Everything I've seen in his paper shows that after being saved we can lose that by turning our backs on God. He doesn't imply that sinning, our own mistaken actions, has anything to do with it. It is a rejection of God that messes things up for us, and he shows quite a few scriptures to back up his claim.
This is a topic I started looking at about 3 years ago, and keep going back to it from time to time. That's why I was interested in what Dan had found, but his paper is so incredibly long-winded that it is a real challenge to read every detail.
And just exactly how does that differ from having a so-called "man of god" declare that you have turned your back on God by refusing to obey? That's what TWI has been doing for decades. Nope, I don't buy it. No, that's just sociological justification for keeping people in emotional and social bondage to the will of charlatans.
Especially since there's been, with accelerating development of medical technology, an astonishing rise in near-death experiences that consistently (exclusively) suggest that "crossing over to the other side" is a peaceful, wonderful experience. And there's been NO link to any exclusive religious belief or experience by those who have reported such experiences.
Which all also raises substantial doubt about Wierwille's declaration of whether the Dead are Alive Now.
Edited by Rocky to mention that it's not necessarily been "born again" Christians who have been subject to these near-death experiences
In all that I've read so far, he hasn't mentioned it. If I see anything about it through the remainder I will certainly update you.
Well, that's certainly convenient. Because if salvation is lost for the born again believer who rejects God then certainly they lose their holy spirit and no longer have the ability to SIT. Off to the Great White Throne judgement and the second death for this now unsaved, previously saved individual.
Dan is unbelievable on this stuff. He pulls the cornerstone of eternal life from his pyramid and expects it to stand. Geez.
My friend, I just believe you don't get the point.
Dan's paper has this near the front:
Before beginning the body of the paper, we thought it would be helpful to briefly
summarize the conclusions of our study.
1. Every person receives the promise of salvation at the moment they confess the Lordship of Jesus and believe in their heart he has been raised from the dead. At that moment they receive the gift of holy spirit, a “seal” indicating they belong to God. God will keep His promise of salvation provided that they continue in faith.
2. Salvation is solely by God’s grace through faith. It cannot be earned by good works nor can it be lost by bad works (sin). 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. Those who have received the spirit and then subsequently reject Christ and God with a wicked heart of unbelief will themselves be rejected.
Even though I only glossed over the entire paper, and read short sections throughout, these two points are what the entire paper is about. There is no "conflating" of other points. If you think he is conflating regarding these two points, fine. But that's all the paper is concerned with. But you continue to project a menacing motive into his paper.
So, maybe it is you that isn't getting the point. And that point is, he's discussing two viewpoints of salvation. Period.
Before beginning the body of the paper, we thought it would be helpful to briefly
summarize the conclusions of our study.
1. Every person receives the promise of salvation at the moment they confess the Lordship of Jesus and believe in their heart he has been raised from the dead. At that moment they receive the gift of holy spirit, a “seal” indicating they belong to God. God will keep His promise of salvation provided that they continue in faith.
2. Salvation is solely by God’s grace through faith. It cannot be earned by good works nor can it be lost by bad works (sin). 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. Those who have received the spirit and then subsequently reject Christ and God with a wicked heart of unbelief will themselves be rejected.
Even though I only glossed over the entire paper, and read short sections throughout, these two points are what the entire paper is about. There is no "conflating" of other points. If you think he is conflating regarding these two points, fine. But that's all the paper is concerned with. But you continue to project a menacing motive into his paper.
So, maybe it is you that isn't getting the point. And that point is, he's discussing two viewpoints of salvation. Period.
The devil is in the details. What I highlighted does indeed show that Dan conflated. There is no getting around the fact that Dan has erased grace from the plan. Promise of salvation is not the same as a gift. It's conditional, upon certain specified works of the human(s). "Provided that" is an expression that clearly and emphatically overrules the notion that a believer receives a gift from God. Dan G blends together salvation by works with salvation by grace. It's BULL$HIT.
Implicit in the entire bull$hit scheme is that it would absolutely lead to other cults because it's easy for religious knuckleheads to get tricked into believing just about anything if the preacher is charismatic enough.
I don't doubt that Dan is as sincere as any "biblical researcher" ever has been. I project not menacing motive onto him or his paper. I project it onto those who would (and there certainly will be those who will, if he's ever taken seriously by enough sincere followers to build a movement) exploit the ramifications implicit in his thesis.
He doesn't mention works. He doesn't mention anyone has to actually "do" anything. He discusses an attitude.
Would you like to read the paper for yourself?
Who is responsible for the believer's attitude? If it's the believer, that's in the category of works. A decision is an act of one's mind. If it's not the believer, who would it be?
In the context of any religious/church organization, are you not able to foresee relationships such that a given generic believer would be subject to rules, written or unwritten, made and/or enforced by anyone in that group (church) setting?
Have I made it not clear yet that the paper, IMO, is convoluted and conflates fundamental relationships and responsibilities among those in whatever organization might choose to adopt that paper as a governing document? So no, I am not interested in reading the paper.
Clearly, I have not gotten my point effectively communicated such that you understand the social dynamics that are inevitable.
But if you'd like to pose questions to me that would clarify and help you understand the point(s) I'm trying to make (accepting them and believing them is a different issue, that's up to you). But making clear what my objections are is my responsibility and I'd be happy to oblige if you can frame some questions to help me see what is keeping you from understanding what I'm trying to say.
Clearly, I have not gotten my point effectively communicated such that you understand the social dynamics that are inevitable.
I understand your point. I think you don't understand mine, or Dan's.
I was looking into this very principle from a few years ago, and my questioning the concept of salvation as "once saved always saved" began when I carefully read this section:
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.
What prompted me to carefully read it was, what I consider, and erroneous teaching by VPW that Paul shifted gears in Romans from speaking to the believers to speaking to the unbelievers. That, in my mind, was ridiculous.
Continuing in His goodness, obviously to me, means walking in Love, as we are told in Eph 5:1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;
Eph 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us...
Do you consider that works? Because that is definitely a modus operandi, the one we are supposed to be adhering to. This brought about a different understanding for me of this section:
Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
That phrase, "any other creature" is indicative of any other creature than myself. Well, I can't find anywhere that states that I can't screw it up for myself.
While I am not 100% convinced, I was quite interested to see what Dan had found when looking into this very topic. And I am still looking into it, and speaking with those who I respect with regard to their understanding of the Word.
What prompted me to carefully read it was, what I consider, and erroneous teaching by VPW that Paul shifted gears in Romans from speaking to the believers to speaking to the unbelievers. That, in my mind, was ridiculous
I am not a dispensationalist. With that said, getting to whom the scripture is addressed to is vital. Three classifications of people - Jew, Gentile, Church of God. The book of Romans is structured in such a way that both Jew and Gentile are left short of the promises of God and only faith can include anyone into salvation, faith in Jesus as Lord. There are sections of Romans addressed to Jews, sections addressed to Gentiles, and sections addressed to those born again. This basic classification is evident throughout scripture.
God's promises to Abraham were made based on faith, not circumsion - works of the flesh. Israel assumed they were righteous by good works. Gentiles assumed their inclusion gave a pedestal to boast against Israel. God explained and concluded that all, both Jew and Gentile, are under sin and short of God's righteousness which is by faith.
Dan does not understand, or chooses to ignore the structure of Romans and/or to whom the scripture is addressed.
I understand your point. I think you don't understand mine, or Dan's.
I was looking into this very principle from a few years ago, and my questioning the concept of salvation as "once saved always saved" began when I carefully read this section:
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.
What prompted me to carefully read it was, what I consider, and erroneous teaching by VPW that Paul shifted gears in Romans from speaking to the believers to speaking to the unbelievers. That, in my mind, was ridiculous.
Continuing in His goodness, obviously to me, means walking in Love, as we are told in Eph 5:1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;
Eph 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us...
Do you consider that works? Because that is definitely a modus operandi, the one we are supposed to be adhering to. This brought about a different understanding for me of this section:
Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
That phrase, "any other creature" is indicative of any other creature than myself. Well, I can't find anywhere that states that I can't screw it up for myself.
While I am not 100% convinced, I was quite interested to see what Dan had found when looking into this very topic. And I am still looking into it, and speaking with those who I respect with regard to their understanding of the Word.
The vicster had his little dance he did in PLAF when he talked about "once saved always saved", then did his "incorruptible seed" routine.
Which is a reference to I Peter 1:23.
I guess you have to examine what Paul means there by "cut off". That could mean a number of things. In the context its kind of an obvious statement. "Take a look at God's goodness towards you. It will continue towards you if you continue towards God. Otherwise it won't. Kind of like Israel. They were real stubborn and didn't continue in God's goodness.
I like walking in the sunshine. I experience its rays and the warmth on my cheek. It lasts until I go stand in shadows.
Cut off from what?
Salvation? Rewards? Experiencing God's goodness because you are actively pushing Him away?
I mean I don't know how many of you have actively dealt with teenagers with attitudes, but you take the teenagers keys with a 'tude for a period of time. You don't sell their car.
So that is my response to Dan's hundred plus pages of whatever.
I understand your point. I think you don't understand mine, or Dan's.
I was looking into this very principle from a few years ago, and my questioning the concept of salvation as "once saved always saved" began when I carefully read this section:
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.
What prompted me to carefully read it was, what I consider, and erroneous teaching by VPW that Paul shifted gears in Romans from speaking to the believers to speaking to the unbelievers. That, in my mind, was ridiculous.
Continuing in His goodness, obviously to me, means walking in Love, as we are told in Eph 5:1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;
Eph 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us...
Do you consider that works? Because that is definitely a modus operandi, the one we are supposed to be adhering to. This brought about a different understanding for me of this section:
Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
That phrase, "any other creature" is indicative of any other creature than myself. Well, I can't find anywhere that states that I can't screw it up for myself.
While I am not 100% convinced, I was quite interested to see what Dan had found when looking into this very topic. And I am still looking into it, and speaking with those who I respect with regard to their understanding of the Word.
Good stuff, Taxidev ! I love the book of Romans!
I tend to think of salvation as almost like a journey...a journey of faith...in my opinion wierwille taught followers to focus almost exclusively on grace - God’s work accomplished through what Christ did for us - that tunnel-vision of focus more or less ignored what God EXPECTED of those who accepted God’s invitation of grace.
Maybe slightly off topic - but along the same lines of what is expected of someone who may think they are “gifted” - remember this gem: “to whom much has been given, much is required” - I’m thinking about some folks i knew in TWI that aspired to a position of leadership - with an air of superiority about themselves, who seemed to cherish a title and the recognition and seemed most comfortable leading from an armchair rather than by example...I think their idea of service is to delegate rather than demonstrate ...I think the Bible is pretty clear on what is expected of Christian leaders - and it’s mostly about serving others.
The “process” of realizing our salvation is perhaps a lifetime effort. Romans 4 talks of the works of the law and James 2 speaks of the works of faith. We are NOT saved / justified etc. by the works of the law but we demonstrate our salvation / justification etc. by works of faith. Matthew 3:8 and Acts 26:20 speak of Christians bringing forth fruit that demonstrates repentance. So rather than me focusing on the idea that I am a farmer or gardener and being intent on keeping up with the latest fashion in bib-overalls - I think if farming / gardening were truly in my blood, I’d be out there in the field intently working on producing some fruit.
There are sections of Romans addressed to Jews, sections addressed to Gentiles, and sections addressed to those born again.
Interesting perspective. I see Paul addressing the born again throughout this book, and discussing the Gentiles, and discussing the Jews. Nowhere in there do I see him addressing anyone other than the believers. If you see otherwise, please point it out to me. I am always open to greater understanding.
Interesting perspective. I see Paul addressing the born again throughout this book, and discussing the Gentiles, and discussing the Jews. Nowhere in there do I see him addressing anyone other than the believers. If you see otherwise, please point it out to me. I am always open to greater understanding.
Perhaps addressed is a poor choice of words on my part, my apologies. I should have said concerning the gentiles. Romans speaks very specifically on Jews, and gentiles and concludes all have fallen short due to the sin nature. Not just sins I commit but thesin nature within mankind, Romans 7 for example. Romans 11 is clearly speaking concerning the gentiles, which the church of God is neither jew nor gentile but a new creation where Christ is all and in all. Also check out
The author was an understudy of EW Bullinger and I do not agree with them on many points, but that doesnt discount the contributions he made in gaining further insight on Romans, it's a complex book in many ways, especially to our western minds.
Eph 5:1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;
Eph 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us...
Do you consider that works? Because that is definitely a modus operandi, the one we are supposed to be adhering to. This brought about a different understanding for me of this section:
Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
That phrase, "any other creature" is indicative of any other creature than myself. Well, I can't find anywhere that states that I can't screw it up for myself.
While I am not 100% convinced, I was quite interested to see what Dan had found when looking into this very topic. And I am still looking into it, and speaking with those who I respect with regard to their understanding of the Word.
A) Ephesians says nothing about salvation being dependent upon us walking in love. It says to walk in love. It doesn't say "walk in love OR ELSE..." We should WANT TO walk in love because it pleases God AND because it's the right thing to do (which is why it pleases God.)
B) One of the great problems of twi survivors is this dependency on a version of the Bible that's 450 years old. This introduces 2 problems: 1) It doesn't correct various corrections that were made in the last 450 years (most weren't retro-fitted into the KJV, although a few were.) 2) The archaic language suits those of us who read Shakespeare for fun, but for the rest, relying on Elizabethan English and not modern words leads to MISUNDERSTANDINGS and MISCOMMUNICATIONS. vpw made a lot of bank on some of those, and exploited them. (Example: A page of explanation on "replenish" being used rather than "fill"- when the non-English texts translated INTO the KJV said "fill".)
In this case, "creature" is not understood they way it would have been understood by Shakespeare or any of his contemporaries. It means, in simple modern English, "created thing." The sentence is making a very big point, and builds up to it somewhat from big to GIGANTIC.
"I am convinced that neither what's dead, nor what's alive, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor the things that EXIST, nor the things that DON'T EXIST YET, nor height, nor depth, nor ANY OTHER THING IN CREATION, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
I agree with Paul here. I'm also convinced, but I can only speak for myself here. I obviously don't speak for Dan.
We count as "created things". things in creation. So, we can't separate ourselves from the love of God either.
A) Ephesians says nothing about salvation being dependent upon us walking in love. It says to walk in love. It doesn't say "walk in love OR ELSE..." We should WANT TO walk in love because it pleases God AND because it's the right thing to do (which is why it pleases God.)
B) One of the great problems of twi survivors is this dependency on a version of the Bible that's 450 years old. This introduces 2 problems: 1) It doesn't correct various corrections that were made in the last 450 years (most weren't retro-fitted into the KJV, although a few were.) 2) The archaic language suits those of us who read Shakespeare for fun, but for the rest, relying on Elizabethan English and not modern words leads to MISUNDERSTANDINGS and MISCOMMUNICATIONS. vpw made a lot of bank on some of those, and exploited them. (Example: A page of explanation on "replenish" being used rather than "fill"- when the non-English texts translated INTO the KJV said "fill".)
In this case, "creature" is not understood they way it would have been understood by Shakespeare or any of his contemporaries. It means, in simple modern English, "created thing." The sentence is making a very big point, and builds up to it somewhat from big to GIGANTIC.
"I am convinced that neither what's dead, nor what's alive, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor the things that EXIST, nor the things that DON'T EXIST YET, nor height, nor depth, nor ANY OTHER THING IN CREATION, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
I agree with Paul here. I'm also convinced, but I can only speak for myself here. I obviously don't speak for Dan.
We count as "created things". things in creation. So, we can't separate ourselves from the love of God either.
Romans 11 is clearly speaking concerning the gentiles
Romans 11 is clearly speaking to the believers. There are two Greek words translated gentiles, one, which is used here, refers to the gentile believers. The other refers to the non-judean gentiles, as a generic group. This is differentiated by Bullinger in his Greek lexicon.
Ephesians says nothing about salvation being dependent upon us walking in love. It says to walk in love. It doesn't say "walk in love OR ELSE..." We should WANT TO walk
You are projecting your own interpretation when you add WANT TO. The verse doesn't say that, it just tells us to.
1 hour ago, OldSkool said:
The archaic language suits those of us who read Shakespeare for fun, but for the rest, relying on Elizabethan English and not modern words leads to MISUNDERSTANDINGS and MISCOMMUNICATIONS.
This is why we have research tools, like Bullinger, and Brown Driver Briggs, and Thayer, and the like. I happen to like the KJV, and yes, I did enjoy Shakespeare. I was able to understand this old English within the first chapter of Genesis. But I don't just look at one version, I have several versions available.
As for the "ANY OTHER THING IN CREATION", Bullinger defines this Greek word for other as meaning the other of two. Well, there are many more than two in that list, so what is the two? I say it is me and anyone else. What do you say?
And what about this? Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Gal 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
Do you not think God would be mocked if we could have any attitude we want after being born again, and still be guaranteed a place in heaven?
I started a new thread titled "Can salvation be lost? in the doctrinal forum to address this matter. It seems to me, that might be a better place to continue the discussion.
Also, feel free to re-title the thread if you feel it's not correctly phrased.
I started a new thread, titled "Can salvation be lost?", in the doctrinal forum to address this matter. It seems to me, that might be a better place to continue the discussion.
Also, feel free to re-title the thread if you feel it's not correctly phrased.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
16
10
14
23
Popular Days
Jun 2
19
Jun 1
14
May 25
10
May 20
7
Top Posters In This Topic
Rocky 16 posts
T-Bone 10 posts
OldSkool 14 posts
Taxidev 23 posts
Popular Days
Jun 2 2018
19 posts
Jun 1 2018
14 posts
May 25 2018
10 posts
May 20 2018
7 posts
Popular Posts
T-Bone
In the spirit of truthful envy – I’ve been thinking about starting an offshoot myself…actually, it’s an offshoot OF myself…well, technically it’s an offshoot of an offshoot of an offshoot of myself…a
WordWolf
No it didn't. Nor did he put something up and THEN ask for donations to keep it running. He put together a (free) Facebook page. Before spending $20 on all the costs of a webpage and domain, he wants
WordWolf
I am adding my own OPINION when I say "we should WANT TO walk in love." I explained WHY we should want to. (It pleases God, and it's the right thing to do-which is why is pleases God.) I thought th
waysider
I'm gonna open up a big old can of worms here.
In PFAL, VPW taught that "speaking in tongues is the external manifestation of the internal reality, etc., etc., etc."
Soooooo...shouldn't one (theoretically) be able to ascertain their internal status by simply speaking in tongues?
Unless..........
.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Taxidev, how does Gallagher handle SIT?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
In all that I've read so far, he hasn't mentioned it. If I see anything about it through the remainder I will certainly update you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
And just exactly how does that differ from having a so-called "man of god" declare that you have turned your back on God by refusing to obey? That's what TWI has been doing for decades. Nope, I don't buy it. No, that's just sociological justification for keeping people in emotional and social bondage to the will of charlatans.
Edited by RockyEspecially since there's been, with accelerating development of medical technology, an astonishing rise in near-death experiences that consistently (exclusively) suggest that "crossing over to the other side" is a peaceful, wonderful experience. And there's been NO link to any exclusive religious belief or experience by those who have reported such experiences.
Which all also raises substantial doubt about Wierwille's declaration of whether the Dead are Alive Now.
to mention that it's not necessarily been "born again" Christians who have been subject to these near-death experiences
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Because he doesn't say any such thing, not even a hint of it. It's just between us and God.
Everything I've read, the verses he quotes, have nothing to do with obeying any people. Just God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Declaration seems like too kind a word.
HERE
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
My friend, I just believe you don't get the point.
Dan can conflate any damn thing he wants. But the reality is more along the lines of Occam's Razor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Well, that's certainly convenient. Because if salvation is lost for the born again believer who rejects God then certainly they lose their holy spirit and no longer have the ability to SIT. Off to the Great White Throne judgement and the second death for this now unsaved, previously saved individual.
Dan is unbelievable on this stuff. He pulls the cornerstone of eternal life from his pyramid and expects it to stand. Geez.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Dan's paper has this near the front:
Before beginning the body of the paper, we thought it would be helpful to briefly
summarize the conclusions of our study.
1. Every person receives the promise of salvation at the moment they confess the Lordship of Jesus and believe in their heart he has been raised from the dead. At that moment they receive the gift of holy spirit, a “seal” indicating they belong to God. God will keep His promise of salvation provided that they continue in faith.
2. Salvation is solely by God’s grace through faith. It cannot be earned by good works nor can it be lost by bad works (sin). 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. Those who have received the spirit and then subsequently reject Christ and God with a wicked heart of unbelief will themselves be rejected.
Even though I only glossed over the entire paper, and read short sections throughout, these two points are what the entire paper is about. There is no "conflating" of other points. If you think he is conflating regarding these two points, fine. But that's all the paper is concerned with. But you continue to project a menacing motive into his paper.
So, maybe it is you that isn't getting the point. And that point is, he's discussing two viewpoints of salvation. Period.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
The devil is in the details. What I highlighted does indeed show that Dan conflated. There is no getting around the fact that Dan has erased grace from the plan. Promise of salvation is not the same as a gift. It's conditional, upon certain specified works of the human(s). "Provided that" is an expression that clearly and emphatically overrules the notion that a believer receives a gift from God. Dan G blends together salvation by works with salvation by grace. It's BULL$HIT.
Implicit in the entire bull$hit scheme is that it would absolutely lead to other cults because it's easy for religious knuckleheads to get tricked into believing just about anything if the preacher is charismatic enough.
I don't doubt that Dan is as sincere as any "biblical researcher" ever has been. I project not menacing motive onto him or his paper. I project it onto those who would (and there certainly will be those who will, if he's ever taken seriously by enough sincere followers to build a movement) exploit the ramifications implicit in his thesis.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
He doesn't mention works. He doesn't mention anyone has to actually "do" anything. He discusses an attitude.
Would you like to read the paper for yourself?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Who is responsible for the believer's attitude? If it's the believer, that's in the category of works. A decision is an act of one's mind. If it's not the believer, who would it be?
In the context of any religious/church organization, are you not able to foresee relationships such that a given generic believer would be subject to rules, written or unwritten, made and/or enforced by anyone in that group (church) setting?
Have I made it not clear yet that the paper, IMO, is convoluted and conflates fundamental relationships and responsibilities among those in whatever organization might choose to adopt that paper as a governing document? So no, I am not interested in reading the paper.
Clearly, I have not gotten my point effectively communicated such that you understand the social dynamics that are inevitable.
But if you'd like to pose questions to me that would clarify and help you understand the point(s) I'm trying to make (accepting them and believing them is a different issue, that's up to you). But making clear what my objections are is my responsibility and I'd be happy to oblige if you can frame some questions to help me see what is keeping you from understanding what I'm trying to say.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
I understand your point. I think you don't understand mine, or Dan's.
I was looking into this very principle from a few years ago, and my questioning the concept of salvation as "once saved always saved" began when I carefully read this section:
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.
What prompted me to carefully read it was, what I consider, and erroneous teaching by VPW that Paul shifted gears in Romans from speaking to the believers to speaking to the unbelievers. That, in my mind, was ridiculous.
Continuing in His goodness, obviously to me, means walking in Love, as we are told in Eph 5:1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;
Eph 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us...
Do you consider that works? Because that is definitely a modus operandi, the one we are supposed to be adhering to. This brought about a different understanding for me of this section:
Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
That phrase, "any other creature" is indicative of any other creature than myself. Well, I can't find anywhere that states that I can't screw it up for myself.
While I am not 100% convinced, I was quite interested to see what Dan had found when looking into this very topic. And I am still looking into it, and speaking with those who I respect with regard to their understanding of the Word.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
I am not a dispensationalist. With that said, getting to whom the scripture is addressed to is vital. Three classifications of people - Jew, Gentile, Church of God. The book of Romans is structured in such a way that both Jew and Gentile are left short of the promises of God and only faith can include anyone into salvation, faith in Jesus as Lord. There are sections of Romans addressed to Jews, sections addressed to Gentiles, and sections addressed to those born again. This basic classification is evident throughout scripture.
God's promises to Abraham were made based on faith, not circumsion - works of the flesh. Israel assumed they were righteous by good works. Gentiles assumed their inclusion gave a pedestal to boast against Israel. God explained and concluded that all, both Jew and Gentile, are under sin and short of God's righteousness which is by faith.
Dan does not understand, or chooses to ignore the structure of Romans and/or to whom the scripture is addressed.
Edited by OldSkoolLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
The vicster had his little dance he did in PLAF when he talked about "once saved always saved", then did his "incorruptible seed" routine.
Which is a reference to I Peter 1:23.
I guess you have to examine what Paul means there by "cut off". That could mean a number of things. In the context its kind of an obvious statement. "Take a look at God's goodness towards you. It will continue towards you if you continue towards God. Otherwise it won't. Kind of like Israel. They were real stubborn and didn't continue in God's goodness.
I like walking in the sunshine. I experience its rays and the warmth on my cheek. It lasts until I go stand in shadows.
Cut off from what?
Salvation? Rewards? Experiencing God's goodness because you are actively pushing Him away?
I mean I don't know how many of you have actively dealt with teenagers with attitudes, but you take the teenagers keys with a 'tude for a period of time. You don't sell their car.
So that is my response to Dan's hundred plus pages of whatever.
Cut off from what?
stated as a chorus to this song:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Good stuff, Taxidev ! I love the book of Romans!
I tend to think of salvation as almost like a journey...a journey of faith...in my opinion wierwille taught followers to focus almost exclusively on grace - God’s work accomplished through what Christ did for us - that tunnel-vision of focus more or less ignored what God EXPECTED of those who accepted God’s invitation of grace.
Maybe slightly off topic - but along the same lines of what is expected of someone who may think they are “gifted” - remember this gem: “to whom much has been given, much is required” - I’m thinking about some folks i knew in TWI that aspired to a position of leadership - with an air of superiority about themselves, who seemed to cherish a title and the recognition and seemed most comfortable leading from an armchair rather than by example...I think their idea of service is to delegate rather than demonstrate ...I think the Bible is pretty clear on what is expected of Christian leaders - and it’s mostly about serving others.
The “process” of realizing our salvation is perhaps a lifetime effort. Romans 4 talks of the works of the law and James 2 speaks of the works of faith. We are NOT saved / justified etc. by the works of the law but we demonstrate our salvation / justification etc. by works of faith. Matthew 3:8 and Acts 26:20 speak of Christians bringing forth fruit that demonstrates repentance. So rather than me focusing on the idea that I am a farmer or gardener and being intent on keeping up with the latest fashion in bib-overalls - I think if farming / gardening were truly in my blood, I’d be out there in the field intently working on producing some fruit.
All this is just my opinion, of course.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Interesting perspective. I see Paul addressing the born again throughout this book, and discussing the Gentiles, and discussing the Jews. Nowhere in there do I see him addressing anyone other than the believers. If you see otherwise, please point it out to me. I am always open to greater understanding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Perhaps addressed is a poor choice of words on my part, my apologies. I should have said concerning the gentiles. Romans speaks very specifically on Jews, and gentiles and concludes all have fallen short due to the sin nature. Not just sins I commit but thesin nature within mankind, Romans 7 for example. Romans 11 is clearly speaking concerning the gentiles, which the church of God is neither jew nor gentile but a new creation where Christ is all and in all. Also check out
http://www.believer.com/estore/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=64
The author was an understudy of EW Bullinger and I do not agree with them on many points, but that doesnt discount the contributions he made in gaining further insight on Romans, it's a complex book in many ways, especially to our western minds.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
A) Ephesians says nothing about salvation being dependent upon us walking in love. It says to walk in love. It doesn't say "walk in love OR ELSE..." We should WANT TO walk in love because it pleases God AND because it's the right thing to do (which is why it pleases God.)
B) One of the great problems of twi survivors is this dependency on a version of the Bible that's 450 years old. This introduces 2 problems: 1) It doesn't correct various corrections that were made in the last 450 years (most weren't retro-fitted into the KJV, although a few were.) 2) The archaic language suits those of us who read Shakespeare for fun, but for the rest, relying on Elizabethan English and not modern words leads to MISUNDERSTANDINGS and MISCOMMUNICATIONS. vpw made a lot of bank on some of those, and exploited them. (Example: A page of explanation on "replenish" being used rather than "fill"- when the non-English texts translated INTO the KJV said "fill".)
In this case, "creature" is not understood they way it would have been understood by Shakespeare or any of his contemporaries. It means, in simple modern English, "created thing." The sentence is making a very big point, and builds up to it somewhat from big to GIGANTIC.
"I am convinced that neither what's dead, nor what's alive, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor the things that EXIST, nor the things that DON'T EXIST YET, nor height, nor depth, nor ANY OTHER THING IN CREATION, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
I agree with Paul here. I'm also convinced, but I can only speak for myself here. I obviously don't speak for Dan.
We count as "created things". things in creation. So, we can't separate ourselves from the love of God either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Thanks WW, very insightful!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
Romans 11 is clearly speaking to the believers. There are two Greek words translated gentiles, one, which is used here, refers to the gentile believers. The other refers to the non-judean gentiles, as a generic group. This is differentiated by Bullinger in his Greek lexicon.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taxidev
You are projecting your own interpretation when you add WANT TO. The verse doesn't say that, it just tells us to.
This is why we have research tools, like Bullinger, and Brown Driver Briggs, and Thayer, and the like. I happen to like the KJV, and yes, I did enjoy Shakespeare. I was able to understand this old English within the first chapter of Genesis. But I don't just look at one version, I have several versions available.
As for the "ANY OTHER THING IN CREATION", Bullinger defines this Greek word for other as meaning the other of two. Well, there are many more than two in that list, so what is the two? I say it is me and anyone else. What do you say?
And what about this? Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Gal 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
Do you not think God would be mocked if we could have any attitude we want after being born again, and still be guaranteed a place in heaven?
Edited by Taxidevgrammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I started a new thread titled "Can salvation be lost? in the doctrinal forum to address this matter. It seems to me, that might be a better place to continue the discussion.
Also, feel free to re-title the thread if you feel it's not correctly phrased.
Edited by waysiderspelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldSkool
Ok, cool thanks!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.