TrustAndObey

10 hours ago, waysider said:

I think the point being made here is that Jefferson did not believe in the supernatural.

But even more so to that same point, does anyone really think as chockfull said, is God going to sit up there and say "whoops - you got the password phrase wrong, try again"?  Or your "beliefs" didn't quite line up with the answer, might need a capital "B" and a capital "S". Or, "sorry, you got the wrong Jesus in your answer, it was really the Jefferson one"..

How far does that fundamentalist thinking go?  Because the Pharisees took it pretty far in their day also..

On 6/25/2018 at 7:03 PM, TLC said:

Are you a fatalist?

A fatalist.. No, and I would hope my post didn't seem to imply such. Free will, while I believe was as much of God's plan as anything else, I don't believe it is without limits.

On 6/25/2018 at 7:02 PM, TLC said:

Well, evidently I think it's possible to know (from what's written) a lot more of what they knew than you seem to think possible.  (And, I also think it's just as important to consider what they probably didn't know.)

Please don't let my "doubt" stop you from sharing your theory on the matter.

Quote

Cursed is the ground itself.  Think it's still cursed?

No, it's not still cursed.  The earth is a wonderful regular garden of eden where peace reigns over all.  I have no enemies, do you?!

Quote

Saved by what?  Exactly.  That's the question that needs a better answer.  If we can't work forward, then how about working backwards.  Let's start with how anyone can be (or is) saved today, and never mind whether it applies anywhere else.

A better answer?!  Is there a better answer?!  Did we finish defining what being saved means then?  And so do you consider all these three one in the same thing?  Eph 2:8 says you have been saved by God's gift of grace - past tense; 1 Cor 1:18 says they are being saved by God's power - present; and Rom 13:11 says our salvation is nearer than when we first believed - future..  If not then to what do they speak of?  If they do, then are you saying the earth isn't still cursed?

On 6/25/2018 at 11:46 AM, Taxidev said:

My understanding of this word has always been, "A complete confidence in or of", which ran across what was propounded by TWI.  But every research tool I used that didn't come out of TWI NEVER defined it the way they did.  I think one of them came a little close, but that was it.

Sounds like a decent definition to me. But as Kittel points out, there are a couple different meanings depending on their usage. Mostly in the vein of "pistis eis" + thing versus "pistis eis" + person. The prior being more along the lines of a mental acceptance vs the later being trust (or confidence) placed in someone which (at least to the author) included some form of obedience.

On 6/23/2018 at 12:26 PM, chockfull said:

Lately my view on this has been "anything except the polar opposite which we see as common occurrences in the Way and splinter groups". 

The polar opposite? Personally, I've yet to see any benefit to trying to compare beliefs with what TWI or a splinter puts forth, as if their belief is some sort of non-standard that one should stray far from or a standard to keep close to. Sure there are lots of "Christian" beliefs from many polar perspectives, but then who defines how polar a belief is? Is there a true standard somewhere? Since everyone claims theirs is scriptural. Maybe we can stick to what Paul said and our foundation be Christ. Only, even that seems to have many polar forms!

Quote

Christians acknowledge and appreciate and collaborate with other Christians, not isolating themselves off into a little small group ....

Amen to that.

On 6/22/2018 at 2:52 PM, chockfull said:

What I'm trying to get at is people talk about whether or not God will bring judgment in the present like He rolls dice and decides or something.   Usually what I see is this line of reasoning is trying to induce or inspire someone with fear motivation towards a certain behavior.  What would you see as determining God carrying out or postponing judgment in the present?  I mean the general mainstream Christian view is God holds off from judgment for the future like the parable of the wheat and the tares.  The question this line of reasoning brings up is "How much does God intervene in human affairs?"

Is there comfort in thinking that God is aware of everything and capable of doing something about it if He chooses, He just doesn't choose because that would make it unjust? 

"Like He rolls dice and decides something"?  I don't believe I have heard any Christian speak of it as such. Not to say the communication of such could be construed to mean that. And maybe some have.  But most that I know of, believe God has a plan. We may not know it, or see the fullness of it, or even have the capacity to understand it. There is no "game of dice". But there are decisions that He has and does make. They are found throughtout the scripture. Why God's judgement was only partial for Cain after he murdered his brother, and instead chose to spare his life, yet chose to take (or allow the death, depending on one's view) the life of the man who chose to keep the ark of the covenant from falling. Or how he saved Aaron the judgement given to his sister Mariam when they BOTH spoke against Moses.  He withholds from one, and allows the other. Typically only unbeliever's have described this as a "dice throw".  I don't believe it is. God has a reason for everfything he does. Whether he allows evil to continue or chooses to take action. How much God intervenes would require one to know His thoughts. Yet His ways are greater than ours. That is, unless of course again, one believes not in God.

Course, there are Deists, that believe God has set all in motion, and relegated the events to take place according to only our choosing. But I don't see the scriptures agreeing with that view.  And open theists take to the view that God just isn't capable of knowing what's going to happen, and so bad things take place because God didn't forsee a particular action and played the wrong die. I think that view leads to the opposite of the trust God desires us to have. No doubt at least they have a few scriptures that play into that thought, much as verses on the trinity or the dead being alive.

Can one find comfort in a God who is "not" aware and incapable of doing something? Can such a "God" be depended upon actually bringing about His plan when one has opined that He is incapable of simpler matters?  Would you find "comfort" in someone who just "says" they will bring something about, yet there's no proof in the present, not just past writings of others? Personally, I'm not looking for comfort. If others find it in a particular view, then all the better for them. I don't put my trust in God because I'm looking for "comfort", but I uunderstand each has their own motivation.  But to me it makes little sense to think a God who didn't forsee and/or was incapable enough in "round 1" when Satan was let loose, to stop him, and then think somehow round 2 will be any different (Or maybe round 9 billion, seeing that it's possible all the times He didn't stop evil was because he didn't know or was incapable, maybe some day He will get it right).

Quote

I'm not condoning promoting sin in grace.   But it is a dangerous slope when man starts playing God.

Agreed.

On 6/22/2018 at 12:22 PM, TLC said:

Giving some consideration to the manifold wisdom of God, I don't know why you would insist on saying that God always had it planned by one way (unless you start with Genesis 1:2 and jump straight to Rev. 21.)  Sure, I wouldn't have questioned it had you said that He knew which way it would play out. (Maybe He did, maybe He didn't.  Frankly, I'm not sure. Either way, I believe He has the means to, and knows exactly how to keep it on track.)  I'm just not so quick to think or say it was only planned by "one way."  Perhaps you need to fill in a lot more details of what you see in "by way of His son." 

I don't believe I would "insist" on anything.  But I do believe and see in the writings that God has planned it that way from the very onset of creation, not that I couldn't be mistaken. But from Genesis 1:1 through to the end. Not sure why the first verse was omitted, as I wouldn't think God's division of earth and heaven(s) should be absent from that plan. As for detailing his plan "by way of His son", would take a good amount of time, which might become necessary, but at this very moment I don't have the time. But maybe you see a time or place that you don't see it through His son, in which case, what would that be?

On 6/22/2018 at 12:00 PM, TLC said:

My view of it sees these as two very different events.  The wrath to come points to the tribulations written in Revelations (and referred to in Jeremiah as the time of Jacob's trouble.) The final judgement sounds like something after death, such as the great white throne.  Of course, the question arises as to when anyone might have first known of either of these events, and why anyone that didn't know about them would need (or would think they needed) salvation from them.

That's fine.. Eschatology is not really much of a topic that interests me. It's future and a bunch of speculation. Whatever it may end up being, will be beyond my thoughts. And while I tend to agree with you that the wrath to come is "probably" the pre-millenial tribulation. I can't say I am 100% certain of it.

As with who knew what, and when, is not something I believe we can arrive at. It's almost as speculative as knowing the future, with not much more written concerning the time. If the Tanakh's account of the first man Adam is believed in any literal sense, humans since the beginning has known that we have been burdened with the result of man's departure from trusting the creator. Cursed is the ground itself, and death has arrived whether in whole or in part.  Now, while some of the events I would put as being more allegorical, I wasn't there, and it's just speculation.  But even if the future events were not clear, the salvation from the present condition of creation and mankind could very well possibly be a source of thought. Since Hebraic thought was usually concrete and anchored around what one could see in front of them, such as the past (which they considered in front), and what was behind them, the future, was part of the unknown.

Quote

Really? And exactly what sort of evidence or scriptures might you be basing that statement on? Who or where do you see that anyone is saved by that?

Saved by what? Trust? I would find it hard pressed to find a place where one is not saved through "that". (Salvation is "by/through God's" grace "through/by way of" pistis).

Quote

Would you define "pistis" as a condition?  Yes, but it merely shifts the issue to knowing what it is to believe, or what is to be believed.  Okay, "Believe God."  Are you going to leave it at that with no other parameters? Then how does that fit with and what do you make of James 2:19?

It would be rare for me to define "pistis" with the English word "believe".  It's true that at times "pistis eis" + a thing is used of belief in something. Or even "pistis" by itself at times. Which for me emphasizes the acknowledgment and/or acceptance and/or persuaded agreement with said doctrine.  Much like saying I believe that chair can hold me up. Yet, I haven't placed my body's weight on that chair. And for James 2:19, I would say that is a good example of defining "pistis" as such. They take part in the mental exercise even to the point of "trembling", but that's the extent of the matter.

But when we are speaking of "pistis" in God, there is quite a bit of historical evidence for an expanded understanding. In Kittel's Theological Dictionary entry under pistis there's a fairly good amount of tracing it's meaning throughout history and written occurrences, and trust seems to be a much better English word to define "pistis".  And that portion of James is a good place where the writer uses the word to separate 2 different ways "pistis" can be used. Especially since "pistis" in Greek literature denoted the faithfulness/trustworthiness of someone, and placing ones "pistis" in another goes far beyond just a mere agreement in belief, but a placing of one's life in their hands, or using my previous example - their weight on that chair. Kittel actually takes it further and notes that even in Hebraic writings, that the Hebrew words (translated as "pistis in the LXX) also add the meaning of obedience, and then notes how that same understanding was brought over to the Greek word "pistis" to early and late Greek writings including the christian writings.

1 hour ago, TLC said:

Why suppose that everyone seeks rescue or deliverance from the same things?

I don't believe I've insinuated that everyone seeks rescue or deliverance from the same things, have I?  If so, I apologize for misleading.  Rather, I thought I was attempting to help define "salvation" as used in the scriptures. Which is found in a wide variety of contexts and situations, all different things that one was, is, and would seek deliverance from. But of course, I think ultimately, at least in regards to the topic of this thread, I believe we are all talking about salvation from the one and same thing. That is, saved from the wrath to come. The final judgement. Or am I mistaken on that also?

Quote

Furthermore, are you supposing that the conditions for salvation are the same for all?
So, you think what saves one person is no different that what saves anybody else?

I don't believe "conditions" is a word I would use in regards to "salvation".. God judges based on the heart and has only asked that anyone trust Him. For we are saved by grace through "pistis(trust/faith/etc.)", not out of works, lest any man should boast.  Would you define "pistis" as a condition?  Is it a work?  Is it something you do?  I know TWI used to always like to say "pistis(believing)" is a verb and therefore connotes action. And action is usually a good basis for work, but is it work?

If we are talking about the ultimate deliverance from the final death, from the final judgement, then yes, I would most definitely say God has always had it planned by one way, Christ. Whether it be the first Adam, or his final descendant, it has, is, and will always be by way of His son.

20 hours ago, chockfull said:

I don't agree with your assessment of Romans 13 at all.  The cop in the small town deriving revenue from setting speed limits lower than what is reasonable did not have God order them to do that.  He allows them just like He allows other criminal activity without immediate judgment.

You are correct.. And I should have placed an "and/or" between "he orders and allows them".. As I agree with yuur point fully on Rom 13, and I just communicated it badly. Thanks.  And that was what I was trying to communicate with His judgment. Sometimes they are now in the present, and sometimes he postpones this judgement. But there are no powers that exist, without Him being aware and capable of doing something about it, if He chooses. Would you agree with that?

Quote

"Death is a requirement or else evil will be allowed to continue eternally"  Is this a scripture somewhere, or a construct of the human mind?  I mean what a horrible picture to paint of God - "powerless human, you need to die so your evil can't continue.  But I'll resurrect you later".   Sounds like a God of waterboarding to me.

The entire sentence can be described as a "construct of the human mind", sure, since i know of no single verse. And I'm not trying to paint any rosy picture here.  There is a final judgement day coming, just as much as there have been "smaller" days of judgement in the past. Should I instead couch it in, "Oh don't worry, God loves you, you just continue doing whatever your heart desires. Bless your little precious heart. God will forgive you, it'll all be ok!". Or what in your mind "should" God do with those who just desire to kill, rape, and pillage others.

Quote

I wasn't criticizing you - your post was just a springboard into a more detailed discussion.   I'm not sure what you are going to take as critical or not - I am posting different opinions than you have and questions about logical points - my aim is not chopping you down or anything just to further discussion and develop this topic of salvation we are discussing in detail.  Thanks for all your posting and contributions I enjoy reading the detail whether I stand on the same side of a particular discussion as you do or not.

Don't worry about me.. I'm fine with any feadback of any kind. I enjoy critiques.. I enjoy having a discussion, mostly though.  That's why I come here. If I wanted to just write platitudes, I guess I would become a book writer.. But rather I'm interesting in conversing and learning from other's takes. Especialling on toppics I think are important. They help me formulate and perfect my own thoughts. So don't worry if I take it as criticism or not, I wasn't trying to keep you from your expressing yourself.

20 hours ago, chockfull said:

Where I diverge from you is in your conclusion of the Bible as one organic whole, revealing a marvelous and profound unity.  Paul's life and Moses life looked not a whole lot at all like one another.  And neither do their writings.  And you get into CGT - Critical Greek Textualism, and who decides the Canon of scripture?  You?  Me?  Joe in plumbing?  Next, what about all of the apocrypha in the Catholic Bible?  What council decided their veracity or lack thereof?  More recently, what about other scroll writings being discovered, older than the ones our modern Bible is cobbled together from?

Don't forget, I prefaced the "Bible as one organic whole", with "the plan of salvation as set forth in the...."... This is the unity I am speaking of.. The plan of salvation, not the "Bible" as some conglomoration of writings someone holds in their hands. The Bible as a whole covers so many topics and thoughts and lives, yes, no doubt, it's going to have quite a myriad of things. But as a whole, salvation is rather a very united thought throughout it. Sometimes, through those different lives and contexts it can be a bit more "cloudy" to see, but it's there. And it doesn't diverge much from the thought I put forth of dispensation being "the handling the affairs of another". That is a delivering of those that desire to "handle the affairs" of the one who placed us on this earth.

I've gone a long way since my TWI days of fundamental worship of the bible itself (and it's handlers) in place of God. Maybe I never went that far, but hey, I was young, still am, and am gullable at times! What else can I say. I'm human! lol..
 

Quote

 

Handling the affairs of God on earth.  That simplifies it.  What do we do In our day?  Accept Christ and  find a place in the body of Christ.  

For cult people, don't be an antichrist.

 

Since we are discussing this, I'm just curious, and you don't have to answer, but what does it mean to you, to "Accept Christ and find a place in the His body"?

On 6/18/2018 at 1:19 PM, chockfull said:

Wierwille as the common denominator was the walking contradiction IMO.

With this word and idea, "dispensational" I think it also merits a close definition.  I don't think it is an "all or nothing" concept, like Wierwille tried to dramatize many aspects of doctrinal Christianity to create a mental separation in the minds of his little cult followers.

Unfortuntaely, I barely recall how "Wierwille" and co. defined dispensations. But dispensational theology has been around for quite some time and long before Wierwille and his gang latched onto it. It has also evolved and divided into so many extra camps, it's hard to keep track of which dispensational view holds to what. But I think it's safe to say that TWI doesn't hold to the traditional "revised" dispensational view, as TWI tended to emphasize an "age of grace" vs an "age of works".

From a purely Greek point of view for the word "oikonomia (house/law)" from whence the English word "dispensation" or "administration" is translated from a few times, it has very little to nothing to do directly with a time or age and mostly to do with the "handling of the affairs" of another (thus the administeration and stewardship were better English words). Which by nature, if that person handling the affairs is human, has a lifetime or a time they are appointed this service/ministry then therefore you have the time element.

I don't think from a purely semantic point, anyone would have an issue with there being dispensations (ministries) spoken of in the scriptures. Or even time frames/ages.. Paul had a specific ministry bringing the good news of grace to the nations, whereby Peter had a different ministry sharing the good news among the Judeans. And Moses was a steward of different things than Aaron his brother.  And in the same vain we can break down biblical history into as many time frames and ages as one cares to..

But some do not define dispensations in "just" this way.

It's when dispensations are regarded not as just time frames of simple organic development that progresses from one event to the next, but rather as distinct and mutually exclusive, or even as opposed to each other, that problems arise. The practice of dividing the Bible into parts, and setting one part against the others, means for instance, that in the Dispensation of the Law there was no grace, and during the Dispensation of Grace there is no law. But not all dispensationalist do this, but TWI did.

And it had become popular to regard this different view when Darby and especially Scofield taught it in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Especially in Scofield's reference Bible at the time when he had under John 1:16, "As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ... The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ...".  And while the notes were revised in the 60s by the publisher, this view has gained quite a following. And it was Scofield's bible (KJV with his notes) that I had when I first took a TWO class. Everything seemed groovy to me!

But the plan of salvation as set forth in the Bible is one organic whole, revealing a marvellous and profound unity. It cannot be split up into contradictory parts, much less into seven mutually exclusive dispensations.

On 6/19/2018 at 12:51 PM, TLC said:

Well, what explanation might you have for "thy lot" in Dan. 12:13. 

Would you be referencing "rewards" here then when defining salvation that is different or not equaling that of others?  Because that seems to be what you are talking about, but again, I may not be understanding you again... We are defining "salvation", yes?  And while salvation usually implies both a past of what one is being delivered from, as well as a future of what one is brought to, at this point, I mostly was emphasizing the deliverance from something, as usually this is what salvation implies. A rescuing. Meaning ones situation is in need of a change. And while that change unto something different can be in the form of many of things (maybe "rewards"), I really have attempted to not emphasize this, as it doesn't seem as relevant at this time. But maybe it should be, is that what you are saying?? For myself, I see no reason to add those into the equation of defining "salvation" itself. Which as mentioned, usually is along the lines of a delivering from something. A delivering of something physical, mental, and/or spiritual, earthly,cosmos, and/or unseen that has or will happen in the past, present, and/or future from something else. And yes, would usually then infer that what they are saved unto is different than what was before.

Quote

... Seems I don't know (and can't guess) how you might address these things.  (So, it'd probably only add a bit more confusion to the issue if I speculated that from a certain perspective....

Yes, it usually wouldn't be helpful, and could possibly add a straw man into the equation if so..

16 hours ago, chockfull said:

What nuances of "salvation" verses "rescue" do we have going on scripturally, doctrinally, etc?  Are they the same?  Similar?  

I'll go with similar.

18 hours ago, chockfull said:

In Romans chapter 10, it seems that the importance of right living, repentance, and obedience aren't stressed so much,  but the recognition of a personal Lord and a belief God raised Him from the dead. 

No doubt. And you will find that throughout the scriptures. Not everything is going to be found in one neat little verse.  When Peter was asked on the day of Pentecost, "What must we do", he said repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and they would receive the gift.  Yet in Isa 45 it says Israel has been saved with an everlasting salvation for all eternity, and no mention of needing to do a thing.
 

Quote

 

Salvation - as a definition - deliverance from present and future:

For #1 = deliverance from judgement - for the future - this is a common view ...  As far as deliverance from present judgement, please help me out with that one, because I'm not seeing it anywhere.  God isn't judging me now?  OK.  He's not judging the Satanist up the street either. 

 

God has reserved his judgement for the proper time and place.  But to say his judgements are just for the future, would be incorrect. While we have "large scale" judgement in Noah's day and bringing Israel out of Egypt, it shouldn't be confined to such.  As Rom 13 puts it, there is no power but of God, and the powers that do exist are because he orders and allows them. Unless of course one believes in a weak incapable God.  His judgements are just and righteous, and while it may not be to out liking, they have happened, do happen, and will happen. But the limits and the bounds and the when and where his judgment is brought forth is in His hands entirely, and it's not just something for the end times.  As opposed to Deist thinking,  since the day of creation, God has saved His judgement to allow people the opportunity to see the results of "our ways".  And at times, He has stepped in.  But there are bounds to everything and He has set them and made us aware that it is near.  Nearness not in the timeframe of earth itself, but in the sense that you and I have but a few years on this earth, and each day death draws nearer.

Quote

 

Saved from the consequences of sin, which are death?  OK, scriptural there - that's the idea.   But the consequences of what sin?  Get born again today, live like the devil for 50 years, get out of jail free, millions still smoking? Be a drunken lecher causing pain, sorrow, anguish, the breakup of families and marriages, and suicide?  Saved from consequences of sin being eternal death?  Who goes through that?  Satan only? 

 

Jews and Christians and all who have lived have and still do die!  Death is a requirement, or else evil will be allowed to continue eternally. Sin aka choosing our ways, is the reason this earth is so awesome, so perfect, without a single issue, ok, ok, being sarcastic there.  BUT yes, God has, by His saving mercy, allowed us to live, make mistakes, learn from them, and continue on today hopefully learning along the way.  And at times what would be the rightful consequence isn't what happens.  But having our sins cast as far as the east is from the west does not mean there are NO consequences. Again, choosing God's way isn't about having a perfect life here.  It's about choosing His ways and His will for our lives. Allowing Him to direct.  Read John 21:29 and tell me that's a great and grand vision of life given to Peter by Jesus. That he would die for God's glory!  Which would happen many years after Pentecost. Or as Isaiah 57 puts it,  "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart: and merciful men are taken away. None considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come."  And while the first death is inevitable to get rid of sin and it's effects (with the exception of those that are alive and remain), it is the second death that Christ has freed those who have chosen to put to death the old. 

The point of the post on salvation wasn't to address all the details. It was to lay an overall summation for how the word "salvation" is used in scripture.  Maybe I was too vague. I'll accept that criticism.

17 hours ago, TLC said:

"Fully" thought?  I guess that's your wiggle word, to imply something being more right than it is.  What is written IS a reflection of what's thought. 

A small subset of all that was written by the direction of God?   Nevertheless, even if what we have is incomplete, do you not believe that what is preserved is sufficient to adequately and/or accurately communicate what God might have us know?  

Sure, but what oral saying or tradition are you supposing taught them something regarding salvation that is not also written?

I agree with you that what is written is a reflection of one's thoughts.  However, what one says can easily be misunderstood, which is why we are defining terms, is it not?  So to imply what one's "disciples likely thought" as you put it, is rather impossible and  just a red herring. We have their words. But words as a reflection is a good description since a reflection is not always a clear picture. My point was only that what we have is not the full picture. And even what we do have, can be taken out of context and/or misunderstood. 

And yes, I have no doubt what God desires for "US" to know, he has made available.  But what is lost, is lost, and I'm not attempting to add more speculation here.

Quote

Now, as for the rest of your screed, it strikes me that you have supposed salvation to have a rather broad universal application (meaning, it  - whatever "salvation" is - is essentially the same for all), but is something which has only been (or is only being) gradually revealed.  And on that premise, I strongly disagree, as I simply do not see the salvation of some being the same as (or equaling) that of others.  Consider, for instance, what is written in Dan.12:13.      

So exactly how do you see this salvation of some as being different or not equaling that of others? Are some half-saved? Partially delivered?  What is it I'm not understanding?

On 6/13/2018 at 11:43 PM, TLC said:

Then perhaps there should be some relatively early attempts to isolate and/or pin down more precisely what salvation can, does, or might mean.

Frankly, I'd be curious to know if anyone can show (or explain) how or why (prior to Paul) it means anything much more than, or something other than, the following:

 -saved/redeemed/delivered/rescued (take your pick)

1) from our (i.e., Israel's) enemies, or
2) from (physical) sickness and/or death  

Granted, the "entry into the kingdom of God" might allude to something more than this... but, from the perspective of how it was likely thought of or seen by his disciples, I suspect not.

There is no way to truly know what "others" fully thought on any subject, much less salvation in past history. We have but a small subset of writing.  On top of that, it must be understood at least for the Jews, that they had both an oral and a written understanding. Both the Tanakh and the unwritten things (they say) were given to Moses by God and passed down generation to generation orally.  And while they wrote some of this "oral tradition" down in the form of the Mishna, there is no telling how much was lost or missing from this body of work written over a millennium later.  And the midrashes only contain a portion as well and many still only in the Hebrew language.

But the subject of God's kingdom has always been the focal point. Since salvation, and any idea of salvation, be it physical/mental/or spiritual, be it earthly/cosmos/or unseen[i.e. spiritual realm] or be it past/present/or future; salvation has always been just a small portion of what God has planned for His kingdom.  And it is this kingdom that all God's prophets including Paul taught [Acts 28]. It is very true that our knowledge and understanding of the salvation that God makes available in His kingdom grows in that He reveals things as time progresses.  So what the patriarchs knew was not fully what is now made known. And even what has been revealed up to now, is more than what Paul  and Timothy knew.  So as Deut 29 speaks of the secret things that are revealed and passed down, there's a time and place for how and when it is revealed.  But the absence of understanding does not change the fact or matter of what or how God has chosen to do things.  As I'm certain we've lost many things that were revealed in past times.

Many people think of salvation in the Tanakh in terms of earthly deliverance and preservation, and the new covenant writings more in spiritual terms of of being rescued from our sin and unto a "heavenly" future. Yet, they are much more cohesive and comprehensive, dealing with all creation just as much as our body, soul, and spirit both in this world and the world to come.  For all creation groans as it awaits salvation (Rom 8).

It's important to note that Israel's conflicts with other goyim(nations)  were just a part of of a larger cosmic battle. A fight for the supremacy of God above all others. And so after the salvation of the Lord's people happened physically, they sang praises such as, "Who among the gods is like you, O Lord.  Who is like you - majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders?".  So God's reign over this "earth" is connected with his "holiness", the spiritual and physical being interrelated.  His rule is absolute, be it chaotic forces of nature or the rebellious forces of the nations and the 74th Psalm expresses this more clearly. Israel's earthly life was part of a larger picture, involving visible things (humans, nations), and invisible (God, angels). While these events were displayed on this earth, there was more to it just as the Book of Job was more than just a mere fleshly drama. Job, like Israel, was caught between a battle with heavenly witnesses (the angles) and earthly witnesses looking on and at times shown as participating. And when one reads the Tanakh, it's important to realize there is more to their understanding than what was written, and it was God's kingdom that was the focus and salvation a necessary portion of it.

While salvation throughout all scripture stresses the importance of right living, of faith in the one true God, of repentance and obedience. The Tanakh puts emphasis on rewards on this earth while not ignoring the world to come; and new covenant writings puts it primary emphasis on rewards in the world to come, while certainly not ignoring this present age. So the biblical concept of salvation is a deliverance from present and future judgement, present and future hostile forces, and present and future sin. And while in this life, the deliverance is partial and temporary; in the life to come it is both total and eternal. So as written by the prophet Daniel, "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt."   Biblical salvation though is not just limited to us "humans" past/present/future, but is related to all of God's creation.

On 6/13/2018 at 3:20 PM, waysider said:

Inerrancy is only possible if you allow for a dispensational approach to the scriptures. Without it, there are contradictions. This is one of the big things that was stressed in the PFAL class. "They only seem like contradictions because you fail to recognize who they were addressed to, etc" (dispensations)

While this was definitely part of what TWI taught.  It doesn't make it true.  While I'm not saying the scriptures are not without contradictions (Take the three numbered different lists of those returning to Israel from captivity as a prime example), when it comes to the topic of salvation, I believe  it is without contradictions even without the carving and dissecting and cutting up of the scriptures that Dispensational theology ends up doing to the scriptures to get "to whom" correct.  I mean, when it comes down to it, not a single verse of the Bible was written "TO US".  Paul's epistles were written for specific congregations with specific problems. The general epistles and gospels were still written to certain groups that are long since dead.  But I believe that ALL the scriptures are written "FOR US". For our benefit, for instructing us, for leading us to the one that should be leading us (which is not VPW or any other human on this earth).

On 6/12/2018 at 7:06 PM, TLC said:

Oh for sure, it can be discussed.  Just like you can keep the blinders on a horse if you want to be sure to lead them where you want them to go.  Just means you probably have a certain end in mind before entering the discussion.

I have nothing to hide TLC.. As I already stated I do not agree with Dispensational theology any more than OSAS.  So yes, it can clearly be said I have a certain end in mind. Does that mean I am above listening to the other side or above changing what I think? No.. It just means I have traveled down this path many a times and have had this discussion many a times, being on both sides of the discussion (one side at a time in different discussions), and so I am fairly confident in what I believe. Are not we all?!   But I am here discussing, because I believe this topic is rather an important one, and have no qualms with discussing and being corrected if such evidence is made known.

On 6/11/2018 at 4:01 PM, Taxidev said:

That's quite a list!  It has done NOTHING to help clarify, for me, whether salvation is permanent or not.  It looks, at first look, that it can go either way.  And so...

I agree with WordWolf.  Now to try to determine what those different things are.

That actually was the point of the list.. It is a good opener for the discussion that does nothing to solve the problem but rather to make it more visible.  It is not exhaustive however, and I regret to have used the word unbiased when posting it.  Since one could say it is biased towards permanence in that it lists them first and adds verses from other parts of the scriptures. And others could say it biases the conditional side because it happens to have more verses on that side.  But the point was to try and be as unbiased as possible, and not lead either side to anything more than realizing this subject is much larger than just saying we have an "apparent contradiction" between what the apostle Paul said and what the book of James says. By faith or by works. Hebrews vs Romans.  Old covenant vs New covenant.  The law versus grace. Jesus vs Paul.  The tabernacle of Moses vs the tabernacle of David.  Abraham vs Israel. Israel vs Judah.  Judah vs Ephraim. Adam vs Eve. Adam vs Adam and Israel vs Israel.

And dispensational theology is NOT the answer.  Throwing out books of the Bible and verses in the name of "it's not written to me", is not the answer.   Ignoring the 10 ton gorilla in the room is not the answer either.

But I believe chockfull's direction on defining terms is definitely a great start!

On 6/11/2018 at 12:09 PM, WordWolf said:

Nice list. I suspect that both "sides" are making a fundamental mistake.  Stipulating to that list, it appears that there's a number of verses saying "conditional", and a number of verses saying "unconditional."   This points towards one of 2 conclusions:

A) the Bible is contradictory in major ways and thus is unreliable for doctrine like this

B) the verses saying "conditional" are addressing one thing consistently, and the verses saying "unconditional" are addressing something else consistently.

That's my thinking, you're welcome to draw your own conclusions.  Then again, we're still beginning this discussion, so who knows where we will end up before it's over?

If it is ok with you WW, might I add one of probably many other possible conclusions?

It may be that both are RIGHT AND they are addressing the very same thing. BUT they are looking at that same thing from different perspectives.  A time perspective? A functional perspective?

Also to help full disclosure here, I do not believe in dispensationalist theology of any kind nor OSAS(once saved always saved).  I believe the scriptures are clear from beginning to end, Genesis to Revelations and they speak of the same thing from start to finish regarding God's saving grace, and mercy.  I believe God's plan has never changed from the moment this created world began, and that plan was His kingdom, whereby being saved from the ever dying world has always been by means of and through the works of our Lord. 

I'll attach a document I've used at times when discussing this topic (OSAS).  It is from a non-biased point of view, IMHO. As it has 2 columns. One side lists verses concerning OSAS (Permanence) and the other listing verses concerning Conditional.  It only lists verses from the Epistles on the Conditional side, so as to not bring up the inevitable hidden man in the corner(Dispensationalists).  And that's all it is.. Just verses. Pro/Against.  I've found it helpful at times.. And while not exhaustive, it's the primary ones usually discussed.

Once_Saved_Always_Saved.pdf

On 6/9/2018 at 4:27 AM, WordWolf said:

chockfull:

Born again

Born from above

Saved

...

I'd add all the critical tetms we're all going to dance around. So, you started with

I'd add "incorruptible....seed... eternal..life..." (4 terms)  and reserve the right to call for more terms to be defined when they come up.

While I may be wrong, but I don't believe one can discuss OSAS without also dipping into Dispensational theology. And as such a number of terms being thrown around may not have the same meaning.  So just my thoughts, but one will need to define:

Jew

Gentile

"church" of God.. 

Especially since Gentile is such a non-Biblical word for a biblical thought that doesn't always hold water when ethos/gowyim is used. And the verse with the three actually uses the word for Greeks not the word for nations/ethos(masquerading as Gentiles in most verses it appears).

Also

kingdom of God

seed of Abraham

body of Christ

......

I find the concept of the maximum penalty interesting. However, that doesn't address the morality of assigning those maximum penalties for the particular offenses we've been discussing.

I never really gave "Yahweh's" morality a thought until recently when I read the Qur'an. Then someone pointed out that the Bible was the most bloodthirsty book ever written. Is it? Well, yes it is. And it starts right at the beginning when he favors one sacrifice over another - for no readily apparent reason.

If Yahweh really needs people to die for transgressions against him, then why doesn't he do it like he did Sodom & Gomorrah? Why does he have people doing it to people?

If you take it one step further, why is there death to begin with. Of course, I do mean if there really is a God, if you don't believe in one, then you'll have to suspend that belief for moment. And why are some things allowed to die? What did the cow do to us that we must have it killed to eat our burger. Or what did the grass do to you that you stomp on it without regret. Sure is the basis of why many end up non-theists. And all valid questions. What makes any of it moral and where does morality end in preventing death?

The topic is Yahweh's morality of course, and thus far many verses that could be understood in a negative light have been presented. All very valid points. But I don't believe that is the only valid viewpoint either. We all have unique perspectives, billions of different ones, each unique. And even from an atheist viewpoint, we are all brothers/sisters from a common root, no one above another. Yet this isn't an evolved perspective, since the scriptures state the same "in the beginning". All created equal.

One would say we've evolved to become more enlightened and moral, less killings, but is death really that bad that nothing warrants it? Sure, death penalty. We've been discussing it right, death penalty in the Torah. And of course, from Yahweh' perspective, and I am speaking only according to my understanding of such, not as fact as if I'm all knowing, but does not the potter have the right to destroy his work if he desires? Or would you think if you were able to design a fully autonomous robot/being that you had not the right to do with it as you please? It is being debated now no less in foreign courts mostly because of how some "partially" autonomous bots have already caused some havoc and now who to assign responsibility and who has what rights in regards to it's ownership and destruction.

Animal sacrifice was ridiculous and IMMORAL. Slicing an animal's throat and letting it bleed out to please God? If one were to do that today, that person would be charged with animal cruelty.

Just as a note, it wasn't to "please God" nor to receive his forgiveness as was mentioned earlier. You can ask any Jew today, and they will tell you the same since foriveness was already given. What it was is a reminder of who we are. And the animal was eaten not just "sacrificed".

As for cutting it's throat and letting it bleed, they still do that today. And they have done studies regarding that versus the "shock" treatment usually done everywhere else. And the results were that the throat was much more humane when done properly as required in the scriptures.

http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/halal.htm

and

http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/halalstudy.htm