Taxidev

16 hours ago, WordWolf said:

If I was game to try to explain it, I would explain, that, to me, it means "[meaning of seed]  that can't be [meaning of corrupted.]"

Okay, understood.  I was just trying to differentiate between the "seed" being incorruptible and the "born again" being incorruptible.  Both were in that sentence.  Sorry.

47 minutes ago, Rocky said:

It's analogous to having Jesus Christ himself walk by, try to talk with you and you saying you can't be bothered.

Wow.  You're equating yourself with Jesus Christ?  That is seriously arrogant.

1 minute ago, OldSkool said:

Born again, or born from above 1st occurs in John 3.

Yes, but TLC and I were looking at Paul's writings, which didn't have it.  Only 1 Peter 1:23.  I know, that's not Paul.

3 hours ago, Rocky said:

All you've been doing is resisting consideration of the reasoning why YOUR viewpoint could possibly be wrong.

My viewpoint is that now I've seen someone else question whether salvation is permanent, as well as myself, and I want to be able to determine, for myself, which is correct.  That's why I am not at all curious about what you think is the underlying issue, or the social ramification, of either line of thought.

3 hours ago, Rocky said:

IF you genuinely wanted to more fully understand, you would have to legitimately consider the points presented to you with genuine curiosity.

My wanting to understand which view on salvation is the correct one has little to do with the points you have presented to me.  Like I said, they may be valid points, but they aren't the point I'm focusing on.  What I don't understand is why you keep insisting that I consider them.  I won't.

27 minutes ago, chockfull said:

In reading through that commentary and the verse I Peter 1:23 in the context of that, I get the general feeling that God is making a specific point because virtually everything man constructs is corruptible, fallible, perishable.  So in contrast to man's works, God is presenting His work in the new birth.  This is not a work that will fade away, crumble with age, or fall apart.  In contrast with every other part of life which mankind can corrupt, here's a work of God that mankind cannot corrupt.  In this it stands unique.

 

THAT, is quite a statement!

3 hours ago, TLC said:

I have yet to find any mention of anyone being "born again" (of anything) anywhere in Paul's writings.

I had never even considered this before.  You are correct.  That expression is only in 1 Peter 1:23.

1 minute ago, WordWolf said:

There's not answering something, and there's pretending you answered something.

Seriously?  How is that pretending?  "To me, it only means the seed is incorruptible.  It may mean more than that, but I don't actually know that for sure."  That's a pretty straight forward response - what I understand, and what I don't.

How would you have phrased it?

On 5/31/2018 at 10:09 PM, JavaJane said:

Jackie H@rney "We don't want to burn any bridges.  As far as... There's been people that have been cranky with us...  But we love you.  And if you ever want to talk, if you every want to do anything, we're here.  We are not going anywhere.  We are not going to stop ministering...  Because the gifts and the callings of God are without repentance.  And we are not going to be bitter.  We are not going to be starting a website about how bad everything is.  We are going to be moving the Word.  That's our life."

Wow.  What a contradiction to their response to the email of issues that was sent to them on April 27, 2018, from this thread.  I would have thought, based on what she said and they, almost all, were nodding in agreement - only the 2 on the far right were not - that their response would have been better.  Actions really do speak louder than words, and their actions are belying their words.

My confidence in them is weakening.

46 minutes ago, chockfull said:

I think mostly in the Way we have a "Strong's concordance faith" or a "Bible software faith" - one that is built upon stringing endless series of unrelated verses together to come up with a Sunday teaching, philosophy, or moral outlook in life. 

Agreed.  And it led to some mighty manipulation.

17 minutes ago, chockfull said:

Best of wishes on your journey.  Finding who to connect to, how, and the boundaries in relationships are the most difficult post-Way.  

Thank you.  This is exactly why, right now, I am at arm's length with everyone regarding God and His Word.

24 minutes ago, T-Bone said:

so it could be interpreted as being born again by an act of sowing incorruptible seed - i.e. the word of God.

Thank you, T, this is in line with something I was questioning - the seed is incorruptible, but does that mean the salvation is?

51 minutes ago, chockfull said:

My sarcasm is a direct result of you passive aggressively attacking my post saying it is off topic

No, that's what you are responding to now.  My saying it is off topic is what you just quoted me as saying. 

I was under the impression that your sarcasm was because I said that article was "interesting", obviously not taken well by you.  So I looked at that verse in my bible and, along with the "exegetical commentary", I don't see anything conclusive that would indicate salvation absolutely cannot be lost.  If I'm missing it, please point it out.

51 minutes ago, chockfull said:

If you want to play passive aggressive games then p1ss off.

I am not trying to play games with anyone here - I have too much respect for people to do that.  But I was following my own line of thought which you, apparently, were unaware of and/or didn't care about.

Which brings me to the question I have regarding salvation:  is it absolutely permanent, or is there something I can do to lose it?  The paper from Dan proposes it is not permanent, but as it is a very long winded paper, I haven't read all of it yet.

In this thread, "Picking up threads", Raf poses an interesting point: ""Jesus" said one thing about salvation, Paul implied quite another and the writer of Hebrews a third." 

For me, the confusion arose when I took a careful look at this:  Rom 11:17  And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; 
Rom 11:18  Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 
Rom 11:19  Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. 
Rom 11:20  Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 
Rom 11:21  For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. 
Rom 11:22  Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 

To me, "cut off" means a lot more than losing rewards.

On 6/3/2018 at 10:22 AM, OldSkool said:

If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Okay, I see your point.  So if we aren't doing the right things, our works, then we will lose rewards, possibly now, possibly later, possibly both.  That's a sobering thought, even though it isn't losing salvation.

14 minutes ago, TLC said:

Based on these summarizations, evidently there was no thought or concern given to explaining or defining what "salvation" either is, can be, or might be.  Given a (false) premise (i.e., presumption) that salvation is and means the same thing to everyone regardless of how it is perceived or understood immediately impairs or nullifies any conclusion, regardless of how "logical" the tenets of the proposition might be.

Excellent point.  Now I have something else to delve into.  I like how you think, TLC!

53 minutes ago, JayDee said:

I wonder how many eyewitnesses to the multitude of crimes against members of the body of Christ it’s going to take to convince you the r&r folks are not legit? Or are you waiting for a personal assault?

As I have already stated, I believe they weren't legit, but whether they are now remains to be seen.  I won't need a personal assault, I am keeping them at arm's length.  Close enough to watch.

1 hour ago, skyrider said:

Yet, they still give adulation to wierwille !!!

Yes, that's true.  Several of them have made that clear.  But I know quite a few people who have never been in any leadership position at all in TWI that feel the same way.

While I had no insight into any of those things that took place in the past, I did find early on some flaws in what VPW propounded, actual contradictions.  When I raised those points they were dismissed with just a repetition of what was in his books.  That should have been the red flag for me to walk away, but having never experienced a cult, and still appreciative of the teachings in my local twig, I kept on.  But it was already obvious to me that I did NOT want to go in the corps.

1 hour ago, skyrider said:

You obviously have "a dog in this fight"........and come to their defense time and again.

My grandmother used to call me thickheaded.  I cannot refute that.  I still have high hopes for them.  What may seem to be coming to their defense is only my expression of those high hopes.  I am more willing than most to give people time and space to change.

But I am convinced of everything you all have shared with me about these folks, and have personally seen only an inkling of it in action - the response to an email to them.  And that response was disappointing.  So, no, I have no dog in the fight, I will walk away from them when I am convinced they are false.

9 hours ago, Rocky said:

There's a vast gulf between "anything can be twisted to result in oppressive cults" and a social structure

Well, I just don't see the existence of that social structure.  I've been discussing a paper that compares the two views on salvation, and you've been talking about social injustice.  We just aren't on the same page, we aren't even on two sides of the same coin.

I don't dispute what you have been proposing, but I just don't see the point of discussing it.  Social structure, injustice, manipulation, all have NOTHING to do with salvation.

So, be disappointed all you want - that, too, has nothing to do with salvation.

5 hours ago, WordWolf said:

but I don't see him "getting humble"

If he did do that, I would be impressed.  His ego jumped out of a video class, and danced on my table!

15 minutes ago, waysider said:

OK So my take so far is that being able to say "Lo shanta la maka see tay"  might not mean what we used to think it meant.

Huh?

3 hours ago, chockfull said:

Your response here is somewhat passive aggressive.  I shared a Bible study tool, a thorough work on the topic of the thread, which to remind you by the way is not "Dan's Paper", but "Can salvation be lost?" and your response is "interesting but it doesn't match Dan's paper?"  Who the f cares and what does that have to do with whether or not salvation can be lost or not?

This thread was spawned from another based on a discussion of Dan's paper, which brings up his point that salvation isn't an absolute guarantee.  So, that's really what this topic is about.

3 hours ago, chockfull said:

Here's the idea.  Dan's paper is not the standard on which to base Biblical research.  The Bible is.  This is not an "interesting article".  It is an exegetical commentary on the verses in the Bible that Dan glossed over in his paper covering the idea of "once saved always saved" how it's wrong and how that means you should send him donations on his 501c site..

No one has called Dan's paper a standard of anything.

Actually, I find this "exegetical commentary" very interesting, and obviously you have high regard for it.  But for me it didn't clarify anything.

And I'm guessing by the highlighted words from you that you have not actually read Dan's paper.

3 hours ago, chockfull said:

Born again of incorruptible seed.

What does it mean?  Why would God choose to draw that analogy throughout that section of scripture?

Ask Dan if you need help answering.

You don't have to yell. 

To me, it only means the seed is incorruptible.  It may mean more than that, but I don't actually know that for sure.  And I have no idea why God would choose that analogy.  Do you?

And I don't appreciate your sarcasm.

1 hour ago, Rocky said:

Again, you're not looking in the correct place to identify the problem.

Actually, I'm not looking for a problem.  I am only looking to understand more fully about the possibility that salvation, as a permanent thing, isn't actually guaranteed.  This isn't because I live, or want to live, like some lost soul, rejecting God and Christ.  I just want to understand it, completely.

5 hours ago, skyrider said:

Sorry, but.......one year is plenty of time

Really?  You're so generous.  How long did it take many people to recover from what VPW or LCM did to them?  Could they have needed more than a year?

1 hour ago, Rocky said:

The underlying issue IS that the doctrine you claim you're not yet convinced of can ONLY cause leaders in church/ministry settings to teach and model and gradually develop unwritten rules that can ultimately and exclusively result in oppressive cults.

Sorry, that's NOT an underlying issue, it's a potential ramification.

But can't anything be twisted to ultimately and exclusively result in oppressive cults?  I don't think there's a way to prevent that from happening.

3 hours ago, Twinky said:

Yeah, LCM is in prison

Do you know why?  I have completely lost touch with anyone that may have known about it.

1 hour ago, Rocky said:

"Having them on a pedestal" isn't necessarily the only criterion for foolishness in this scenario.

Agreed.  But I'm still enjoying the teachings.  And if that's all I ever get from them, then that's no different than many other sources I have found over the years.