Taxidev

On 7/23/2018 at 3:08 AM, TLC said:

On 7/22/2018 at 2:07 PM, Taxidev said:

So, if one no longer accepts Jesus as Lord, why would that person continue to have salvation?

That doesn't directly address and answer the question.  You're merely skating around it with a different question.

Your question: Once you honestly believe in your heart that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, how can anyone honestly "undo" that belief that is in their heart?

I believe it's possible.  Plus, the entire verse is:  Rom 10:9  That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

I was not skirting anything, I was emphasizing that it's a two-fold belief, and I also believe going against either of them will cause problems.

On 7/23/2018 at 3:08 AM, TLC said:

On 7/22/2018 at 2:07 PM, Taxidev said:

Plus, it seems you are supposing someone can't have a change of belief.  I find that to be starkly untrue.  When a person takes in an abundance of worldly (sorry for the TWI term, but it fits) information, culminating in a complete adoption of that into their belief system, then the truth of God and Jesus are pushed aside in PREFERENCE of the world.  

I restricted a change to one specific issue. You redirected it with a supposition and are now refuting your own supposition.

I don't see how you see that, but, okay.  So, which supposition is that?

1 hour ago, TLC said:

And I trust that you realize merely thinking it in your mind doesn't "make is so" in your heart. (Which is just as true for any change of heart.)

I suppose you infer "in your heart" to be more emphatic than "in your mind".  I can see where this could be the case, as in I am considering in my mind something that in my heart, which is what I am currently completely convinced of, is the opposite.  Until what my mind is considering becomes my new full belief, then it is merely in my mind.

True?  If so, then I agree.

1 hour ago, TLC said:

Perhaps you can answer a question concerning this statement (which, I presume you agree with.)

Since the promise of salvation comes through faith, it can be rejected if one develops a "heart of unbelief," the conscious and deliberate rejection of Christ and God. 

Once you honestly believe in your heart that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, how can anyone honestly "undo" that belief that is in their heart?

First, you are only paraphrasing half of the verse in Romans: Rom 10:9  That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

So, if one no longer accepts Jesus as Lord, why would that person continue to have salvation?

Plus, it seems you are supposing someone can't have a change of belief.  I find that to be starkly untrue.  When a person takes in an abundance of worldly (sorry for the TWI term, but it fits) information, culminating in a complete adoption of that into their belief system, then the truth of God and Jesus are pushed aside in PREFERENCE of the world.  Colossians has something to say about that: 

Col 2:8  Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. 
Col 2:9  For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 
Col 2:10  And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

So, if one rejects Christ, how can they be complete?

Yes, I completely agree with the statement you reference.

3 hours ago, TLC said:

But, never again did I ever doubt my own salvation

That's awesome!

7 hours ago, TLC said:

Then, according to this, anyone:

1) is saved, as long they genuinely want to be righteous...

and (or)

2) won't lose their salvation as long as they genuinely want to be righteous.

Is this your position? Or... not?

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.

9 hours ago, BlueCord said:

Also, try clicking on the link to the homepage.

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!!!!

11 hours ago, TLC said:

Okay, let's see if I have this right.  You don't think that salvation is the result of righteousness, you think that righteousness is the result of salvation.  And, if salvation can be (or is) is a state of flux (i.e., if salvation can be lost), then righteousness comes or goes right along with it.  So, if you think (as you said) that righteousness implies how we live... hmmm.... (thinking...)

Well, shoot.  Who ever sees themselves righteous all the time? And when that "not righteous" view strikes...  better get myself saved (again.)

Am I missing something from your perspective on this?

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?

5 hours ago, TLC said:

What does "it" refer to in your sentence? Righteousness ?

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.

2 hours ago, TLC said:

Perhaps if it said that righteousness is the state of moral perfect required for salvation, it'd be right on target.  Anybody think otherwise?

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.

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.

On 7/14/2018 at 10:41 AM, waysider said:

On 7/14/2018 at 7:55 AM, Taxidev said:

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.

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 hours ago, waysider said:

Did you take the PFAL class?

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.

On 7/14/2018 at 10:41 AM, waysider said:

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."

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

1 hour ago, TLC said:

Seriously? Then evidently you don't think or believe that Peter wrote 2Peter.

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

1 hour ago, waysider said:

And yet, within the context of those letters, he declares that everything he writes is God-Breathed.

Where does he declare that?

1 hour ago, TLC said:

13 hours ago, waysider said:

When did Paul's writings become "scripture"?

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.

2 hours ago, TLC said:

"only missing the truth of Jesus Christ"?

Care to explain what he missed and you (or someone else) didn't?

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.

11 hours ago, waysider said:

Scripture, in the least common denominator,  means something that has been preserved in textual form.  Does that  not describe Paul's letters?

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.

10 hours ago, TLC said:

Is that not proof enough that he was who he said he was, and that the authority for his epistles came from above?    Well, it won't be for some (probably not for most), which is not unlike how the many signs given to Israel was not enough that they would believe in the authority that Jesus Christ had.

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.

10 hours ago, waysider said:

23 hours ago, DontWorryBeHappy said:

WHO determined Paul’s personal letters and writings as being “the god-breathed word of God”

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.

11 hours ago, waysider said:

Here's an interesting discussion we had about Paul.

I read the first few comments, and here is my take on the matter of Paul:

It says in the bible that what was written aforetime is for our learning.  So, while Paul's letters are all to a specific group of people - other than Colossians - we can all learn from them all.  And, while I have tried to find evidence that Paul was inspired of God in these writings, I have been unable to find any such thing. 

So, knowing Paul's background with the Torah, I would say that these responses to these specific groups' actions, and basic instruction like in Romans, are from his understanding of God's Truth.  And, because I believe Paul had a thorough and deep understanding of the Torah as it relates to Jesus Christ, I take his writings very seriously, but not to the exclusion of the rest of the bible.

41 minutes ago, BecomingMe said:

I have a deep self-loathing for that hidden authentic self that isn’t “perfect” - is spontaneous, joyful, sexual, angry, free, artistic, childlike, grieving.

My heart aches for you.  That "spontaneous, joyful, sexual, angry, free, artistic, childlike, grieving" portion of you, along with the "being disciplined, keeping things clean, being a high achiever, serving others" portion of you, IS perfect.  It's exactly how God made man, with all the strengths and weaknesses of being a human.  That's why in the bible we are called earthen vessels.

Thanks for sharing, and being so open about it.

1 hour ago, cwb01 said:

The big problem I had was the reason this person from Vince Finnegan's offshoot told me I could lose my salvation.  He basically told me if I go with any group other than Vince's that would mean loss of salvation.

I believe this group got its name because of LCM claiming if you walk away from TWI you'd be a grease spot by midnight.  So, not much different.

4 hours ago, TLC said:

"It sure is nice weather...," which prompted the immediate (canned) response of, "Yes, it's a gift of God..."  which was the second  time for what struck me between the eyes as... way, Way, WAY too pious for me to continue with.  

I can relate.  Sometimes it's difficult to overcome the effect of a particular action or speech or whatever, because it is so entrenched in some nauseating thing from the past.  I've had that many times, and a failed marriage because of it also.  It can take many years to hammer that down to where it doesn't poke you anymore.  That response you received reminds me of the Mormons when I visited their HQ in Utah.  Ugh.

17 minutes ago, waysider said:

being a Christian is not a requirement of this site

Understood.  I guess I just assumed, since she was with TWI.  But I do see how that could change as easily as stepping away from TWI.

22 hours ago, BecomingMe said:

I’ve been out of TWI for over 10 years;

Welcome, and enjoy the eye opening discussions here.

One of the most relevant insights that helped me is the understanding that the body of Christ isn't exclusive to any one religious group.  In fact, it may not even include everyone from a particular group.  Rather, I'm finding it includes some people from every group, and some who have no group at all.  Whereas the perspective of TWI was "Us vs. Them", it actually is "Us AND Them".

When I realized - fortunately before becoming completely entrenched with them - that they didn't have all the answers, I began speaking with other Christians, reading works from other Christians, and listening to teachings from other Christians.  And then I found GSC.  It was exciting to combine what the folks here have to share with what those other folks have to share.

I'm sure you'll find some really interesting topics here, if you haven't already.  Please don't hesitate to share your views, and your questions.

T