Leaderboard

Our understanding of the doctrine of salvation is always the basis for understanding sin - Christ redeems from the 'curse of the law', the consequences of sin, death. Christianity believes the death of the physical life is not the death of our life, but we are 'new' people, in Christ, through Him. Both the natural state of man and the actions that come from it are 'redeemed'. There should be a fundamental understanding of who we are in that mix - anyone who considers it will realize that 1. they didn't decide to be born and 2. given the decision they might not actually decide to have 'sin', to be sinful or to have an 'enmity' between them and God. One might also say that of course they're not going to always be perfect or do the right thing and that it's unrealistic for anyone, particularly their Creator, to expect that. We find in Jesus Christ however that it is. So, mankind finds themselves in this situation of separation from God. The Christian doctrine is of Jesus Christ, the 'logos of God, a redeemer and perfect expression of God's heart and intent. Love factors into that - in a big way and a new way, that we see in Jesus Christ. Less now the 'letter' of a law but rather the heart of the intent of a person. That then leads to the correct - call them 'behaviors' - not the incorrect ones. The love of God leads us to repentance, the love of God leads us to believe and accept His salvation, the love of God leads and inspires us to live 'godly' in our lives. Not ungodly. We learn, yes. We will do those things that Jesus Christ redeemed us from - before we know and 'believe' - and after. All of it, our whole lives. This assurance of our salvation is basic - grace and mercy, all of that. It is not sound Christian thought - to accept that our sin is of no consequence however - we do have to recognize that our calling is to a 'walk' that represents our faith. We're going to do those things, that's a gimme, we know that. But there has to be - call it a consistent - recognition of the who/what/when of all this. If we don't we risk ending up thinking 'so what?' - all men are sinners, that's no big deal, it doesn't matter what I do. But it does, the N.T. speaks to that extensively - that to survive and thrive in this life we must consistently come back to God for our salvation, our fulfillment. I think it's basic to building a strong Christian community to understand those basic things and then to understand that not all, not everyone, and not everyone all the time anytime, are going to be best suited to taking additional 'responsibility' within that community. All can help, all can give, all will have needs. A community works together around their fellowship in Christ. Not all are going to be 'leaders' or 'teacher's - not all should be. But everyone can serve and be served. I have great respect for the Bible and anyone who wants to study it and teach it. And all the basics of Christian faith apply to all. Paul is the iconic example form the N.T. - we don't know what all he did - he seems to have been a very human character - but we do know from the information in the N.T. that he painted a clear picture of how to behave in the church, that community and what was required of a pastor, a person who served. There's no question about that and no one, including Paul himself, rises above that.

The way international desensitizes their followers to sin. And they especially remove/ignore basic qualifications from the Bible that detail how a man of God is to conduct themselves, unless of course it can be used against someone who has fallen out of favor - but that is another post. There is nothing that would excuse a married man, with several children who was a Reverend, supposed Dr., had spent DECADES in the church, etc. from participating in any way in the "free love of the 70s." Nothing. If anything it goes to show how perverted the Dr. really was and how willing his followers were/are to ignore common decency in following this creep. VPW would have been in his 50s in the 70s. I am pushing 40 and the thought of taking advantage of young ladies in their early twenties is repulsive. I mean there is no attraction there at all. And I am married with a child, I am not a minister or preacher and I do not support or work for any Church. How much more would moral accountability be leveraged against a supposed man of God who behaved this way. It's nothing short of using position to satisfy guttural lusts. And in my opinion, anyone (including John Lynn) who propagates Wierwille in anyway is guilty of covering his true nature for their own gain. There are no redeeming qualities to PFAL that excuse this man. PFAL is riddled with error and is not "truth." It's as if all this truth supposedly taught by Wierwille excuses all the wrongs he committed. So his works excuse his sin. It doesn't work that way.

I've read both of these books and can recommend them! Something else that helps me to practice more self awareness is meditation or mindfulness, slowing down and reflecting more...