Broken Arrow, your last two posts here were very good and showed very good biblical sense and logic. You get a grade of "A" from me on those two posts. And this is in complete harmony with the article that I wrote, "The Lordship of Jesus Christ: Contrasting the Lordship of Imperfect Man".
Broken Arrow, your last two posts here were very good and showed very good biblical sense and logic. You get a grade of "A" from me on those two posts. And this is in complete harmony with the article that I wrote, "The Lordship of Jesus Christ: Contrasting the Lordship of Imperfect Man".
Thank you, Mark. I appreciate your kind words. I enjoyed reading your article. I particularly liked the section where you explain how Jesus taught about true leadership when the two disciples asked to be seated at his right and left hands. I also found your discourse on civil authorities helpful and I agree with you about your "favorite" rationalization, which is just another way of saying, "The devil made me do it." I could say more, but I don't want to derail this thread.
I'm trying to figure out how to share this paper. My neuron pathways were set up in the days of manual typewriters, sliderules and rotary dial telephones. Here's a shot at attaching a file:
I'm trying to figure out how to share this paper. My neuron pathways were set up in the days of manual typewriters, sliderules and rotary dial telephones. Here's a shot at attaching a file:
The fundamental, biblical doctrine of the "Trinity" is that everything we receive from God the Father, we receive through Jesus Christ by the instrument of Holy Spirit, and that everything we direct to God the Father, we direct through Jesus Christ by the instrument of Holy Spirit. The idea that Jesus Christ is "God the Son" is NOT biblical, but it is only secondary.
By focusing on "Jesus Christ, what he is not", Wierwille was able to take Jesus out of the picture entirely. Everything we receive from God the Father, we receive through our operation of the law of believing, which we learn about by endless exposure to Power For Abundant Living in all its forms. Everything we direct toward God the Father, we direct in the form of money through ABS to TWI.
Wierwille explicitly taught that the written Word takes the place of the "absent" Christ, and Wierwille implicitly taught that his own interpretations were the only acceptable ones, therefore, Wierwille's interpretations took the place of the "absent" Christ.
According to Wierwille, Jesus was seated at the right hand of God (probably smoking and drinking Drambuie) while we were running around doing all of God's work here on earth. The only time Jesus stood up, apparently, was when Stephen was being executed.
There are three things I've learned from this class:
1. the phrase "ratiocinative explorations" which means "thinking about things"
2. that there is such a thing as "the economic doctrine of the Trinity", and
3. that I can teach ANYTHING about the relation between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit, and people are willing to consider how biblical it is, and possibly accept it as accurate, as long as I say I am talking about the ECONOMIC Trinity, and not questioning the validity of the Ontological Trinity... ANYTHING!
All through the early- and mid-90s, Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser tried time after time to make connections with other Christian groups. Time after time, they were rebuffed because they led with "Jesus Christ is NOT God." Even Anthony Buzzard, who does a much more biblical job of arguing "Jesus Christ is NOT God" than the CES boys did, lost confidence in ties with CES. The only people who stuck around for any length of time were the prophecy and the Momentus boys, who wanted to take advantage of the CES following for their own ends, and who were NEVER willing to consider changing their thinking about the Trinity.
I remember when Dale Sides, seeking denominational cover for his "parachurch ministry", revealed that the Holy Spirit had told him to change the definitions of all the words he was using, so that he could use Trinitarian language to disguise the Wierwillian aberration of doctrine (Exercising Spiritual Authority) Sides was teaching.
I once met a young woman who was attending the School of Theology. She had never had any connections with TWI, but we had long talks about the things God had done for us in our lives. She was from Russia. Her mother had been a communist atheist, and her dad was a non-practicing Muslim. Her mom got a job playing the organ for a church, and she used to attend church with her mom. They both became Christians. God did a lot of things for them both, and I knew the girl I had discussions with knew how to listen to God. She told me about one incident, where she was asking the Lord about whether he was God or not, and how that could be. She told me that the only answer he would give her was "I am one of a kind." And I believe her. The Lord teaches people in terms that they will understand the things he has for them to know in order to do the work he has for them to do. For that Russian girl, "I am one of a kind" was sufficient. I think for me, he gave me this class to take...
The fundamental, biblical doctrine of the "Trinity" is that everything we receive from God the Father, we receive through Jesus Christ by the instrument of Holy Spirit, and that everything we direct to God the Father, we direct through Jesus Christ by the instrument of Holy Spirit. The idea that Jesus Christ is "God the Son" is NOT biblical, but it is only secondary.
This is interesting. I'd like to see all sides agree on this.
(snip)
According to Wierwille, Jesus was seated at the right hand of God (probably smoking and drinking Drambuie) while we were running around doing all of God's work here on earth. The only time Jesus stood up, apparently, was when Stephen was being executed.
When I was an Intermediate Class grad, I once asked a corps dude what Jesus Christ is doing now.
He extemporized (made stuff up on the spot), and said he didn't think Christ HAD to be doing
anything now. I let it go because it meant he didn't know, and I found his answer a LOT stupider
than "Good question, but I don't know-let me get back to you." Here's God Almighty's best agent
of the last 2 millenia (or more). He's alive and healthy, and has no pressing tasks. And God chooses to
have this most obedient One do absolutely NOTHING for the following 2 millenia. It struck me as
wasteful, and poor use of available resources. Would Jesus really want to do NOTHING for 2000
years while his brethren suffered on the Earth? Would God Almighty want that?
(The guy who gave me that answer, last I heard, is on twi's board.)
So, I kept reading until I eventually had a much better answer.
Romans 8:34 (NASB)
34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.
Hebrews 7:24-25 (NASB)
4 but Jesus, on the other hand, because he continues forever, holds his priesthood permanently. 25 Therefore he is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
Jesus' job is to intercede for us. I'm not sure what that entails, but I'd bet it keeps him VERY busy.
(snip)
I once met a young woman who was attending the School of Theology. She had never had any connections with TWI, but we had long talks about the things God had done for us in our lives. She was from Russia. Her mother had been a communist atheist, and her dad was a non-practicing Muslim. Her mom got a job playing the organ for a church, and she used to attend church with her mom. They both became Christians. God did a lot of things for them both, and I knew the girl I had discussions with knew how to listen to God. She told me about one incident, where she was asking the Lord about whether he was God or not, and how that could be. She told me that the only answer he would give her was "I am one of a kind." And I believe her. The Lord teaches people in terms that they will understand the things he has for them to know in order to do the work he has for them to do. For that Russian girl, "I am one of a kind" was sufficient. I think for me, he gave me this class to take...
Very good biblical points by Wordwolf and also some interesting information from Steve Lortz about Victor Wierwille's errant non-biblical doctrines. You guys both get "A"s. Off the top of my head without quoting bible verses, I think we would have NO or very little relationship with God without the work of His Son Jesus Christ. I also think pertaining to the church today that God has delegated all things over to Jesus Christ his Son. Jesus Christ is the head with us being members doing a variety of things, but regarding the analogy of the church being like a human body as we see in 1 Corinthians chapter 14, what part of the body does all the thinking? Without our head Jesus Christ, who has our only spiritual brain, we might be spiritually dumber than door knobs. Pertaining to the work of the salvation of mankind with man's needed purification and with the putting of all things that oppose God under God. God, the Father has delegated this job and authority to Jesus Christ His Son.
O.K. so now I am going to cheat and quote from a version of the bible, the New Kings James Version, 1 Corinthians chapter 15. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.
Stated with some of my language. God has delegated all things pertaining to the church for the salvation of mankind under Jesus Christ his Son. When Jesus Christ finally reaches his goal of the salvation of all of mankind, then Jesus Christ will turn back this authority to God his Father, so that God will be all in all. Stated another way, when Jesus Christ accomplishes His goal of all being subject to Him or under His (Jesus Christ's) authority. Then Jesus Christ will turn His authority back to God His Father from which His authority came. With this everything will be under God's authority and everything that God is will be in all. With this we will have complete purification of all.
One more point. Jesus Christ literally is the only Son of God by actual birth. The rest of us are sons of God only through adoption and a gift of the holy spirit.
...When Wierwille rejected the ontological doctrine of the Trinity, unfortunately, he also rejected the economic understanding of the relations between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and the gift of Holy Spirit, which is accurate according to the Bible. I'm not really that interested anymore in what Wierwille taught. He is long gone and dead. What does exercise me is how John Lynn markets his material as correction for Trinitarian "insanity." People hear him say stuff like that and think he's talking about the economic Trinity!!!!! He has no awareness of how ignorant he sounds...
Love,
Steve
Very interesting thread and great input by all. I’ve looked at this thread a number of times…I’m a little slow to grasp ideas like this. As far as dealing with my cult-damaged-faith (or whatever you want to call picking up the pieces after leaving TWI)- the point Steve made about vp rejecting the ontological and economic Trinity is a big deal to me now.
As far as my current beliefs – I often state on Grease Spot that I’m Trinitarian now – but it’s not that I’ve become a staunch supporter of the layman’s Trinity. Maybe it’s a part of me that wants to rebel from TWI dogma and start embracing a comprehensive view on everything theological. By saying “comprehensive” I don’t mean knowing it all – maybe “comprehensive” wasn’t the right word – I want to take in all the biblical data – even the thorny verses…the inexplicable verses…try to grasp what I can here and there as I continue on my Christian journey. I realize some things are beyond human understanding – and I designate those things as a matter of faith.
While reading this thread I kept thinking about one of vp’s chapter titles Are You Limiting God? Although the way vp answers that question is more along the lines of a marketing gimmick - like so many other health and wealth gospel preachers out there. If the only way we see God is as a genie in a bottle and what we can get from him – how is that not limiting God?
Great analysis by Waysider and WordWolf of the great principle – which typifies vp’s preference for making everything fit in a neat and supposedly logical package. And to be honest – I think I still have a very limited idea of God – because I too have a tendency of trying to reduce God down to something that is bite size for my pea brain to take in….but anyway, this post must go on…
Today after reading this thread again I looked up the terms ontological and economic Trinity and found something that may be noteworthy for this thread by R.C. Sproul:
"Ontology is the study of being. When we talk about the ontological Trinity, or as some theologians term it, the “immanent Trinity,” we are referring to the Trinity in itself, without regard to God’s works of creation and redemption. In the Trinity, there are three persons —the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—who together are one being. The ontological structure of the Trinity is a unity (Deut. 6:4). When we speak of the economic Trinity, on the other hand, we are dealing with the activity of God and the roles of the three persons with regard to creation and redemption.
In terms of the ontological Trinity, the three persons are distinguished by what the Westminster Larger Catechism calls “their personal properties” (WLC 9). It then goes on to define these personal properties: “It is proper to the Father to beget the Son, and to the Son to be begotten of the Father, and to the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son from all eternity” (WLC 10). With regard to the economic Trinity, we distinguish among the three persons of the Godhead in terms of their roles in creation and redemption. It is the Father who sends the Son into the world for our redemption. It is the Son who acquires our redemption for us. It is the Spirit who applies that redemption to us. We do not have three gods. We have one God in three persons, and the three persons are distinguished in the economy of redemption in terms of what They do..."
I’m not saying that I get all this – but threads like this are inspiring. I’m willing to try a new way of not limiting God and to try not being so restrictive in my thinking of how God works things out. I think understanding the concepts of ontological Trinity and economic Trinity are important –expanding our awareness of God should have some positive practical impact in living the Christian life. I think it would touch so many aspects - - like worship…prayer… service to our Lord / service to others… recovery from cult damage.
Seeing that you brought it to the forefront, T-bone, there are some number of things in this thread (which I had not read before) which stir me to comment on.
May take a bit more thought, though, as it's been a while since engaging in much discussion about certain of these things.
(However, I'll presume any readers here know or recognize that things relating to the Trinity are not issues or matters of salvation...)
The fundamental, biblical doctrine of the "Trinity" is that everything we receive from God the Father, we receive through Jesus Christ by the instrument of Holy Spirit, and that everything we direct to God the Father, we direct through Jesus Christ by the instrument of Holy Spirit. The idea that Jesus Christ is "God the Son" is NOT biblical, but it is only secondary.
This is interesting. I'd like to see all sides agree on this.
hmmm...
Any way I look at what's said there, can't say I'd agree. Namely because I don't see or think of "Trinity" as a genuine biblical doctrine.
Perhaps at some point things may end up deeper into it, but for now, suffice it to say that I view (and have since LONG ago) Holy Spirit (capitalized, or not) strictly as descriptive language, and not as a (3rd) entity, being, substance, personality, instrument... or any other word that might be used or thought of in any way as being separate, independent, or distinct from either: (1) God, or (2) Christ, or (3) ...for lack of any better or a more generic word for a spirit being, an angel.
Hence, if a man has "holy spirit" with, on, or in him (take your pick, 'cause I honestly don't see or think there's much difference)... it communicates the presence of one (or more) of the afore stated choices. How and why anyone thinks or needs to put "something" (whatever they might think holy spirit is) between them and the Lord Jesus Christ, when its plainly written that Christ Jesus is the mediator between man and God... well, it sure seems to confuse the heck out of things right quick.
When I was an Intermediate Class grad, I once asked a corps dude what Jesus Christ is doing now.
He extemporized (made stuff up on the spot), and said he didn't think Christ HAD to be doing
anything now.
Quite frankly, this thought is so foreign to me that I not only have a hard time relating to the concept, it's a challenge to even accept or comprehend that it was as widespread or as prevalent in TWI as most here seem to be attesting to. Perhaps the way I thought of or viewed "Christ in me" was (or is) rather different than how some (or many) others see it.
She told me about one incident, where she was asking the Lord about whether he was God or not, and how that could be. She told me that the only answer he would give her was "I am one of a kind."
Well, that looks spot on to me.
Granted, he was a second man (or last adam, if you prefer.)
BUT, after resurrection?
One of a kind, for sure.
Granted, he was a second man (or last adam, if you prefer.)
BUT, after resurrection?
I'd edit how that was written if I could, but apparently there's a time limit that disallows it... as there's a possibility that "the second" man is an intended nuance referring to the change after his resurrection, whereas the "last adam" seems to lean more towards his similarity (at least, initially) to the first.
Mark, you appear to be universalist in your thought or language. Are you?
You can say that considering I did a web site on this subject. Here is one of the articles on this site which I wrote. Other people wrote other articles on my web site.
Seems much of what is on your website was written by others. However, I did briefly look over what you linked to (that you wrote.)
What do you think the second death, spoken of in the book of Revelations, refers to? I don't see that you address that anywhere in what you wrote.
This was on the 2nd page of the article that I wrote pertaining to the Greek word Age. It takes time to read, but it is readable.
1 Corinthians 15:20-28
20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
NIV
God has delegated all things pertaining to the church for the salvation of mankind under Jesus Christ his Son. We see in the above versesin Adam all dieandin Christ all will be made alive. Since we have death for all of humanity, even Jesus Christ, we have in or through Christ all in the future made alive. This order of life after death is Christ first being raised from the dead. Then when He comes those who belong to him or the followers of Jesus Christ being raised from the dead. For an explanation of this see1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. Next we seeall dominion, authority and powerdestroyed with Jesus Christ reigning as King or ruleruntil He has put all, and this includes even hisenemies,under his feetor rulership. Thenthe last enemy to be destroyed is death. In the original Greek the word for destroyed (katargeoo) means "to render idle, unemployed, inoperative, to cause to cease, put an end to, do away with, annul, abolish". Death cannot be destroyed by there only being no further death. Death can only be destroyed and put to an end with the addition of a general resurrection. When death is finally destroyed this means no more death for humanity withallbeingmade alive. When Jesus Christ finally reaches his goal of all or everything under His lordship or rulership, then Jesus Christ will turn back this authority to God his Father, so that God will or"may be all in all". This means all of humanity under God's commandments and with God's character, the foundation of which according to Jesus Christ as seen inMatthew 22:36-40is to love God with all your heart and soul and love your neighbor as yourself.
Seems much of what is on your website was written by others. However, I did briefly look over what you linked to (that you wrote.)
What do you think the second death, spoken of in the book of Revelations, refers to? I don't see that you address that anywhere in what you wrote.
Also the apostle Paul was more knowledgeable than the writer of the book of Revelation. Also John the writer of the book of Revelation does NOT write clearly as he has much figurative and not literal language. Below is an example of this. I think he should have been a better student of the apostle Paul. And if you read the book of Revelation chapters 21 and 22. He writes of a city with 12 gates. On the inside are good people and on the outside are bad people. He writes that no good people can enter the gates. However, these are gates and people can go through gates. However, to go through these gates the people outside the walls and gates have to change and get rid of their bad. I think Jesus Christ can change people and get them to follow him. As an example, he even turned a bad person, Saul, who later was renamed to Paul into a good person. A very good teacher of God's word. Is it OK if I give Paul a grade of "A"? And according to 1 Corinthians 15:28, I hope you at least see that Jesus Christ has the goal of "God being all in all".
Before any verse is quoted from the book of Revelation it is important to see that this book is written with figurative and not literal language. The following is one paragraph from a reference book that I learn from, the Nelson’s Bible Dictionary.
Like its counterparts, the Book of Revelation depicts the end of the present age and the coming of God's future kingdom through symbols, images, and numbers. These symbols include an angel whose legs are pillars of fire, men who ride on horses while smiting the earth with plagues of destruction, and a fiery red dragon with seven heads and ten horns who crouches before a heavenly woman about to deliver a child.
Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright (c) 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers
Death cannot be destroyed by there only being no further death. Death can only be destroyed and put to an end with the addition of a general resurrection. When death is finally destroyed this means no more death for humanity withallbeingmade alive.
Readable, perhaps. But not understandable (not by me, anyways.)
That might be an interpretation (maybe yours, or maybe not) of certain other events or words, but it doesn't explain who or what the "second death" is (or applies to), nor the effect(s) of it.
Whether viewed figuratively or not, Rev.20:6a rather plainly states "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power..."
The implication is that there are others that the second death will have power over. The beast and the false prophet are cast into the lake of fire (Rev.19:20). The devil joins them in Rev.20:10. Also into the lake of fire go "death and hell" (Rev.20:14.) "This is the second death."
So, it appears that "death" itself is subjected to "the second death." In other words, this is not merely "death" having a second go around, or a second pass. This "second death" is... different. Similar to death, perhaps. But, NOT the same as. This one evidently operates on (or at) an entirely different level, and in a (probably inappropriate) manner of speaking, is a horse of a different color. And the only other clarification or distinction that I can possibly think of at the moment, might be what's written in Matthew 10:28. If the first has the ability to kill, the second has the ability to destroy. (I say "might," because I just haven't dug very deep into that verse.)
But, going back to Rev.20, is the next verse (15) telling us who else is subjected to the second death.
"And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."
Please note that this is written AFTER verse 13, wherein "the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works." Do you see anywhere it is written that there are (or will be) any that remain dead at Rev.20:13? (Because I don't.) And, it is AFTER this that the second death is unveiled.
Regarding the figurative lake of fire. The word fire is the Greek word "pur". Looking at Thayer's Greek lexicon, the first definition that is listed is "to purify". This is the same Greek word used in Acts 2:3 with the receiving of the holy spirit. Here are three usages of this same Greek word in 1 Corinthians 3:13-15. Here the Greek work "pur" is the same word translated fire. It has a goal of the purification of man's sin nature. Otherwise what is the purpose of fire? Yes, for bad evil people they likely will not like it. However, it is not for punishment only. It is also for the purification of man's sin nature.
13 their work will be shown for what it is,because the Daywill bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work.14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward.15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.
Regarding the second death, you can reread my comments on Paul's very good explanation in 1 Corinthians 15:20-28. Here is another verse written by Paul to look at and consider.
10 but it has now been revealedthrough the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus,who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.
One additional way to look at the second death is the death of death. Or as Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 15:26, " The last enemy that will be destroyed is death."
So, in other words, you think the lake of fire is really just going to "purify" the beast, the false prophet, and the devil? (not to mention death and hell)
If not, then why suppose that the destruction spoken of in Matthew 10:28 means something different?
What do you think or say concerning the "brute beasts" of 2 Peter 2:12, which will "utterly perish"?
So, in other words, you think the lake of fire is really just going to "purify" the beast, the false prophet, and the devil? (not to mention death and hell)
If not, then why suppose that the destruction spoken of in Matthew 10:28 means something different?
What do you think or say concerning the "brute beasts" of 2 Peter 2:12, which will "utterly perish"?
TLC, all you are doing is IGNORING what I previously posted here. And what I post is not related to the doctrine of trinity. I only posted this because of YOUR QUESTION to me regarding "universalism". In contrast, I am making no positive judgement on the figurative "beast". And you are now mentioning something that is again unrelated to the original topic that you do not understand. You are even now doing what you are quoting from 2 Peter 2:12, "blaspheme in matters they do not understand". So now you are bringing up the word beast after ignoring something unrelated, the Greek word translated as fire, which is "pur". Below is information on the word "beast". Which you also might want to ignore. Please stop asking questions unless you want to learn new things.
Also the word "pur" that I have quoted from relates to individual people. It does not relate to governments that today have power, which below are figuratively called "beasts".. These governments will not have power and authority in the future. They only get this today from the God of this weird world under Satan. My figurative language "weird world".
BEAST
Literally, an animal; figuratively, a symbol, often prophetic. The word beast is used literally in three ways in the Bible: (1) any animal, both CLEAN and UNCLEAN (Genesis 6:7; 7:2; Leviticus 11:1-8); (2) a wild animal, as distinguished from domesticated animals (Genesis 1:24; 7:21; 37:20; Exodus 23:11); and (3) a domesticated animal (Genesis 1:24; 2:20; Exodus 19:13).
As a prophetic symbol, the word beast is used especially in the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation. The four beasts of Daniel symbolize four cruel, tyrannical governments: (1) a lion (Babylon); (2) a bear (Media); (3) a leopard (Persia); and (4) a dreadful and terrible beast (Greece). See Daniel 7:3-7. In the Book of Revelation, two beasts are described in detail: the beast from the sea, a composite of the four beasts of Daniel (Revelation 13:1-10), and the beast from the land (Revelation 13:11-18). Apparently, these two beasts symbolize political and religious power respectively.
In John's day, at the time when he wrote the Book of Revelation, the two "beasts" which opposed and persecuted the church were the Roman Empire (the political "beast from the sea") and the cult of emperor worship (the religious "beast from the land"). Together with the Dragon (Satan), they formed an unholy trinity that tried to destroy God's people.
The Bible often uses the word beast in other symbolical or figurative ways. For instance, the psalmist wrote, "I was like a beast before You" (Psalms 73:22), referring to his foolish, ignorant, and brutish behavior. The apostle Paul wrote, "I have fought with beasts at Ephesus" (1 Corinthians 15:32) - a metaphor for the enemies who fought ferociously against him and the gospel of Christ which he preached.
TLC, all you are doing is IGNORING what I previously posted here.
Not even close to what I'm doing, Mark. But, given that you fail to recognize (and obviously don't appreciate) my style of inquiry/learning/teaching, and evidently don't have the desire or ability (I'm not sure which at this point) to either see or explain this issue in a way other then the one angle you're already bent on, I suppose you'll probably just resign yourself to grading any of my posts here with an "F."
However, if instead of relegating me to the trash pile so quickly and mistakenly presume that I have no understanding of what's being discussed here, and gave a bit more honest thought as to why I ever questioned you in the first place on this, perhaps you'd realize that it came directly from the following one line of (what I perceive as being) "non-biblical" doctrine in this earlier post of yours... which post I happen to mostly agree with (namely because over the course of 40 years, I've mentally taken this doctrine apart and put in back together after looking at it from different angles more times that you can shake a bloody stick at... and can think of it, talk about it, maybe even makes sense of it with dang near anybody that wants to be honest enough with it. Which is getting to be more of a rare occurrence anymore.)
On 5/5/2014 at 11:46 PM, Mark Sanguinetti said:
When Jesus Christ finally reaches his goal of the salvation of all of mankind...
That's obviously your opinion, Mark. Which stems from your belief in universalism.
Okay, so you don't see or think of it being directly related to the doctrine of the Trinity.
However, years ago (and I do literally mean YEARS ago), I went chasing down some long and winding rabbit holes on a (Yahoo) discussion board (long since deleted, unfortunately) where a rather intricate (and extraordinarily logical and tight) web linked certain beliefs together in such a way that if you believed any one of, the path of logic would axiomatically lead you to believe all the others. And interestingly enough, the Trinity (i.e., Jesus Christ is/was God) and Universalism fit together on the same premise. So, somewhere deep within me, I'm quite sure that universalism doesn't actually fit with the other beliefs that I see you write about. Thus, I wondered just how well you understand the issues, or how much you might have thought that relationship through. Maybe you had some way of looking at it that I hadn't thought about or considered before. Or, so I thought.
But, no. I see that was a waste. Evidently you haven't. Aside from that, though, I agree with most the other stuff in your post.
On 5/5/2014 at 11:46 PM, Mark Sanguinetti said:
One more point. Jesus Christ literally is the only Son of God by actual birth. The rest of us are sons of God only through adoption and a gift of the holy spirit.
You'll probably agree that it is his resurrection that marks the point of his actually becoming the only begotten son of God. Or at least, I'd hope so.
Our adoption is, of course, temporary. Until the trump of God.
My apologies for nitpicking, and the intrusion into your space.
P.S. Please be careful quoting word studies or definitions copied out of Nelson's, or Strong's, or any where else. TWI's research is infamous for missing the mark with them, and besides not being much help (we mostly all have those same tools), they can tend to come across as quite condescending.
TLC, you are showing from your quotes that you don’t want to learn from other people. Here I quote the actual scriptures written by the Apostle Paul and you don’t want to even learn from him. This is shown by you not even quoting from his writings. Do you even believe that Jesus Christ lived and walked on the earth? Do you believe that after he died, that God raised him from the dead to live eternally?
That shows no sense to not learn from other people who have studied certain subjects more than you have. Some things other people know better than us and some things we could know better than other people.
And here you go again, now ignoring the symbolically stated “beast”. You sound like if you actually met someone like Paul from the 1st century or Daniel from the Old Testament period of time you would ignore them also.
Please at least try to show common sense. For example, the German nation under Adolph Hitler does not have to be a mystic nation. It actually did exist and yes could be called a beast that represented a kingdom of the recent century using the same figurative language. So when Nazi Germany lost World War 2. Did everyone in the nation get blamed for being beasts? They used common sense and had a trial and judged people according to what they actually did with a penalty of some kind for the people who did bad things. After this the nation of Germany and the people overall improved.
So with the Judgement by God of people in the future do you think people will be worse than before? If scriptures are too complex for you to read and understand, then please at least try to use common sense. The future trials of mankind should have improved results for man. Otherwise what is the point? Only to torture people? Is this what Jesus Christ said to do right before he got murdered for no crime? Luke 23:34 Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” In contrast, some crazy people think that God's judgement in the future is only to torture.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
7
9
12
Popular Days
May 1
6
Nov 18
5
Jan 2
4
Apr 19
3
Top Posters In This Topic
Mark Sanguinetti 13 posts
WordWolf 7 posts
Steve Lortz 9 posts
TLC 12 posts
Popular Days
May 1 2014
6 posts
Nov 18 2016
5 posts
Jan 2 2017
4 posts
Apr 19 2014
3 posts
Popular Posts
WordWolf
It's rather obvious vpw didn't understand "his" "Great Principle" because it was both inconsistent and senseless. "God is Spirit. God can only give that which He is." As Raf pointed out on this o
Steve Lortz
I am currently taking a graduate level course on the doctrine of the Trinity. One of the first things we learned is that there are two different aspects to the doctrine of the Trinity. One aspect is c
T-Bone
Very interesting thread and great input by all. I’ve looked at this thread a number of times…I’m a little slow to grasp ideas like this. As far as dealing with my cult-damaged-faith (or whatever you w
Mark Sanguinetti
Broken Arrow, your last two posts here were very good and showed very good biblical sense and logic. You get a grade of "A" from me on those two posts. And this is in complete harmony with the article that I wrote, "The Lordship of Jesus Christ: Contrasting the Lordship of Imperfect Man".
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Thank you, Mark. I appreciate your kind words. I enjoyed reading your article. I particularly liked the section where you explain how Jesus taught about true leadership when the two disciples asked to be seated at his right and left hands. I also found your discourse on civil authorities helpful and I agree with you about your "favorite" rationalization, which is just another way of saying, "The devil made me do it." I could say more, but I don't want to derail this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I'm trying to figure out how to share this paper. My neuron pathways were set up in the days of manual typewriters, sliderules and rotary dial telephones. Here's a shot at attaching a file:
Love,
Steve
quantum description.pdf
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Received and downloaded. Thank you for sharing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
The fundamental, biblical doctrine of the "Trinity" is that everything we receive from God the Father, we receive through Jesus Christ by the instrument of Holy Spirit, and that everything we direct to God the Father, we direct through Jesus Christ by the instrument of Holy Spirit. The idea that Jesus Christ is "God the Son" is NOT biblical, but it is only secondary.
By focusing on "Jesus Christ, what he is not", Wierwille was able to take Jesus out of the picture entirely. Everything we receive from God the Father, we receive through our operation of the law of believing, which we learn about by endless exposure to Power For Abundant Living in all its forms. Everything we direct toward God the Father, we direct in the form of money through ABS to TWI.
Wierwille explicitly taught that the written Word takes the place of the "absent" Christ, and Wierwille implicitly taught that his own interpretations were the only acceptable ones, therefore, Wierwille's interpretations took the place of the "absent" Christ.
According to Wierwille, Jesus was seated at the right hand of God (probably smoking and drinking Drambuie) while we were running around doing all of God's work here on earth. The only time Jesus stood up, apparently, was when Stephen was being executed.
There are three things I've learned from this class:
1. the phrase "ratiocinative explorations" which means "thinking about things"
2. that there is such a thing as "the economic doctrine of the Trinity", and
3. that I can teach ANYTHING about the relation between God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit, and people are willing to consider how biblical it is, and possibly accept it as accurate, as long as I say I am talking about the ECONOMIC Trinity, and not questioning the validity of the Ontological Trinity... ANYTHING!
All through the early- and mid-90s, Lynn, Schoenheit and Graeser tried time after time to make connections with other Christian groups. Time after time, they were rebuffed because they led with "Jesus Christ is NOT God." Even Anthony Buzzard, who does a much more biblical job of arguing "Jesus Christ is NOT God" than the CES boys did, lost confidence in ties with CES. The only people who stuck around for any length of time were the prophecy and the Momentus boys, who wanted to take advantage of the CES following for their own ends, and who were NEVER willing to consider changing their thinking about the Trinity.
I remember when Dale Sides, seeking denominational cover for his "parachurch ministry", revealed that the Holy Spirit had told him to change the definitions of all the words he was using, so that he could use Trinitarian language to disguise the Wierwillian aberration of doctrine (Exercising Spiritual Authority) Sides was teaching.
I once met a young woman who was attending the School of Theology. She had never had any connections with TWI, but we had long talks about the things God had done for us in our lives. She was from Russia. Her mother had been a communist atheist, and her dad was a non-practicing Muslim. Her mom got a job playing the organ for a church, and she used to attend church with her mom. They both became Christians. God did a lot of things for them both, and I knew the girl I had discussions with knew how to listen to God. She told me about one incident, where she was asking the Lord about whether he was God or not, and how that could be. She told me that the only answer he would give her was "I am one of a kind." And I believe her. The Lord teaches people in terms that they will understand the things he has for them to know in order to do the work he has for them to do. For that Russian girl, "I am one of a kind" was sufficient. I think for me, he gave me this class to take...
Thanks for your patience!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
This is interesting. I'd like to see all sides agree on this.
When I was an Intermediate Class grad, I once asked a corps dude what Jesus Christ is doing now.
He extemporized (made stuff up on the spot), and said he didn't think Christ HAD to be doing
anything now. I let it go because it meant he didn't know, and I found his answer a LOT stupider
than "Good question, but I don't know-let me get back to you." Here's God Almighty's best agent
of the last 2 millenia (or more). He's alive and healthy, and has no pressing tasks. And God chooses to
have this most obedient One do absolutely NOTHING for the following 2 millenia. It struck me as
wasteful, and poor use of available resources. Would Jesus really want to do NOTHING for 2000
years while his brethren suffered on the Earth? Would God Almighty want that?
(The guy who gave me that answer, last I heard, is on twi's board.)
So, I kept reading until I eventually had a much better answer.
Romans 8:34 (NASB)
34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.
Hebrews 7:24-25 (NASB)
4 but Jesus, on the other hand, because he continues forever, holds his priesthood permanently. 25 Therefore he is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.
Jesus' job is to intercede for us. I'm not sure what that entails, but I'd bet it keeps him VERY busy.
"Jesus Christ is one of a kind."
I can SO get behind that. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Very good biblical points by Wordwolf and also some interesting information from Steve Lortz about Victor Wierwille's errant non-biblical doctrines. You guys both get "A"s. Off the top of my head without quoting bible verses, I think we would have NO or very little relationship with God without the work of His Son Jesus Christ. I also think pertaining to the church today that God has delegated all things over to Jesus Christ his Son. Jesus Christ is the head with us being members doing a variety of things, but regarding the analogy of the church being like a human body as we see in 1 Corinthians chapter 14, what part of the body does all the thinking? Without our head Jesus Christ, who has our only spiritual brain, we might be spiritually dumber than door knobs. Pertaining to the work of the salvation of mankind with man's needed purification and with the putting of all things that oppose God under God. God, the Father has delegated this job and authority to Jesus Christ His Son.
O.K. so now I am going to cheat and quote from a version of the bible, the New Kings James Version, 1 Corinthians chapter 15. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.
Stated with some of my language. God has delegated all things pertaining to the church for the salvation of mankind under Jesus Christ his Son. When Jesus Christ finally reaches his goal of the salvation of all of mankind, then Jesus Christ will turn back this authority to God his Father, so that God will be all in all. Stated another way, when Jesus Christ accomplishes His goal of all being subject to Him or under His (Jesus Christ's) authority. Then Jesus Christ will turn His authority back to God His Father from which His authority came. With this everything will be under God's authority and everything that God is will be in all. With this we will have complete purification of all.
One more point. Jesus Christ literally is the only Son of God by actual birth. The rest of us are sons of God only through adoption and a gift of the holy spirit.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Very interesting thread and great input by all. I’ve looked at this thread a number of times…I’m a little slow to grasp ideas like this. As far as dealing with my cult-damaged-faith (or whatever you want to call picking up the pieces after leaving TWI)- the point Steve made about vp rejecting the ontological and economic Trinity is a big deal to me now.
As far as my current beliefs – I often state on Grease Spot that I’m Trinitarian now – but it’s not that I’ve become a staunch supporter of the layman’s Trinity. Maybe it’s a part of me that wants to rebel from TWI dogma and start embracing a comprehensive view on everything theological. By saying “comprehensive” I don’t mean knowing it all – maybe “comprehensive” wasn’t the right word – I want to take in all the biblical data – even the thorny verses…the inexplicable verses…try to grasp what I can here and there as I continue on my Christian journey. I realize some things are beyond human understanding – and I designate those things as a matter of faith.
While reading this thread I kept thinking about one of vp’s chapter titles Are You Limiting God? Although the way vp answers that question is more along the lines of a marketing gimmick - like so many other health and wealth gospel preachers out there. If the only way we see God is as a genie in a bottle and what we can get from him – how is that not limiting God?
Great analysis by Waysider and WordWolf of the great principle – which typifies vp’s preference for making everything fit in a neat and supposedly logical package. And to be honest – I think I still have a very limited idea of God – because I too have a tendency of trying to reduce God down to something that is bite size for my pea brain to take in….but anyway, this post must go on…
Today after reading this thread again I looked up the terms ontological and economic Trinity and found something that may be noteworthy for this thread by R.C. Sproul:
"Ontology is the study of being. When we talk about the ontological Trinity, or as some theologians term it, the “immanent Trinity,” we are referring to the Trinity in itself, without regard to God’s works of creation and redemption. In the Trinity, there are three persons —the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—who together are one being. The ontological structure of the Trinity is a unity (Deut. 6:4). When we speak of the economic Trinity, on the other hand, we are dealing with the activity of God and the roles of the three persons with regard to creation and redemption.
In terms of the ontological Trinity, the three persons are distinguished by what the Westminster Larger Catechism calls “their personal properties” (WLC 9). It then goes on to define these personal properties: “It is proper to the Father to beget the Son, and to the Son to be begotten of the Father, and to the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son from all eternity” (WLC 10). With regard to the economic Trinity, we distinguish among the three persons of the Godhead in terms of their roles in creation and redemption. It is the Father who sends the Son into the world for our redemption. It is the Son who acquires our redemption for us. It is the Spirit who applies that redemption to us. We do not have three gods. We have one God in three persons, and the three persons are distinguished in the economy of redemption in terms of what They do..."
RC Sproul - ontological & economic Trinity
I’m not saying that I get all this – but threads like this are inspiring. I’m willing to try a new way of not limiting God and to try not being so restrictive in my thinking of how God works things out. I think understanding the concepts of ontological Trinity and economic Trinity are important –expanding our awareness of God should have some positive practical impact in living the Christian life. I think it would touch so many aspects - - like worship…prayer… service to our Lord / service to others… recovery from cult damage.
Edited by T-Bonetrying to fix formatting issues
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Seeing that you brought it to the forefront, T-bone, there are some number of things in this thread (which I had not read before) which stir me to comment on.
May take a bit more thought, though, as it's been a while since engaging in much discussion about certain of these things.
(However, I'll presume any readers here know or recognize that things relating to the Trinity are not issues or matters of salvation...)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Mark, you appear to be universalist in your thought or language. Are you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
hmmm...
Any way I look at what's said there, can't say I'd agree. Namely because I don't see or think of "Trinity" as a genuine biblical doctrine.
Perhaps at some point things may end up deeper into it, but for now, suffice it to say that I view (and have since LONG ago) Holy Spirit (capitalized, or not) strictly as descriptive language, and not as a (3rd) entity, being, substance, personality, instrument... or any other word that might be used or thought of in any way as being separate, independent, or distinct from either: (1) God, or (2) Christ, or (3) ...for lack of any better or a more generic word for a spirit being, an angel.
Hence, if a man has "holy spirit" with, on, or in him (take your pick, 'cause I honestly don't see or think there's much difference)... it communicates the presence of one (or more) of the afore stated choices. How and why anyone thinks or needs to put "something" (whatever they might think holy spirit is) between them and the Lord Jesus Christ, when its plainly written that Christ Jesus is the mediator between man and God... well, it sure seems to confuse the heck out of things right quick.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Quite frankly, this thought is so foreign to me that I not only have a hard time relating to the concept, it's a challenge to even accept or comprehend that it was as widespread or as prevalent in TWI as most here seem to be attesting to. Perhaps the way I thought of or viewed "Christ in me" was (or is) rather different than how some (or many) others see it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Well, that looks spot on to me.
Granted, he was a second man (or last adam, if you prefer.)
BUT, after resurrection?
One of a kind, for sure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
I'd edit how that was written if I could, but apparently there's a time limit that disallows it... as there's a possibility that "the second" man is an intended nuance referring to the change after his resurrection, whereas the "last adam" seems to lean more towards his similarity (at least, initially) to the first.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
You can say that considering I did a web site on this subject. Here is one of the articles on this site which I wrote. Other people wrote other articles on my web site.
http://christian-universalism.info/agegreekwords-pg1.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Seems much of what is on your website was written by others. However, I did briefly look over what you linked to (that you wrote.)
What do you think the second death, spoken of in the book of Revelations, refers to? I don't see that you address that anywhere in what you wrote.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
This was on the 2nd page of the article that I wrote pertaining to the Greek word Age. It takes time to read, but it is readable.
1 Corinthians 15:20-28
20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
NIV
God has delegated all things pertaining to the church for the salvation of mankind under Jesus Christ his Son. We see in the above verses in Adam all die and in Christ all will be made alive. Since we have death for all of humanity, even Jesus Christ, we have in or through Christ all in the future made alive. This order of life after death is Christ first being raised from the dead. Then when He comes those who belong to him or the followers of Jesus Christ being raised from the dead. For an explanation of this see 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. Next we see all dominion, authority and power destroyed with Jesus Christ reigning as King or ruler until He has put all, and this includes even his enemies, under his feet or rulership. Then the last enemy to be destroyed is death. In the original Greek the word for destroyed (katargeoo) means "to render idle, unemployed, inoperative, to cause to cease, put an end to, do away with, annul, abolish". Death cannot be destroyed by there only being no further death. Death can only be destroyed and put to an end with the addition of a general resurrection. When death is finally destroyed this means no more death for humanity with all being made alive. When Jesus Christ finally reaches his goal of all or everything under His lordship or rulership, then Jesus Christ will turn back this authority to God his Father, so that God will or "may be all in all". This means all of humanity under God's commandments and with God's character, the foundation of which according to Jesus Christ as seen in Matthew 22:36-40 is to love God with all your heart and soul and love your neighbor as yourself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Also the apostle Paul was more knowledgeable than the writer of the book of Revelation. Also John the writer of the book of Revelation does NOT write clearly as he has much figurative and not literal language. Below is an example of this. I think he should have been a better student of the apostle Paul. And if you read the book of Revelation chapters 21 and 22. He writes of a city with 12 gates. On the inside are good people and on the outside are bad people. He writes that no good people can enter the gates. However, these are gates and people can go through gates. However, to go through these gates the people outside the walls and gates have to change and get rid of their bad. I think Jesus Christ can change people and get them to follow him. As an example, he even turned a bad person, Saul, who later was renamed to Paul into a good person. A very good teacher of God's word. Is it OK if I give Paul a grade of "A"? And according to 1 Corinthians 15:28, I hope you at least see that Jesus Christ has the goal of "God being all in all".
Before any verse is quoted from the book of Revelation it is important to see that this book is written with figurative and not literal language. The following is one paragraph from a reference book that I learn from, the Nelson’s Bible Dictionary.
Like its counterparts, the Book of Revelation depicts the end of the present age and the coming of God's future kingdom through symbols, images, and numbers. These symbols include an angel whose legs are pillars of fire, men who ride on horses while smiting the earth with plagues of destruction, and a fiery red dragon with seven heads and ten horns who crouches before a heavenly woman about to deliver a child.
Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright (c) 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Readable, perhaps. But not understandable (not by me, anyways.)
That might be an interpretation (maybe yours, or maybe not) of certain other events or words, but it doesn't explain who or what the "second death" is (or applies to), nor the effect(s) of it.
Whether viewed figuratively or not, Rev.20:6a rather plainly states "Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power..."
The implication is that there are others that the second death will have power over. The beast and the false prophet are cast into the lake of fire (Rev.19:20). The devil joins them in Rev.20:10. Also into the lake of fire go "death and hell" (Rev.20:14.) "This is the second death."
So, it appears that "death" itself is subjected to "the second death." In other words, this is not merely "death" having a second go around, or a second pass. This "second death" is... different. Similar to death, perhaps. But, NOT the same as. This one evidently operates on (or at) an entirely different level, and in a (probably inappropriate) manner of speaking, is a horse of a different color. And the only other clarification or distinction that I can possibly think of at the moment, might be what's written in Matthew 10:28. If the first has the ability to kill, the second has the ability to destroy. (I say "might," because I just haven't dug very deep into that verse.)
But, going back to Rev.20, is the next verse (15) telling us who else is subjected to the second death.
"And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."
Please note that this is written AFTER verse 13, wherein "the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works." Do you see anywhere it is written that there are (or will be) any that remain dead at Rev.20:13? (Because I don't.) And, it is AFTER this that the second death is unveiled.
Perhaps you have another way to explain this.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Regarding the figurative lake of fire. The word fire is the Greek word "pur". Looking at Thayer's Greek lexicon, the first definition that is listed is "to purify". This is the same Greek word used in Acts 2:3 with the receiving of the holy spirit. Here are three usages of this same Greek word in 1 Corinthians 3:13-15. Here the Greek work "pur" is the same word translated fire. It has a goal of the purification of man's sin nature. Otherwise what is the purpose of fire? Yes, for bad evil people they likely will not like it. However, it is not for punishment only. It is also for the purification of man's sin nature.
13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.
Regarding the second death, you can reread my comments on Paul's very good explanation in 1 Corinthians 15:20-28. Here is another verse written by Paul to look at and consider.
10 but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.
One additional way to look at the second death is the death of death. Or as Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 15:26, " The last enemy that will be destroyed is death."
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
So, in other words, you think the lake of fire is really just going to "purify" the beast, the false prophet, and the devil? (not to mention death and hell)
If not, then why suppose that the destruction spoken of in Matthew 10:28 means something different?
What do you think or say concerning the "brute beasts" of 2 Peter 2:12, which will "utterly perish"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
TLC, all you are doing is IGNORING what I previously posted here. And what I post is not related to the doctrine of trinity. I only posted this because of YOUR QUESTION to me regarding "universalism". In contrast, I am making no positive judgement on the figurative "beast". And you are now mentioning something that is again unrelated to the original topic that you do not understand. You are even now doing what you are quoting from 2 Peter 2:12, "blaspheme in matters they do not understand". So now you are bringing up the word beast after ignoring something unrelated, the Greek word translated as fire, which is "pur". Below is information on the word "beast". Which you also might want to ignore. Please stop asking questions unless you want to learn new things.
Also the word "pur" that I have quoted from relates to individual people. It does not relate to governments that today have power, which below are figuratively called "beasts".. These governments will not have power and authority in the future. They only get this today from the God of this weird world under Satan. My figurative language "weird world".
BEAST
Literally, an animal; figuratively, a symbol, often prophetic. The word beast is used literally in three ways in the Bible: (1) any animal, both CLEAN and UNCLEAN (Genesis 6:7; 7:2; Leviticus 11:1-8); (2) a wild animal, as distinguished from domesticated animals (Genesis 1:24; 7:21; 37:20; Exodus 23:11); and (3) a domesticated animal (Genesis 1:24; 2:20; Exodus 19:13).
As a prophetic symbol, the word beast is used especially in the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation. The four beasts of Daniel symbolize four cruel, tyrannical governments: (1) a lion (Babylon); (2) a bear (Media); (3) a leopard (Persia); and (4) a dreadful and terrible beast (Greece). See Daniel 7:3-7. In the Book of Revelation, two beasts are described in detail: the beast from the sea, a composite of the four beasts of Daniel (Revelation 13:1-10), and the beast from the land (Revelation 13:11-18). Apparently, these two beasts symbolize political and religious power respectively.
In John's day, at the time when he wrote the Book of Revelation, the two "beasts" which opposed and persecuted the church were the Roman Empire (the political "beast from the sea") and the cult of emperor worship (the religious "beast from the land"). Together with the Dragon (Satan), they formed an unholy trinity that tried to destroy God's people.
The Bible often uses the word beast in other symbolical or figurative ways. For instance, the psalmist wrote, "I was like a beast before You" (Psalms 73:22), referring to his foolish, ignorant, and brutish behavior. The apostle Paul wrote, "I have fought with beasts at Ephesus" (1 Corinthians 15:32) - a metaphor for the enemies who fought ferociously against him and the gospel of Christ which he preached.
(from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Copyright © 1986, Thomas Nelson Publishers)
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Not even close to what I'm doing, Mark. But, given that you fail to recognize (and obviously don't appreciate) my style of inquiry/learning/teaching, and evidently don't have the desire or ability (I'm not sure which at this point) to either see or explain this issue in a way other then the one angle you're already bent on, I suppose you'll probably just resign yourself to grading any of my posts here with an "F."
However, if instead of relegating me to the trash pile so quickly and mistakenly presume that I have no understanding of what's being discussed here, and gave a bit more honest thought as to why I ever questioned you in the first place on this, perhaps you'd realize that it came directly from the following one line of (what I perceive as being) "non-biblical" doctrine in this earlier post of yours... which post I happen to mostly agree with (namely because over the course of 40 years, I've mentally taken this doctrine apart and put in back together after looking at it from different angles more times that you can shake a bloody stick at... and can think of it, talk about it, maybe even makes sense of it with dang near anybody that wants to be honest enough with it. Which is getting to be more of a rare occurrence anymore.)
That's obviously your opinion, Mark. Which stems from your belief in universalism.
Okay, so you don't see or think of it being directly related to the doctrine of the Trinity.
However, years ago (and I do literally mean YEARS ago), I went chasing down some long and winding rabbit holes on a (Yahoo) discussion board (long since deleted, unfortunately) where a rather intricate (and extraordinarily logical and tight) web linked certain beliefs together in such a way that if you believed any one of, the path of logic would axiomatically lead you to believe all the others. And interestingly enough, the Trinity (i.e., Jesus Christ is/was God) and Universalism fit together on the same premise. So, somewhere deep within me, I'm quite sure that universalism doesn't actually fit with the other beliefs that I see you write about. Thus, I wondered just how well you understand the issues, or how much you might have thought that relationship through. Maybe you had some way of looking at it that I hadn't thought about or considered before. Or, so I thought.
But, no. I see that was a waste. Evidently you haven't. Aside from that, though, I agree with most the other stuff in your post.
You'll probably agree that it is his resurrection that marks the point of his actually becoming the only begotten son of God. Or at least, I'd hope so.
Our adoption is, of course, temporary. Until the trump of God.
My apologies for nitpicking, and the intrusion into your space.
P.S. Please be careful quoting word studies or definitions copied out of Nelson's, or Strong's, or any where else. TWI's research is infamous for missing the mark with them, and besides not being much help (we mostly all have those same tools), they can tend to come across as quite condescending.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
TLC, you are showing from your quotes that you don’t want to learn from other people. Here I quote the actual scriptures written by the Apostle Paul and you don’t want to even learn from him. This is shown by you not even quoting from his writings. Do you even believe that Jesus Christ lived and walked on the earth? Do you believe that after he died, that God raised him from the dead to live eternally?
That shows no sense to not learn from other people who have studied certain subjects more than you have. Some things other people know better than us and some things we could know better than other people.
And here you go again, now ignoring the symbolically stated “beast”. You sound like if you actually met someone like Paul from the 1st century or Daniel from the Old Testament period of time you would ignore them also.
Please at least try to show common sense. For example, the German nation under Adolph Hitler does not have to be a mystic nation. It actually did exist and yes could be called a beast that represented a kingdom of the recent century using the same figurative language. So when Nazi Germany lost World War 2. Did everyone in the nation get blamed for being beasts? They used common sense and had a trial and judged people according to what they actually did with a penalty of some kind for the people who did bad things. After this the nation of Germany and the people overall improved.
So with the Judgement by God of people in the future do you think people will be worse than before? If scriptures are too complex for you to read and understand, then please at least try to use common sense. The future trials of mankind should have improved results for man. Otherwise what is the point? Only to torture people? Is this what Jesus Christ said to do right before he got murdered for no crime? Luke 23:34 Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” In contrast, some crazy people think that God's judgement in the future is only to torture.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink 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.