Cavinism a Cult?

[anotherDan]

I concede the point, cman, by Moses came the Law; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. These are two other intersecting lines I cannot weld on my earthly anvil.

This I can grasp by grace:

Let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame...

...he became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross...

Edited August 25, 2007 by anotherDan

[Cynic]

sky4it:

You seem to despise the Calvinistic teaching that God’s predestining of his elect to salvation is wholly without respect to foresight of faith. You despise that it is said by us Calvinists that it is God, not men, who is sovereign over the salvation and faith of all men. What you rail against, however, is not something of our contrivance. You rail against the testimony of Scripture

Scripture (Acts 13:48) indicates the Gentiles of Antioch of Pisidia who believed Paul and Barnabas’s preaching were those who had been ordained to eternal life. Scripture -- unapologetically -- declares (Romans 9 ) that God has mercy on whom he will, that God hardens whom he will, that God has a right within himself to take one person out of humanity for a vessel unto honor and another out of the same humanity for a vessel unto dishonor. There is a general call to faith in the declaration of the Gospel, but it is those whom God has appointed to be recipients of his mercy who receive and respond in faith.

You falsely accuse Calvin of pitting election against faith, yet the doctrine of unconditional election holds faith as something brought about (through effectual calling) in those God has appointed to life. It is you, not Calvin, who has pitted election and faith against one other.

Edited August 25, 2007 by Cynic

[Cynic]

Following are some statements by Calvin by which readers in this forum can assess sky4it’s characterization of Calvin’s views.

To prove the first point—that God justifies not only by pardoning but by

regenerating—he [Osiander]asks whether God leaves as they were by nature those

whom he justifies, changing none of their vices. This is exceedingly easy to

answer: as Christ cannot be tom into parts, so these two which we

perceive in him together and conjointly are inseparable—namely,

righteousness and sanctification. Whomever, therefore, God receives into

grace, on them he at the same time bestows the spirit of adoption

(Romans 8:15), by whose power he remakes them to his own

image. But if the brightness of the sun cannot be separated from its heat,

shall we therefore say that the earth is warmed by its light, or lighted by

its heat? Is there anything more applicable to the present matter than this

comparison? The sun, by its heat, quickens and fructifies the earth, by its

beams brightens and illumines it. Here is a mutual and indivisible

connection. Yet reason itself forbids us to transfer the peculiar qualities of

the one to the other. In this confusion of the two kinds of grace that

Osiander forces upon us there is a like absurdity. For since God, for the preservation of righteousness, renews those whom he freely reckons as righteous, Osiander mixes that gift of regeneration with this free acceptance and contends that they are one and the same. Yet Scripture, even though it joins them, still lists them separately in order that God’s

manifold grace may better appear to us. For Paul’s statement is not redundant: that Christ was given to us for our righteousness and sanctification (1 Corinthians 1:30). And whenever he reasons—from the salvation purchased for us, from God’s fatherly love, and from Christs grace—that we are called to holiness and cleanness, he clearly

indicates that to be justified means something different from being made

new creatures.

Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 3, Chapter 11, Section 6 (Battles Translation)

Calvin’s main point is that justification (imputed righteousness) and sanctification (in the sense of experiential righteousness) are distinct but inseparable.

I forbear to say what sort of zealots for good works they are who thus

carp at us. Let them rail with impunity even as they wantonly infect the

whole world with their own foul lives! They pretend to be grieved that,

when faith is so gloriously extolled, works are degraded. What if, rather,

these were encouraged and strengthened? For we dream neither of a faith

devoid of good works nor of a justification that stands without them. This

alone is of importance: having admitted that faith and good works must

cleave together, we still lodge justification in faith, not in works. We have a

ready explanation for doing this, provided we turn to Christ to whom our

faith is directed and from whom it receives its full strength.

Why, then, are we justified by faith? Because by faith we grasp Christ’s

righteousness, by which alone we are reconciled to God. Yet you could not

grasp this without at the same time grasping sanctification also. For he

“is given unto us for righteousness, wisdom, sanctification, and redemption” (1 Corinthians 1:30). Therefore Christ justifies no one whom he does not at the same time sanctify. These benefits are joined together by an everlasting and indissoluble bond, so that those whom he illumines by his wisdom, he redeems; those whom he redeems, he justifies; those whom he justifies, he sanctifies.

But, since the question concerns only righteousness and sanctification, let us dwell upon these. Although we may distinguish them, Christ contains both of them inseparably in himself. Do you wish, then, to attain righteousness in Christ? You must first possess Christ; but you cannot possess him without being made partaker in his sanctification, because he cannot be divided into pieces (1 Corinthians 1:13). Since, therefore,

it is solely by expending himself that the Lord gives us these benefits to enjoy, he bestows both of them at the same time, the one never without the other. Thus it is clear how true it is that we are justified not without works yet not through works, since in our sharing in Christ, which justifies us, sanctification is just as much included as righteousness.

Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 3, Chapter 16, Section 1

Edited August 25, 2007 by Cynic

[Abigail]

Marvelous discussion, and too much to comment on... you guys have really been posting up a storm, and I'm delighted in all of you. Partly, I must admit, I'm over my head. I'm tackling some doctrinal issues that are more basic than predestination/free-will, election/decision. Once someone quoted Spurgeon, I felt in myself, "yes," I can go with that, at least for now. Of course the discussion has veered in a good way to encompass other vital interests in our lives, and again, I'm so delighted to see the discussion being fruitful in various ways.

Oh heck, over my head too. I just pick out those things I can grasp and go with em. :) So what are you tackling? Interested in starting a thread to discuss them? Cause I'm thinking once this one dies down, I'm going to have to go back to the weekly Torah sessions to find a new one. That or finally start the thread comparing the OT to NT. :)

[Abigail]

I concede the point, cman, by Moses came the Law; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. These are two other intersecting lines I cannot weld on my earthly anvil.

This I can grasp by grace:

Let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame...

...he became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross...

You concede too quickly Dan! I was looking forward to the discussion on this topic because I happen to agree with what you said. Jesus did come to establish the law, the way it was originally intended to be. Not in a legalistic manner made by men, but in the manner God intended it.

Did David not eat the shew bread when he was hungry? Did Moses not marry a "stranger"? Did Abraham not argue with God?

[Cynic]

Does God want gratitude from a willing sinner? ( I speak only if you mean sin caused the guilt) Well thats pretty clear in this passage: Hebrews 10:26 "For if we sin willfully after that we have recieved a knowledge of the truth there remainth no more sacrifice for sins" and the punishment for the "willful person" Hebrews 10:29 YOU WANT TO SEE HOW BARBARIC CALVINISTIC THOUGHT IS?

They dont like that one, it takes the steering wheel out of there car. So what do they do? They say man doesnt have a free will on the topic. They degrade "the will" to degrade the message of the bible.

Typical of sky4it's posts: Petulant but unsubstantiated accusations.

Some more of Calvin's views in his own words:

Further, that repentance is a singular gift of God I believe to be so clear from the above teaching that there is no need of a long discourse to explain

it. Accordingly, the church praises God’s benefit, and marvels that he “granted repentance to the Gentiles unto salvation” (Acts 11:18, cf. 2 Corinthians 7:10). And Paul bids Timothy be forbearing and gentle toward unbelievers: If at any time, he says, God may give them repentance to recover from the snares of the devil (2 Timothy 2:25-26). Indeed, God declares that he wills the conversion of all, and he directs exhortations to all in common. Yet the efficacy of this depends upon the

Spirit of regeneration. For it would be easier for us to create men than for us of our own power to put on a more excellent nature. Accordingly, in the

whole course of regeneration, we are with good reason called “God’s handiwork, created… for good works, which God prepared beforehand,

that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10, cf. Vg.). Whomsoever God wills to snatch from death, he quickens by the Spirit of

regeneration. Not that repentance, properly speaking, is the cause of salvation, but because it is already seen to be inseparable from faith and

from God’s mercy, when, as Isaiah testifies, “a redeemer will come to Zion, and to those in Jacob who turn back from iniquity” (Isaiah

59:20).

This fact indeed stands firm: wherever the fear of God flourishes, the Spirit has worked toward the salvation of man. Therefore, believers,

according to Isaiah, while they complain and grieve that they have been forsaken by God, set this as a sort of sign of reprobation, that their hearts

have been hardened by him (Isaiah 63:17). The apostle, also wishing to exclude apostates from the hope of salvation, gives the reason

that “it is impossible to restore them to repentance” (Hebrews 6:4-6 p.). For obviously God, renewing those he wills not to perish, shows the

sign of his fatherly favor and, so to speak, draws them to himself with the rays of his calm and joyous countenance. On the other hand, he hardens

and he thunders against the reprobate, whose impiety is unforgivable.

With this sort of vengeance the apostle threatens willful apostates who, while they fall away from faith in the gospel, mock God, scornfully

despise his grace, profane and trample Christ’s blood (Hebrews 10:29), yea, as much as it lies in their power, crucify him again

(Hebrews 6:6). For Paul does not, as certain austere folk would preposterously have it, cut off hope of pardon from all voluntary sins.

But he teaches that apostasy deserves no excuse, so that it is no wonder God avenges such sacrilegious contempt of himself with inexorable rigor.

“For,” he teaches, “it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, have

become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, since

they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.” (Hebrews 6:4-6.) Another passage: “If we sin

willfully,” he says, “after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there remains no longer a sacrifice for sins, but a certain dreadful expectation of

judgment,” etc. (Hebrews 10:26).

These are, also, the passages from the wrong understanding of which the Novatianists long ago found occasion for their ravings. Offended by the

harshness in these passages, certain good men believed this to be a spurious letter, even though in every part it breathes an apostolic

spirit. But since we are contending only against those who accept this letter, it is easy to show how these statements do not at all support their

error. First, it is necessary for the apostle to agree with his Master, who declares that “every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven…but the sin

against the Holy Spirit,” which is forgiven “neither in this age nor in the age to come” (Matthew 12:31-32; Mark 3:28-29; Luke 12:10). It is certain, I say, that the apostle was content with this exception, unless we would make him an opponent of the grace of Christ. From this it follows that pardon is not denied to any individual

sins except one, which, arising out of desperate madness, cannot be ascribed to weakness, and clearly demonstrates that a man is possessed by the devil.

Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 3, Chapter 3, Section 21

[Abigail]

“For,” he teaches, “it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, have

become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, since

they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.” (Hebrews 6:4-6.)

And yet, this must be a figure of speech because nothing is impossible for God, no?

I know that isn't exaclty the point in what you posted, in that you are trying to "refute" Sky's claims, but it caught my attention. :)

I will try to come back to this when it is not so late. :)

Edited August 25, 2007 by Abigail

[anotherDan]

Yes, Abi, but I was trying to say (badly, I'm afraid) that for me, a lot of these doctrinal issues have to take a back seat to the cross. It's like cynic's tirade, above. Sky pushed his button, doctrinally. He probably skipped right over the heart Sky has shown in his posts. You, however, did not. You responded to his actual heart. I'm far more in ageement with cynic's doctrinal position than Sky's, but I love Sky's heart, and I loved to read the interaction between you and him and Wrds. There is some great stuff going on here.

Another might rightly say that cynic is giving Sky what he deserves. I think Sky's view of Calvinism is perfunctory (is that a word? I mean somewhat superficial) and at times unfair. Wrds in particular, and I have had some gentle nudges in that vein, but haven't missed some of the gems of Sky's heart, either.

As far as new threads, I have the spot survey which still has LOTS to explore. (Can't wait for TBones' second installment) and I've been cooking a very detailed discussion on "the gift of holy spirit" which I'm planning on reviving the Speaking in Tongues thread... it will not be what you may be thinking... I think you'll enjoy that one. So what did you think of Sir Buzzard? Did you catch his "debate" with the muslim on YouTube?

Cynic, you have zeal, and I empathize with the position of God's soverignity, as I hope my earlier posts show. I used to debate on another forum... sometimes for weeks AGAINST Calvinists, but I'm reforming! And far less into debating, I might add. It's all well and good to "contend for the faith that was once delivered to the saints," it's likewise good to not only do as Jesus did, but as he said we should. That's where I really got off base in TWI... somehow, with "Christ in me," I was supposed to gun down all the Pharisees, like Jesus did, and yeah, that can be done at times perfectly within the will of God. It NEEDS to be done. But in later years I have gained a much deeper respect for God and Jesus, and I often leave their enemies and even mine to them (to God, and to Jesus Christ, who will judge the quick and the dead.) This has opened the door for me to share deeply with a variety of people that I formerly, to my shame, despised as inferior in learning or morals or whatever.

Sky, you do a disservice to Spurgeon when you say he didn't fully agree with Calvinism. Spurgeon was the BEST kind of Calvinist. When you quoted him, it was against the "ultra-whatevers..." people who take it too far to see the responsibility God requires of man... just the thing you're talking about. (And that was the point of your post, I realize that, but again, if you want to see what Calvinism looks like in action, take a look at Spurgeon.) And look up the definition of gregarious. I think you might mean egregious. Gregarious means friendly. When you look it up, you'll see this picture there:

edited to say: but you've got to go to bed... 6am comes soon!

Edited August 25, 2007 by anotherDan

[sky4it]

cman & another dan: Terrific posts i enjoyed them.

Abigail: Thanks

cynic:

u said:

Scripture (Acts 13:48) indicates the Gentiles of Antioch of Pisidia who believed Paul and Barnabas’s preaching were those who had been ordained to eternal life. Scripture -- unapologetically -- declares (Romans 9 ) that God has mercy on whom he will, that God hardens whom he will, that God has a right within himself to take one person out of humanity for a vessel unto honor and another out of the same humanity for a vessel unto dishonor. There is a general call to faith in the declaration of the Gospel, but it is those whom God has appointed to be recipients of his mercy who receive and respond in faith.

You falsely accuse Calvin of pitting election against faith, yet the doctrine of unconditional election holds faith as something brought about (through effectual calling) in those God has appointed to life. It is you, not Calvin, who has pitted election and faith against one other.

With to your first paragraph, the creed of a belief system cannot be based upon what God will do for one party and not for another soley based upon God's election: true he hardened himself against Pharoh, but it was based upon his hardness of heart. (Not unsurprisingly Jesus taught that Moses permitted what? Divorce because of the hardness of there hearts. The core parameters for New Testament doctrine which I have recited repeated are: No Whormongers (Fornication and Adultry) and No Covetousness. My previous posts are ripe with bible quotes suporting this. At no place in New Testment writings does God say Election or Predestination circumvent this process. In addition if there are NO parameters what exactly is one getting saved from? In Acts 13:48, I dont know how it is you work the word "ordained" into the election pre-destination model, it does not fit to me. Re-read the Post where I posted Calvin early on in the thread. Calvin places election or predestination ahead of faith. I believe this is the way it is placed in the actual model also at the Calvin website right? No its is not me who pitted the two against each other, in fact, cynic, I never even thought of the two as having any need to be mentioned in unision, until I read Calvin.

Again with respect to the topic of unconditional election, I discussed I beleive with Abigail (I think) that if salvation were based soley on that basis alone, how could God be just in front of the Unelect? Hence, one must have parameters that indicate things like "pharohs hardness of heart" Romans 3: 5,6 bring this point PRESCISELY INTO VIEW. "Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) God forbid. For then how shall God judge the world?

I have posted volumously already on the subject, and made the only logical conclusion one can come to on New Testment parameters, neccessary for proper thinking. In my last post to wrdsandwrks, I posted the rational why I didnt want add a ton too it. There is not reason to do so . I just start being way too overboard, what I have posted is enough. I am not the first one to broach the subject. There is a book called, Why I am not a Calvanist, and some other material, I could mention but I have already stated my views in lenghy fashion.

Besides all that, I kinda think I need to visit with Abigail and Rascal and CO and havent talked to Oakspear in at least 3 years. Also lets face it cynic, doctrinal disertations which are too lengthy are counterproductive. I think I must have made my point many times.

[anotherDan]

dear readers, please note: Sky and I are posting at the same time... his compliment of my earlier post may not have included the most recent!

:)

Also note: these two people are going to share the same inheritance.

Edited August 25, 2007 by anotherDan

[Cynic]

And look up the definition of gregarious. I think you might mean egregious.

Sky also needs to look up the definition of buggery -- especially before again posting about having it in himself.

(It doesn't mean irritation or anger.)

[sky4it]

cynic:

See also above post to you; this addresses when you posted this:

you said:

Typical of sky4it's posts: Petulant but unsubstantiated accusations.

Here are the substantiated links:

This one from John Calvin:

http://www.reformed.org/books/index.html

5. Different kinds of "will" and of "freedom" in the church fathers

In general, they are wont to place under the free will of man only intermediate things, viz., those which pertain not to the kingdom of God, while they refer true righteousness to the special grace of God and spiritual regeneration. The author of the work, "De Vocatione Gentium," (On the Calling of the Gentiles,) wishing to show this, describes the will as threefold, viz., sensitive, animal, and spiritual. The two former, he says, are free to man, but the last is the work of the Holy Spirit. What truth there is in this will be considered in its own place. Our intention at present is only to mention the opinions of others, not to refute them. When writers treat of free will, their inquiry is chiefly directed not to what its power is in relation to civil or external actions, but to the obedience required by the divine law. The latter I admit to be the great question, but I cannot think the former should be altogether neglected; and I hope to be able to give the best reason for so thinking, (sec. 12 to 18.)

This one from Auther Pink:

http://www.reformed.org/books/pink/index.html

these considerations and influences, and if the effect, it must be their servant; and if the will is their servant then it is not Sovereign, and if the will is not Sovereign, we certainly cannot predicate absolute "freedom" of it.

Calvin says" directed not to what its power is in relation to civil or external actions, but to the obedience required by the divine law. The latter I admit to be the great question

Calvin says he questions the obedience of the will required by devine law. I said Calvin degrades the will, he just did it.

Pink also degrades the will. In both authors the subject is VOLUMOUS. It is not, in any other Christian work.

Thus, I think I substatiated my claim that Calvinism, degrades the will to avoid scripture. ie the sctripture i cited in Hebrews.

I also just did what I did not want to do which is recite lengthy disertations. The thing is Cynic I could go on all day doing this but I shouldnt, I got 15 credits of Biblical Greek, but Calvin is not a Greek dancer like VPW, Calvin is a philosophical dancer like Aristole.

[anotherDan]

cynic... you read my post I see.... that's all you have to say?

[Abigail]

It's Friday, 6 a.m. doesn't come quite as early on Saturday. :) Though my brain is too tired for too much deep thought and my sister has convinced me to spend the morning doing a different sort of "work" with her.

Cynic, perhaps it would be helpful if you would go through and read more of Sky's posts in this thread. It might help you understand where he is at the moment. I am not suggesting you suddenly change your beliefs and agree with him, but merely that you might consider what he is saying in a somewhat different context.

I am certain you have it in you to understand, if you take the time to look for it. There is more at stake here than defending Calvin or any other POV/doctrine. Then, by all means, please continue to add to the thread, as you have much to offer as well.

[anotherDan]

He may not, Abi. Have it in him, that is. But you're always expecting the best of people. How do you do it?

[Abigail]

Thanks, Dan, but really there are some who I would agree "may not have it in him." But I've met Cynic in other places around the cafe and if I am remembering and putting things together properly, I know who his wife is as well. So, I really do believe in this case he really does have it in him. :)

[anotherDan]

I will take your word for it, Ab. I appreciate your pointing that out.

I guess just slugging it out sometimes is part of the process.

Edited August 25, 2007 by anotherDan

[sky4it]

gregarious, gregious.

Yeah, well, everyone don't hold it against me to much, I was just trying to sound philosphical and smart like John Calvin. Also I don't go back much and correct my spelling errors either, I'm just in too much of a mad rush most days.

In re-thinking this a little' wrdsandwrks" pointed out and wisely so; that his understanding of a Calvinist soceity is they are very "puritanical". The upshod of the matter is, if it gets people to the target of "conformed into his image" and "holy and without blame before him in love" thats a good thing. For me, if I was working this stuff, I would be out in left field chasing around girls in string bikini's. When I read Calvin, I am left with the impression that, John Calvin doesn't think the work of the Holy Spirit can go on without John Calvin.

[wrdsandwrks]

Jesus Christ is the key to all of this. One good look at the cross, and so many things fade into insignificance. As the heart begins to comprehend the onlybegotten Son of God, His beloved Son, giving up all his glory, all his rights, his very life "for the joy that was set before him," suddenly even God Himself-- His ways and His love, are brought home to us. Jesus was the Word itself, the doctrine and the Law and quite surely the songs of Israel, the Psalms. This may be akin to what cman was saying, but I didn't read it that way.

Where I think these great issues come to have meaning is where Spurgeon so often dwelt, at the foot of the cross. Those were my nails that held him to the cross, that was my crown of thorns upon his head. Those were my stripes laid upon his back. He turned not his face from spitting and contempt. He was despised of men and they concluded that God hated him. They mocked him in his pain and reveled in their hearts about their "victory" over him, but they never did really take his life, he was giving it freely for them -- even them! And even me. "Father, forgive them...."

I cannot hammer out the intersection of Spurgeon's "two lines," but I can see Jesus, where those two lines crossed, where both the goodness and severity of God intersected at the crossroads of all time. Yes, sky, JUST LIKE YOU, he did not have a chance in hell that he would be remembered... but he had a chance in heaven. His funeral was very poorly attended, though a few loved him immensely. Just a few? But he had fed THOUSANDS! There were times when crowds of people followed him "and he healed THEM ALL." Josephus took little note, Caesar took little note, but his followers became filled with the spirit that he promised them -- "I will not leave you comfortless; I will come to you." Christ himself was raised from the dead, and lives today for one reason only, he was subject unto God. He did not put away doctrine; far from it. He was the doctrine in blood red, black and blue, and all the colors of the rainbow.

Talk about marvelous! This is great stuff. I've been thinking what you wrote since last night. All lines converge at the cross. Goodness and severity, free-will and election, justice and mercy... Thanks AD.

AD, love to hear more of your thoughts on salvation and Anthony Buzzard. I looked at his website and found some of his book titles intriguing, especially

Our Fathers Who Aren't in Heaven: The Forgotten Christianity of Jesus the Jew and The Law, the Sabbath and the New Covenant. Have you read these?

And Sky, Thanks so much for starting this thread. It's been a great blessing and I've been learning from all you guys.

[anotherDan]

Wrds, Anthony has visited us a couple of times here in the DE area, and every time he came it was a great blessing. His background is WWCOG (Armstrong) and when he came out of that, there were a lot of similarities with exWay people. I've not read all his books, "Our Fathers Who Aren't in Heaven" I think is about the Kingdom (not ADAN). The inheritance is not "in heaven."

Anthony did two memorable things for me and others when he was here. He raised our appreciation of the Gospels and the teachings of Jesus. He confrontationally spoke to us about water baptism. I used to correspond with him by email. He's very unassuming and approachable, is tender hearted but grounded, doctrinally, and not at all a pushover. He's a staunch believer that Jesus is not God, and has particpated in public debates about this, and with Muslims. He's charming and funny. I admire him and thank God for the influence he's had on my life. That's not to say that there wouldn't be some lively conversation if I could get him over here for dinner tonight. If I could arrange it, I'd want you and TBone to come!

Salvation? God transcends time. He sees history, the present, and the future. He doesn't "predict" future events. He sees them as clearly as He sees this moment, and the moment He created man in His image. I believe we do have free will, and are responsible for our actions. I also believe in grace, which to me is truly amazing (grace, that is-- not amazing that I believe it). These meet, as we've agreed, in Jesus Christ, the central Figure of all history. He uniquely represented God to the world, and is the heir of all the universe. In him, so are we. (I'll have to do an "in him" question in SpotSurvey3) My soteriology, such as it is, goes like this. Repent of your sins. Ask forgiveness of God, and it wouldn't hurt to ask forgiveness of others, and repay those you have wronged. Be willing to start from scratch (be born again) and "allow" God (I use such a term with extreme reservation) to put the pieces of your heart back together again, His way. As someone said, "He will need ALL the pieces." The central point is the one I tried to make, above. Look unto Jesus. Seek him. Dwell in him. Abide in him. Remain in him. There is no other meaningful way to understand "lord." The first English translations used "lord" and we've kept it ever since. It's a very British word, obviously. I would love to know how the first Ephesian believers responded to that word in the Greek language. (Any takers?) Then, it says, we HAVE eternal life... the life that is of God, and we are of God. We're united to Him "in Jesus Christ." That's why God has (past tense) raised us up together with him (when he was raised) and seated us with him. We "have" an inheritence in him.

Now, we have communities just like they did in the First Century. To me, the vital question is, how are we to exist as children of God within "the community"? I am a citizen of the world, of the US, and a member of my family: Liz, and our three children, our two grandkids, two sons-in-law. And we have our families in the other direction, too. My dad is still living, two brothers, a half-sister, a half-brother, (I never consider them "half" anything... it's just a manner of speaking) two stepbrothers, etc. The GSC is a community, so are the fellowships / churches / Quaker meetinghouses we attend. Our yacht club is a community. The Body of Christ is "me" and "you" in the sense that we can choose to represent God, not necessarily by talking about Him, but simply by living IN THE WORLD in unity with God. You can call it obedience. Actually, that would be perfect. John wrote that he was writing believers so that they don't sin. Jesus did not sin, and "in him there is no sin." Now, in my mind, that is salvation. It's the grace to do that, coupled with the will to do it. That's what I believe it means to believe on the Name of the Son of God.

cman, can you help me out?

[cman]

As a son, you radiate the glory of God; but when you return, you are that glory, you are that God. God the Father transforms his sons into himself by giving us his own son, who reveals our true identity. This is the mystery of life through death.

Darren : Lifestyle Builder

Darren Meade

I don't really have the tongue you might need, but I do know there is life in the Spirit in you and each person. It's not in some far away place called heaven. And heaven and earth is you and me. To battle over the right words to describe something that is not describable is merely practicing and testing your own God. Cause this God is with you in you and is you without you. Inescapable no matter what you do. The Home of the Spirit is within man and not somebody that can be put aside.

The first two commandments are self describing. Never leaving you or forsaking you. The good bad and ugly. It's all there to explore and find the true riches of the inheritance IN the saints.

What is this glory that is to be revealed in us? Each and every one of us.

Peace, Clay

[Abigail]

Backing up a bit as I play catch-up here. BTW, I tend to think most people "have it in em", the real question is are they willing to tap into it.

I've been cooking a very detailed discussion on "the gift of holy spirit" which I'm planning on reviving the Speaking in Tongues thread... it will not be what you may be thinking... I think you'll enjoy that one.

I'm looking forward to it. I haven't really followed that thread thus far, but I will play some catch up over the next couple of days and I look forward to your upcoming additions. :)

So what did you think of Sir Buzzard? Did you catch his "debate" with the muslim on YouTube?

I didn't see his debate, did you post it and I missed it? I miss out on a lot of the video clips posted at the cafe. I post quite a bit from work when things are slow there (my bosses are really really cool and they don't care - plus I type very very fast so it doesn't take me long to put my thoughts down), but I don't have speakers at work. Usually, when I am on-line at home it is after the kids are in bed, so I keep my speakers turned off so as to not disturb their sleep. :) If you can point me to it though, I will pull out some headphones and give it a listen.

Likewise, I have only given Sir Buzzard a tiny bit of reading compared to what he has available. I will go back to him again tomorrow evening. My weekends are usually filled with kids, family, etc. so I don't do a lot of studying then. I save it for the weeknights when everyone else is quiet and I can give it my full focus.

Honestly, I have mixed feelings on the "are the dead alive now" stuff and so I have not really worked it since leaving TWI. I understand many found comfort in the notion that they were not, but I always found comfort in thinking my step-dad was watching over me. :) Of course, ideally, it would be good to get to the bottom of it and find out what the Bible truly says on the subject, but there is SOOOO very much to study within the Bible!!

On the other hand, I find the notion of paradise on earth more comforting than the notion of being some formless spirit in heaven. Can't tell you exactly why, its just how I feel about it at the moment. :)

Wanted to add, in case I don't get back to this for a bit - Dan, your last post on this thread was very beautiful and moving. That one should be kept and framed. :)

[sky4it]

wrdsandwrks: thks, nice to know I could start a thread of interest. Ditto on the learning from others.

cman & anotherdan: great posts, sort of like the good man out of the heart brings good things.

It seems to me that all theology/belief systems/ religion produce something. This is true ( I think) wether one is talking about Billy Graham or the Jim Jones Ghiana cult. Its fun to put a measuring stick on stuff and ask, what is this? No?

[Abigail]

It seems to me that all theology/belief systems/ religion produce something. This is true ( I think) wether one is talking about Billy Graham or the Jim Jones Ghiana cult. Its fun to put a measuring stick on stuff and ask, what is this? No?

I agree with you here very much, Sky. Again, it is one of the reasons I like it down here so much - because we can all exchange our theologies and belief systems without the expectation that everyone else must agree and therefore, we can all learn from each other without pressure to conform to each other.

I also think the measuring stick has merit. I think TWI has left me with a very precise one from the sense that I seem to sense "danger" in all organized religion now. Not necessarily the best measuring stick, perhaps, but it is the one I have at the moment. But they do produce something, some of it good, some of it not so good. I am leary of once again getting caught up in the not so good stuff, while searching for the good.

But perhaps, that is where what Dan said is so vital. When I can get to the place within myself and when I can find the place outside myself, where I can look at the PEOPLE instead of the organization, where I can find a place with people who don't expect me to conform to the organization - then perhaps I will find a place I am comfortable.

[cman]

"So until people learn that the religions of today each have something to teach about the journey to God, they will be like the people living at the base of the mountain!" Chester beamed.

The master stodd up and said, "Exactly."

+=t :")