Jeaniam

Please do not take anything I am about to say personally - it is not meant to be insulting. It's just that this phrase "Believe Romans 10:9, 10" has always bugged me because I think it implies something that is not meant when we say it.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Rom 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Q: What gives action gives you salvation according to these verses?

A: Confessing Jesus as Lord and believing in your heart that God raised him from the dead.

Q: Do you have to believe this is the way to salvation (which would be believing Romans 10:9, 10) in order to be saved?

A: No. You must DO as the verses say... you must believe and confess. It has nothing to do with belief that Romans 10:9 and 10 are true - it only has to do with the action taken by the individual.

How many people do not believe that this is the way to salvation, and yet are saved because of the actions of believing and confessing? Probably a lot more than believe the actual verses of Romans 10:9, 10 are true.

You do not have to believe in the process, you just have to do the actions.

That's a very good point, JJ, I've never really thought it through like that, but it seems to me to be true, and it allows for the possibility of many people in other Christian groups getting born-again which was something it always seemed TWI went out of their way to deny.

BTW what happened to the baby with the big cup of coffee. I liked it better than what you have now.

It's about the same as pointing out that half the human race doesn't have the ability to menstuate because they don't have ovaries Are men lesser people because they can't menstruate or women special or better because they can. No, it's just a fact of heredity. So the ability to love with agape is just a matter of spiritual heredity and doesn't necessarily make one group of people special or better than another. And it is certainly of grace because nowhere in the Bible does it say that born-again believers did anything to earn this; it was all part of the gift of God.

VPW taught that when the angel said to Joseph 'Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife', Matthew 1:20 KJV, it was in sexual sense. That when JC was conceived it was a virgin conception, but by the time JC was born Mary was no longer a virgin, but Joseph had been given permission by God to have sexual relations with her.

VPW also taught that in Matthew 1:16 when it says 'And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ', that the word 'husband' should have been translated 'father' of Mary and added that otherwise the generations don't add up to fourteen.

I want to go on record that I also am not by any means a Greek scholar.

That nicely sidesteps your original contention that only those "born again" are God's children. It also completely ignores my contention that not being "born again" does not mean that you can't exhibit agape love.

Bottom line

all people are children of Heavenly Father

some people are followers of Jesus Christ -Christians"

Agape love can be practiced by any person regardless of religious affliation

1) By creation, but in this day and time God says He requires the new birth.

2) True.

3) Not according to the Bible.

May the intestines of the TC and BC be filled with worms.

Thanks, Bolshevik & Mr. Hamm.

I don't know about worms and fleas, but I heard that the TC had been sent to prison (insider trading and embezzlement). I'm sorry about the mammoth illogic with you and your wife. It's just amazing what some people began to do.

The tire issue was one point of contention, but the real dividing line was our son. He has a learning disorder (autism) and shortly before the relationship was severed, our TC and BC called a meeting at the BC's house and grilled us about his behavior (he was three at the time). They questioned whether he helped around the house, picked up his room, took care of his clean clothes, etc., etc.. When I said he was very good at those kind of tasks (which he is, better than his sister, who usually has to be reminded), the TC smiled indulgently and said that it was only natural for a mother to lie in those circumstances. Soon afterward we received a letter saying that since our son had a behavior problem that was not being corrected (probably due to a devil spirit) and had no physical condition that accounted for his behavior he (and I) were no longer welcome at fellowship, but John and our daughter were. Shortly after that I gave birth to our third child who was diagnosed with several rare physical (genetic) disorders. It seemed probable to the doctors that these genetic disorders also affected our other children. I sent a copy of the diagnosis to the TC and BC. They didn't care. After that we began to fellowship elsewhere, instead of pursuing a divorce, which is probably what the TC and BC really wanted. That was the culmination of a period of years during which the TC complained to John about what a terrible wife and mother I was behind my back, and exhorted him to be more of a 'REAL MAN' and stand up to me. Anyone who knows John at all should know what BS that is. Some people here on greasespot seem to think that we have the opposite problem and I don't stand up to John enough. Neither position is correct; we have a very good relationship which both of us are satisfied with.

Is it significant that Genesis 3:15 refers only to the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman (Eve)? It doesn't refer to the seed of Adam or the joint seed of Adam and Eve, but only the seed of Eve.

I recently saw a TV show supporting gay and lesbian rights and the subect under consideration was whether it would be legal to put two women's names on a birth certificate as two mothers. one woman had donated an egg to be fertilized by an anonymous sperm donor and then implanted in the other woman's uterus and carried to term. The lawyer for the two women argued (successfully) that since both women were linked to the child by biology it was appropriate to issue a birth certificate with two mother sections. It doesn't seem to me that the woman who carried the child to term and then gave birth to it was any more genetically linked to the child than a test tube would be. She contributed none of the child's genetic makeup (no DNA, etc.). The reason I bring this up is in the light of did Mary actually contribute to Jesus Christ's genetic makeup and if so, what?

In Hebrews 2:14 it says the children are parakers of flesh and blood but Jesus Christ only took part of the same. Of course this is only in the KJV and I haven't begun to research the Greek.

I still think mini-moghood is way to much power for an individual. I have only seen destruction result when it is invoked.

I think that it asks the other party to abandon if not their intellect, their individuality and self respect.

I wasn't implying that I don't tell John when I think he's wrong. I do (sometimes at great length). Sometimes he changes his mind and comes to agree with me; sometimes I change my mind and come to agree with him, and sometimes one or the other throws up our hands in disgust and says 'Okay, learn from your mistakes then". It very rarely comes down to John saying 'I'm the head of this family and we're going to do it my way'. I think John (or any other husband) is obligated to LISTEN to his wife's point of view. I don't think he's obligated to agree with her every time, and on those occasions there needs to be a person to act as tie-breaker.

And another one. Enjoy youselves. Thanks very much, Bramble.

From a strictly mathematical viewpoint:

What Equals 100%? What does it mean to give MORE than 100%? Ever wonder about those people who say they are giving more than 100%? We have all been in situations where someone wants you to give over 100%. How about achieving 101%? What equals 100% in life?

Here's a little mathematical formula that might help you answer these Questions:

If:

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Is represented as:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26.

Then:

H-A-R-D-W-O-R- K

8+1+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98%

and

K-N-O-W-L-E-D-G-E

11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+5 = 96%

But,

A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E

1+20+20+9+20+21+4+5 = 100%

AND, look how far the love of God will take you

L- O- V- E-O-F-G-O-D

12+15+22+5+15+6+7+15+4 = 101%

Therefore, one can conclude with mathematical certainty that:

While Hard work and Knowledge will get you close, and Attitude will get you there, it's the Love of God that will put you over the top!

On the lighter side I thought you might enjoy this. It's an e-mail a friend of mine sent to me, and it seemed to fit with the subject.

Installing Love

Tech Support: Yes, ... how can I help you?

Customer: Well, after much consideration, I've decided to install Love. Can you guide me though the process?

Tech Support: Yes. I can help you. Are you ready to proceed?

Customer: Well, I'm not very technical, but I think I'm ready. What do I do first?

Tech Support: The first step is to open your Heart. Have you located your Heart?

Customer: Yes, but there are several other programs running now. Is it okay to install Love while they are running?

Tech Support: What programs are running ?

Customer: Let's see, I have Past Hurt, Low Self-Esteem, Grudge and Resentment running right now.

Tech Support: No problem, Love will gradually erase Past Hurt from your current operating system. It may remain in your permanent memory but it will no longer disrupt other programs. Love will eventually override Low Self-Esteem with a module of its own called High Self-Esteem. However, you have to completely turn off Grudge and Resentment. Those programs prevent Love from being properly installed. Can you turn those off ?

Customer: I don't know how to turn them off. Can you tell me how?

Tech Support: With pleasure. Go to your start menu and invoke Forgiveness. Do this as many times as necessary until Grudge and Resentment have been completely erased.

Customer: Okay, done! Love has started installing itself. Is that normal?

Tech Support: Yes, but remember that you have only the base program. You need to begin connecting to other Hearts in order to get the upgrades.

Customer: Oops! I have an error message already. It says, "Error - Program not run on external components ." What should I do?

Tech Support: Don't worry. It means that the Love program is set up to run on Internal Hearts, but has not yet been run on your Heart. In non-technical terms, it simply means you have to Love yourself before you can Love others.

Customer: So, what should I do?

Tech Support: Pull down Self-Acceptance; then click on the following files: Forgive-Self; Realize Your Worth; and Acknowledge your Limitations.

Customer: Okay, done.

Tech Support: Now, copy them to the "My Heart" directory. The system will overwrite any conflicting files and begin patching faulty programming. Also, you need to delete Verbose Self-Criticism from all directories and empty your Recycle Bin to make sure it is completely gone and never comes back.

Customer: Got it. Hey! My heart is filling up with new files. Smile is playing on my monitor and Peace and Contentment are copying themselves all over My Heart. Is this normal?

Tech Support: Sometimes. For others it takes awhile, but eventually everything gets it at the proper time. So Love is installed and running. One more thing before we hang up. Love is Freeware. Be sure to give it and its various modules to everyone you meet. They will in turn share it with others and return some cool modules back to you.

Customer: Thank you, God.

After we were kicked out of FWC 20 we went to WA state and we were told I was not completely submissive enough and was not always without exception totally, absolutely, completely, completely absolutely totally COMPLETELY completely likeminded with my husband. Both of us had the same reaction: HUH? We always talked things over and made a mutual decision.

However, I am now scared to death to make a decision. My husband makes suggestions and I take them as God's Law, then he is shocked and somewhat defensive when I'm unhappy with the results. I honestly feel I place an undue and inappropriate burden on him. But I'm trying to do better. The reason for the minivacation thread on the open forum was to get ideas - he asked me to plan a minivacation and I just can't do it. What if I mess something up? It's something I deal with every day, like an addiction or something.

WG

Someone who was pretty wise once told me that there was a lot of freedom in the Bible, which I guess I used for an excuse whenever I thought I saw something in my marriage that didn't quite agree with TWI's version of what they thought my marriage shoud be. So what if I'm better at car mechanics than John is. It doesn't make me unfeminine in his book or him less masculine in mine. I wouldn't worry if you mess something up or not. Almost none of our family vacations turn out according to plan, and it's an open question who does more to mess them up; him or me. We've learned to stay flexible and change plans as need be. Last year I reserved a motel room that sounded really good on paper and when we got there it was grossly inadequate for our family. We found an ad in the newspaper for a one bedroom condo on the beach that only cost $10 more a night than the motel room. We ended up having a great time and are still laughing about it. The moral is: Don't worry about messing up so much, stay spontaneous and flexible, and have a good time.

I think some of the "biblical" expectations in marriage set people up for failure.

There is a small problem giving the power of mog to one of the parties..

what if the guy isn't QUALIFIED to make the decision in question? Ah, but he's sure he's right..

from what I've seen in practice, God doesn't just "bless" somebody for going along with it..

I don't know whether or not God blesses somebody for just going along with something they think is wrong, but sometimes you have to allow your husband (or wife) to learn from their mistakes if you can't talk him out of it.

Ephesians 5:33 Nevertheless each of you must also love his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

This speaks to the individual. Each individual does their part. It's not my job to stand over my wife and decide whether or not she's carrying this out. And vica versa.

?

That's the exact point I was trying to get at. Thanks, Bolshevik.

BTW, how old is your son, and do you have other children?

I received a couple of cool e-mails on this subject that I could post if I could figure out how to transfer them from my inbox to this thread. Does anyone out there have any suggestions? I'm pretty computer illiterate. Thanks.

well, not like the wife usually wants it done. I usually end up grappling with my son on the floor. Sometimes I do it right. Sometimes my wife just says "Oh, let me do it." :biglaugh:

John and I have three children and for a while worked opposite shifts, so he has had lots of practice. Even learned how to change the cloth diapers. Well back to business.

In our marriage, John's position as head of the household usually meant that he acted as tie-breaker when there was a tie (he has one vote and I have one vote, and what do you do when there's a tie and both people are adamant about their position?). Sometimes he considers the logic of what I said and ultimately decides my way, sometimes he doesn't. I don't believe that when the Bible talks about a woman as a weaker vessel it means that she's a second class citizen. It seems to me that the only way a woman is 'weaker' than a man is in the physical category (and not always then). The other part of that section (which usually gets overlooked) calls for men to love their wives as their own bodies. I agree that the older TWI got, the more messed up it got in this category.

We were always in trouble because I knew what size tires went on the car, and John could change a mean diaper if the need arose. The last ROA we went to, some of the Corps wives were coordinating their work schedules in order to leave their children with each other instead of their husbands; I guess because REAL MEN don't change diapers.

The whole born again super special love doctrine--even though it can't be identified or defined or actually seen as so different from those unbelievers-- but they are just showing human love not super special love that we show. We just know it is true and therefore know it makes us better than other humans who aren't like us...

Why would people think that's arrogant? It is just the obvious truth.

Hmmm.

No, it doesn't make one person better than another, and I'm not sure that I know how to put the difference into words. I saw a TV show last night about a man who jumped onto subway tracks to save a complete stranger's life at the risk of his own. Does that fall into the catagory of unselfish love? Certainly. Is that man a born-again Christian? Only God knows the answer to that question. So at what point does phileo rise to agape? In Hebrews 4:12- it says 'For the Word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.' So it may be that agape is a kind of love that allows us to keep loving when even the best of phileo gives up and can't go any farther. It seems reasonable to assume that to tap into that kind of love, a human being would need God's help. I don't think it's arrogant to believe that we are capable of doing what God says plainly that we can do. It is arrogant to think we do it perfectly without falling short, or think we can do it without God's help, or think that somehow it makes us better than anyone else. It seems to me that what is arrogant is to contradict God.

Thanks for your post (at 3:16) another spot, very clarifying. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the "holy thing" post in the light of Hebrews 2:14-' he also himself likewise took part of the same', which we were taught meant that Jesus took the flesh but not the blood. Hard to grasp.

Both TWI and the "born Again" faction have thus successfully taken the discussion away from how we can recognize agape love in action and thus encourage it to flourish and centered the discussion instead on who is "permitted" to practice same.

It is not a question of who is 'permitted' to practice agape but rather a recognition of the fact that according to the Bible, anyone who is not born again and therefore does not have the gift of holy spirit doesn't have the ability to practice agape. It may be distasteful to me (as caribousam said) but it does seem to be clear in the Bible.

I also don't believe in the trinity but I am not sure I would describe Jesus as 'just' a man. He was the only begotten Son of God. I heard someone teach that fact conferred on him divinity but not deity. I am not sure we have the ability to live a perfect life just because Jesus was a man and did it nor do I think we have the need to do so because Jesus did it in our place and his perfection covers for our imperfections and he also paid for our healings. I have seen miracles and healings happen in my life; I have had the privilege of being on the giving and the receiving end of miracles and healings; not as often as I would like but enough that I believe they are still available. I don't really know why they are as rare as they seem to be.

I like that phrase too, 'the Love of God has been poured out in our hearts'. I recently heard a teaching wherein the teacher compared the abundance we receive from God to a flowing stream. Could it be that the Love of God also bears some resemblance to a stream flowing that we can dip into as the needs arise? Many very interesting posts recently; thanks very much for food for thought, W.G., and another spot.

And, Sunesis, apparently once again I underestimated you. Any chance we could start over. Hi, I'm jeaniam; very pleased to make your acquaintance.

(not eager to reread entire thread)

Was destiny discussed in this thread? A Wayfer believes we determine our outcome by our believing (free will). Other churches teach that God is in control. God has a purpose for people. (i.e. the jews being God's chosen people, JC, Paul being a chosen vessel).

Any thoughts on that?

It could be another instance where something is predestination from God's perspective and free will from man's perspective. I am thinking of Joseph rising to be second in command of Egypt just in time to save the nation of Israel from starvation in a famine, and also of Esther, who rose to a position of power just in time to preserve the Christ line. Did God have something to do with the cicumstances that allowed both of them to be in those positions at a strategic time? Yes, definitely, but each of them had to be willing to do God's will by the freedom of their own will (and for both of them it involved risking their lives to do so).

I heard Mr. Wineg@rn3r, Sr. teach on this a couple of times.

Mind you, I'm not denouncing nor advocating this as true. I'm simply stating what he taught.

He gave no scriptural validation that I recall of.

-------------------------------------------------------

Imagine ,if you will, in "3-D", an ice cream cone turned upside down.

The cone represents eternity.

God sits on top of the cone (which is actually what we think of as the bottom or pointed end.)

A line starts at the top and spirals down the side until it reaches the bottom.

This line represents what we call time. Man can not comprehend the scope of eternity so he has invented a way to measure out portions of it and he calls those portions "time"

Because God is at the apex of the cone, he can see any given point on the spiraling line which represents time.

Man, being a traveler on the spiraling line, is responsible for his actions and behaviour as he moves along the line.

Not only does God observe, but he can see any point on the line thus he can see the future before it arrives though he allows man to travel freely along his way.

-------------------------------------------------------------

This is a fascinating way to view eternity. The problem I always had with it, though, is it makes it difficult to reconcile the value of prayer. Why pray if God can already see the outcome? Is He merely an observer or does He have the ability to alter what happens on that line?

Anybody else remember hearing F. & G. Wineg@rn3r teach these things as they moved about as "Roving Ambassadors"?

This would have to have been many years ago as I believe both of them have been gone for 20 years or so.

He altered what happened in Ninevah.

If Agape means that I have to love the way Jesus did, then count me out. It's those nails being pounded into my hands ... too extreme for this girl.

I think the point is that Jesus Christ went through that so you don't have to. But I know what you mean; I couldn't even stand to watch that part in "The Passion of the Christ".

This is the one and ONLY thing I disagree with!!!

Who-in-the-heck-from-Grand-Rapids-Michigan-has-a-twangy-voice?????

:biglaugh:

No one that I know of, and I'm from Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Hi everyone...I'm coming into this discussion a bit late and am finding it quite interesting.

Shifra welcome back to the Spot! This is quite the thread to open with.

My thoughts on this particular section of post is this...agape as you described it (quite aptly I might add) probably does not have boundries simply because it is of God. But as you also say people do need boundries. I think that Jesus gave those boundries to man when he said:

John 13:34, 35 NIV

34 A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.

Johniam- thanks for reminding me of that verse. Way to bring me back around. But here is a "amok" type of question, Is this a revision of the "Love your neighbor as yourself" or is it a different commandment? It does seem to be isolating "disciples" from the rest of humanity. Any thoughts? Anyone?

I'm not sure about the revision or different question. John may have some definitive thoughts on that. It seems to me that he taught his disciples how to love both by instruction and example, and then appointed them to be his 'deputies' so to speak and teach the rest of humanity how to love by instruction and example. It wasn't available for even Jesus Christ to be in more than one place at one time, but if he taught twelve men and then those twelve men taught twelve more etc. etc., then you have what we see in the book of Acts. Sorry about the triple post, I'm still learning how to do some things.

I guess twelve is a bite-size group of people to teach and impart one's heart to. I once heard someone say that VPW regretted the days of small Way Corps because as he put it 'in the smaller Way Corps, he (VPW) knew when everybody went to the bathroom, but as the size increased it was impossible for him to be as personally involved as he wanted to be'. This is not necessarily meant to be an endorsement of VPW, but in this instance what he said makes good sense.

Sorry, but being "born again" and brothers joint heirs with Jesus Christ requires belief in Roman 10:9-10. We are all God's children created by Him in His image. THose that would deny this do so, IMO, to justify their behavior toward those they deem as inferior or other wise unfit.

I don't think I meant to imply that is up to me to decide that anyone is inferior or otherwise unfit. I think it is impossible to tell from the outside of a person whether they are born-again or not. It is possible for God to tell me and also it's possible for God to tell me if a person will or won't become born again at some point in the future, but I think there would have to be a good reason for Him to tell me that and a good reason that I would need to know that; otherwise it seems to me that that information is really none of my business.

okay, I just thought he knew what he did, he had compassion, his suffering was a decision of his own.

(maybe I misunderstand, my apologies)

Interesting point, Bolshevik. Certainly, he knew what he did, he had compassion. It seems to me that accepting his suffering was a decision of his own in that he himself said that he laid down his life and no man took it from him, and also that he had at his call legions of angels that he chose not to call on. I'm not sure that relieves the people who inflicted the wounds on him of their responsibility.