Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Taxidev last won the day on April 23

Taxidev had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

56 Excellent

About Taxidev

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    East Coast
  • Interests
    Food, hiking and then food

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Taxidev

    Can salvation be lost?

    Pretty much. Initially saved because we believe and confess Jesus as our lord, the Rom 10:9 part, and continually saved as long as we genuinely want to be righteous. That second part implies some serious attitude, but yes, I think you've summarized my view very well.
  2. Taxidev


    That's clever! Also, this: "The teaching of The Way is based on 2 Peter 1:20 that "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation" (KJV interpretation). Its founder's and subsequent Way interpretations of the Bible are taught in ministry classes and publications.[6]" That's really funny! No private interpretation, except the Way's private interpretation! HAHAHA!!!!
  3. Taxidev

    Can salvation be lost?

    Yes, you are missing something, but I think it's due to my weak explanation. I'll try to clarify. By believing, as it states in Rom 10:9, we are saved and attain a state of righteousness, because we are given a clean slate. To continue in righteousness takes a conscious decision, and keeping our mind set on how God would have us live. Yes, we may not be righteous at any given point, but that doesn't mean we have lost our salvation. God knows we are just humans, and He gives us a way out of the stupidness we may put ourselves in. As long as we genuinely want to be righteous - and God knows our heart - then even when we fall short we are good with God, even if we are lacking in our spiritual power due to our own ineptness. Is that a better explanation?
  4. Taxidev

    Can salvation be lost?

    Yes, absolutely. My understanding is when we believe Rom 10:9 we are then righteous, as an instant state of being. However, to maintain righteousness going forward takes effort on our part. I certainly can't live like I used to and think God will look at me as being righteous, that would be ridiculous. But by the same token, as I had noted, He knows we are just humans, far from perfect. So righteousness MUST pertain to our attitude toward life, striving, albeit imperfectly, to live as God would have us live.
  5. Taxidev

    Can salvation be lost?

    It says in the bible that God knows our frame, that we are not perfect, and that's why He gives us a way out of the messes we get ourselves into. I'm paraphrasing, of course. So I don't see how righteousness could mean moral perfection of any sort. Rather, I see it as our feeble attempt to live as God would have us to live, even though we fall short of it, so that we can end up in heaven. I definitely don't see it as a requirement for being saved (rescued, set free, given a clean slate, bought back) because in Rom 10:9 it says for that we only have to believe, whereas righteousness implies how we live.
  6. Taxidev

    The Way "Gift Ministries"

    It seems, here on the field in my area, after the fall of LCM, these gifts to the church were only glossed over. There was no real emphasis on them, only checking with "spiritual leadership" when making big decisions. Like, all of a sudden, when we are born again we become imbeciles that can't plan our lives. But it didn't take long for even that to fade, so much so that the branch and fellowship coordinators all but ignored people and just focused on the business of the ministry, outreach, and teaching the dictated (from HQ) themes.
  7. Taxidev


    There are a couple problems with this approach. 1. I may be remembering incorrectly, but, in PFAL, Wierwille says (I'm paraphrasing.) "All means all, from Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21." So, you say you agree with me that just because VPW says it doesn't make it so. Yet, here you say this approach has problems. I don't understand - it can't be both, they are in conflict with each other.
  8. Taxidev


    Yes, I did. Just because VPW says it means Genesis to Revelation, doesn't make it so. I see that as his opinion. When that verse was written, it was in a letter that wasn't part of any official document compilation. So, the 4 gospels, Acts, and Romans through Revelation didn't actually exist yet except as letters to specific churches.
  9. Taxidev


    This means nothing to me, so this argument is moot.
  10. Taxidev


    Thank you. I didn't remember him saying that in there!
  11. Taxidev


    Where does he declare that?
  12. Taxidev


    When they were written, naturally. Think Peter would have had any different answer? NOT! Someone, many years later, compiled his letters, and others, to form the new testament. When Paul wrote to those various churches, they were just letters. Or do you think Paul was making copies for himself to compile into, say, a collateral. And, personally, I seriously doubt Peter even knew about those letters.
  13. Taxidev


    I wasn't relying on only the old testament. I had the benefit of Paul's writings. He didn't. And, the entire nation of Israel missed it also.
  14. Taxidev


    No, that can't be the least common denominator of scripture. If it was, then everything written would be scripture. When Paul wrote that, do you think he already knew that there would be a Christian bible that would include the old testament, and writings from apostles and others, including himself, in a new testament? I don't. That's why I don't believe he was referring to his own letters when he wrote that statement. I have no doubt that Paul was who he said he was. He was extremely knowledgeable in the scriptures, what was already written, and his letters testify to that deep understanding. He was only missing the truth of Jesus Christ, but then he was on fire. Just as Jesus Christ spoke with authority (do you think every time Jesus spoke God was inspiring him? or was it based on his own depth of understanding?), Paul also taught, and wrote, with authority, because of his own depth of understanding. I see Paul as an amazing teacher, and because he was actually living the Love of God, he kept in communication with those he had taught and spent time with. He cared. And at times he responded to information he learned about errors in peoples' actions. Does that automatically mean that his letters were inspired of God? I say it was just a loving response, something that is sorely lacking in our day.
  15. Taxidev


    Why, that would be none other than Paul, himself. (See II Tim. 3:16 for further elaboration.) I just looked at that verse, and Paul says "all scripture". He doesn't say his letters which, at that time, weren't scripture. Only the Torah was scripture.