TrustAndObey

Proposal: instead of calling it slavery and making comparisons to the instutution we all know and condemn, let's call it "ebeddery" and deal with it on its own terms. Because the issue is not really a comparison of Biblical slavery (ebeddery) and 18/19th century slavery. The issue is whether ebeddery is moral, on its own terms.

That's fine if we don't call it slavery, since it doesn't relate well to what most consider as such. However, the issue it not "whether ebeddery is moral, on it's own terms", but rather what Yahweh allows(disallows) is more/less moral. Since this is about Yahweh not other's morals.

I did a number of searches to try and decipher the root of ebed, but unfortunately, everyone has this three letter word as the root itself (although 2 letter roots exist), which makes it a bit more difficult in deciphering. The 3 letters that nake up this word, ayin(to see) - bet(house/family) - dalet (door). There are a number of possibilities here, and no one had a definitive concrete understanding from the ancient language. So I'll share a couple possibilities. The dalet(door) is a picture of a cloth hanging down and sometimes symbolized the poor/sick. In this sense, the servant(ebed) is the poor one seen in a family/household. Another, is that the status of a servant is always in relation to whom he served, and whom you served is considered your family. Thus being a servant is seen as a doorway to a family and a higher status. If you were a servant of a king, just because you were his servant, your actual family "status" was well above most common freemen.

Normally one could look at other wprds made from the root, but I can't be certain here that "ayin/bet" is the root. But it does seem to have some coorelation looking at a couple of these. One of them is the word for a "pledge" (ayin-bet-thet) from which comes the word to "borrow". But the pledge is given in return for securing something, like for securing a loan. Both words have the underlining meaning of an exchange. The first one with a view towards gaining something. And it's that thought, that another similar word with the same (ayin-bet-resh) meaning a crossing. That is to cross from one side to gain access to the other. And while the grass may not be greener, the underlying thought is that it is a journey to get somewhere better.

So with all that, while I can't 100% be certain, it looks like the focus of ebedis not so much the work or labor, but rather the focus, and that being the way(door) to access something. And I think we can all see that with any type of employment, usually people work for the purpose of gaining a wage and thus advancing themselves.

T&O, were you done making your point, or do you have more to share?

Because I have oodles, but I want to wait my turn.

I do have more to share... However, nothing is nicely packaged, or maybe even 100% ready.. I guess I envisioned more of an open discussion rather than a your turn/my turn debate style.. Granted, I'm sure we will both have questions for one another at times which will then lead to waiting, but at this early stage, I'd say if you have something to share, and your ready to disperse the info, please do so. If it is on something I've already mentioned great, but doesn't have to be.

My next post, I hope to dig a little deeper into the meaning of the word [ebed/abad] from a Hebrew perspective. Since the language itself is a very concrete language with little room for abstract thought. So we should be able to get a better picture from that. I haven't a clue what I'll find. But my current thoughts places the Hebrew concept of the words more around what I mentioned in the previous post, that it refers more to a servant/employee role rather than what today would be thought of slavery in the sense of the 3 points already mentioned, "slaves as property and commodities; their use exclusively as labor; and their lack of freedom". While we all to some extent are commodities that our employers and/or governments use to their advantage, used as labor, and have varying degrees of freedom that they(employers and governments) afford us, the difference lies in that we have some say in the matter to a certain degree to which slaves had close to none (in which I refer to slaves here as those from the American south, not the ebed/abad of the Tanakh). It does come down to degrees. And while I realize the "political" forum was closed down, this subject "may" lead into some very political thoughts and maybe even controversy there, so we may want to be careful that we stay according to what the site administrators will support.

In saying that, it may be Monday before I have time to post again. My weekends are usually family time. But Monday, ebed/abad, and maybe answering whatever questions you might have.

Now be careful. You talked about the eastern mindset considering the concept of an "employee" barbaric. The burden is now on you to demonstrate not just that they felt this way, but that they were correct to do so.

Personally, I don't see how you can come up with a definition of slavery that is BOTH Biblically accurate and morally defensible. The Bible doesn't just employ the word. It establishes the meaning. And God never abolished the institution. As slavery is defined and regulated in the Bible, I submit YOU would have abolished it. God didn't. Why?

While I hear your caution, I am unequivocally stating that the "slavery" mentioned in the Tanakh is NOT something I would abolish. And while that might bring gasps, and maybe I am walking into a minefield without recognizing all the mines, this is what I believe, and I see no reason to hide from my belief, even if it be incorrect. What I have read, and what I know today, I do not see a problem with what the Tanakh describes. But that doesn't mean I know the entire spectrum either, I am not all-knowing. So let us discuss this, and maybe I have missed something!

I think for starters, one must understand that the word used for "slaves" in the Tanakh [ebed/abad] does not equate to what most Greco-Roman/Western thinkers mean when speaking of "slaves". It is a very complex and misunderstood subject I believe, but one worth delving into. I will leave with some quotes, but make no mistake, I am discussing here Yahweh's handling of [ebed/abad] in the Tanakh not other cultures.

Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology: Scholars do not agree on a definition of "slavery." The term has been used at various times for a wide range of institutions, including plantation slavery, forced labor, the drudgery of factories and sweatshops, child labor, semivoluntary prostitution, bride-price marriage, child adoption for payment, and paid-for surrogate motherhood. Somewhere within this range, the literal meaning of "slavery" shifts into metaphorical meaning, but it is not entirely clear at what point. A similar problem arises when we look at other cultures. The reason is that the term "Slavery" is evocative rather than analytical, calling to mind a loose bundle of diagnostic features. These features are mainly derived from the most recent direct Western experience with slavery, that of the southern United States, the Caribbean, and Latin America. The present Western image of slavery has been haphazardly constructed out of the representations of that experience in nineteenth-century abolitionist literature, and later novels, textbooks, and films...From a global cross-cultural and historical perspective, however, New World slavery was a unique conjunction of features...In brief, most varieties of slavery did not exhibit the three elements that were dominant in the New World: slaves as property and commodities; their use exclusively as labor; and their lack of freedom...

A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law: ...Referring to 'slaves in the strict sense,' apparently referring to chattel slaves such as those of classical antiquity. This characterization may have been valid for house slaves whose master could treat them as he wished when they were at fault, but it is less suitable when they were capable of owning property and could pay betrothal money or fines. The meaning 'servant' seems more appropriate, or perhaps the designation 'semi-free'. It comprises every person who is subject to orders or dependent on another but nonetheless has a certain independence within his own sphere of active.

Freedom in the ancient Near East was a relative, not an absolute state, as the ambiguity of the term for "slave" in all the region's languages illustrates. "Slave" could be used to refer to a subordinate in the social ladder. Thus the subjects of a king were called his "slaves," even though they were free citizens. The king himself, if a vassal, was the "slave" of his emperor; kings, emperors, and commoners alike were "slaves" of the gods. Even a social inferior, when addressing a social superior, referred to himself out of politeness as "your slave." There were, moreover, a plethora of servile conditions that were not regarded as slavery, such as son, daughter, wife, serf, or human pledge.

I should add that an examination of God's morality is not limited to the law. It can and should also include his behavior before the law was given and after.

I'll give you some examples of on topic v. off topic.

I think those examples give enough guidance and I'm sure I can stay within those bounds. Although I was very tempted to give the ol' "Raf, you need to read the scripture with open eyes. It's clear you can't do that anymore because you've closed your eyes to the things of God and are now influenced by demons.", but I will refrain. :P I never bought into TWI's view of demons and seeing them everywhere, but let me know if you see spiders coming out of my nose!

I think it also best while the overall topic is the morality of Yahweh, that we stick to a certain sub topic before moving on, else we could easily get lost in all the different sentences in the Tanakh that seem to wave the immoral flag.

One thing that I believe is important when speaking of the Tanakh is understanding what the "torah" is and what it is not. The word torah does not mean nor ever did mean "law" as it is translated today.

Wikipedia: The word "Torah" in Hebrew is derived from the root ירה, which in the hif'il conjugation means "to guide/teach" (cf. Lev 10:11). The meaning of the word is therefore "teaching", "doctrine", or "instruction"; the commonly accepted "law" gives a wrong impression. Other translational contexts in the English language include custom, theory, guidance, or system.

To take the sum of the "teachings"(torahs) in the Tanakh and then to try to connect that to what a nation would consider it's "laws" would be incorrect. And the continual translation of the word as "law" throughout has added much misunderstanding. They are however, considered God's guidance and teachings for His people, therefore we can use them to help evaluate morality. The word is sometimes used to denote other things (groups of texts, etc) but when I use the word at this time, I will be using it in it's most usual Biblical sense of God's guidance/teaching for His people.

Also to note is that while I do consider myself a Christian, I do not hold to fundamental views that the scriptures are a perfect record. I believe they contain men's words that may be inspired by God as well as words that they received dircetly from God and wrote, so not everything is "theopneustos" (That verse is sadly mistranslated IMHO).

[To answer a point made on an unrelated thread, these questions do not entail atheist presuppositions. They presume that the God of the Old Testament is a real being who really communicated His will, and they evaluate His law according to our current moral values. So I truly do invite discussions that tackle these difficult questions. Dodging these questions by pointing out irrelevant information is not on topic and therefore not welcome -- NO MATTER WHO DOES IT. God banned usury. Well, that's wonderful, and it's certainly a good thing. But does it address the fact that he failed to abolish slavery and that he instituted a punishment for Sabbath-breaking that even ISIS members would say is a little on the harsh side? No. It's a dodge. Dodges are off topic].

I can understand where you are coming from Raf. However, if you honestly are inviting a discussion on these topics, could you be clear on what you consider is dodging. Because, to myself, you make it sound very subjective. Is it dodging to point out true facts if they are about the subject but not necessarily answering your questions? It's hard to define terms, set the stage, etc, if instead everything must be said in one fell swoop..

There's a number of things that would need to be discussed alongside these questions to discuss these fully. Issues with language (The original Hebrew language being lost when the Jews went into exile), issues with culture (the western thought of slavery is not the same in the eastern culture), bridging the 3000+ years gap is not as easy as just reading a sentence and relating it to anything today, actually speaking it is impossible to go back 3000+ years and know for certain, which opens the door for subjectivity even when one attempts to be objective.

When I mention culture, I'm not talking about it being treated differently and given a pass, but rather understanding their way of life. Because to the eastern mindset, what we call "employees" today is barbaric to what they called ebed("slaves") in the Tanakh (It's demeaning to many Jews to call it the Old Testament).

Except that, in my opinion, The Way was never the best place for anyone. It was a cult, built on plagiarized works and the ego of VPW. It was already "dried up" when we got there.

That's certainly one way to look at it.. Personally, I think I learned a great deal from them. At least for myself, it wasn't completely "dried up", for there was something there for me to gain. May not have been in the area I thought I was gaining in at the time, but I certainly, today, look back, and am thankful for having learned a great deal.

I think of it much like Samuel being raised and trained by Eli and living with his ungodly kids. He certainly learned a great deal from that.

I think it'd be hard to find a place on this earth that doesn't lack any amount love, even within our own hearts and lives. It's an imperfect world and we learn to adapt and grow.

I had a great job, girlfriend, and a great friend explaining the scriptures to me before I joined. But I wanted more. Told God I would give everything I had if I could just learn His ways faster. And that's about the time I met some WOWs as I was studying the scriptures with a friend with an interlinear in hand and waiting for my girlfriend to get off of work. Doctrines weren't much different, so what was? Their passion for God. The things they said seemed to be all about God. Quotes, topics, beliefs, desires.. You name it, it was like hearing these kids that had a heart for Him. Outside of my older friend that was teaching me the scriptures, I hadn't heard anyone so hot. Within 3 months I had taken the class, went to the rock, and was on the WOW field myself. Never looked back. No, I didn't kick my old friends out. But being away in another state didn't help. And my older friend died that year I was away. I was as committed as could be. Until I joined the Corps and found nothing but spiders coming out of the noses. lol.. Actually, it was just within a few weeks, it was clear being there for Corp training that the upper leadership had an agenda, and God wasn't a part of it. So I left after graduation. It was 10 years in all.

Again, genuine question: where is the BIBLICAL evidence that Moses wrote Genesis? Is there any? Or did we just assume it because it's what we were told?

I believe Wikipedia sums it up best:

"According to [Jewish] rabbinic tradition, all of the teachings found in the Torah (first 5 books: Gen -> Deu), both written and oral, were given by God to Moses, some of them at Mount Sinai and others at the Tabernacle, and all the teachings were written down by Moses, which resulted in the Torah we have today. According to a Midrash (Jewish commentary], the Torah was created prior to the creation of the world, and was used as the blueprint for Creation. The majority of [Christian] Biblical scholars believe that the written books were a product of the Babylonian exilic period (c. 600 BCE) and that it was completed by the Persian period (c. 400 BCE)."

I'd say according to that, there is NO biblical evidence. It may be what the Way taught, but I don't recall. Wikipedia says it is Jewish tradition. But most Christian scholars hold that it was written much much later by those in exile.

One last quote from the wikipedia article that mentions some Orthodox Jews prove it was written by Moses by their dating of the text (Not sure how one could do that since there are no originals):

"Rabbinic writings offer various ideas on when the Torah was composed. The revelation to Moses at Mount Sinai is considered by most to be the revelatory event. According to dating of the text by Orthodox rabbis, this occurred in 1312 BCE; another date given for this event is 1280 BCE.

The Talmud says that God dictated [the first] four books of the Torah, but that Moses wrote Deuteronomy in his own words.

The Talmud says that the last eight verses of the Torah that discuss the death and burial of Moses could not have been written by Moses, as writing it would have been a lie, and that they were written after his death by Joshua. Abraham ibn Ezra and Joseph Bonfils observed that phrases in those verses present information that people should only have known after the time of Moses. Ibn Ezra hinted, and Bonfils explicitly stated, that Joshua wrote these verses many years after the death of Moses. Other commentators do not accept this position and maintain that although Moses did not write those eight verses it was nonetheless dictated to him and that Joshua wrote it based on instructions left by Moses, and that the Torah often describes future events, some of which have yet to occur."

Anyway I guess doctrinal discussions are a blend of trying to be accurate with also trying to not miss the forest for the trees.

Our accuracy will only be as good as the measure we use. It's imperfect no matter who, what, or how one goes about it. I see it as an opportunity to share one's view and learn from another's, to sharpen one another.

Yes, I think we all see aspects of the same. Sanctification to me is the purpose of the book. And while that's clearly subjective as most theological thoughts are, it is how I see scripture.

Where are you getting this from? Hebrew anagrams? A commentary write up? It sounds cool. However, forgive me for being a bit skeptical of claims of "the original understanding". I'd like to look into this further myself.

No anagram here. lol.. Not sure how you figured that! And I'll admit, it could very well be incorrect in it being the "original understanding".

But where it came from, has to do with the history and understanding of language. Specifically the semitic languages that the first part of the Old Testament were written in. While it would take a good amount of time and space to even give you a decent overview, I'll point you to this You Tube series to explain the research behind the Ancient Hebrew language. Not to be confused with the current Hebrew language. Around part 4 is where it starts to explain things....

But for a real quick primer.. Written languages started with people drawing symbols. Those symbols represented "real" things. A picture of a nut on a jar so they knew what the jar contained. Later you have pictographic languages. Which is where Ancient Hebrew/Semitic languages were, unlike today. It was similar to the Phonetician/Samaritan language. and basically was a language that was both spoken and written, but the written portion was pictures. What we have today in the Hebrew language is really a derivative of a derivative language, and is more Aramaic as the original Hebrew was lost when they went into captivity. While our language and the original picture language are still very similar in writing form, everything else changed. Words no longer had as much of a relation to the "writing" as before. Instead it's just letters on a page that make up "a" word. Much of the Old Testament however was "originally" written in the pictographic language, and those pictures gave the meaning.

It's REAL hard to explain without drawing the details. But if you take a piece of paper and write the word "AL" on it.. Now turn it upside down. You actually have a close representation of what their word for "AL" looked like 1000's years ago. The A, Aleph, upside down, is a picture of an ox head. Aleph meant Ox. It stood for strength as well as other things. The L, Lamed, was a bit curved, and upside down depicted a shepherd's staff. It carried the understanding of leading, or power. AL, or rather in English we translate it EL, was the basic word for 'god". It actually is spelt and looks the same, only upside down. And it meant, one who is strong with power or authority, one who leads with strength. That can be a "GOD" or a man or an angel or a king or a judge.. You get the picture, literally, I hope? Our letters and the original pictures became squarer, simpler, more refined, but share a ton in common with the original. But our word's picture no longer form the understanding. That was lost just as it has in current Hebrew today.

There's still tons more how all this fits, and how words were understood. It's been awhile since I studied the ANCIENT Hebrew language, needless to say, pictures defined and described the people and culture with greater detail than words do today. Like they say, a picture is worth 1000 words. I could be very mistaken. But I can definitely say after studying it that there is much in the writings that is lost because of our culture, our words, and our understanding that are so foreign to those who penned the Old Testament.

Thankful For ...

I can think for myself out loud, and it doesn't have to line up with what the MOG said!

I can be WRONG and yet not receive the wrath of Mr. god on a stick.

Actually have a career and develop a skill I choose, instead of where placements figured they needed some man power.

...

Viola also authored God's Favorite Place on Earth, a revision of his earlier Bethany booklet, and this fall offered an audio class focusing on Galatians, Colossians, Romans, and Ephesians Called Christ is All.

Viola has done a remarkable job of making a "business" out of the things of God. He would make the money changers at the temple envious. Not much different than ol Vic in his "glory" days..

I'm not saying the man doesn't have anything positive to share.. In fact I enjoyed many of his older books myself. But then, I also enjoyed many of ol' Vic's plagiarized works.

I think my brain has been re-arranged sufficiently by this information that I no longer have a clue of what is being said!

Thank you, may I have another!

Stepping back a minute, sanctification is generally defined as "the process of being made or becoming holy". Part of that definition includes being made whole and being set aside for a purpose. Wrapped into this idea is the concept that since God is so pure, humans to interact with Him need to purify themselves through some process, as humans by nature are unholy.

While I'd agree with you chockfull, that those are generally accepted views of Sanctification, I think they cloud the truth more than they reveal. The idea that God is so pure that humans need to purify themselves to interact is purely man's view. Purification recorded in the old testament signified what was to come in the promised future, the promised sanctification, it was never as a do this and now you're considered pure enough to interact with Him. In fact, that is the opposite view of what God wanted and wanted to convey. He wanted to convey a closeness, and a joining. Whereas the emphasis of separation was to this world, never to Him.

The first letter of the word is a picture of the sun at the horizon. The joining of the two. The second letter is a picture of the door way. This is the way. The last letter is a picture of grinding teeth. Separate yourself from the grinding of this world, through this door, and join me. That was the original understanding.

A husband "sets apart" his wife to be with him, or better said, he joins himself to her, with that union becoming one with her! Does not Christ "set us apart" for himself, and has he not bonded us together as it is written, "It is not I who lives, but Christ who lives through me."

2 Cor 11:2 "I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him."

God's vision from the beginning was set forth in Genesis. The perfect creation. The perfect setting. And the perfect union. Marriage was a sign from the beginning of what God wanted. The 2 becoming one. That is what Sanctification is. We have ran away from God, and God is calling us back. Join yourself to me. Be APART, use the words set apart if you like, but the idea is to BE APART! Not separate from Him. But of course, you can't be attached to 2 things. Join me. Be a part of me. Be one with me. And let go, separate yourself from the world.

Sanctification has to contain an element that is established by the new birth. With sins being wiped away through the acceptance of Jesus as Savior, humans are made whole and are set apart to be God's children. They are sanctified at the new birth.

No doubt we are sanctified by Christ. He was one with God. And now is our choice. Do we join them. Do we become one. And if so, we must detach from the things of this world. There is no other way. We cannot serve 2 masters. We cannot be one with both God and this world. We are not capable of perfecting ourselves, cleansing ourselves, and freeing ourselves from our old master, sin. That is how it is not by your works, but Christ who accomplished that. But it requires our trust, believing, faith, and yes, works, and responsibility to shed the things of this world that we may join Him.

I've spent most of my life in abysmal ignorance of the Old Testament. As a consequence, I have spent most of my life in unwitting abysmal ignorance of the New Testament as well.

The blinders of dispensationalism, that nothing written before the day of Pentecost can be applied to the Church, is egotistical foolishness of the worst sort.

...

There are two routes to restoration presented in the Old Testament. One route is that of the Deuteronomist, that God will provide restoration after Israel cleans up its act.

There is quite a bit of sun shine when one steps out of the woods and views the entire panorama of scripture, to find there is more to it than just the laws of Moses vs some age of Grace.

Without a doubt, there are 2 covenants with a transition from the old to the new. But unlike the "dispensational" view where they sat at stark contrast with one another, it is more a progression up a mountain. A growth to a higher level. Not a black and white, one or the other concept. Which is why we can learn much during the time of the old covenant. Because the new hasn't changed much of it's foundation.

The problem that I see, is many still take the view like you mentioned that there were 2 routes to restoration. Man without trust in God always turns to himself, thinking there is another way and have never ceased to teach that. Yet Romans sets so clearly what the law and commandments were for. They were not for a route to full restoration, never so. They were a guide, a teacher, until the time came. And there is still much they can teach today. Man was not made for the law, but the law made to help man. Was it unlawful for David to eat the shewbread? Sure by the letter of the law, it was. And that's still the view many hold today when it comes to the law. And try and stick those of the old covenant as if they had to keep the letter of the law. But in the spirit is life, not the letter. And it has never been the other way around. Just because the Pharisees and other's taught so, and continue to teach by the letter, they do a disservice and mislead many who would otherwise know God. But to ignore the spirit of the law is another great fallacy.

Even in the "epistles" it is written that "all" scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness. And to put that in context, there was no New Testament when that was penned. Yet the distorted dispensational view is those same scriptures are really not that important, cause all "important" scripture is recorded after Christ. It's a very limiting view.

Ephesians 3:4ff "By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,

That was the secret. The one body in Christ. The gentiles becoming fellow heirs. But being "IN" Christ is the key.. In the body. Speaking of righteousness, sanctification, justification, and salvation.. They come to those in the body [in Christ]. Christ was perfect. Us being in Him makes us perfect. Not because YOU are made perfect of your own, but because your identity resides with him who IS perfect. That's where our sanctification comes from. It's again, not by our works, and not because there are no works involved as the book of James points out (or the Old testament) that faith without works is not faith. But because there are no works YOU can do to obtain such. Impossible to obtain it by works, Romans points out. But that statement "not by works" has been taken out of context as to say that there are no works involved.

Galatians 5:14ff For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” ... But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh... But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you before, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

Steve, If you don't mind, can you explain how you understand Ezekiel 37. Since every time you mention it, it seems like you are confusing the resurrection "spirit" with the promised holy spirit. I totally agree the gift of holy spirit was prophesied by Joel as Luke points out in Acts. And it may be the same spirit in v14 of Ezek 37. But the portion regarding the resurrection breath/wind/"spirit", at least in my mind, doesn't match up. Especially since the wording in Ezekiel is not unique regarding the breath(spirit) of life, since it's the same use in Genesis regarding all breath(spirit) life AFTER Adam sinned, and Ezekiel's detail of where that spirit comes, the four spirits(winds), again, not something new. It definitely is one of the many promises of the Father.. Sure. But there are many.

What is the degree of human agency and divine agency in salvation? What is the degree of human agency and divine agency in sanctification? The questions are a lot closer than systematic theology would have it!

Let's get rid of the red herring here.. Unless you are referring to someone's specific "Systematic Theology", by itself, it holds no specific dogma. It is a method, a tool, used by many with varied results. But by itself, does not define how any certain words or questions are defined. That would be like saying a hammer decides how that piece of wood will be described in the end. It has some say in that it can't do some intricate work, but to a skilled person, it can do wonders.

But the questions themselves, definitely deserve an answer. And as you pointed out, there is quite a spectrum of "beliefs" on the subject.

Whether it be sanctification, righteousness, redemption, and/or salvation. They all are a married couple throughout the scriptures. Whether it be temporal or the permanent which the temporal points to, it is well attested to that both God and us have a say, a place, and a responsibility in it all.

The problems I never saw while in TWI, were for that fact alone. I was searching to understand the forest while only staring straight at a dead tree trunk. Dispensation does a magnificent job of just that. Getting people to throw most their scriptures away, claiming this is what's relevant. This tree. Right here. That's all you need! And it's easy to read into fewer scriptures, your own understanding, easier to make it seem to "fit", but it still never did until you start ignoring or changing what it says. No no,.. Peter never said this gift of holy spirit was promised and spoke of by Joel.. He really said it was "similar" to it.. lol..

Thanks for your reply Steve.. While I have no problems with your aversion to "systematic" theology.. I have no issues with whatever theology you choose.. Be it Systematic, Biblical, Historical, Narrative, or other.

Honestly, I am not bound to any, and in fact hold closer to a progressive narrative theology. The only reason to point to the specific verses in John, has more to do with the fact that I believe they do contain a good deal of narrative, "possibly" from our Lord, regarding the gift of h.s. to come. Course that could be an incorrect understanding, so I do challenge you to show me how that might be..

I'm curious as to why you chose Luke's specific record regarding salvation in ch18? It is an interesting section, although I wouldn't displace it from the previous verses that have just as much to do with it as v18ff..

The narrative in that section shows the hole in the thinking that salvation was by works in the Old Covenant.

In v9 Jesus states, "And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others."

Just as we know we are "saved by grace, lest any should boast", it is this common thread throughout the entire scriptures. And maybe that's too much of a systematic understanding for you. But God has always gone out of His way to ensure that when salvation came, the people knew it was by God's hand and not their own. Not just eternal salvation, but also temporal salvation which was a sign or figure of the coming future salvation which still has yet to come (salvation unto eternal life).

There never was and never will be a way where people are saved because of their own "works". That was attested way back in the beginning with Adam and Eve. God is the one who clothed them, as they were made righteous and sanctified. And also just as Cain sought to attain righteousness by his works which he showed in his offering, yet Abel knew it was only by God's mercy and thus his offering was accepted.

Course, one could even continue in Luke with that section you gave.. Where the man asked what shall he do to attain eternal life. And some people would stop with Jesus listing out some of the commandments and say, "Ahh see.. Salvation by works..".. But then Jesus didn't stop there..

v22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

That certainly wasn't part of the law of Moses, or any other law. And it is no different today.. Not that Christ added to the law or "requirements" for salvation in that verse. But instead he pointed out what many ignore today when it comes to salvation by grace. Many unfortunately are led to believe it requires "nothing" of them, just a whimsical "belief" that "Jesus is Lord, and God raised him from the dead" (Rom 10:9) and their salvation is secured..

It has never, nor will it ever be by our own works. And while many of old were misled, so the misleading continues today. The scriptures are clear that Christ purchased us by his own blood. He bought us, but it is our choice to give ourselves to Him. Everything that man had, Christ said.. That living sacrifice we also are asked to do (Rom 12:1). To Trust God and Christ enough to give our lives, everything we have, and let Christ lead us. Give all and follow me, Christ said. No different. Nothing about that changed. Except for the secret.. Gentiles becoming fellow heirs and of the same body.. And that body comprised of kings and priests unto God(Rev 1:6) which just as in the Old times, kings and priests received the gift.

Please feel free to add, comment, and let me know where you think something is incorrect..

Steve,

I'm hoping it's a welcomed workout, else I'll be glad to refrain. I wouldn't want to impede your recovery.

What is spirit.. I am sure much could be said because while it has a literal meaning, it has a good amount of figurative meaning as well.

Moving air.. Sure, I can agree with that being a good basic literal definition..

But the moment spirit is used figuratively is where I think there is much misunderstanding. It is used of God, and His life giving force. It also used to represent one's desire and direction(ours, God's, and the evil ones). Heck just the use of the evil spirit is misunderstood.

So it is a very vast subject, and one I can't say I have a complete grasp on.

Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding your view, but it looks pretty similar to TWI's view in that the gift of h.s. is considered an individual force given to each believer as their own. God's seed, they say. And being "filled completely" with it, it is different than the spirit given in the Old "Testament"(covenant).

I personally don't subscribe to any of that view.

I first don't see how one can make a distinction between the new covenant spirit and what was given to those in Israel. While VPW tried to say the difference was that the spirit is "in" the believer, but not "in" the Old, or that it is filled to overflowing in the new and not the old, but that doesn't hold up to anyone who does a search. Since they will find old testament believers being "filled" and having the spirit "in". Why I never did search myself until I left TWI, I will never know.

When the spirit was given to the 70 Israel elders and Medad and Eldad prophesied in the camp. Moses proclaimed, that he desired God to put his spirit on all his people, that they might prophesy. This is what happened on the day of Pentecost. It was God's will from the beginning. It was prophesied about that he would place it in all. There is no mention of this being something "different" other than placing it in "all" instead of some.

So my question to you is where do you see a distinction written in scripture? (Or do you see the spirit given to the 70 the same as given in Acts)

The predominant view in the new covenant writings of course calls the gift of holy spirit God's. It doesn't call it "your spirit", and certainly not "your spirit in the inner man" as TWI liked to call it. It is always called "God's spirit in you". His spirit that abides in you. That is the gift given to us. But it is no more you than God is you.

But to say it is what makes a Christian a Christian. I think that's overstating it. Sure, all who are truly Christian's have God's spirit in them. But to say it is what makes you one, if you would please explain where in the scriptures you get such a view. It would be like saying books is what makes a student a student because he get's them when he becomes a student (ignore that he could lose the books and still be a student). The books don't make a student a student, they are just a result of being one.

If God's spirit in us is what makes us a Christian and is the same "resurrection life" given to Christ when he arose, there would be no more death. We die, and God's spirit returns to Him. It was never you, it did not give you eternal life. It only "helps", "guides", and directs you while you are alive(via breathing air). To try and make it synonymous with the resurrected life force Christ received (even a small tiny portion), to me, just makes zero sense. I don't believe a living soul is made of 2 things or 3 things. Neither body and soul, nor with the added spirit. Man is man. Living soul is a living soul. A living soul has parts, sure. A Body. A head, A leg, a brain, synaptic thoughts.. But to separate body and soul.. Unless soul is used figuratively, which it is at times, it typically refers to a whole person. A living being(err I mean soul). God breathed into man life, and he became what? 2 parts - body and soul? No, it says he became a "living soul". A living being. And that added spirit you've been given. Well, it's not you! It's still called God's spirit not yours! Yours is that figurative use of spirit, your desire..

I agree, when Christ comes back, we will be changed. Corruption will put on Incorruption.. Oh wait, don't we already have that incorruptible seed? Yes, we do. BUT IT ISN"T THE SPIRIT. Only usage is in 1 Peter 1:23, and it is referring to God's word! What God says is incorruptible. Lives and abides forever, it says. Not your spirit! Your spirit will definitely die a death (unless Christ returns). God's spirit.. It doesn't die, cause, well, it's part of God! And whether he gave it to you or not, you still would have eternal life. Unless you mean God grants you eternal life, in saying the holy spirit gives you life, it doesn't just cause you have God's spirit in you, any more than it makes you a Christian. It is the result of being one. It is a gift.

To me, it's circular logic. How can one receive that spirit. Well, you must be a Christian. So, how can I become a Christian. Well, you need that spirit. And how do I get that. Become a Christian. What?!

One is a Christian because he trusts and follows his Lord, who is Christ. Period! Walking in the spirit, works of the spirit, following the spirit, living according to the spirit. All those sayings just means we do God's will. That figurative use of spirit (One's will - God's). Just as the meaning of being in Christ and in God and in His spirit in which we live and move and have our being. God's spirit gives life in that it guides you in God's ways, which by the way also gives life!

I think the best place to find out what this "gift" of holy spirit is comes from all the scriptures in the gospels where Christ explained it in pretty good details what, why, how, when, etc.. (John ch14-16)

Thanks Steve for explaining. And I'm glad you are getting better..

While I understand many "Jewish" communities thought they could "work" their way into being God's elect, that was one of the problems God continually attests to having with them in the old covenant writings. It never was about the "law". Just as it was written, "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; ... burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required ... I desired mercy not sacrifices." But yet their heart was far from Him. And people still today think God required offerings and sacrifices of them back then when it wasn't. He only wanted their heart. And that, my friend, is the same today. Christ didn't change that. He didn't change law requirements. He only accomplished what God asked.

Just as you say:

Paul said a person could become a member of the covenant community by grace through faith in the resurrection and Lordship of Jesus Christ. Nobody could become a member of the New Covenant community by works of the law

And so it was that no one could become a member of the old covenant community any other way.. It was through faith[Trust] in the "coming" resurrection and Lordship of Jesus Christ. Christ now has come. But it didn't change anything regarding salvation except accomplish what God planned to make salvation available. Had Christ not done so, even those of old would not have salvation. For as Christ said, NO MAN cometh unto the Father but through him. He is, was, and shall always be the ONLY way. That has and never will change. And that God continually tried to tell the Israelites. Just as today, many have to be told, it's not by works. So did the Israelites have to be told. As Romans states, there is no salvation by works. Ever! Period! Those who ever thought or think so, delude themselves into thinking they are in control of their destiny. I like the statement, "Not by works, lest any should boast".. The Israelites of old have nothing to boast of, for if they have salvation it is only through Christ and their trust in God.. David look forward to the day.. He trusted God that would happen/ It is only in his trusting that he has salvation, not his works!

That's why I don't quite get your statement that:

It is by receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit that a person becomes a Christian.

When in reality a person becomes a Christian when he trusts God. Follows Christ. Turns his heart to Him. In doing so, he becomes a Christian and in return receives the gift. Again, the chicken and the egg. The gift comes because one has turned not to turn them. It is given to be a help, a guide. In fact, it's mission has never changed. Who was it that received it in the Old Testament? The leaders of course. And who are we today. A kingdom of priests.. The leaders.. All are.. That is what changed from the old to the new covenant. The leaders of old, despite having the gift, turned from God, and in doing so turned many away from God by teaching salvation by works, salvation through yourself. God changed that, everyone is a priest. We all now have the gift. And we all now have that guide, that help. So long as trust in Him instead of ourselves. When we stop trusting in Him, and instead trust in our works as the Israelites did, we turn away from God. That is the reason for the gift. No more blind leading the blind. You have the gift to lead you. You now can lead, be that priest. Doesn't make you perfect. Doesn't guarantee you won't turn away and stop trusting and lose God's gift. But it is the best thing God has done. Because of Christ. This gift is not what saves you or makes you a Christian. It didn't save or make those in the Jewish community part of God's elect. Neither did their works.

Sanctification has been, and is the same. Salvation has been, and is the same. Redemption has been, and is the same. Christ didn't change any of this. He accomplished the plan so that it could continue.

Sorry bout that last post.. Sounds like I was ranting and all.. Just got frustrated when I read the statement that didn't make much sense to me about

"The process of sanctification, being guided by the Holy Spirit, can be accomplished only after a person has received the gift of the Holy Spirit.."

Kind of like the chicken and egg, which came first.. The process of setting yourself apart, sanctifying, is what starts the thing, YOU - making that decision to turn to sanctify ones self, starts the process, starts with that act of sanctifying yourself, and was done without the gift.. Kind of hard to say the gift that comes as a result of starting that process is required, when it wasn't required to begin it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, and someone can explain it to me!

(I'm not saying it's not a help.. That comforter, that helper, Christ promised.. But being required.. And the process can only be accomplished AFTER... Yeah, just don't get that)..

Thanks!

As far as I can see, "whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved", which means whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit at that time, which guarantees that person will be raised from the dead or changed when Jesus Christ returns.

I guess that's one way to look at it...

But that quote actually comes from the Old "Testament"(covenant) and I believe has little to nothing to do with the gift of h.s.. This was and always has been God's promise since the beginning of time. Trust in Him, and He shall save you. Both now and in the future. While I'm aware a good many that have left TWI still think like that, since OSAS is so prevalent a teaching these days in Christianity, I have yet to see that written, unless one does the whole administrational separation of writings to gain the view.

In my view (which is just one's man view), putting your trust in Him, is that process of sanctifying your flesh now which is a life long process. Allowing God's path be your path. Whereas putting your trust in Him also, by his grace and mercy, grants you that gift of life through His son forever. Yet one does not require the gift of h.s. anymore than those of old had to have it to gain the gift of everlasting life. And yes, that gift of everlasting life has always been available via the same way, Trusting in Him. That gift of h.s. is not your new you that is saved. (The new man that TWI claimed it to be). It is not your incorruptible seed that TWI claimed it to be. (The good news is the incorruptible seed). And while it is the down payment. It is not THE guarantee that you can walk away from God, go commit murders, and still be granted eternal salvation.

TWI's view of God's gift of h.s. (especially renaming it things like 'new man','incorruptible seed', 'Christ in you', 'inward man' that have a different and clear biblical understanding) , mixed with it's administrational hacking of scriptures and calling scripture irrelevant for today has led to so much misunderstanding. Thinking those in old times were saved by anything BUT grace, anything BUT by trusting God, clearly wipes out a good amount of understanding one can gain from understanding the old writings dealing with the old covenant.

While it is true, the new covenant, promised of old, would place God's spirit in each person's heart. It didn't change how or to whom God saves. Salvation is based on the heart not some spirit gift you don't control. And while the ONE new man that we are saved into (Christ) and are now a part of sanctifies us wholly, our flesh side needs help daily to be sanctified. So while our salvation is a guarantee WHILE we are in that body(His body), that does not mean we do not have the ability to turn our heart and trust away, and that dead person that we are, now made alive and new in Christ, can still choose to serve another, let it not be so.

You know, TrustAndObey, when I originally decided to get a masters degree, it wasn't because I wanted to prove anything in theology. It was because I wanted to be hirable for a teaching position.

Steve, I understand what you wrote concerning the 'why' of you doing what you're doing... And that is not what I take offense at..

Rather it's "in my view" the condescension towards Lynn AT THE SAME TIME of what looks to me of puffing your own "qualifications" up..

Now, I'd be the first to disagree with Lynn and co, and VP and co.. And against any in Christendom concerning dispensationalism, fundamentalism, pneumatiology concerning the h.s., and the common Christian hierarchy.. I take offense at Lynn's prayers for millionaires and what appears to me as an egotistical attitude that cares not for those he should be serving not raking in the money from.

But it's when what looks to me as someone adding to their own stature that just doesn't sit well with me.. So, that is the reason I wrote what I wrote. If I'm wrong in what I saw, I apologize.

I think that's great you enjoy being a teacher. Willing to sacrifice your time to become qualified in their eyes to continue it. But none of these things makes you or I or anyone better than even Mr Lynn whom thinks his "One Day with the Creator" class that is being released in the next week or so (8th session is on YouTube now) is actually some great theological masterpiece. It is all dung to me. And I'd much rather lift up than put down, love than chastise, help than cast away. And hopefully that will be all that I say about this..

This is not unusual. It's just the ordinary amount of work a person needs to do to become recognized as a bona fide master, qualified to teach.

Taking PFAL in all its forms hundreds of times,and running the Corps program at Emporia for a few years, doesn't qualify ANYBODY to teach...

Personally Steve, you can study, take classes, jump up and down, read books, hold you breath, and even do all that all at once, and still not be qualified to teach in someone's book.. But looking at the disciples lives back in the first century.. Or the prophets of old. Or the disciples of old. Yeah, really, it's not about being qualified. For teaching, it's really only about having that which will genuinely help and being willing to give that help..

Worldly acclamations and qualifications, whether from "godly" groups or "cults", makes no difference.. What matters rather is whether we allow our lights to shine in this world.. That they may see our GOOD WORKS, and glorify our Father in heaven.. Not that they may hear our wondrous "qualified" teachings approved by ^%$%^$^*....

This message was neither approved by the council of Nicea or any other group, therefore I take full responsibility.

I was reading about some folks who finally escaped from yet another nightmare control cult. It sounds a lot like what we endured with TWI.

I guess the article and things said about the cult could resemble TWI.. But it was far from TWI when I was involved.. My family was a part of the "discipleship" movement for many years and I personally knew Bob Mumford and Ern Baxter.. some of the founders. The thing that did set them different is there wasn't a "one" know it all.. There was a group of them who for the most part kept one another in check, and money was used to help families, and not just those at the top. But like most churches/gatherings/and groups, there always ends up being those who take charge and those who abuse that power. The whole "leadership" or "shepherds" idea they promoted is unbiblical and unhealthy. And while the top tier didn't do anything like VP (take advantage of women, drunkard, etc), they did promote the headship and authority of men in the church more than promoting the headship of our Lord, Jesus. And many they allowed to be in "charge" under them did act like VP as oversight of many "shepherds" didn't work out as the original founders thought. But then, it's no different than any denomination. Allowing men to rule over men, and eventually many put in "charge" over a church, or a group of churches, ends up taking advantage of the power they should never have been given.. And the cycle continues.

So, while I wasn't a part of one of the destructive shepherding/discipleship churches or home flock groups as we called them, I wouldn't doubt many of things that happened in TWI happened there also. The atmosphere was perfect for it, as is any group that sets men/women in charge and then presents them as being more wise, noble, capable, and/or just someone to look up to.. Rather than realizing we are created equal each with differing abilities that can help one another. While I had great and fond memories being a part of the one group and not really any negative memories (although I have no doubt it set me up for joining TWI later in life), I can't say so much for TWI.. The whole top tier was and is corrupt as can be and has no desire for anything Godly. At least as far as Ern and Bob, I can't say the same, howbeit they certainly did make some major, life altering and destroying mistakes.

Secondly, a bus ticket is more flexible than an airline ticket because there are many stops. If I would, say, buy a bus ticket from St. Louis to Los Angeles, I could go to Denver and decide to interrupt the trip by staying in Denver for a few days and then continue the trip to LA later. I've done that before with different cities. How do we know that guy didn't do something like that? Maybe he just didn't want to be on a bus 24/7 for the whole trip and took a day or 2 off just to clear his head.

I know when it was myself that left TWI HQ for good (I kicked myself out after talking with the head honchos to give my 2 cents), I drifted around for 2 weeks visiting friends and family around the country, since I knew I wouldn't get a vacation like that anytime soon and I needed to rest and relax before jumping back into life. And I was correct, since the day I arrived to my final resting place, I had a pretty good job offer. And life has been rolling along ever since... Wish I could take a good long vacation again, but alas wife/kids.. It's just getting more busy by the day..

It is considered a significant sign biblically by many that the "chosen" people have reunited in their own nation, but have they? Are the people there really the children of Israel. Can they trace their lineage back to biblical Israel? I can't. Can you? Can anyone do that these days? Do any of you know the answer to that?

Sounds like a good question to me.. I have never seen/heard of anyone with actual documentation or could actually list every generation going back to the tribes.. Would be cool to see. I've heard a select few say they could, but never any list or documentation.. I don't care about "proving" the list, I'd just like to see that long a list! Easy to fake I guess, but I'm easy to please!

But I can't say I've heard of any.. Most people I know in the genealogical circles are lucky to go back as far as the 1500s.. And even that's rare even with Catholic memberships. Mine never got out of the 1800s without much speculation. But I am convinced I do come from this guy named Noah... Who came from Adam.. Just a hunch my brothers and sisters, just a hunch.. (If I'm wrong, at the least it could have been George of the Jungle we all came from, but I haven't seen anyone list that far either)

How about it?

Since it could become an entire subject of it's own and more doctrine than anything.. Can I refer you to this page: http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/rsr_lambano.htm

To quote a portion...

Actually, Wierwille is wrong on these counts-- there aren't just two words for "receive," and there isn't a single hard and fast meaning for each. This is typical of language. For example, if you look in an English dictionary, you'll notice that most words have more than one meaning listed-- not just one, narrow meaning. This is especially true of common words like "receive." (My medium-length Webster's lists 13 meanings for the English word "receive.")

...

So the bottom line is, lambano and dechomai have multiple meanings depending on who used them, the tense and the context. This is why any translation of the Bible uses (and has to use) more than one English word to translate lambano and more than one word to translate dechomai-- and why it often uses the same English word for more than one Greek word.