices of any Protestant denomination in regard to baptism, but I would think that it is implicit that you'd want to join that church with any of them.
But the real question I'd ask is this: if you are a Marcionite, why would you want to be baptized in a non-Marcionite church? I can't imagine that any church would just baptize a person at random, no matter what their beliefs are regarding baptism. If you're baptized in a non-Marcionite church while retaining Marcionite beliefs, then you'd go from being an unbeliever to being an apostate. As Peter wrote, "For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down to them." Not that ignorance is a good thing, but I'd think that ignorance was better than apostasy (IMHO).
Would a Catholic administer baptism to a neo-Marcionite? Doubtful.
Part of the baptism rite is an acceptance of the Apostle's Creed by the adult to be baptized (preceeded by instruction so that the person understands what he's being asked). Could a Marcionite, with the belief in the creator God and the Good God, be able to, in clear conscience, be able to affirm the Apostle's Creed?
That's an acute point, Mark. Of course, the controversies and disagreements with the Marcionite Church, as has been proposed by some scholars, may have to some degree even influenced the formulation of the Apostles Creed. So obviously, those parts that might be viewed anti-marcionite polemic would not apply to me too well.
quote:
Now I'm not sure about the practices of any Protestant denomination in regard to baptism, but I would think that it is implicit that you'd want to join that church with any of them.
Because in many respects, -despite their differences -it appears that the Marcionites shared more in common with the Catholic Church -in their practices, their sacraments, and even their ecclesiastical structure - than with later Protestant movements, despite the reformist colors to which later Protestant scholars have understandably painted this subject, through the comparisons to Martin Luther.
quote:
But the real question I'd ask is this: if you are a Marcionite, why would you want to be baptized in a non-Marcionite church?
Or "why would I want to be baptized at all?"
-is the question I'm still contemplating.
For one reason being that I have never been baptized with water in my lifetime, outside of having held to the belief of "spirit-baptism" taught us in the Way.
A public affirmation of my faith, I suppose.
Or even something of a Christian re-dedication.
Perhaps also from the growing realization that rituals and sacraments may not be something to be mocked and and reckoned unnecessary (as had been my oversimplistic, short-sighted attitude in the past) , but may be energizing to one's sense of faith and God's purpose for our life here.
As for the idea of having one baptize me from a different denomination holding even different beliefs - I obviously still subscribe to the naive notion that there are Christians dispersed throughout all churches and denominations.
quote:
As Peter wrote, "For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down to them." Not that ignorance is a good thing, but I'd think that ignorance was better than apostasy (IMHO).
I think I'm past the point of pleading "ignorance" in my case - so I guess I'll have to be an "apostate" in the view of others (lol).
Having said that, though, if somebody did so out of ignorance with the intent being to do the right thing, I would certainly hope that God's grace would be big enough to cover an error in form with the proper attitude in heart.
This is very close to my general position accross the board on basically EVERY doctrinal error, this topic included.
I follow your logical progression and really cannot disagree with your point:
quote:
But if you do subscribe to the concept of baptism being a sacrament, then I would submit that it needs to be done in the way in which it was instituted.
Sure. I basically agree one should do things correctly, in the form and fashion of their design.
However, my further position is that God is bigger than all of this, every thing - - all of us. In my 17 years sans TWI, I've found that I think that, perhaps the most agregious transgression of TWI is what I now call an obsession with "Biblical Accuracy"Of cousel the logical prgression demands that if one is goin gto follow the scriptures one should "get it right" and NOT intentionally do contrary to the scriptures and adopt their contrary ideas and adopt them as a sacrement.
BUT. IMO the obsessionn with "accuracy" supplanted the basic honesty before God. ie; "Gee whiz God, I'm REALLY trying to get this thing right."
Hence, the honest intent to "get it right" but being "wrong" (or scripturally innacurate) out of ignorance places individuals, even whole denominations in a position to be covered by GOD's grace.
We are saved by grace, not of works, lest any man should be boastful about it.
I agree with you in the context of sacrements. The grace of God factor, to me, accounts for how I've seen evidence that suggests that peoples, both trinitarians and non indeed are born again.
Therefore, I'm submitting, as an answer to the topical question:
It seems to me, that what really matters to God is where your heart is when you approach him for His gift of salvation. It seems like getting one's heart in the proper place is more important than the sacrement (or lack thereof) that one employs.
"... if you make Jesus Lord of your life in your heart and confess the same with your mouth, God then saves you by His grace and mercy."
I think one can do that and be ignorant of trinitarian sacrements.
However, my further position is that God is bigger than all of this, every thing - - all of us. In my 17 years sans TWI, I've found that I think that, perhaps the most agregious transgression of TWI is what I now call an obsession with "Biblical Accuracy"Of cousel the logical prgression demands that if one is goin gto follow the scriptures one should "get it right" and NOT intentionally do contrary to the scriptures and adopt their contrary ideas and adopt them as a sacrement.
Agreed almost completely. In my 16 years post TWI, I've found the most aggregious transgression of TWI is an over-emphasis on the person and power of the "manifestations" that are supposed to be at the beck-and-call of the individual. The position is fundamentally wrong and sets the individual believer up to become to have an ego-centric life rather than a Christ-centric life. And as a result, they were making man God, and thus institutionalizing the worst form of idolatry.
Biblical accuracy is not, in of itself, a bad thing. But TWI developed it with an arrogance that put its so-called Biblical scholars above God. The ego ruled (rules?) in TWI. They epitomized the expression "knowledge puffeth up."
quote:
BUT. IMO the obsessionn with "accuracy" supplanted the basic honesty before God. ie; "Gee whiz God, I'm REALLY trying to get this thing right."
And that's the beauty of the sacraments. God provided very simple physical mechanisms to distribute His grace to His people. Very complex spirtual topics with deep theological background. Scritural buildup from the Old Testament era through the New Testament and continuing for 2,000 years hence.
Take, for example, baptism (which has been discussed in this thread).
A person doesn't need to study the scriptures and Church history for years in order to be baptized. He doesn't need to understand the figures provided in the Old Testament and through Jewish practice, from the flood, to the passing through the Red Sea, to the ritual washing of the dead. He doesn't need to understand the complex theological figures stated by St. Paul in Romans. He doesn't need to be an expert in Tertullian. He simply needs to believe that as the water is poured over his head or as he is dipped, that God washes the inside as the water "washes" the outside. And it works whether you have 15 minutes of instruction or study the subject for a decade.
Similar arguments hold true for the other 6 sacraments that God instituted to transmit His grace to us. All of them are tremendous gifts (my word, not a Biblical one) to mankind, as they boil down the tremendous mystery of God's relationship to us and His saving grace to very simple actions for us to take.
quote:
Hence, the honest intent to "get it right" but being "wrong" (or scripturally innacurate) out of ignorance places individuals, even whole denominations in a position to be covered by GOD's grace.
We are saved by grace, not of works, lest any man should be boastful about it.
I agree with you in the context of sacrements. The grace of God factor, to me, accounts for how I've seen evidence that suggests that peoples, both trinitarians and non indeed are born again.
Therefore, I'm submitting, as an answer to the topical question:
It seems to me, that what really matters to God is where your heart is when you approach him for His gift of salvation. It seems like getting one's heart in the proper place is more important than the sacrement (or lack thereof) that one employs.
"... if you make Jesus Lord of your life in your heart and confess the same with your mouth, God then saves you by His grace and mercy."
I think one can do that and be ignorant of trinitarian sacrements.
I agree that one can do that while ignorant of trinitarian sacraments. Having said that, is intentional rejection of the truth still ignorance? I say this not as a slap in your direction, but rather a legitimate question. I've had people say to me "your arguments are logical, I can see it in the Bible, but no, thanks." Are people like that still "ignorant"? I can't give an answer to that one. Is it like what Danny said above, where he said "I can't claim ignorance anymore," or like has been said, "they haven't heard enough to believe"? I just don't know.
You know Mark, this is an interesting conversation to me, especially in light of how fervently "against" the Catholics TWI was. I remember buying into the TWI terminology that we call you guys "ROMAN Catholics because there is nothing universal about that church, it all came from Rome, not God."
That's how Vp stated it. I remember not liking that statement but I felt I should accept it because I was ignorant of the history and felt that VP was educated on it.
There is great value in your position and your posts. My current church is trinitarian. I've found that when discussing who Jesus we agree with everything we say the Bible says about Jesus except that our "therefore" conclusion varies.
That to me, is not enough to summarily reject your position as "catholic" therfore differing from mine.
"Intentional rejection of the truth" is an interesting statement. The easy answer is that we should not intentioanlly reject God's truth for there may be eternal consequences to that rejection.
I now feel that there are some "bottom line truths" God requires of us & beyond that we're covered by his grace and mercy through His sacrifice of His son and Christ's propitiation for our sin.
Some of that sin, I feel in many cases IS the intentional rejection of some (for communication's sake) "lesser" truths that are not a determinable factor in an individual's new birth.
Short answer, No. intentional rejection of the truth is not ignorance, nor will God treat it as such. The "complication," if you will, is:
What sin is and is not covered by the grace and MERCY of God?
One would have to say it is a sin against God to reject the new birth, correct? That "sin" would be "unforgivable" and not covered by His grace and mercy - else there would be no need for Christ's redemption. In that case, no one would go to hell.
Or is it that those not born again are dead to God and do not recieve of His grace and mercy?
If so, then we're back to the original questions.
I'm thinking that the concept of who Christ is, is to us like our babies asking us to explain things that are way out of their ability to understand. I tell my kids, "babies come from Mommy's tummy."
One time one of them thought that when we went to the hospital to "have their baby sister" that Mom had to wait for a long time in the bathroom til the baby came out because that is how, and where you get things out of your tummy. It was perfectly logical to him, yet all he actually did was make a reference in HIS mind to the truth that was in front of him.
The little tyke completely believed the truth although his description of it left something to be desired.
I think that's how we ALL are in terms of determining who Jesus is and who God is. At this point all I really know is that I'm REALLY trying to get this thing right God, REALLY I AM!
You know Mark, this is an interesting conversation to me, especially in light of how fervently "against" the Catholics TWI was. I remember buying into the TWI terminology that we call you guys "ROMAN Catholics because there is nothing universal about that church, it all came from Rome, not God."
That's how Vp stated it. I remember not liking that statement but I felt I should accept it because I was ignorant of the history and felt that VP was educated on it.
VP did not invent anti-Catholicism. He was not the first and won't be the last. He's not hardly the only person who is anti-Catholic around and was not hardly the only person to teach anti-Catholicism. And anti-Catholicism will continue until the end of time. I don't try to take anti-Catholic comments as a personal slap. Fortunately some people see the light. As I have pointed out on GSC before, Ralph Woodrow, the author of Babylon Mystery Religion (which was the source document that TWI used to substantiate their positions), withdrew that book from publication because of its errors.
Bishop Fulton J. Sheen one time made a statement that few people in America hate the Catholic religion, but there are many who hate what they mistakenly believe is the Catholic religion—and that if what they hate really were the Catholic religion, Catholics would hate it too.
quote:
There is great value in your position and your posts. My current church is trinitarian. I've found that when discussing who Jesus we agree with everything we say the Bible says about Jesus except that our "therefore" conclusion varies.
That to me, is not enough to summarily reject your position as "catholic" therfore differing from mine.
Thanks for your words.
I'll tell you that I had such a hard time with that issue (the Trinity), that its not funny. See, I studied JCNG HARD when I was "in." I needed to be able to defend my position against those evil Trinitarians that wanted to talk me out of "the truth." (I wish there was a "barf" emoticon on this board LOL) And so I committed all of those verses to memory and much of the rest of that book.
When I (voluntarily) left TWI, I believed all of the doctrine that I was taught...I just thought that something that "the Doctor" started off good was ruined by the evil "Craig." And that maybe some day the "ministry" would get back to "normal." So I kept studying on my own. But that didn't happen, did it?
After trying some offshoot groups in the early 90s, I came to the realization that it just wasn't going to come back to where it was going to be something good. So, every once in a while, I'd start checking out churches. All well and good until the subject of the Trinity came up in a "message" or is a discussion. See, I KNEW the Bible on that subject. I KNEW that the Trinity was Idolatry. So I'd feel my blood boil when I heard the Trinity mentioned as if it was a fact.
And eventually I realized that I would just have to go it alone. I wasn't going to get back into TWI, because I saw what they were going through...I wasn't going to deal with offshoots...I'd tried a couple and they just didn't work for me. And I couldn't bring myself to compromise on my beliefs that I KNEW were true. So Trinitarian churches were out, as well.
And that worked for a couple of years.
Until I started to experience what God meant when he referred to Christians collectively as the Body of Christ. I was recognizing in my life the deficits of not regarding the parts about where we're supposed to support each other and build each other up in love. And saw it even more in my wife and my daughter.
So I needed to overcome that bit about the Trinity, because I couldn't go someplace where my blood would boil every time I went there. And I finally re-examined the subject, but looked at it from THEIR point of view. Could THEY back up THEIR arguments. And I found that they could. And rather easily. So I mellowed on the subject: they're not INTENTIONALLY being idolatrous; maybe they just didn't have all the light that Vic did. I went back and looked at JCNG (hadn't cracked the book in years). And I re-examined it from the other perspective (when I "worked" it while in TWI, I did so from a positive perspective. I WANTED to believe it). I wanted to see if I could debunk it now. And that's when I recognized the dishonest mental gymnastics he used. You know the first hole? Matthew 28:19. Remember him saying that it MUST have been a forgery? Prove it. You can't. Even The Aramaic Interlinear produced by TWI (literally the ONLY book of theirs that I still keep on my bookshelf) has that verse. And I had to get honest with myself and realize that I had practiced and believed a lie.
Once the JCNG stuff fell apart, the doors opened as far as what church I could select then.
quote:
"Intentional rejection of the truth" is an interesting statement. The easy answer is that we should not intentioanlly reject God's truth for there may be eternal consequences to that rejection.
I now feel that there are some "bottom line truths" God requires of us & beyond that we're covered by his grace and mercy through His sacrifice of His son and Christ's propitiation for our sin.
Some of that sin, I feel in many cases IS the intentional rejection of some (for communication's sake) "lesser" truths that are not a determinable factor in an individual's new birth.
Short answer, No. intentional rejection of the truth is not ignorance, nor will God treat it as such. The "complication," if you will, is:
What sin is and is not covered by the grace and MERCY of God?
One would have to say it is a sin against God to reject the new birth, correct? That "sin" would be "unforgivable" and not covered by His grace and mercy - else there would be no need for Christ's redemption. In that case, no one would go to hell.
Or is it that those not born again are dead to God and do not recieve of His grace and mercy?
If so, then we're back to the original questions.
I believe that anybody who humbles himself before God and asks for His Divine Mercy will receive it. However, I do believe there is an unforgivable sin: unrepentent pride (either in a positive light or negative light). Pride, on the "positive" side, manifests itself as arrogance: "I don't need God." Pride, on the "negative" side, manifests itself as utter despair: "I am too bad for God to save." You remember that verse in I John: If we confess our sins, God is faithful to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness? (I think its 1:9) -- well, if you're arrogant, you don't believe that you need to confess any wrong and so won't. If you, on the other hand, are in "utter despair," you'll feel that God's Word doesn't say that God will forgive to the uttermost, and that confession is a waste of time: he won't forgive you anyway, so you may as well continue as you were (you're going to hell anyway). Remember the "prodigal son?" What if he had just stayed in that pig stye in the distant country?
quote:
I'm thinking that the concept of who Christ is, is to us like our babies asking us to explain things that are way out of their ability to understand. I tell my kids, "babies come from Mommy's tummy."
One time one of them thought that when we went to the hospital to "have their baby sister" that Mom had to wait for a long time in the bathroom til the baby came out because that is how, and where you get things out of your tummy. It was perfectly logical to him, yet all he actually did was make a reference in HIS mind to the truth that was in front of him.
The little tyke completely believed the truth although his description of it left something to be desired.
That's a completely different thread. :)--> Hopefully bedtime stories included Bible stories from the beginning.
I think that's how we ALL are in terms of determining who Jesus is and who God is. At this point all I really know is that I'm REALLY trying to get this thing right God, REALLY I AM!
Sticking my nose in only to say this thread caught my eye a few days ago and I have to tell you folks something. I've seen great meekness in this thread, gosh that's been grand to read folks.
Mine is very similar. I avoided "trinity issues" like the plague when I first went to a church, for the same basic reason as you. It was so long ago that I had "forgotten" this:
The primary reason I went back to a church was that I recognized the need to be amongst a body of believers who would love me and have my back in fellowship and prayer.
Reason #2 was that I found that the burning desire I had that drew me to the Way Corps was still very much alive in me. "Natural leadership ability and a burning desire to learn God's Word and serve His people." Was TWI's published reason one should "go Corps." I felt I was called by God.
I had remained faithful to that calling when I told John Shroyer to his face that I would NOT EVER sign anything giving my allegiance like that to Craig or ANY man. I told him that I was committed to standing with and following Jesus Christ. Then asked him,
"If I'm a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ and standing with HIM, you're standing with Jesus, Craig and the trustees are standing with Jesus... aren't we ALL standing together already?"
Of course he didn't like, nor accept that position.
That being said, I reached a point after doing the "on my own" thing where the need for fellowship (and mostly a "hedge of prayer" where I was praying for others) and being prayed for was a primary and most notable missing element from my life.
Fast forwarding to today, I now have that, as well as a support system, but that pesky trinity issue comes up regularly, in the worship service. Occasionally "trinitarian" concepts come up in the songs we sing. Long story short...
I've come to the point now after looking from the "other perspective" that I understand this one thing about God:
"As the heaven is high above the Earth, so are His ways above our ways and His thoughts above our thoughts."
Thats it. When it comes to God's ways and God's thoughts, I don't know JACK.
If that's not good enough I understand, "...for God is in heaven and you on the Earth therefore, let thy words be few."
So there are some things I have very little to say about.
As a child of God, I've learned a LOT about how to be a child from my own children. In my two marriages, altogether, I've raised seven. I have five now, two of the stepdaughters from marriage #1 are adults on their own.
I watch my little ones and they teach me how little some things matter to how you live your everyday life. "What's that Daddy?" I've had each child ask at ages 3 - 8 over and over again over the past 20 years. Each time, without exception I've said, "That's a ____________________."
They say, "Ok." and many times bounce along their merry little way. Many times the girls give Daddy a kiss, I give them a pat & send them along their happy little way. I punch the boys & push them so they fall over. They tumble across the room, giggling and get up and stumble over something, breaking it as they go.
I've often smiled, knowing they have NO IDEA what "that" actually is. They are happy. They tell the littler one, when the next one down the line asks, "Daddy said that's a _________________." In FULL confidence that they KNOW what is is. I've laughed, sometimes out loud, and then we all laugh, from the big ones to the littlest, when the little one gets it so comically "wrong." I've said, "No it isn't. It isn't that.
It doesn't matter to me how wrong they are. Even when they THINK they KNOW they know... I KNOW they have no real idea.
"Oh yes it IS Daddy, you said so..." I scoop the little one up in my arms and give them my customary, "Daddy loves you!" Hug 'em, squeeze them "to death" tickle them until they can't stand it no more, then finally let them go. They prance away, again on their merry little way. This time there's an extra little pep in their step cause they've been assurred that..."Daddy loves them."
As they leave I often hear an older one in scolding tone to the younger... "I told you it wasn't...." I say, "Stop it! cut the little one a break they tried..."
Another verse comes to mind, "... if you, being evil can love your children like that, how much more can your Father, which is in heaven love you?"
Then comes another verse. "The hidden things of God... are clearly seen by that which is made, even His eternal power and Godhead."
As a child, I can understand, God is THE father, My father; Jesus Christ is HIS son, MY brother. Anything beyond that is no more for my understanding that it was when my son, around five years old asked,
"Daddy why do we always come here and you give that lady money all da time? Sometimes you write her a note and she gives YOU money Daddy...why?"
I CRACKED UP!
He didn't understand that the lady was my favorite teller at our local bank and I was doing "my banking."
Like children all we ACTUALLY do is make reference to "the truth" based on what we see and THINK we understand anyways. I no longer sweat over "truth, accuracy & integrity of the Word;" stuff like that. Now that I've stopped that stuff, I'm amazed at how much more I see and "understand."
The pride & arrogance you mentioned, Mark, is SO directly tied to an attitude that prevails among "researchers." One thing VPW taught that I wish he prevailed better in his ministry was, "To explain something you have to be bigger than what you're explaining." If we don't carry the correct, humble attitude when handling God's word, we disqualify ourselves, by simple proximity, to be able to handle it "correctly."
I see humility as a "location" where God operates. If one is not humble, he's just not there where God operates. Therefore I agree with you that ANYONE who humbles himself before God and asks for His Divine Mercy will recieve it. Our humility in seeking Him can "transport" us to where God operates and we can recieve his blessings.
No matter WHAT we call Him. All God cares about is that our heart cries out to Him. I now believe that God's people are everywhere. They can be found in ANY church, in any denomination, Catholics, Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, even Athiests and Agnostics, I've even talked to Wiccans and some who profess to be Satanists that I was pretty darn sure were born again.
Getting born again is a HEART thing. Our study of His Word and obedience to it is works. His salvation in us justifies us against the sinful works that WILL come from our hearts. Because we're born into sin.
I've talked to some Christians who profess to be and are considered "pillars of the church" that I'm not so sure of their heavenly status - - to put it gently. Frankly. I'm now CONVINCED that "on that great and notable day" there will be HUGE suprises as far as who actually goes and who stays.
I believe a LOT of "christians" are gonna hear the trump of God and "jump" in anticipation of being "caught up." Then their "two inch verticle" will come into play... when they land on the spot they were standing in.
"Many are called, few are chosen."
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."
ALL Americans are filthy rich men. THAT is a global reality. God is the God of the WHOLE world... Our American asses are in BIG trouble when it comes to eternity.
"He who has ears to hear, let him hear what the spirit says to the churches."
GOD, I'm TRYING my BEST to get this things RIGHT!
When I first heard of JCNG I wondered what was the big deal? "Are the Dead Alive NOW?" was a stupid question to me. I remember thinking, "Um, they ARE dead, right?... so...."
I really didn't care if they were in heaven or not, I really don't care who Jesus and God "are." All I care about is that I know them. I just wanted to KNOW the truth. I worked them books HARD, like you I "LEARNED" the material. I even went so far as to highlight EVERY scripture concerning every topic in VPW's books in code in my Bible, so I could flip through it and pick out scriptures "in support of the truth" at any given moment.
I'll tell you man, Studying, really studying and fighting yourself to BELIEVE 1st, 2nd & 3rd John
can really take us, as Christians, "behind the woodshed."
"If we say we love God and hate our brother we LIE and the truth is NOT in us." "Wierwillian PFAL logic" would speak to that verse and say that means "you either HAVE the truth in you, or you DON'T." Talk about your mental gymnastics! I now believe that the undeniable proof in the senses world of the presence of the new birth in your life is your LIFE, itself.
IF a person is born again of God's seed they WILL act like it. PERIOD. A most clear indication of it is how one treats his "brother." There is no requirement that a person have a doctorate degree or "knowledge of God's word" to know how to "love" his brother.
DUH. Didn't JESUS say "love your neightbor as you, yourself would want to be loved"...?
I'm not saying we shouldn't study (...to show thyself approved unto God... etc.) but. Our attitude in so doing must place us in the right "location."
On my path, At one point I was talking to someone about Bible stuff, They said "Man you should start your own church!" He asked how did I come to know so much Bible, I told him a little about the WC and years of experience ministering. Then he said, quite adamantly too,
"Then WHY haven't you? People need the stuff you know, isn't it SELFISH to keep it to yourself?"
I didn't have a good answer for that one. After much prayerful consideration I felt, and still do, that God's work has been around for thousands of years, if I have SOOO much to offer, how much sense does it make for me to start a "new work?" There are churches all over the country crying out to God daily for HELP in ministry.
Why would God call someone to start a new church? Would mine be so much DIFFERENT from the one on the next corner? Would I be so much BETTER than the next preacher?
I think not. It then dawned on me that the desire to be "king" was a primary motivator in people's hearts for starting new churches. I don't want to BE king I want to serve THE King of Kings. With that in mind, my question then was where should I go?
I wound up where I am now. I contribute and make a significant positive difference in the whole church, as do many others of our members.
WE are REALLY tring to get this whole God thing right. God we REALLY are!
I haven't had a trinity argument in at least 20 years. Don't remember off hand when the last one was. Never won a trinity argument from the first one back in summer of 1976. Never lost one either. Every one I've ever been in was a stalemate.
If I can agree that WE really want to try and get it right before God in general, I focus on what we know we can agree on.
"Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof" why add to it?
I have read the original post and would like to respond to that, not how the topic has evovled at this time. There are alot of good posts in this thread, though.
I do not believe anyone is born again except Jesus, and that happened at the ressurection. If you look at when God made the statement, 'this day have I begotten thee', it was at His ressuerection. I believe the ressurection/change is the new birth. It has been years since I accepted Jesus, but there is nothing physically different about me except that I am older. The bible teaches there are two kinds of bodies, and the natural comes first, then the spiritual body, after a 'change'
I have read the original post and would like to respond to that, not how the topic has evovled at this time. There are alot of good posts in this thread, though.<BR><BR>I do not believe anyone is born again except Jesus, and that happened at the ressurection. If you look at when God made the statement, 'this day have I begotten thee', it was at His ressuerection. I believe the ressurection/change is the new birth. It has been years since I accepted Jesus, but there is nothing physically different about me except that I am older. The bible teaches there are two kinds of bodies, and the natural comes first, then the spiritual body, after a 'change'<BR>I believe that change is the New Birth.<BR>Rachel
Rachel,
Although there is a disagreement between Christian groups on when the new birth happens, I am not familiar with a group that advocates that belief. Can you share some substantiation for your beliefs? The accounts in Luke 1 and in Matthew 3 tend to contradict the assertion you've made, based strictly upon the phrase from Psalm 2 that you cited. Is there something else that backs up what you've said (other than where the Psalm was cited in Acts and in Hebrews, neither of which really provide amplification to substantiate your claim)?
Why does a group have to advocate something for you to believe in it or for it to be accepted?
I believe this through my own personal study and reading.
Most people don't come up with theories on their own. I was just asking you a question, not trying to raise your blood pressure.
But the question remains:
Can you share some substantiation for your beliefs? The accounts in Luke 1 and in Matthew 3 tend to contradict the assertion you've made, based strictly upon the phrase from Psalm 2 that you cited. Is there something else that backs up what you've said (other than where the Psalm was cited in Acts and in Hebrews, neither of which really provide amplification to substantiate your claim)?
just a quick obsv...before i fully join the conversation
Mark, you wrote...
not trying to raise your blood pressure
i think this is where good conversations can slip and go bad really quick
i mean, you ask for substantiation of her beliefs, yet you seem to somehow believe that you raised Rachel's blood pressure, without substantiation of that fact...which seems inconsistent, quite dismissive of her question, and loaded with suggestion.
i think this is where good conversations can slip and go bad really quick
i mean, you ask for substantiation of her beliefs, yet you seem to somehow believe that you raised Rachel's blood pressure, without substantiation of that fact...which seems inconsistent, quite dismissive of her question, and loaded with suggestion.
Sir:
I was simply responding to the following:
Why does a group have to advocate something for you to believe in it or for it to be accepted?
Which seemed like it was pretty defensive, in response to what I believed to be perfectly legitimate questions:
- What group are you affliliated with that teaches this? (Her answer...she got it from self study, a perfectly legit response)
- Do you have any other substantiation for the assertion you have made? (No response to that one yet)
Now, if that's a problem, then I'm sorry I asked the questions in the first place.
Most people don't come up with theories on their own. I was just asking you a question, not trying to raise your blood pressure.
Mark,
I have found that most eway people, that were taught the keys to biblical research, very very very rarely come up with any theories about scripture on their own. We were taught very sound research techniques, but we still don't use them.
Most people I know that are xway still run with the pack, of xway believers, teaching recycled way doctrine.
We were taught that we were literally born again when we confessed Rom.10:9,10. No one ever pointed out the key word in these verses...SHALL. Not now, but later, it implies something that hasn't happened yet.
Jesus is the firstfruits from the dead...His mortal body was changed to a spiritual body, right? Has this happened to you? Me niether. This sounds like a new birth to me. Not accepting Jesus, I can unaccept Him whenever I want to...So I havent been changed...I still am aging, have to bathe, eat and sleep. Same Old, right? When He was raised, He was literally BORN AGAIN....
That which is born of the flesh is flesh, right?
Can you return your mother's womb and be born again, Mark? No, me neither. So, if I get born again, it's not going to be by flesh, remember that which is born of the flesh is flesh....It has to be spirit.
When I get a spiritual body...I will be born of the spirit, again. This time I will be a spirit body.
So, where did I get this weird foot doctrine, Mark?
You tell me...I just made it up? Or I read MY bible and let the holy spirit show me something, instead of all these way knockoffs.
Incredible you say?
You disagree? That's OK....You cany put new wine into old bottles, or you will bust your brain.
My blood pressure isnt up. I am blessed to be able to share something with you, and if you don't agree, I hope it has provoked you to think a l ittle at least...Think a new thought, and develop your own.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
14
6
21
6
Popular Days
Sep 17
11
Sep 13
11
Sep 15
11
Sep 18
8
Top Posters In This Topic
TheInvisibleDan 14 posts
Sunesis 6 posts
markomalley 21 posts
irisheyes 6 posts
Popular Days
Sep 17 2005
11 posts
Sep 13 2005
11 posts
Sep 15 2005
11 posts
Sep 18 2005
8 posts
TheInvisibleDan
That's also an excellent piece of advice, Brother Speed. Thank you.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Ok , ok, but what about it?
The concept of being born again.... as they say; the crux of Christianity. The links posted above are some interesting reading for sure.
BUT. I've seen it argued from both sides. Well meaning trinitarians who fear that "pseudo christians" who do not believe the trinity CAN'T be born again without it and equally well meaning Non trinitarians who believe that trinitarians cannot be born again BECAUSE they believe the trinity.
Personally, I defer to the power piece of the equation. A scripture that says, "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the POWER of God."
What about the POWER?
What about the lack of ability to understand the scrptures without being born again?
If both sides of the debate are powerless, then the debate is endless and reasoning like "they crucified a body double for Jesus" deserves equal footing with any other "theory" concerning him.
IMO if Jesus, went along with having another person DIE that HORRIBLE death in his place, then claim that it was in fact HE who died. THEN told people he was ressurrected from the dead. IF that is my Jesus, then he is NOT a good man, he is a liar, a hypocrite, a fraud, and an accessory before and after the fact to murder. Certianly the body double was innocent of the "crimes" they crucified "Jesus" for.
Certainly he is NOT God, nor is he the savior of anyone. A lack of power in your life from your salvation would allow one to consider that Jesus could be complicit with such a fraudulent, dare I say, criminal deception.
Therefore the ENTIRE Christian church, the entire faith built on Jesus, is nothing but a hypocritical purpetration of fraud. ANY good done in the name of Jesus by the church would be tainted; stained by the blood of the murdered body double.
Would not following Jesus, the purpetrator - the central figure of this faith and even claiming to be "born again" having his spirit alive inside you and living by "his ways" make us all Christians as guilty of the murder that day on the cross - - as guilty as he, Jesus?
If that Jesus/body double story IS true, and we have founded our nation on "christian principles," we are a nation of liars, murderers and deceivers.
No wonder people of those faiths have no trouble with driving a car-bomb into a croud of our people and blowing it up; OR Crashing an airplane into our buildings that stood as a symbol of the strength of our country.
No wonder they resist when we try to "americanize" their cultures.
HOWEVER. It is the power that the name of Jesus Christ brings that is the BIG and ONLY major thing that separates Jesus from everyone else.
If you have that power in your life it ends the dabate for you. If people on both sides have the power, it ends the debate for me. One thing, I think, is certain; you can have NO power of God to manifest in your life without being born again.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
CM,
"Church Fathers" is merely an expression that it was these people who originally documented the theology of Christianity.
If one wants to consider them elder brothers, teachers, or whatever, it doesn't matter.
The bottom-line thrust of what I'm saying here is that if somebody wants to take you through a bunch of mental gymnastics to come up with some hidden knowledge of what the scriptures are really saying and what was done in the first century Church, it would be very wise to study these writings from the early Church in order to see what they saw about the subject.
Frankly, I'd find this to be just as valid as consulting with somebody from modern India, if not more valid (keeping in mind that Indian culture is not Palestinian culture).
I'd also find this to be just as valid as consulting a book on "orientalisms." Both are very handy, but both are valid.
But I wouldn't get hung up on the terms used to identify this group of writings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Danny,
Good luck with your continuing efforts on reconstructing a Marconite Bible. Of course you and I have our differences on that subject, but I wish you well in you endeavors, anyway.
And you are absolutely right about the traditions of men. It is well documented in scripture, as well as elsewhere, the evils of overemphasis on that "little 't'" tradition, especially when that takes a front seat to everything else. Little "t" tradition can provide severe impediments to peoples' salvation, IMHO. If one understands what is contained in "Big 'T' tradition," it helps one understand what is generally important and what is just practice.
Examples:
- What does one wear to church services. Other than to dress modestly, there really isn't much that is part of Tradition (big 'T'). But if you talk to a lot of old-timers, they will get HIGHLY upset when they see somebody not wearing a suit/dress.
- In the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church (I say this because this controversy does not exist in the Eastern Rites), there is a controversy about the Tridentine Mass (from the middle ages) vice the Novus Ordo Mass (from the 1960s). Both liturgies contain the essential elements of the Mass, but they have a different look and feel. So much so that many of the country's bishops will not allow the Tridentine Mass to be said in their dioceses, believing that the Vatican has decreed thusly (it hasn't). And so much so that there is a group of people who believe that the Novus Ordo is not a valid Mass (it is). The fact that certain things have to be said for it to be a valid Mass is a Big "T" Tradition. Over-attachment to a specific liturgy to the exclusion of others is a Little "t" tradition. (Frankly, if we were to be literalists on the subject, we'd all be saying the Liturgy of James, Mark, or whatever...in other words, we'd all be Byzantines)
- And if you think the above is unique to the Catholics, its not. My Father-in-Law (a massive KJV Sola Scriptura guy) told me about one time when they hired a new preacher. This guy had the audacity of wanting to make the services a bit more modern and youth-oriented. The deacons and elders had a fit. He told me, "We fired that SOB for trying to change our church." And his church is definitely not Catholic in any fashion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
yeah..we've been there huh with twi...
so it's a source on information
i can handle that
but even little ole me or you can
or could see some things clearer then them
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Howard,
The issue here is whether baptism is a sacrament or not.
A sacrament is defined as an outward sign of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification. In other words, a mechanism instituted by Christ to impart God's grace.
(Whether you agree or not, that is the definition)
Is baptism a sacrament? According to most denominations, it is. There are some denominations who do not believe that baptism does anything in of itself, but they practice it out of obedience, a public confession of faith (in those cases, I am not sure that it would be considered a sacrament).
Is trinitarian baptism a necessity? According to Matthew 28:19 it is. According to the Didache (written somewhere between 55 AD and 110 AD), that's how it was done in the "first century church." According to the remainder of the documents written by the Church Fathers, that's how it was done (see, for example, works of Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, etc.)
Is it essential? First of all, if you don't subscribe to a sacramental nature of baptism, then it really doesn't matter (so you can stop reading if you'd like). But if you do subscribe to the concept of baptism being a sacrament, then I would submit that it needs to be done in the way in which it was instituted. So is a non-Trinitarian baptism valid? I don't think it is. Having said that, though, if somebody did so out of ignorance with the intent being to do the right thing, I would certainly hope that God's grace would be big enough to cover an error in form with the proper attitude in heart. (Now if a person is baptized in a non-trinitarian fashion with full knowledge that a trinitarian baptism is prescribed, intentionally rejecting that prescription, that would be a different case IMO)
We back on topic yet?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Mark,
Thank you for your well wishes on my reconstruction project, as I wish you all the best in your spiritual endeavors as well.
You raised a lot of very good questions on the subject of baptism.
Over these past couple years, I've been contemplating the idea of undergoing baptism. Outside the illustrious thought of wanting to be baptized in a river, there are certainly other implications to consider...of course, the content of the baptismal formula and its authenticity; finding a good Christian willing to baptize me -though would there be a "catch" of having to pledge membership to their particular denomination, whatever it be?
Would a Catholic, for example, be willing to baptize a neo-Marcionite?
I'm aware through the writings of the Church Fathers that the Catholics seemingly acknowledged the validity of Marcionite baptisms, and did not require former Marcionites to "re-baptize" for admittance into their church. Would a modern Catholic minister or priest be willing to baptize anew a brother neo-Marcionite (despite his choice of differing ideas)?
Thank you.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
That is an interesting question, as always, Danny.
Could a Catholic administer a valid baptism to a neo Marcionite? Yes, absolutely.
Could a Catholic administer a licit baptism to a neo-Marcionite? Not as long as the person continues to remain a neo-Marcionite.
Would a Catholic administer baptism to a neo-Marcionite? Doubtful.
Part of the baptism rite is an acceptance of the Apostle's Creed by the adult to be baptized (preceeded by instruction so that the person understands what he's being asked). Could a Marcionite, with the belief in the creator God and the Good God, be able to, in clear conscience, be able to affirm the Apostle's Creed?
A valid baptism simply requires the person to be baptized to be baptized using the Trinitarian formula. If Marcionites baptized using the Trinitarian formula, then they are valid. Re-baptism cannot occur, because of what baptism does:- It washes away all vestiges of sin, including Original Sin
- It imparts an indelible character on the person being baptized.
Anabaptists (those who re-baptize) deny that baptism imparts that indelible character. That's the reason why, if a valid baptism (whether licit or not) was administered, there would be no reason to rebaptize.
In your case, if you've been validly baptized in the past, there is no need to be baptized again.
Now I'm not sure about the practices of any Protestant denomination in regard to baptism, but I would think that it is implicit that you'd want to join that church with any of them.
But the real question I'd ask is this: if you are a Marcionite, why would you want to be baptized in a non-Marcionite church? I can't imagine that any church would just baptize a person at random, no matter what their beliefs are regarding baptism. If you're baptized in a non-Marcionite church while retaining Marcionite beliefs, then you'd go from being an unbeliever to being an apostate. As Peter wrote, "For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down to them." Not that ignorance is a good thing, but I'd think that ignorance was better than apostasy (IMHO).
You're most welcome, as always.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Mark,
I appreciate your candid and insightful reply.
That's an acute point, Mark. Of course, the controversies and disagreements with the Marcionite Church, as has been proposed by some scholars, may have to some degree even influenced the formulation of the Apostles Creed. So obviously, those parts that might be viewed anti-marcionite polemic would not apply to me too well.
Because in many respects, -despite their differences -it appears that the Marcionites shared more in common with the Catholic Church -in their practices, their sacraments, and even their ecclesiastical structure - than with later Protestant movements, despite the reformist colors to which later Protestant scholars have understandably painted this subject, through the comparisons to Martin Luther.
Or "why would I want to be baptized at all?"
-is the question I'm still contemplating.
For one reason being that I have never been baptized with water in my lifetime, outside of having held to the belief of "spirit-baptism" taught us in the Way.
A public affirmation of my faith, I suppose.
Or even something of a Christian re-dedication.
Perhaps also from the growing realization that rituals and sacraments may not be something to be mocked and and reckoned unnecessary (as had been my oversimplistic, short-sighted attitude in the past) , but may be energizing to one's sense of faith and God's purpose for our life here.
As for the idea of having one baptize me from a different denomination holding even different beliefs - I obviously still subscribe to the naive notion that there are Christians dispersed throughout all churches and denominations.
I think I'm past the point of pleading "ignorance" in my case - so I guess I'll have to be an "apostate" in the view of others (lol).
Thanks again Mark for your thoughtful reply.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
This is very close to my general position accross the board on basically EVERY doctrinal error, this topic included.
I follow your logical progression and really cannot disagree with your point:
Sure. I basically agree one should do things correctly, in the form and fashion of their design.
However, my further position is that God is bigger than all of this, every thing - - all of us. In my 17 years sans TWI, I've found that I think that, perhaps the most agregious transgression of TWI is what I now call an obsession with "Biblical Accuracy"Of cousel the logical prgression demands that if one is goin gto follow the scriptures one should "get it right" and NOT intentionally do contrary to the scriptures and adopt their contrary ideas and adopt them as a sacrement.
BUT. IMO the obsessionn with "accuracy" supplanted the basic honesty before God. ie; "Gee whiz God, I'm REALLY trying to get this thing right."
Hence, the honest intent to "get it right" but being "wrong" (or scripturally innacurate) out of ignorance places individuals, even whole denominations in a position to be covered by GOD's grace.
We are saved by grace, not of works, lest any man should be boastful about it.
I agree with you in the context of sacrements. The grace of God factor, to me, accounts for how I've seen evidence that suggests that peoples, both trinitarians and non indeed are born again.
Therefore, I'm submitting, as an answer to the topical question:
It seems to me, that what really matters to God is where your heart is when you approach him for His gift of salvation. It seems like getting one's heart in the proper place is more important than the sacrement (or lack thereof) that one employs.
"... if you make Jesus Lord of your life in your heart and confess the same with your mouth, God then saves you by His grace and mercy."
I think one can do that and be ignorant of trinitarian sacrements.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Howard,
Agreed almost completely. In my 16 years post TWI, I've found the most aggregious transgression of TWI is an over-emphasis on the person and power of the "manifestations" that are supposed to be at the beck-and-call of the individual. The position is fundamentally wrong and sets the individual believer up to become to have an ego-centric life rather than a Christ-centric life. And as a result, they were making man God, and thus institutionalizing the worst form of idolatry.
Biblical accuracy is not, in of itself, a bad thing. But TWI developed it with an arrogance that put its so-called Biblical scholars above God. The ego ruled (rules?) in TWI. They epitomized the expression "knowledge puffeth up."
And that's the beauty of the sacraments. God provided very simple physical mechanisms to distribute His grace to His people. Very complex spirtual topics with deep theological background. Scritural buildup from the Old Testament era through the New Testament and continuing for 2,000 years hence.
Take, for example, baptism (which has been discussed in this thread).
A person doesn't need to study the scriptures and Church history for years in order to be baptized. He doesn't need to understand the figures provided in the Old Testament and through Jewish practice, from the flood, to the passing through the Red Sea, to the ritual washing of the dead. He doesn't need to understand the complex theological figures stated by St. Paul in Romans. He doesn't need to be an expert in Tertullian. He simply needs to believe that as the water is poured over his head or as he is dipped, that God washes the inside as the water "washes" the outside. And it works whether you have 15 minutes of instruction or study the subject for a decade.
Similar arguments hold true for the other 6 sacraments that God instituted to transmit His grace to us. All of them are tremendous gifts (my word, not a Biblical one) to mankind, as they boil down the tremendous mystery of God's relationship to us and His saving grace to very simple actions for us to take.
I agree that one can do that while ignorant of trinitarian sacraments. Having said that, is intentional rejection of the truth still ignorance? I say this not as a slap in your direction, but rather a legitimate question. I've had people say to me "your arguments are logical, I can see it in the Bible, but no, thanks." Are people like that still "ignorant"? I can't give an answer to that one. Is it like what Danny said above, where he said "I can't claim ignorance anymore," or like has been said, "they haven't heard enough to believe"? I just don't know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
I felt no slap.
You know Mark, this is an interesting conversation to me, especially in light of how fervently "against" the Catholics TWI was. I remember buying into the TWI terminology that we call you guys "ROMAN Catholics because there is nothing universal about that church, it all came from Rome, not God."
That's how Vp stated it. I remember not liking that statement but I felt I should accept it because I was ignorant of the history and felt that VP was educated on it.
There is great value in your position and your posts. My current church is trinitarian. I've found that when discussing who Jesus we agree with everything we say the Bible says about Jesus except that our "therefore" conclusion varies.
That to me, is not enough to summarily reject your position as "catholic" therfore differing from mine.
"Intentional rejection of the truth" is an interesting statement. The easy answer is that we should not intentioanlly reject God's truth for there may be eternal consequences to that rejection.
I now feel that there are some "bottom line truths" God requires of us & beyond that we're covered by his grace and mercy through His sacrifice of His son and Christ's propitiation for our sin.
Some of that sin, I feel in many cases IS the intentional rejection of some (for communication's sake) "lesser" truths that are not a determinable factor in an individual's new birth.
Short answer, No. intentional rejection of the truth is not ignorance, nor will God treat it as such. The "complication," if you will, is:
What sin is and is not covered by the grace and MERCY of God?
One would have to say it is a sin against God to reject the new birth, correct? That "sin" would be "unforgivable" and not covered by His grace and mercy - else there would be no need for Christ's redemption. In that case, no one would go to hell.
Or is it that those not born again are dead to God and do not recieve of His grace and mercy?
If so, then we're back to the original questions.
I'm thinking that the concept of who Christ is, is to us like our babies asking us to explain things that are way out of their ability to understand. I tell my kids, "babies come from Mommy's tummy."
One time one of them thought that when we went to the hospital to "have their baby sister" that Mom had to wait for a long time in the bathroom til the baby came out because that is how, and where you get things out of your tummy. It was perfectly logical to him, yet all he actually did was make a reference in HIS mind to the truth that was in front of him.
The little tyke completely believed the truth although his description of it left something to be desired.
I think that's how we ALL are in terms of determining who Jesus is and who God is. At this point all I really know is that I'm REALLY trying to get this thing right God, REALLY I AM!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Howard,
VP did not invent anti-Catholicism. He was not the first and won't be the last. He's not hardly the only person who is anti-Catholic around and was not hardly the only person to teach anti-Catholicism. And anti-Catholicism will continue until the end of time. I don't try to take anti-Catholic comments as a personal slap. Fortunately some people see the light. As I have pointed out on GSC before, Ralph Woodrow, the author of Babylon Mystery Religion (which was the source document that TWI used to substantiate their positions), withdrew that book from publication because of its errors.
Bishop Fulton J. Sheen one time made a statement that few people in America hate the Catholic religion, but there are many who hate what they mistakenly believe is the Catholic religion—and that if what they hate really were the Catholic religion, Catholics would hate it too.
Thanks for your words.
I'll tell you that I had such a hard time with that issue (the Trinity), that its not funny. See, I studied JCNG HARD when I was "in." I needed to be able to defend my position against those evil Trinitarians that wanted to talk me out of "the truth." (I wish there was a "barf" emoticon on this board LOL) And so I committed all of those verses to memory and much of the rest of that book.
When I (voluntarily) left TWI, I believed all of the doctrine that I was taught...I just thought that something that "the Doctor" started off good was ruined by the evil "Craig." And that maybe some day the "ministry" would get back to "normal." So I kept studying on my own. But that didn't happen, did it?
After trying some offshoot groups in the early 90s, I came to the realization that it just wasn't going to come back to where it was going to be something good. So, every once in a while, I'd start checking out churches. All well and good until the subject of the Trinity came up in a "message" or is a discussion. See, I KNEW the Bible on that subject. I KNEW that the Trinity was Idolatry. So I'd feel my blood boil when I heard the Trinity mentioned as if it was a fact.
And eventually I realized that I would just have to go it alone. I wasn't going to get back into TWI, because I saw what they were going through...I wasn't going to deal with offshoots...I'd tried a couple and they just didn't work for me. And I couldn't bring myself to compromise on my beliefs that I KNEW were true. So Trinitarian churches were out, as well.
And that worked for a couple of years.
Until I started to experience what God meant when he referred to Christians collectively as the Body of Christ. I was recognizing in my life the deficits of not regarding the parts about where we're supposed to support each other and build each other up in love. And saw it even more in my wife and my daughter.
So I needed to overcome that bit about the Trinity, because I couldn't go someplace where my blood would boil every time I went there. And I finally re-examined the subject, but looked at it from THEIR point of view. Could THEY back up THEIR arguments. And I found that they could. And rather easily. So I mellowed on the subject: they're not INTENTIONALLY being idolatrous; maybe they just didn't have all the light that Vic did. I went back and looked at JCNG (hadn't cracked the book in years). And I re-examined it from the other perspective (when I "worked" it while in TWI, I did so from a positive perspective. I WANTED to believe it). I wanted to see if I could debunk it now. And that's when I recognized the dishonest mental gymnastics he used. You know the first hole? Matthew 28:19. Remember him saying that it MUST have been a forgery? Prove it. You can't. Even The Aramaic Interlinear produced by TWI (literally the ONLY book of theirs that I still keep on my bookshelf) has that verse. And I had to get honest with myself and realize that I had practiced and believed a lie.
Once the JCNG stuff fell apart, the doors opened as far as what church I could select then.
I believe that anybody who humbles himself before God and asks for His Divine Mercy will receive it. However, I do believe there is an unforgivable sin: unrepentent pride (either in a positive light or negative light). Pride, on the "positive" side, manifests itself as arrogance: "I don't need God." Pride, on the "negative" side, manifests itself as utter despair: "I am too bad for God to save." You remember that verse in I John: If we confess our sins, God is faithful to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness? (I think its 1:9) -- well, if you're arrogant, you don't believe that you need to confess any wrong and so won't. If you, on the other hand, are in "utter despair," you'll feel that God's Word doesn't say that God will forgive to the uttermost, and that confession is a waste of time: he won't forgive you anyway, so you may as well continue as you were (you're going to hell anyway). Remember the "prodigal son?" What if he had just stayed in that pig stye in the distant country?
That's a completely different thread.I think that's how we ALL are in terms of determining who Jesus is and who God is. At this point all I really know is that I'm REALLY trying to get this thing right God, REALLY I AM!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Sticking my nose in only to say this thread caught my eye a few days ago and I have to tell you folks something. I've seen great meekness in this thread, gosh that's been grand to read folks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Why thank you Kathy.
I've enjoyed reading it too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HCW
Thanks for sharing your path "back" Mark.
Mine is very similar. I avoided "trinity issues" like the plague when I first went to a church, for the same basic reason as you. It was so long ago that I had "forgotten" this:
The primary reason I went back to a church was that I recognized the need to be amongst a body of believers who would love me and have my back in fellowship and prayer.
Reason #2 was that I found that the burning desire I had that drew me to the Way Corps was still very much alive in me. "Natural leadership ability and a burning desire to learn God's Word and serve His people." Was TWI's published reason one should "go Corps." I felt I was called by God.
I had remained faithful to that calling when I told John Shroyer to his face that I would NOT EVER sign anything giving my allegiance like that to Craig or ANY man. I told him that I was committed to standing with and following Jesus Christ. Then asked him,
"If I'm a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ and standing with HIM, you're standing with Jesus, Craig and the trustees are standing with Jesus... aren't we ALL standing together already?"
Of course he didn't like, nor accept that position.
That being said, I reached a point after doing the "on my own" thing where the need for fellowship (and mostly a "hedge of prayer" where I was praying for others) and being prayed for was a primary and most notable missing element from my life.
Fast forwarding to today, I now have that, as well as a support system, but that pesky trinity issue comes up regularly, in the worship service. Occasionally "trinitarian" concepts come up in the songs we sing. Long story short...
I've come to the point now after looking from the "other perspective" that I understand this one thing about God:
"As the heaven is high above the Earth, so are His ways above our ways and His thoughts above our thoughts."
Thats it. When it comes to God's ways and God's thoughts, I don't know JACK.
If that's not good enough I understand, "...for God is in heaven and you on the Earth therefore, let thy words be few."
So there are some things I have very little to say about.
As a child of God, I've learned a LOT about how to be a child from my own children. In my two marriages, altogether, I've raised seven. I have five now, two of the stepdaughters from marriage #1 are adults on their own.
I watch my little ones and they teach me how little some things matter to how you live your everyday life. "What's that Daddy?" I've had each child ask at ages 3 - 8 over and over again over the past 20 years. Each time, without exception I've said, "That's a ____________________."
They say, "Ok." and many times bounce along their merry little way. Many times the girls give Daddy a kiss, I give them a pat & send them along their happy little way. I punch the boys & push them so they fall over. They tumble across the room, giggling and get up and stumble over something, breaking it as they go.
I've often smiled, knowing they have NO IDEA what "that" actually is. They are happy. They tell the littler one, when the next one down the line asks, "Daddy said that's a _________________." In FULL confidence that they KNOW what is is. I've laughed, sometimes out loud, and then we all laugh, from the big ones to the littlest, when the little one gets it so comically "wrong." I've said, "No it isn't. It isn't that.
It doesn't matter to me how wrong they are. Even when they THINK they KNOW they know... I KNOW they have no real idea.
"Oh yes it IS Daddy, you said so..." I scoop the little one up in my arms and give them my customary, "Daddy loves you!" Hug 'em, squeeze them "to death" tickle them until they can't stand it no more, then finally let them go. They prance away, again on their merry little way. This time there's an extra little pep in their step cause they've been assurred that..."Daddy loves them."
As they leave I often hear an older one in scolding tone to the younger... "I told you it wasn't...." I say, "Stop it! cut the little one a break they tried..."
Another verse comes to mind, "... if you, being evil can love your children like that, how much more can your Father, which is in heaven love you?"
Then comes another verse. "The hidden things of God... are clearly seen by that which is made, even His eternal power and Godhead."
As a child, I can understand, God is THE father, My father; Jesus Christ is HIS son, MY brother. Anything beyond that is no more for my understanding that it was when my son, around five years old asked,
"Daddy why do we always come here and you give that lady money all da time? Sometimes you write her a note and she gives YOU money Daddy...why?"
I CRACKED UP!
He didn't understand that the lady was my favorite teller at our local bank and I was doing "my banking."
Like children all we ACTUALLY do is make reference to "the truth" based on what we see and THINK we understand anyways. I no longer sweat over "truth, accuracy & integrity of the Word;" stuff like that. Now that I've stopped that stuff, I'm amazed at how much more I see and "understand."
The pride & arrogance you mentioned, Mark, is SO directly tied to an attitude that prevails among "researchers." One thing VPW taught that I wish he prevailed better in his ministry was, "To explain something you have to be bigger than what you're explaining." If we don't carry the correct, humble attitude when handling God's word, we disqualify ourselves, by simple proximity, to be able to handle it "correctly."
I see humility as a "location" where God operates. If one is not humble, he's just not there where God operates. Therefore I agree with you that ANYONE who humbles himself before God and asks for His Divine Mercy will recieve it. Our humility in seeking Him can "transport" us to where God operates and we can recieve his blessings.
No matter WHAT we call Him. All God cares about is that our heart cries out to Him. I now believe that God's people are everywhere. They can be found in ANY church, in any denomination, Catholics, Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, even Athiests and Agnostics, I've even talked to Wiccans and some who profess to be Satanists that I was pretty darn sure were born again.
Getting born again is a HEART thing. Our study of His Word and obedience to it is works. His salvation in us justifies us against the sinful works that WILL come from our hearts. Because we're born into sin.
I've talked to some Christians who profess to be and are considered "pillars of the church" that I'm not so sure of their heavenly status - - to put it gently. Frankly. I'm now CONVINCED that "on that great and notable day" there will be HUGE suprises as far as who actually goes and who stays.
I believe a LOT of "christians" are gonna hear the trump of God and "jump" in anticipation of being "caught up." Then their "two inch verticle" will come into play... when they land on the spot they were standing in.
"Many are called, few are chosen."
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven."
ALL Americans are filthy rich men. THAT is a global reality. God is the God of the WHOLE world... Our American asses are in BIG trouble when it comes to eternity.
"He who has ears to hear, let him hear what the spirit says to the churches."
GOD, I'm TRYING my BEST to get this things RIGHT!
When I first heard of JCNG I wondered what was the big deal? "Are the Dead Alive NOW?" was a stupid question to me. I remember thinking, "Um, they ARE dead, right?... so...."
I really didn't care if they were in heaven or not, I really don't care who Jesus and God "are." All I care about is that I know them. I just wanted to KNOW the truth. I worked them books HARD, like you I "LEARNED" the material. I even went so far as to highlight EVERY scripture concerning every topic in VPW's books in code in my Bible, so I could flip through it and pick out scriptures "in support of the truth" at any given moment.
I'll tell you man, Studying, really studying and fighting yourself to BELIEVE 1st, 2nd & 3rd John
can really take us, as Christians, "behind the woodshed."
"If we say we love God and hate our brother we LIE and the truth is NOT in us." "Wierwillian PFAL logic" would speak to that verse and say that means "you either HAVE the truth in you, or you DON'T." Talk about your mental gymnastics! I now believe that the undeniable proof in the senses world of the presence of the new birth in your life is your LIFE, itself.
IF a person is born again of God's seed they WILL act like it. PERIOD. A most clear indication of it is how one treats his "brother." There is no requirement that a person have a doctorate degree or "knowledge of God's word" to know how to "love" his brother.
DUH. Didn't JESUS say "love your neightbor as you, yourself would want to be loved"...?
I'm not saying we shouldn't study (...to show thyself approved unto God... etc.) but. Our attitude in so doing must place us in the right "location."
On my path, At one point I was talking to someone about Bible stuff, They said "Man you should start your own church!" He asked how did I come to know so much Bible, I told him a little about the WC and years of experience ministering. Then he said, quite adamantly too,
"Then WHY haven't you? People need the stuff you know, isn't it SELFISH to keep it to yourself?"
I didn't have a good answer for that one. After much prayerful consideration I felt, and still do, that God's work has been around for thousands of years, if I have SOOO much to offer, how much sense does it make for me to start a "new work?" There are churches all over the country crying out to God daily for HELP in ministry.
Why would God call someone to start a new church? Would mine be so much DIFFERENT from the one on the next corner? Would I be so much BETTER than the next preacher?
I think not. It then dawned on me that the desire to be "king" was a primary motivator in people's hearts for starting new churches. I don't want to BE king I want to serve THE King of Kings. With that in mind, my question then was where should I go?
I wound up where I am now. I contribute and make a significant positive difference in the whole church, as do many others of our members.
WE are REALLY tring to get this whole God thing right. God we REALLY are!
I haven't had a trinity argument in at least 20 years. Don't remember off hand when the last one was. Never won a trinity argument from the first one back in summer of 1976. Never lost one either. Every one I've ever been in was a stalemate.
If I can agree that WE really want to try and get it right before God in general, I focus on what we know we can agree on.
"Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof" why add to it?
Edited by hcwalker58Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rachel
I have read the original post and would like to respond to that, not how the topic has evovled at this time. There are alot of good posts in this thread, though.
I do not believe anyone is born again except Jesus, and that happened at the ressurection. If you look at when God made the statement, 'this day have I begotten thee', it was at His ressuerection. I believe the ressurection/change is the new birth. It has been years since I accepted Jesus, but there is nothing physically different about me except that I am older. The bible teaches there are two kinds of bodies, and the natural comes first, then the spiritual body, after a 'change'
I believe that change is the New Birth.
Rachel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Rachel,
Although there is a disagreement between Christian groups on when the new birth happens, I am not familiar with a group that advocates that belief. Can you share some substantiation for your beliefs? The accounts in Luke 1 and in Matthew 3 tend to contradict the assertion you've made, based strictly upon the phrase from Psalm 2 that you cited. Is there something else that backs up what you've said (other than where the Psalm was cited in Acts and in Hebrews, neither of which really provide amplification to substantiate your claim)?
Thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rachel
Why does a group have to advocate something for you to believe in it or for it to be accepted?
I believe this through my own personal study and reading.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Most people don't come up with theories on their own. I was just asking you a question, not trying to raise your blood pressure.
But the question remains:
I am curious still.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
just a quick obsv...before i fully join the conversation
Mark, you wrote...
i think this is where good conversations can slip and go bad really quick
i mean, you ask for substantiation of her beliefs, yet you seem to somehow believe that you raised Rachel's blood pressure, without substantiation of that fact...which seems inconsistent, quite dismissive of her question, and loaded with suggestion.
no sweat
we do it all the time
kinda funny
thats all
thought id point at it
before i joined the conversation
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Sir:
I was simply responding to the following:
Which seemed like it was pretty defensive, in response to what I believed to be perfectly legitimate questions:
- What group are you affliliated with that teaches this? (Her answer...she got it from self study, a perfectly legit response)
- Do you have any other substantiation for the assertion you have made? (No response to that one yet)
Now, if that's a problem, then I'm sorry I asked the questions in the first place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rachel
Most people don't come up with theories on their own. I was just asking you a question, not trying to raise your blood pressure.
Mark,
I have found that most eway people, that were taught the keys to biblical research, very very very rarely come up with any theories about scripture on their own. We were taught very sound research techniques, but we still don't use them.
Most people I know that are xway still run with the pack, of xway believers, teaching recycled way doctrine.
We were taught that we were literally born again when we confessed Rom.10:9,10. No one ever pointed out the key word in these verses...SHALL. Not now, but later, it implies something that hasn't happened yet.
Jesus is the firstfruits from the dead...His mortal body was changed to a spiritual body, right? Has this happened to you? Me niether. This sounds like a new birth to me. Not accepting Jesus, I can unaccept Him whenever I want to...So I havent been changed...I still am aging, have to bathe, eat and sleep. Same Old, right? When He was raised, He was literally BORN AGAIN....
That which is born of the flesh is flesh, right?
Can you return your mother's womb and be born again, Mark? No, me neither. So, if I get born again, it's not going to be by flesh, remember that which is born of the flesh is flesh....It has to be spirit.
When I get a spiritual body...I will be born of the spirit, again. This time I will be a spirit body.
So, where did I get this weird foot doctrine, Mark?
You tell me...I just made it up? Or I read MY bible and let the holy spirit show me something, instead of all these way knockoffs.
Incredible you say?
You disagree? That's OK....You cany put new wine into old bottles, or you will bust your brain.
My blood pressure isnt up. I am blessed to be able to share something with you, and if you don't agree, I hope it has provoked you to think a l ittle at least...Think a new thought, and develop your own.
Rachel
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.